I'll trade you abortion for gay marriage. They can adopt the kids who would have been murdered. Deal?
Originally posted by: KFCrispy
plus, gay marriages can adopt a lot of abandoned kids.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
LR, It's nice to have some honest debate. Thanks for presenting an argument without calling me an ignorant redneck bigot.
I disagree. Pornography is not moral, but it is legal. But our laws prevent the encouragement of pornography by forcing stores to veil its existence. Good I say. Don't make it illegal, but discourage it for the good of society because porn has a documented negative effect on many males. Same with drinking. Again, it's immoral behavior, but it's legal, but it's discouraged by placing age limits and advertising limits on it.Originally posted by: LunarRay
So long as it is legal it must also be moral... from a societal point of view.
I totally agree. We have laws that make people jump through hoops to acquire alcohol and pornography because they are legal YET immoral and unhealthy.Healthy is part of what makes Law.
So, I'd argue that there is no basis in claiming that Homosexuality is unhealthy.
I disagree. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no matter to anyone. But I don't view this as declaring legal or illegal a sexual orientation; I view it as altering the definition of marriage. I believe that would be very unhealthy for society. That's what I said in my first post. The standard of a husband and wife is the perfect and ideal marriage. It's two chromazonally different individuals balancing each other and, should they choose to, raising a child who, again, gets the healthy experience of both a male and female parental role model so they grow up with both aspects of their persona being developed properly. This is a standard...a healthy one and a natural one--it's the way God (or mother nature ) engineered us for a reason and its how we are and should be should some manner of environmental variable not intervene. It's a model which children and other people should observe and emulate so that they, themselves, can benefit from its strengths. Two men living together isn't unhealthy for society, but two men being married invalidates the standard of marriage...the sanctitiy of the male-female relationship. Even homosexuals should, in fact, look up to the standard of a monogomous male-female relationship as the model for their own relationship. That's what usually happens anyway as one of the partners will take on the characteristics of the opposite sex to give the relationship, as much as is possible, the balance inherent in a heterosexual relationship.
I mean, geez, I'm not going to march around and burn flags if gays get to be married. Hell, I'll trade you abortion banning for gay marriage and high taxes any day of the week. But I'm going to defend the protection of standards as well as the discouragement of unhealthy behaviors with my vote and voice.
I've got a gay cousin and a gay friend and they're both great guys. We had an Elton John song featured prominently during our wedding reception. I don't hate gay people.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
I believe that your beliefs are deeply rooted in your peer group and most probably in your upbrining, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate though.
Because that is what this is about, discrimination of what YOU view as an abnormality, it has existed since the birth of mankind and it will exist when you are long gone, there are two things you can do, not recognize it or accept that it is a part of the way that things are and just let them be the way that they are.
I don't think you hate gay people, never did, you do hate what they stand for though, anything that goes beyond the set in stone "the way it should be" mentality of yours, and that makes you what others will rightfully call you, a bigot. I believe that as long as our actions does not hurt others (ie, take the serial killer comparison and shove it where the sun don't shine) it should be accepted, sexual or emotional relations between consenting adults, why should you even want to put your big nose into their business?
Close mindedness isn't illegal either, but still immoral, so you are an example of what you despise.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Klixxer
I believe that your beliefs are deeply rooted in your peer group and most probably in your upbrining, it doesn't give you the right to discriminate though.
Because that is what this is about, discrimination of what YOU view as an abnormality, it has existed since the birth of mankind and it will exist when you are long gone, there are two things you can do, not recognize it or accept that it is a part of the way that things are and just let them be the way that they are.
I don't think you hate gay people, never did, you do hate what they stand for though, anything that goes beyond the set in stone "the way it should be" mentality of yours, and that makes you what others will rightfully call you, a bigot. I believe that as long as our actions does not hurt others (ie, take the serial killer comparison and shove it where the sun don't shine) it should be accepted, sexual or emotional relations between consenting adults, why should you even want to put your big nose into their business?
Close mindedness isn't illegal either, but still immoral, so you are an example of what you despise.
You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, so I've got nothing to argue about with you.
However, I'd like to add that I didn't become a Christian until I was 19 and I despise almost all Christians, but thanks for trying to marginalize me into a nice convenient generalization.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
LR, It's nice to have some honest debate. Thanks for presenting an argument without calling me an ignorant redneck bigot.
I'd never call you 'names'! To do so would be an attempt by me to place you and your philosophy below me and mine based on some other non related condition or status. In any event, If I were a red neck, I'd be proud of it cuz that would be what I was. With that said, however, Archie Bunker was depicted as a bigot. A bigot seeks to deny another when there is not legal right to do so (in part) often using agruments that rely on deeply held convictions. It just ain't how we exist under the law. Proove the reason to an acceptable certainty and it may become law. Then the bigot becomes a patriot defending the law of the land but, it is unlikely that it can be prooved to meet the test that homosexuals are either immoral or unhealthy.
I disagree. Pornography is not moral, but it is legal. But our laws prevent the encouragement of pornography by forcing stores to veil its existence. Good I say. Don't make it illegal, but discourage it for the good of society because porn has a documented negative effect on many males. Same with drinking. Again, it's immoral behavior, but it's legal, but it's discouraged by placing age limits and advertising limits on it.Originally posted by: LunarRay
So long as it is legal it must also be moral... from a societal point of view.
There is the hang up... Legal is society speaking. Presumably all of society. Some within may disagree with the rest but at the end of the day what is legal is moral. Again from a societal point of view. And, we are speaking about the right of Gay Marriage. Since Marriage is a Greater Societal issue we must limit our view to that which is relevant. Absent a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the 14th Amendment as it applies to 'Equal' and the status of marriage we must conclude that if it is legal to be homosexual... that is for two people to live as if they were married then to be married is also legal.
I totally agree. We have laws that make people jump through hoops to acquire alcohol and pornography because they are legal YET immoral and unhealthy.Healthy is part of what makes Law.
Immoral from a POV but, not a legal POV and to agrue that what is legal may not be moral begs for clarification and law that makes it illegal and immoral. But, that would be UnConstitutional at the moment as a large body of legal opinion argue. Unhealthy is another issue. How can my Pornograph be construed as a transmitter of unhealthy things... it is not a virus generator nor infectious.. well..
So, I'd argue that there is no basis in claiming that Homosexuality is unhealthy.
I disagree. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no matter to anyone. But I don't view this as declaring legal or illegal a sexual orientation; I view it as altering the definition of marriage. I believe that would be very unhealthy for society. That's what I said in my first post. The standard of a husband and wife is the perfect and ideal marriage. It's two chromazonally different individuals balancing each other and, should they choose to, raising a child who, again, gets the healthy experience of both a male and female parental role model so they grow up with both aspects of their persona being developed properly. This is a standard...a healthy one and a natural one--it's the way God (or mother nature ) engineered us for a reason and its how we are and should be should some manner of environmental variable not intervene. It's a model which children and other people should observe and emulate so that they, themselves, can benefit from its strengths. Two men living together isn't unhealthy for society, but two men being married invalidates the standard of marriage...the sanctitiy of the male-female relationship. Even homosexuals should, in fact, look up to the standard of a monogomous male-female relationship as the model for their own relationship. That's what usually happens anyway as one of the partners will take on the characteristics of the opposite sex to give the relationship, as much as is possible, the balance inherent in a heterosexual relationship.
I mean, geez, I'm not going to march around and burn flags if gays get to be married. Hell, I'll trade you abortion banning for gay marriage and high taxes any day of the week. But I'm going to defend the protection of standards as well as the discouragement of unhealthy behaviors with my vote and voice.
I've got a gay cousin and a gay friend and they're both great guys. We had an Elton John song featured prominently during our wedding reception. I don't hate gay people.
It is a matter of Rights. So long as it is legal to burn that flag I'd support your right to do it. Not on my front yard but, on yours. WE must demand our right to be who or what we want (within the law). If you lose a right then I've lost that right too. It is not a matter of my belief from a religious POV because although our laws are for the most part are created by people of faith they always keep in mind that faith is not the issue. This ain't heaven. Folks try to create as they see it a 'healthy moral' environment for themselves and their family. Is it wrong for each of us to seek that same result based on our own view (again, within the law)? Your comfort zones are from within you. To the extent you can spead these views fine so long as it does not impead the legal rights of another who seeks to act equally within the law but, in a manner different than that with which you and many others agree.
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
But t?ll we can reach this utopian state we have a vested interest in not putting a government stamp of approval on sex between people of the same sex, for the same reasons we don?t put a government stamp of approval on drinking or overeating.
I agree with your final goal fo a true separation of Church and State. Please tell me how homosexuality is akin to two habits that will kill you. If anything, the encouragement of monogamous relationships will make it safer. This is true for straights and gays.
Some questions about that point of view wher brought up, and links to evidence for the factsas for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.
?
now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to have people in monogamous relationships, but the idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous is show to be less likely by both the statement of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic institution of monogamy is destructive to society and should be next to be eliminated? and the much increased likely hood of existing homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random orgy seen.It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much
higher.
1
2
Some disagree: 3
but then some say it's not because of anti-gay bias:
4
both of those are highly bias views though; the best is to look at actual surveys:
5
not to mention other emotional trauma that being actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.
I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading desease.Same could be said of people who eat Mexican food or White Castles all the time!
And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
6
my one-stop shop for all the info i need on this:
Surgeon General
Actually, many don't think so. STDs and pregnancy are caused by lack of knowledge or lack of preparedness to have safe sex. Besides, teen pregnancies are declining.
you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.
your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;
This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.
Planed Parenthood
this is OT, but if you are never encouraged to have personal resolve then you're going to lack it.Most would think it's lack of education and lack of personal resolve that encourages poverty.
that has nothing at all to do with what I said. because the fact is still that:homosexuals are rampant in third world countries?
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
journal of nature
then he, of course, spewed his bigoted view of what bigotry is.It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
But t?ll we can reach this utopian state we have a vested interest in not putting a government stamp of approval on sex between people of the same sex, for the same reasons we don?t put a government stamp of approval on drinking or overeating.
I agree with your final goal fo a true separation of Church and State. Please tell me how homosexuality is akin to two habits that will kill you. If anything, the encouragement of monogamous relationships will make it safer. This is true for straights and gays.
Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much, but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora of other problems, here is a post I made some time ago:
thread
that has an interesting poll which reveals that 1/3rd of us in this forum are for traditional marriage, 1/3rd are for anyone marrying anyone else no matter, and 1/3rds some ware in-between.
People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize that this is an overall attempt to change the moral norms of society so that none of us make any moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.
Some questions about that point of view wher brought up, and links to evidence for the factsas for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.
?
now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to have people in monogamous relationships, but the idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous is show to be less likely by both the statement of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic institution of monogamy is destructive to society and should be next to be eliminated? and the much increased likely hood of existing homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random orgy seen.It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much
higher.
1
2
Some disagree: 3
but then some say it's not because of anti-gay bias:
4
both of those are highly bias views though; the best is to look at actual surveys:
5
not to mention other emotional trauma that being actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.
I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading desease.Same could be said of people who eat Mexican food or White Castles all the time!
And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
6
my one-stop shop for all the info i need on this:
Surgeon General
Actually, many don't think so. STDs and pregnancy are caused by lack of knowledge or lack of preparedness to have safe sex. Besides, teen pregnancies are declining.
you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.
your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;
This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.
Planed Parenthood
this is OT, but if you are never encouraged to have personal resolve then you're going to lack it.Most would think it's lack of education and lack of personal resolve that encourages poverty.
that has nothing at all to do with what I said. because the fact is still that:homosexuals are rampant in third world countries?
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
journal of nature
Now moonie makes a good point that people on both sides of this should keep in mind:
then he, of course, spewed his bigoted view of what bigotry is.It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
As for Christ and Christians, no none of us should treat anyone worse for his sins, we should do what we can to express love for all, despite our personal disgust with all sin.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Okay, Lunar, where we seem to be differing mostly is over the nature of rights. Rights are not absolute. They always come with limits and conditions and are often withheld from individuals for the sake of a healthy society. Kids can't buy alcohol because then the right to drink becomes a detriment to society when alcoholic third graders fail to finish school or injur themselves or others as a result of exercising the right.
Well... Hero, they don't have that right... it is not legal for them to buy, consume or provide to other third graders that alcohol. You see... the key to all this is 'legal'. Legal is the measure by which our behavior is controlled or sought to be controlled.
Felons can't vote because then the right to vote becomes a detriment to society. People are, in fact, legally discriminated against to protect the healthfulness to society of certain rights. Marriage is no different. I'm asserting that to maintain it's positive effect on society as a standard, it needs to discriminate in the same manner so many other rights do.
Well... it is illegal for a felon who has not had his civil right of the vote restored to vote.. Society saw fit to deny that right to the felon... it is the law.
So, Hero, it follows that anything illegal is immoral as well but, what is legal must be considered moral and it must be equally available. This is the tenor of the USSC on every issue it has been faced with.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But Betty and Joan might get cancer, LR.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
But t?ll we can reach this utopian state we have a vested interest in not putting a government stamp of approval on sex between people of the same sex, for the same reasons we don?t put a government stamp of approval on drinking or overeating.
I agree with your final goal fo a true separation of Church and State. Please tell me how homosexuality is akin to two habits that will kill you. If anything, the encouragement of monogamous relationships will make it safer. This is true for straights and gays.
Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much, but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora of other problems, here is a post I made some time ago:
thread
that has an interesting poll which reveals that 1/3rd of us in this forum are for traditional marriage, 1/3rd are for anyone marrying anyone else no matter, and 1/3rds some ware in-between.
People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize that this is an overall attempt to change the moral norms of society so that none of us make any moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.
Some questions about that point of view wher brought up, and links to evidence for the factsas for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.
?
now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to have people in monogamous relationships, but the idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous is show to be less likely by both the statement of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic institution of monogamy is destructive to society and should be next to be eliminated? and the much increased likely hood of existing homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random orgy seen.It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much
higher.
1
2
Some disagree: 3
but then some say it's not because of anti-gay bias:
4
both of those are highly bias views though; the best is to look at actual surveys:
5
not to mention other emotional trauma that being actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.
I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading desease.Same could be said of people who eat Mexican food or White Castles all the time!
And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
6
my one-stop shop for all the info i need on this:
Surgeon General
Actually, many don't think so. STDs and pregnancy are caused by lack of knowledge or lack of preparedness to have safe sex. Besides, teen pregnancies are declining.
you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.
your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;
This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.
Planed Parenthood
this is OT, but if you are never encouraged to have personal resolve then you're going to lack it.Most would think it's lack of education and lack of personal resolve that encourages poverty.
that has nothing at all to do with what I said. because the fact is still that:homosexuals are rampant in third world countries?
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
journal of nature
Now moonie makes a good point that people on both sides of this should keep in mind:
then he, of course, spewed his bigoted view of what bigotry is.It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
As for Christ and Christians, no none of us should treat anyone worse for his sins, we should do what we can to express love for all, despite our personal disgust with all sin.
It's mighty white of you, LMK, to be so conserned for the health of gays. So good of you to exert yourself in their behalf. You are a real humanitarian. And so selfless too. Really amazing.
I do not accept the argument that the religious institution of marriage is a right, I do not accept the argument that the government has any right to determine who is married.LMK,
The consequence of one exercising their rights is not nor can it be the basis to deny them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote of LunarRay:
LMK,
The consequence of one exercising their rights is not nor can it be the basis to deny them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not accept the argument that the religious institution of marriage is a right, I do not accept the argument that the government has any right to determine who is married.
Not talking about religious anything. Talking about the license to marry which is a Civil issue. In what forum the act is consumated is up to the forum to dictate.
But If it is a right, I do reject the idea that you can tell 2 men they have a right to be married, but that you can tell a man he has no right to have two wives; if marriage is a right then it is a right between any adults.
Bigamy is illegal as far as I'm aware in all 50 states and codified in US Code I do believe. Homosexuality is not illegal to my knowledge.
If marriage is a religious institution then it is the rare instance that our government gives credence to a religious ceremony and the religious norms of the society determines who has right to be married.
You confuse the issue of the 'license to marry' with where the ceremony takes place.
The church has no say in the granting of the license but, can deny their forum for the 'I do's'
If it's a matter of what's most functional for society, the utility that our actions bring, then it's a question of "will this better soceity", and this particular change will not.
You presume there is a change. I argue the right has always existed. Well.. from the time of our Nation's birth. The test case has not been decided. The USSC may not even grant cert on the issue because it seems such a basic right that it is almost axiomatic.
Now moonie makes a good point that people on both sides of this should keep in mind:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.
What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.
And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.
You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.
one man and two women having simultaneous relations, or consecutive relations, isn?t illegal either. Bigamy is a law in regards to the legality of a marriage just as laws against homosexual marriage are. Saying that bigamy is unacceptable because it?s illegal would mean you?d have to submit that homosexual marriage in Texas is unacceptable because it?s illegal.Bigamy is illegal as far as I'm aware in all 50 states and codified in US Code I do believe. Homosexuality is not illegal to my knowledge.
These aren?t two contradictory views. To change the laws of the land to allow for homosexual marriage can still allow your view that it?s a ?right?. All state issued licenses are privileges granted by the state, the state has a right to discriminate in regards to who gets said privilege based on any reason our representatives choose. It?s certainly a change to start issuing homosexuals marriage licenses, and it?d be a change to issue illegal residents car licenses, both of which would be functionally dangerous to our nation.You presume there is a change. I argue the right has always existed.
Just because allowing people the freedom to drink, smoke, get tattoos, or whatever your particular dogma may disagree with is useful in a free society, still insisting that government approval not be given to those actions that the majority know to be harmful is equally important.One can read into that statement of Moonie's that you confuse and intermingle the religious dogma with the law of the land... You may hate the sin but, that sin is not in violation of society's laws.
I would rather ban fundamentalist Christians from marriage because of the damage they do their children, insisting that homosexuality is evil, or unhealthy or a drag on social standards. Bigotry is really bad for society. This will also save a lot of Christian women from dying in childbirth. We need to think of them.Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.
What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.
And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.
You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.
so how about a constitutional amendment to prevent non-Christians from getting married?
Originally posted by: CombatChuk
The only "ammo" people have against gay marraige is based on Religion. And if I recall correctly the constitution clearly stated a seperation of church and state...
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
But t?ll we can reach this utopian state we have a vested interest in not putting a government stamp of approval on sex between people of the same sex, for the same reasons we don?t put a government stamp of approval on drinking or overeating.
I agree with your final goal fo a true separation of Church and State. Please tell me how homosexuality is akin to two habits that will kill you. If anything, the encouragement of monogamous relationships will make it safer. This is true for straights and gays.
Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much, but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora of other problems, here is a post I made some time ago:
thread
that has an interesting poll which reveals that 1/3rd of us in this forum are for traditional marriage, 1/3rd are for anyone marrying anyone else no matter, and 1/3rds some ware in-between.
People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize that this is an overall attempt to change the moral norms of society so that none of us make any moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.
Some questions about that point of view wher brought up, and links to evidence for the factsas for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.
?
now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to have people in monogamous relationships, but the idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous is show to be less likely by both the statement of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic institution of monogamy is destructive to society and should be next to be eliminated? and the much increased likely hood of existing homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random orgy seen.It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much
higher.
1
2
Some disagree: 3
but then some say it's not because of anti-gay bias:
4
both of those are highly bias views though; the best is to look at actual surveys:
5
not to mention other emotional trauma that being actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.
I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading desease.Same could be said of people who eat Mexican food or White Castles all the time!
And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
6
my one-stop shop for all the info i need on this:
Surgeon General
Actually, many don't think so. STDs and pregnancy are caused by lack of knowledge or lack of preparedness to have safe sex. Besides, teen pregnancies are declining.
you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.
your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;
This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.
Planed Parenthood
this is OT, but if you are never encouraged to have personal resolve then you're going to lack it.Most would think it's lack of education and lack of personal resolve that encourages poverty.
that has nothing at all to do with what I said. because the fact is still that:homosexuals are rampant in third world countries?
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
journal of nature
Now moonie makes a good point that people on both sides of this should keep in mind:
then he, of course, spewed his bigoted view of what bigotry is.It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
As for Christ and Christians, no none of us should treat anyone worse for his sins, we should do what we can to express love for all, despite our personal disgust with all sin.
so we should out-right condone adultery, right?The only "ammo" people have against [adultery] is based on Religion.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.
What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.
And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.
You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.
I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!
Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.