| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2004 02:05:37 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Men and Men dont fit...its unatural for them to do what they do.
Why do you make that statement. Everything that they do in the bedroom is done with heterosexual couples. What makes certain acts "unnatural" between 2 men when a man and woman do the same thing or are you willing to say that they are unnatural too. |
Thank you for finally somewhat addressing an important issue here, and that is the physical homosexual act. I am of the opinion that it is an unnatural union when a man has sex with another man, or a woman has sex with another woman. Here are my arguments knowing that those who partake in these acts will never view them, openly at least, as unnatural, but nonetheless I think it needs to be addressed.
Whether or not you believe that we were created or evolved you must confront our bodies as we are now. If you believe in creation in any sense you must look at the bodies of men and women and say fundamentally we were created to procreate and for sex to be a wonderfully pleasing event. If you believe in evolution and mutation, you must look at where we are on the evolutionary scale/ladder etc, and look at our bodies and see what the purpose of a penis and a vagina are. Regarding either it seems whether we were created or whether we evolved that the natural sexual realtionship is between a man and a woman. So in response to "sonnyh" there is no doubt I am willing to say that a homosexual sexual relationship is unnatural. What a man and a woman do in their bedrooms is natural...though regarding heterosexual anal sex between a man and a woman...I believe thats unnatural as well. Understand this post...I am not making a moral comment on the issue. Instead trying to shed light on the natural side of this debate. Simply saying it is morally wrong or morally right isn't enough to debate about. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:29:14 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Gay marraiges and unions multiplied will cause economic distress...it wont right now because its not a big enough event. The idea being this, if we need workers to populate plants, factories, and businesses a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot create children by themselves without help. However, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, adoptions are options. These are extremely costly options. The society ends up paying for workers instead of getting them for free, as with heterosexual marriages. I realize that most of you will think this is bunk only because you refuse to look towards the future if this really is legalized...take a second to look at it.
Secondly, if you allow this, you must allow marraiges to dogs, dead people, light posts, gas pumps and whatever else "I" really love...I say these things not to trivialize the love between those homosexuals. And lastly I'd like to apologize whole heartedly for those Christians on this site including myself, and those Christians who are in your lives who have tarnished our reputation with hate and biggotry. There will always be a fundemental conflict between us, but if we cannot separate the hate from the meaningful conversations, neither side "wins"
What stuff are you smoking because that statement is the most convoluted idea I have ever heard and to try to attach it to gay marriage is a joke. |
They said the same thing when slavery was abolished, They also said that same thing during the civil rights movement, and they also said this during the legalization of interracial marrages.
The rights of individuals should not be based on the economy. Rights are rights.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 03:11:24 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Just goes to show what liberalism in Swedan and Denmark, and in much of Europe has done to those countries. Nobody commits to anything except to THEMSELVES. If you want to have a child, just sleep with the milkman, and who gives a crap if the child never knows his father... After all it's ME that counts and that's all that matters, and forget what is best for the child. This is what extreme liberalism has done to those countries and to marraige. |
The facts mentioned in the article in question, seem skewed at best. What the article raises is the issue of seperation, divorce, and children born out of wedlock. Its a rampant problem in Scandanavia. Then it just links the to that saying since gay marriage was accepted years ago when the decline fell, then that must be the cause.
Here in Quebec, we've been experiencing the same decline ove the last few years- many children are born out of wedlock. More and more couples are choosing not to marry. Divorce rates are sky high. Does it have anything to do with allowing gays to marry? Of course not, because until very recently that wasn't even a possibility. There are many other factors involved here.
At the end of the day, people are uneasy with the whole thing, they thing its wrong, disgusting, against god's will, whatever... and any kind of reason that can help establish a claim that gay marriage is wrong is latched on to.
Each succesive generation is more sensitive to this issue. Kids are now growing up around other gay kids. Schools touch on these topics. I'll look on the optimistic side and say that tolerance and acceptance is a slow and long process, but its growing and growing... and one day, soon, the people against gay marriage will be a minority, ... and no matter what bans, or roadblocks people try to put up to prevent gays from getting the rights they deserve - whatever battles are left will be fought... and won. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 03:29:42 AM · #279 |
I'm a confirmed Methodist. I went to Church every sunday. I am a straight man in a commited relationship to a woman. I believe marriages should be legal in the eyes of the State regardless of the color of the participants skin, their sexual preference, or their shoe size.
I'm here arguing over this debate because I feel it is important to my society as a whole. I would like my society to be one which teaches tolerance, love, and respect for everyone. Is that so much to ask?
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 03:34:47 AM · #280 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Whether or not you believe that we were created or evolved you must confront our bodies as we are now. If you believe in creation in any sense you must look at the bodies of men and women and say fundamentally we were created to procreate and for sex to be a wonderfully pleasing event. If you believe in evolution and mutation, you must look at where we are on the evolutionary scale/ladder etc, and look at our bodies and see what the purpose of a penis and a vagina are. Regarding either it seems whether we were created or whether we evolved that the natural sexual realtionship is between a man and a woman. So in response to "sonnyh" there is no doubt I am willing to say that a homosexual sexual relationship is unnatural. What a man and a woman do in their bedrooms is natural...though regarding heterosexual anal sex between a man and a woman...I believe thats unnatural as well. Understand this post...I am not making a moral comment on the issue. Instead trying to shed light on the natural side of this debate. Simply saying it is morally wrong or morally right isn't enough to debate about. |
Have you been around animals? I'm talking about spending a large portion of your life in close proximity to large numbers of many species of animals on a daily basis? No, this isn't an advertisment for bestiality, but a reference to my own experience growing up. I was raised rural, on a small farm, surrounded by forested mountains. I have seen gay animals with my own eyes. Homosexual pair bonding and sexual contact is a common and well documented aspect of many, many species.
There's really no point in brining up 'natural' or 'unnatural', in my opinion. If it exists in nature, it's natural. We're a part of nature. Why has homosexuality been around for all of human history, never getting weeded out, if it were not natural? I don't get it.
And maybe this is too much information, but men fit quite well, thanks. ;)
- Mousie
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:48:40 AM · #281 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
What a man and a woman do in their bedrooms is natural...though regarding heterosexual anal sex between a man and a woman...I believe thats unnatural as well. |
Contraception is also unnatural, by that definition, because it's not something "evolved". Therefore the Constitution should be immediately amended to outlaw condoms.
On the other side of the argument, homosexual behaviour is observed in numerous other species - if you take the traditional religious view that only Man is sentient, then the actions of animals MUST be "natural", therefore so are homosexual acts. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:51:36 AM · #282 |
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
Fine - go out and "choose" to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (if you're straight) or the opposite sex (if you're gay).
If you find yourself unable to be genuinely sexually attracted to someone of the "wrong" sex, then how can it possibly be a choice? |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:15:11 AM · #283 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by frisca:
Mousie, you are MY new hero. |
Great. Mousie stole the closest thing I had to a girlfriend. Now I'm practically FORCED to go all gay...
Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal. |
This picture should probably be removed due to the pornographic content then. It'll be getting 'lecia all hot and bothered.  |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:17:27 AM · #284 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
quote=Gordon]
Do you eat pork ? or is it more of a selective application of the christian faith ? |
Read response above to Pedro about taking old testament laws out of context to the larger belief of Christianity. Eating pork is a largely Orthodox Jewish belief that is practiced by many...but not Christians since there is no need for it...Read Acts and Peters vision, or read Galatians about freedom in Christ. [/quote]
I'm just a poor product of my own particular branch of Christianity. And the question to the original poster, who seems to have a hellfire and damnation view of God (which seems to be a particularly Old Testiment view - but correct me if I'm wrong), still stands. Actually, most of those views seem to cross back and forth between Testiment views of God, as it suited. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:27:46 AM · #285 |
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
I know you are talking about your beliefs but then are also talking about proof. Then suddenly you state it as a fact.
This is mostly the problem I have with anything approaching religious 'debate' It is essentially pointless as it is all just things that you either believe or you dont, yet people try and use rational argument, logic and 'facts' to support their unproveable belief system.
Not to say that I don't respect or disrespect a particular set of beliefs, but trying to use logic and facts to back it up is fundamentally suspect.
This is not to say that there is no point in discussion of particular points of view, but the general push to try and 'prove' that your own particular bias is somehow 'correct' always seems to be a very strange road to go down.
Lack of a particular scientific proof one way or another is not in of itself proof of anything. This is just logic 101 to put it in American terms.
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 08:05:21. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:35:44 AM · #286 |
NM
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 07:45:34. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:40:29 AM · #287 |
yay! 5.5 hours of sleep, and lots to respond to!
Originally posted by Gracious:
There is ONE judge who will judge righteously. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord. |
this is a fine opinion, but it's just that: an opinion. the phrasing here should be offensive not just to gays or atheists, but to every non-christian who's reading this. i really don't have time to get into the "my god is better than your god" game.
Originally posted by Gracious:
The God I serve loves all equally. We were created in his image. |
if this is true, then at least *some* part of god must be gay. i mean, he made me this way. IF this is true, that is.
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Thank you for finally somewhat addressing an important issue here, and that is the physical homosexual act. |
i apologize if i sound rude, but what, exactly, is THE physical homosexual act and why does it play into this discussion at all? if you have a problem with what you think of as freaky sex, then you probably have a lot of problems with some of your friends and neighbors that you don't even know about. freaky sex is everywhere, even in the most uptight, outwardly-conservative households. however, since they don't walk around talking about it, it doesn't bother you. i've not once discussed MY sex life, so that shouldn't bother you either.
the physical homosexual act that I'm talking about is signing a jointly-filed tax form, or being able to visit the hospital bed of an ailing spouse. THOSE are the physical acts I'm looking for the right to enjoy.
if i'm gonna boof, i'm gonna boof whether you like it or not. i've not talked at all about bedroom activities and i would really appreciate it if we could keep this conversation above that,
except....
Originally posted by Resurrected:
Lets view this situation as a puzzle. You have pieces - some fit together and some arent intended to go together...so do you sit there and ram the wrong pieces together? I think not. We should be nicly sliding the correct pieces together to create the perfect picture. If we keep ramming we all will never finish the puzzle. If you want the puzzle to work you need to stop ramming the wrong pieces together...thats just wrong... |
... i just have to thank you, resurrected, for immediately brightening up my morning. your overuse of the phrase "ramming" is both a little disturbing and completely hilarious to me. "ramming...." hee hee hee.
we're not debating whether or not homosexuals are right or wrong, or their sexual proclivities are right or wrong. we're debating whether or not we have the same rights as others.
i'm homosexual 100% of the time, not just when I'm having sex. let's not drag this down into a discussion that's going to make EVERYONE uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 07:52:21 AM · #288 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Regarding either it seems whether we were created or whether we evolved that the natural sexual realtionship is between a man and a woman. So in response to "sonnyh" there is no doubt I am willing to say that a homosexual sexual relationship is unnatural. What a man and a woman do in their bedrooms is natural...though regarding heterosexual anal sex between a man and a woman...I believe thats unnatural as well. Understand this post...I am not making a moral comment on the issue. Instead trying to shed light on the natural side of this debate. Simply saying it is morally wrong or morally right isn't enough to debate about. |
Trying to use the behaviour of animals as an example of what is 'natural' in this way either shows quite a lot of ignorance of the multiplicity of sexual behaviour between animals or is just conveniently ignoring the facts. Sexual and asexual reproduction between animals occurs in a variety of different ways, homosexual, hetrosexual, asexual and so on.
In some species the male becomes pregnant - is that unnatural ? Many animals display homosexual behaviour and that is also well documented - is that just their 'choice' ? Some animals sex is determined by how warm it was during their incubation - is that a choice they get to make, or something unnatural ? Some species undergo changes of sex during their lifetime - not due to expensive elective surgery either.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 08:44:06 AM · #289 |
Back to the penguins again. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 09:37:07 AM · #290 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Back to the penguins again. ;) |
That whole penguin article makes me think that maybe I should reconsider Linux......
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 10:46:24 AM · #291 |
| I'm never one to bow out of a good discussion, there are some very serious accusations and points of view being stated, but there's no headway being gained and it just doesn't seem to be a 'good' discussion. Do you know what I mean? I don't mind myself being offended, hey man being a Christian you certainly get used to trite like "get your head out of your ass" "all Christians are just blind" [those are quotes from my everyday life, not from this thread], but if everyone else is really offended and feeling personally defeated or emotionally distraught, maybe this topic should be cooled for a little while? Or am I too late with this statement? lol Oops, am I starting something up again?!! |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 10:51:10 AM · #292 |
| Try this OpEd piece by Bob Herbert of the NY Times. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:18:39 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by frisca:
Mousie, you are MY new hero. |
Great. Mousie stole the closest thing I had to a girlfriend. Now I'm practically FORCED to go all gay...
Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal. |
This picture should probably be removed due to the pornographic content then. It'll be getting 'lecia all hot and bothered. |
hehe. although it IS rather sexy---it's ok, i can handle it. i'm a one-hydrant gal. ;) |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:21:55 AM · #294 |
| There's no doubt that this forum has tested and stretched my ideas and what I hold to. Thanks to all for the responses and rebuttles some much better than others...It's all very interesting, I just don't have the time to be spending arguing with people who's presuppositions and personal experiences are so contrastingly different from my own. I will not budge nor will they, nor should they, it's what they believe. Good luck all you guys and gals, its back to just a photo site for me. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:30:52 AM · #295 |
Well Muckpond I am glad you found my comments humorous...as did I while I wrote them...
I seriously have nothing agaisnt homosexuals. My beliefs find the act to be wrong and I believe that. I know many homosexuals and it wasn't until this past summer that I become in direct contact with many homosexuals. I work in Entertainment and had about 20 homosexual co-workers that I worked with on a daily basis...heck even my boss was. It truely opened my eyes to who they are. I find them to be a normal person though I dont agree with everything they do...I can justify that statement to fit almost anyones lifestyle. We are all different and we all need to find a common ground and grow off of that. This bible bashing or gay bashing gets us all knowhere...The more we all bash the stronger the other persons walls are becoming when they are confronted on this issue...they will close their ears and mind to any and all topics that are presented...
Can't we all just get along. Lets ALL agree to disagree...nobody is moving on this topic so save the finger strength for taking pictures and do what you came to this site to do...
ReS
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 11:32:55. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:50:18 PM · #296 |
Is civil rights something people just get to agree to disagree about ? Seems a bit more important than that.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 03:48:53 PM · #297 |
Okay I got to put my 2 cents in.
If gay people want the government to recognize gay marriage that's fine. They pay taxes to don't they? And the church should stay out of government affairs. Has not the church done enough harm in the past when they try to rule.
HOWEVER!!!!! Gay people who wish to get married in a church, temple or Mosc. Well now your just asking for it. Sorry go and do whatever you have to do. But don't try and change religious traditions.
There.
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 15:49:41. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:23:39 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by Fibre Optix:
Okay I got to put my 2 cents in.
If gay people want the government to recognize gay marriage that's fine. They pay taxes to don't they? And the church should stay out of government affairs. Has not the church done enough harm in the past when they try to rule.
HOWEVER!!!!! Gay people who wish to get married in a church, temple or Mosc. Well now your just asking for it. Sorry go and do whatever you have to do. But don't try and change religious traditions.
There. |
My sentiments exactly. Earlier in the thread, someone referred to a Canadian court case where gays were suing for the right to marry in a church. I don't know if this reference is accurate or not (let's assume it is) but in my opinion that's wrong wrong wrong. I certainly don't want to change religion, nor force churches to abandon their beliefs while engaged in their own private affiars. I really want nothing to do with it! I am concerned solely about my status and rights in the public arena. Besides, there are already numerous churches all over the country performing same-sex commitment ceremonies without the public legal status... I don't see why it would be particularly difficult to locate an *existing* church willing to marry me, if it were legal, and if that were the route I wanted to take.
I live in San Jose, admittedly it's only an hour form San Francisco, but there are three churches in walking distance from my home with those little fish symbols filled with rainbows on their signage. That's 'gay-friendly church' for the uninitiated.
In any case I'll probably go the route of my brother. He's marrying his girlfriend in May, in an outdoor, somewhat traditional wedding with both families. He's having one of his close friends (who is not a church official) perform the ceremony. You couldn't imagine a more 'classically' red-blooded American couple, and they're circumventing the church entirely, even though they're heterosexual! They have debated more fervently over when the X-mas tree goes up and comes down than how they want to express their commitment to each other!
I really don't see marriage as being a religious issue, it happens every day outsides the confines of religion. It's when religion tries to claim marriage as it's own that *I* take issue. And that's exactly what the religious right is doing by pushing our President to amend the Constitution.
- Mousie
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 18:19:49. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:38:42 PM · #299 |
Gordon raises a very important point: Whether or not you like gay people, or "agree" with the gay life"style" or whether you think its unnatural for anything other than missionary style sex between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, the real issue here is one of civil rights:
Does this particular minority group in society (people in same sex relationships) have a right to the same benefits and legal protections as enjoyed by another, larger subset of society (those in opposite sex relationships)?
You can substitute any minority group into this question, be it people who are differently abled, people who are not of western european descent, anything really. The issue has nothing to do with whether you know or like people who not strictly heterosexual. Do people different from the "majority" deserve the same rights and protections or not?
A number of objections to same sex unions/marriages as legally indistinguishable from traditional marriages between a man and a woman have been raised in this thread. I'm going to attempt to summarize them as best I can in no particular order, recognizing that I am not unbiased in this issue, but I am attempting to be fair in my characterization of the arguments on both sides.
1. It will cause a breakdown in the sanctity of family/people will marry less and more children will be born out of wedlock: The breakdown of the family has been occurring for many decades without the ability for people in same sex relationships to marry. Ask yourself this: will the fact that Ted and John from across town, who have been living together in a committed, supportive relationship for many years, are now married and legally recognized as such affect your marriage or your ability to have and raise children should you so choose? Nothing has changed in their relationship or the existence of it except that they now have more rights with respect to one another. This is a red herring of the worst sort. Its blaming another group for something they have zero control, affect or influence over. This argument is analogous to blaming immigration for the the unemployment rates. Its fearmongering and indicative of a narrow and ignorant viewpoint (I argue anyway). Correlation is not causation.
2. Its unnatural. We've heard ably on this point from many people already. The animal kingdom has many examples of homosexuality among the "lesser" creatures on this planet who have no free will and are governed by and large by their instincts, so this argument is both insulting, unfounded and unsupported by any objective criteria.
3. Same sex marriage will mean that we have to pay for babies rather than getting them for free from heterosexual unions(the economic argument). This is an incredibly weak point. Allowing same sex marriage will not mean that all of a sudden people who would have gotten married to someone of the opposite and had babies with them will now suddenly stop doing that and marry a same sex partner and have no babies. It is trite for me to point out that many heterosexual couples never procreate just like many same sex couples do.
4. Being gay is a choice, its not pre-determined. So what? What does that have to do with whether people who are not heterosexual deserve the same rights as those who are heterosexual? Lots of people do crazy things, like bungee jump or drive in cars and these activities can result in them losing the ability to walk. They chose to do those crazy things, so we should then not extend them the same rights as those who do not? Again, a morally repugnant argument that ignores the issue of whether this group deserves the same rights as the rest of society.
5. Homosexuality makes God weep. This is my quick shorthand for the argument that its against the bible. God and faith, as much as that adds to many people's lives, has nothing to do with the legal argument. Once again I repeat: its about civil rights. Do people who are not heterosexual deserve the same rights? This isn't about the non-Christians against the Christians. Not everything is a religious battleground, and I think its smoke and mirrors to drag religion into it because we're not asking people who don't agree with homosexuality or would not condone it for themselves to in fact enter into any sort of a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality has been going on since the dawn of time, and there are no more people who are homosexual as a percentage of society today than there ever was. I realize I am asserting something for which I have no stats, but I see no rationality in the argument that being gay is a choice. Just like I can't make myself melt at the sight of Catherine Zeta-Jones (a very very beautiful woman in my opinion), I don't think anyone else can change what gender they are attracted to either. But it doesn't really affect whether these people ought to be treated differently because the argument is that they ought to be treated the same and have access to the same rights and benefits; whether their "situation" is a choice has little to do with the question.
These are the main points I think arise from the debate thus far. I probably missed a few, and open the floor to someone articulating any remaining arguments. But I think the focus is wrongly being put in a religious forum when its really a matter of rights as guaranteed by a Constitution and other human rights legislation.
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 16:40:33.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:40:58 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
In any case I'll probably go the route of my brother. He's marrying his girlfriend in May, in an outdoor, somewhat traditional wedding with both families. He's having one of his close friends (who is not a church official) perform the ceremony. You couldn't imagine a more 'classically' red-blooded American couple, and they're circumventing the church entirely, even though they're heterosexual! They have debated more fervently over when the X-mas tree goes up and comes down than how they want to express their commitment to each other!
- Mousie |
Everything else aside, why do they celebrate/acknowledge Christmas? From your post I got that they don't believe in the Church would it be right to assume they don't believe in religion or Christ either? Just curious. Christmas to me is very sacred, even though it's mostly commercial for most people.
Edit: inserted "acknowledge"
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 16:44:00. |
|
