Homosexuality 2

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
This topic was split from ReElect Bush!!! after the thread got off topic. See the first 5 posts in that thread to see get the full story behind this topic.

Originally posted by bamthedoc
I believe the "agenda" is promoting Abstainance as the only 100% safe bet against pregnancy and STDs. It still teaches safe sex.


That's not what I got.

Go Bush! However, I listened to his State of the Union, and I know exactly what he said concerning this. He's saying that Judges should not be able to give whatever judgements they want when, federally, the institution of marriage is protected. What that means is the the voters have said time and time agian that "gay" marriage should not be allowed. I say again, GO BUSH!!
How is it federally protected?

What it comes down to, is ppl are using the government to enforce their religious veiwpoint. There is no good legal, or even logical, reason why gay marriage should be banned.

Ya know, being bi, I find it extremely hypocritical how you claim to love Jesus and love everyone and yet, at the same time deny them their rights and treat them like second class citizens.

I'm trying to keep calm here, but is this Christianity? Is this what it's about? You ppl don't love, you hate! You degrade humanity. Your preach the gospel of ignorance and biggotry. I just hope I see the day when ppl stop using religion to justify their hate.

Is this concerning the worker thing? If so, it's a complicated issue. However, it does not say aliens can't work.
No, this is the one the essentially destroys the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Addmendments.
 

nschneid

Member!
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
How is it federally protected?
_______________________

Its federally protected because there was a law passed in the mid-90's under clinton that said that one state could not define marriage for another state. Therefore, Oklahoma is not forced to honor a gay marriage that occurred in Hawaii. That's what the federal protection is.

I don't know the exact wording, but I heard about it last night in the state of the union address, and I'm sure Bush wouldn't lie about something so easily verifiable as this, so don't take this down that road.
___________________________________________________
Ya know, being bi, I find it extremely hypocritical how you claim to love Jesus and love everyone and yet, at the same time deny them their rights and treat them like second class citizens.

I'm trying to keep calm here, but is this Christianity? Is this what it's about? You ppl don't love, you hate! You degrade humanity. Your preach the gospel of ignorance and biggotry. I just hope I see the day when ppl stop using religion to justify their hate.
__________________________________________________

Christianity is NOT just about loving your fellow man. And no part about it preaches hatred. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And if you object to being called a sinner, just know that this term, according to Christians, applies to everyone, ourselves included.

Christians are called upon to spread the gospel to the world, and to have a real and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm sure this sounds like silliness to a lot of you (and the Bible says that things of the spirit are nonesense to non-christians). One thing you can be sure of: Christians who espouse violent solutions to problems and who hate individuals or communities of individuals for what they do (as opposed to hating what they do) are not behaving like Jesus would want them to.

Studies (you'll have to look these up; i've just heard about them on talk radio) show that children raised in traditional families as opposed to single or homosexual parents turn out better. I'm sorry, but I forgot their definition of better (but I do remember I, at least, agreed with it).

Now, until it becomes well accepted that a ban on gay marriage or at LEAST gay adoption would be good for society on a secular and not just religious ground, I have to admit that there is no reason that gays in the US should not be permitted to marry, and on the same grounds, polygamist, MANBLA, and beastialists should also be allowed to marry.
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by nschneid
Its federally protected because there was a law passed in the mid-90's under clinton that said that one state could not define marriage for another state. Therefore, Oklahoma is not forced to honor a gay marriage that occurred in Hawaii. That's what the federal protection is.

I don't know the exact wording, but I heard about it last night in the state of the union address, and I'm sure Bush wouldn't lie about something so easily verifiable as this, so don't take this down that road.


You mean the DOMA laws? Well, putting aside the fact that those laws violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution (Articles 4, first or second paragraph), the Doma laws are designed so that the states can decide for themselves whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage. Like you said, they make it so that if one state (Mass.) want to marry gay couples, that another state who doesn't accept gay unions won't have to accept 2 gays that got married is Mass or Vermont. But this Constitutional Addmendment would be taking the choice out of the states, and the ppl's, hands, thus Violating the 10th Addmendment (Any powers not specifically designated to the federal government shall be given to the ppl or the states.)

And no part about it preaches hatred.
Then why is Christianity the most violent religion thoughout history. Read some of the OT, it's packed full of divine ignorance, hatred and violence.

Studies (you'll have to look these up; i've just heard about them on talk radio) show that children raised in traditional families as opposed to single or homosexual parents turn out better. I'm sorry, but I forgot their definition of better (but I do remember I, at least, agreed with it).
Traditional families do not equate Christian families. Common sence will tell you that it's better for kids to be raised in a 2 parents home verses a one parent home.

Now, until it becomes well accepted that a ban on gay marriage or at LEAST gay adoption would be good for society on a secular and not just religious ground, I have to admit that there is no reason that gays in the US should not be permitted to marry, and on the same grounds, polygamist, MANBLA, and beastialists should also be allowed to marry.
I've been debating this issue for 2 years, and have debated with dozens of Christians. I have read dozens of sites, and even more studies on the subject. And I have spent hours researching it, and never, not once, in my time, have I ever found one, good secular reason to ban gay marriage. Not one. So I would really like it if you could share with me what these "secular" reasons are.

And, if I really have to explain the differences between homosexual marriag and those other things you mentioned, then I'm just gonna void this topic. If you are so stupid that you can not see the differences between those things, then I am not gonna waste my time. I expect a certain level of intelligence when posting in this forum, and putting homosexuality on the same level as beastality, polygomy and pedophilia is so ignorant, and just tells me you aren't smart enough to waste my time debating with. I learned this lesson with DateRape a while back, and I'm not going to make the same mistake again.
 

nschneid

Member!
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
Alright, lets not make this any more personal than it has to be. I'm not trying to be hostile.

Yes, I mean the DOMA laws. Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a constitutional ammendment explicitly remove any authority from the states on the issue? I'm not a political science student, so I'm sure there's some things you know here that I don't.

And when Christians read the Bible and pray to find out what they are supposed to be doing, no where does it explicitly OR implicitly tell us to hate, wage war, commit murder, etc. Just because God decided that war was in His purpose thousands of years ago, it doesn't mean that we get to satisfy our selfish whims today and do the same thing.

And please, tell me what arguments you have against all those other things that I don't have against gay marriage. You WILL have to explain it to me, because I haven't heard any. You can say, "it's disgusting, it's unnatural," etc etc etc but I feel the same way about homosexuality.

This thread isn't against you. It's an arguement, and I'm trying to make it as impersonal as possible.
 

bamthedoc

King Endymion
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
4,292
Reaction score
1
Location
North Carolina, USA
Website
www.fanfiction.net
As a Christian, I love everyone, and I hate Satan. What that means is that, while I love people -- including homosexuals, I hate a behavior stemming from Satan -- in this case, homosexuality. There is a big difference between a person and a behavior. Christ calls us to obey GOD's law, and He calls us to love all people. I don't hate homo- or bi- sexuals, but I do hate homo- and bi- sexuality as I believe, as is dictated in the Bible, that those behaviors are wrong and sinful.

Tempest Storm, I expected better from you than to make such a statement. I, as a Christian, believe that psycology can be used, as it is a GODsend, to cure an "environmental" disease.

This, however, has gotten off subject.
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Yes, I mean the DOMA laws. Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a constitutional ammendment explicitly remove any authority from the states on the issue? I'm not a political science student, so I'm sure there's some things you know here that I don't.
That's just it. Doma laws put the power in the state's hand. It allows for the states to choose for themselves whether or not they want to accept gay marriages. This Addmentment would take the power out of the states hands, and universally ban marriages in all states

And when Christians read the Bible and pray to find out what they are supposed to be doing, no where does it explicitly OR implicitly tell us to hate, wage war, commit murder, etc. Just because God decided that war was in His purpose thousands of years ago, it doesn't mean that we get to satisfy our selfish whims today and do the same thing.
That is true. Problem is, many Chruches either teach that Mosaic Law (where these ppl find justification for all of their evil actions) still applies, or do not stress enough that Mosaic Law is outdated, and that Jesus replaced it.

And please, tell me what arguments you have against all those other things that I don't have against gay marriage. You WILL have to explain it to me, because I haven't heard any. You can say, "it's disgusting, it's unnatural," etc etc etc but I feel the same way about homosexuality.[/quote]

Hold up here. You told me that there are secualr reason why gay marriage should be banned, and all I did was ask you to name these secular reasons. I've heard, and debunked, just about every arguement against homosexuality you can think of. You're the negative here, this is your case to prove.

Now if your talking about what the differences are between homosexuality and pedophilia, well, I have 5 words for you. 2, consenting, living, human, adults. Thats what homosexuality is. It's no different than heterosexuality other than the fact that one of the partners is of the same sex as the other, as opposed to the other partner being of the opposite sex as the other in heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality - 2, consenting, living, human, adults of the opposite gender having sex.

Homosexuality - 2, consenting, living, human, adults of the same sex having sex with eachother.

If homosexuality is on the same level as pedophilia, beastality, polygomy, rape and necrophilia, then so is heterosexuality. And since we let heteros marry, then we must also let ppl marry animals, or corpses, or children. Now of course, if you want to prove my logic flawed, then go right on ahead, if you can. :)
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by bamthedoc
As a Christian, I love everyone, and I hate Satan. What that means is that, while I love people -- including homosexuals, I hate a behavior stemming from Satan -- in this case, homosexuality. There is a big difference between a person and a behavior. Christ calls us to obey GOD's law, and He calls us to love all people. I don't hate homo- or bi- sexuals, but I do hate homo- and bi- sexuality as I believe, as is dictated in the Bible, that those behaviors are wrong and sinful.


That doesn't give you the right to use the government to force your religious views on everyone else.

Tempest Storm, I expected better from you than to make such a statement. I, as a Christian, believe that psycology can be used, as it is a GODsend, to cure an "environmental" disease.
Despite the fact that over 2 dozen professional medical, sexual, and mental health organisation say that reparitive therapy is barbaric and possible damaging. Even though NARTH is known to be very deceitful and xagerate the numbers of "cured" gays, and the actual number of "cured" gays is very, very low. Even though scientific studies show that genetics play a large part in homosexuality. Even though most gays are quite happy, or would be happy if Bible-thumping Christians weren't trying to persecute them.

This, however, has gotten off subject.
Your right, time to Split it. :)
 

nschneid

Member!
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
move me please!!!

(supposedly) arbitrary, shortened definition:

Marriage: The union of one man and one woman, legally binding.

Homosexual community demands a new definition:

Marriage: The legal union of two people.

Reason: The constitution does not say that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, and any law to do so would be a violation of civil liberties, therefore it is ok to redefine marriage to this new definition.

Morman community steps up and says, "wait just one darn minute here. No where in this constitution does it say that we have to limit marriage to two people!"

Morman community demands a new definition:

Marriage: the legal union of 2 or more consenting people.

Reason: The gay community opened the door to arbitrarily changing the definition to suit the whims of any individuals.

Then, Buck Johnson, local beastialist, has an epiphany. "If they can marry whoever and however many they want, what's to stop me from befriending a goat and taking it down to the local courthouse for a marriage? As long as the goat don't mind what's going on, who can say it's wrong?"

Marriage: the legal union of 2 or more beings.

Like it or not, this is already happening. A polygamist in Utah is suing for the right to marry more than one woman, and he is using exactly the same arguements that were used in Massachusetts (or one of those NE states. I thing it was Massachusetts). What's worse, no one can say anything about it because the arguements hold.

Now, I'm not going to touch rape. I think we can all agree that sex should be consensual. But, as far as pedophillia, if you have a consenting child, then using the same logic above, why is it not wrong?

The most important point of marriage is to provide children with a stable, well-provided-for environment to grow up in. Children benefit best from both a male and female role model. Allowing gays to adopt immediatly puts them at a disadvantage.

I've got to go home now, but we can continue this tomorrow or friday.
 

bamthedoc

King Endymion
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
4,292
Reaction score
1
Location
North Carolina, USA
Website
www.fanfiction.net
That doesn't give you the right to use the government to force your religious views on everyone else.
I don't ;) The Government, however, has always had a "definition" for marriage.

Despite the fact that over 2 dozen professional medical, sexual, and mental health organisation say that reparitive therapy is barbaric and possible damaging. Even though NARTH is known to be very deceitful and xagerate the numbers of "cured" gays, and the actual number of "cured" gays is very, very low. Even though scientific studies show that genetics play a large part in homosexuality. Even though most gays are quite happy, or would be happy if Bible-thumping Christians weren't trying to persecute them.
Those organizations believe biased studies. You remember our conversation some time ago? There are only three species that "enjoy" sexual behavior. Humans, Orca, and something else... are the only three species to have sex for fun. Dogs, most often used in "sexual" studies, do not have sex for enjoyment. They only procreate when a female is in heat and releasing hormones. In a normal pack environment, which was never studied on the selected pack, the alpha male will take the in heat female, and the other males will have to suffer. They might hump the omega male or a tree, but that's to release frustration created from "heat" created by the hormones.

What was seen in these studies, however, is a very much "created" situation where there were no controls. The studies were designed to only show one result. There are as many organizations that have proven no link between sexuality, at all, and biology.

Here's another fact. The percentages in society don't match a biological transmition either. If sexuality were biological, the percentages would be declining -- not increasing. They would also be infinitesimal. Why? Homosexuality is degenerative to society. It does not help in procreation. The percentages we see, now adays, are far too high. Also, female homosexuals outnumber males. NO BIOLOGICAL DISEASE SHOWS THIS BEHAVIOR!! MOST PSYCOLOGICAL DISEASES SHOW THIS BEHAVIOR!! None Versus Most. Hmm? That means something!

If you look at XY-linked genes, males outnumber females by nearly 4 to 1. If you look at non-XY-linked genes, the ratio is almost 1 to 1.
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by nschneid
Morman community steps up and says, "wait just one darn minute here. No where in this constitution does it say that we have to limit marriage to two people!"

Morman community demands a new definition:

Marriage: the legal union of 2 or more consenting people.

Reason: The gay community opened the door to arbitrarily changing the definition to suit the whims of any individuals.


This isn't a good enough reason to deny rights to certain minorities.

Then, Buck Johnson, local beastialist, has an epiphany. "If they can marry whoever and however many they want, what's to stop me from befriending a goat and taking it down to the local courthouse for a marriage? As long as the goat don't mind what's going on, who can say it's wrong?"

Marriage: the legal union of 2 or more beings.
Animals can't consent to get married, no can dead ppl, and no court in the world rule in this man's favor.

Like it or not, this is already happening. A polygamist in Utah is suing for the right to marry more than one woman, and he is using exactly the same arguements that were used in Massachusetts (or one of those NE states. I thing it was Massachusetts). What's worse, no one can say anything about it because the arguements hold.
If the arguement holds, then whats the problem?

Now, I'm not going to touch rape. I think we can all agree that sex should be consensual. But, as far as pedophillia, if you have a consenting child, then using the same logic above, why is it not wrong?
That's not an issue. A 10yo could censent to marrying a 40yo guy till her face turned blue, but they still wouldn't be able to marry, for the same reason that children can not enter into legally binding contracts, or be responsible for finances, because the law does not deem them to be sound of mind until they hit a certain age, usually 17 or 18, sometimes as high up as 21. And at which point, it can no longer be considered pedophilia.

The most important point of marriage is to provide children with a stable, well-provided-for environment to grow up in. Children benefit best from both a male and female role model. Allowing gays to adopt immediatly puts them at a disadvantage.
And having to stay in an ophanage with ppl who think of you as a number, with no love, when there are 2 loving gays out there who would love to adopt you is better for them?
 

nschneid

Member!
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
See, this is why there is no true seperation of church and state. No matter where social laws an such started, it is hard for me to see how anyone can NOT say that we now trace all or most of our western values to Christianity. Therefore, any arguements I have against alternative forms of marriage are rooted in Christianity. If you take that out, then there's virtually no limit to the what we can do or the debauchery we could sink to.

I can't argue with the statement on orphanages. I would rather see children raised in ANY financially capable, stable situation than be raised by the state (which is partly why my wife and I plan to adopt at least one.)

But, if gay couples start to get precedence over straight couples (all else being equal), I'm going to have to take issue again, because I really do believe that it is better to have a man and woman raise a child than two men or two women. If you think that this is ridiculous, I have only to point to a recent article in Time magazine. An excerpt praises a gay man in a partnership for staying home to raise the kids. But rarely, if ever, is it seen that society praise a mother for turning her back on her career because she wishes to raise her children at home. That REEEEELY rubs me the wrong way.
 

Forged

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
5,433
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Website
www.securegamers.com
Last time I checked marriage was no where near a soully judeo-christian bond.... So you guys logic baffles me.
Are you going to want to ban Islams and Buddhist from marrying next?
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by nschneid
See, this is why there is no true seperation of church and state. No matter where social laws an such started, it is hard for me to see how anyone can NOT say that we now trace all or most of our western values to Christianity. Therefore, any arguements I have against alternative forms of marriage are rooted in Christianity. If you take that out, then there's virtually no limit to the what we can do or the debauchery we could sink to.


Name one part of the Constitution that is specifically Christian in origin or nature.

And, as Forged pointed out, Christianity does not have a copyright on marriage. Christianity did not start marriage. The act of marriage is a religious thing, not a Christian thing. So, on what basis does a few denomonations of one religion get to determine who can and can't get married?

But, if gay couples start to get precedence over straight couples (all else being equal), I'm going to have to take issue again, because I really do believe that it is better to have a man and woman raise a child than two men or two women. If you think that this is ridiculous, I have only to point to a recent article in Time magazine. An excerpt praises a gay man in a partnership for staying home to raise the kids. But rarely, if ever, is it seen that society praise a mother for turning her back on her career because she wishes to raise her children at home. That REEEEELY rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps it is better for them to be raised in a home with a man and a woman. That may very well be the case. But, there is a shortage of married men and women out there, and I think, gay couples adopting kids is much better than letting the system raise them, as you said yourself.

And BaM, I'll get around to your post tomorrow. I haven't forgotten about you yet. :)
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2003
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Far, Far, Away
Website
Visit site
I agree that homosexuals should have the right to gay marriage, because it isn't right to deny the rights of people that have differents sexual preferences than heterosexuals, but when a homosexual couple wishes to adopt it may be harder for the child to grow up than the homosexual couple being homosexual. The child might be laughed at, teased, bullied, etc. because the child doesn't have "normal" parents. The kid would also be missing a motherly or fatherly figure from his or her life making it more awkward growing up without a mother or a father, but just two fathers or two mothers.

So what if Christians don't like Homosexual marriage? Their values and virtues shouldn't be what we are living by today. Even if the U.S was founded by Christians and Christian values, those values don't match with today's standards.
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by Second Hand Death
I agree that homosexuals should have the right to gay marriage, because it isn't right to deny the rights of people that have differents sexual preferences than heterosexuals, but when a homosexual couple wishes to adopt it may be harder for the child to grow up than the homosexual couple being homosexual. The child might be laughed at, teased, bullied, etc. because the child doesn't have "normal" parents. The kid would also be missing a motherly or fatherly figure from his or her life making it more awkward growing up without a mother or a father, but just two fathers or two mothers.


A valid concern, but still, better to be teased a little than be raised in a loveless enviroment by the sate, right?

So what if Christians don't like Homosexual marriage? Their values and virtues shouldn't be what we are living by today. Even if the U.S was founded by Christians and Christian values, those values don't match with today's standards.
True, but this nation wasn't founded by Christians, or as a Christian nations. And the values this nation were founded upon are not Christian in origin, and some aren't even Christian in nature.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Spike~





Then why is Christianity the most violent religion thoughout history. Read some of the OT, it's packed full of divine ignorance, hatred and violence.


[/B]
Untrue, christianity is not recognised untill the new testament. the old testament is jewish. They are both in the same thing because Jesus makes refrerance to it as well as it setting up the prophesies of the gospel, emanneul and the son.

Even if you say that its filled with ignorance hatred and violence, it was due to the fact that Gods people(the jews) were persecuted and treated poorly so God helped them by aiding them in fighting indirectly. Never has God struck a man down with a bolt of lightning out of pure hatred or ignorance. He has sent Delila(right?) to cut sampsons hair so that he would lose his godsend strength. after this, sampson asks for forgiveness and regains his powers to defeat his enemies as well as Gods. GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD, he says so. If he sees someone worshipping another God he will go and first attempt to convert them, if that doesnt work, kill them, because he cant stand IGNORANCE.
 

Forged

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
5,433
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Website
www.securegamers.com
I think he was also making a point at almost everywar we have had since around 1200 A.C, and all the killing that has been done in the name of god.
You know how The French slaughtered 16,000 jews in three days,
Hitler (a catholic) Slaughtered was it 8 million?.
The Salem Witch Trials,
The Revoultinary war (origonal cause being religon, the new cause being money)
and so on, and so forth,
 

nschneid

Member!
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
I didn't say that the constitution was founded on christianity. What I meant was that laws that we have in this country can be traced to christianity. Laws such as those that prohibit kids from watching rated R movies and sale of liqour to people under 21 and pedophilia, murder, rape, and all other kinds of things. Most people's sense of right and wrong has been influenced by ideas that are traceable to religion, especially those who's families have been here for many generations. Newer generations might trace their sense of right and wrong to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any number of other religions.

That being said, common to the vast majority of religions is the sense that marriage should, in all normal circumstances, be limited to one man and one woman. Therefore, many, many people will be offended, and not just offended, but feel as if their beliefs are being trampled on by society, when you start trying to legislate change in that definition. You can try to say that everyone should just be able to live how they want and it won't affect anybody, but that's simply not true. Social norms or things being pushed as such affect everybody living in that society.

You can argue that laws didn't originate with religion, but that was prehistory. For all or most of recorded history, there has been religion, and some of those religions (Judaism) can trace their beginnings back to what they believe was the beginning of time. Now I'm getting off subject, but do you see what I'm saying?
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
I didn't say that the constitution was founded on christianity. What I meant was that laws that we have in this country can be traced to christianity. Laws such as those that prohibit kids from watching rated R movies and sale of liqour to people under 21 and pedophilia, murder, rape, and all other kinds of things. Most people's sense of right and wrong has been influenced by ideas that are traceable to religion, especially those who's families have been here for many generations. Newer generations might trace their sense of right and wrong to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any number of other religions.
No they can not. Almost all religions have laws against murder rape and pedophilia. And almost all religions have decency laws that include regulations on drinking and other social things. And some of these laws can be traced backed to prehistory. Murder and pedophialia weren't tolerated in nomadic African tribes thousands of years ago. Many of our laws are similar to Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which predate Christianity.

That being said, common to the vast majority of religions is the sense that marriage should, in all normal circumstances, be limited to one man and one woman. Therefore, many, many people will be offended, and not just offended, but feel as if their beliefs are being trampled on by society, when you start trying to legislate change in that definition. You can try to say that everyone should just be able to live how they want and it won't affect anybody, but that's simply not true. Social norms or things being pushed as such affect everybody living in that society.
Gay marriage does not make it harder for you to find a wife. It does not make it harder for you to get married. It does not make it harder for your marriage to survive. And it does not make it harder for you to get a divorce, if you wanted one, that is. Gay marriage does not effect you in the least. Unless of course you make yourself be effected by it, in which case, that's your own damn problem. That's like you jumping in front of a bullet to save someone and then blaming the guy that was shot for you getting shot. The only ppl gay marriage effects is gays, and it effects them positively.

And Lawrence, Forged pretty much summed up my point.
 

Tempest Storm

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1
Website
www.war3.com
Originally posted by bamthedoc
Those organizations believe biased studies. You remember our conversation some time ago? There are only three species that "enjoy" sexual behavior. Humans, Orca, and something else... are the only three species to have sex for fun. Dogs, most often used in "sexual" studies, do not have sex for enjoyment. They only procreate when a female is in heat and releasing hormones. In a normal pack environment, which was never studied on the selected pack, the alpha male will take the in heat female, and the other males will have to suffer. They might hump the omega male or a tree, but that's to release frustration created from "heat" created by the hormones.
I'm not talking about animal studies, I'm talking about genetic studies on humans that show genetics play a part in the cause of a large percentage of gays. There are many cause for homosexuality, ranging from abuse, to parenting to genetics.

There are as many organizations that have proven no link between sexuality, at all, and biology.
And what are these organizations, because most of the organizations I know of do believe that genes play a part in homosexuality.

Here's another fact. The percentages in society don't match a biological transmition either. If sexuality were biological, the percentages would be declining -- not increasing. They would also be infinitesimal. Why? Homosexuality is degenerative to society. It does not help in procreation. The percentages we see, now adays, are far too high. Also, female homosexuals outnumber males. NO BIOLOGICAL DISEASE SHOWS THIS BEHAVIOR!! MOST PSYCOLOGICAL DISEASES SHOW THIS BEHAVIOR!! None Versus Most. Hmm? That means something!
First off, you're starting to sound a lot like DateRape by comparing it to a disease.

Now I have never denied that pychology also was a cause of homosexuality, but, you will not find one respecable mental health organization that will tell you that homosexuality is a mental illness, is a cause of mental ilness, or is a sign of mental illness, and I dare to find one organization (other than NARTH) that does make those statements, and if you do, I have contradictory statements from several well known mental health organizations.

3rd, what makes you say that the gay population is increasing? I've never heard this before.

If you look at XY-linked genes, males outnumber females by nearly 4 to 1. If you look at non-XY-linked genes, the ratio is almost 1 to 1.
Pardon my ignorance, but this means what exactly?

And here are a few link I've provided that kinda compliment my arguements. They're also some of my sources, among many.

Statements from Professional Organisations: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

Homosexuality, choice or fixxed oreintationl; natural or unnatural: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

What causes homosexuality: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm
 
Top