[Neon]

watch, on May 5 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

...on a similar note though people view Australia as a tolerant, anti-racist country, when it's the opposite.

You know, I actually agree with this, but I guess it depends on the people you see the most. Pretty much everyone I know is very tolerant if not supportive of other cultures and races and sexuality, but Australia as a whole does tend to be very racist.


Also, you can replace what I said with anything you like. I expressed my opinion and I know you're all smart enough to understand the context. You can start quoting the bible if you want, since really that's the only argument anyone can hold agaisnt it, and then it comes down to how closely you follow the bible.

[Caael]

Golden Legacy, on May 5 2009, 03:29 AM, said:

Sums it up perfectly.

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs018.snc1/2204_26792813487190594_7724_n.jpg

I lol'd

[Split Infinity]

Just for the sake of bubble-bursting, handedness isn't natural; it's a learnt preference.

[Saturos S.]

Left handed people are actually proven to be in the advantage in a violent culture. Gay people are probably in the disadvantage judging by picking on the minority opinion that's going on these days.

...that was bad.

[Caael]

Split Infinity, on May 5 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

Just for the sake of bubble-bursting, handedness isn't natural; it's a learnt preference.

I'm left handed and I've been trying to learn for years to be ambidextrous but I cant.

[kate]

left handedness can be learnt, but the body's natural preference is based on which side of your brain is more developed. More artistic people tend to be left handed because their right side of the brain is more developed. You'd be surprised at the number of actors who are left handed. So no, it is not a choice, being left handed does come naturally to some and nearly impossible to others.

...not that anyone really cares that much lol

[Quacnar]

Legolastom, on May 5 2009, 06:42 AM, said:

@ Neon: I find it odd that if you replaced "two lovers" with "a book and a dog" your entire view would clearly change.

@ GL: So true.

. . . Good job, you got me!!!

[Split Infinity]

kate, on May 6 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

left handedness can be learnt, but the body's natural preference is based on which side of your brain is more developed. More artistic people tend to be left handed because their right side of the brain is more developed. You'd be surprised at the number of actors who are left handed. So no, it is not a choice, being left handed does come naturally to some and nearly impossible to others.

Then how come we have more righties than left?

[Legolastom]

Because of gays.

[Drizzy Drake]

You dont..

Wanna fuck with lefties..

'Cause lefties..

Will fucking kill you..

[Golden Legacy]

I visit another board, and while I was there I saw this topic being discussed. I've copied a few posts below and yes, they involve religion. But these lines of thinking, I feel, are brilliant in showing that religion and an issue like homosexuality and gay marriage can go hand in hand. What do you guys think?

(and again, these posts have religion, so if you're only going to post something insulting, please refrain from doing so. everyone else -)

---

"With regards to myself, if you would humor me under the pretense that the God of the Abrahamic faiths exists, just for now. The way I derive support of gays from God is simple. You are free to interpret this, defend this, criticize my own thought process as you see fit.


First, with the belief that God exists, God also exists in ways that can't be imagined, and God states that He created man in his own image.

There are whites and there are blacks today. If God created man in his own image, then surely He must be part white and part black, yes? For what is his "own image" then if people of all races and colors exist?

There are whites and blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Slavs, Turks, Inuits, etc.

If God created all people in his image, then shouldn't that mean he is part white, part black, part Native American, part Hispanic, part Inuit, part Asian?

Finally, God created all people in his image, and that includes homosexuals. Gays and lesbians and bisexuals too. If they are all in his image, shouldn't this mean that God is part white, part black, part Native American, part Hispanic, part Inuit, part Asian, and part heterosexual, and part homosexual?"

---

"I often refer to my belief as "Abrahamic" in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all structured around largely the same values, and the same prophets, stories, event texts. Now of course, there are differences, so I can't say I speak specifically for any one of them.

Now, for the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. Well, let me first give a similar question I've often asked, even of my own religion. If God is so merciful, why do disasters occur then? I remember this being asked during the 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people. What did they do that made them deserve to perish beneath floods? There are many examples of this. Why were a starved and defenseless population allowed to be brutally massacred in Palestine a few months ago? Why are there babies born with genetic defects and mutations?

Often times I've been told to simply "accept" what happens in the world as beyond my capability, and to more importantly focus on bettering myself as an individual. It hasn't stopped me from questioning faith, even God, but as a personal tool of guidance, the Abrahamic values I was raised around are a part of me and make sense to me.

That part is important for me. They make 'sense' not just in what they say, but when I combine my own personal interpretations of what is said. Some people would say that "God says homosexuality is sinful". Well have they considered the different circumstances perhaps, the different eras these texts were revealed in? Have they considered that this may in fact be a test from God, to see if they will be able to adapt? To be willing to change, and to acknowledge how strong their faith is - if they believe in the TEXT (the words as they are written) or actual VALUES (the meaning and what you draw FROM those words).

That's what I see it as. It's a constantly changing manifestation of faith. When Adam and Eve - common to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - were created, they were presumably one "identity" simply, one man and one woman.

Today we have a man and a woman, we have races of white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Inuit, Arab, Persian, Jews, Slavs, we have ethnicities, we have nationalistic pride, we have sexual orientation, we have political ideologies. Times are different. Identities are innumerable. Our ways of living have so radically changed, it would require new "texts" to keep up with! It is our duty to acknowledge these realities, incorporate our lives duly, and to carry on the message we believe in. Equality, harmony, peace, whatever they may be, they apply to all people, just as it did when there was a single man and a single woman, just as it does now in the modern era, just as it will in the future when new nationalities emerge, new traits are discovered, and new human beings are born."

---

[Saturos S.]

With all respect, I find that the post is more about disproving the bible facts than it is actually about policies on gay marriage. Though I guess that's the only way to reason with religious people.

[My Best Wishes]

All I got out of it is that religion should change as man changes. Which is false.

[Legolastom]

Well your word is absolute watch.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on May 7 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

All I got out of it is that religion should change as man changes. Which is false.

I think what it's saying is that as man changes, the MEANING people draw from religion should also change with the times.

This part struck me, what do you say to this?

Have they considered that this may in fact be a test from God, to see if they will be able to adapt? To be willing to change, and to acknowledge how strong their faith is - if they believe in the TEXT (the words as they are written) or actual VALUES (the meaning and what you draw FROM those words)?

Usually (not always), the way people derive "homosexuality is a sin" is by quoting direct lines from the Bible or other texts. Why wouldn't this conclusion change with the times? Do you follow each word so devoutly, and so directly, even if it would conflict with new values or understanding in today's society?

[Split Infinity]

Considering people devote entire lives to keeping the faith, that would kinda suck.

[Drizzy Drake]

Proof that god doesn`t exist; the platypus. No all powerful being would make one of it`s creatures have to suffer the embaressment of having to look like that.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on May 7 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

I think what it's saying is that as man changes, the MEANING people draw from religion should also change with the times.

This part struck me, what do you say to this?

Have they considered that this may in fact be a test from God, to see if they will be able to adapt? To be willing to change, and to acknowledge how strong their faith is - if they believe in the TEXT (the words as they are written) or actual VALUES (the meaning and what you draw FROM those words)?

Usually (not always), the way people derive "homosexuality is a sin" is by quoting direct lines from the Bible or other texts. Why wouldn't this conclusion change with the times? Do you follow each word so devoutly, and so directly, even if it would conflict with new values or understanding in today's society?

God may test people, but he doesn't throw curve-balls like that. He won't go back on one of his teachings just to see if we'll adapt. It doesn't work like that.

Both of those posts in general are treating the Abrahamic religions as if they were flexible and should be interpreted differently as time goes on. If that were entirely true, then someday, it will be interpreted that it;s alright to go and kill someone if you don't like them, or worse, if you just want to shoot something. After all, God wants us to be happy, and some people enjoy shooting things. Others would interpret the bible to say that it's alright to shoot someone because it's "an eye for an eye".

Though I'll say it right now that the bible has teachings to combat those false interpretations.


Anyway, while some things in the bible might need to be interpreted somewhat differently to fit with the times, they are few and far between. The bible is there to be a solid, unwavering block of text by which to build your life around (according to the christian religion). What good would it be if people could just interpret it however they wanted?


As for the "why does God allow [insert disaster/bad thing here] to happen?" question, it's been asked numerous times. From my opinion, he has his reasons. Sometimes I can see what those are, other times I can't. In general though, God doesn't allow bad things to happen. Rather, to interfere would be to infringe upon our freedom of will, or they occur due to a lack of God being in said circumstance.

After all, sin isn't actually anything. It's a lack of god. Just as darkness is a lack of light. Therefore, how can God do anything if he isn't there?

Besides all of that, for all anyone knows, those natural disasters could be a way of testing people. Will they turn to God for help, will they do nothing, or will they curse him?

Golden Legacy, on May 7 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

Do you follow each word so devoutly, and so directly, even if it would conflict with new values or understanding in today's society?

Often times "new values or understandings" in today's society conflict not only with the tangible text itself, but also with the widely agreed upon interpretations of it. i.e., the underlying principles.

Some people might bring up the slavery discussion here, but the bible never said "Thou shalt have slaves."


Also, I agree with Watch's statement on this one.

[My Best Wishes]

Legolastom, on May 8 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Well your word is absolute watch.

You know it, I should be your dictator when you and Tim force Communism on the masses.

Golden Legacy, on May 8 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

I think what it's saying is that as man changes, the MEANING people draw from religion should also change with the times.

This part struck me, what do you say to this?

Have they considered that this may in fact be a test from God, to see if they will be able to adapt? To be willing to change, and to acknowledge how strong their faith is - if they believe in the TEXT (the words as they are written) or actual VALUES (the meaning and what you draw FROM those words)?

Usually (not always), the way people derive "homosexuality is a sin" is by quoting direct lines from the Bible or other texts. Why wouldn't this conclusion change with the times? Do you follow each word so devoutly, and so directly, even if it would conflict with new values or understanding in today's society?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
1 Nephi 10:18
For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
God doesn't change, why should the way we follow him or interpret his word change?

Drizzy Drake, on May 8 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Proof that god doesn`t exist; the platypus. No all powerful being would make one of it`s creatures have to suffer the embaressment of having to look like that.

Poor Chris, haven't you had your 5 minutes of attention today?

[Drizzy Drake]

watch, on May 8 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

You know it, I should be your dictator when you and Tim force Communism on the masses.
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
1 Nephi 10:18
For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
God doesn't change, why should the way we follow him or interpret his word change?
Poor Chris, haven't you had your 5 minutes of attention today?

Nope sorry I got that when Mel sucked my cock dry. Now`, I`m pretty sure you wouldn`t know what that feels like but trust me, her attention is alllll on you.

*bumps relapse*

[Caael]

watch, on May 8 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

You know it, I should be your dictator when you and Tim force Communism on the masses.

You dont force Communism on people, it occurs when everybody unanimously conforms to the same thing. Stalin forced it and look at what that got him. 11 million slaughtered by his hands.

Get your ****ing facts right before trying to make a witty comment.

[Legolastom]

Get trolled more Tim.

[My Best Wishes]

Drizzy Drake, on May 9 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

Nope sorry I got that when Mel sucked my cock dry. Now`, I`m pretty sure you wouldn`t know what that feels like but trust me, her attention is alllll on you.

*bumps relapse*

You would be right with that assumption.

Caael, on May 9 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

You dont force Communism on people, it occurs when everybody unanimously conforms to the same thing. Stalin forced it and look at what that got him. 11 million slaughtered by his hands.

Get your ****ing facts right before trying to make a witty comment.

When has Communism just occurred without someone there to set the gears in motion? Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh all forced Communism, it wasn't the wish of the people.

[Caael]

watch, on May 8 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

You would be right with that assumption.


When has Communism just occurred without someone there to set the gears in motion? Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh all forced Communism, it wasn't the wish of the people.

It hasn't; technically speaking, all mentioned weren't communist, just fascistic socialists.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on May 8 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

God may test people, but he doesn't throw curve-balls like that. He won't go back on one of his teachings just to see if we'll adapt. It doesn't work like that.

Both of those posts in general are treating the Abrahamic religions as if they were flexible and should be interpreted differently as time goes on. If that were entirely true, then someday, it will be interpreted that it;s alright to go and kill someone if you don't like them, or worse, if you just want to shoot something. After all, God wants us to be happy, and some people enjoy shooting things. Others would interpret the bible to say that it's alright to shoot someone because it's "an eye for an eye".

This is a huge slippery slope fallacy. You're using the usual argument that if you allow gays to marry, then by certainty other acts will follow. If you want to argue on gay marriage, then actually debate gay marriage itself, and not what a vague "future" possibility might be. It is an unfair and an unwarranted link between two different issues.

You and I must then interpret religion differently. Treating religion as an unwavering, unmoving mass where the same values from millenia ago must apply today is an antiquated, outdated notion. If religion preaches justice and equality for all, then you should use that value and apply it as society's understanding broadens. Religion is not meant to be inflexible - it is meant as a guideline of values and 'morality'.

i.e. Homosexuality has now been found to have genetic and hormonal links, physiologically. This is new understanding and should be incorporated. Not doing so is purposeful ignorance.

Quote

Often times "new values or understandings" in today's society conflict not only with the tangible text itself, but also with the widely agreed upon interpretations of it. i.e., the underlying principles

See above.

watch, on May 8 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

You know it, I should be your dictator when you and Tim force Communism on the masses.
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
1 Nephi 10:18
For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
God doesn't change, why should the way we follow him or interpret his word change?

I would think that you would hold God to different standards than your own. He is supposed to be grand and beyond comprehension. That might be what "doesn't change". After all, to God, what defines "change" for Him would be different than a human being.

That said, if God does not want gays to marry, then why does homosexuality exist in the first place? Why would he create something he wants to be discriminated against?

[Aquamarine]

Toasty, on May 8 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

God may test people, but he doesn't throw curve-balls like that. He won't go back on one of his teachings just to see if we'll adapt. It doesn't work like that.

Oh, so God must have told you this, since you know he wouldn't throw a curve-ball like that.

[Quacnar]

The text is open to interpretation. Isn't that a "curve ball" in itself?

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on May 27 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

i.e. Homosexuality has now been found to have genetic and hormonal links, physiologically. This is new understanding and should be incorporated. Not doing so is purposeful ignorance.



I would think that you would hold God to different standards than your own. He is supposed to be grand and beyond comprehension. That might be what "doesn't change". After all, to God, what defines "change" for Him would be different than a human being.

That said, if God does not want gays to marry, then why does homosexuality exist in the first place? Why would he create something he wants to be discriminated against?

Proof of gayness being genetic please.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
God doesn't change, he says so right there, and as to holding God to different standards, he created us in his image. If he says he doesn't change, I'm inclined to believe him. Those posts you posted were good food for thought though.

Why did God create wickedness? Why war, hunger, sickness, poverty, hate. We are given agency for a reason to know right from wrong, that is the purpose of this life.

Alma 34:32: “This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.”

Moses 6: 56: And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

Bit of a rushed post, short on time lately, sorry if it doesn't make sense.

[Split Infinity]

watch, on May 27 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Proof of gayness being genetic please.

It was an example. Note the i.e.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on May 26 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

This is a huge slippery slope fallacy. You're using the usual argument that if you allow gays to marry, then by certainty other acts will follow. If you want to argue on gay marriage, then actually debate gay marriage itself, and not what a vague "future" possibility might be. It is an unfair and an unwarranted link between two different issues.

It already has. People have already begun to make cases that "since gays can mary then so should blah blah blah". And just the fact that people are putting that notion out there is reason for concern.

Golden Legacy, on May 26 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

You and I must then interpret religion differently. Treating religion as an unwavering, unmoving mass where the same values from millenia ago must apply today is an antiquated, outdated notion. If religion preaches justice and equality for all, then you should use that value and apply it as society's understanding broadens. Religion is not meant to be inflexible - it is meant as a guideline of values and 'morality'.

i.e. Homosexuality has now been found to have genetic and hormonal links, physiologically. This is new understanding and should be incorporated. Not doing so is purposeful ignorance.

If religion were meant to be flexible then as time went on, it would eventually lead to it's meaning becoming something entirely different than what it originally was, if not the exact opposite.

If it was originally meant to instill peace and reason, then what would it instill after such distortion occurred? If the Christian religion changed over time to "adjust" to the new times, then how could the verses in the bible that say things to the effect of "his word is like a rock for the foundation of my life" possibly hold any truth to them? Rocks are supposed to be firm and unwavering. That's why houses built on bedrock are less prone to collapse in an earthquake.

How can you believe in something that's constantly changing just to appease people? Minorities, majorities, or whoever?

Golden Legacy, on May 26 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

I would think that you would hold God to different standards than your own. He is supposed to be grand and beyond comprehension. That might be what "doesn't change". After all, to God, what defines "change" for Him would be different than a human being.

That said, if God does not want gays to marry, then why does homosexuality exist in the first place? Why would he create something he wants to be discriminated against?

It doesn't matter whether it's god or a human, unchanging means unchanging. If something changes even the slightest bit, then it has changed. No question.

Watch answered your last question perfectly imo. God allowed evil/sin/etc. to dwell in this world so that we may discern right from wrong, and choose right regardless of the consequences.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on May 28 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

It already has. People have already begun to make cases that "since gays can mary then so should blah blah blah". And just the fact that people are putting that notion out there is reason for concern.

Such as?

[Gio]

Thought I would had a bit of humor to this topic.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142009/news/...htm?&page=1

if you don't want to read the article, basically what it says is that a transgender guy, and his boyfriend fooled the state of New York, and got married, even though gay marriage is illegal.

[Golden Legacy]

Amusing story, wouldn't put it past the Post to have an article like that in there.

While we're all posting links:
http://open.salon.com/blog/palindrome/2009...ut_gay_marriage

Interesting story about the instinct of a kid when asked about gay marriage.

[Lightning Star]

I finally told my parents that I support gay marraige and, being the orthodox Christians and straight-laced, right-wing conservatives they are...they didn't take it too well.

They wouldn't see my view, and they're bent on not letting gays call themselves married. I asked my mom "would you wake up every morning upset because somewhere, some gay couple is finally tying the knot they've worked so hard for" and she wouldn't give me an answer. She just kept saying that this coutnry was founded on God, and that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that God also says that men shouldn't shave their beards and we shouldn't eat pig, yet we do them anyways, and not letting gays marry is like playing God with other peoples lives. Yet they still just won't change their views or even consider that maybe their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

But since then, they haven't brought the topic up, and I'm glad for it. Debating with my mother is like trying to move a mountain. She's even more stubborn than I am!

And as for links, this is a video I made a while back (The guy who commented is my brother, if you're wondering XD) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=58025093

[Saturos S.]

Icy, on Jun 20 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

I finally told my parents that I support gay marraige and, being the orthodox Christians and straight-laced, right-wing conservatives they are...they didn't take it too well.

They wouldn't see my view, and they're bent on not letting gays call themselves married. I asked my mom "would you wake up every morning upset because somewhere, some gay couple is finally tying the knot they've worked so hard for" and she wouldn't give me an answer. She just kept saying that this coutnry was founded on God, and that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that God also says that men shouldn't shave their beards and we shouldn't eat pig, yet we do them anyways, and not letting gays marry is like playing God with other peoples lives. Yet they still just won't change their views or even consider that maybe their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

But since then, they haven't brought the topic up, and I'm glad for it. Debating with my mother is like trying to move a mountain. She's even more stubborn than I am!

And as for links, this is a video I made a while back (The guy who commented is my brother, if you're wondering XD) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=58025093

Yeah, no offense to your mother or anything, but when people reason like that, I think it would be better if some people aren't allowed to vote.

My stance on gay marriage is that should be able too, for all the regular reasons.

[Split Infinity]

My country was founded on disease-ridden convicts.

:]

[Legolastom]

America, home of the brave and the free.

[Drizzy Drake]

^ I lol'd.

Why is gay marriage illegal!?!?

[Caael]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8096453.stm

Nature- 1
Society- 0

[My Best Wishes]

Icy, on Jun 20 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

I finally told my parents that I support gay marraige and, being the orthodox Christians and straight-laced, right-wing conservatives they are...they didn't take it too well.

They wouldn't see my view, and they're bent on not letting gays call themselves married. I asked my mom "would you wake up every morning upset because somewhere, some gay couple is finally tying the knot they've worked so hard for" and she wouldn't give me an answer. She just kept saying that this coutnry was founded on God, and that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that God also says that men shouldn't shave their beards and we shouldn't eat pig, yet we do them anyways, and not letting gays marry is like playing God with other peoples lives. Yet they still just won't change their views or even consider that maybe their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

But since then, they haven't brought the topic up, and I'm glad for it. Debating with my mother is like trying to move a mountain. She's even more stubborn than I am!

And as for links, this is a video I made a while back (The guy who commented is my brother, if you're wondering XD) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=58025093

Source please.

[Quacnar]

Today I told two of my grandparents I am gay.

[Split Infinity]

Combo breaker?

watch, on Jun 21 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Source please.

Various authors, Holy Bible, The. Middle East, c. 4000BC-750AD

[Caael]

Caael, on Jun 21 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8096453.stm

Nature- 1
Society- 0

Bump

[Aquamarine]

killercoz, on Jun 21 2009, 05:04 AM, said:

Today I told two of my grandparents I am gay.

Wow, and how did they react? Do your parents know?

[Quacnar]

Aquamarine, on Jun 21 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Wow, and how did they react? Do your parents know?

Yea, basically everyone who knows me knows. They were the last to find out. They didn't seem to care...

[My Best Wishes]

Split Infinity, on Jun 21 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Combo breaker?
Various authors, Holy Bible, The. Middle East, c. 4000BC-750AD

The smart-ass Toasty act is starting to wear thin. I know as well as you that I wanted a passage of scripture, or failing that just give me the chapter number.

[Split Infinity]

I'm not Toasty, that was just my sarcastic quip for the day. :D

[Lightning Star]

Here you go, Watch:

Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard"

Leviticus 11:4 "There are some that chew only the cud or half a split hoof, but you must not eat them." And then in verse 7, "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

And I just discovered a plethora of obeyed laws by todays standards:

Leviticus19:23 "When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten"

Leviticus 21:5 "Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies." I know a bald priest...

Leviticus 21:9 "If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgrases her father; she must be burned in the fire." Yeah, that'd be murder....

So really, who are we to not let gays marry when all of these laws go ignored? Its such hypocrisy that it's sickening. That's why I even hold back from calling myself a Christian, because I see it as a title of someone who tries to obey the laws to the best of their abilities, but when I see laws such as these, and see how we ignore them from day to day, I feel as if I should just call myself a Believing sinner, but not a Christian.

And I have hunted high and low through my Bibles (I have NIV and King James) to find the verse that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" But I have not found one verse.

[My Best Wishes]

I don't have an answer that you would accept for the verses you posted Icy but I'll ask my dad when he gets back next. I don't know the context or anything for those verses but I'll take a stab and say that some things change with time, such as the law of Moses.

Your thoughts on the following verses?
Lev. 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev. 20: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I'm not talking about the shedding of blood part, just the homosexuality bit. Note that Leviticus talks alot about sexual rules, ie, bestiality, incest, adultery.

[Lightning Star]

Yeah, I noticed that. But God never says that a man should not love another man as he loves a woman. God *is* love, so if a gay couple were to be remain celibate and just be lovers in the emotional sense, I actually don't think there would be any biblical argument against it.

[My Best Wishes]

Well then they are not practising Homosexuality so it's not a sin.

[Lightning Star]

Which is where I say that gay marriage is not a sin, its the intercourse between them that apparently is. When you get married, you are professing that you will love that person through sickness and health until death do you part, not that you're going to go crazy in bed every night. Therefore, a marriage between a gay couple is not a sin, it is the act which takes place in their bed that is. And most homosexual couples are going to, er, fornicate whether or not they're married, so keeping them from getting married is not going to make world any more holier (And it especially isn't going to make them want to become Christians.)

[Caael]

Can somebody please acknowledge the gay penguins?

[Lightning Star]

Gay Penguins acknowledged. That gives points to not only homosexuality but homosexual parents wanting to adopt children. Though I wonder, how did they determine the two are "lovers"? :P

[Quacnar]

Icy, that is a brilliant point! (the one about only the sex would eb a sin not the marriage) I can't wait to argue using it!

[Legolastom]

A world without religion would make it a much holier place.

[Someone Else]

Sometimes it seems like that, as religion has been the root of many wars and atrocities. However, without religion a lot of todays laws/rules/regulations wouldn't exist. Who's to say the world would be all that much better?

[Golden Legacy]

To amend Legolastom's statement, I would say religion away from politics, military, and nationalism would be better. I have no qualms with religion myself, but I do hate to see religion used as a justification to deprive other people of a basic human right.

[Legolastom]

Someone Else, on Jun 25 2009, 04:22 AM, said:

Sometimes it seems like that, as religion has been the root of many wars and atrocities. However, without religion a lot of todays laws/rules/regulations wouldn't exist. Who's to say the world would be all that much better?

Really you think without Religion we wouldnt have law? Without reigion the only laws we wouldnt have are those that are ridiculous or those that protect the rulers of the state.

[Golden Legacy]

I am getting especially miffed at the slogans of, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Rhyming does not an argument make.

@Caael: good article. Homosexuality has been documented in various species of animals, and has been noted in human cultures across the globe for thousands of years.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 26 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

I am getting especially miffed at the slogans of, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Rhyming does not an argument make.

@Caael: good article. Homosexuality has been documented in various species of animals, and has been noted in human cultures across the globe for thousands of years.

But it was Adam and Eve, God didn't intend for us to be homosexual.
Which religion do you follow GL.

[Split Infinity]

God made everything, watch, if I remember correctly.

[Golden Legacy]

Abrahamic in faith (Islam/Christianity), Taoist in spirit, secular in mind.

watch, on Jun 26 2009, 03:13 AM, said:

But it was Adam and Eve, God didn't intend for us to be homosexual.

Then why does homosexuality exist? God creates something that he didn't "intend" for?

[Legolastom]

God created us and every thing about us, that means that everything we do is because of God. Everything.

[Lightning Star]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 25 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

I am getting especially miffed at the slogans of, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Rhyming does not an argument make.

That's EXACTLY what my dad said to me when I was arguing with them about this. urggh. God also made us in his own image. And God is also love. So how can we homosexuals be wrong for loving each other, if what they're doing is actually God-like?

(oh, haha, I totally didn't mean to stick the "we" in there--just a question...if you're bi-sexual, would you technically be homosexual, because you *do* like the same gender...but you also like the opposite?)

[Golden Legacy]

Bisexuality and homosexuality are considered separate, though don't quote me on that. I always make sure to refer to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, as they are all unique (related, but still different).

I must find the article, but I remember reading on scientific research that said every woman is inherently bisexual, to varying degrees. Those that are heterosexuals of course display this bisexuality on far lower levels, but it is still present.

[Split Infinity]

That took scientific research?

Most of the straight girls I know can't keep their hands off each other. :/

[My Best Wishes]

Split Infinity, on Jun 26 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

God made everything, watch, if I remember correctly.

I didn't say the opposite, I said he didn't intend.

watch, on Jun 26 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

But it was Adam and Eve, God didn't intend for us to be homosexual.

Golden Legacy, on Jun 27 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

Abrahamic in faith (Islam/Christianity), Taoist in spirit, secular in mind.
Then why does homosexuality exist? God creates something that he didn't "intend" for?

So effectively Agnostic?

watch, on May 27 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Why did God create wickedness? Why war, hunger, sickness, poverty, hate. We are given agency for a reason to know right from wrong, that is the purpose of this life.

Alma 34:32: “This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.”

Moses 6: 56: And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

[Golden Legacy]

Split Infinity, on Jun 26 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

That took scientific research?

Most of the straight girls I know can't keep their hands off each other. :/

Is that so? Perhaps I've been, err, missing out.

watch, on Jun 26 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

So effectively Agnostic?

Not so much, no. I believe in God, and specifically the Abrahamic faith surrounding God. I've given salat five times a day and gone to mass, and prayer is something I do regularly. It's a part of myself and my identity, but the immediate way I live life is more of a "let be" philosophy, hence the Taoist part. Religion is for me personally, my politics and everyday knowledge of the world is strictly secular, I keep the two parts separate as part of my broader overview.

In short, it's complicated, but for all intents and purposes I do believe in God, I just prefer to keep that part to myself.

[Split Infinity]

You, sir, are the best kind of believer.

watch, on Jun 27 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

I didn't say the opposite, I said he didn't intend.

Times like this make me wonder why he would have created the human race at all, then. For a deity existing to cleanse the world of sin, he sure screwed up when he made us. And he must have known we'd oppose his word and commit evil during every day of our collective existence, because you know, he's God. The guy's all-knowing.

[Eugine]

I suggest reading the Bible before commenting on God =] [watch is a LDS so narrowed it to the Bible]
You're way too general btw Jack.

God doesn't exist to cleanse the world of sin. He was here before sin, and will be here after sin. Alpha and Omega.
Also, last time I checked, man willingly chose the path we're on. It was not God intention for us to be sinners.

Anyway, for the record, I am for gay marriage.

[Split Infinity]

Well I never said he didn't exist for other reasons.

Eugine, on Jun 27 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

Also, last time I checked, man willingly chose the path we're on. It was not God intention for us to be sinners.

My point was that he would have known, though.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Jun 27 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

Anyway, for the record, I am for gay marriage.

I'd like to hear you elaborate more on your personal views.

[Lightning Star]

Eugine, on Jun 26 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

I suggest reading the Bible before commenting on God =] [watch is a LDS so narrowed it to the Bible]
You're way too general btw Jack.

God doesn't exist to cleanse the world of sin. He was here before sin, and will be here after sin. Alpha and Omega.
Also, last time I checked, man willingly chose the path we're on. It was not God intention for us to be sinners.

Anyway, for the record, I am for gay marriage.

You are oficially my favorite Christian, Eugine -_-

Its actually really rare to find many Christians for gay marriage, and to be quite honest, its probably the main reason why I've "grown away" from God, though not so much that I would renounce my beliefs. I'm like Riad. I try to keep my religion and my politics separate, because that's how America governs, and that's what is fair to everyone.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 27 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

In short, it's complicated, but for all intents and purposes I do believe in God, I just prefer to keep that part to myself.

So you believe in God but keep your opinions and thoughts separate to God and religion?

Eugine, on Jun 27 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

I suggest reading the Bible before commenting on God =] [watch is a LDS so narrowed it to the Bible]

I assumed this was directed at me. Where do you believe I've gone wrong with writing about God? And I don't get the highlighted part of your post. What does me being LDS have anything to do with the Bible?

Split Infinity, on Jun 27 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

Well I never said he didn't exist for other reasons.
My point was that he would have known, though.

The part where religion constantly directs to the fact that this life is a test and we make our own choices has missed you how? You keep asking why God 'created' sin and evil, and why he bothered with us, it's a test.

[Split Infinity]

Right. Even though it's a pointless test.

[My Best Wishes]

How is it a pointless test?

[Split Infinity]

Why bother testing something when you're fully aware of the outcome?

Or simply creating something for the sole purpose of testing it?

[Moonear]

Split Infinity, on Jun 27 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

Why bother testing something when you're fully aware of the outcome?

Yeah, that's something that's troubled me about religion. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why does he give us the choice of what to do? He already knows exactly what's going to happen, and he is able to cause whatever he wants to happen. What's the point of the test? I have yet to find someone to give me the answer to my question. I really want to know the because I still try to keep faith.

[Split Infinity]

To develop our sense of judgment through constant temptation, I suppose. But that doesn't even matter since we're already assigned to heaven or hell at birth. :/

[My Best Wishes]

Split Infinity, on Jun 27 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Why bother testing something when you're fully aware of the outcome?

Or simply creating something for the sole purpose of testing it?

Because we're the ones are we being tested, we don't know the outcome. And you signed up for this life.

Split Infinity, on Jun 27 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

But that doesn't even matter since we're already assigned to heaven or hell at birth. :/

Must have missed that bit in my almost 19 years of Church attendance.

[Caael]

watch, on Jun 28 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

And you signed up for this life.

No I didn't.

[My Best Wishes]

Caael, on Jun 28 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

No I didn't.

D&C 29: 36-38
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
37 And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;
38 And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.

Rev. 12: 7-11
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Moses 4: 1-4
1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.


Abr. 3: 27-28
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Well you didn't elect to be thrown out of Heaven with Satan and his followers, and considering it was either side with Satan or Jesus, and only the followers of Jesus came to Earth. Well you can figure out the rest.

[Enoch]

I didn't even know this convo existed. Ok, I'm throwing my opinion in this jungle.

The way I was always taught about God and sin, is that God never created sin. Try this thought for just a moment. God created everything that is "creatable." Darkness in essance isn't something that you see, but what you are actualy seeing is a lack of light. Likewise you have never really felt cold, but have actualy felt a lack of warmth. Both Warmth and light have to come from some acting presence (ex: the sun). Take away that presence, and suddenly you are left with a lack of warmth and light, or in other words, cold and darkness.

Applying this religiously, God did not create sin but he actualy produces good and holy. Take away those things and all that's left is sin. Sin isn't directly made by God, but it is the absence of God or God's influence.

Also applying it (from a christian p.o.v.) to homosexuality. God did not create homosexuality, but homosexuality is, biblicly speaking, another lack of God's influence in someones life.

This is only the way I had it explained to me. Also Einstien was quoted to have made this same argument at one point.

[Golden Legacy]

I would love to hear said Einstein quote. You've explained your point of view, that said, and while I do not agree that homosexuality is an "absence of God" in someone's life, I recognize that this is a commonly used argument by those who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.

Regretfully, neither you Enoch nor watch properly account for the fact that homosexuality is in fact a natural occurrence for people. It is rooted in their physical being. How do you explain that homosexuality is, in your words, "another lack of God's influence in someones life", when people are born that way?

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 28 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I would love to hear said Einstein quote. You've explained your point of view, that said, and while I do not agree that homosexuality is an "absence of God" in someone's life, I recognize that this is a commonly used argument by those who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.

Regretfully, neither you Enoch nor watch properly account for the fact that homosexuality is in fact a natural occurrence for people. It is rooted in their physical being. How do you explain that homosexuality is, in your words, "another lack of God's influence in someones life", when people are born that way?

I can explain it really easily. It's cause Homosexualtiy is neither natural or genetic, it's a fault of mind, or a disease or whatever terminology you wish to use. Homosexuality is man made. I may have no proof for my argument, but I have never seen proof for the opposite posted on these boards by anyone, not Coz, GL, Eugine etc

[Split Infinity]

So then why do you see fit to legally condemn millions for something for which they claim to have no control over, for which you have no evidence indicating otherwise, and for which you're only opposed to due to your own personal, arbitrary reasons?

[Caael]

watch, on Jun 28 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

D&C 29: 36-38
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
37 And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;
38 And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.

Rev. 12: 7-11
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Moses 4: 1-4
1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.


Abr. 3: 27-28
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Well you didn't elect to be thrown out of Heaven with Satan and his followers, and considering it was either side with Satan or Jesus, and only the followers of Jesus came to Earth. Well you can figure out the rest.

I said I didn't, not what a bunch of easily manipulated people millenia ago did.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on Jun 28 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

it's a fault of mind, or a disease or whatever terminology you wish to use. Homosexuality is man made.

A "fault of mind"? Are you sure you want to be in a contemporary society that enshrines the rights of all people?

Here, oh enlightened ones, for you, DS, Toasty, and every other individual who prides himself on "morality" and can look at themselves in the mirror denying basic rights for fellow human beings. This is something that the Bible will never be able to tell you.

We start with the presence of homosexuality in nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE...DFA&index=0
http://www.pww.org/a...icleview/16165/

The inherent development of homosexuality in humans.
http://www.apahelpce...ticle.php?id=31
http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM...ty_Revision.pdf
http://www.psychiatr.../recalling.html

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
---

For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria. (While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning. Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.

The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).
---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/0...ty-genetics-usa
US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

http://www.theatlant...xuality-biology

That some human beings engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex has, of course, been noted since antiquity. Historically, however, the focus was on the acts themselves rather than on the actors. The historian John Boswell, of Yale, has noted that during the Middle Ages "same-sex sex" was regarded as a sin, but those who committed that sin were not defined as constituting a type of people different from others. Between the sixteenth and the eighteenth century same-sex sex became a crime as well as a sin, but again, those who committed such crimes were not categorized as a class of human being. This changed in the nineteenth century, when modern medicine and particularly the science of psychiatry came to view homosexuality as a form of mental illness. By the 1940s homosexuality was discussed as an aspect of psychopathic, paranoid, and schizoid personality disorders.

Having defined homosexuality as a pathology, psychiatrists and other doctors made bold to "treat" it. James Harrison, a psychologist who produced the 1992 documentary film Changing Our Minds, notes that the medical profession viewed homosexuality with such abhorrence that virtually any proposed treatment seemed defensible. Lesbians were forced to submit to hysterectomies and estrogen injections, although it became clear that neither of these had any effect on their sexual orientation. Gay men were subjected to similar abuses. Changing Our Minds incorporates a film clip from the late 1940s, now slightly muddy, of a young gay man undergoing a transorbital lobotomy. We see a small device like an ice pick inserted through the eye socket, above the eyeball and into the brain. The pick is moved back and forth, reducing the prefrontal lobe to a hemorrhaging pulp. Harrison's documentary also includes a grainy black-and-white clip from a 1950s educational film produced by the U.S. Navy. A gay man lies in a hospital bed. Doctors strap him down and attach electrodes to his head. "We're going to help you get better," says a male voice in the background. When the power is turned on, the body of the gay man jerks violently, and he begins to scream. Doctors also tried castration and various kinds of aversion therapy. None of these could be shown to change the sexual orientation of the people involved.

Among those who looked into the matter was the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, whose 1948 report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male showed homosexuality to be surprisingly common across lines of family, class, and educational and geographic background. In his book Being Homosexual, the psychoanalyst Richard Isay writes,

Kinsey and his co-workers for many years attempted to find patients who had been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality during therapy, and were surprised that they could not find one whose sexual orientation had been changed. When they interviewed persons who claimed they had been homosexuals but were now functioning heterosexually, they found that all these men were simply suppressing homosexual behavior. . . and that they used homosexual fantasies to maintain potency when they attempted intercourse. One man claimed that, although he had once been actively homosexual, he had now "cut out all of that and don't even think of men—except when I masturbate."
---

If homosexuality is largely genetic in origin, then the more closely related that people are, the greater should be the concordance of their sexual orientation.

That is, in fact, what the study found. Bailey and Pillard reported a gay-gay concordance rate of 11 percent for the adoptive brothers, 22 percent for the dizygotic twins, and 52 percent for the monozygotic twins. The findings suggest that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics—by some measures up to 70 percent attributable, according to Pillard. This figure is based on something geneticists call "heritability," a painstakingly calculated indicator of how much genes have to do with a given variation among people.


Key takeaways--there's definitely a biological component, and homosexuality occurs at a low level in almost every species, in essence making it natural even if not reproductive.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 27 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

Not so much, no. I believe in God, and specifically the Abrahamic faith surrounding God. I've given salat five times a day and gone to mass, and prayer is something I do regularly. It's a part of myself and my identity, but the immediate way I live life is more of a "let be" philosophy, hence the Taoist part. Religion is for me personally, my politics and everyday knowledge of the world is strictly secular, I keep the two parts separate as part of my broader overview.

In short, it's complicated, but for all intents and purposes I do believe in God, I just prefer to keep that part to myself.

Back track for a second, I have a point here.
You state you believe in God in the Abrahamic faith, so inclusive of Christianity. Do you then put your faith and trust in God?

[Enoch]

I don't know everything about Christianity, probobly not as much as watch does.

I feel that there are a few reasons why homosexuality is (in some cases) instinctively/naturaly spawned. The universe itself is a naturaly unorganized place, without a certain being, God if you will, to give it order. If a person is left without proper instructions on how to do something complex, they don't do as well. Life is a complex process, and inspired scripture is God's instructions for us to go through life.

That said, God gives everyone a trial to keep them humble, or even to overcome and conquer through adversity. Something they need to overcome especially. For example: being born in an abusive household, being diagnosed with a fatal disease, or having a same sex attraction. I personally know people who have overcome all of the above. They are some of the most purist, spiritual people you have ever seen. They have conquered through adversity.

I don't imagine that all christians share my beliefs on life, so feel free to consider my points objectively as you have. I don't take offense.

Edit: I simply removed the link. It wasn't a reliable/ true source.

[Legolastom]

The universe and Humans, are not unorganized we are not Chaos and without God we ARE something why do you think we need God to fulfill us? When the human race is more than capable or fixing any problem and creating a perfect world, it’s the notion of Religion. God and an afterlife that keeps men in their place and keeps them content with what little they have.

But still in America which is supposed to be “The leader of the free world” you take away peoples freedom based on reason which have NO ground, outside of religion.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on Jun 29 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

Back track for a second, I have a point here.
You state you believe in God in the Abrahamic faith, so inclusive of Christianity. Do you then put your faith and trust in God?

I see you're not responding to my post.

Enoch, on Jun 29 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

I feel that there are a few reasons why homosexuality is (in some cases) instinctively/naturaly spawned. The universe itself is a naturaly unorganized place, without a certain being, God if you will, to give it order. If a person is left without proper instructions on how to do something complex, they don't do as well. Life is a complex process, and inspired scripture is God's instructions for us to go through life.

So you're sticking by your word that homosexuality is a "lack of God"

Quote

That said, God gives everyone a trial to keep them humble, or even to overcome and conquer through adversity. Something they need to overcome especially. For example: being born in an abusive household, being diagnosed with a fatal disease, or having a same sex attraction. I personally know people who have overcome all of the above. They are some of the most purist, spiritual people you have ever seen. They have conquered through adversity.

Let me guess. A homosexual has to "overcome" his trial and 'adversity' from God, to become a heterosexual. I'll have you know some of the most amazing, pure, insightful, and friendly people I've ever met are gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

Do me a favor, respond to the post above with the research on homosexuality. How do you account for that in your view?

Quote

Link for Eistein argument He applies it to the existance of God.

You do realize it says this is False.

Legolastom, on Jun 29 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

But still in America which is supposed to be “The leader of the free world” you take away peoples freedom based on reason which have NO ground, outside of religion.

Off the top of my head, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Canada allow same-sex marriages, with a few others I can't remember. What's the status in Britain?

[Enoch]

Eh, my bad. It still sounded nice, and it illustrated a belief I had long before I ever heard that story. Regardless of the validity of the story, it still shows what a lot of christians believe.

What kind of research do you want me to find? I'm not going by a scientific basis right now. I don't doubt that the research you found comes from reliable sources either. My point right now is strictly belief based. I know a very friendly man who is gay. He is a friend of mine, even though he is aware of my beliefs.

My beliefs are as follows; God created man and woman to reproduce and replenish the earth. Homosexuality is self-defeating to that purpose. Man and women are only suppose to have one mate, and that one mate should be of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a trial given to a few to overcome and become better. Many do overcome that trial, and many do not. Someone who is gay, is not bad or indecent, they just have an obstacle to overcome. Homosexuality is something that can be overcome. Those are my beliefs.

Edit: I should also add this in as well. Though homosexuality is against the order of God, I do not believe that gays will go to hell. Those who are familiar with the "degrees of glory" would understand why I feel that way.

[My Best Wishes]

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

But still in America which is supposed to be “The leader of the free world” you take away peoples freedom based on reason which have NO ground, outside of religion.

You realise that the people of California voted to overturn the law on Gay Marriage, as in the people, like you and me, voted to return marriage to only a man and a women.

Golden Legacy, on Jun 30 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

I see you're not responding to my post.

You would be correct in that, but did you read the part that said I had a point? Answer mine and then I'll see if I'm capable of answering yours.

You ever go on your mission Enoch? Flattering to say you think I know more -_-
I think I should also make the distinction in beliefs that Enoch and I share, that Homosexuality is wrong, not that Homosexuals are bad people or anything. It's the act, not the person.

[Legolastom]

watch, on Jun 30 2009, 06:08 AM, said:

You realise that the people of California voted to overturn the law on Gay Marriage, as in the people, like you and me, voted to return marriage to only a man and a women.

And you think that makes it ok?

Golden Legacy, on Jun 30 2009, 12:41 AM, said:

Off the top of my head, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Canada allow same-sex marriages, with a few others I can't remember. What's the status in Britain?

It is legal.

[My Best Wishes]

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

And you think that makes it ok?

We live in a society were the majority rules, and if we choose our leaders that way then yes I think it makes it ok. It's nice to know that for once people are not complete idiots.
Also, guess which Nation doesn't recognise Gay Marriage.

[Legolastom]

Majority rules? If you say so...

And what? What nation doesn't recognise Gay marriage?

Also the majority thought Hitler was a good leader and the majority thoughts slaves shouldnt be abolished a long time ago.

[Split Infinity]

He's referring to your country, making the implication that you're a hypocrite. I think.

[Legolastom]

That is interesting.

[Enoch]

watch, on Jun 30 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

You ever go on your mission Enoch?

Yes I did. You were right, it was the best thing I had ever done.

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

Majority rules? If you say so...

And what? What nation doesn't recognise Gay marriage?

Also the majority thought Hitler was a good leader and the majority thoughts slaves shouldnt be abolished a long time ago.

At first Hitler actualy improved the suffering German economy. He was capable of arousing the German citizens to improve the economy. At first he had everyone fooled, not just Germany. It wasn't until people started to notice that he was depriving them of their rights, and when the time came for people to stop him, he had already taken total control.
That kind of mistake can happen to any nation. who knows what kind of a leader we have today, will end up being a monster the next day.

The point is that depriving a nation of it's freedom to choose is damaging in it's own respect. Stopping those who preach anti-gay marriage is just as wrong as stopping those who preach for gay marriage (Not that anyone here is prohibiting freedom of speech).

[Legolastom]

Everything you say is true; but Hitler had radical views when he was voted in as well however the whole point is that those who preach against gay marriage in the eyes of those who support gay marriage are no better than those who preach racism or sexism.

However would you say depriving people of their freedom because a majority says so is right even though there is no reason non-religiously?

[Aquamarine]

This topic is frickin' hilarious.

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

And you think that makes it ok?



It is legal.

Not entirely, we get civil partnerships here which is basically the same thing, just with a different name

[Lightning Star]

I don't seem to find the part where this is hilarious. You're saying that taking away a large, over-powerful government's free agency is wrong, but taking away a few thousand human being's free agency isn't? And it's funny?

Also, that bodily variance which does not hinder one's ability to function in every day life is not a disease, just simply that-- a normal variance. I mean, by what you're saying, why don't we take away the rights of those who have cancer? Do we call those who are born blind "sinners"? No. That's Old Testament stuff, when those who were diseased became that way because of their sins and the sins of their parents. But no. We still have to be prejudiced against those who favor one gender over the other. I'm glad the bible didn't tell us that nobody in the world shall like purple, 'cause I'd really be damned to hell.

It's a preference, and beyond that...well, maybe it's personal, but keeping two people who truly love each other more than anything in the world seems like much more of a sin than anything else. To know that you can never be truly together with the one person you would DIE for is one of the most awful feelings in the world (though you guys who have never gone through that probably can't understand it). And it's all because some organized religion decided that they should have say over your personal life, and not only that, put your personal life up for a State-wide vote. It's separation of church and state, and I'll be damned if I let what my country was founded upon be manipulated by the self interest of a highly funded organized religion--Even if it is my own religion.

[King Hydros]

Well, I am going to put my two cents in, though most of the value in the two cents has already been stated thus making this redundant. To be blunt, I am for gay marrige, because I am gay myself.

Now I obviously respect all other views and religions as equal to my own and do not wish to insult any one person in anyway.

In French 3 which constituted of another classmate and my slighly(gross understatement) outlandish teacher(Devivi, I love you! But really, which French teacher is normal? If you have one let me know.) we talked about many issues in society and this topic being one of them as well as many others such as existentalisim, and religions in general. However when we talked about this issue we all agreed that it should be allowed, and trust me we live in a very elephantine community. We agreed because it was for love's sake and that marrige shouldn't be defined by a single religion but by individuals. Take spousal abuse for example, legally they are married but we all know that it isn't emotional anymore thus ununiting them spirtually. This was an example we tossed around in French alot.

When it comes down to law, marrige law by the Constitution(U.S.A. residents only) is not given to the federal government; it is given to the state government. That is where we should start.

What I am trying to say I guess is that marrige is in the eye of the beholder and that we should not just have one idea of marrige but multiple ideas that can co-exist.

[Aquamarine]

Icy, on Jul 1 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

I don't seem to find the part where this is hilarious. You're saying that taking away a large, over-powerful government's free agency is wrong, but taking away a few thousand human being's free agency isn't? And it's funny?

Also, that bodily variance which does not hinder one's ability to function in every day life is not a disease, just simply that-- a normal variance. I mean, by what you're saying, why don't we take away the rights of those who have cancer? Do we call those who are born blind "sinners"? No. That's Old Testament stuff, when those who were diseased became that way because of their sins and the sins of their parents. But no. We still have to be prejudiced against those who favor one gender over the other. I'm glad the bible didn't tell us that nobody in the world shall like purple, 'cause I'd really be damned to hell.

It's a preference, and beyond that...well, maybe it's personal, but keeping two people who truly love each other more than anything in the world seems like much more of a sin than anything else. To know that you can never be truly together with the one person you would DIE for is one of the most awful feelings in the world (though you guys who have never gone through that probably can't understand it). And it's all because some organized religion decided that they should have say over your personal life, and not only that, put your personal life up for a State-wide vote. It's separation of church and state, and I'll be damned if I let what my country was founded upon be manipulated by the self interest of a highly funded organized religion--Even if it is my own religion.

... Wait, is this aimed at me?

Icy, I'm completely pro homosexuality.

The people of this forum who aren't are what I find hilarious about this thread.

[Moonear]

Aquamarine, on Jun 30 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

... Wait, is this aimed at me?

Icy, I'm completely pro homosexuality.

The people of this forum who aren't are what I find hilarious about this thread.

I think Aqua's right. It actually is pretty laughable that in this day and age, there are still people prejudiced enough to believe that homosexuals don't receive the same rights as everyone else. When we look back on the way African Americans were treated, it seems like a pretty ridiculous notion. If gay marriage ever become legal in all states of the USA, then I'm sure that people 100 years from now will wonder why society ever denied gays the right to marry.

[Split Infinity]

I'd like to take this moment to reference Godwin's Law, by the way.

Tom loses the thread.

[My Best Wishes]

Legolastom, on Jun 30 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

Majority rules? If you say so...

And what? What nation doesn't recognise Gay marriage?

Also the majority thought Hitler was a good leader and the majority thoughts slaves shouldn't be abolished a long time ago.

Well our Democratic system is based on who gets the most votes, so yes majority rules.
And aside from what Split said I was actually referring to Australia, mostly because we've got our head screwed on properly with most issues.
Also notice how I said the majority wasn't always right and I said it's nice to see for once people are correct? And Hitler was a good leader, for Germany, he took Germany from a slump and turned it into a world power. His actions were wicked and he was a terrible man, but a great leader, like Stalin with his 5 year plans.

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

Yes I did. You were right, it was the best thing I had ever done.

Where did you serve?

Aquamarine, on Jul 1 2009, 02:51 AM, said:

This topic is frickin' hilarious.

ihatekraden, on Jul 1 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

I think Aqua's right. It actually is pretty laughable that in this day and age, there are still people prejudiced enough to believe that homosexuals don't receive the same rights as everyone else. When we look back on the way African Americans were treated, it seems like a pretty ridiculous notion. If gay marriage ever become legal in all states of the USA, then I'm sure that people 100 years from now will wonder why society ever denied gays the right to marry.

I love how just because a few of us have different views it's laughable, because that is being truly tolerant.
I have a confession though, I really didn't know such a high percentage of people were pro-homosexuality before these forums, I knew my cousin always was but I thought he was part of the minority, maybe overseas is just different.

[Moonear]

I simply don't think it's right that you and many other people having these different views is stopping certain humans from having the same rights as everyone else.

[Someone Else]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/WindDude/1246021627209.gif

Homosexuality debates are funny. Just leave them alone, let them get married. What are you afraid of? All the married gay couples gonna drop a gay bomb on you?

[Lightning Star]

Aquamarine, on Jun 30 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

... Wait, is this aimed at me?

Icy, I'm completely pro homosexuality.

The people of this forum who aren't are what I find hilarious about this thread.

afjkadsflds. For some reason, I mixed you up with Watch. I do that. I don't look at the name, just vaguely glance at the avatar, and if it resembles someone's, I peg you for that person. My apologies! D:

And I would laugh except it bothers me to the point that I hardly find it a laughing matter--that there are so many people out there that don't realize that they're stepping on something so beautiful without any true reason than some old orthodox beliefs that are taken out of context and don't even apply. It pains me to know that if someday, I truly do find the love of my life, and she's a girl, that I won't be able to be completely united with her, because someone across the country didn't think it was "right." When I might wake up every morning wondering what's going to happen to her if I die, knowing that her and maybe my adopted children won't have the same financial security that other married couples have; yet, those anti-gay-marriage couples don't even think about the impact that they would be having on myself and my "partner". And I dare say that if we were to get the vote, if we were to have those rights, they wouldn't wake up mad at the world that somewhere out there, a couple who TRULY loves each other is finally having that love recognized.They wouldn't think about it, it wouldn't even hinder their lives, but instead, they would choose to let it hinder ours, and that's just not fair.

"It's called liberty and justice and freedom for ALL...not a few."

[Legolastom]

Caael, on Jun 30 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

Not entirely, we get civil partnerships here which is basically the same thing, just with a different name

I just rmemberd that thing on the news a while ago where a Christian lady didnt allow two people to be married or something.

This is a **** country anyway want to move to europe when I grow up.

[Enoch]

watch, on Jun 30 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

Where did you serve?
I love how just because a few of us have different views it's laughable, because that is being truly tolerant.
I have a confession though, I really didn't know such a high percentage of people were pro-homosexuality before these forums, I knew my cousin always was but I thought he was part of the minority, maybe overseas is just different.

I served State-side. Montana Mission.

I don't know about minority, but I do know that those who are against gay marriage usualy aren't as vocal about it. Both California, and more recently New York, voted against Gay marriage. 2 of the most populist states in the US.

ihatekraden, on Jun 30 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

I simply don't think it's right that you and many other people having these different views is stopping certain humans from having the same rights as everyone else.

I'm not stopping anyone from having the same rights. By tradition, marriage is a union recognized by God, between a man and a woman. Anyone can have one. It's what a marriage always was.

Icy, on Jul 1 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

And I would laugh except it bothers me to the point that I hardly find it a laughing matter--that there are so many people out there that don't realize that they're stepping on something so beautiful without any true reason than some old orthodox beliefs that are taken out of context and don't even apply. It pains me to know that if someday, I truly do find the love of my life, and she's a girl, that I won't be able to be completely united with her, because someone across the country didn't think it was "right." When I might wake up every morning wondering what's going to happen to her if I die, knowing that her and maybe my adopted children won't have the same financial security that other married couples have; yet, those anti-gay-marriage couples don't even think about the impact that they would be having on myself and my "partner". And I dare say that if we were to get the vote, if we were to have those rights, they wouldn't wake up mad at the world that somewhere out there, a couple who TRULY loves each other is finally having that love recognized.They wouldn't think about it, it wouldn't even hinder their lives, but instead, they would choose to let it hinder ours, and that's just not fair.

"It's called liberty and justice and freedom for ALL...not a few."

We aren't stepping on it. We are simply trying to keep it what it always was. The "Old orthodox beliefs" is what helped form US law in the first place. It isn't just the Orthodox faith anymore. Try the Vast majority of popular religion in general, as well as the ancient cultural beliefs (except for possibly Sodom and Gomorah and others like them) predating Jesus Christ himself. God spoke against union of the same sex for who knows how long. The Bible isn't the only religious text that speaks against Gay marriage. Jew and Muslim believe the same. I don't have to go into all the other faiths. You can do that research on your own, and come to the same conclusion.

And someone across the country can't influence Gay marriage in your state now anyways.

God wants the world to have children and reproduce. That is something that most can agree on, and even atheists can agree that reproduction is a good thing. The fact is that a society that chooses not to reproduce is a society that is headed for failure. Idealizing same sex marriage is against the laws of God, and counteractive to advancing a society. From the cradle of time, women were known for being the most valuable resource because of there reproductive roles. Marriage is a sacred right between a man and a women, and it is open to all who wish to uphold the sacredness of it. The sacredness of it is found in the belief. If homosexuals don't have that belief then why do they wish to pursue marriage?

[Caael]

Quote

We aren't stepping on it. We are simply trying to keep it what it always was. The "Old orthodox beliefs" is what helped form US law in the first place. It isn't just the Orthodox faith anymore. Try the Vast majority of popular religion in general, as well as the ancient cultural beliefs (except for possibly Sodom and Gomorah and others like them) predating Jesus Christ himself. God spoke against union of the same sex for who knows how long. The Bible isn't the only religious text that speaks against Gay marriage. Jew and Muslim believe the same. I don't have to go into all the other faiths. You can do that research on your own, and come to the same conclusion.

And someone across the country can't influence Gay marriage in your state now anyways.

God wants the world to have children and reproduce. That is something that most can agree on, and even atheists can agree that reproduction is a good thing. The fact is that a society that chooses not to reproduce is a society that is headed for failure. Idealizing same sex marriage is against the laws of God, and counteractive to advancing a society. From the cradle of time, women were known for being the most valuable resource because of there reproductive roles. Marriage is a sacred right between a man and a women, and it is open to all who wish to uphold the sacredness of it. The sacredness of it is found in the belief. If homosexuals don't have that belief then why do they wish to pursue marriage?

http://commiejournal.net/m/2290499_files/no_one_cares.jpg

What was relevant 2000 years ago is not relevant now. I dont know if you've noticed, but the world is vastly overpopulated right now so I hardly think reproduction is the number one point on everybody's list.

[Legolastom]

Yeah seriously the reproduction argumant is completely bull**** if a small percentage of the population cannot have children in a world that is getting closer and closer to dangerous levels of overpopulation at a faster rate I say let them.

[Lightning Star]

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

I served State-side. Montana Mission.

I don't know about minority, but I do know that those who are against gay marriage usualy aren't as vocal about it. Both California, and more recently New York, voted against Gay marriage. 2 of the most populist states in the US.

Yeah, and the majority of the country voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean there aren't millions out there that highly disagree. Just because you got a 2 percent advantage over another group means nothing. It's because the older generations are the ones voting, and their orthodox beliefs are being put into play. But the much of the newer generations, the ones who have seen the errs of the old generation were unable to vote in the last california election. Many of the northern states (Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa) already allow gay marriage, and many will be allowing it within the next year (Vermont, Maine, NH)--Some of the very same states that began this country.

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

I'm not stopping anyone from having the same rights. By tradition, marriage is a union recognized by God, between a man and a woman. Anyone can have one. It's what a marriage always was.

Actually, I have hunted high and low through the bible, and no where does it say that a marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Don't forget, I am a Christian too--just one that's for gay-marriage.

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

We aren't stepping on it. We are simply trying to keep it what it always was. The "Old orthodox beliefs" is what helped form US law in the first place. It isn't just the Orthodox faith anymore. Try the Vast majority of popular religion in general, as well as the ancient cultural beliefs (except for possibly Sodom and Gomorah and others like them) predating Jesus Christ himself. God spoke against union of the same sex for who knows how long. The Bible isn't the only religious text that speaks against Gay marriage. Jew and Muslim believe the same. I don't have to go into all the other faiths. You can do that research on your own, and come to the same conclusion.

I have done very extensive research, and I can only find one passage in the Bible that is against sex between two males (not females, though), yet absolutely NOTHING that says they can't get married. And the Bible takes that law from the Jewish belief, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) but Islam takes many of the laws from the Bible as well--they believe that Moses, who received the law against homosexual fornication, was a prophet of God (Note that Islam was dated around 600 AD, so it's after Jesus came)

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

And someone across the country can't influence Gay marriage in your state now anyways.

Haha, and thank god for that. I meant someone across the state, my bad. (And in my state, that's over a couple hundred miles ;])

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

God wants the world to have children and reproduce. That is something that most can agree on, and even atheists can agree that reproduction is a good thing. The fact is that a society that chooses not to reproduce is a society that is headed for failure. Idealizing same sex marriage is against the laws of God, and counteractive to advancing a society.

Yet we have children desperately needing loving parents and families in orphanages, some of which are overflowing. We have cities that are getting way too crowded (Mumbai, India anyone?) If you truly believe what you said, then you should also be advocating against birth control, because that is also counter productive to a "reproducing society" as well.

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

From the cradle of time, women were known for being the most valuable resource because of there reproductive roles. Marriage is a sacred right between a man and a women, and it is open to all who wish to uphold the sacredness of it. The sacredness of it is found in the belief.

Which is why women have been overshadowed by men since the cradle of time? I still am trying to get an answer out of the anti-gay marriage folk where exactly the Bible says that Marriage is solely between a man and woman, and giving it to a gay couple makes it un-sacred? God is the final authority, in our religion, on what is sacred or not. If some gay couple gets married, they're not going to undermine God's authority and power.

Enoch, on Jul 1 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

If homosexuals don't have that belief then why do they wish to pursue marriage?

Would you give up your 180 rights of a marriage and settle for the 30 some odd rights of a domestic partnership, because some religion didn't approve? I don't think so-- you should never ask anyone to do something that you yourself could not do. Marriage can also be given to a couple by the state, without a priest to ordain it, and even to an atheist couple. By what you're saying, we shouldn't give marriages to atheist couples as well, because they don't see it as being sacred by God. As for me? I know I'd want a marriage because there's something about that commitment, y'know, till death do you part, that allows you call out to the world that you truly love your partner, and would not stand to let anyone undermine that.

[Split Infinity]

Icy, on Jul 2 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

I have done very extensive research, and I can only find one passage in the Bible that is against sex between two males (not females, though)

...I was going to say something, but my tact seems to be failing me recently so, yeah. Flying mammal.

I think I pointed this out earlier, and like Icy said, marriage isn't a solely religious ceremony; it's been embraced into modern culture as a simple union between two willing partners, be it 'sacred' or not. You don't need to be bathed in the glorious light of the Creator just to obtain a legal right.

[My Best Wishes]

How about this. Enoch and I believe in God, and actually have faith in him. God says Homosexuality is wrong, I'll take him on his word, seeing as he's, you know, God and all.

[Aquamarine]

Split Infinity, on Jul 2 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

...I was going to say something, but my tact seems to be failing me recently so, yeah. Flying mammal.

I think I pointed this out earlier, and like Icy said, marriage isn't a solely religious ceremony; it's been embraced into modern culture as a simple union between two willing partners, be it 'sacred' or not. You don't need to be bathed in the glorious light of the Creator just to obtain a legal right.

VIVA LAS VEGAS!

[Drizzy Drake]

The church once murdered people for their beliefs Caael. Give it time and homophobia will be looked upon with shame in a couple hundred years.I mean, we all know how inconsistent the catholic church is...

[Lightning Star]

watch, on Jul 1 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

How about this. Enoch and I believe in God, and actually have faith in him. God says Homosexuality is wrong, I'll take him on his word, seeing as he's, you know, God and all.

*facepalm* Where? WHERE? Alright, so it's against a male having sex with another male (note that God does address women in that passage but not when it comes to homosexuality). I believe in God too, but I don't believe in picking and choosing which laws from Leviticus we follow and which ones we don't based on what society says. It's called not being hypocritical, as we Christians are so often pegged for being.

But if you're going to say you believe that God says that gay marriage is wrong and that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, without having any actual Bible verse or scripture to back your claim...well, that's just ridiculous.

[Legolastom]

watch, on Jul 2 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

How about this. Enoch and I believe in God, and actually have faith in him. God says Homosexuality is wrong, I'll take him on his word, seeing as he's, you know, God and all.

Read things.

[Split Infinity]

Does anyone else think this debate is a little unbalanced now?

Like 8 to 1 unbalanced?

[Moonear]

Wasn't Toasty anti in here as well? That would make Enoch, Watch, and him against the rest of us.

[Golden Legacy]

[quote name='watch' post='470352' date='Jun 29 2009, 08:08 AM']Back track for a second, I have a point here.
You state you believe in God in the Abrahamic faith, so inclusive of Christianity. Do you then put your faith and trust in God?[/quote]
I think trust in oneself is just as important. You and Enoch have both gone on missions, so I will take it that the degree to which we invoke God in our lives is different. Yes, I do trust God, but I think he also trusts me in making the right decisions regarding the sanctity of other people's rights. If this makes sense.

[quote name='Enoch' post='470381' date='Jun 29 2009, 08:17 PM']I know a very friendly man who is gay. He is a friend of mine, even though he is aware of my beliefs.[/quote]

[quote]Edit: I should also add this in as well. Though homosexuality is against the order of God, I do not believe that gays will go to hell. Those who are familiar with the "degrees of glory" would understand why I feel that way.[/quote]

Some of the personal best friends and professors I have are gay, lesbians, and bisexuals, which is part of the reason I find the fact that they and their partners cannot have full federal rights unfortunate. I am glad you and watch at least invoke the idea that it is the act, not the person, that you're against.

(I don't agree that the act itself is wrong, obviously, but it's better than the fringe minorities I've seen who believe homosexuals are inherently sinful beings)

[quote]Homosexuality is a trial given to a few to overcome and become better. Many do overcome that trial, and many do not. Someone who is gay, is not bad or indecent, they just have an obstacle to overcome. Homosexuality is something that can be overcome. Those are my beliefs.[/quote]
I mentioned in my post with my research that "overcoming" homosexuality has been attempted. There were acts done in injecting estrogen in lesbians to try and "cure them", and similarly with gays. It has not happened.

How do you and watch define "overcoming" homosexuality?

[quote name='watch' post='470401' date='Jun 30 2009, 01:08 AM']You realise that the people of California voted to overturn the law on Gay Marriage, as in the people, like you and me, voted to return marriage to only a man and a women.[/quote]

[quote name='Enoch' post='470456' date='Jun 30 2009, 11:51 AM']The point is that depriving a nation of it's freedom to choose is damaging in it's own respect. Stopping those who preach anti-gay marriage is just as wrong as stopping those who preach for gay marriage (Not that anyone here is prohibiting freedom of speech).[/quote]
This is absolutely true. I don't agree with people who are against gay marriage, but saying that they should not have a voice is wrong. (Although, I would make the argument that in keeping gay/lesbian partners from having full and equal rights is also against the democratic idea of preservation of minority rights).

[quote name='King Hydros' post='470487' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:39 PM']Well, I am going to put my two cents in, though most of the value in the two cents has already been stated thus making this redundant. To be blunt, I am for gay marrige, because I am gay myself.

Now I obviously respect all other views and religions as equal to my own and do not wish to insult any one person in anyway.

In French 3 which constituted of another classmate and my slighly(gross understatement) outlandish teacher(Devivi, I love you! But really, which French teacher is normal? If you have one let me know.) we talked about many issues in society and this topic being one of them as well as many others such as existentalisim, and religions in general. However when we talked about this issue we all agreed that it should be allowed, and trust me we live in a very elephantine community. We agreed because it was for love's sake and that marrige shouldn't be defined by a single religion but by individuals. Take spousal abuse for example, legally they are married but we all know that it isn't emotional anymore thus ununiting them spirtually. This was an example we tossed around in French alot.

When it comes down to law, marrige law by the Constitution(U.S.A. residents only) is not given to the federal government; it is given to the state government. That is where we should start.

What I am trying to say I guess is that marrige is in the eye of the beholder and that we should not just have one idea of marrige but multiple ideas that can co-exist.[/quote]
Superb post, King Hydros. I'm quoting this for people to read once more.

[quote name='watch' post='470538' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:48 PM']Well our Democratic system is based on who gets the most votes, so yes majority rules.[/quote]
Yes, and just know there is something called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority"]tyranny of the majority[/url].

[quote]I love how just because a few of us have different views it's laughable, because that is being truly tolerant.[/quote]
This does not do the gay rights movement any help. I will admit to being guilty in saying stuff akin to this before however, so I apologize.

[quote name='Caael' post='470593' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:41 AM'][/quote]

[quote name='Laharl' post='470662' date='Jul 2 2009, 02:06 PM']DUMBDUMBDUMBDUMBDUMB
SMARTSMARTSMARTSMARTSMART[/quote]


[quote name='Drizzy Drake' post='470684' date='Jul 2 2009, 05:42 PM'][quote name='Laharl' post='470662' date='Jul 2 2009, 02:06 PM']
^

SMARTSMARTSMARTSMARTSMARTSMART[/quote]
[/quote]

Can we please not post stuff like this? There's a line between disagreeing and being arrogant.

[quote name='Icy' post='470618' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:35 PM']Yeah, and the majority of the country voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean there aren't millions out there that highly disagree. Just because you got a 2 percent advantage over another group means nothing. It's because the older generations are the ones voting, and their orthodox beliefs are being put into play. But the much of the newer generations, the ones who have seen the errs of the old generation were unable to vote in the last california election. Many of the northern states (Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa) already allow gay marriage, and many will be allowing it within the next year (Vermont, Maine, NH)--Some of the very same states that began this country.[/quote]
In the United States, support for gay marriage increases by about 1-2% each year, and has increased gradually since the 1990s. There is still some ways to go, given the results of Proposition 8 in California. But, considering that gay marriage would have been almost a nonissue that few would have publicly acknowledged four decades ago, progress can certainly be noted.

[quote]Would you give up your 180 rights of a marriage and settle for the 30 some odd rights of a domestic partnership, because some religion didn't approve?[/quote]
Actually there are [url="http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html"]1049 federal rights[/url] to a marriage that a civil union lacks.

[My Best Wishes]

Icy, on Jul 3 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

*facepalm* Where? WHERE? Alright, so it's against a male having sex with another male (note that God does address women in that passage but not when it comes to homosexuality). I believe in God too, but I don't believe in picking and choosing which laws from Leviticus we follow and which ones we don't based on what society says. It's called not being hypocritical, as we Christians are so often pegged for being.

But if you're going to say you believe that God says that gay marriage is wrong and that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, without having any actual Bible verse or scripture to back your claim...well, that's just ridiculous.

Without posting scripture, doctrine and talks from the LDS church, and with my limited knowledge of the Bible, I'm afraid I can't give you anything other then the Leviticus verse I posted.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 3 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

I think trust in oneself is just as important. You and Enoch have both gone on missions, so I will take it that the degree to which we invoke God in our lives is different. Yes, I do trust God, but I think he also trusts me in making the right decisions regarding the sanctity of other people's rights. If this makes sense.

Some of the personal best friends and professors I have are gay, lesbians, and bisexuals, which is part of the reason I find the fact that they and their partners cannot have full federal rights unfortunate. I am glad you and watch at least invoke the idea that it is the act, not the person, that you're against.

I mentioned in my post with my research that "overcoming" homosexuality has been attempted. There were acts done in injecting estrogen in lesbians to try and "cure them", and similarly with gays. It has not happened.
How do you and watch define "overcoming" homosexuality?

I'm actually yet to leave for my mission. If all goes well and I can overcome my own issues I hope to leave at the end of this year. Your opinion does make sense, anyway the whole point of that question I kinda used up on my (admittedly spiteful) post on Icy, in that I trust God and if it's good enough for him, then it is for me.

I never actually thought of the rights that these people cannot access, I think the movie Chuck and Larry addressed the issue somewhat. And just building on that last point, our church actually has Homosexual members and there is no prejudice against them from members, or in the fact that they can participate in the same roles as non-Homosexual members, providing that they do not participate in Homosexuality.

I don't know. I do know that God won't test us with anything we cannot overcome by ourselves. Whether Homosexuality is such a trial I am not sure, I have had Homosexual friends and workmates but never someone close to me so I just don't know.

Do you ever get angry Riad? Your posts always seem very composed and calm.

[Randolph]

Here's my take on the whole thing: I sure don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm tired enough of people telling ME what I can and cannot do that I don't think it's fair for me to turn around and tell them what they can and cannot do.

[Enoch]

Umm, I just had a lot of people quote a bunch of my last post> Forgive me if I don't get back to every last one of your arguments.

As for some of Icy's and GL's posts. I can give credit where credit is due. You are absolutely right. The new generation is coming of voting age, and most of the people who make up the polls now are the baby boomers in the US. Those who feel the same as myself and Watch are of a dieing breed. I can relate several bible passages to this trend, but I do feel that the world, in general, isn't a wicked place... yet.
As for the overpopulation argument. I feel that a lot of that has come from, yes countries with poor living conditions, but another cause of this is unwanted pregnancies, as Icy said. Birth prevention isn't the avenue I was going to go down, but I was thinking more along the lines of resisting pre-marital sex entirely. Abortion is an option for extreme circumstances such as rape victims or situations where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, but other than a few rare exceptions I would say that sex should remain within the bonds of marriage (an argument for another day).

I define overcoming a sin like Homosexuality in the same way as overcoming any sin. Promiscuity, anger, or any other transgression you can think of. By not giving into the urges you receive. I am prompted to be angry as is everyone else. When you don't give into the urges to be angry then you have overcome that sin. The same comes for homosexuality. If they resist the homosexual urges, then they overcome their own adverse situation. I know of people who do resist the homosexual urges and even become married to members of the opposite sex, and help give birth to children and remain loyal to their spouse. They even live very normal lives. I have a friend who runs a help center for people who wish to overcome such trials. So regardless of what you may have studied, I have seen proof for the opposing argument.

I don't expect all of you to believe me, but I would like to help you understand where I am coming from. Put yourself in my head for a bit. Situation: you are a person who believes in a God who gave you a gift known as marriage. He gave you instructions on how to use marriage. You are very happy with the idea of marriage and it is a goal of yours. Many people come and receive marriage for themselves. Now picture if some people came along and saw marriage and felt that it should be altered to fit a different set of criteria. They want to change the rules that the God that you believe in, gave you. Again, these are my beliefs. The idea that my Heavenly Father gave to me and those who believe like me is being taken and changed to fit other purposes. I am not only talking about gay marriage, but all of the alterations to it throughout time.

I will not say that I am sorry that some Homosexuals don't receive the same rights in union as straight couples do. It is simply against every thing that I hold sacred. My God comes before the ideals of a rising generation. I don't care that I will soon be a minority. I'm only trying to please one person at this point. Any person can see the additions and subtractions made to marriage in a simple study of civil law history. I'm simply trying to hold on to the basic beliefe that I have in marriage. I understand that society has adopted marriage and I feel there is good and bad in this situation. It's good that society pursues marriage, I will admit. That is wonderful in my opinion. I feel it is bad though, because they have adopted it to the point where society claims it belongs to them, while in all reality it belongs to God, and he made the rules clear in the first place. Now society wants to change something that God created.

I guess you could sum up my argument in that last paragraph. Sorry for the long post.

[Drizzy Drake]

Your god has also stepped over the line and forced his ideals upon society, criminalizing gay marriage.

Imagine Scientology got so large, that they wanted to outlaw any marriage and it happened. A little farfetched, but still. You'd be pissed no? That someone who believes something you dont was able to force you into following those beliefs.

[Split Infinity]

Lol at Dipsy claiming the most powerful being in the universe has crossed the line.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on Jul 3 2009, 01:24 AM, said:

I'm actually yet to leave for my mission. If all goes well and I can overcome my own issues I hope to leave at the end of this year. Your opinion does make sense, anyway the whole point of that question I kinda used up on my (admittedly spiteful) post on Icy, in that I trust God and if it's good enough for him, then it is for me.

I never actually thought of the rights that these people cannot access, I think the movie Chuck and Larry addressed the issue somewhat. And just building on that last point, our church actually has Homosexual members and there is no prejudice against them from members, or in the fact that they can participate in the same roles as non-Homosexual members, providing that they do not participate in Homosexuality.

I don't know. I do know that God won't test us with anything we cannot overcome by ourselves. Whether Homosexuality is such a trial I am not sure, I have had Homosexual friends and workmates but never someone close to me so I just don't know.

Do you ever get angry Riad? Your posts always seem very composed and calm.

I don't pretend I'm any different or better than anyone when I post. I do try and keep my composure, but I've definitely lost my cool on a number of occasions, yes. There are a few issues in particular that can get me angry.

If I may clarify, homosexual members are accepted in your church (a pleasant surprise to me, I was not aware), so long as they don't actually 'participate in homosexuality'? As in, restraining them from a part of their identity?

Enoch, on Jul 3 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

I define overcoming a sin like Homosexuality in the same way as overcoming any sin. Promiscuity, anger, or any other transgression you can think of. By not giving into the urges you receive. I am prompted to be angry as is everyone else. When you don't give into the urges to be angry then you have overcome that sin. The same comes for homosexuality. If they resist the homosexual urges, then they overcome their own adverse situation.

Homosexuality is not something that can be "overcome" in the same way as anger. It's a false analogy. You can't change an aspect of yourself which science has shown to be 70-80% attributed to your genetics.

Quote

I know of people who do resist the homosexual urges and even become married to members of the opposite sex, and help give birth to children and remain loyal to their spouse. They even live very normal lives. I have a friend who runs a help center for people who wish to overcome such trials. So regardless of what you may have studied, I have seen proof for the opposing argument.

I separated this part on purpose, as I find this far too unbelievable. Who are these people who "resist" their homosexual urges? Are you talking about gays and lesbians, or bisexuals? And yes, there have been many reported cases of gays and lesbians that marry the opposite sex because of societal pressure and expectations. They even live "normal lives", but that does not correlate with actually changing their orientation. As psychiatrists/psychologists have shown, these people are subduing their homosexuality, not changing it.

Quote

I don't expect all of you to believe me, but I would like to help you understand where I am coming from. Put yourself in my head for a bit. Situation: you are a person who believes in a God who gave you a gift known as marriage. He gave you instructions on how to use marriage. You are very happy with the idea of marriage and it is a goal of yours. Many people come and receive marriage for themselves. Now picture if some people came along and saw marriage and felt that it should be altered to fit a different set of criteria.

This part plays out as a victim complex. "Some" people "come along" and decide that marriage should fit "their" needs. It's quite vague. Let's specify. These "some people" are homosexuals and bisexuals who have always been around and have been acknowledged for millenia in cultures all around the world. They are not new. They are not the first. The 'criteria' for marriage today is only the latest manifestation of the notion of human bonding that dates to antiquity. What's altering is the modern status quo as defined by a very specific, narrow (Abrahamic) interpretation with (relatively speaking) new civil rights attached to it.

Quote

I am not only talking about gay marriage, but all of the alterations to it throughout time.

Enlighten us. I can only think of removing the ban on interracial marriage as the biggest alteration.

Quote

I will not say that I am sorry that some Homosexuals don't receive the same rights in union as straight couples do. It is simply against every thing that I hold sacred.

Quote

My God comes before the ideals of a rising generation. I don't care that I will soon be a minority. I'm only trying to please one person at this point.

No one is asking you to feel sorry. No one is asking you to embrace homosexuals and accept gay marriage. You have every right to feel however you wish. If it goes against the ideas you hold sacred, you have that right to see it that way. That won't change, nor will it be forced to change.

What you see as sacred is not yours alone, however.

Quote

I feel it is bad though, because they have adopted it to the point where society claims it belongs to them, while in all reality it belongs to God, and he made the rules clear in the first place. Now society wants to change something that God created.

This is not the grand battle between God and those who abide by God, against the greedy sinister moral-less liberal society that actively seeks to defy God and is taking over, that you make it out to be. It is not 'society' that wants marriage for its own. It's people who want to be able to not be denied a visit to their lover in the hospital on the basis of what gender they are, regardless of their orientation. It's people who view it as an injustice that someone half a continent away can rob two partners of full and equal rights because of some arbitrary claim that's supposed to mutually affect them both, an injustice that anyone can see is wrong, straight or gay.

These trends are not new. There was a time when the natural order and whim of God was attributed to injustices on the basis of class, on the basis of religion, on the basis of male chauvinism, on the basis of white privilege. It was not "society" that simply decided one day to defy God, but individuals like you and I. They believed in making justice available equally for everyone.

It's not "society" you're against. It's the fundamental concept of universal human rights.

[Drizzy Drake]

god doesn`t exist, and is therefore not the most powerfull being in the universe.

[Split Infinity]

Then why are you blaming him? =S

[Drizzy Drake]

Not her, the people who carry shit out in her name. Wars, bigotry, televangelism.™

im gonna :P you real soon split

[Enoch]

I used anger as an example. You don't overcome two things in the same way but the idea is the same. Anger is most certainly attributed to genetics as well. The impulses and firing of synapses in your brain (aka mental activity & development) is bound by a developmental blueprint (aka your genetic code). There are individuals who don't anger as much as others, or even at all due to a genetic defect. Anger, just like every other basic function of the body is directly related to your genes. Therefore according to the proof of your argument, my analogy is dead on. Anger, sexual attraction, depression, anxiety, and many more are all associated with genetic code.

Do you disagree with me when I say that people should resist their urges to get angry with others? Anger never leads to any good results. It only festers inside you and manifests itself in a negative way. Most of the biggest travesties of history can be rooted back to anger. Yet science shows that anger has a genetic connected to everyone. Just because your body wants to do something doesn't mean that it should be done. Just because your genetic code causes you to act in a certain way, doesn't mean that you should act in that way. Genetics can create emotions in the body that, if given into, can turn people into murderers, pedophiles, maniacs, and whatever else you can think of. So just because your genes cause you to want to act a certain way, it doesn't mean you should act that way.

God gives everyone challenges according to each individual's strengths. Some of these challenges come in the form of undesired genetic traits. It's only another problem an individual needs to overcome.

When I refer to the changes made to the title of marriage I am referencing those made even before the establishment of the United States, even though there are plenty made within the US. Keep in mind I am not catholic. Try some of the religious arguments, even those that predate the council of Nicaea, where they connected marriage to the law of the land in small ways like making marriage prerequisite to becoming a king etc etc. Do you really want me to explain all the little ways the concept of marriage was added to and take from? The laws associated with divorce, laws associated with combining of two party's assets. Gosh, marriage at one point, use to be only a ritual/covenant made between a man and a woman that makes them one under God(or in the case of other religions, Gods). I'm not going to take time and list them to you. I don't think you really care about them anyways, and if you did, then you would do your own research.

Yes, there are cultures who recognize and practice homosexuality around the world, and have done so since the world began. There have also been cultures that recognize and practice cannibalism and sacrificing human beings to fire. Just because a culture recognizes it doesn't mean it's a good thing. And yes, there are those who get married because of social pressure, but I have no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of people with homosexual genetics in their DNA that find a partner of the opposite sex, whom they cherish and enjoy being around and then decide to love. Yes, love is a choice. Those who argue genetics cannot argue that love isn't a choice. If they do, then they need to do more research. You choose to love the 80 year old woman sleeping in bed next to you, who doesn't have the same 25 year old body she once had. I don't presume that GL knows the reasoning behind every married gay person in the world.

You aren't understanding my analogy entirely. When you overcome anger, you don't change it, you resist it. Likewise with homosexuality.

Regardless of what the "modern status quo" is you still don't understand. It's very plain. Black and white even. God said "do this", and he said "this is how you do it."

[Legolastom]

What is so hard to understand? In the modern world Religion should have NO say in any laws.

Logic, justice, freedom and human rights are being put behind religion because there is no reason against Gay marriage outside of religion. You can have whatever belief you want but how the **** can religion get in the way of freedom and human rights and human rights in the 21st centaury?

I just don’t understand how you can be so ignorant as to believe your religion should have any say at all in this. Also overpopulation has to do with the world as a whole, I remember seeing something in that piece of socialist propaganda and lies "The inconvenient truth" that showed the population of the world increased by 900% in the last centaury or two centauries and that each year the rate of growth is increasing.

Now if you want your religion to have a say in your country may I recommend you go to other countries such as Iran or something, or you could become one of those crazy Amish people however if you want to live in a modern country that has developed past the middle ages and away from the apostolic palace can you please (For the good of humankind which you sadly don’t believe in) keep your religion away from everyone else.

And also we have discussed this several billion times but marriage is a thing that has developed in a cultural thing and in this day and age has many rights that come with it which you are keeping away from homosexuals.

So let me clarify you believe that homosexuals should have less rights than you just because of your personal beliefs?.

[Randolph]

Here's another way I tend to look at it: God gave us a choice: He gave us free will. This includes the right to defy him. Therefore, anyone who truly WANTS to disobey God can do so. And THEREFORE, any argument involving using the law to ban such personal things as homosexuality is wrong.

[Golden Legacy]

Enoch, on Jul 4 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

I used anger as an example. You don't overcome two things in the same way but the idea is the same. Anger is most certainly attributed to genetics as well. The impulses and firing of synapses in your brain (aka mental activity & development) is bound by a developmental blueprint (aka your genetic code). There are individuals who don't anger as much as others, or even at all due to a genetic defect. Anger, just like every other basic function of the body is directly related to your genes. Therefore according to the proof of your argument, my analogy is dead on. Anger, sexual attraction, depression, anxiety, and many more are all associated with genetic code.

Anger and emotion are more directly attributed to cognitive development. Genetics play a role, but far less a role than sexual orientation or gender.

Quote

Do you disagree with me when I say that people should resist their urges to get angry with others? Anger never leads to any good results. It only festers inside you and manifests itself in a negative way. Most of the biggest travesties of history can be rooted back to anger. Yet science shows that anger has a genetic connected to everyone. Just because your body wants to do something doesn't mean that it should be done. Just because your genetic code causes you to act in a certain way, doesn't mean that you should act in that way. Genetics can create emotions in the body that, if given into, can turn people into murderers, pedophiles, maniacs, and whatever else you can think of. So just because your genes cause you to want to act a certain way, it doesn't mean you should act that way.

Terribly flawed. You're hammering homosexuality to be viewed in a narrow lens based solely on anger. Why anger is wrong doesn't correspond with why homosexuality should be wrong. Genetics play a far more substantial role in defining gender and sexual orientation than psychology, and the reverse is true for emotions.

To invert your argument against yourself, genetics have been linked to why certain individuals are capable of being more intelligent and more creative. (I personally believe in nurture, how a person is raised, than nature, but bear with me for now). Since genetics can be directly attributed to such positive aspects, which can turn people into scientists, doctors, teachers, inventors, it certainly means that you could be very well intended to act as your genes say.

Quote

God gives everyone challenges according to each individual's strengths. Some of these challenges come in the form of undesired genetic traits. It's only another problem an individual needs to overcome.

No, YOU say God gives everyone challenges including homosexuality. YOU say homosexuality is a burden for people to overcome. This is YOUR belief.

Quote

When I refer to the changes made to the title of marriage I am referencing those made even before the establishment of the United States, even though there are plenty made within the US. Keep in mind I am not catholic. Try some of the religious arguments, even those that predate the council of Nicaea, where they connected marriage to the law of the land in small ways like making marriage prerequisite to becoming a king etc etc. Do you really want me to explain all the little ways the concept of marriage was added to and take from? The laws associated with divorce, laws associated with combining of two party's assets. Gosh, marriage at one point, use to be only a ritual/covenant made between a man and a woman that makes them one under God(or in the case of other religions, Gods). I'm not going to take time and list them to you. I don't think you really care about them anyways, and if you did, then you would do your own research.

What's your point?

Quote

Yes, there are cultures who recognize and practice homosexuality around the world, and have done so since the world began. There have also been cultures that recognize and practice cannibalism and sacrificing human beings to fire. Just because a culture recognizes it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

When nearly every single culture in the world has acknowledged homosexuality, understood it, found ways to adapt and accept it, it means that the claims of you and the fanatic religious right that homosexuality is a "choice" or, worse yet, a "modern fad", is entirely false.

Quote

And yes, there are those who get married because of social pressure, but I have no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of people with homosexual genetics in their DNA that find a partner of the opposite sex, whom they cherish and enjoy being around and then decide to love.

Yes. Those people are called bisexuals.

Quote

Yes, love is a choice. Those who argue genetics cannot argue that love isn't a choice.

Are you kidding me? I'm not sure if you're joking or trying to be rhetorical here.

"Love is a choice." Yes. People fall in love.

Heterosexuals will fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. They will thus be choosing someone when they experience that love.

Homosexuals will fall in love with someone of the same gender. They will thus be choosing that someone when they experience that love.

Bisexuals will fall in love with someone of either gender. They will thus be choosing that someone to share that love with.

It is not a hard concept to grasp.

Quote

I don't presume that GL knows the reasoning behind every married gay person in the world.

I don't presume that an American Evangelical Christian knows that homosexuality is a secret test from the Almighty One that will result in their condemnation to the fires of hell if they fail.

Quote

You aren't understanding my analogy entirely. When you overcome anger, you don't change it, you resist it. Likewise with homosexuality.

Flawed analogy, strawman, the usual. See first/second quote.

Quote

Regardless of what the "modern status quo" is you still don't understand. It's very plain. Black and white even. God said "do this", and he said "this is how you do it."

I will let this one speak for itself.

[Lightning Star]

This will be my last post on this matter--It's clear who believes what, but I respect your beliefs, enoch, watch--so long as you will respect mine. I just ask you to think about where your beliefs about marriage come from. Are they really straight from the bible? or generations of pastors and priests who say that marriage is just between a man and a woman. I'm still looking for the scripture that actually says that. The only reason I can think that Christians are so opposed to it, is because the priests and pastors of the past would never promote something that society banned and they agreed with.

Society has become more accepting of that which is different, while the church believes it must stick to its old theology that Gays are wrong. Yet, look at divorce, at slavery-- The church has not stepped into politics to ban divorce without proof of infidelity, while the Bible says plain and clear that you are not to divorce your spouse unless they are unfaithful. Slavery was accepted in the Bible, yet it is shunned today by society AND the church.

It seems to me that this whole issue of "God says that gay marriage is wrong" is more of the opinion of the Church and not the Bible itself. I go by what God says, not by what man says.

[Drizzy Drake]

Clearly they don`t respect yours as didn`t Enoch say he wasn`t mad that it`s illegal for gays to get married (enoch or watch.) The fact that hes essentially (red this world over a few times if anybody has anything against this statement) happy over the fact that gays cant get married means he clearly doesn`t respect your views.

[Lightning Star]

I wouldn't say that. Not respecting my views would be calling me ignorant and stupid for having them. He's not respecting my wishes, but he is respecting my views, and I appreciate that.

And your apostrophe key is backwards. It's making me twitch. =.-

[Split Infinity]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 5 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

Clearly they don`t respect yours as didn`t Enoch say he wasn`t mad that it`s illegal for gays to get married (enoch or watch.) The fact that hes essentially (red this world over a few times if anybody has anything against this statement) happy over the fact that gays cant get married means he clearly doesn`t respect your views.

I hate to sound ad hominem now, but honestly, you're the last person I'd expect to hear preach about respecting people's religious views.

[Drizzy Drake]

honestly, if christianity was introduced to modern society it would seem just as cooky as scientology. nuff said.

[Enoch]

Icy, on Jul 4 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

This will be my last post on this matter--It's clear who believes what, but I respect your beliefs, enoch, watch--so long as you will respect mine. I just ask you to think about where your beliefs about marriage come from. Are they really straight from the bible? or generations of pastors and priests who say that marriage is just between a man and a woman. I'm still looking for the scripture that actually says that. The only reason I can think that Christians are so opposed to it, is because the priests and pastors of the past would never promote something that society banned and they agreed with.

Society has become more accepting of that which is different, while the church believes it must stick to its old theology that Gays are wrong. Yet, look at divorce, at slavery-- The church has not stepped into politics to ban divorce without proof of infidelity, while the Bible says plain and clear that you are not to divorce your spouse unless they are unfaithful. Slavery was accepted in the Bible, yet it is shunned today by society AND the church.

It seems to me that this whole issue of "God says that gay marriage is wrong" is more of the opinion of the Church and not the Bible itself. I go by what God says, not by what man says.

Thank you! And I really mean that. I'm glad that your willing to at least respect some of the things I've said. I've clearly done more agitating than I wished to. If you are trying your hardest to go by what God sayes, then really that's the best you can do. I admire that. And I will think about what you said. I'll take it to prayer and study. Just for the record, I don't believe you or anyone else around here is an evil person. I am sorry if I gave that impression. If that is the case, than I only ask forgiveness. I think I'm done posting now too.

[Drizzy Drake]

The only reason I laugh at the catholic churches homophiba is that I know in 100, 200 years they wont hate gays, just like they don't kill people anymore for their beliefs.

[Quacnar]

These last few pages were enjoyable to read.

[Golden Legacy]

How does it feel knowing that you're going to hell?

[Caael]

In the words of Andy Parsons "Isn't it ironic that the pope condemns homosexuality as unnatural while not having sex is the most unnatural thing somebody can do."

[Quacnar]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 24 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

How does it feel knowing that you're going to hell?

I don't believe in Hell or Heaven. But if the Bible is right, I would be going to Hell. OH WELL! The debating has been very good btw! Anywho, I am obviously for gay marriage and don't see homosexuality as a negative thing. I also thought that your post, GL, with all of the information was rather intriguing.

[Drizzy Drake]

Catholicism got meeeeerked in this topic...

TOOOOOOASTY! why do you ask me you to be considerate towards your beliefs when you are totally fine with gay marriage being illegal in cali? isn`t that forcing beliefs on atheists?

oh wait, my bad, i forgot that if gays are allowed to be married people are gonna wanna marry sea turtles and little babies....

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 4 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

If I may clarify, homosexual members are accepted in your church (a pleasant surprise to me, I was not aware), so long as they don't actually 'participate in homosexuality'? As in, restraining them from a part of their identity?

Late reply I know, but I didn't really feel like getting back into this after my holiday.

I'm not going to say every LDS member in the world shares my mindset because I don't know if it is correct or not, just how I feel. The reason I for the most part ignored your scientific proof is because I believe that Homosexuality is man made, therefore, overcomeable. I don't believe that Homosexuality is in the genetics of someone, maybe factors in the persons early life and upbringing can attribute to it, but I don't reckon it's something you're born with like your eye colour. So in answer, no I don't think that by making them restrain from the act of Homosexuality is making them restrain their identity.

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 25 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

Catholicism got meeeeerked in this topic...

TOOOOOOASTY! why do you ask me you to be considerate towards your beliefs when you are totally fine with gay marriage being illegal in cali? isn`t that forcing beliefs on atheists?

oh wait, my bad, i forgot that if gays are allowed to be married people are gonna wanna marry sea turtles and little babies....

Yes Skidz, because everyone who voted on Prop 8 was religiously inclined, because everyone in the world who is anti-Homosexuality is so because of God. (I'll put [/sarcasm] in just incase you thought I was on your side, wouldn't put it past your logic.)

[Split Infinity]

But under that logic, heterosexuality isn't genetic either. So why should one be wrong but not the other?

[My Best Wishes]

Because one is necessary.

[Split Infinity]

Not for everyone.

[My Best Wishes]

I know it's beating a dead horse, but you need a guy and a girl to make a baby Split.

[Quacnar]

That's actually not true, watch. Modern science is actually finding ways for two women to have a child without any sperm involved.

[Toasty]

I'd like to emphasize the "Modern Science" part of that post.

Ever since man first walked the face of the earth (depending on what you believe, that's anywhere between 5000 and a few hundred thousand or more years ago), it has only ever been possible to make a child with a man and a woman.

The only way to naturally make a baby, is with a man and a woman.


If the apocalypse came and somehow all scientific research was destroyed, you wouldn't be making babies with two men or two women.

killercoz, on Jul 24 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

I don't believe in Hell or Heaven. But if the Bible is right, I would be going to Hell. OH WELL! The debating has been very good btw! Anywho, I am obviously for gay marriage and don't see homosexuality as a negative thing. I also thought that your post, GL, with all of the information was rather intriguing.

To clarify, being gay doesn't condemn you to hell. Not believing in Christ is what sends you to hell, as far as Christian teachings go.

[Quacnar]

So I'm going to hell anyways? Might as well be gay then!

[Drizzy Drake]

watch, on Jul 24 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

Yes Skidz, because everyone who voted on Prop 8 was religiously inclined, because everyone in the world who is anti-Homosexuality is so because of God. (I'll put [/sarcasm] in just incase you thought I was on your side, wouldn't put it past your logic.)

Did I say anything like that? No; so please stop putting words in my mouth you religious ****ing zealot.

If Toasty could vote he wouldn't vote no, so I'll palce him in with the people that did. He personally gets all in arms when I am to upfront about my god-bashing, and feels I shouldn't push that on him, yet he turns around and votes (him, other members of his religion, its all the same) to not let gays marry; therefore pushing his own ****ing beliefs on people.

Stop kid. The hypocrisy is making my brain hurt. I honestly laugh hard that you base your entire belief structure on how this world works and it's creation on a bunch or stories written by two thousand year old hippies. Whether you believe in God or not, the fact is a bunch of randoms wrote the Bible and could have oh so easily made up every single thing in it. And they seemed to have written each part without looking at the former because things said in one part directly contradict things said in another. laaaaaaawl biblical fail.

killercoz, on Jul 24 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

That's actually not true, watch. Modern science is actually finding ways for two women to have a child without any sperm involved.

Um, this-- restrictor of personal beliefs!

[Quacnar]

Skidz, it's amazing that in your openness towards homosexuals, you could still sound like a biggot. You make me want to disagree with my own side. Stop hating, and be open to other viewpoints.

[Split Infinity]

watch, on Jul 25 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I know it's beating a dead horse, but you need a guy and a girl to make a baby Split.

How is that a rebuttal to what I just said? =/

[Drizzy Drake]

I just find it funny how blindly the religious people in this topic hate on gays (or atleast don't like it).

Men and men shouldn't marry because God didn't let them have babies.

Well 1) there is no reasoning or arguement behind that, God says so so it's true. That's not how the world works Killer, and 2) since when did having a baby have anything to do with marriage? Many couples would want nothing less than have a baby.

The first point is why I sound like a bigot, and the second is once again another point that Toasty and/or Watch will avoid because they have no answer to it; marriage and child birth have no relation to each other, plain and simple, therefore it can't be used as an arguement as to why gays shouldn't marry.

EDIT @ Split - straw man argument-- you'll never win Split.

[Toasty]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 24 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Did I say anything like that? No; so please stop putting words in my mouth you religious ****ing zealot.

If Toasty could vote he wouldn't vote no, so I'll palce him in with the people that did. He personally gets all in arms when I am to upfront about my god-bashing, and feels I shouldn't push that on him, yet he turns around and votes (him, other members of his religion, its all the same) to not let gays marry; therefore pushing his own ****ing beliefs on people.

Stop kid. The hypocrisy is making my brain hurt. I honestly laugh hard that you base your entire belief structure on how this world works and it's creation on a bunch or stories written by two thousand year old hippies. Whether you believe in God or not, the fact is a bunch of randoms wrote the Bible and could have oh so easily made up every single thing in it. And they seemed to have written each part without looking at the former because things said in one part directly contradict things said in another. laaaaaaawl biblical fail.

Um, this-- restrictor of personal beliefs!

I get up in arms because you do more bashing than anything else.

You're barely even debating anything. All you do is try to disprove other people's points in the most crude and insulting way you can. That's what pisses me off.


Skidz, you have never seriously read the bible. That in itself is an apparent fact. Because of this, you cannot say how believable it is or not, because you honestly don't know for yourself.


And when it comes to voting for or against gay marriage, either way, you're forcing your beliefs on others. So don't be a hypocrite yourself, Skidz.

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 24 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

I just find it funny how blindly the religious people in this topic hate on gays (or atleast don't like it).

Men and men shouldn't marry because God didn't let them have babies.

Well 1) there is no reasoning or arguement behind that, God says so so it's true. That's not how the world works Killer, and 2) since when did having a baby have anything to do with marriage? Many couples would want nothing less than have a baby.

The first point is why I sound like a bigot, and the second is once again another point that Toasty and/or Watch will avoid because they have no answer to it; marriage and child birth have no relation to each other, plain and simple, therefore it can't be used as an arguement as to why gays shouldn't marry.

EDIT @ Split - straw man argument-- you'll never win Split.

Religious beliefs aside, the whole point of having sex for all past millenia, has been to produce offspring. Likewise, very very few couples who have been married for more than a week, have not had sex with each other.

If the vast majority of people who marry have sex (I'd like you to try and prove otherwise), and if the whole point of having sex for the past hundred thousand years or so has been to produce offspring, then how are marriage and child birth not related?

[Split Infinity]

Not exactly. You're not forcing people to marry gays if you vote yes.

As opposed to forcing people not to.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 25 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

I get up in arms because you do more bashing than anything else.

You're barely even debating anything. All you do is try to disprove other people's points in the most crude and insulting way you can. That's what pisses me off.

Skidz, you have never seriously read the bible. That in itself is an apparent fact. Because of this, you cannot say how believable it is or not, because you honestly don't know for yourself.

And when it comes to voting for or against gay marriage, either way, you're forcing your beliefs on others. So don't be a hypocrite yourself, Skidz.

You still say don't push my beliefs on others, yet you do. Nothing more.

And disprove I do, to the best of my ability. When you can't you fall back on God as if it's an actual viable argument.

Ha, I went to catholic school up untill and including grade 6; I've read and been exposed to cathlocism for years bud. lol @ you acting like you know what I have or have not done in my life.

Not quite. Voting to make gay marriage illegal is pushing you beliefs on somebody; voting to keep it legal is making sure everybody has fair rights. It's hard talking to you when you spout blatantly wrong ****. EDIT - Essentially what Split said; but he worded it better.

[My Best Wishes]

killercoz, on Jul 25 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

That's actually not true, watch. Modern science is actually finding ways for two women to have a child without any sperm involved.

There's a reason we have works like Brave New World. I'd also like to know how that works, got any links or anything? (Not an attack)

Split Infinity, on Jul 25 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

How is that a rebuttal to what I just said? =/

I said it's necessary, you said not to everyone. Of course it's necessary to everyone or else we wouldn't be here.

And Skidz you said Prop 8 forced beliefs on Atheists, yet Atheists voted yes on it. I dunno how my ignore user list got reset but you're going back on it.
And stop bringing up Catholicism, no one here arguing against Homosexuality is Catholic.

[Drizzy Drake]

watch, on Jul 25 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

And Skidz you said Prop 8 forced beliefs on Atheists, yet Atheists voted yes on it. I dunno how my ignore user list got reset but you're going back on it.

And stop bringing up Catholicism, no one here arguing against Homosexuality is Catholic.

Split Infinity, on Jul 25 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Not exactly. You're not forcing people to marry gays if you vote yes.

As opposed to forcing people not to.

You won't be able to see this but Split said it perfectly. People against gay marriage are forcing something on society; gays (and those for) aren't; ipso fatso.

Um, Toasty? Enoch? Sorry if they're Christian, but you're still wrong.

[Toasty]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 24 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

You still say don't push my beliefs on others, yet you do. Nothing more.

And disprove I do, to the best of my ability. When you can't you fall back on God as if it's an actual viable argument.

Ha, I went to catholic school up untill and including grade 6; I've read and been exposed to cathlocism for years bud. lol @ you acting like you know what I have or have not done in my life.

Not quite. Voting to make gay marriage illegal is pushing you beliefs on somebody; voting to keep it legal is making sure everybody has fair rights. It's hard talking to you when you spout blatantly wrong ****. EDIT - Essentially what Split said; but he worded it better.

Just because you went to a catholic school doesn't mean you've read the bible. I know quite a few people who go to our local christian academy that aren't exactly what you'd call model Christians.


And it's still pushing your beliefs on others, because there's quite a few people who believe in "the sanctity of marriage." By allowing gays to marry, you are forcing your opinions on them.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 25 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Just because you went to a catholic school doesn't mean you've read the bible. I know quite a few people who go to our local christian academy that aren't exactly what you'd call model Christians.
And it's still pushing your beliefs on others, because there's quite a few people who believe in "the sanctity of marriage." By allowing gays to marry, you are forcing your opinions on them.

Being a bad kid has nothing of value on whether they've read the bible. Are you really that dense?

Marriage is no longer a religious ceremoney. And NO! Prop 8 doesn't pass, nobody is forced to do anything. Prop 8 does pass and gays cant (else risk legal ****ing action; its a crminal offense, like stealing, and speeding sir) marry.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Jul 25 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

And it's still pushing your beliefs on others, because there's quite a few people who believe in "the sanctity of marriage." By allowing gays to marry, you are forcing your opinions on them.

No, you're forcing them to be tolerant.

Reality check, you're not always going to approve of other peoples' choices. That's life. But that doesn't give you the right to make those choices for them.

[Drizzy Drake]

Split Infinity, on Jul 25 2009, 01:18 AM, said:

No, you're forcing them to be tolerant.

Reality check, you're not always going to approve of other peoples' choices. That's life. But that doesn't give you the right to make those choices for them.

merked

[My Best Wishes]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 25 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

You won't be able to see this but Split said it perfectly. People against gay marriage are forcing something on society; gays (and those for) aren't; ipso fatso.

Um, Toasty? Enoch? Sorry if they're Christian, but you're still wrong.

What is that last bit supposed to mean.

[Quacnar]

Skidz, the reason you're pissing everyone off, is that you're saying because the opposing opinion isn't yours, hey are forcing it upon you. Just because some people don't believe that marriage should be changed to fit modern circumstances, doesn't mean their awful people who are religiously crazed. Religion may be a factor in their beliefs, but everyone is shaped by their religious beliefs. Even athiests... Point is, stop insulting, and debate kindly.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 25 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

Skidz, the reason you're pissing everyone off, is that you're saying because the opposing opinion isn't yours, hey are forcing it upon you. Just because some people don't believe that marriage should be changed to fit modern circumstances, doesn't mean their awful people who are religiously crazed. Religion may be a factor in their beliefs, but everyone is shaped by their religious beliefs. Even athiests... Point is, stop insulting, and debate kindly.

Christianity as a whole (and yes other non-religious people) forced their beliefs on society by maknig gay marriage illegal-- what don't you get about this? And have you seen Toasty denying my claims that he condones said actions and feels the same way?

No, not everybody that feels that gay marriage shouldn't be changed is crazed. But using reasons like "the bible says it so" or "they can't make behbehs so they shouldn't wed" is crazed logic. I don't care what you belief, but most everyone here against gay marriage has brought religion into it.

Kind enough for you?

[Quacnar]

No, believing in religion and it being one of the reasons a person wouldn't believe in gay marriage makes a lot of sense. Religion gives people certain morals, it isn't bad that people derive their beliefs from their morals, from their chosen religion. And even if you do think it is bad, that debate doesn't belong in the homosexuality topic.

Christianity isn't forcing its beliefs that gays shouldn't marry on anyone. It speaks its point openly, but it doesn't make people believe it. Even those who are Christian aren't forced to be anti-gay marriage.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 25 2009, 02:57 AM, said:

No, believing in religion and it being one of the reasons a person wouldn't believe in gay marriage makes a lot of sense. Religion gives people certain morals, it isn't bad that people derive their beliefs from their morals, from their chosen religion. And even if you do think it is bad, that debate doesn't belong in the homosexuality topic.

Christianity isn't forcing its beliefs that gays shouldn't marry on anyone. It speaks its point openly, but it doesn't make people believe it. Even those who are Christian aren't forced to be anti-gay marriage.

And this is why I will no longer continue this conversation with you. Toasty fine, watch continue please, but you, no. Does Prop 8 ring a fucking bell to you faggot? If that`s not the perfect example of a forced belief then what the **** is?

[Legolastom]

Reasons why people dont want gay people to marry so far and counter "arguments":

1. God says so / Lol
2. Sanctity of marriage / Is a naive and ignorant statement
3. Gays cant have babies / Good means we will destroy this earth slower. If Toasty believs in global warming of course.
4. I dont know is there another one?

So the reason so far against gay marriage are bull****, more bull**** and something good. HOORAY FOR THE HUMAN RACE.

[Toasty]

As far as proposition 8 goes, I believe the citizens of California voted on that. For prop 8 to pass, it needed a majority vote. Which means the majority of people voted for it.

You can't ever hope to please everyone, but you can please the majority.

Are you saying that the viewpoint of the minority should overrule the viewpoint of the majority?

[Legolastom]

Yes if the majority are wrong.

But there is no easy way to decide that is there.

[Quacnar]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 25 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

And this is why I will no longer continue this conversation with you. Toasty fine, watch continue please, but you, no. Does Prop 8 ring a ****ing bell to you ******? If that`s not the perfect example of a forced belief then what the **** is?

It's amazing how you can use a gay hate word in the same paragraph you are defending gay marriage. It's rather hypocritical. Let me make an analogy to what you're saying, in regards to people focing their beliefs about not having gay marriages. Let say someone believes it is right to murder people. However, the people as a whole disagree, and make it illegal to kill. Now, by your standards, aren't they forcing their beliefs of not killing on the murderer? You may say it's not the same thing, but it's a perfect parallel. The reason it seems different is you are on a different of the arguement. You think killing is wrong and marriage is right. Just because some people believe something should be illegal, doesn't mean they're forcing their beliefs. Lastly, stop using the word f*****, it's offensive to gays, and if you actually cared about their rights, you would cease using it.

Legolastom, on Jul 25 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

Yes if the majority are wrong.

But there is no easy way to decide that is there.

It's an opinion, there can be no right or wrong. Things can only be seen as right when the majority believes it, but there will never be an issue that everyone can agree on.

[Golden Legacy]

watch, on Jul 24 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

The reason I for the most part ignored your scientific proof is because I believe that Homosexuality is man made, therefore, overcomeable. I don't believe that Homosexuality is in the genetics of someone, maybe factors in the persons early life and upbringing can attribute to it, but I don't reckon it's something you're born with like your eye colour. So in answer, no I don't think that by making them restrain from the act of Homosexuality is making them restrain their identity

So let me get this straight. Many pages back, you said that you had never seen proof of homosexuality being natural and that is why you would not change your belief on it.

I give you evidence - scientific, solid evidence - grounded in research and genetics in various disciplines, and you still refuse to accept homosexuality is something you are born with?

This leads me to believe that you were never looking for any evidence or any confirmation at all. Your refusal to even consider it shows that you would hold on to your views regardless.

Toasty, on Jul 24 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

I'd like to emphasize the "Modern Science" part of that post.

Ever since man first walked the face of the earth (depending on what you believe, that's anywhere between 5000 and a few hundred thousand or more years ago), it has only ever been possible to make a child with a man and a woman.

The only way to naturally make a baby, is with a man and a woman.
If the apocalypse came and somehow all scientific research was destroyed, you wouldn't be making babies with two men or two women.

Lovely, we have someone denouncing "modern science". I tell you what, since you want to emphasize the "modern science" part, I ask you not to use a computer, not to drive a car, not to wear your factory made clothing, not to drink your purified water, not to get your vaccines.

Because hey, when man first walked the earth, it was only possible to live life without any of this that you take for granted.






(Why are you still reading this? This monitor you're staring at is a product of modern science!)

Split Infinity, on Jul 25 2009, 01:18 AM, said:

No, you're forcing them to be tolerant.

Reality check, you're not always going to approve of other peoples' choices. That's life. But that doesn't give you the right to make those choices for them.

I am never going to understand people who claim they will suddenly have their lives changed if gays get married.

Toasty, on Jul 25 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

As far as proposition 8 goes, I believe the citizens of California voted on that. For prop 8 to pass, it needed a majority vote. Which means the majority of people voted for it.

You can't ever hope to please everyone, but you can please the majority.

Are you saying that the viewpoint of the minority should overrule the viewpoint of the majority?

I would be very curious to know how the results of Proposition 8 would have turned out different without the $30 million ad blitz from neighboring megachurches. That said, it's convenient for you to refer to the results of Proposition 8, but the entire gay marriage issue is not going to be squeezed into that single narrow example. Had Proposition 8 failed and gay marriage remained in California, you would be still be saying gay marriage is wrong and should be overturned - even if that means the "minority would overturn the majority".

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Jul 25 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

As far as proposition 8 goes, I believe the citizens of California voted on that. For prop 8 to pass, it needed a majority vote. Which means the majority of people voted for it.

You can't ever hope to please everyone, but you can please the majority.

Are you saying that the viewpoint of the minority should overrule the viewpoint of the majority?

The concept of equal rights is universal. The majority shouldn't even exist.

[Quacnar]

Split Infinity, on Jul 25 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

The concept of equal rights is universal. The majority shouldn't even exist.

If this was true, there wouldn't be a debate for the legalization of gay marriage. And anyways, the gays have equal rights, they can marry people of the opposite sex, just liek everyone else.

[Split Infinity]

Okay, let's step back a few years. Here's the thing; you can't vote if you're black. Pretty simple. It holds the same for everybody, so it must be fair, right? Surely it doesn't matter whether it applies to you or not, despite affecting a basic citizen's right.

I could swear GL said the same thing just a couple pages ago.

[Quacnar]

I'm just saying. Everyone has the same rights. You can't say the rights aren't equal, because they are. They may be unjust or unfair, but they're definitely equal.

[Caael]

I wouldn't say black people not voting is exactly 'equal'.

[Quacnar]

Well, would you agree that the grandfather clause was equal? It applied to everyone.

[Golden Legacy]

The grandfather clause, the literacy test, the poll taxes, applied to everyone legally, but they disproportionately affected blacks (as the politicians that supported them intended).

[Quacnar]

I'm aware. But we're going off topic, the point is, the law is effecting everyone equally.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Jul 26 2009, 04:25 AM, said:

Okay, let's step back a few years. Here's the thing; you can't vote if you're black. Pretty simple. It holds the same for everybody, so it must be fair, right? Surely it doesn't matter whether it applies to you or not, despite affecting a basic citizen's right.

I could swear GL said the same thing just a couple pages ago.

No, because black people were being denied the right to do the exact same thing that white people were. The right to vote.

It's different from the gay marriage sittuation where everyone is allowed to marry the opposite sex, and everyone is denied the right to marry the same sex. Whether everyone exercises that right or not doesn't matter in this specific example, because the laws apply to everyone.

Back when black men were denied the right to vote, that law only applied to a certain people, because black men specifically were denied the right to vote. In this case however, like I stated above, everyone is denied the right to gay marriage.

Within all the states that still oppose gay marriage, of course.



This isn't an argument over allowing gays to marry so much as it is an argument over whether anyone should be able to marry the opposite sex. Since any law passed as far as this matter goes will affect the right of all citizens, and not just those who want to marry the opposite sex.

Afterall, even if a straight person didn't want to, if gay marriage was allowed, he would be allowed to marry someone from the same sex.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 26 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

The grandfather clause, the literacy test, the poll taxes, applied to everyone legally, but they disproportionately affected blacks (as the politicians that supported them intended).

You make a good point. However, even if the law effects some people more than others, it is still applied to everyone.

[Caael]

Well this is where the flaw in democracy comes in; just because it's the majority doesn't make it right. One mans sinner is another mans saint and all that.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 26 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

You make a good point. However, even if the law effects some people more than others, it is still applied to everyone.

I think you're sorely whitewashing what those laws did. It "applied to everyone", but the fact that the grandparents of blacks were more than likely slaves as opposed to their white peers - and thus not allowed to invoke the "grandfather clause" exception from the poll tax - was clearly not equal. The fact that whites had access to education as a result of their privileged status over blacks, which led to clear imbalances in the literacy tests required for voting, was not simply something that should be accepted because "it still applied to everyone".

Originally, only property owners could vote. This law "applied to everyone", but reduced the electorate who had the right of suffrage to around 10% of the population, excluding women (not allowed to own property), blacks (were considered 'property'), and poor whites (didn't own property).

Toasty, on Jul 26 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

This isn't an argument over allowing gays to marry so much as it is an argument over whether anyone should be able to marry the opposite sex.

For the first time, I agree.

Quote

Afterall, even if a straight person didn't want to, if gay marriage was allowed, he would be allowed to marry someone from the same sex.

Why would any straight person suddenly be forced to/choose to marry someone of the same sex?

I get sick of this argument. No, calling it an "argument" is far too flattering.
By this logic:

Quote

Afterall, even if a gay man didn't want to, under the current laws, he would be allowed to marry a lesbian woman.

[Quacnar]

I think you misunderstood their GL. He was saying that if gay marriage was legalized, heterosexuals could marry heterosexuals of teh same sex if tehy wanted to, not that they would be forced to do that, but it would be an option.

The world works in a way, so that it can function on its own, without man-made technology. In fact, currently, this technology and other actions done by man are destroying the world slowly (global warming, elimination of species, pollution, elimination of teh rain forest, etc.). One of the things that has been disturbed because of man is natural selection. People don't survive based on their genetics (in most cases), they survive based on their situation at birth (money, education, oppurtunity, etc.). So, homosexuality, which as some of you say is genetic, wouldn't be passed on in natural selection, it is passes on in modern day, due to societies influencing everyone that they are actually straight and surrogacy, these genetics are being passed on. The defect that is homosexuality will survive, when it wouldn't naturally. WHy should these naturally diseased beings get to continue this behavior, and given to function as everyone else? They shouldn't be allowed to reproduce and be quarantined from teh rest of society.

[Golden Legacy]

killercoz, on Jul 26 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood their GL. He was saying that if gay marriage was legalized, heterosexuals could marry heterosexuals of teh same sex if tehy wanted to, not that they would be forced to do that, but it would be an option.

... Hence why I said "be forced to" or "choose to". Toasty's wording is absolutely contradictory:

Quote

Afterall, even if a straight person didn't want to, if gay marriage was allowed, he would be allowed to marry someone from the same sex.

"If a straight person didn't want to" and, "he would be allowed". So we either have his meaning of being forced (person doesn't want to) or have the option (person wants to). In either scenario, it's a fairly stupid point.

[Toasty]

I advise that you go look up the definition of contradictory, GL.

The only part that you're looking at, is that whether a straight person wants to marry the same sex or not is irrelevant. In which case you're right. It is irrelevant. However, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make.

My point was that such a bill/law/etc. would be in effect for all people. Not just a specific group. It would be non-discriminatory. Just as the situation is right now. It may be more detrimental to gays than to straight people to ban gay marriage, but no law states that "gays cannot marry." Only that "gay marriage is illegal."

Caael, on Jul 26 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

Well this is where the flaw in democracy comes in; just because it's the majority doesn't make it right. One mans sinner is another mans saint and all that.

You can never, ever hope to please everyone. but you can please the majority. That thought has gone through the brains of every president who ever had a high approval rating.

Golden Legacy, on Jul 26 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

I think you're sorely whitewashing what those laws did. It "applied to everyone", but the fact that the grandparents of blacks were more than likely slaves as opposed to their white peers - and thus not allowed to invoke the "grandfather clause" exception from the poll tax - was clearly not equal. The fact that whites had access to education as a result of their privileged status over blacks, which led to clear imbalances in the literacy tests required for voting, was not simply something that should be accepted because "it still applied to everyone".

I was solely referring to the gay marriage controversy. Not the grandfather clause, or anything else.

We're talking about gay marriage afterall. Not other bills that have "affected all, but some to a more severe degree."

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 27 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

My point was that such a bill/law/etc. would be in effect for all people. Not just a specific group. It would be non-discriminatory. Just as the situation is right now. It may be more detrimental to gays than to straight people to ban gay marriage, but no law states that "gays cannot marry." Only that "gay marriage is illegal."

Yes, and likewise, the proposed legislation would also be non-discriminatory. It would not say "gays are allowed to marry". It would say simply that "marriage is the union of any two people" - Gender is not a legal reason to invalidate or disapprove of a couple to be married.

This would be in effect for all people.

Quote

I was solely referring to the gay marriage controversy. Not the grandfather clause, or anything else.

We're talking about gay marriage afterall. Not other bills that have "affected all, but some to a more severe degree."

Ahh yes, funny that we were just discussing a parallel situation with civil and minority rights to shed light onto this debate. After you yourself posted about this, you now back away and tell us all to refocus on gay marriage to ignore the point that was being made.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 26 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

So let me get this straight. Many pages back, you said that you had never seen proof of homosexuality being natural and that is why you would not change your belief on it.

I give you evidence - scientific, solid evidence - grounded in research and genetics in various disciplines, and you still refuse to accept homosexuality is something you are born with?

This leads me to believe that you were never looking for any evidence or any confirmation at all. Your refusal to even consider it shows that you would hold on to your views regardless.

There is solid scientific evidence on both sides of the global warming debate and constant declarations of the negative/positive effects of alcohol such as wine. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing with Science. If you can show me that Gay George has extra/different chomosone or something then straight Sam like the G A T C things, biology never was my strong point, then, well I'll be stumped I suppose.

And yes I would hold onto my views regardless, as I have said, I have faith and believe in God and he has stated Homosexuality is wrong. But on the flip side, would you really change your firmly held views on what someone on a forum says? Think about that before you judge (directed to all)

[Quacnar]

Everyone here does realize that, inevitably, gay marriage will be legalized in America? Right?