Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[insane]

 

The fact that you allow heterosexuals to get married, but not homosexuals is quite clearly a discrimination you feel is justified. Stop denying it isn't discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself?

 

 

 

 

I seriously doubt any Church in its right mind would knowingly allow a gay man to marry a woman. Unless of course what you are saying is that the only rule of marriage is that partners have to be of the opposite sex. Which is obviously untrue.

 

 

 

You're probably right... unless the gay man was attempting to live straight or switch preferences. Just because a church would allow it doesn't mean the only rule is opposite sex. Are you suggesting that a homosexual man cannot unconditionally love a woman? And while we're on the topic, what's the secular rule of marriage? It would seem hypocritical to criticize the religious "rule of marriage" when the secular rule of marriage is both partners merely needing to be human.

 

 

 

 

 

@Ginger, I agree with scenario A.

[Satenza]

 

You're probably right... unless the gay man was attempting to live straight or switch preferences. Just because a church would allow it doesn't mean the only rule is opposite sex. Are you suggesting that a homosexual man cannot unconditionally love a woman? And while we're on the topic, what's the secular rule of marriage? It would seem hypocritical to criticize the religious "rule of marriage" when the secular rule of marriage is both partners merely needing to be human.

 

 

 

 

Im not suggesting homosexual people can not unconditionally love another person of the opposite sex. Just like I would not suggest a heterosexual person could not love a person of the same sex. The problem is that this kind of love is not a romantic love, nor is it one that would make two people want to devote themselves to one another. I'm not sure on the secular rule of marriage, but I was not criticizing the Church for not allowing the marriage of a homosexual person to someone of the opposite sex, because well, such a marriage would be ridiculous. Regardless though, the Church would not let a homosexual person marry any gender of person. Which would seem to counter your argument.

[mmmcannibalism]

If we are in a situation where the majority of people (in my country at least) have no issues regarding the legal marriage of two homosexuals, but the Church doesn't approve of homosexual marriages, then there's two democratic solutions:

 

 

 

A) Have secular marriages provided by the state in addition to religious marriages provided by the Church; or

 

B) The Church accepts homosexual marriages.

 

 

 

No chance of option B) happening anytime soon. What about option A)?

 

 

 

The state has no power to force religious institutions into conducting homosexual marriage ceremonies. However, a marriage does not have to be religiously recognised in order to be a marriage.

 

 

 

Quite simply, if we accept civil partnerships, why not go all the way and call them weddings, if not a religious wedding?

 

 

 

Actually state allowed legal marriages are the proper solution to this I agree with you, which is whats starting to happen in America.

 

 

 

It is a shame that everyone wants to force it to be a religious argument when it is so much easier to get gay marriage legalized if you just go on secular law

[Howlin0001]

(This is for people who referred to the bible for a no answer)

 

Any chance you are/were an unruly teen or worked on a Sunday or had sex before you were married?

 

 

 

A yes or no answer will do as a reply (No need for any details)

[oegly41]

* Yaaaaaaaaaawn... Been reading through some of the pages... *

 

 

 

Not a choice.

 

Hence, not wrong.

 

 

 

If it was a choice, why would so many people kill themselves for being homosexual?

[Furah]

Or eat pork.

 

 

 

I actually know plenty of christians that don't eat pork at all, conservative as they may be, it doesn't seem like that rare of a phenomenon. Not all christians have a slice of bacon & eggs at breakfast while sipping coffee and reading New York Times.

 

 

 

But the point stands, average christians don't usually adhere to anything in the Old Testament or even belittle it, so why pick pieces of it that suit their targets of hatred such as gays?

 

 

 

That would be because the average doesn't read much of the old testament, I fall into this catagory unfortunately :oops:

 

 

 

Plus I would like to point out we are against the act of homosexuality, not the people themselves. I know homosexuals and bis who are pretty awesome, I don't hate them, just the act of homosexuality/bisexuality. Take Limp for example, I think he is an awesome person, and even though I dislike the fact that he is bisexual, it doesn't mean he is any less of a friend to me.

 

 

 

EDIT: @ Ginger, a Christian church will never allow homosexual marriage, because the moment they do, they are no longer a Christain church

 

@ insane, I read someone an American woman once married a rock :shock: , I'll have to find the link.

[sloter]

I don't care as long as they don't hit on me. I think that the government stopping people only makes them look dumb as there worried about guys plugging each other and not worring about what needs to get worried about.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Plus I would like to point out we are against the act of homosexuality, not the people themselves.

 

Oh, well that's alright then.

 

 

 

I mean, I've nothing against paedophiles, it's just the act of paedophilia that irks me.

 

I know homosexuals and bis who are pretty awesome, I don't hate them, just the act of homosexuality/bisexuality.

 

That's pretty much the same as the old strawman argument against racism: "My best mate is black, so I can't be racist".

 

 

 

EDIT: @ Ginger, a Christian church will never allow homosexual marriage, because the moment they do, they are no longer a Christain church

 

Then fine, the solution is to remove the Church's exclusive right to marry couples, provide state-sanctioned marriages, and the Church can lose with it the ridiculous amount of money needed for a wedding these days.

 

 

 

A civil partnership isn't good enough, as it is unequal to marriage by its very nature, and therefore, discriminative.

[How2PK]

47 pages of discussion and the best answer is still on the first page:

 

 

 

It's not right or wrong. I accept it and it doesn't bother me at all.

[Quoi_Tu]

Then fine, the solution is to remove the Church's exclusive right to marry couples, provide state-sanctioned marriages, and the Church can lose with it the ridiculous amount of money needed for a wedding these days.

 

 

 

A civil partnership isn't good enough, as it is unequal to marriage by its very nature, and therefore, discriminative.

 

 

 

You can only attain a legal, tax return enabling marriage through a church? Or am I confused?

[Sly_Wizard]

I'm fairly sure I responded to this thread before... Anywho...

 

 

 

I'm unaware of any law which bans gay marriage on the account that it violates some religious principle (At least, not in the West) insomuch as it violates people's personal convictions regarding what should be right or wrong. And for as long as people can decide what should be legal based on what they feel as right and wrong, then the argument regarding the separation of church and state becomes moot because it's a non-factor. As it stands, using the argument for the seperation of church and state is a subtle way of saying that people should believe what you believe is right, not what they believe is right.

 

 

 

...And, for the record, if you're going to argue that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, then I'd like to point out to you that contractual law states that the state (Or Federal government) has the final sayso when it comes to regulating who can enter a contract and for what reasons. Simply because two people consent to enter into a contract doesn't mean they can/should be allowed to do so.

 

 

 

That's pretty much the same as the old strawman argument against racism: "My best mate is black, so I can't be racist".

 

 

 

Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.

[magekillr]

I think we should just abolish marriage altogether. It's an outdated ritual that serves no purpose.

[Agunimon979]

I think the reason that alot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender and then these [bleep]ing adds come on that tell us to "Love Homosexuality" and "Celebrate Homosexuality" ffs stop trying to turn me homo i am straight and i will always be straight. Turnin people's sexual orientation around just for money, despicable.

[magekillr]

I think the reason that alot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender and then these [bleep] adds come on that tell us to "Love Homosexuality" and "Celebrate Homosexuality" ffs stop trying to turn me homo i am straight and i will always be straight. Turnin people's sexual orientation around just for money, despicable.

 

 

 

You mean like the Christians who try and turn gay people straight as if they need a cure?

 

 

 

You're disgusting.

[brandon1023]

I think the reason that a lot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender and then these [bleep] adds come on that tell us to "Love Homosexuality" and "Celebrate Homosexuality" ffs stop trying to turn me homo i am straight and i will always be straight. Turning people's sexual orientation around just for money, despicable.

 

I'm going to have to say it is wrong... But.. What people do in the privacy of their own home, is no one's business but their own. As mentioned above, in human nature, we are attracted to the opposite sex. You hear a lot more males saying they have a girlfriend rather than a boyfriend, and probably if you were to ever say anything about it in school, your life would never be the same. I'm also going to have to say that it is freedom of expression, so people are allowed to do what they want, I just don't agree with it. Especially how you hear on the radio discussion that Hallmark is going to start making Gay marriage cards... Imagine a little kid were to ever pick up a card like that some day. How would the parents be able to explain that to a 6 year old.

 

 

 

And another thing is that 'I kissed a girl' song. that is just one of the most sickest songs.. Again, what if a little kid were to ever ask: "Girls kiss girls?" How would you be able to explain that?

[magekillr]

Again, what if a little kid were to ever ask: "Girls kiss girls?" How would you be able to explain that?

 

 

 

You tell them the truth: that some people are homosexuals by nature, and not choice.

[llcoolguy972]

I think the reason that a lot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender and then these [bleep] adds come on that tell us to "Love Homosexuality" and "Celebrate Homosexuality" ffs stop trying to turn me homo i am straight and i will always be straight. Turning people's sexual orientation around just for money, despicable.

 

I'm going to have to say it is wrong... But.. What people do in the privacy of their own home, is no one's business but their own. As mentioned above, in human nature, we are attracted to the opposite sex. You hear a lot more males saying they have a girlfriend rather than a boyfriend, and probably if you were to ever say anything about it in school, your life would never be the same. I'm also going to have to say that it is freedom of expression, so people are allowed to do what they want, I just don't agree with it. Especially how you hear on the radio discussion that Hallmark is going to start making Gay marriage cards... Imagine a little kid were to ever pick up a card like that some day. How would the parents be able to explain that to a 6 year old.

 

 

 

And another thing is that 'I kissed a girl' song. that is just one of the most sickest songs.. Again, what if a little kid were to ever ask: "Girls kiss girls?" How would you be able to explain that?

 

 

 

No, it's in YOUR nature to like the opposite sex. It's in MY nature to like the same sex. "Freedom of expression" is wearing a black shirt. It's not who you are, your desires, your sexuality. It's not YOU. And how would it be difficult to explain gay weddings or the I Kissed a Girl song to children? The beauty of a child's mind is that a simple "sometimes girls fall in love with girls aren't interested in boys (and vice versa)" will do.

[mmmcannibalism]

I think we should just abolish marriage altogether. It's an outdated ritual that serves no purpose.

 

 

 

actually on a purely legal basis it establishes where your finances go if you die. At least in America spouse gets control of your personal property over your parents/siblings

 

 

 

could go into it being symbolic of love or whatever but dont feel like hearing the response from someone that if you love someone you dont need a paper saying it. That one legal reason should be enough to establish marriage had a purpose.

 

 

 

just to clarify I think we should have gay marriage as legal, why should it be the states job to decide what love is legitimate? Also, churches should never be required to perform ceremonies for gay couples because, to try an analagy, would be like making atheists worship a god. Just goes against their beliefs and we have no right to force it on people

 

 

 

edit--basal human nature is to be heterosexual, homosexuality is a mutation that has appeared in many species on the earth. No im not calling gays mutants, just saying that it is a genetic mutation like an abnormaly high metabolsim or something

[magekillr]

actually on a purely legal basis it establishes where your finances go if you die.

 

 

 

A will?

 

 

 

It's not going anywhere, but it's my opinion on the matter.

[Zierro]

Brandon, are you saying we should hide the truth from them? What purpose does that serve besides promoting an ignorant population? In fact, I think telling them the real facts would desensitize them from their "shock", rather than keeping it a secret (hint: people have fear of the unknown). I don't know about you, but I think people are generally more tolerant to things that they have knowledge about.

 

 

 

Don't you think the news is Rated G for a reason? The world isn't what you want it to be - that doesn't mean to hide your face from the truth.

[Howlin0001]

I think the reason that alot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender.

 

Well actually isn't human nature to learn and experiment and to be curious?

[llcoolguy972]

edit--basal human nature is to be heterosexual, homosexuality is a mutation that has appeared in many species on the earth. No im not calling gays mutants, just saying that it is a genetic mutation like an abnormaly high metabolsim or something

 

 

 

I don't really think I'm going against you, but I just read this article and there was a theory in what makes people gay. I thought it was pretty interesting and explained things well. Especially in the case of twins.

 

[hide=]Instead of looking for a gay gene, they stress that they are looking for several genes that cause either attraction to men or attraction to women. Those same genes would work one way in heterosexual women and another way in homosexual men. The UCLA lab is examining how these genes might be turned "up" or "down." It's not a question of what genes you have, but rather which ones you use, says Bocklandt. "I have the genes in my body to make a vagina and carry a baby, but I don't use them, because I am a man." In studying the genes of gay sheep, for example, he's found some that are turned "way up" compared with the straight rams.

 

 

 

The lab is also testing an intriguing theory involving imprinted genes. Normally, we have two copies of every gene, one from each parent, and both copies work. They're identical, so it doesn't matter which copy comes from which parent. But with imprinted genes, that does matter. Although both copies are physically there, one copy - either from the mom or the dad - is blocked from working. Think of an airplane with an engine on each wing, except one of the engines is shut down. A recent Duke University study suggests humans have hundreds of imprinted genes, including one on the X chromosome that previous research has tied to sexual orientation.

 

 

 

With imprinted genes, there is no backup engine. So if there's something atypical in the copy from mom, the copy from dad cannot be turned on. The UCLA lab is now collecting DNA from identical twins in which one twin is straight and the other is gay. Because the twins begin as genetic clones, if a gene is imprinted in one twin, it will be in the other twin as well. Normally, as the fetuses are developing, each time a cell divides, the DNA separates and makes a copy of itself, replicating all kinds of genetic information. It's a complicated but incredibly accurate process. But the coding to keep the backup engine shut down on an imprinted gene is less accurate.

 

 

 

So how might imprinted genes help explain why one identical twin would be straight and the other gay? Say there's an imprinted gene for attraction to females, and there's something atypical in the copy the twin brothers get from mom. As all that replicating is going on, the imprinting (to keep the copy from dad shut down) proceeds as expected in one twin, and he ends up gay. But somehow with his brother, the coding for the imprinting is lost, and rather than remain shut down, the fuel flows to fire up the backup engine from dad. And that twin turns out to be straight.[/hide]

[Ginger_Warrior]

And for as long as people can decide what should be legal based on what they feel as right and wrong, then the argument regarding the separation of church and state becomes moot because it's a non-factor.

 

Stop using cop-out arguments and answer the point. It is a perfectly valid factor so long as religious organisations are the only bodies that can legally marry two people.

 

 

 

As it stands, using the argument for the seperation of church and state is a subtle way of saying that people should believe what you believe is right, not what they believe is right.

 

It's quite the opposite. It's actually allowing the Church to carry on with its homophobia, while allowing homosexuals the basic principles of equality to their hetereosexual counterparts.

 

 

 

Believe me, if I wanted to force people into believing what *I* believe is right, the concept of religion deciding who can and cannot get married would be a non-issue - they'd do it or face charges on discrimination.

 

 

 

My solution is actually incredibly lenient, given my moral principles.

 

 

 

That's pretty much the same as the old strawman argument against racism: "My best mate is black, so I can't be racist".

 

 

 

Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.

 

I wasn't aware it was one's action to be black, or a homosexual for that matter. Through fear of sounding like a broken record, neither is a conscientious choice.

[user1991]

Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.

 

 

 

Since when has being black or gay been classified as an action?

[warri0r45]

I think the reason that alot of us oppose gayness is because it's in our human nature to be attracted to the opposite gender and then these [bleep] adds come on that tell us to "Love Homosexuality" and "Celebrate Homosexuality" ffs stop trying to turn me homo i am straight and i will always be straight. Turnin people's sexual orientation around just for money, despicable.

 

 

 

I think the reason that a lot of people oppose gayness is religious instruction. But I suppose your reason could have been why religious teachings picked up on the whole anti-gay thing earlier on. Religious beliefs that appeal to the supernatural are just an excellent artifice for spreading the particular views in question, unfortunately.

 

 

 

Also, I doubt that pro-gay campaigners are trying to turn you gay. I seriously hope not, anyway, because that would make them as bad as the nutcases who try and "fix" homosexuality.

 

 

 

Hating someone's actions does not equate to hating someone as a person.

 

 

 

Since when has being black or gay been classified as an action?

 

 

 

To be fair, I think the action in question is anal sex. Or sex between two males or two females.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

My opinion on homosexuality and homosexuals has always been that it doesn't bother me in the slightest. The don't choose to be gay, though that's not the only reason why they shouldn't be discriminated against. They're human beings and want nothing more to be left in peace, so I do.