What do you think of homosexuality?

[Hardcore]

i think its everyones personal choice what his or her sexual preferences are. however, one should neither openly advertise them nor get any advantages out of belonging to any particular group. both of which is kinda being done rather blatantly by the G&L community in recent years.

You'll fit in well here.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

That's what she said.

[cheetahfear]

all old testament.

nothing to do with what Christianity is. You're looking to crucify the Jews.

still pretty hillarious

Not exactly true. It still has everything to do with Christianity, you read the entire bible. The only thing you can argue is that Jesus repealed Levitican law when he talked about eating pork. But that is debatable, especially when Leviticus is still quoted by many of the radicals.

Jesus never repealed the law read the bible from old Hebrew and it clearly states that this was used as a symbol that 1 God can make all things clean when he sought to spread the good new to the gentiles. and as far as the laws of love again this was simply stated as any man who has love for God and fellow man will obey his laws.


Well I disagree with homosexual marriage but I never disagreed with interracial marriage, so you really shouldn't generalize. And I see no comparisons whatsoever with racism, to the extent of such events like the Holocaust, where people were exterminated just because they looked different. But yes, it is their business what they do, but in a religious perspective marriage is between a man and woman, homosexuals should make their own ceremonies if they want to be joined like marriage allows


Wow its rare to find a legit intelligent conversation, I will try and ruin it later... I didn't read anything after page 2 but I must say I think anyone should be allowed to get married and at the same time anyone should be allowed not to marry them. homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God and evolution at the same time threes little I enjoy more the two girls going at it unless of course they let me join in in any case I don’t understand why they want a [censored] piece of government paper if they do love each other it should not matter and if they want to leave their life insurance or anything else of the sort it should be able to go to whomever they see fit.

[Dretlin]

I don’t understand why they want a [censored] piece of government paper if they do love each other it should not matter

It does matter, that "piece of paper" confirms they're rights in law to equal that of any other marriage and of anyone else. Something you may take for granted.

I am hoping this nonsense about religion is an absurd joke, as it holds no justified reason for being involved in this debate.

[Kyo]

in any case I don’t understand why they want a [censored] piece of government paper if they do love each other it should not matter

I agree with this. Marriage is a vow of the heart to the person you truly love. You don't need papers saying that nor do you need to share the same last name (though it would be nice). Johnny Depp has been married for years to his wife but they were never legally married. There are no papers or anything. He says that he doesn't need those things for him to consider her his wife. If gays wanted to be married for the simple fact that they "loved" each other then having papers to prove it would be irrelevant. I don't necessarily support gay marriage nor am I necessarily against it. I honestly believe that homosexuality is nothing but a result of some sort of psychological trauma or dysfunction that the person has yet to deal with.

[Dretlin]

I honestly believe that homosexuality is nothing but a result of some sort of psychological trauma or dysfunction that the person has yet to deal with.

Or you joking? Do you understand how fallacious this is?

I would be surprised of a gay human-being was not offended by your statement.

Your example of a straight couple being satisfied without being married has nothing to do with a gay couple who are not.

[cheetahfear]

kyo i could not agree with you more and in any case homosexuality is the result of a minor chemical imbalance because it is not natural.

[Hardcore]

This page of this thread makes me contemplate jumping off of a very tall building.

[Dretlin]

This page of this thread makes me contemplate jumping off of a very tall building.

I believe asinine remarks are being said for the sake of - saying asinine remarks. As no intelligent person holds warped opinions like that.

[Athos]

kyo i could not agree with you more and in any case homosexuality is the result of a minor chemical imbalance because it is not natural.

Interestingly enough, there have been cases reported of homosexuality within the animal kingdom.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

all old testament.

nothing to do with what Christianity is. You're looking to crucify the Jews.

still pretty hillarious

Not exactly true. It still has everything to do with Christianity, you read the entire bible. The only thing you can argue is that Jesus repealed Levitican law when he talked about eating pork. But that is debatable, especially when Leviticus is still quoted by many of the radicals.

Jesus never repealed the law read the bible from old Hebrew and it clearly states that this was used as a symbol that 1 God can make all things clean when he sought to spread the good new to the gentiles. and as far as the laws of love again this was simply stated as any man who has love for God and fellow man will obey his laws.


Well I disagree with homosexual marriage but I never disagreed with interracial marriage, so you really shouldn't generalize. And I see no comparisons whatsoever with racism, to the extent of such events like the Holocaust, where people were exterminated just because they looked different. But yes, it is their business what they do, but in a religious perspective marriage is between a man and woman, homosexuals should make their own ceremonies if they want to be joined like marriage allows


Wow its rare to find a legit intelligent conversation, I will try and ruin it later... I didn't read anything after page 2 but I must say I think anyone should be allowed to get married and at the same time anyone should be allowed not to marry them. homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God and evolution at the same time threes little I enjoy more the two girls going at it unless of course they let me join in in any case I don’t understand why they want a [censored] piece of government paper if they do love each other it should not matter and if they want to leave their life insurance or anything else of the sort it should be able to go to whomever they see fit.

I'm not going to bother splitting up the argument into different parts, so prepare to take it all at once.

One, it's an example of Levitican law being repealed, meaning that really there's no obligation to live under it. Also, from my understanding, it was never clearly stated what that meant, as per usual in the bible. It was a story told, that many people use their own interpretations to decide what it meant. You may have stated a general consensus, but anyone can reach a conclusion, and be intelligible enough to convince people that what they believe is correct.



One of my favorite moments from West Wing, and I may have posted this before, but this does a good job of explaining the situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI


And I didn't generalize about the people, so while you may not have anything against interracial marriage and relationships, I find the attitude the same, even some of the arguments, that holocaust analogy doesn't really fit under this circumstance, because it's taken it to too much of an extreme.

I shall state some examples specifically. "I disagree with it because it's unnatural"

"The children what about the children, we have to think of their interests"

"God created us this way for a reason"

And so on and so forth. No real argument, just a bunch of opinions.

Also, I speak from the point of view of an American. In our country the right to pursue freedoms has always been a fundamental block, our cornerstone, the very foundation upon which we built this country, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness. And while the Supreme court usually decides that separation of church and state doesn't necessarily mean no religious based laws, it does mean it can't show favor toward one belief over another, and to deny marriage based on religious principles is a violation of that law.

I do believe that my commitments to personal freedoms usually outweigh my opinions.

[Athos]

Also, I speak from the point of view of an American. In our country the right to pursue freedoms has always been a fundamental block, our cornerstone, the very foundation upon which we built this country, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness. And while the Supreme court usually decides that separation of church and state doesn't necessarily mean no religious based laws, it does mean it can't show favor toward one belief over another, and to deny marriage based on religious principles is a violation of that law.

I do believe that my commitments to personal freedoms usually outweigh my opinions.

Well, I think it's safe to say though that we're all Americans and one way or another, we do care about our country, and it's society, it's moral judgments, and mean while we have similar goals, we just have a different route on how to get there.

It is true as you say, we do have a notion of pursuing freedom. However, we tend to forget that we do not have complete freedom, per the rule of law which we are all subject to. And in terms of the Declaration of Independence, the "pursuit of happiness" actually refers to property.

Now as for the role of the state. The secular state, as you have pointed out, cannot favor one religion over another, to the best of my knowledge, in terms of public monies. However, at the same time, perhaps a bit less than a majority of our society is making a moral judgment on this issue. While we may pretend to have a separation of church and state, we cannot neglect to take into account a sum of the moral judgments of the total politic body, whose will is enacted through the rule of law. Thus, enter courts whose duty is to-at times-back of the thwart of the "tyranny of the majority."

There seems to be a misnomer of egalitarianism with personal freedom.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

Also, I speak from the point of view of an American. In our country the right to pursue freedoms has always been a fundamental block, our cornerstone, the very foundation upon which we built this country, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness. And while the Supreme court usually decides that separation of church and state doesn't necessarily mean no religious based laws, it does mean it can't show favor toward one belief over another, and to deny marriage based on religious principles is a violation of that law.

I do believe that my commitments to personal freedoms usually outweigh my opinions.

Well, I think it's safe to say though that we're all Americans and one way or another, we do care about our country, and it's society, it's moral judgments, and mean while we have similar goals, we just have a different route on how to get there.

You'd be surprised to find the growing apathy and disassociation towards American pride amongst today's youth. All I hear nowadays is "I wanna live in Japan it's so awesome" or "X country is so much better blah blah blah." They're entitled to their opinions, but at least amongst the people I encounter, it almost seems like a shock to say that I love America.

It is true as you say, we do have a notion of pursuing freedom. However, we tend to forget that we do not have complete freedom, per the rule of law which we are all subject to. And in terms of the Declaration of Independence, the "pursuit of happiness" actually refers to property.

Yes. But I evolved it more to suit todays standards, while not in the original intent. I think the motivation behind the revolution is at least romanticized to be about rebelling from the thumb of a foreign power, and beginning to build a nation that held humanity and its freedoms to its utmost importance in the building of our country. And that their work was largely unfinished.

Now as for the role of the state. The secular state, as you have pointed out, cannot favor one religion over another, to the best of my knowledge, in terms of public monies.

That was the original intent, but as we know, with the power that the Supreme Court has with Judicial review, I believe, though I can't exactly recall, that it has extended to other areas as well. Such as public holidays and other such things. Though what I said was a little bit more of a push, I hoped that I at least captured the general attitude when it came to the law, I just probably extended it a little further than anyone in the Supreme Court actually would.

However, at the same time, perhaps a bit less than a majority of our society is making a moral judgment on this issue. While we may pretend to have a separation of church and state, we cannot neglect to take into account a sum of the moral judgments of the total politic body, whose will is enacted through the rule of law. Thus, enter courts whose duty is to-at times-back of the thwart of the "tyranny of the majority."

That however was never really the argument. I'm hesitant to make judgments based on what the public majority actually thinks or feels since most of the time a person is inclined to make selfish decisions because they can only decide based on perception. Even if someone doesn't necessarily have a complete understanding of what's right and wrong, the rules of socialization typically dictate that people follow whatever beliefs that were impressed upon them. Under such circumstances I believe that any general policy should reflect that regarding moralistic decisions. It doesn't matter if Jim Dandy doesn't approve of gay relationships, that's his right. It just means he doesn't have to do it. However would anyone actually be hurt by giving them such rights? I think that's the question that should be answered when it comes to such moralistic questions. What does it mean, who would be hurt by it? The general public is often wrong. I could name several situations where things may have seemed right at the time, but society evolved beyond those things causing them to be morally wrong. I.E Slavery, Jim Crow laws, colonization of foreign cultures. Domination of other Ethnicities, manifest destiny. Etc. I would think that gay rights should fall under that, we're in a point where we're evolving beyond considering what love actually is. Finding out that it's more natural than we though it was.

And it does mean more than just a paper. It could mean anything, it's not our place to tell someone what something should mean to them. It also goes a little further when it comes to inheritance, and the ability to do such things like visit them in the hospital if they get really sick, or the ability to decide where they're buried if they died.

There seems to be a misnomer of egalitarianism with personal freedom.

[c

[Athos]

The only harm is them not having the official seal of approval by society.

[cheetahfear]

i think the wolrd should be more segregated all the gays on one side and the straights on the other wait 50 years then have a war and see who win and the winners will be considered whats right

[Athos]

i think the wolrd should be more segregated all the gays on one side and the straights on the other wait 50 years then have a war and see who win and the winners will be considered whats right

Now that is just silly.