actually they allow marriage, and all the benefits of that. now they just voted down a law that allows anyone anywhere to get married in MA whether you live there or not.
A couple states (New Mexico and Rhode Island amongst them) don't have any legal definition of marriage in their laws, so are still able to be married in Massachusetts I do believe.
as single parent is better than gay parents as this could raise up unorthodox raising methods that could mess up the kid.
I would really appreciate a specific example of how being homosexual inherently makes you unable to function as a parent.
As for gay parents, that is still a problematic issue as a lack of father/mother figure is still harmful.
So if I have two parents who do everything to support me and nurture me, they act like the best parents in the world, I will still end up with irreparable harm because "daddy" had ovaries? Explain please.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Well, I don't think a man is as good as giving advice on periods then a woman.
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to.
Quote from The Number Wizard »
As to single parents, i think a couple should be given preferencial treatment over a single parent, all other things being equal.
Is the government giving this preferential treatment? What, exactly, does it consist of?
Quote from The Number Wizard »
I'm not saying I'm against adoption by gay couples and single parents, all I'm saying is if the only difference is that they are gay/straight, I think straight would be better for the child.
So you would essentially arrange the adoption line like so: straight couples, gay/lesbian couples, straight singles, gay/lesbian singles? Just a clarification.
Quote from The Number Wizard »
As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, sure it happens, but it doesnt help. There is no reason for it other then pleasure, much like how people don't get boxing, beating the hell out each other doesn't achieve anything and it's just for some people's pleasure, some people don't understand, geez.
I may point out that almost all sex among human being is non-procreative, so by your logic it doesn't "help," but it's very popular nonetheless. People want to have sex for any number of reasons; having babies is one, but it's more likely to be any one of the following: having a good time, because someone else thinks I should, because I want a special connection with someone, because I love someone, because I both love someone and want to have a good time, etc. etc. The main difference between hetero and homosexual relationships is that due to a slight difference in the biology of the interaction, option A, having babies, is possible in one and not the other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hide myself within my flower
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Well, I don't think a man is as good as giving advice on periods then a woman.
Not as good =/= incapable.
The appropriately-sexed parent is indeed probably best suited to sex-specific life lessons (periods, shaving, first bras, etc), but that's mostly just to make it easier. It's not impossible for a father to teach his daughter about her period.
I'm not saying I'm against adoption by gay couples and single parents, all I'm saying is if the only difference is that they are gay/straight, I think straight would be better for the child.
All we're saying is: why?
As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, sure it happens, but it doesnt help. There is no reason for it other then pleasure, much like how people don't get boxing, beating the hell out each other doesn't achieve anything and it's just for some people's pleasure, some people don't understand, geez.
Clearly you haven't done any research into the matter. Bisexuality (since in almost all cases of same-sex sexual activity in other animals, individuals do not show preference to one sex over the other and will generally engage in sexual activities with both sexes over a lifetime) in the animal kingdom is a relatively young research topic without tons of data, but most reports show that these sexual behaviours have intrinsic values to the population. Some birds engage in polyamorous threesomes with two females and a single male which increases the overall stability of the nest and increases the odds of survival. Bonobos' same-sex relations are actually a large factor in their social structure with female-on-female activity being a large part of gaining entry into another grouping. It also apparently reduces the overall agression levels in bonobo populations.
Examples from all over the animal kingdom exist where same-sex sexual activity is of greater help beyond just pleasure.
I didn't say thy couldn't adopt. adoption's a good thing. And, it would be better for foster care as single parent is better than gay parents as this could raise up unorthodox raising methods that could mess up the kid.
Do you have any facts to back up this statement? I know people with gay parents and I've never seen any unorthadox raising methods at all. I can't believe you'd send a child into foster care rather than allow them to be adopted by a gay couple. The foster care system harms more people than it helps and needs a massive overhaul. Kids often grow up being cared for by the government and are simply turned out at 18 with no preparation for life on their own. I'd rather grow up with gay parents than be put out on the street not knowing how to balance a checkbook, what my rights are as a US citizen, etc. A parent's sexual orientation isn't as important as his/her ability to instill the knowledge a child needs to survive and thrive later in life.
On the notion that children raised by a gay couple are at a disadvantage because they don't have a father/mother figure: What people seem to be forgetting is that children do have role models other than their parents, like teachers and coaches.
I think you're like the second man, wondering how if there is this mode of human sexuality called "heterosexuality" that is normal and natural and moral that someone can automatically assume that homosexuality must therefore be immoral. After all, isn't it possible that heterosexuality is moral AND homosexuality is moral? How can the argument that "Heterosexuals are moral; homosexuals are not heterosexuals, therefore they are immoral" be reasonable?
Some people start with the premise that God is just, good, and inherently fair and wouldn't punish someone unnecessarily or cruelly for no reason.
It's not a sin to be a woman, because half of the people are born women, and they can't change who they are (barring surgery and the like). It's rather sadistic to flip a coin and partition half of the world into the second of two categories - "can get into heaven" and "can't get into heaven". However, many believe it IS a sin to either be a homosexual or perform homosexual acts. The latter falls into the realm of choice and it's not God's fault if you choose to do bad things. You can make the argument that it's cruel to make someone have the desires and punish them for acting on them, but then you could argue that thieves have the desire to steal, liars have the desire to lie, and muderers have the desire to muder. Once they act on their desires, they're pretty clearly sinners.
I have a huge problem with people comparing homosexuals to thieves and murderers. The latter both are clearly immoral in their actions, but my question still stands: by what logic is a homosexual act to be deemed immoral? Who is hurt by it - physically, mentally, or emotionally?
We humans were given faculties of reason and logic for a reason, and it is the mark of a thrall to choose not to exercise those faculties. Yes, much of the Christian tradition and what our parents told us when we were growing up has a lot of value, and we would do well to consider them. But that's the point, you need to consider them, not simply accept them outright.
For example, I believe that theft is immoral not only because it is deemed as such in the Judeochristian tradition (I was raised Roman Catholic), but also because it's clear to me that it is an attack on another, denying them property the thief has no claim to. It makes sense to me that theft is considered immoral.
So must each and every social norm, every tenet of morality, stand up to logical scrutiny. I don't care how many generations marriage was exclusively thought to be between a man and woman, that doesn't make it correct or moral. It simply doesn't follow that we should keep on veiwing it that way (just as another example).
I don't consider the belief that simply being a homosexual is immoral to have enough weight, even in the most religious of hamlets in the United States, to be worth discussing very much. Hell, even the most rabid televangelists preach that Christians must love homosexuals despite their sin.
If we start with only one assumption, the one you have that homosexuality is natural and cannot be altered, then you're forced to conclude that either God isn't wholly good and fair (or doesn't exist at all) or that being a homosexual isn't sinful at all or that one can be homosexual but should not commit homosexual acts.
You're pidgeonholing here, as I know for a fact that there is a third conclusion, and it so happens to be my conclusion, which is - that God is wholly good and fair, that engaging in homosexual intercourse is no less moral than engaging in heterosexual intercourse, but finally that religious texts are so stained with the biases of Man that they do not always represented the Word/Will of God.
Morality, therefore must be judged on some other criteria. It doesn't rule out completely the idea that they could still find homosexuality immoral, but it would certainly be on other grounds than the fact that it is offensive to God. I can imagine some possible reasons, but none of them particularly good or compelling. Procreation as the only moral justification for sex would rule out homosexuals having sex, as well as women past menopause, infertile men and women, the use of contraception, and other forms of sex highly unlikely to result in offspring. Homosexuality as "unnatural" is laughable both because homosexuality is present in nature and because I don't see many chimpanzees at their computers, drinking coffee, and talking on their cell phones. Immorality being on par with offensiveness to the sensibilities of some is just asking for trouble. I hope I don't need to explain where "I don't like this, therefore it's bad" could lead us.
Aha! This brings up a very good point, which is - a person who fervently believes that homosexual acts are immoral was almost certainly NOT surprised or confused when they were first informed of the religious position stating that immorality. Am I incorrect to assume that, for most people at least, it confirmed something they already 'knew'? Instead of using their head, they used their gut to come to agree with such dogma.
(Which is painfully ironic in my mind since conservatives are always decrying liberals for doing just that, valuing emotion instead of reason)
Christians who don't believe in the interepretation of homosexuality as sin from the Bible fall into the second group, although there's a divide there between those who think it's totally acceptable to be homosexual AND Christian and those who think it's acceptable to be a homosexual Christian, so long as you don't commit homosexual acts. I'm assuming you have no beef with the first group of Christians, as they seem to fall in line with your thinking that homosexuality is natural and equal to that of being heterosexual. If you disagree with the second group, I think you're getting into issues of either Biblical interpretation or the validity of the Bible itself, in which case, good luck trying to sway those minds. I hear other groups have tried and failed miserably on both fronts.
You're right that I take no issue with with first group, but I am very much offended by the second (If you hadn't guessed already, I am indeed gay).
actually yes. a couple from a state goes to MA to get married. There state does not recognize gay marriage and they have a law in their constitution that defines marriage as 1 man and 1 women. Those people move back only to find out that their marriage is not good where they live. More than likely they will try to contest it. MA has voilated the rights of another state that says marriage is between a man and a women.
BS. We're not violating other states' rights by marrying out-of-state gay couples. Those states are violating their citizens' rights by refusing to marry them.
Really, "states rights." Like that wasn't the exact same argument used to promote racial segregation and miscegenation laws.
Straight couples mess up more kids than gay couples. Heck, alot of kids are raised by only one parent now. Are kids raised by single parents more at risk for emotional scars because they're raised by only one parent?
Ceteris paribus, yes. Where raising a child is concerned, the more the merrier.
Children are generally raised by not only their parents but also their extended family(grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) and many raised by single parents or gay couples get about the same amount reinforcement of positive relationships as those raised by two straight parents.
The number of primary caregivers is very important. In the case of, say, a single parent living with his or her own parents, that's three primary caregivers, which is - hey! - one better than the traditional nuclear family. But the child of a single parent whose extended family is a frequent presence in his or her life, but not primary caregivers, is at a disadvantage over a kid with one more parent and one less uncle.
Of course, this is not to say that someone raised by a single parent is doomed to failure, and someone raised by two is guaranteed success. Ideally, all of us would be raised by a good ten or twelve primary caregivers, all of whom are well-adjusted and have extensive prior experience with children. Somehow, we scrape by.
Having a gay parent can be traumatic for kids. But its ultimately more shameful or painful trying to explain why your brother or sister has a different daddy or mommy or why you have your mommy's last name or why your mommy has bruises and a black eye.
This is something of a tu quoque argument, and a bit of a disingenuous one at that. Dysfunction and abusiveness aren't the exclusive domain of straight people, you know; it's really beside the point here. An opponent of gay families would say that the child of a gay couple incurs the risk of trauma from that on top of the risk from living in a potentially abusive household.
What's more pertinent, I think, is where this trauma of having a gay parent comes from. Is it intrinsic to the gay family structure? Or is it the result of the prejudices of others being imposed upon the kid from outside? Something tells me it's not the former.
On the notion that children raised by a gay couple are at a disadvantage because they don't have a father/mother figure: What people seem to be forgetting is that children do have role models other than their parents, like teachers and coaches.
True, but again, the primary/nonprimary caregiver distinction is important. It's an obstacle; hardly an insurmountable one, but neither should it be dismissed. If I were a gay parent (or a single one, for that matter), you can be sure I'd put more effort into making a female role model an important part of my child's life than otherwise.
BS. We're not violating other states' rights by marrying out-of-state gay couples. Those states are violating their citizens' rights by refusing to marry them.
Really, "states rights." Like that wasn't the exact same argument used to promote racial segregation and miscegenation laws.
Hey, don't dis states' rights. We have the Tenth Amendment for a reason. Besides, you have a much better argument at hand, one that uses states' rights instead of criticizing them: the full faith and credit clause.
The whole argument that being gay, bi, lesbian, ect is in anyway evil, immoral or wrong is probably the stupidest opinion you could try to defend. If that's what you think, keep it to your self. Once you start spouting off about it in public not only does it make you look ignorant, and uneducated it also makes your religious group look bad if you start quoting lines from said religion's texts claiming it says homosexual behavior is bad.
What your religion says is right or wrong is your's to deal with. I mean do these people ever stop to think, "Oh wait there's more than one religion in the world! Maybe I should shut up and mind my own business instead of shoving my rules and beliefs done someones throat."
I doubt it.
On a non-religion based rant about it. If you think its gross or disgusting, keep it to yourself. Saying something to a gay couple about it, or making a scene about it is incredibly rude and uncalled for.
It's 2008. Maybe it's time for these people to put on their big boy clothes and grow up.
Stan, what do you (or rather, what does Catholicism) make of 1 Corinthians 7:5? Paul is telling married couples that they ought to satisfy their sexual urges with one another so that they won't be tempted to commit adultery. There's no qualifier concerning the fertility of either partner. Similarly, in the many instances in the OT where a woman is identified as "barren," there is not the least indication that her husband ceased to have sex with her on that account.
There are also several instances where a "barren" woman is granted a child. Apparent infirtility is not a disqualifier. Artificial infirtility is.
Children raised by homosexual couples are at a bigger risk of having a few emotional scars. Think, a ten year old would ask why he/she has two daddies when the rest of his friends have a om or dad. Also, the lack of a father or mother figure would usually lead to the children trying to find a source of fatherly or motherly affection elsewhere, maybe even getting married earlier.
Most people would call this speculation or insufficient proof. Not me. I would call this, "stupid argument that makes you look like an assclown."
Considering how many people either grow up with no parents, foster parents, or straight up mentally or physically abusive parents, "Gays can't parent because other kids might make fun of the kid for having gay parents!" isn't going to fly with me.
actually yes. a couple from a state goes to MA to get married. There state does not recognize gay marriage and they have a law in their constitution that defines marriage as 1 man and 1 women. Those people move back only to find out that their marriage is not good where they live. More than likely they will try to contest it. MA has voilated the rights of another state that says marriage is between a man and a women.
This seems extremely sand-crawed, and the definition of which state is violating the other's rights seems to hinge entirely upon which state you agree with on the background issue. But perhaps I'm wrong. Please give your definition of state sovereignty that justifies this stance and not, say, the idea that Virginia violates Massachusetts' rights by ignoring it's authorized unions.
correction we have laws that dictate personal morals on a daily basis. they are there for a reason.
No, we don't. Thankfully, at the moment you don't have to be true to your girlfriend, open doors for old ladies, or be nice to people you hate. You don't have to honor your father or mother or find religion. The day this changes is the day that our democracy dies.
wrong sex is the biological way to continue the bloodline. sex in its basic form is meant for procreation. While we have turned it into a recreational past time that doesn't change the premise of what it is for. No i am not catholic but bio 101 explains at least that much.
I love how whenever it can justify their flimsy moral outrage, Christians are willing to fall back on "as God intended" ******** arguments that we defy on a daily basis. We're not animals. We don't say that we have opposable thumbs to allow us to hunt with weapons, and we don't have sexual urges to create children; we have transcended evolution, and human beings have more value than the continuation of the species. Which, ironically, is a fundamental Judo-Christian ideal.
nope he said a BJ wasn't sex which is debateable depending on how you view it.
Well, clearly, by your argument, it's not sex, as it doesn't create children. Hence you must be outraged that he was bothered about it, and support the rights of married men to ********s from other parties.
actually a lot. homosexuality has no positive influence on society nor does it benefit anything to do with the basic concepts of sex or to further the population. At best they can adopt however that still doesn't continue their bloodlines. when they die they die there is no progression afterwards.
Positive influence is subjective. And again, morality exists of more than continuation of the species. This is why we would consider someone who creates a great work of art or literature to have contributed more to society than, say, a welfare queen.
we aren't in the army so the point is mute. the government dictates many laws that are moral issues. IE you can't murder other people, you can't steal from other people, you can't run naked through the streets etc... the government is involved with many personal choices that we have. we can chose to ignore it and suffer the consquences.
Which has ****-all to do with your personal, private morality. That's general welfare ****.
however this point is mute as well because they are not argueing morality in court they are argueing a right which the founding fathers left out so that the individual states could decide how to deal with it.
That only applies so far as federal laws are concerned. On a state-by-state basis, however, there is no real justification for the ban on gay marriage.
I didn't say thy couldn't adopt. adoption's a good thing. And, it would be better for foster care as single parent is better than gay parents as this could raise up unorthodox raising methods that could mess up the kid.
You obviously have no experience with the Foster Care system, so you should shut up now. Conditional, temporary love is not something that any child needs, nor to be a money source.
This is just my two cents, but if sex was solely for procreation, and God was the one who determined that... then what about gay couples existing in the animal kingdom? There are several reported cases, with the San Francisco penguins being the most famous. They even adopted a child in a way.
I guess my question is this: What if God built a system in nature to prevent overpopulization? What if being gay is a way for nature to turn the tide of thjeir being far too many people in the world, and slim down the world's population (of any species) by making them attracted to people in a way that makes it impossible to conceive children?
There have been some reports that say that homosexuality is on the rise, but they often attribute it to cultural changes.
There's no reason it would come to be through evolutionary mutation, since it's not beneficial to mans main goal - to reproduce. Therefore, it wouldn't be passed down as a mutation that would become ingrained in a portion of the population. This means that it has to be a brain defect. Brain defects are, by definition, usually something that's "bad", just like autism.
(oh ****, did I just compare homosexuality to autism?)
This is just my two cents, but if sex was solely for procreation, and God was the one who determined that... then what about gay couples existing in the animal kingdom?
Sex isn't solely for procreation. It does many other things, and is used for many other things. Catholicism doesn't claim that the only product of sexual intercourse is procreation.
There's no reason it would come to be through evolutionary mutation, since it's not beneficial to mans main goal - to reproduce. Therefore, it wouldn't be passed down as a mutation that would become ingrained in a portion of the population. This means that it has to be a brain defect. Brain defects are, by definition, usually something that's "bad", just like autism.
Things aren't "good" and "bad" in a vacuum. "Good" and "bad" need a functional value reference to receive meaning. If a brain defect doesn't produce net loss[x], where X is an appeal for utilitarian meaning from a functional value reference, then it isn't bad[x].
I got to about page 2 and stopped reading. For now anyways. If I had kept going, I would have had way too much to respond too at once. I will read back once I post.
I'm not for or against it, I just find it creepy. I mean, I'd really be OK with it if the guys didn't talk and/or dress like women (plus all the other stuff that makes a homosexual creepy), and I think that's alot of the basis in peoples' fear of it. They think, "Jeez, that gay guy is weird.... Whatever he went through must be bad, and I'm not letting it happen to anyone else." Does that make sense?
As for it being dangerous, it's not really disputable that it can be. The sexual activity gays and lesbians engage in can cause numerous diseases - because, as far as I know, the majority isn;t very good with protection - and other health problems. It's also just not a good time to be gay, as people are still fearful of the subject, which is already enough to make it dangerous.
Transvestitism is actually rather common in straight people. In fact, I know alot of women whom buy their clothes off the mens racks. I know you will say that is different, but it wasn't always. In the turn of the century, women who would where men's clothes were ridiculed. Women kept wearing pants and men's shirts and eventually we started getting women's cuts of pants and shorts and tops, when prior all they were allowed to wear was dresses. In the 60s, a big deal was made about men with long hair. A few decades prior long hair (and even wigs) were the norm for men. Now long hair is barely a blip on the radar again. History is full of cultures where men wore dress like clothing and even make-up. Every picture of Jesus I have seen show him with long hair, and robes (which functionally are a dress)
I won't get into Transgenderism and such. There is no point at this juncture, I made my point.
If we stuck a group of homosexuals on one island and a group of hetrosexuals on another unless the homosexuals broke down and started sleeping with females they would die out.
Irreguardless of that matter most people view it as a society issue. what is next on the list of things that we have to say is right? Where does it end and where does it stop? Without a morale compass societies cannot function.
That is a rediculous argument. When in nature would a culture of purely homosexual individuals wind up on an island together? If you want to boil it down to such "if nature was like this" thinking, then the countless gay animals would love to have word with you. In many species, homosexuality is even more common than in man. Scientists have even found that in many cases there are positive evoloutionary advantages to have homosexual memebers in a species.
This so called sexual relation would be immoral because it goes against the norms of the natural order. I didn't say one person loving one another is wrong, but the act of doing it with another would defeat the purpose of the creation of man and woman. The purpose of man and woman would be to compliment each other. The purpose of marriage is to unite man and woman body and soul and sex would be half the fulfillment of that love but it leaves the other half to be filled by children. With a homosexual couple, you cannot complete the purpose of "Go forth and multiply" and that you cannot have a true family in the sense of the word, your own flesh and blood.
See above. But thats science, you are talking God.
There's no reason it would come to be through evolutionary mutation, since it's not beneficial to mans main goal - to reproduce. Therefore, it wouldn't be passed down as a mutation that would become ingrained in a portion of the population. This means that it has to be a brain defect. Brain defects are, by definition, usually something that's "bad", just like autism.
(oh ****, did I just compare homosexuality to autism?)
If homosexuality is passed down genetically, then the obvious way to eliminate it would be to allow it. Homosexuals would then be homosexual openly, not marry, not have kids, and die out. End of problem. I personally am not a scientist, so I can't say with any real authority what causes it. I do know that it has been documented in the animal kingdom across many different species and is therefore not wholly unnatural. That alone would not be a justification, after all some species do eat there young. But the fact that it is an act that can be committed between consenting adults means that it should be legal. As for the religious end of things, to quote the guy that Christians seem to find important "Let he is who is without sin cast the first stone." "Judge not others lest you be judged." and all of that.
I have a huge problem with people comparing homosexuals to thieves and murderers. The latter both are clearly immoral in their actions, but my question still stands: by what logic is a homosexual act to be deemed immoral? Who is hurt by it - physically, mentally, or emotionally?
I have a huge problem with it, too and in a way wish I hadn't gone there, but at the same time, there is still a vocal minority that equates homosexuals with child molesters, so maybe the terrible association isn't so far-fetched. I don't imagine you're going to get a very logical answer to what harm homosexuality, homosexuals, or homosexuals cause that can't also be found outside of homosexuality. But, that's probably at the core of your disconnect from people who make such arguments. Murderers clearly hurt someone else, the homicide victim, the family, and the community at large, but the same people who are charging that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so probably aren't logically presenting as fact that homosexuality harms society or individuals, rather only that God's word (as interpreted by man, of course) is that homosexuals are abhorrent to Him.
Those who *do* try to stand on grounds that homosexuality inherently by its nature causes harm because it falls outside of the norm are very much so on shaky ground and it would be hard to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to other "outsiders" that isn't patently ridiculous. Divorced parents and single parents don't fit the model of mother + father + children = family. Neither to children raised by grandparents or foster parents, but I don't see anyone attacking grandparents who raise the children after parents die. There are plenty of religious and racial minorities, too, but the vast majority of people don't preach that the members of these groups are immoral.
Also, I think your disconnect stems from the fact that you are assuming that it's our right, and perhaps even our duty, to examine life and its rules using logic and reason. That's fine for you and me, but you and I know very well that there are many who simply accept that these things are the way they are because that's the way they are because that's the way they were and always will be. They were taught that way and the Biblical interpretation they know is the only and correct one and it implies homosexuality is an affront to God. Or to put it far more simply: "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so." And that interpretation is correct because it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is wrong.
You're pidgeonholing here, as I know for a fact that there is a third conclusion, and it so happens to be my conclusion, which is - that God is wholly good and fair, that engaging in homosexual intercourse is no less moral than engaging in heterosexual intercourse, but finally that religious texts are so stained with the biases of Man that they do not always represented the Word/Will of God.
I thought I was presenting that as an option. Perhaps I worded that poorly. It is certainly possible to reach the conclusion you do (as have countless others) that homosexuality could be natural, normal, AND moral and God exists and is good and fair. Unfortunately, there are also countless others who conclude that because God is good and fair and homosexuality exists, it must be a sin. Again, a bit of circular logic does wonders to reinforce this notion. If you assume that homosexuality is a sin, then it is a choice, therefore God doesn't make you that way, so you can interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore homosexuality is a sin. Or something like that.
I tend to find myself going around in circles in discussion of faith and God that don't involve a stopping point of "okay, you just have to accept that this is the way it is without question." I remember one time a friend of mine ran himself in circles, basically coming to the conclusion that to believe in God, you have to well, believe in God. (He was an evangelical Christian who tried fervently to convert non-believers but I could never good a satisfactory answer to how you get someone to take a leap of faith if they weren't pretty much there already.)
(Which is painfully ironic in my mind since conservatives are always decrying liberals for doing just that, valuing emotion instead of reason)
Well, to be fair, both sides decry the other side for reaching any kind of conclusion which doesn't jive with their opinion, no matter what the basis and both sides accuse the others of being irrational. Also, many may view this not as a matter of valuing emotion, but rather valuing faith, which itself involves emotion. I think people of all faiths and political stances often take the position of "I believe I'm right, but let me see what justifies my thinking."
You're right that I take no issue with with first group, but I am very much offended by the second (If you hadn't guessed already, I am indeed gay).
I've been personally puzzled by this second position, myself. If my mother baked a fresh batch of cookies and put them on a plate and scolded me for wanting one, claiming that these were just "looking cookies, not for eating", I'd think that'd be unfair. Yet, I've heard numerous organizations (incuding one I used to be loosely affiliated with many, many years ago), take the stance that it's some kind of test, as if God made millions of Jobs who have these innate feeling, but aren't supposed to act on how they feel, but rather what they should know to be logically true, that their desires are unpure, and thus live their whole lives sexually repressed.
Honestly, I hadn't guessed that you were gay. If anything, I have been accused numerous times of keeping TOO open a mind and not realizing that sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason - because sometimes they're true. I remember years ago being attracted to this woman who lived in my same apartment building who had short hair, didn't wear dresses or skirts and was a skater and overall wasn't the most feminine girl ever. (This was before anyone had ever heard of Avril Lavigne or words like "scene" or "emo" were even words.) I was told by my friends and roommates that she obviously was gay, but I asked her out anyway and got the "I'm just coming out of a relationship" line. I took this as evidence that *I* was right and they took it as evidence that THEY were right. As it turned out, they were right, but for the wrong reasons, and I was wrong, for the right reasons.
Transvestitism is actually rather common in straight people. In fact, I know alot of women whom buy their clothes off the mens racks. I know you will say that is different, but it wasn't always.
What happened in the past != what happens in the present. Women buying clothing off of men's racks is different, because today women can wear most of the styles found on men's racks without seeming particularly unwomanly.
History is full of cultures where men wore dress like clothing and even make-up. Every picture of Jesus I have seen show him with long hair, and robes (which functionally are a dress)
The popular picture of Jesus is a collage of different eras' norms and styles. The real Jesus likely wore his hair short (seeing as Paul criticized long hair), and may have shaved if he followed the Roman style, which many Judeans did.
But that's not the point. The point is that at the time in which the popular picture of Jesus solidified, long hair (plus a beard) was seen as a very masculine style. The details of male and female styles may change, but the existence of the distinction, and the persecution of those who transgress it, has been pretty constant.
Christian morals against Homosexuality are due to poor translation.
And none of these retranslations sound even slightly agenda-driven to you? Face it: at various times in history, homosexual behavior was seen as yucky, and people wrote about it as such. If these people happen to be religious authorities...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's no reason it would come to be through evolutionary mutation, since it's not beneficial to mans main goal - to reproduce. Therefore, it wouldn't be passed down as a mutation that would become ingrained in a portion of the population. This means that it has to be a brain defect. Brain defects are, by definition, usually something that's "bad", just like autism.
I don't know about that. Imagine a hypothetical population of animals who were reproducing with low infant mortality, virtually no natural predators, and abundant food, shelter, and other necessities of life. Like, say, humans? Maybe homosexuality would be a natural evolutionary response to curb a population's uninhibited growth? Not likely, but it's something to consider.
That said, you say "usually something that's bad...". A mental defect is not bad because its a mental defect, its bad because it adversely affects the survival (in the wild) and general quality of life. Homosexuality does neither (aside from societal persecution, which is hardly the fault of the "defect").
Edit: Remember too that society really throws a monkey wrench into a discussion of what evolutionary happenings "should" occur.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Evolution is not that linear. There are various advantages to homosexuality, some intrinsic. A quick google or wiki search will provide you with the popular information on the subject.
It would, if it was a side-effect of a beneficient mutation, or if it had beneficient side-effects of its own.
What beneficial mutation would it be the side effect of?
No more agenda driven than an anti-gay sentiment from the Bible
Practical tolerance has waxed and waned, but Judaism and Christianity have been pretty consistently opposed to homosexuality in principle throughout their history. This is an agenda, yes, but the agenda is written into the Bible (in two languages!). Retranslation efforts are stretching for something that simply isn't there. The writer of the Pentateuch didn't like gays, and Paul didn't like gays, and that's the end of it. You can put as much or as little weight on these people's opinion as you like, but you can't change what they wrote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Jeez people, we don't even know if there is a "gay gene". There is some evidence for the idea that the levels of hormones in the womb can affect it, but we honestly don't know. More importantly, it doesn't really matter. Stop appealing to evolution and evolutionary benefits, because if you are doing so you don't understand evolution. Science is not going to tell us what is morally right, and neither is "nature". We have other ways to figure that out, like reasoning and logic, which I think we all agree on as pretty effective at this sort of thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would really appreciate a specific example of how being homosexual inherently makes you unable to function as a parent.
So if I have two parents who do everything to support me and nurture me, they act like the best parents in the world, I will still end up with irreparable harm because "daddy" had ovaries? Explain please.
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to.
Is the government giving this preferential treatment? What, exactly, does it consist of?
So you would essentially arrange the adoption line like so: straight couples, gay/lesbian couples, straight singles, gay/lesbian singles? Just a clarification.
I may point out that almost all sex among human being is non-procreative, so by your logic it doesn't "help," but it's very popular nonetheless. People want to have sex for any number of reasons; having babies is one, but it's more likely to be any one of the following: having a good time, because someone else thinks I should, because I want a special connection with someone, because I love someone, because I both love someone and want to have a good time, etc. etc. The main difference between hetero and homosexual relationships is that due to a slight difference in the biology of the interaction, option A, having babies, is possible in one and not the other.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Not as good =/= incapable.
The appropriately-sexed parent is indeed probably best suited to sex-specific life lessons (periods, shaving, first bras, etc), but that's mostly just to make it easier. It's not impossible for a father to teach his daughter about her period.
All we're saying is: why?
Clearly you haven't done any research into the matter. Bisexuality (since in almost all cases of same-sex sexual activity in other animals, individuals do not show preference to one sex over the other and will generally engage in sexual activities with both sexes over a lifetime) in the animal kingdom is a relatively young research topic without tons of data, but most reports show that these sexual behaviours have intrinsic values to the population. Some birds engage in polyamorous threesomes with two females and a single male which increases the overall stability of the nest and increases the odds of survival. Bonobos' same-sex relations are actually a large factor in their social structure with female-on-female activity being a large part of gaining entry into another grouping. It also apparently reduces the overall agression levels in bonobo populations.
Examples from all over the animal kingdom exist where same-sex sexual activity is of greater help beyond just pleasure.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Do you have any facts to back up this statement? I know people with gay parents and I've never seen any unorthadox raising methods at all. I can't believe you'd send a child into foster care rather than allow them to be adopted by a gay couple. The foster care system harms more people than it helps and needs a massive overhaul. Kids often grow up being cared for by the government and are simply turned out at 18 with no preparation for life on their own. I'd rather grow up with gay parents than be put out on the street not knowing how to balance a checkbook, what my rights are as a US citizen, etc. A parent's sexual orientation isn't as important as his/her ability to instill the knowledge a child needs to survive and thrive later in life.
Yup, that's exactly my train of thought.
I have a huge problem with people comparing homosexuals to thieves and murderers. The latter both are clearly immoral in their actions, but my question still stands: by what logic is a homosexual act to be deemed immoral? Who is hurt by it - physically, mentally, or emotionally?
We humans were given faculties of reason and logic for a reason, and it is the mark of a thrall to choose not to exercise those faculties. Yes, much of the Christian tradition and what our parents told us when we were growing up has a lot of value, and we would do well to consider them. But that's the point, you need to consider them, not simply accept them outright.
For example, I believe that theft is immoral not only because it is deemed as such in the Judeochristian tradition (I was raised Roman Catholic), but also because it's clear to me that it is an attack on another, denying them property the thief has no claim to. It makes sense to me that theft is considered immoral.
So must each and every social norm, every tenet of morality, stand up to logical scrutiny. I don't care how many generations marriage was exclusively thought to be between a man and woman, that doesn't make it correct or moral. It simply doesn't follow that we should keep on veiwing it that way (just as another example).
I don't consider the belief that simply being a homosexual is immoral to have enough weight, even in the most religious of hamlets in the United States, to be worth discussing very much. Hell, even the most rabid televangelists preach that Christians must love homosexuals despite their sin.
You're pidgeonholing here, as I know for a fact that there is a third conclusion, and it so happens to be my conclusion, which is - that God is wholly good and fair, that engaging in homosexual intercourse is no less moral than engaging in heterosexual intercourse, but finally that religious texts are so stained with the biases of Man that they do not always represented the Word/Will of God.
I'm certainly not athiest or religious. I suppose if I had to choose a religious label for myself it would be Deist.
Aha! This brings up a very good point, which is - a person who fervently believes that homosexual acts are immoral was almost certainly NOT surprised or confused when they were first informed of the religious position stating that immorality. Am I incorrect to assume that, for most people at least, it confirmed something they already 'knew'? Instead of using their head, they used their gut to come to agree with such dogma.
(Which is painfully ironic in my mind since conservatives are always decrying liberals for doing just that, valuing emotion instead of reason)
You're right that I take no issue with with first group, but I am very much offended by the second (If you hadn't guessed already, I am indeed gay).
BS. We're not violating other states' rights by marrying out-of-state gay couples. Those states are violating their citizens' rights by refusing to marry them.
Really, "states rights." Like that wasn't the exact same argument used to promote racial segregation and miscegenation laws.
Ceteris paribus, yes. Where raising a child is concerned, the more the merrier.
The number of primary caregivers is very important. In the case of, say, a single parent living with his or her own parents, that's three primary caregivers, which is - hey! - one better than the traditional nuclear family. But the child of a single parent whose extended family is a frequent presence in his or her life, but not primary caregivers, is at a disadvantage over a kid with one more parent and one less uncle.
Of course, this is not to say that someone raised by a single parent is doomed to failure, and someone raised by two is guaranteed success. Ideally, all of us would be raised by a good ten or twelve primary caregivers, all of whom are well-adjusted and have extensive prior experience with children. Somehow, we scrape by.
This is something of a tu quoque argument, and a bit of a disingenuous one at that. Dysfunction and abusiveness aren't the exclusive domain of straight people, you know; it's really beside the point here. An opponent of gay families would say that the child of a gay couple incurs the risk of trauma from that on top of the risk from living in a potentially abusive household.
What's more pertinent, I think, is where this trauma of having a gay parent comes from. Is it intrinsic to the gay family structure? Or is it the result of the prejudices of others being imposed upon the kid from outside? Something tells me it's not the former.
True, but again, the primary/nonprimary caregiver distinction is important. It's an obstacle; hardly an insurmountable one, but neither should it be dismissed. If I were a gay parent (or a single one, for that matter), you can be sure I'd put more effort into making a female role model an important part of my child's life than otherwise.
Hey, don't dis states' rights. We have the Tenth Amendment for a reason. Besides, you have a much better argument at hand, one that uses states' rights instead of criticizing them: the full faith and credit clause.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What your religion says is right or wrong is your's to deal with. I mean do these people ever stop to think, "Oh wait there's more than one religion in the world! Maybe I should shut up and mind my own business instead of shoving my rules and beliefs done someones throat."
I doubt it.
On a non-religion based rant about it. If you think its gross or disgusting, keep it to yourself. Saying something to a gay couple about it, or making a scene about it is incredibly rude and uncalled for.
It's 2008. Maybe it's time for these people to put on their big boy clothes and grow up.
There are also several instances where a "barren" woman is granted a child. Apparent infirtility is not a disqualifier. Artificial infirtility is.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Most people would call this speculation or insufficient proof. Not me. I would call this, "stupid argument that makes you look like an assclown."
Considering how many people either grow up with no parents, foster parents, or straight up mentally or physically abusive parents, "Gays can't parent because other kids might make fun of the kid for having gay parents!" isn't going to fly with me.
This seems extremely sand-crawed, and the definition of which state is violating the other's rights seems to hinge entirely upon which state you agree with on the background issue. But perhaps I'm wrong. Please give your definition of state sovereignty that justifies this stance and not, say, the idea that Virginia violates Massachusetts' rights by ignoring it's authorized unions.
No, we don't. Thankfully, at the moment you don't have to be true to your girlfriend, open doors for old ladies, or be nice to people you hate. You don't have to honor your father or mother or find religion. The day this changes is the day that our democracy dies.
I love how whenever it can justify their flimsy moral outrage, Christians are willing to fall back on "as God intended" ******** arguments that we defy on a daily basis. We're not animals. We don't say that we have opposable thumbs to allow us to hunt with weapons, and we don't have sexual urges to create children; we have transcended evolution, and human beings have more value than the continuation of the species. Which, ironically, is a fundamental Judo-Christian ideal.
Well, clearly, by your argument, it's not sex, as it doesn't create children. Hence you must be outraged that he was bothered about it, and support the rights of married men to ********s from other parties.
Positive influence is subjective. And again, morality exists of more than continuation of the species. This is why we would consider someone who creates a great work of art or literature to have contributed more to society than, say, a welfare queen.
Which has ****-all to do with your personal, private morality. That's general welfare ****.
That only applies so far as federal laws are concerned. On a state-by-state basis, however, there is no real justification for the ban on gay marriage.
You obviously have no experience with the Foster Care system, so you should shut up now. Conditional, temporary love is not something that any child needs, nor to be a money source.
You could have just described a lucky topdeck in a game of Magic. I think your definition needs to be a bit more precise than the one you have given.
I guess my question is this: What if God built a system in nature to prevent overpopulization? What if being gay is a way for nature to turn the tide of thjeir being far too many people in the world, and slim down the world's population (of any species) by making them attracted to people in a way that makes it impossible to conceive children?
There have been some reports that say that homosexuality is on the rise, but they often attribute it to cultural changes.
There's no reason it would come to be through evolutionary mutation, since it's not beneficial to mans main goal - to reproduce. Therefore, it wouldn't be passed down as a mutation that would become ingrained in a portion of the population. This means that it has to be a brain defect. Brain defects are, by definition, usually something that's "bad", just like autism.
(oh ****, did I just compare homosexuality to autism?)
Sex isn't solely for procreation. It does many other things, and is used for many other things. Catholicism doesn't claim that the only product of sexual intercourse is procreation.
Things aren't "good" and "bad" in a vacuum. "Good" and "bad" need a functional value reference to receive meaning. If a brain defect doesn't produce net loss[x], where X is an appeal for utilitarian meaning from a functional value reference, then it isn't bad[x].
We have thus arrived at our murky water.
Transvestitism is actually rather common in straight people. In fact, I know alot of women whom buy their clothes off the mens racks. I know you will say that is different, but it wasn't always. In the turn of the century, women who would where men's clothes were ridiculed. Women kept wearing pants and men's shirts and eventually we started getting women's cuts of pants and shorts and tops, when prior all they were allowed to wear was dresses. In the 60s, a big deal was made about men with long hair. A few decades prior long hair (and even wigs) were the norm for men. Now long hair is barely a blip on the radar again. History is full of cultures where men wore dress like clothing and even make-up. Every picture of Jesus I have seen show him with long hair, and robes (which functionally are a dress)
I won't get into Transgenderism and such. There is no point at this juncture, I made my point.
That is a rediculous argument. When in nature would a culture of purely homosexual individuals wind up on an island together? If you want to boil it down to such "if nature was like this" thinking, then the countless gay animals would love to have word with you. In many species, homosexuality is even more common than in man. Scientists have even found that in many cases there are positive evoloutionary advantages to have homosexual memebers in a species.
See above. But thats science, you are talking God.
See Here ;
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
Specifics ;
Adam and Eve
Sodom
Lev 18:22 and 20:13
Holiness Code
Misuse of Biblical Analogies
David and Jonathon
Christian Law
Jesus Blessing a Gay Centurian
Christian Eunichs and Homosexuality
Romans 1
Malakoi
Gay Marriage
Christian morals against Homosexuality are due to poor translation.
Some of them are, and some of them aren't. A few of the articles on the site you linked to stretch the truth in their special pleading.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
I have a huge problem with it, too and in a way wish I hadn't gone there, but at the same time, there is still a vocal minority that equates homosexuals with child molesters, so maybe the terrible association isn't so far-fetched. I don't imagine you're going to get a very logical answer to what harm homosexuality, homosexuals, or homosexuals cause that can't also be found outside of homosexuality. But, that's probably at the core of your disconnect from people who make such arguments. Murderers clearly hurt someone else, the homicide victim, the family, and the community at large, but the same people who are charging that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so probably aren't logically presenting as fact that homosexuality harms society or individuals, rather only that God's word (as interpreted by man, of course) is that homosexuals are abhorrent to Him.
Those who *do* try to stand on grounds that homosexuality inherently by its nature causes harm because it falls outside of the norm are very much so on shaky ground and it would be hard to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to other "outsiders" that isn't patently ridiculous. Divorced parents and single parents don't fit the model of mother + father + children = family. Neither to children raised by grandparents or foster parents, but I don't see anyone attacking grandparents who raise the children after parents die. There are plenty of religious and racial minorities, too, but the vast majority of people don't preach that the members of these groups are immoral.
Also, I think your disconnect stems from the fact that you are assuming that it's our right, and perhaps even our duty, to examine life and its rules using logic and reason. That's fine for you and me, but you and I know very well that there are many who simply accept that these things are the way they are because that's the way they are because that's the way they were and always will be. They were taught that way and the Biblical interpretation they know is the only and correct one and it implies homosexuality is an affront to God. Or to put it far more simply: "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so." And that interpretation is correct because it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is wrong.
I thought I was presenting that as an option. Perhaps I worded that poorly. It is certainly possible to reach the conclusion you do (as have countless others) that homosexuality could be natural, normal, AND moral and God exists and is good and fair. Unfortunately, there are also countless others who conclude that because God is good and fair and homosexuality exists, it must be a sin. Again, a bit of circular logic does wonders to reinforce this notion. If you assume that homosexuality is a sin, then it is a choice, therefore God doesn't make you that way, so you can interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore homosexuality is a sin. Or something like that.
I tend to find myself going around in circles in discussion of faith and God that don't involve a stopping point of "okay, you just have to accept that this is the way it is without question." I remember one time a friend of mine ran himself in circles, basically coming to the conclusion that to believe in God, you have to well, believe in God. (He was an evangelical Christian who tried fervently to convert non-believers but I could never good a satisfactory answer to how you get someone to take a leap of faith if they weren't pretty much there already.)
Well, to be fair, both sides decry the other side for reaching any kind of conclusion which doesn't jive with their opinion, no matter what the basis and both sides accuse the others of being irrational. Also, many may view this not as a matter of valuing emotion, but rather valuing faith, which itself involves emotion. I think people of all faiths and political stances often take the position of "I believe I'm right, but let me see what justifies my thinking."
I've been personally puzzled by this second position, myself. If my mother baked a fresh batch of cookies and put them on a plate and scolded me for wanting one, claiming that these were just "looking cookies, not for eating", I'd think that'd be unfair. Yet, I've heard numerous organizations (incuding one I used to be loosely affiliated with many, many years ago), take the stance that it's some kind of test, as if God made millions of Jobs who have these innate feeling, but aren't supposed to act on how they feel, but rather what they should know to be logically true, that their desires are unpure, and thus live their whole lives sexually repressed.
Honestly, I hadn't guessed that you were gay. If anything, I have been accused numerous times of keeping TOO open a mind and not realizing that sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason - because sometimes they're true. I remember years ago being attracted to this woman who lived in my same apartment building who had short hair, didn't wear dresses or skirts and was a skater and overall wasn't the most feminine girl ever. (This was before anyone had ever heard of Avril Lavigne or words like "scene" or "emo" were even words.) I was told by my friends and roommates that she obviously was gay, but I asked her out anyway and got the "I'm just coming out of a relationship" line. I took this as evidence that *I* was right and they took it as evidence that THEY were right. As it turned out, they were right, but for the wrong reasons, and I was wrong, for the right reasons.
What happened in the past != what happens in the present. Women buying clothing off of men's racks is different, because today women can wear most of the styles found on men's racks without seeming particularly unwomanly.
The popular picture of Jesus is a collage of different eras' norms and styles. The real Jesus likely wore his hair short (seeing as Paul criticized long hair), and may have shaved if he followed the Roman style, which many Judeans did.
But that's not the point. The point is that at the time in which the popular picture of Jesus solidified, long hair (plus a beard) was seen as a very masculine style. The details of male and female styles may change, but the existence of the distinction, and the persecution of those who transgress it, has been pretty constant.
And none of these retranslations sound even slightly agenda-driven to you? Face it: at various times in history, homosexual behavior was seen as yucky, and people wrote about it as such. If these people happen to be religious authorities...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That said, you say "usually something that's bad...". A mental defect is not bad because its a mental defect, its bad because it adversely affects the survival (in the wild) and general quality of life. Homosexuality does neither (aside from societal persecution, which is hardly the fault of the "defect").
Edit: Remember too that society really throws a monkey wrench into a discussion of what evolutionary happenings "should" occur.
What beneficial mutation would it be the side effect of?
Practical tolerance has waxed and waned, but Judaism and Christianity have been pretty consistently opposed to homosexuality in principle throughout their history. This is an agenda, yes, but the agenda is written into the Bible (in two languages!). Retranslation efforts are stretching for something that simply isn't there. The writer of the Pentateuch didn't like gays, and Paul didn't like gays, and that's the end of it. You can put as much or as little weight on these people's opinion as you like, but you can't change what they wrote.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.