Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Gay marriage (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Are you kidding? Shouldn't a half dozen vague out of context biblical quotes be clear enough to have us love our neighbors enough to tell them they are going to hell for being whom they are? And of course lets include any and all mention of Sodom as evidence also because this is all about the great sin of homosexality, even though the inerrant bible says otherwise (Ezekiel 16:49-50) Besides what if you are wrong and there really is a loving, perfect God less loving and less perfect then Smoo? He is going to be quite upset if we don't resume stoning homosexuals!
Kilgore Trout
Footballguy
Nice work
.There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION, and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy. Full stop. Game over. Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society. HYPOCRITES.
Al Davis
Footballguy
43 against, you have to be kidding me you homophobic lizards. In fact, I'm sad that my common perusal and respect of this board has just been lowered a great degree. What should anyone of you care about a marriage of two people regardless of sex. Who put any of you in charge of what's right or Jack Squat for that matter, your opinion is meaningless and this poll is beyond flawed. You live your life by a text that was human written roughly two thousand years by a group of people that were deffinitley thirsty and eager to propagate their own views regardless of common sense. Sanity does not live in the desert, never has and never will. This post will go unoticed and unquoted.
Yeah, ofcourse it is. 
omally
Footballguy
I don't think you are being fair at all on that statement. Christians are the main ones who get this wrong. Christians are the ones who say homosexuals are going to hell, and it is the opposers that say that is crap. Also, I know not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin, only the hypocritical ones.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I voted 'against'. But only for myself.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
I am not convinced that homosexuality is genetically driven. If it were, I would grant you that it IS a civil rights issue. Since I am not convinced, then I am forced to say that to compare the gay marriage struggle to the civil rights struggle faced by African Americans or the suffrage movement is blatantly unfair and is actually demeaning to those other two examples of civil rights movements.Don't get me wrong I AM open to reading new material if you provide any links. My stance currently can only be based on my moral code, short of being proven that gays just can't help themselves (i.e., they are born this way).
suspected
Footballguy
FYI, John Kerry would have voted "NO" to this question.On 2/27/04 Kerry said, in the Boston Globe about a Massachusetts amendment to ban same-sex marriage, "If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection." He was referring only to the state constitution, not US Constitutional ban that Bush has endorsed. John Kerry has walked the fence on same-sex marriage fairly well during his race for the White House. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and says he opposes gay marriage ("I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage"). He supports civil unions, but in the end supports states' rights to decide. ("We've always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves," he said after a Missouri vote on a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. "Massachusetts and Missouri are proving they are capable of taking care of it by themselves.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Many of you had no problem with changing the definition of Religious Marriage to suit your own needs did you? What happen to the "until death do us part" section of the definition.
I can quote Jesus on Divorce, can you quote him on homosexuality?
My gay friends will tell you that Matthew 19:11-12 is at least partially about homosexuality, but they also agree their arguement is not generally accepted. Since conservative Christians like to fall back on "What if you are wrong?", I'll ask "What if my friends are right?" Where will the "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" cop out of an excuse do for you on judgement day?
[Edited to fix bold tags]
I can quote Jesus on Divorce, can you quote him on homosexuality?
My gay friends will tell you that Matthew 19:11-12 is at least partially about homosexuality, but they also agree their arguement is not generally accepted. Since conservative Christians like to fall back on "What if you are wrong?", I'll ask "What if my friends are right?" Where will the "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" cop out of an excuse do for you on judgement day?
[Edited to fix bold tags]
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies
Footballguy
Good point. If we disallow gay marriage for religious and moral reasons, we should also do away with divorce. From my days as a Christian, I was under the impression that divorce is a sin. The problem is, bigots do not view divorce as immoral, so it is ok.Mr. Know-It-All:
I don't really think there are genetics involved in homosexuality because if that was the case, how does a family that has been straight all the way down the line suddenly give birth to a gay child? I also don't think it is their choice, much like it wasn't my choice to be straight. It just happened that way somehow. This is a civil rights issue because we are involving denying grown-ups the right to marry.
bueno
In a class by himself
The religous discussions going on in the thread is exactly why I think the civil part of marriage should be divorced from the religious.First, the government could give a rat's ### about love, sex and people wanting to be together (when it comes to recognizing marriage, at least). Most people get married because of love (or sex), but your government doesn't care about that! What the government cars about is the contractual issues in marriage: survivorship, partnership, establishing of familial relationships, legitimacy of issue, etc. As such, let's create a system where those kinds of things are recognized independent of love and sex.But marriage is about love and sex, and a unity of spirit, defined in our culture as a union between two consenting individuals of different sexes. Get the government out of that aspect of the relationship entirely! Then if certain churches want to not recognize a gay relationship, they are within their rights. We further separate church and state and everyone ought to be happy.
How do you know the family has been straight all the way down the line? Almost every family has a gay second cousin or something somewhere, if gays are about 2%-3% of the population.In any event, plenty of people whose ancestors never hand sickle-cell anemia are born with sickle-cell anemia. And yet sickle-cell anemia is genetic. This is not some kind of paradoxical riddle. It has to do with heterozygous advantage, and is a normal (if unusual) aspect of how genetics work. It wouldn't be shocking if a similar kind of thing were going on with homosexuality. (Although while I believe sickle-cell is about 100% heritable, most identical twin studies put homosexuality in the range of being 30%-70% heritable.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
will your religious conception of marriage change? Like the poster above, he is married civilly, but not religiously. Why can't you just treat this the same way. No one is saying YOUR church has to allow this, just that the governmental sanction of marriage applied to all people equally. It's so obvious, you can't help but know the reason a MAJORITY of proponents of these bills is because they find gay people disgusting sinners and you and everyone else knows it.
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
asterisks, too.Sorry, I'll wait for the ***OFFICIAL*** poll.Sorry, too many asteriks.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
When did you realize that you preferred women? Were you gay as a child or did it "develop" later in life?
I agree being gay is just as wrong as getting a divorce. It's a shame divorce is now so readily accepted in our society.I view being gay the same way as I view obesity. Its a weakness a lot of people struggle with and society coddles to them because (insert your excuse here).Its a DECISION people make...
bueno
In a class by himself
I too have not seen a credible study to suggest there is a gay gene. What purpose would it serve? It prevents the organism from reproducing itself. Does it cull the herd somehow (half-joke)?Unfortunately, studying the origin of homosexuality (be it pathological, genetic or psychological) is politically incorrect, so unlikely to ever be funded. Likely there is no one reason for it.Can gays help themselves for having homosexual feelings? Does it matter? The feelings are only part of the equation. The other part is acting on those feelings. That may be more easily controlled, but the truth is it doesn't matter. A person's bedroom is the most private place in his world, unless he/she opens it up to the rest of us.Is there an exhibitionist aspect to being gay? After all, those of us who are straight don't feel the need to define ourselves in terms of sexuality (gender is different). Why do gays tend to define themselves in terms of their sexuality?I'm not sure how all this relates to gay marriage though. I'll tell you what I've always believed. Gays as a group enjoy pushing the envelope and they are also clamoring for acceptance. There is much to the legal contract issue of a relationship that could be addressed in a way similar to marriage, but I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us. It is probably a generation too soon.
suspected
Footballguy
For many the problem is a semantic one. Right or wrong, marriage has a history of being defined as a union between a man and woman. I believe currently only 2 countries (Netherlands and Belgium) recognize same-sex marriage nationwide. More may follow.As I understand it some of the concerns of same-sex marriage opponents include:1) Objections on religious grounds2) Changing the definition may start a slippery slope leading to legalized polygamy3) Will lead to unions based solely for monetary gain or tax purposes4) Will lead to lawsuits forcing churches to perform ceremonies they don't approve of5) Some are opposed to any government sanctioned marriage including opposite sex unions6) Those who believe the purpose of marriage is for procreation and same-sex unions are inherently sterileProponents of same-sex marriage point out:1) There are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. A legal denial of rights or benefits afforded to others directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law, meaning that rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another.2) Traditional concepts of marriage have already given way to liberalization in other areas, such as the availability of no-fault divorce and the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws.3) Many people in modern societies no longer subscribe to the religious beliefs which inform traditional limits upon marriage, and no longer wish these beliefs to constitute the law, and that their laws should be protected from religion under the principle of separation of church and state. In fact, there are some religions that celebrate same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies already.I'm not sure where I come down on this. My gut reaction was that ideally the government should get out of the marriage business completely. It should recognize civil unions between any two adults. The laws should be rewritten so that marital status is not a factor but a civil union is. Any religious organization can continue to perform marriage ceremonies and include or exclude homosexuals.Perhaps this is a solution that pleases noone, which could be very good or very bad.
It doesn't prevent anyone from reproducing, and there are several ways in which the gene may be favored below some equilibrium frequency in a population. (And when I say "the gene," that's a metaphor. There is no gay gene, just like there is no height gene -- but sexual preference and height are both determined in part by genes and in part by other factors.)
It's true that there's likely no one reason for it. It's likely a combination of things -- genes, maybe hormone levels in the womb, maybe ealy childhood experiences -- but not choice. Thinking that people choose whom they're attracted to is not only contrary to every single person's experience, but it's also just an inherently stupid idea. That doesn't stop some fundies from believing it, but they're pretty much the only ones.
Can straights help themselves for having heterosexual feelings?
The rest of your post was quite reasonable.
shining path
:prettyplease:
Jesus bueno, do you think before you write this stuff?Historically homosexuals have been discriminated against with violence and social stigmatization, so I would say that society has traditionally done the defining.
bueno
In a class by himself
I agree with you completely, except for one clarification. Many laws are written to give married couples an advantage based on the assumption that they will pro-create. Granted many will not, but that is one of the basic motivations for the governmnet - the creation of more taxpayers. A gay union is a sterile union (okay, a lesbian can get a donor sperm or implantation, but generally). There will be several laws which may have to be rewritten that were based on the assumption of a fertile union. You may hear the civil rights screams there too.
bueno
In a class by himself
Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect. Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.Are you going to tell me it is a group therapy thing? I don't think so. It is dobne for the shock value.Gays came up with that name themselves. They used to be called a lot worse.
shining path
:prettyplease:
This is a well-informed post.There are tons and tons of traits that don't appear to have any adaptive value, but which arise through the "unfortunate" combination of genes that DO have adaptive value.And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component. The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business. Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.Edit - crystal already pointed out some "non-genetic, non-choice" possibilities above. Even more well-informed than I thought!
Last edited by a moderator:
shining path
:prettyplease:
Among the subset of gays that do that kind of thing there is probably a sub-subset that is just doing it for shock value, but lots of things are done for shock value by lots of different kinds of people. I'm sure there's a spectrum of opinion among gays about those kinds of overt and theatrical statements of sexuality.But if that's the thing that annoys you, treating gays as equals socially, legally and economically will, I'm sure, reduce the behavior. It'll also give the damn drama queens fewer things to chant and march about, which you should be all for.
bueno
In a class by himself
Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?
shining path
:prettyplease:
However you want to spin it, if that's the underlying material reason for homosexuality, then that's what it is. It's more of a defect from an adaptionist view, since presumably we're attracted to the opposite sex to increase the chance that we'll mate and have offspring. But since gays don't seem to have any physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, or creative deficiencies as a group (and in fact have an atypically heightened sense of fashion), then I don't think they'd mind it if it were pointed out that they're deficient in the narrow sense of Darwinian fitness. And besides, it's not as if they can't reproduce. It's just that they don't want to engage in the truly reproductive act.I don't know - MacArtist is (or was) here. Would you be offended if someone pointed out that your sexual preference was due to an atypical, non-adaptive wiring of your fetal brain?
