Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Giant Wooden Badger]

You know what? I think you just want a threesome.

Is that an offer?:crossesfingers:If it helps any, my wife is hot. You'd probably like her.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have just read through 8 different studieson the web where there was research done to see whether or not homosexuality is a choice.

Links?I suspect you're (unintentionally) mischaracterizing the studies because you don't understand that genetics vs. choice is a false dichotomy. In other words, I suspect the studies you read about concerned whether homosexuality is genetic vs. non-genetic -- not whether it's a choice.

If you provide the links, we can clear this up.

Among the finding were the possibility that an area of the hypothalamus on gay men was larger than that component on straight me.

Yes, but this really has no bearing on whether being gay is a choice (unless it can be shown that the enlarged hypthalamus is what causes gayness).

There were results stating that all fetuses are initially female and then through the release of various hormones and the presence of XX or XY chromosomes the fetus eventually evolves into the gender of the person that is born.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with whether being gay is a choice -- about which there is no real debate.

However, nothing has been definitively proven.

That being gay is not a choice has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. As for whether it's genetic or not, hormonal or not, psychological or not, or something else, that's still being sorted out.

Maurile will have you think that no reasonable people would think that it is a choice.

Quite correct. No reasonable person could think that every gay and straight person in the world are lying about whether they chose their sexual orientation.

If it were so cut and dried we would not be having this debate because that would make it a civil right.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There really isn't any kind of serious debate about whether being gay is a choice. It's like young earth creationism. There's no real scientific debate, no disagreement among reasonable people. There are unreasonable people taking goofy positions on Internet message boards, but that's not serious debate.And whether being gay is chosen or not really has very little to do with whether "it" (whatever the "it" in your sentence refers to) is a legal (civil) right.

So, Maurile, if reasonable peopel don't think it is a choice,; why has the debate not already been ended?

What debate? There is no serious debate about this. It's like creationism. Really. (In fact, I'd wager that nearly everyone who believes that being gay is a choice is a creationist. Who else could believe such a thing?)

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I have just read through 8 different studieson the web where there was research done to see whether or not homosexuality is a choice.

Links?I suspect you're (unintentionally) mischaracterizing the studies because you don't understand that genetics vs. choice is a false dichotomy. In other words, I suspect the studies you read about concerned whether homosexuality is genetic vs. non-genetic -- not whether it's a choice.

If you provide the links, we can clear this up.

Among the finding were the possibility that an area of the hypothalamus on gay men was larger than that component on straight me.

Yes, but this really has no bearing on whether being gay is a choice (unless it can be shown that the enlarged hypthalamus is what causes gayness).

There were results stating that all fetuses are initially female and then through the release of various hormones and the presence of XX or XY chromosomes the fetus eventually evolves into the gender of the person that is born.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with whether being gay is a choice -- about which there is no real debate.

However, nothing has been definitively proven.

That being gay is not a choice has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. As for whether it's genetic or not, hormonal or not, psychological or not, or something else, that's still being sorted out.

Maurile will have you think that no reasonable people would think that it is a choice.

Quite correct. No reasonable person could think that every gay and straight person in the world are lying about whether they chose their sexual orientation.

If it were so cut and dried we would not be having this debate because that would make it a civil right.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There really isn't any kind of serious debate about whether being gay is a choice. It's like young earth creationism. There's no real scientific debate, no disagreement among reasonable people. There are unreasonable people taking goofy positions on Internet message boards, but that's not serious debate.And whether being gay is chosen or not really has very little to do with whether "it" (whatever the "it" in your sentence refers to) is a legal (civil) right.

So, Maurile, if reasonable peopel don't think it is a choice,; why has the debate not already been ended?

What debate? There is no serious debate about this. It's like creationism. Really. (In fact, I'd wager that nearly everyone who believes that being gay is a choice is a creationist. Who else could believe such a thing?)

In the past when I have posted links I am told that the people are loons. What I find disturbing about your position is that you tend to agther only only one side of the data, whereas I was presenting theories that could actually run contrary to my belief that homosexuality is a choice.You just wave your hand dismissively as if that will preclude anybody that does not agree with you as unreasonable. So now I will look for links for you, kmowing full well that your intellectually elite stance will wave them off anyway.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

First Link

Probably just an unreasonable person....

 

[PewterFan]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).Marriage, it's a man/woman thing.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

This Guy Probably a Kook, Too

This Guy From Utah, So Not Reasonable

 

[ratpfink]

First LinkProbably just an unreasonable person....

This site's mission statement:

Our Mission:"Offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately."

I wonder what their viewpoint will be...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

First LinkProbably just an unreasonable person....

This site's mission statement:

Our Mission:"Offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately."

I wonder what their viewpoint will be...

That invalidates nothing. You certainly need to consider that, but it does not invalidate their findings. It is funny how easy it is to do though, yet those of us on the other side just have to blindly accept what any cited researcher says.You can do better than that.

 

[larry_boy_44]

seriously... *shakes head*

You really need to learn how to use the smilies.

I don't like smilies...

 

[larry_boy_44]

First LinkProbably just an unreasonable person....

This site's mission statement:

Our Mission:"Offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately."

I wonder what their viewpoint will be...

I am studying dogmatism in my communications class...and I want to point out that one of the signs that someone is dogmatic (I think there aer like 3 or 4) is that they reject sources that don't agree with them OFFHAND...aka - you don't care what htey say simply because they don't agree with what you say...yeah, but you are really open-minded, huh?your just open-minded 'cuz you don't think anything people do is really wrong, right?that doesn't make someone open-minded it makes them moral-less...there is a huge difference...

 

[ratpfink]

You can do better than that.

I can give you the American Psychological's Association's answer(link):

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

I would tend to think that professional psychologists know what they're talking about, but that's just me.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You can do better than that.

I can give you the American Psychological's Association's answer(link):

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

I would tend to think that professional psychologists know what they're talking about, but that's just me.

but can't we off-hand just ignore what you posted based on the fact that obviously they have a very clear bias?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

First Link

Thank you.As I suspected, these are not studies about whether people choose to be gay.

Your first link wasn't strictly a study at all, but it was a discussion of the LeVay study and the Bailey & Pillard study.

The LeVay study involved correlating sexual orientation with the size of the INAH-3 area of the brain. As your website says, "The above problems aside, even the data from LeVay's study did not prove that anyone was born gay." LeVay would agree with that.

The LeVay study was not about whether being gay is a choice. It was just about correlating INAH-3 size with sexual preference. There was a correlation, but that doesn't mean people are born gay. Maybe the INAH-3 grows after somebody chooses to be gay. (This is pretty unlikely, but possible, and LeVay's study didn't intend to rule it out.)

Since this study is not about whether being gay is a choice, it doesn't count as part of any debate about whether being gay is a choice. (There is no such debate.)

The Bailey and Pilliard study is an identical twin study that found sexual orientation to be partially heritable. Since heritability isn't chosen, this is evidence that sexual preference has unchosen aspects to it. In other words, this is evidence against your position.

But, as your website says, the evidence isn't conclusive. There were problems with the study, so the conclusion that sexual preference is largely heritable is in doubt. But so what? Non-heritable isn't a synonym for chosen. The likely alternative to heritability is environmental factors such as hormone-levels in the womb, or perhaps abnormailities during fetal development, or infant trauma, or something else. But not choice. No researcher believes that choice is a seriously viable alternative to genetics when it comes to sexual orientation.

So based on your first link, my suspicion was correct. You looked at (a description of) a study about brain characteristics, and (a description of) a study about genetics, and mistook them for studies about choice. But that's not what they were about.

There is no serious debate about whether sexual orientation is chosen. No reasonable person believes that it is.

 

[cocoagirl]

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

 

[CrossEyed]

There is no serious debate about whether sexual orientation is chosen. No reasonable person believes that it is.

Well then call me unreasonable.The fact is that there are plenty of example of people who were homosexual and are now heterosexual and vice versa. Didn't they make a choice?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The fact is that there are plenty of example of people who were homosexual  and are now heterosexual and vice versa.  Didn't they make a choice?

Why do you think flip-flopping represents a choice about preference?Some people are bi, and flip-flop because they really could go either way. Other people are mostly straight, but engage in opportunistic homosexual acts in prison (or whatever) because of the lack of alternatives. Others are mostly gay, but engage in opportunistic heterosexual acts to help them stay in the closet or whatever.But don't you think it's pretty clear, based on your own experiences, that you can't choose whom you're sexually attracted to? You might be able to settle for Person A even though you'd prefer Person B (for sex) -- but can you really choose who physically turns you on more?

 

[cocoagirl]

But don't you think it's pretty clear, based on your own experiences, that you can't choose whom you're sexually attracted to? You might be able to settle for Person A even though you'd prefer Person B (for sex) -- but can you really choose who physically turns you on more?

I've heard this same argument from African Americans who refuse to date within their own race.

 

[popeye]

But don't you think it's pretty clear, based on your own experiences, that you can't choose whom you're sexually attracted to? You might be able to settle for Person A even though you'd prefer Person B (for sex) -- but can you really choose who physically turns you on more?

I've heard this same argument from African Americans who refuse to date within their own race.

Is this in reference to some black guys that seemingly date white women, totally indifferent of how attractive they might be?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've heard this same argument from African Americans who refuse to date within their own race.

And you don't believe them? Or you do?

 

[cocoagirl]

I've heard this same argument from African Americans who refuse to date within their own race.

And you don't believe them? Or you do?

I don't believe them. I can speak from my own experience.

 

[CrossEyed]

I'm with Maurile on this. With as much discrimination and such that gay people encounter if sexual preference was a choice, wouldn't they all decide to be hetro to make their lives easier?

"Hey I think I will choose to be a gay man. That way I can be harassed and assaulted by people and maybe my family will disowned me. I think it would be fun to make life harder than it already is." 

Edited to add - hopefully none of these things happen or have happened to Mac or any others, but I know these kind of things do occur.

That's the same logic as saying the lives of criminals would be so much easier if they chose not to be criminals. Why would anybody choose a life that ends up putting them in jail. Yet many people choose that life.

The Criminals were BORN that way.

Great. Then why subject them to the injustice of incarceration. Shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us?

You really need to stop talking. These arguments are ignorant. You're equating criminals with homosexuals? You're foul.

Not equating the activities, just the logic in the arguments.

 

[CrossEyed]

The fact is that there are plenty of example of people who were homosexual  and are now heterosexual and vice versa.  Didn't they make a choice?

Why do you think flip-flopping represents a choice about preference?Some people are bi, and flip-flop because they really could go either way. Other people are mostly straight, but engage in opportunistic homosexual acts in prison (or whatever) because of the lack of alternatives. Others are mostly gay, but engage in opportunistic heterosexual acts to help them stay in the closet or whatever.But don't you think it's pretty clear, based on your own experiences, that you can't choose whom you're sexually attracted to? You might be able to settle for Person A even though you'd prefer Person B (for sex) -- but can you really choose who physically turns you on more?

There are a lot of things that, by my nature, I may be inclined toward. But what makes human beings different from animals is that we get to make conscious choices. As a man, I find many women attractive. But since I am married and I know that adultery is wrong, I choose to not allow myself to be drawn toward any of these women. I discern between what is right and what is wrong. I don't allow my nature to override my intellect.

 

[popeye]

I'm with Maurile on this. With as much discrimination and such that gay people encounter if sexual preference was a choice, wouldn't they all decide to be hetro to make their lives easier?

"Hey I think I will choose to be a gay man. That way I can be harassed and assaulted by people and maybe my family will disowned me. I think it would be fun to make life harder than it already is." 

Edited to add - hopefully none of these things happen or have happened to Mac or any others, but I know these kind of things do occur.

That's the same logic as saying the lives of criminals would be so much easier if they chose not to be criminals. Why would anybody choose a life that ends up putting them in jail. Yet many people choose that life.

The Criminals were BORN that way.

Great. Then why subject them to the injustice of incarceration. Shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us?

You really need to stop talking. These arguments are ignorant. You're equating criminals with homosexuals? You're foul.

Not equating the activities, just the logic in the arguments.

What if you were a homosexual criminal? Your example could work then.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As a man, I find many women attractive. But since I am married and I know that adultery is wrong, I choose to not allow myself to be drawn toward any of these women.

Precisely. We have to distinguish between orientation and behavior. The fact that you find many women attractive -- your orientation -- is not a choice. You just do.Behavior is chosen. Orientation isn't.So the people who think orientation is chosen are just completely nuts. Agreed?

 

[larry_boy_44]

As a man, I find many women attractive.  But since I am married and I know that adultery is wrong, I choose to not allow myself to be drawn toward any of these women.

Precisely. We have to distinguish between orientation and behavior. The fact that you find many women attractive -- your orientation -- is not a choice. You just do.Behavior is chosen. Orientation isn't.So the people who think orientation is chosen are just completely nuts. Agreed?

no, because things around you and things you choose to do can change your orientation...if you were a girl and you were way into guys, but you went to a slumber party, drank some, and had sex with another girl, even though you were never attracted to girls before at all... does that mean you are a lesbian?what if at that point you decide you like girls better...changes your orientation, don't it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if you were a girl and you were way into guys, but you went to a slumber party, drank some, and had sex with another girl, even though you were never attracted to girls before at all... does that mean you are a lesbian?

Wait. What was the question?

 

[cocoagirl]

if you were a girl and you were way into guys, but you went to a slumber party, drank some, and had sex with another girl, even though you were never attracted to girls before at all... does that mean you are a lesbian?

Wait. What was the question?

:rotflmao:

 

[popeye]

if you were a girl and you were way into guys, but you went to a slumber party, drank some, and had sex with another girl, even though you were never attracted to girls before at all... does that mean you are a lesbian?

Wait. What was the question?

Is Britney Spears involved?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).Marriage, it's a man/woman thing.

most overused argument ever. No one wants to marry their dog. If ten dudes do, does it realy matter in the grand scheme of things. This is always teh slippery slope argument, except what it leads to 10 hermits declaring manlove for a puppy. Weird and ####ed up yes... should be used as a reason to deny americans basic human rights... no.

 

[hobbes4]

Answer this for me:If gays are 'born that way' why do most gay couples I have been around or seen in public morph their relationship into one playing the 'man' and one playing the 'woman'? Its all too common to see a rough girl with her jeans and tshirt trying to look like a bot holding hands with a more feminine-ly(sp?) dressed lady. Hurts your arguments that this is a genetic thing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

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.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

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.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

I agree with virtually everything you said in this post. The problem is those whom make homosexuality "a special class of sin" come primarily from the ranks of conservative Christians. The consitutional ammendment is not being proposed by aetheists. The "enemy" to gay marriage are the fundamentalist hypocrits whom have a power position within the Republican Party, and weak politicians on the left whom won't stand up for the simple principals of equality. As you said calling it anything other then marriage will allow "weaselly wording" to deny equal rights. However, that will probably be the one small step forward followed by two backwards of progress....Overall

 

[pantagrapher]

edited

 

[bueno]

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

I really don't think environment plays that big of a role. At least not amonst my friends and I.Of my group of friends and I, we are all upper-middle class. Most of our parents are still together. We never had anything traumatic like rape or molestation during our childhood.So I doubt that living in one of the best neighborhoods in Dallas, going to the top schools in Dallas has any bearing on my being gay. Nor was being raised in a Babtist church.

When all is said and done, you're comfortable and happy being gay. Even if there was an underlying cause that some might consider an abnormal condition, it's pretty benign.What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is not society's or the government's concern. When it comes to a contract though, there are issues. I still think they are best addressed by separating the issues of interest to the government from the issues of sole importance to religion.For whatever reason a person is gay, I have no intent to try to talk them out of it.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Answer this for me:If gays are 'born that way' why do most gay couples I have been around or seen in public morph their relationship into one playing the 'man' and one playing the 'woman'? Its all too common to see a rough girl with her jeans and tshirt trying to look like a bot holding hands with a more feminine-ly(sp?) dressed lady. Hurts your arguments that this is a genetic thing.

How so? In what way can that be construed as having anything to do with the debate at hand? This does not provide an argument for or against either side of the debate.

 

[Coop]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).

... should be used as a reason to deny americans basic human rights... no.

Well said ... especially considering the vast number of Americans that we are dealing with on this issue.

On a side note ...

I'd be willing to bet that I can go through this thread and list the people who actually know a gay or lesbian and those who have never met one ... simply by reading their posts. Well ... maybe I'd be 90% correct.

I can say personally that my beliefs on the subject turned 180 degrees when I became good friends with someone at work who is gay. Makes it awful hard for me to tell him I don't feel he should enjoy the same things that I enjoy (and sometimes take for granted) with my wife in our home (taxes, insurance, benifits, etc.)

He is a red-blooded, tax paying American just like I am ...

Why do I deserve something he can never have?

 

[Peens]

I can say personally that my beliefs on the subject turned 180 degrees when I became good friends with someone at work who is gay. Makes it awful hard for me to tell him I don't feel he should enjoy the same things that I enjoy (and sometimes take for granted) with my wife in our home (taxes, insurance, benifits, etc.)

Get the Law changed then, by the looks of this board it should be a piece of cake. Also where are the posts that say these gay couples SHOULDNT have these benifits??

 

[PewterFan]

Ahhh, so the real question becomes: Is marriage a basic human right?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Answer this for me:If gays are 'born that way' why do most gay couples I have been around or seen in public morph their relationship into one playing the 'man' and one playing the 'woman'? Its all too common to see a rough girl with her jeans and tshirt trying to look like a bot holding hands with a more feminine-ly(sp?) dressed lady. Hurts your arguments that this is a genetic thing.

How so? In what way can that be construed as having anything to do with the debate at hand? This does not provide an argument for or against either side of the debate.

actually it kinda refers to the "is homosexuality natural?" question...if most gay couples have one taking a feminine role and one the masculine it should tell us something...or so the argument goes... lol*edited to fix and comment that I need to stick to one debate at a time...*

 

[MelvinTScupper]

what would be really fun is....larry_boy coming "out" right here in the ffa.

 

[urbanhack]

what would be really fun is....larry_boy coming "out" right here in the ffa.

 

[Peens]

what would be really fun is....larry_boy coming "out" right here in the ffa.

He would get ALOT of nice sandals and Rubber bands (for his pony tail) from members here for his "coming out" gifts.

 

[larry_boy_44]

what would be really fun is....larry_boy coming "out" right here in the ffa.

never gonna happen...<--- very happily straight, thank you very much...

 

[CrossEyed]

what would be really fun is....larry_boy coming "out" right here in the ffa.

never gonna happen...<--- very happily straight, thank you very much...

How can you be so happy about something about which you have no choice?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How can you be so happy about something about which you have no choice?

What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure Shaq is happy with his height even thought he didn't choose it.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

I really don't think environment plays that big of a role. At least not amonst my friends and I.Of my group of friends and I, we are all upper-middle class. Most of our parents are still together. We never had anything traumatic like rape or molestation during our childhood.So I doubt that living in one of the best neighborhoods in Dallas, going to the top schools in Dallas has any bearing on my being gay. Nor was being raised in a Babtist church.

...BUT DALLAS FOR SOME REASON DOES HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF HOMOSEXUALS...sorry caps lock was stuck...which surprised me in that it is close to the Bible Belt.When we played baseball against SMU, their field was in an area of town next to a place called Q#### Hill (not my name for it) which was a social hangout for many in the Dallas gay community (or so we were told). It was funny, though, because their were these guys whistling at us as we were warming up down in the outfield. They were probably joking, but as an 18 year old I was freaked out by it...and this was before I "got religion".

 

[CrossEyed]

How can you be so happy about something about which you have no choice?

What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure Shaq is happy with his height even thought he didn't choose it.

You need to adjust your sarcasm sensor.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

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.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

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.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

 

[Saints-Man]

I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.

Bingo!Didn't have to go far in the thread for this one.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Ahhh, so the real question becomes: Is marriage a basic human right?

The supreme court said it is...

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Answer this for me:If gays are 'born that way' why do most gay couples I have been around or seen in public morph their relationship into one playing the 'man' and one playing the 'woman'? Its all too common to see a rough girl with her jeans and tshirt trying to look like a bot holding hands with a more feminine-ly(sp?) dressed lady. Hurts your arguments that this is a genetic thing.

How so? In what way can that be construed as having anything to do with the debate at hand? This does not provide an argument for or against either side of the debate.

actually it kinda refers to the "is homosexuality natural?" question...if most gay couples have one taking a feminine role and one the masculine it should tell us something...or so the argument goes... lol*edited to fix and comment that I need to stick to one debate at a time...*

"kinda refers" ??????Lesbians taking on gender roles can be construed to mean any number of things but I don't see how that can actually be used with any confidence whatsoever in labelling homosexuality as a choice. Homosexual men are often well dressed and have above average incomes so I guess that can be construed to mean that it is a choice as well. Perhaps lesbians choose to be gay because they like to hang out in coffeehouses and wear flannel?