Well it seems now that most of the upcoming presidential candidacy hopefuls for the democrats tend to be in favor of "Civil Unions" for homosexuals, but not going quite so far as to say they support giving them the right to legal marriage. As weird as it is for me to admit it, I have to say that I agree with Al Sharpton's view on this issue:

But Sharpton said simply granting civil unions is a form of discrimination against gays, "like saying we'll give blacks or whites or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/democrats.gays.ap/index.html


So, essentially the best that we can expect from presidential candidates in the upcoming election is a sort of "separate but equal" mentality. I just guess that I'm glad that these positions are getting voiced now, that they are out in the open where people can see how flimsy and archaic they really are.

This issue seems to be getting hotter, especially with the supreme court's recent ruling on Lawrence & Garner V. Texas. In local news, a couple here in my home state of Arizona has recently filed a suit to have the state's prohibition of homosexual marriages removed.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0716gaymarriage.html

The state's law is pretty straight forward, we've got a piece of legislation listing prohibited marriages, and marriage between peoples of the same sex happens to be one of the items on the list. Of course the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Even if the lawsuit is successful it's not as if homosexuals In Arizona are going to be allowed to marry, the Defense of Marriage Act still makes it illegal for any homosexual couple in America to marry, but it is still a small step forward.

Well it seems now that most of the upcoming presidential candidacy hopefuls for the democrats tend to be in favor of "Civil Unions" for homosexuals, but not going quite so far as to say they support giving them the right to legal marriage. As weird as it is for me to admit it, I have to say that I agree with Al Sharpton's view on this issue:

Why? It's religious freedom. My religion says that homosexuals can never be married. Therefore, I have the freedom of religion/speech to say that homosexuals are not married. I do not have the right to stop other people from calling themselves married but just because someone does not support some stance does not make them a racist/discriminator.

Originally posted by okinrus
Why? It's religious freedom.

You don't have a very good grasp of the situation, do you? Why in gods name would I be talking about political figures and their stance on the matter if I was all gung ho about getting the catholic church, or any other, for that matter, to perform wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples? This is about political freedom, and equal rights. I hope you understand that even if Homosexual marriages are legalized in the United States, that it wouldn't mean that every religion in the united states must perform ceremonies. Don't worry, no matter what happens you can still lock yourself in your little bubble of ignorance and hatred and never come out for all I care, no one has proposed doing anything about that just yet.

I’m curious to see how the US will treat homosexual couples who were married in Canada and then move to the states. Or better yet, how they treat Americans who go to Canada to obtain a marriage license (should Canada ultimately allow that sort of thing) and then come back. I think it’ll be pretty fun to watch everyone go apeshit if America decides that it just won’t recognize homosexual marriage licenses issued in Canada.

This is about political freedom, and equal rights.

Most of the people who disagree with homosexual marriages are either chrisitan, muslim or Jewish.


Don't worry, no matter what happens you can still lock yourself in your little bubble of ignorance and hatred and never come out for all I care, no one has proposed doing anything about that just yet.

The argument that was given by Sharpten was basically anybody who disagrees with myself commits discrimination. It's moronic. We have free speech in this country and freedom from slander. If someone disagrees with a position that appears somewhat irrational, it does not give you the right to call them bigot. See this is no different than the pig companies complaining about Jews not buying pigs. So now your going to call Jewish people discriminatiing. No of course not.

(this is my first time I've responded to this topic so I am er... all bright and shiny looking)

Okinrus is right. Religion is inextricably mixed into the issue, whether you want it or not, because no matter how little you think it has to do with the right to get married, other people disagree and you are not the only one whose opinion has an influence. Just saying "You are stupid!!" won't work, you'll have to get a logical argument and address the other side's concerns.

Enlighten me: I am all for letting people do whatever stupid #### they want to, and I would assume other people are the same (tobacco, alcohol, sex, etc.). So why the debate over homosexual marriages?

Enlighten me: I am all for letting people do whatever stupid #### they want to, and I would assume other people are the same (tobacco, alcohol, sex, etc.). So why the debate over homosexual marriages?

I believe that at its root, homosexuallity is a psychological
disorder in most cases. They should be recieving counciling, support groups etc. In other cases it is clearly wrong and sinful and many parents don't want there kids exposed to it. The goverment should not support something that the majority of people believe is wrong or at best abnormal behavior. However the activist are trying to ask why we think it's sinful. Morality doesn't have to require a rational explanation. You don't find rational explanations of why stealing is a crime in the goverments code of laws. Why should it be any different for homosexuality? So if the majority believe it's wrong, then let the majority win.

Ohh, this could be fun.....

Firstly, what majority of Americans? Do you have poll figures to show they think homosexuality is wrong and evil? And what gvt support is it getting? Why should heterosexual marriages get support and not homosexual ones?

Phsychological disorder? Would you be offended if i suggested that religious beliefs are the same? And pointed out that you can have religious experiences by taking drugs or fasting for days on end? I know one or two homoseexuals, and its not a disorder, its a wiring of the brain differently. The most likely explanation is it happens in the womb, when the parts of their brains that deal with attraction to the opposite sex get switched, eg by too much testosterone for a girl.
How exaclty are children exposed to homosexuality? Is telling them that it exists going to pollute them and make them turn homosexual themselves? There is no evidence that you can be converted to homosexuality. Many people try it at some point or another, but they dont all stay with it.

I thought the USA was all about individual rights? So by all means prevent homosexual sex in public etc, but in private, when people can only imagine what is going on? ( and i bet they have fun doing so)

Firstly, what majority of Americans? Do you have poll figures to show they think homosexuality is wrong and evil? And what gvt support is it getting? Why should heterosexual marriages get support and not homosexual ones?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939243/posts?page=7


Phsychological disorder? Would you be offended if i suggested that religious beliefs are the same?

I don't get offended. Homosexuality was a phsychological disorder until gay rights activists pushed against it. There was no medical evidence that proved that it wasn't a phsychological disorder.


And pointed out that you can have religious experiences by taking drugs or fasting for days on end?

Yes, I don't take drugs and never fast for more than a day.


I know one or two homoseexuals, and its not a disorder, its a wiring of the brain differently.

This has not been proven anywhere. In fact I'd say there evidence that discounts it. Many homosexuals have been abused and molested sexually when they were young.


The most likely explanation is it happens in the womb, when the parts of their brains that deal with attraction to the opposite sex get switched, eg by too much testosterone for a girl.

No, testosterone has nothing to do with it. Otherwise it would be an easy fix. Also if it was genetic, then I think it would have been pulled out of the gene pool earlier. I will have to look up some of this stuft though.


How exaclty are children exposed to homosexuality? Is telling them that it exists going to pollute them and make them turn homosexual themselves?

I don't know. I believe that it's possible. Much of the bisexual movement can only be reasonably described as media hype. Unless if you can figure away that a person's brain can be wired both ways. All desire and imagery can reinforce pychological bonds in the brain.


There is no evidence that you can be converted to homosexuality. Many people try it at some point or another, but they dont all stay with it.

What exactly are you saying here? There is no evidence that you can be converted to heterosexuality except for a few converts. Do you mean that no one has control of whoever they have sex with?

Most of the people who disagree with homosexual marriages are either chrisitan, muslim or Jewish.


Just shows how moronic Abrahamic religions are. They seem to think people's bedroom activities are their business.

Whatever happend to the saying


Live and let Live

Gay or not, they are still human, and shame on you for dehumanizing them.

Good for you that you believe in god but respect what you can't see by respecting those you can.

okinrus

Homosexuality was a phsychological disorder until gay rights activists pushed against it. There was no medical evidence that proved that it wasn't a phsychological disorder.

I'm a hetrosexual and was brought up as a Catholic by my parents and I find that offensive and quite frankly disgusting:mad:. Are you kidding?? Black people were deemed to be inferior until black activists pushed against that... so would you dare say that there is no medical evidence to prove that this wasn't so and therefore all coloured people are inferior? Because I find what you are saying in your replies to this post to be along the same line as this disgusting notion. Both are equally bad and morally wrong and both leave a bad taste in one's mouth.


No, testosterone has nothing to do with it. Otherwise it would be an easy fix. Also if it was genetic, then I think it would have been pulled out of the gene pool earlier.

Fix what? Homosexuals are human beings. They feel, love and feel pain and happiness like the rest of the human species. It is not a disease!! It can't be caught like the flu. To be born a homosexual does not mean that you have a disease that is unfortunate and unable to be fixed. Why would anyone wish to pull homosexuality from the gene pool? The whole concept is something that reeks of intolerence...


I believe that at its root, homosexuallity is a psychological disorder in most cases. They should be recieving counciling, support groups etc.

So what? You believe that homosexuals can be turned around to become what religion states is normal? Homosexuals aren't suffering from a disease such as schizophrenia that needs to be treated. What kind of support groups would you suggest? An AA type group where each person would stand up and state their name and the I'm a homosexual? And then all would gather around and pray and try and turn the person around as though they had an addiction like those who are alcoholics? Would you expect that each homosexual would then have a support person who'd gone straight to help them kick the habit of their sexuality and be "normal"? What the....???


In other cases it is clearly wrong and sinful and many parents don't want there kids exposed to it.

How in the world does a parent expose their child to homosexuality? Can someone explain to me how this would occur? Would the homosexuals have to wear a sign saying "Homosexual" and the parents would then point these people out and say.. there child.. that's what a homosexual looks like.. you must stay away....??? You are born a homosexual. It is not something that you decide to become. Children do not catch homosexuality like they would the measles!

How is it possibly wrong or sinful? I have many homosexual friends, all of whom I love and adore. The thought of anyone telling these dear people that they are wrong and commit sinful acts angers and sickens me. They all contribute to society and work like the rest of all humanity to achieve all they can achieve. They are beautiful and wonderful people and I would not have them be any other way and neither would they. They are happy with themselves and why should they not be? I am proud to have them in my life and my children will do well to learn about tolerance and humanity from them. If my children are born homosexuals, then I will adore them for what they are and who they are. I would NOT want them to be fixed or counselled into being something else. I find the thought of doing something like that stomach turning.

:eek:

I'm a hetrosexual and was brought up as a Catholic by my parents and I find that offensive and quite frankly disgusting.

I could go on about condoms, abortion, porno. I destest all of these things. If I see that something will perhaps endorse one these things then I will disagree with it. And yes I do love homosexuals, just not the sin.


Are you kidding?? Black people were deemed to be inferior until black activists pushed against that... so would you dare say that there is no medical evidence to prove that this wasn't so and therefore all coloured people are inferior?

When did I say that homosexuals were inferior?


Fix what? Homosexuals are human beings. They feel, love and feel pain and happiness like the rest of the human species. It is not a disease!! It can't be caught like the flu. To be born a homosexual does not mean that you have a disease that is unfortunate and unable to be fixed. Why would anyone wish to pull homosexuality from the gene pool? The whole concept is something that reeks of intolerence...

If you haven't noticed, a good portion of the american public have mental disorders. There are people born with personality disorders, ATD etc. The "gay gene" has not been found to exists despite people searching for it. It would appear that most homosexuals would not pass along the "gay gene", because they would not be in a normal relationship.


So what? You believe that homosexuals can be turned around to become what religion states is normal? Homosexuals aren't suffering from a disease such as schizophrenia that needs to be treated. What kind of support groups would you suggest? An AA type group where each person would stand up and state their name and the I'm a homosexual? And then all would gather around and pray and try and turn the person around as though they had an addiction like those who are alcoholics? Would you expect that each homosexual would then have a support person who'd gone straight to help them kick the habit of their sexuality and be "normal"? What the....???

Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide and many have AIDS. They obviously need some kind of counciling.


How in the world does a parent expose their child to homosexuality?

I'm sure that it happens. Otherwise you would not find all those kids calling each other "gay".


You are born a homosexual.

Unproven.


It is not something that you decide to become.

Maybe. Still is a disorder. No most people do not decide to have schizophrenia or the many other disorders.


Children do not catch homosexuality like they would the measles!

A desease does not have to be communicable. Evidence backs up the claim that children who are abused sexually will in most cases be unable to have a healthy relationship.

Originally posted by okinrus
Most of the people who disagree with homosexual marriages are either chrisitan, muslim or Jewish.

I honestly can't see how this matters. It certainly shows that people tend to discriminate against homosexuals based upon religious grounds, and that's certainly an interesting tidbit, but I don't see how it factors into the issue in any worthwile manner.


Originally posted by okinrus
The argument that was given by Sharpten was basically anybody who disagrees with myself commits discrimination. It's moronic. We have free speech in this country and freedom from slander. If someone disagrees with a position that appears somewhat irrational, it does not give you the right to call them bigot.

This isn't the case at all. Sharpton is saying that if the government affords one group of people certain rights, which are supposed to be universal, but then deny other people those rights based on completely arbitrary grounds, then it is discriminatory, and he's right.

This is a free country, but you don't have the freedom to oppress me and deny me my rights just because knowing that I'm free, too, makes you uncomfortable.

Originally posted by sankuro

Okinrus is right. Religion is inextricably mixed into the issue, whether you want it or not,

Actually, no it is not. The problem is just that some religious people feel that this is the case, and that somehow they have a right to have a say in this issue. Let me make this clear for you: No one is challenging the right of religious organizations to hate homosexuals and exclude them from any part of their organizations, and I am no exception!

What we are talking about here is making the government grant a legal marriage status to homosexual couples who seek it, in the same manner that it grants a marriage license to a heterosexual couple. We want this so that homosexuals can have the same legal protection and other associated benefits with this legal status which is already given to heterosexuals. As I said before, it's about equal rights, and giving eople what, by our current system, should rightly be due to them.

Originally posted by sankuro
because no matter how little you think it has to do with the right to get married, other people disagree and you are not the only one whose opinion has an influence.

I assume that by this statement you are trying to say that religious organizations have a say in the matter, and that I should respect that. If so, please tell me how it came to be that religious organizations have the right to play with the government, and turn it into a tool for carrying out their own theologically motivated oppression. At what point did the Church gain the right to dictate anyone’s life without their consent? Why should your disapproval of my choice of a partner have any effect on how far our relationship is allowed to go? Why should I get short changed by an organization set up to protect my rights (the government) just because someone else wants to throw a hissy fit?

Originally posted by sankuro
Enlighten me: I am all for letting people do whatever stupid #### they want to, and I would assume other people are the same (tobacco, alcohol, sex, etc.). So why the debate over homosexual marriages?

We debate about it because of the obvious conflict at hand. People want their rights, others stand in the way of those rights, conflict ensues. Welcome to the world of social psychology.

Originally posted by okinrus
I believe that at its root, homosexuallity is a psychological
disorder in most cases. They should be recieving counciling, support groups etc.

Well luckily the APA disagrees with you. Tell me, what evidence do you have to suggest that homosexuality is a mental disorder? Also, what cradentials do you have to make such a diagnosis?

Originally posted by okinrus
In other cases it is clearly wrong and sinful and many parents don't want there kids exposed to it.

Well I'm glad that you're not shy about showing your irrational biggotry, it makes arguing with you feel a whole lot easier. Tell me, how is homosexualilty inherently wrong or evil? And don't just tell me that it's because God said so; unless your God is a madman then he isn't above reason and logic, WHY does he dissaprove of it in your opinion? As for many parents not wanting their children exposed to it, I'd have to say that that's hardly supporting evidence for anything, and there are plenty of parrents who don't mind their children having an accurate picture of the world, and not minding if they are "exposed to it" (and by that I certainly don't mean to imply firsthand sexual experience by the children).

Originally posted by okinrus
The goverment should not support something that the majority of people believe is wrong or at best abnormal behavior.

I can think of a government that thought exactly the same way. Nazi Germany felt quite the same about the Jews, so they came up with their clever "final solution". How do you think the "Homosexual question" should be solved?

If we simply give the government license to oppress certain people based purely on irrational public opinion then we've done nothing but turn our great democracy into mob rule. The constitution was set up specifically to prevent this sort of thing. Should the government deny people their rights just because many people say it should be so? Or should they stay out of the business of denying rights without very good rational basis for it?


Originally posted by okinrus
However the activist are trying to ask why we think it's sinful. Morality doesn't have to require a rational explanation. You don't find rational explanations of why stealing is a crime in the goverments code of laws. Why should it be any different for homosexuality? So if the majority believe it's wrong, then let the majority win.

So as long as the completely arbitrary rules of a government fit your own particular biases and standards you're fat and happy? That's a dangerous path, friend, you open yourself up to all kinds of injustice. In this world that you've created for us, what if atheists were to take over, and demand that religion be made illegal simply because they don't like the idea of being held accountable to the morality of a higher being? Would you be so gung-ho about saying that a government doesn't need a reason to do anything?

Taking such actions without having an official reason behind them is simply nothing but madness. It's asking for a totalitarian regime that is above reproach. Government shouldn't be like a religion, it's something that has to be accountable for the well being of the governed.

Originally posted by okinrus
[reguarding the idea that homosexuality is not a dissease] This has not been proven anywhere. In fact I'd say there evidence that discounts it. Many homosexuals have been abused and molested sexually when they were young.

It has never been proven that it is a disease. Your idea that many homosexuals were sexually molested as children is ridiculous, where are your figures for this? What about all of those homosexuals who had normal and happy childhoods? I could cite myself as an example of that.

Further, what exactly makes homosexuality a mental disorder? How is it that most homosexuals can be healthy normal functioning and productive human beings?

Originally posted by okinrus
I don't know. I believe that it's possible. Much of the bisexual movement can only be reasonably described as media hype. Unless if you can figure away that a person's brain can be wired both ways. All desire and imagery can reinforce pychological bonds in the brain.

Bisexual movement? Media hype? Ok I'll bite: What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah, anyway guess what bisexuals exist to, I know that a lot of homophobes and heterosexists like to ignore or forget about 'em, but it's yet another sexual orientation which is out there. Some people just happen to be drawn to members of both the opposite and same sex, deal with it.

Originally posted by okinrus
What exactly are you saying here? There is no evidence that you can be converted to heterosexuality except for a few converts. Do you mean that no one has control of whoever they have sex with?

I think that what he is saying is that you don't have a hell of a lot of control over your sexual orientation. To illustrate this point, I would like to challenge you to sit in the comfort of your own home, maybe watch some TV or a movie, listen to some music or read a book or something, and just for a half hour or so, allow yourself to be attracted to members of the same sex. Go ahead, do it, just for a half hour of your life just be a homosexual, you don't even have to actually commit any physical act during that time, just get a little hot and bothered over Brad Pitt or something. If homosexuality is something that people can supposedly turn on and off, it should be easy, right?

Originally posted by okinrus


When did I say that homosexuals were inferior?

It was quite clearly implied when you continually state that they are evil sinful, that their sexuality is a mental disorder, and that their rights should be limited, and the government should treat them like shit. I'm sorry if I'm reading a bit into it, but the message seems quite clear from where I'm sitting, as well.

Originally posted by okinrus
Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide and many have AIDS. They obviously need some kind of counciling.

The suicide rate among homosexual teens is indeed a higher percentage than among heterosexuals. This is due in large to people who hold views like your own, and aren't shy about calling them abominations and inherently immoral.

Also, I'd imagine that heterosexuals with AIDS or any other life threatening disease could make use of some counseling just as much as a homosexual with the disease. Being that there are an overwhelmingly large number of heterosexuals with the disease, I don't think it's fair to classify this as a homosexual problem.

Originally posted by okinrus
Evidence backs up the claim that children who are abused sexually will in most cases be unable to have a healthy relationship.

So, being that homosexuals seem to be quite capable of having healthy and long lasting relationships, are you then trying to quietly state that your previous statement about homosexuality being a disease was ill conceived?

It was quite clearly implied when you continually state that they are evil sinful, that their sexuality is a mental disorder, and that their rights should be limited, and the government should treat them like shit. I'm sorry if I'm reading a bit into it, but the message seems quite clear from where I'm sitting, as well.

It was quite clearly implied when you continually state that they are evil sinful

Everyone is sinful. No, I haven't said that anyone is evil.


that their sexuality is a mental disorder

And when did having a mental disorder make you not a person?


and that their rights should be limited, and the government should treat them like shit.

The civil union gives them all the rights that a marriage does.


The suicide rate among homosexual teens is indeed a higher percentage than among heterosexuals. This is due in large to people who hold views like your own, and aren't shy about calling them abominations and inherently immoral.

I haven't called anyone an abomination. I do consider all sin an abomination. Do you have a problem with that?


Also, I'd imagine that heterosexuals with AIDS or any other life threatening disease could make use of some counseling just as much as a homosexual with the disease.

Yes, everyone with AID's should get counciling.


Being that there are an overwhelmingly large number of heterosexuals with the disease, I don't think it's fair to classify this as a homosexual problem.

I did not classify it. All I'm saying is that homosexuals should get counciling etc. Imagine how many lives that would have saved in the 1970s. The goverment basically let homosexuals get killed by not educating them.


So, being that homosexuals seem to be quite capable of having healthy and long lasting relationships, are you then trying to quietly state that your previous statement about homosexuality being a disease was ill conceived?

Healthy is subjective.

Originally posted by Bells
okinrus
1) Why would anyone wish to pull homosexuality from the gene pool?



How in the world does a parent expose their child to homosexuality?

1) darwinism: survival of those who copulate. since homosexual couples are unable to concieve, their genes will not be passed down. therefore, they are out of the gene pool. what okinrus said makes sense in light of that.

2) there are two theories that attempt to explain what causes homosexuality. nurture and nature. nature states that you're born with it. nurture says that it's a product of the environment in which the children undergo gender construction. re-read 1. that throws nature out. logically, if it was due to inborn nature, the genes would have cycled out. this leaves nurture. basically, studies show that homosexuality has grown as the lines between the sexes has blurred giving way to more feminine men and masculine women. in turn, this confuses children and causes their gender (perception of the sexual self) to be skewed.


that's all i'm interested in saying.

Originally posted by okinrus
We have free speech in this country and freedom from slander.

Truthfully, I think you need to remove "from" and insert "to," Okinrus.
Originally posted by guthrie
Why should heterosexual marriages get support and not homosexual ones?

Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't.
Originally posted by Bells

Fix what? Homosexuals are human beings.


Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!
Originally posted by Mystech
So, being that homosexuals seem to be quite capable of having healthy and long lasting relationships, are you then trying to quietly state that your previous statement about homosexuality being a disease was ill conceived?

How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage.


Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic.
However, homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, on account of the fact already presented by Mirage, the elimination of disadvantageous or unhelpful genes. Homosexuality would have been expunged by now(Unless it's a recessive gene, which isn't too sensible, as a gene that stagnates the reproduction of the species isn't practical anyhow.).

So, if one keeps Darwinism and practicality in mind, homosexuality cannot exist at birth; people cannot be born gay.

What else could it be but psychological?

okay, here is my two cents.

i believe that becoming gay is a two fold thing. i believe that you are either born gay, or become gay by growing up by it. it's the nature vs. nurture idea that was allready brought up.

i'll start off with nurture. i like to think of it this way, lets say a young boy is being raised in a household where the father has a strong liking for baseball. do you not agree that, chances are, he will also grow up enjoying the game of baseball? it's not so much that the actual game appeals to him, but because he grew up in a household where baseball was a topic talked about a lot. but just because he grew up in a house like that, doesn't mean that he will become a baseball connoisseur. he may end up loathing the game. the same thing, i believe, can happen in a gay household. i think it happens in a much smaller level, because we are brought up to discriminate gays. growing up as a kid, you can talk about baseball anywhere; school, church, hanging out with friends, where ever. but you don't have as many oppurtunities when you are a kid to talk about homosexuality.

now, for the nature part. i think that this composes most of the gay population. i believe that it is proven that it is we are not "supposed" to be gay. for one thing it doesn't make sense. why would we be born into either a male or female sex, and want someone of the same sex? it is believed (maybe even proven) that we are predisposed to certain traits which out genes carry. one of the traits is want for our genes to produce offspring. if i'm not mistaken, it is called the Selfish Gene Theory, or at least that is what my professor and the text book i used called it. this theory states that our genes are designed to truly want one thing- to pass it's traits on to offspring. now obviously, gays cannot do this, so it seems to me that we are not "designed" (i use this term loosely, with no religious connotations) to be gay for the simple fact that we can't have children if we are gay.

to sum that up, if someone is born gay, i do believe it is a disorder. not a dibilatating one, for they can still be productive members of society, but never-the-less, not something that is "normal"



as for the issue of whether they should be granted marriage liscenses or not. yes, they should. not because i believe it to be okay, or good. but because i believe it is discrimination in the way the constitution is laid out.

that being said. i don't want anything to do with them. if any of my friends or children become gay, i will not disown them. but i don't want to know anything about their personal live as far as their sexuality. i want no details, i don't want them hanging out with me touting signs of gay pride and kissing in front of me (nor do i want a guy-girl couple kissing in front of me). afterall, i don't go around wearing signs saying PROUD TO BE HETEROSEXUAL! it's not their business to know if i am heterosexual, and so it is not my business to know if any of you are homosexual. leave that within the walls of your dwelling.

That free republic poll looks ok, except for the comments underneath it. IM sure we could get embroiled in huge debates here about the rights of the majority over the minoty, in fact im sure theres some libertarians around whod fight you to the death on that one.

"I don't get offended. Homosexuality was a phsychological disorder until gay rights activists pushed against it. There was no medical evidence that proved that it wasn't a phsychological disorder. "

And your saying there evidence that its a disorder, as oppposed to someone simply being different, the same way as people with red hair are different from blond haired people? Or perhaps its just the label, so again if we come back to my original comparison, I can say that religious belief is a disorder because its not founded in anything real.

"This has not been proven anywhere. In fact I'd say there evidence that discounts it. Many homosexuals have been abused and molested sexually when they were young."

yes it has. There are clear differences in size of bits of the brain relating to sexual attraction in men and women, and homosexuals have the parts similar to the opposite sex. There is more evidence of slightly different wiring, but i cant remember it all. How many homosexuals have been abused? YOu would perhaps accept there is a difference between someone conditioned to think of themselves as homosexual by abuse, and the people I know, whose brains are wired differently and have been brought up in perfectly normal circumstances, but have known since puberty that they were different.
And dont try to suggest that homosexuals abuse children, the fact is its "heterosexual" males that do the vast majority of it.

"No, testosterone has nothing to do with it. Otherwise it would be an easy fix. Also if it was genetic, then I think it would have been pulled out of the gene pool earlier. I will have to look up some of this stuft though."

yes it does. Go look stuff up. Easy fix for whom, and what? Its not a matter of fixing them now with injections of testosterone, its a matter of an imbalance of a hormone at critical times in the womb, causing things that are sensiotive to such changes to grow differently. Call it an act of god if you like.

"I don't know. I believe that it's possible. Much of the bisexual movement can only be reasonably described as media hype. Unless if you can figure away that a person's brain can be wired both ways. All desire and imagery can reinforce pychological bonds in the brain. "


Your right about desires and imagery reinforcing stuff in the brain, but its more than that. LIkely, the bisexual movement has been hyped, but not the homosexual one, there are solid stats on rates of homosexuality. But in the actual homosexuals etc I know, they feel different from the start, then work out its because they are homosexual.

"What exactly are you saying here? There is no evidence that you can be converted to heterosexuality except for a few converts. Do you mean that no one has control of whoever they have sex with?"

I was trying to say that I havnt heard about anyone being "converted" to homosexuality. As for the conversions to heterosexuality, id like to know more. Whats the recidivism rate? Or does it go to show the potential strenght of someones will? The same as those people who are celibate. But I do agree that people have control over who they have sex with. But the general object of their affections has been fixed already.

"Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't"

But are still relationships, of working peopel who try to form a stable relationship about which to organise their lives. Sure, dont give them child support benefit, but why not encourage them to pledge support to each other, in the name of stable community relations.
You seem to be automatically conflating babies and wholesome and laudable here, when there is no direct conection except through presumably your religious beliefs.

"Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!"

Fascist. So, someone doesnt come up to your standard, which is ability to breed, you want to make them capable. Do you want to force everyone to breed?



"How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage."

HAHHAhahaha. IN the UK here, there are a lot of people pushing for homosexual marriage stuff, including many couples who have been together longer than many marriages today. like 30 or 40 years. So they arent commited? Can you not see that love and commitment do not, if they are good and true, require children to maintain the bond? Or do you have such a poor opinion of relationships that you dont htink they can last without outside pressure, like children? What a poor life you must have.
Or indeed, does this mean you think people should stay in loveless marriages "for the sake of the children"?

"Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic. "

Their genes and interaction with environment. All the genes do is give a possible disposition towards something, which is then activated by the environment. Think of it like hayfever, you wouldnt get hayfever unless you were exposed to pollen, but you could easily be disposed to get hayfever but never do so because you havnt encountered any pollen.
Therefore you cant ever wipe out homosexuality even by sterilising all homosexuals. ( and a few of them do breed, whether by AI or silly flings or whatever) You'd have to chop out all the genes in the embryos and mothers which might affect the environment in the womb, and the fetuses reactions to it. There is no "homosexual gene" merely many interlocking systems that can under the right circumstances cause things to go differently. Therefore it is not phsychological.

Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide and many have AIDS. They obviously need some kind of counciling

as said above if you opress ANY group they will be more likly to be depressed and depression leads to suicide

look at ANY school yard and tell me those who are bullied arnt more likly to be depressed and suicidle

education and laws that protect not descriminate is the answer, tolerance not hatered

and as for the aids thing the goverments of that time should be looked at as having tried to comite GENOCIDE (or whatever the sexual version would be)

because of hatreds like YOURS they wiped out god knows how many people

and before you say that it proves homosexuality is an offence against god study eroup before the advent of moden medicen

look seriously at the black death

those people were VERY religiouse

they prayed and begged god to protect them

they died because they belived that it was a punishment and they felt that those who contracted the disese were "evil" people who deserved it

of corse we now know thats bull shit dont we okinrus?

Why? It's religious freedom

well my religion says you should be killed and the world should obay my every whim

so everyone bow down before me cause my religion is more important than yours isnt it okinrus?

There was no medical evidence that proved that it wasn't a phsychological disorder.

where is the proof that YOU arnt criminally insane?

i guess i should dismiss everything you have said as you are oviously a raving loon

for interest sake you DO know that 10% (i not sure of the EXACT %) of animals are naturally homsexual

hell there is a fly that if you increase the temp then it will go for the same sex and if you lower it it will be atracted to the oposite sex again

frogs if in a single sex enviroment will screw the other frogs

and we all know about dogs fasination with beastality and whatever it is you call screwing inaniment objects

what about the DOCUMENTED evidance of dolphin males blowing other male dolphins?

NO ONE knows why homosexuals are the way we are
my guess would be that its because god made us this way

could go on about condoms, abortion, porno. I destest all of these things.

when did YOUR opinion matter to anyone but you?

god i wish goofy was around, he and his wife love to watch porn and id just LOVE a doc to read that condoms are evil, so much for safe sex

Most of the people who disagree with homosexual marriages are either chrisitan, muslim or Jewish.

in my religiouse belifes all people are equal and if they love there partener that should be celibrated not opressed

there are PLENTY of religions that peform gay marriges and i belive one of the things protected by the consitution of the US is freedom of religion

because of hatreds like YOURS they wiped out god knows how many people

I don't have hatred for gays no more than I have hatred for people who steal.


look seriously at the black death
those people were VERY religiouse
they prayed and begged god to protect them

I think this is misconception. They were normal people who were a little bit more religious than nowdays.


well my religion says you should be killed and the world should obay my every whim
so everyone bow down before me cause my religion is more important than yours isnt it okinrus?

You have a right to support that view and try to push for being able to commit human sacrafices. But until it's law, you can do none of the sort.

If you want to create your laws on what animals do, then your never going to be able to live in a human society. So why don't we just not get married like animals?


hell there is a fly that if you increase the temp then it will go for the same sex and if you lower it it will be atracted to the oposite sex again

I'm not aware of any such research.


frogs if in a single sex enviroment will screw the other frogs

No, it looks like they change sex not sexual attraction. Ok from this document it would appear that your sexual attraction is from nature. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1930658.stm


and we all know about dogs fasination with beastality and whatever it is you call screwing inaniment objects

How far are willing to take this? Can I marry my dog or a TV?


what about the DOCUMENTED evidance of dolphin males blowing other male dolphins?

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html


NO ONE knows why homosexuals are the way we are
my guess would be that its because god made us this way

That still does not answer if we should have homosexual marriage.

Originally posted by okinrus
Everyone is sinful. No, I haven't said that anyone is evil.


And when did having a mental disorder make you not a person?

So if in these respects homosexuals don't differ from heterosexuals, then why bother making any differentiation?


Originally posted by okinrus
The civil union gives them all the rights that a marriage does.

The "separate but equal" idea never worked in the past, and frankly I don't see any reason to go back to it. Besides, by continuing to withhold the title of being "married" it is a state enforced policy of marginalizing homosexuals as a group. It's demeaning, and unjust.


Originally posted by okinrus
Healthy is subjective.

So be a good Christian and give us the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't.

And is "making babies" the only purpose of a marriage? What about love and commitment? Don't the two people in the marriage have any involvement in the institution, or is tall just about baby? Marriage has never been purely about having children. Besides, homosexual marriages CAN support children, lesbian couples can make use of artificial insemination, and both gays and lesbians can adopt, seeing how as heterosexuals seem to be making so many babies that they have to throw many of them away. So if benefit to society through raising a child is the soul measure of value that you put on a marriage, even that ridiculous ideal doesn't discount homosexual marriages as being valuable.


Originally posted by Redoubtable
Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!

Well, unfortunately for you and your philosophy of pure biological practicality, human beings have been, are, and will continue to act in ways which are not necessarily motivated purely by primal biological imperatives. We'll still hold onto stupid ideas like love and loyalty, and engage in activities which, get this, actually don't end up having any involvement in the production of more humans. I know this may shock you, but it's just the way things have always been, and there’s no sign of that changing any time soon, so get used to it.


Originally posted by Redoubtable
How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage.

Well unfortunately everyone in the world who has a fucking clue disagrees with you. Homosexuals DO have long term relationships, and, get this, many homosexuals DO go through religious wedding ceremonies, and carry on their lives as though they are a married couple (Legal endorsement or no) and very many of those homosexuals which by your line of thinking shouldn't even bother thinking about marriage, are actually out there fighting for that right, because it is indeed something which they want, and can make use of.

It's all well and good for you, in your little bubble, to say that you THINK that homosexual relationships should be brief, but this just shows how lazy and unobservant you are. Have you actually bothered to even see, in the real world, how these things happen?

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic.


Acctualy genetics don't determine all of a persons bodily traits. There are a large number of factors such as diet, climate, and many other environmental settings which can account for someone's physical features.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
So, if one keeps Darwinism and practicality in mind, homosexuality cannot exist at birth; people cannot be born gay.


You have failed to show that there aren't any physical factors that contribute to a person being a homosexual, so this statement is false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Redoubtable
So, if one keeps Darwinism and practicality in mind, homosexuality cannot exist at birth; people cannot be born gay.

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

You have failed to show that there aren't any physical factors that contribute to a person being a homosexual, so this statement is false.


you missed the point. juxtapositioning this situation against darwinism, the theory by which all genetic research is pretty much based on and interpereted, we see that if homosexuality were to be a product of genes, it would have cycled out in the earliest stages of evolution. in a matter of fact, it woud have been among the first to go considering there was a very slim chance it ever got passed on.


frogs if in a single sex enviroment will screw the other frogs

have you seen jurassic park recently?


because of hatreds like YOURS they wiped out god knows how many people


it seems like you are now the one lumping people into a category. how's it feel to be one of the bad guys now?

So be a good Christian and give us the benefit of the doubt.

It's not my choice to give you the benefit of the doubt. Christians cannot endorse what they know is sinful however we still love homosexuals. It's just we cannot endorse the homosexual act. So to make comments that I'm spreading hatred or something is unfair.


And is "making babies" the only purpose of a marriage? What about love and commitment? Don't the two people in the marriage have any involvement in the institution, or is tall just about baby? Marriage has never been purely about having children. Besides, homosexual marriages CAN support children, lesbian couples can make use of artificial insemination, and both gays and lesbians can adopt, seeing how as heterosexuals seem to be making so many babies that they have to throw many of them away. So if benefit to society through raising a child is the soul measure of value that you put on a marriage, even that ridiculous ideal doesn't discount homosexual marriages as being valuable.

The reason why marriage in the past has gotten special protection by the goverment is because it produces children. That means more children to serve in the army, factories, etc.


It's all well and good for you, in your little bubble, to say that you THINK that homosexual relationships should be brief, but this just shows how lazy and unobservant you are. Have you actually bothered to even see, in the real world, how these things happen?

That show on the real world did years of damage to our brains. And the few shows with homosexuals in them such as Will and Grace seem to be supporting extra-marital affairs.

Originally posted by okinrus
It's not my choice to give you the benefit of the doubt. Christians cannot endorse what they know is sinful however we still love homosexuals. It's just we cannot endorse the homosexual act. So to make comments that I'm spreading hatred or something is unfair.

Don't give me that BS copout answer. Your religion is not a licence to endorse any screwed up belief. YES it is hatred, just because it is religion does not exclude it from this.

You know, you never gave me an answer on a question I asked you earlier. In your own opinion what is the reasoning behind God's condemnation of homosexuals? In your opinion, why is this a rational view?


Originally posted by okinrus
The reason why marriage in the past has gotten special protection by the goverment is because it produces children. That means more children to serve in the army, factories, etc.

That's not how America works, though. Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. In other words its more than just an administrative body who's only real purpose is self perpetuation; It's an organization which is supposed to work for he benefit, and betterment of the governed.

Aside from that, if a government was supporting and endorsing marriage because it produced more citizens for it to utilize, then that still would not discount homosexual marriages. As has already been mentioned in this thread there are a number of ways for homosexual couples to acquire and raise children. By all acounts homosexuals should be allowed the right of legal marriage.



Originally posted by okinrus
That show on the real world did years of damage to our brains. And the few shows with homosexuals in them such as Will and Grace seem to be supporting extra-marital affairs.

You're going to have to turn to a better source for information than TV if you want to learn about a group of people. Try to think of what other conclusions you could draw about certain groups just from how they are portrayed on TV. Think maybe about Native Americans, African-Americans, devout Christians, or any other minority group, really.

You know, you never gave me an answer on a question I asked you earlier. In your own opinion what is the reasoning behind God's condemnation of homosexuals? In your opinion, why is this a rational view?

God does not condemn homosexuals. He considers the homosexual act a sin though.

Originally posted by okinrus
God does not condemn homosexuals. He considers the homosexual act a sin though.

All right then. Lets see if I can't dodge your semantic games and get you to actually answer the question here.

Why do you think God made the decision that the homosexual act is wrong? I'm not asking why you think that God says it's wrong, I'm not contesting the fact that your scriptures show this opinion, but why does God hold this opinion?

God does not condemn someone unless they never repent of their sins. There are several reasons why God might see homosexuality dangerous to us.
1. Marriage was designed for a man and wife.
2. Usually the giving and recieving aspects of homosexuality are blurred.
3. A healthy relationship should not be lustful. The claim is made that not all homosexual relationships are not lustful but God has a right to say that you building your house out of straw and judge it wrong.
5. Medically dangerous because it often times envolves using physical body parts which were not designed to serve a sexual function.

[qoute]
That's not how America works, though. Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. In other words its more than just an administrative body who's only real purpose is self perpetuation; It's an organization which is supposed to work for he benefit, and betterment of the governed.
[/quote]
God is above America but anyways there is no contradiction here. You have the same rights that I do. I cannot marry a man and you cannot marry a man.

Actually homosexuals already have the same rights to marriage as the rest of us -- they have to marry members of the opposite sex just as we do. The marriage laws, after all, don't mention homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Laws usually operate differentially. The same economic laws that have allowed Bill Gates to become a multi-billionaire have not allowed ME to become one -- because I lack his talent, intelligence, ambition, and competitiveness.

That said, I think we're probably headed for government sponsored homosexual marriages. Then the marriage of any two consenting adults (incest, polygamy). Either that, or the privatization of marriage as recently advocated by Michael Kinsley.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/

this is the bottom line as i see it. separation of church and state. the government cannot be influenced by religions to deny equal rights to its citizens. the government must also respect all religions and make no laws against them; that means that if there are some religions that allow gay marriages, the government must recognize them. it is all very unconstitutional that gay marriages have been illegal all these years. but then, so much else that goes on is also unconstitutional.

Do you think the author's of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote it? Your relying to much on seperation of church and state. I don't want politians who are going to rely on a 200 year book to do what is right. They have to decide for themselves what is right. There are religions that endorse human sacrafice, animal sacrafice, and other perversions. Gay marriages are not illegal. They just are not reconized under the goverment as a marriage. The goverment goes by the definition of marriage which is between a man and a wife.

"Do you think the author's of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote it? Your relying to much on seperation of church and state. I don't want politians who are going to rely on a 200 year book to do what is right."

So where do you get your religion from? Most religious people rely on a 2,000 and more year old book for much of their inspiration etc. So a younger one must be better, right?


"They have to decide for themselves what is right."

Sounds fine to me.

"There are religions that endorse human sacrafice, animal sacrafice, and other perversions."

But the people practising them have decided thats whats right. Dont you understand your own contradictions?


"Gay marriages are not illegal. They just are not reconized under the goverment as a marriage. The goverment goes by the definition of marriage which is between a man and a wife."

And the gvt has to keep itself and its definition unchanging forever and ever, like, say the 200 year old document which you disparage so easily?

Okrinus. I have a simple request. Using verses from the Bible, show me that homosexuality is a sin. We will then see whether these verses are taken out of context, or if there are double standards involved.
What I am saying may seem a little unclear, but will become clear eventually. Just give the verses which justify a Christain's dislike for homosexuality.

It amazes me how people who claim to be God loving Christians can be so bigoted.


As posted by Redoubtable
Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!

This would also mean that people are only put on earth to make babies? What of those who cannot have babies? Or if they do not wish to have babies? Do we fix them too?



As posted by okinrus
I could go on about condoms, abortion, porno. I destest all of these things. If I see that something will perhaps endorse one these things then I will disagree with it. And yes I do love homosexuals, just not the sin.

Hmmm I find this interesting. So okinrus, you say that people should not use condoms? Please swear on your holy bible that you will never work in a safe sex campaign. You know safe sex? It's wear people have sex safely to prevent unwanted pregnancies and also to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases...

As for abortion? It is the person's choice. And pornography? Again.. it's the individual's choice. You see okinrus, I may have been brought up a Catholic, but I was taught something even better than to follow every word in the bible as though it were the be all and end all... I was taught to use my judgement and to make decisions that were right. You know what judgement is don't you? This meant that bigotry and pointing the finger and calling people sinners was wrong. It's not up to me to pass judgement on anyone. It is not up to any individual to call someone or what they do sinful. Did your God give you that power okinrus? Did he/she take you aside and say.. my child, I leave it to you to determine what is sinful or not? Did God tell that to anyone? I'm trying to think back to my primary Sunday school classes and I am having difficulty remembering where God actually did this. You weren't mentioned in any of those classes okinrus:).

And if I can recall properly, it is supposed to be the 6th commandment (of our 10 commandments) which states about homosexuality. But this was not stated directly to Moses but was implied later on. Not once does God in the 10 commandments even mention homosexuality. What God does say in the 6th commandment is that God instilled moral values and standards and that man must respect his own body and the bodies of all others and keep it in a pure state. Now please tell me... where in the hell does it say anything about homosexuality? Are we to imply it in the notion of purity? If that were the case then we could also imply that man must remain pure at all times until death (which would mean no sex ever). How then would we live long and prosper... sow the seeds I guess one could say? And now let me see if I remember correctly.. doesn't commandment number 8 state "Though shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour"? Doesn't this mean that it is wrong to degrade or abuse another person or to lack respect for another person? Hmmm.. because from what I'm seeing in this thread, many have broken that commandment. By telling a homosexual that their act is sinful and against God (again I would like to know when God personally told you this)... you are degrading them and causing them extreme disrespect. By being so damning in your opinions of others, you are in effect breaking this essential commandment. And I must add, my mother would be proud that I even remembered this at all from all those years ago:p.. lol.. I'd originally tried to block it out of my mind.

So what can I say? Those who feel that they have moral authority because they point fingers and call people or their acts sinners should not be pointing fingers.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Neither is the act. It is something that 2 people share... Those who feel it is a sin.. I'd hate to imagine what you'd do if you had a child and he/she came out and told you that they were gay. I'd hate to think that your telling them that the homosexual act is a sin could drive them to being a statistic in the suicide list. Sad and scary really..

I wouldn't wish for my homosexual friends to change in any way. They are perfection as they are now. Some are even discussing having children and they would make the best parents. They will love and adore their kids and teach their kids the differences between right and wrong and more importantly, they will teach their children about how to treat others with respect and dignity.. regardless of who they are. They aren't sinners because they partake in homosexual acts. A sinner is someone who does something hateful and hurtful. All my friends do is love others. All I can hope for is that my children can one day have a sense of love and respect for others like ALL my friends and family do... be they straight or gay.

And now, I must go and clear my mind of the religious teachings of my childhood.. All this talk of sinners and the finger pointing and bigotry in this thread have just made me realise why I am glad I don't follow all teachings to the letter but used my god given mind to well.. make up my mind myself on what is morally correct and how to treat others. Now.. must purge mind of religious dribble.. think of something else... think of something else..

:eek:

Hmmm I find this interesting. So okinrus, you say that people should not use condoms? Please swear on your holy bible that you will never work in a safe sex campaign. You know safe sex? It's wear people have sex safely to prevent unwanted pregnancies and also to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases...

Never. I would rather starve to death than work in an abortion factory.


As for abortion? It is the person's choice.

The Catholic church teaches that abortion is murder. For someone who went to catholic school, I suggest that you start reading.


And pornography? Again.. it's the individual's choice.

No it's not. What would you do if you found your father watching pornography? Have you seen your friend become addicted on it?


It is not up to any individual to call someone or what they do sinful. Did your God give you that power okinrus? Did he/she take you aside and say.. my child, I leave it to you to determine what is sinful or not? Did God tell that to anyone? I'm trying to think back to my primary Sunday school classes and I am having difficulty remembering where God actually did this. You weren't mentioned in any of those classes okinrus.

Yes, we have been taught by God what is wrong and what is right.


And now, I must go and clear my mind of the religious teachings of my childhood.. All this talk of sinners and the finger pointing and bigotry in this thread have just made me realise why I am glad I don't follow all teachings to the letter but used my god given mind to well..

If you'd actually read what I said, you'd realize that I'm not pointing fingers.

and if I can recall properly, it is supposed to be the 6th commandment (of our 10 commandments) which states about homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Jesus pretty much took down the death penalty when he did not allow the Pharisee's to stone the woman who commited adultry.

My reasons for the goverment not endorsing homosexuality also are <a href="http://familyguardian.tzo.com/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V11N3-TruthAboutHomo.pdf">medical</a>.

A bigot is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Because I have used evidence to support my case, I'm not a bigot.

"A bigot is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Because I have used evidence to support my case, I'm not a bigot."

But the key word here is intolerantly. You are intolerant towards people who carry out homosexual acts. And your evidence is based upon something that carries no weight outside the circle of believers. Can you imagine standing up in court and saying "god told me to do that/ think like that"?

Then theres the relationship between gvt and the people. Why should the gvt endorse or not, or even care about peoples private lives?

Then theres the relationship between gvt and the people. Why should the gvt endorse or not, or even care about peoples private lives?

The goverment has always reconized that its people must be healthy. Since one of my arguments was that the homosexual act is unhealthy they have a right not to endorse it. We are "one nation under God".

"The goverment has always reconized that its people must be healthy. Since one of my arguments was that the homosexual act is unhealthy they have a right not to endorse it. We are "one nation under God"."

But again, can you force peopel to be healthy? Secondly, theres still many healthy homosexuals out htere. And gvts shouldnt have hte power to force people to health etc, that just leads to dictatorship. And as fo rone nation under god, which god? Yours? Someone elses? Isnt the USA supposed to have separation of church and state?

But again, can you force peopel to be healthy? Secondly, theres still many healthy homosexuals out htere. And gvts shouldnt have hte power to force people to health etc, that just leads to dictatorship. And as fo rone nation under god, which god? Yours? Someone elses? Isnt the USA supposed to have separation of church and state?

The notion of seperation of religion from state is refers only to the practice of religion. It was never the founders intention to restrict the believers of the politicians to not have a religion. True seperation of Church and state would not be allowing christians to practice their religion. As they have given us the freedom to practice any religion, this is not the case. In theory, the founding fathers wanted puritans, catholics, etc. all to share their thoughts on morality and goverment and then let majority to rule. Most of the judicial system is borrowed from the English system, which comes from Roman and Chrisitan roots. So religion is not entirely out of the moral decision process.

There are many healthy people who do not wear their seatbelt as well. Most states of couse have made people wear their seatbelts.


And as fo rone nation under god, which god? Yours?

God is an abstract principle. Some of the founding fathers were unitarian. What it means is that we believe in a source of greater goodness then the goverment, which the goverment of course serves.

"The notion of seperation of religion from state is refers only to the practice of religion. It was never the founders intention to restrict the believers of the politicians to not have a religion."

And? That still means that the state has no business getting involved in religion. By all means vote for whom your religious beliefs dicate, but dont expect the gvt to uphold your religion.

"As they have given us the freedom to practice any religion, this is not the case. In theory, the founding fathers wanted puritans, catholics, etc. all to share their thoughts on morality and goverment and then let majority to rule."

So wheres peoples freedom now then?

"God is an abstract principle. Some of the founding fathers were unitarian. What it means is that we believe in a source of greater goodness then the goverment, which the goverment of course serves."

Wow, and i thought democracy was based on the rule of the people, not of the gvt under god. How silly of me. Clearly we have a different understanding of it all.

We can use religion to find moral basis in society and still have seperation of church and state. If we look at something simple such as why we laws against stealing, it is obviously because of religion. Even an apparent moral basis such as "do not harm others" does not work. At some point we have to use undefined and irrational beliefs anyways.


So wheres peoples freedom now then?

There freedom is deciding for themselves what is moral and right. It is not the goverments job to layout rational for what is moral.


Wow, and i thought democracy was based on the rule of the people, not of the gvt under god. How silly of me. Clearly we have a different understanding of it all.

Under the consitution, we are allowed to revolt against the goverment if it is a just cause. The goverment is not an end all.

okrinus, you have not submitted verses from the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin.

Oh yeah...

The Catholic church teaches that abortion is murder. For someone who went to catholic school, I suggest that you start reading.
But nowhere in the Bible does it say that abortion is murder.

okrinus, you have not submitted verses from the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin.

I just submitted one.


But nowhere in the Bible does it say that abortion is murder.

The Catholic church does not believe in sola scriptura. A pregnant mother in the bible is described as a woman with child so generally it is percieved that the unborn is a human being. In Jerimiah and few other places, God says "in the womb I formed you". So the unborn baby was reconized as the person Jeremiah. Also God said that the life is in the blood, and those who kill a human being will be accountable for their blood. So unless if the unborn babies blood transforms, it's murder.

Health and Leviticus. Okinrus, you cited correctly. The passage falls amongst a whole slew of unclean acts.

Alright, here's my analysis. The authors clearly felt the need to keep their poulace healthy. Therefore, they used the scripture to educate what ways they knew of disease control. The question therefore is, has our medical knowledge progressed far enough that we need to revise those standards? If smoking kills more people than unprotected sex, wouldn't it be more prudent to consider that unclean if we wanted to keep our bodies clean?

okrinus. I just saw the Bible verse you submitted.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

okrinus, have you ever eaten pork? Do you wear clothes of more than one fabric? Do you stone rebellious children? Have you ever shaved?
If you have eaten pork, you've sinned!
If you have worn clothes of more than one fabric, you've sinned!
If you have shaven, you've sinned!
And you have every right to stone rebellious children to death! It says so right their in Leviticus.
Check Leviticus if you don't believe me.

Which leads me to what I wanted to say.
If you don't think that eating pork or shaving is a sin, why do you think that homosexuality is a sin? It says, specifically in Leviticus, that you MUST NOT EAT PORK.

Every Christain against homosexuals uses the Bible to back up their baseless predjudices. But if they took Leviticus seriously, they should be saying goodbye to bacon sandwiches, trendy clothes, and beardless faces.

Before you go and condemn homosexuals, you had better go and condemn anyone who shaves.
If you don't condemn anyone who shaves, you are not obeying the Bible.


In Jerimiah and few other places, God says "in the womb I formed you". So the unborn baby was reconized as the person Jeremiah.

Rubbish. Give me the actual verses, because I think that you are taking those verses out of context, and I want to explain them.


Also God said that the life is in the blood, and those who kill a human being will be accountable for their blood. So unless if the unborn babies blood transforms, it's murder.

Complete and utter nonsense.

In Exodus 21:22-25 we read that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being.

So, abortion is NOT a sin, not matter what some fundamentalists may say.

okrinus, have you ever eaten pork? Do you wear clothes of more than one fabric? Do you stone rebellious children? Have you ever shaved?
If you have eaten pork, you've sinned!
If you have worn clothes of more than one fabric, you've sinned!
If you have shaven, you've sinned!
And you have every right to stone rebellious children to death! It says so right their in Leviticus.
Check Leviticus if you don't believe me.

Jesus said that what enters your stomach will not defile you. Later Peter has his vision of the food.

Shaving is not sinning in the old testament. I'm not sure what verse your taking out of context, but the Nazerite shaves all his skin and Paul also shaved himself on a vow.

We no longer have the right to stone others. John 8:8 tells of the story of a woman condemned for adultry. Unless if were sinless we should not kill someone. This leads us to infer that the old testament penalties of death were to manifest the spiritual death. We definitly don't say that adultry is no longer sinful.


Every Christain against homosexuals uses the Bible to back up their baseless predjudices. But if they took Leviticus seriously, they should be saying goodbye to bacon sandwiches, trendy clothes, and beardless faces.

There are other verses as well. It is speculated that sodomy refers to homosexual activity. Paul also speaks against homosexual acts which were fairly common among greeks.


Before you go and condemn homosexuals, you had better go and condemn anyone who shaves.
If you don't condemn anyone who shaves, you are not obeying the Bible.

I'm not condemning anyone. I condemn the homosexual act. The two are very different things.


Rubbish. Give me the actual verses, because I think that you are taking those verses out of context, and I want to explain them.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."


In Exodus 21:22-25 we read that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being.

No, this is clearly refering to accidental man slaughter. Otherwise it's "life for life" and the fetus is certainly alive.

Luke 1:44 "For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."
Mary's voice is so pure that the unborn can hear it even within the womb. For she is our Mother and she is the one who searches for her lost sons.(Luke 2:41)(Revelation 12)

If you haven't noticed yet, the Catholic church put together the bible, the old testament and new testament canon. If they declare something wrong and sinful, they do not have to answer to the bible but to God. As it is the Pope's job to be the faith full and wise manager. Luke 12:42 "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute food allowance at the proper time?" John 21:15-18, Jesus says "Feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."

Jesus said that what enters your stomach will not defile you. Later Peter has his vision of the food.

So in otherwords, if the Bible contradicts itself, the rule no longer applies?


We no longer have the right to stone others. John 8:8 tells of the story of a woman condemned for adultry.

Then why include it in the Old Testament? It is CLEARLY written in the Old Testament that you should stone rebellious children.

And also, what do you saw to the rule that you must not wear clothes made of more than one fabric?


Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."

What does it mean when God says he knew us before we were even conceived? Does it mean we are fully human even before the egg and the sperm come together? Of course not.

If you are going to use that argument, orkinus, you are going to have to bottle your sperm. Because, since God knows people before you are even in the womb, you are committing murder when you dispose of potential life.

If, by using this verse, you are saying that aborting a fetus is murder, you must admit that having a wet dream is murder.


No, this is clearly refering to accidental man slaughter.

But why isn't the man charged with murder if he causes a miscarriage? He is charged with murder if he kills a woman, but not a fetus. In otherwords, the fetus is not treated as a life.

So in otherwords, if the Bible contradicts itself, the rule no longer applies?

Every rule in the bible serves a purpose. The giving of rules to mankind was gradual. In the beginning, Abraham was not constrained to follow the Torah. However God made the Jewish people apart from the the Gentiles. Jesus said not an iota will be taken away from the Law until all is fullfilled. And Jesus said when he died that "all has been fullfilled" or something like that. So dietary changes in the law represent maturing of faith, not contradictions.


Then why include it in the Old Testament? It is CLEARLY written in the Old Testament that you should stone rebellious children.

And also, what do you saw to the rule that you must not wear clothes made of more than one fabric?

What you wear is outside of you will not defile you either. It is what is in your heart. These laws were so that we would know that there is one baptism for forgiveness of our sins. Galatians 3:26 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." The physical laws of the old testament are manifested in the spiritual laws of the new testament.


What does it mean when God says he knew us before we were even conceived? Does it mean we are fully human even before the egg and the sperm come together? Of course not.

He says that he knows us before he formed us. So a single fertilized cell in a mothers womb is us. He knows what we will look like etc. But we are not formed.


If you are going to use that argument, orkinus, you are going to have to bottle your sperm. Because, since God knows people before you are even in the womb, you are committing murder when you dispose of potential life.

You don't understand. A fertilized egg is not potentional human life, it is seperate human life different from the mother and the father.


If, by using this verse, you are saying that aborting a fetus is murder, you must admit that having a wet dream is murder.

The sperm is not seperate human life. It is just a cell of us with genetic information capable of fertilizing a woman's egg. Where are you exactly going here?


But why isn't the man charged with murder if he causes a miscarriage? He is charged with murder if he kills a woman, but not a fetus. In otherwords, the fetus is not treated as a life.

I don't see any validation in this. If you read the laws above this one, you will see that you can also kill a slave and go without punishment on earth. Punished will then be left to God when you die. The punishment for causing an accidental miscarriage is not as high as murder. If someone accidently kills someone, then they are not always guilty under the Law. It is much easier to get in fight, and accidently bump into a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage than to outright kill the woman accidently. So where is your basis that the Law brings rightousnes? Fact is that it doesn't bring rightousness. It is clearly designed to create order for society not rightousness. These laws were not even for a modern day society, but a barbaric society in the desert. Now this modern day society knows that the fetus is human life and yet you think it should be looking at the Laws for a barbaric society that don't even bring rightousness?

Originally posted by okinrus
1. Marriage was designed for a man and wife.

Well it seems just as well suited to a man and a man or a woman an a woman, to me. It's a human institution, ours to define and shape, why does it have to be designed specifically for a man and a woman, when that definition disenfranchises so many?

Originally posted by okinrus
2. Usually the giving and recieving aspects of homosexuality are blurred.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Is it a reference to the actual sexual act? Or is it just in a general sense within the relationship. If you're talking about within a relationship, does that mean you feel in a heterosexual relationship the man should always be dominant and the woman submissive? In either case, I can't see how this is a bad thing.

Originally posted by okinrus
3. A healthy relationship should not be lustful. The claim is made that not all homosexual relationships are not lustful but God has a right to say that you building your house out of straw and judge it wrong.

Well, many would disagree with that, A healthy relationship where the partners happen to be going at it like rabbits is still a healthy relationships (so long as 'going at it' isn't all there is to it of course). But I don't see how that previous point matters in the context of homosexuality, to tell the truth. Are you trying to imply that all homosexuals are lusty? What do you mean by "Building your house out of straw" It seems to me that you're implying homosexuals are just a bunch of sluts, and can't controle themselves as well as heterosexuals, that's just rediculous.

Originally posted by okinrus
5. Medically dangerous because it often times envolves using physical body parts which were not designed to serve a sexual function.

It's really no more dangerous than heterosexual sex, the worst you're going to get (short of a STD, which can be transmited just as easily in a heterosexual relationship, so we won't go there) would be a little bleeding, and even then, that would only occur with some really rough and unlubed trade. . . Medicaly there isn't any serious consideration.


Originally posted by okinrus
God is above America but anyways there is no contradiction here. You have the same rights that I do. I cannot marry a man and you cannot marry a man.

Har har, Sorry Galt tried that in another thread, it's a different issue entirely. To say that a homosexual's claims to having a right to marry are satisfied by the fact that homosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex is nothing but a catch-22. We aren't talking about a homosexual's right to marry a member of the opposite sex, we are talking the right of a homosexual marriage (being a union between two members of the same sex) to be legally recognized. It's all just more semantics.

As posted by okinrus
Never. I would rather starve to death than work in an abortion factory.

I was talking about safe sex and the use of condoms in practicing safe sex. Since when was a condom an abortion clinic? But as for abortion, it is up to the parent to decide. After all, if it were such a sinful thing, I'm sure the church would be banning thousands of god fearing folks who had to have an abortion due to medical reasons.. for example to save the life of the mother. But then I guess in these cases, ALL hospitals are abortion factories.


As posted by okinrus
I don't want politians who are going to rely on a 200 year book to do what is right. They have to decide for themselves what is right. There are religions that endorse human sacrafice, animal sacrafice, and other perversions.

I find it amusing that you should say this. For gay marriages and for aspects of life such as the use of safe sex methods, abortion and pornography, etc, it is up to the individual to decide what is right for them. As for the aspects of human and animal sacrifice? Seeing that you are such a believer, didn't all early christian, muslim and jewish faiths perform such "perversions"? If I recall correctly, in the days of Moses and so forth, it was quite acceptable to sacrifice an animal as an offering to God. In fact it was almost expected by God to do so. But I guess with changing times and changing ideals, things are now different in most religions. Did you get that bit about changing times and ideals? It comes with human development. You dont want politicians to rely on a 200 year old book but you expect all to rely on a book based on stories which are thousands of years old? Hmmm let me see now... something from 200 years ago or something from a couple of millenia ago... which would I trust more... stories handed down for generations which have been altered over time or something from 200 years ago.. Actually I'd trust my instincts. And okinrus, reason is not just given by God but is shaped by one's environment, life and what they experience. Therefore if you are brought up to believe every word of the bible as though it were the be all and end all, then your reason would reflect this. I was brought up to not be prejudiced against others or to treat anyone differently and to be open minded and accept others for who they are and what they are.

As posted by okinrus
A bigot is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Because I have used evidence to support my case, I'm not a bigot.

LMAO... hang on while I wipe the tears of laughter and disbelief from my eyes. You have spent this whole thread calling homosexuals who partake in homosexual acts "sinners" and just because you referred to the bible for evidence and some weird medical sites which only talk about rectal tearing (women also tear during sex and this too could be deemed to be in the same category of dangerous sexual practices which YOU think gays practice) and used this as justification that you aren't a bigot. LMAO.. God I find this thread hilarious. Okinrus, you stated before that you did not want politicians to rely on a 200 year old book to do what is right. Why is that? When you expect us to rely on the bible? Again... LMAO.. this is hilarious to me.

And as for you saying you aren't a bigot because you've provided "evidence"? Talk about splitting hairs. You see okinrus, I dont think homosexual acts are a sin because they entail two people sharing what they feel for each other. They are acts of love between two people. Marriage between homosexual indiviudals would only further tighten the bond of that love. I'd rather see that than see a parent abuse their child by way of smacking or psychological abuse.. or to do that to any other individual actually.. be they child or adult. Yes, the bible doesn't really say that is a sin now does it? Act of love between two people or act of abuse and psychological torture between two people... I dont think I even have to state which I think is the sin. Support of evidence does not mean you are not a bigot okinrus. It just shows how far you'll go to prove a point. Unfortunately it has only proven how far you'll go to show how much of a bigot you are. I apologise for it and it pains me to ever accuse someone of something so vile as bigotry but to me that is what you are.

:eek:

Okinrus, did the gradual revision of rules end when Revelations was printed?

I was talking about safe sex and the use of condoms in practicing safe sex. Since when was a condom an abortion clinic? But as for abortion, it is up to the parent to decide. After all, if it were such a sinful thing, I'm sure the church would be banning thousands of god fearing folks who had to have an abortion due to medical reasons.. for example to save the life of the mother. But then I guess in these cases, ALL hospitals are abortion factories.

The abortion factory is Planned Parenthood. An evil organization resorting promoting condoms, abortions, and other birth control. Not all hospitials do abortions. For the most part they are only done in abortion clinics, however Catholic hospitials will never do abortions or even hand out contraceptives. You are automatically banned and excomunicated if you perform an abortion. You would have to get special permision from the bishop for medical reasons.


God I find this thread hilarious. Okinrus, you stated before that you did not want politicians to rely on a 200 year old book to do what is right. Why is that? When you expect us to rely on the bible? Again... LMAO.. this is hilarious to me.

No I want politicians to do what they know is right. So if many chrisitan politicians want to ban homosexual marriage that does not make them a bigot.


Yes, the bible doesn't really say that is a sin now does it

I've already quoted you a bible verse.


Why is that? When you expect us to rely on the bible? Again... LMAO.. this is hilarious to me.

Are you arguing with statistics? What are you arguing about? Was the statistic that homosexuals on average live to they are 43 wrong? Now I'm a bigot because I do not endorse an institution which kills people?


Are you trying to imply that all homosexuals are lusty? What do you mean by "Building your house out of straw" It seems to me that you're implying homosexuals are just a bunch of sluts, and can't controle themselves as well as heterosexuals, that's just rediculous.

No I'm implying that an institution such as homosexuality leads to lust. Therefore God has a right to ban it before the seed is planted. Nevertheless, if you want to look at the statitics that say that homosexual relationships are more likely to break up, I've already posted them.

Okinrus, did the gradual revision of rules end when Revelations was printed?

Public revelation ended with the book of Revelation, however private revelation still goes on. There have been some debates of this, we know that Revelation describes two prophets. I believe that the rules have ended with the new testament. Jesus really only gives us two, "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" and "Love your neighbor as I have loved you". So we can determine what is sinful, but we also look at what the old testament teaches and we determine a rational for why somethings are sinful. Because Jesus said that the entire Law was based on these two laws.



Har har, Sorry Galt tried that in another thread, it's a different issue entirely. To say that a homosexual's claims to having a right to marry are satisfied by the fact that homosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex is nothing but a catch-22. We aren't talking about a homosexual's right to marry a member of the opposite sex, we are talking the right of a homosexual marriage (being a union between two members of the same sex) to be legally recognized. It's all just more semantics.

Using that logic, the few people who have relationships with animals have a right to marry their dog, cat or whatever. We just go by the definition of marriage. There is nothing unconstitutional here, but I agree that this does not fully disprove the allowance of homosexual marriage.

Originally posted by okinrus
Using that logic, the few people who have relationships with animals have a right to marry their dog, cat or whatever.
As pointed out before
1) we are talking about the same species
2) we are talking about consent

That's like me saying that black people DO have the right to get married, just not to members of the same race.


We just go by the definition of marriage.
Fine... they can create a new word called morriage which replaces 'man and women' with '2 people'... but gets the same rights under the law.

When you argue over definition, you are simply shifting the issue. Basically, you think homosexual marriages are wrong, and will not support them. That does not give you or anybody else the right to take rights away from them anymore then they have the right to outlaw heterosexual marriage because it can lead to overpopulation.

If you have a good non-religious reason for you're belief then give it. Otherwise shut it, because I could care less what your specific holy book says.

"We can use religion to find moral basis in society and still have seperation of church and state. If we look at something simple such as why we laws against stealing, it is obviously because of religion. Even an apparent moral basis such as "do not harm others" does not work. At some point we have to use undefined and irrational beliefs anyways. "

So, why use your irrational undefined beliefs? Why not ours? You know, the poeple who think that homosexual marriage is ok?

"There freedom is deciding for themselves what is moral and right. It is not the goverments job to layout rational for what is moral."

Fine, so lets stop the gvt supporting heterosexual marriages, in fact lets get the gvt out of the marriage business altogether.


"Under the consitution, we are allowed to revolt against the goverment if it is a just cause. The goverment is not an end all."

Just cause? Who's just cause? How about the just cause of the homosexuals? would you object if the gvt was overthrown by them? And where in the constitution? And by saying the gvt is not an end all, you are admitting it can be changed and so on, so why not change it to give homosexual couples equal marriage rights?

Originally posted by okinrus
The abortion factory is Planned Parenthood. An evil organization resorting promoting condoms, abortions, and other birth control.

yes but bells was talking only about condoms, not about planned parenthood, and she set aside a seperate comment about abortion for you to address. So please quit being as slippery as an eel, an address Bells comments directly, don't go constructing a straw man argument, or just going off on whatever wild tangent you feel like ranting about; if you wanted to do that you can start your own thread.

So, why use your irrational undefined beliefs? Why not ours? You know, the poeple who think that homosexual marriage is ok?

Well yes, of course I'm going to agree to let majority rule on this. However you have no right to accuse politicians who do not support homosexual marriage, but do support civil unions, as bigots. This is the main point that I've been trying to make in this thread.


Fine, so lets stop the gvt supporting heterosexual marriages, in fact lets get the gvt out of the marriage business altogether.

This might be the best solution, but really why should we revamp the whole system? I would be very cautious in this time, because the divorse rates are already rising. The institution does not need another reason for tearing it down.

5. Medically dangerous because it often times envolves using physical body parts which were not designed to serve a sexual function.

poor poor okinrus, never got a blow job?

i pitty you, they are REALLY nice

No it's not. What would you do if you found your father watching pornography? Have you seen your friend become addicted on it?

have you ever walked in on your parents at all?

luckly nither have i but my GF has and hates it, does that mean that they shouldnt be alowed to have sex at all?

bit unfair there

Yes, we have been taught by God what is wrong and what is right.

and if you belive god doesnt exist?

of corse MY god teaches tolerance not hatred, like your god

Medically dangerous because it often times envolves using physical body parts which were not designed to serve a sexual function.

The...penis didn't evolve to serve a sexual function?
What the bloody hell is it there for? Stirring coffee? I'm sure it's nice being able to piss standing up, but somehow that doesn't seem to quite cover it.
Okinrus, love, you're whacked.

The...penis didn't evolve to serve a sexual function?
What the bloody hell is it there for? Stirring coffee? I'm sure it's nice being able to piss standing up, but somehow that doesn't seem to quite cover it.

If someone does not serve God then he will be cut off and thrown into the flames. The mouth is designed for eating not ingesting someone else's bodily fluids. And the anus was designed for expiation of waste not insertion of another's penis.


luckly nither have i but my GF has and hates it, does that mean that they shouldnt be alowed to have sex at all?

If they were not married then it is fair that they would never have sex. I do not think that I will ever have sex, is life and God unfair to me? No


and if you belive god doesnt exist?

You will still have to answer to him. Those who do not know the will of God but acted in manner fiting a severe beating will be beated lightly.


of corse MY god teaches tolerance not hatred, like your god

God does not tolerate sin and hates sin. My God also does not teach us hatred but true <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html">love</a>. I have to oppose homosexual marriage because I love homosexuals. A agreement and contratract to live in lust and death is a contract with the devil.

Well I'll tell you, that post only confirms Xev's assessment of your state of mental health.

Not only am I unaware of any evidence for the existence of any god, I could never worship an invisible cloud being that feels that infinite torture is a justifiable punishment for wiggling your wienie in another mans ass. I think that if you (as a deity) found it distasteful, giving their car a flat tire would be a fitting punishment.

And fundies wonder why no one invites them to parties.

Church Group Offers Homosexual New Life In Closet (http://www.theonion.com/onion3407/churchhomosexual.html)

Unlike during his days of sexual liberation, the act of coupling, Lindeman said, is now a wholesome, maritally sanctified act devoid of any physical pleasure, performed solely for the purpose of procreation, as God intended.

"I feel so much better about myself," said Lindeman, choking back tears.

Diane Lindeman, a former lesbian also rescued by Reclamation Ministries, agreed with her husband. "We live like God intended now," she said, sitting bolt upright next to her husband in a stiff-backed chair, holding his hand for photographers. "We know that Jesus loves us for putting our homosexual ways behind us forever."

Why do you post a site making fun of homosexuals who struggle with sin? I don't make fun of anyone and I do not condemn anyone. All I do is just say what I think is true.

It is not making fun of gays. It is making fun of Christians, at least those that think being gay is wrong.

How could you possibly miss the point?

There are homosexuals who have become straight and married. This is what I meant by homosexuals.

okinrus:
If someone does not serve God then he will be cut off and thrown into the flames.

Acceptable price.

The mouth is designed for eating not ingesting someone else's bodily fluids. And the anus was designed for expiation of waste not insertion of another's penis.

You could as easily argue that the penis and vagina were "designed" for the elimination of urine. As Augustine put it, we are born between urine and faeces.
Does this invalidate sex in the missionary position?

You will still have to answer to him. Those who do not know the will of God but acted in manner fiting a severe beating will be beated lightly.

Why does anyone need to be beaten? Is God so petty that he cannot abide disobedience?

You could as easily argue that the penis and vagina were "designed" for the elimination of urine. As Augustine put it, we are born between urine and faeces.
Does this invalidate sex in the missionary position?

Human life would not exist without sex. Within marriage sex fullfills the purpose of raising a family. Outside of marriage it is sinful.


Why does anyone need to be beaten? Is God so petty that he cannot abide disobedience?

If there was "Why" above God, then God would not be all-powerful. However we should be able to see why God does something because he is manifested in his creation. If we steal, we expect the theif to pay what he stole back. In the same way God must punish sin either in this life or the next. This does not necessarly have to be eternally, but our concience demands this punishement and retribution. As to eternal life, how can God give eternal life to someone who does not choose it? I do not know if hell will be all fire. Maybe God will let those in hell feel lust, anger, and all of the evil emotions in hell for eternity. I do not believe that all homosexuals will go to hell either. I just feel that it's wrong and should not be promoted.

Originally posted by okinrus
If someone does not serve God then he will be cut off and thrown into the flames. The mouth is designed for eating not ingesting someone else's bodily fluids. And the anus was designed for expiation of waste not insertion of another's penis.

Says who? Sorry Oki, but I don't think I was ever issued an owners manual for the human body (and no I'm not talking about Dianetics, that's another thread all together). Why do you think that these are specifically what these things were "Designed" for? There's no scientific basis for this opinion, just the fact that it fits in line with your own biases, no doubt of intelligent design (which is also unsupported) and in this particular instance your desire to see homosexuals as being wrong.

It is my observation that sodomy works pretty damn well and is a lot of fun. The pieces fit and when they slide together it's a good ol' time.



Originally posted by okinrus
If they were not married then it is fair that they would never have sex. I do not think that I will ever have sex, is life and God unfair to me? No

Well, believe it or not people have sex outside of marriage all the time. I don't know why you feel you'll never have sex, you say it with a rather depressing certainty. . . some sort of deformity or ailment, you know, beside the obvious one?


Originally posted by okinrus
I have to oppose homosexual marriage because I love homosexuals. A agreement and contratract to live in lust and death is a contract with the devil.

Why do you think that all homosexuals live in lust? And live in death. . . what the hell does that mean? You do know the difference between a homosexual and the undead, don't you?

Originally posted by okinrus
Why do you post a site making fun of homosexuals who struggle with sin? I don't make fun of anyone and I do not condemn anyone. All I do is just say what I think is true.

I believe the intent was to show what a sham it is, and to horrify us with the idiologies that these people have been forced to accept because aparently they are willing to take the law of religion over objective reality.

Originally posted by okinrus
I do not believe that all homosexuals will go to hell either. I just feel that it's wrong and should not be promote