Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:57 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Being gay now proven to be genetic... Back to Topics
YDraigGoch

Champion Author
Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 7:30:55 PM

... so get off their case, stop discriminating, and let them get married.

Or are you just too hateful to allow it?

Go ahead. Tell us This is one of those "liberal" press items :o )

Criminals can get married.

Mentally challenged people can get married.

Terminally ill people can get married.

Older people who can never have kids can get married.

Infertile people who can never have kids can get married.

Homosexuality is the ONLY natural condition that denies human beings the right to marry. The ONLY ONE!

And that viciousness is promoted by ignorance, religion, and the mindless anger of some hard core fanatics.

Time to end this atrocity. Let the gays get married, and let the self righteous terrorists SHUT UP!

You were WRONG. You are always wrong, yet you persist in hurting innocent people because of your self righteous bigotry (that you are too cowardly to admit to).

This study demands that all decent people stand up, and tell the anti gay crowd that their bigotry will no longer be accepted.

Well, what do YOU say? You are either for American rights, or against them.



[Edited by: YDraigGoch at 12/11/2012 7:31:39 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 22, 2013 5:51:21 PM

Supporting your views with fiction now, El Gato Negro? I saw that episode too, and I didn't see anything even alluding to a religious aspect or gay marriage either.

The fact is that people make a choice to pursue a homosexual relationship, and many choose to leave the homosexual lifestyle after a time.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,600
Points:707,560
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2013 12:34:30 AM

Tonight's episode of 'Criminal Minds' featured a killer who was gay and had been sent to one of those retreats for 'conversion therapy'. It was the conversion treatment that made him into a killer as he looked for revenge for what was done to hime there. From the bits that they showed of the treatment it was based on a mixture of brainwashing and coersion with a little torture thrown in as well.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 8:46:01 PM

gas_too_high “No, I have answered it many times and you always dismiss or ridicule the answer I do give. (Hint: it begins with "pro" and rhymes with "nation").”

No, you haven't answered it even once.

Whenever you've brought up procreation, several people have refuted it what you've said and shown you how you're wrong.

And each and every time you've ignored what has been said.

Until you face up to it and actually present a cogent response, then you haven't answered. A debate consists of a give and take; statement, response and counter-response. Not just a statement as you consistently do.

If your statement has been refuted, and you can't or choose not to respond to the refutation, then you de facto have lost the point.

“We make distinctions about the "love" adults we have for each other, all the time. For example, if you are married, the only person you should be showing love to in a physical way, is your spouse.”

Sounds like an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. If they follow the same reasoning, marriage would cut down on promiscuity and therefore the spread of STD's, which you claim is a benefit to society of marriage.

“But I had to choose to seek marriage, and I certainly chose who I would marry.”

Yes, you were allowed to marry the person you love. A choice you wish to deny to homosexuals.

“I could have chosen to remain celibate.”

But that would be like flipping the bird to your idea of procreation and benefiting society.

“Many people do so for various reasons, ranging from ... or simply lack of interest.”

If they have a lack of interest that isn't really a choice. Why would somebody choose to do something they have no interest in doing?

“"Being gay" may not be a health risk, but committing homosexual acts, especially with multiple partners sets one at risk for HIV/AIDS, which until recently was virtually a death sentence; much more certain than a smoker getting lung cancer. And the risk was considerably higher for homosexual promiscuity than heterosexual promiscuity.”

Sounds like another reason to support same-sex marriage and therefore reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS by encouraging monogamy.

“Marriage redefinition threatens first, my right not to recognize a union disapproved of by my religion;”

As frequently stated, there would be no compulsion for you to personally recognize a same-sex marriage. So nothing would be threatened.

“.. children who might be deprived of a chance to be raised by a father and a mother by a same-sex couple..”

Uh, aren't you the one who has said over and over and over again that you're against same-sex marriage because they can't procreate?

If that's the case, then where are these children coming from? You seem to trying to argue both ends against the middle.

“.. the long-term stability and viability of society, as we discussed.”

No, as you have claimed. Nobody has discussed it because you haven't offered anything more to support this claim other than your opinion.

“Advocating same-sex "marriage" redefinition is not necessary for homosexuals to live in same-sex unions.”

So if unions are so good and desirable, then why not just get rid of marriages altogether? Heterosexual can also just live in (opposite-sex) unions and then there'd be no marriages to defend.

That might actually work better for society with your way of thinking, because then there wouldn't have to be any benefits given to childless marriages. It can all be saved just for the children, which fits with your argument.

So rather than defend marriage, you've actually given the best reason to destroy marriage altogether.

“But changing the public institution of marriage, affects everyone.”

We've asked you before, and you've failed to answer every time. How would changing the public institution of marriage affect you? If Thelma and Louis in San Francisco were allowed to marry each other, how would it make any difference whatsoever to your marriage?

“No way is that "live and let live."”

You're right. You don't want to live and let gays/lesbians live. You want to enforce your religious beliefs on them, even if they have a totally different religion.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 4:08:12 PM

RE: The discussion about humans not following their sexual urges.

So if a same-sex couple never had sex, everyone is OK with them marrying?
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 4:06:43 PM

>Marriage can be defended by simply pointing out that same-sex unions and marriages
>are different, with different significance to society and thus are treated differently;

1) So if two things are different, that is reason for discrimination?
Our Laws try to ensure that things that are different (ex: males and females, different races, different religions, etc.) all get treated with equality.

2) Both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages provide all of the same important benefits to society.

3) Why *must* both types of marriages (a) be the same and (b) have the same significance to society to be allowed to legally exist? Is this just some rule *you* made up because it fits your conclusion? Or is this written somewhere?

>ergo, there is no discrimination. I have also pointed out that no legal restriction of
>any kind, including sexual orientation, attaches to anyone choosing to marry a person
>of the opposite gender, should they choose to do so.
>(Such a restriction, without godo reason, would indicate "discrimination").

You have changed what the subject of the discrimination is in order to (once again) have it fit into your argument. However, that is in contrast to what exists in the reality of our laws. You keep stating that no *individual person* is being discriminated against. The fact is that marriage involves not an individual, but a *COUPLE*. This is why your argument did not work back in the early 60s when people applied it to interracial marriages. They said what you are saying, but in relation to race: "No legal restriction of any kind, including" race "attaches to anyone choosing to marry a person of the" same race, "should they choose to do so. (Such a restriction, without good reason, would indicate 'discrimination')."
The problem with both of those (since they have the same logical fallacy as their argument) is that while *no person* is discriminated against... *couples are*. And in the case of race, the SCOTUS found it to be discrimination.

>I have answered it many times and you always dismiss or ridicule the answer I do give.
>(Hint: it begins with "pro" and rhymes with "nation").

While it may have been ridiculed by some others, it was never dismissed.
It was proven wrong by providing facts that contradict your answer:
1) That different kinds of non-procreating opposite-sex couples *are* allowed to marry; even ones where their inability is visually obvious.
2) That procreation is not in any place stated as a requirement to legally marry in any of our Laws.
3) That marriage is not a requirement for people to procreate.

And every time we state these three things, your action is to completely ignore them and then later on just restate your 'answer'.

>Marriage redefinition threatens first, my right not to recognize a union disapproved of by my religion

This is completely false. You still have the right to not personally recognize a same-sex marriage as a marriage. The desire is for the Government to.

>who might be deprived of a chance to be raised by a father and a mother

How does legallizing same-sex marriage deprive a child "of a chance to be raised by a father and a mother"? In each and every situation where a child is to be raised by same-sex parents, the child is already not being raised by their father and mother.

>the long-term stability and viability of society,

Then you should be able to provide some proof for exactly how same-sex marriage causes any direct detrimental impact to society.
As some see it, not allowing equality causes detrimenal impacts to society.

>Advocating same-sex "marriage" redefinition is not necessary for homosexuals to
>live in same-sex unions.

But it is necessary for them to live in a marriage. That is the point.

>Apart, perhaps, from enforcing private contracts, such unions require no legal recognition
>at all.

That is an opinion.

>But changing the public institution of marriage, affects everyone.

Please the the specific direct detrimental impacts that would occur from the legality of same-sex marriage (which already exists and *has* existed for almost 9 years in the U.S.), along with the proof for those impacts being effected.
Note: I will be comparing them to other historical marriage discriminations.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 3:19:11 PM

hotrod10>>>Of course they have a choice; we are not animals; we can choose whether to act on our impulses, sexual and otherwise. I don't pursue having sex with every woman I find attractive, because I control my sexual desires. I made a commitment to my wife, and I keep it (however "boring" that may seem to some). No matter who you may be attracted to at a given time, we all have the ability to choose whether to act on it.<<<

Ture, human beings are not animals. Are you jealous of homosexuals for being able to have sex? Jealous becasue "they cannot control thier sexual desires?"

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what your saying (that you control your desires) automatically assumes someone else can't. Since your using your self as an example against homosexuals, I can only assume you are jealous of them for having sex that isn't "boring."

If the law said you could not marry the one you loved, would you have not married your wife? Lets say the laws (and society) were reversed and same-sex marriage was the norm; would you be advocating for your right to marry a person of the opposite gender or would you *choose* not to act upon it?
Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:28,439
Points:2,317,095
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 3:11:52 PM

HotRod, "Of course they have a choice; we are not animals; we can choose whether to act on our impulses, sexual and otherwise...... No matter who you may be attracted to at a given time, we all have the ability to choose whether to act on it. "

Exactly right. Homosexuality, like any sexuality is a behavior, not a physical trait. Unlike the "leg humping" dog, we don't HAVE to act on our impulses. The impulse isn't a choice but, the behavior certainly is.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 3:10:48 PM

GTH>>>No, I have answered it many times and you always dismiss or ridicule the answer I do give. (Hint: it begins with "pro" and rhymes with "nation").<<<

LOL, as has been said numerous times; marriage and procreation have nothing to do with one another. Evidence has been given to prove this, and you ignore it.

GTH>>>So are we talking about the dignity of homosexuals, or of the "love" (meaning love as ultimately expressed in sex) they have? Can I talk about the latter, without seeming to pass judgement on the former, in your eyes?<<<

I am talking about the love one person feels for another when they have found thier "soul-mate," the "love of thier life," or "the one." You can't declare one person's love "better" or more "vaild" than another's.

GTH>>>We make distinctions about the "love" adults we have for each other, all the time. For example, if you are married, the only person you should be showing love to in a physical way, is your spouse.<<<

You can make distinctions about your own love for different people in your life, but you can't make distinctions about anyone else's love (regardless of sexual orientation or gender).

GTH>>>Simplistic.<<<

Thank you for confirming that you believe homosexuals have a choice. Did you havea *choice* in being striaght? No? You just "were."

GTH>>>A person may not be able to choose having a same-sex attraction, but he or she can choose, at the very least, not to act it out with homosexual acts, or in living or identifying with, the homosexual lifestyle.<<<

How is the lifestyle of a homosexual any different than a heterosexual? Both live, love, work, raise kids, grow old, and die happy. Or are you circling back to procreation? Something thats been proven irrelivant again, and again.

GTH>>>And that person can choose whether or not to try to seek treatment for that attraction.<<<

Did you choose to seek treatment for your attaction to women?

GTH>>>But I had to choose to seek marriage, and I certainly chose who I would marry. I could have chosen to remain celibate. Many people do so for various reasons, ranging from answering a religious calling, dedication to a demanding profession; or simply lack of interest. Those options are available to anyone with a same-sex attraction as well.<<<

Yes, you choose marriage, a choice that is freely allowed for all hetero's but somehow denied to homosexuals solely becsaue they don't love the gender you tihnk they should. How would you like to be denied marriage and equal rights just becasue you fell in love with a woman and not a man?

Yes, you chose who you were going to marry, a right all consenting adults should have. Would you be denied that right becasue of your sexual attraction wasn't "approved" by someone else?

Yes, you chose to not be celibate, a choice everyone should have. Would you like to be forced into celibacy becasue your love wasn't "condoned" by someon else's belief system?

You say those options are available to same-sex couples; you didn't choose them, so why should they?

GTH>>>"Being gay" may not be a health risk, but committing homosexual acts, especially with multiple partners sets one at risk for HIV/AIDS, which until recently was virtually a death sentence; much more certain than a smoker getting lung cancer. And the risk was considerably higher for homosexual promiscuity than heterosexual promiscuity.<<<

LOL!!! Your going to parade out the specture of promiscuity? Promiscuity applies to both straight and gay individuals as well as risks of HIV/AIDS. If your going to make a claim that homosexuals are more at risk, please back it up with actual evidence.

GTH>>>Marriage redefinition threatens first, my right not to recognize a union disapproved of by my religion;<<<

Where in the phrase "equal under the law" does it say your right to be a bigot is being trampled upon?

GTH>>>second, children who might be deprived of a chance to be raised by a father and a mother by a same-sex couple;<<<

You still have never proven the benefits of opposite -sex couple raising a child as opposed to a same-sex couple. All you have are wild acusations based on religious fervor.

GTH>>>and third, the long-term stability and viability of society, as we discussed.<<<

And as we discussed, marriage had little to do with the fall of a culture. When the barbarian's sacked Rome, its wasn't becasue of "loose Roman morals." When Native Americans were poisoned, slaughtered and herded into "reservations," it wasn't becasue of "moral decay." The mongol hordes did not blaze a path across China and most of Asia becasue the conquered peoples allowed homosexuals to live.

GTH>>>Advocating same-sex "marriage" redefinition is not necessary for homosexuals to live in same-sex unions. Apart, perhaps, from enforcing private contracts, such unions require no legal recognition at all. But changing the public institution of marriage, affects everyone. No way is that "live and let live."<<<

Same-sex marriage isn't being "redefined." Marriage is being redefined. Many laws reference one's spouse in a marriage, not one's parntner in a union. The simplest thing to do is remove the "one man and one woman" part from the definition of marriage. changing "one mand and one woman" to "two consenting adults" isn't that hard, and does nothing affect or disrupt any currently existing marriages.

If the definition was changed tomorrow, your marriage would not change one iota, neither would mine, Neither would anyone who has already been married.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,018
Points:2,893,445
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 3:09:48 PM

HotRod10 - " No matter who you may be attracted to at a given time, we all have the ability to choose whether to act on it. "

Quite true. We all have the ability to choose what we do. However, there seems to be an assumption on your part that homosexuals have some sort of requirement to be heterosexual. Why? Why can't homosexuals just be who they are without some government edict that they have to change into something that they aren't? Everyone has a right to be homosexual if they want to be, whether it's genetic or whether it's just a choice. No one has any right to require them to change just to satisfy the prejudice of others.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 2:51:12 PM

"Your statement tells me you think homosexuals have a choice."

Of course they have a choice; we are not animals; we can choose whether to act on our impulses, sexual and otherwise. I don't pursue having sex with every woman I find attractive, because I control my sexual desires. I made a commitment to my wife, and I keep it (however "boring" that may seem to some). No matter who you may be attracted to at a given time, we all have the ability to choose whether to act on it.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 2:16:16 PM

GTH: "Marriage can be defended by simply pointing out that same-sex unions and marriages are different, with different significance to society and thus are treated differently; ergo, there is no discrimination….."

cymk: "Different how? We are all just dying to know. Many GB memebers have asked you this and you always ignore the question."

No, I have answered it many times and you always dismiss or ridicule the answer I do give. (Hint: it begins with "pro" and rhymes with "nation").

"The lack of equal benefits is part of it, the other part is how to define love. Shouldn't an adult be able to marry another adult if they are in love with each other? Do you claim to be able to declare someone's love greater than another's love?"

So are we talking about the dignity of homosexuals, or of the "love" (meaning love as ultimately expressed in sex) they have? Can I talk about the latter, without seeming to pass judgement on the former, in your eyes?

We make distinctions about the "love" adults we have for each other, all the time. For example, if you are married, the only person you should be showing love to in a physical way, is your spouse.

"Your statement tells me you think homosexuals have a choice."

Simplistic. A person may not be able to choose having a same-sex attraction, but he or she can choose, at the very least, not to act it out with homosexual acts, or in living or identifying with, the homosexual lifestyle.

And that person can choose whether or not to try to seek treatment for that attraction.

"Like your sexual attraction to women, it just happened."

But I had to choose to seek marriage, and I certainly chose who I would marry. I could have chosen to remain celibate. Many people do so for various reasons, ranging from answering a religious calling, dedication to a demanding profession; or simply lack of interest. Those options are available to anyone with a same-sex attraction as well.

"Comparing smoking to being gay is also a bad example. Being gay doesn't casue cancer; smoking does."

"Being gay" may not be a health risk, but committing homosexual acts, especially with multiple partners sets one at risk for HIV/AIDS, which until recently was virtually a death sentence; much more certain than a smoker getting lung cancer. And the risk was considerably higher for homosexual promiscuity than heterosexual promiscuity.

"It sounds like your the one who thinks being gay is abhorrent. Redefining marriage isn't a threat to my marriage or my life, but from the sounds of it you take it as a threat to yours. "

Marriage redefinition threatens first, my right not to recognize a union disapproved of by my religion; second, children who might be deprived of a chance to be raised by a father and a mother by a same-sex couple; and third, the long-term stability and viability of society, as we discussed.

'And I'm jsut curious, how is me debating you, not practicing "live and let live"?'

Advocating same-sex "marriage" redefinition is not necessary for homosexuals to live in same-sex unions. Apart, perhaps, from enforcing private contracts, such unions require no legal recognition at all. But changing the public institution of marriage, affects everyone. No way is that "live and let live."

GTH
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,018
Points:2,893,445
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 1:50:28 PM

gas_too_high - "Yet, no proof is offered."

Tell you what - come up with some sort of rational reason that there's something wrong with homosexuality, and we'll stop laughing...

cymk - "Interesting that out of my entire post, this is what you decide to reply to."

That's classic gas_too_high. If there's a difficult question, he avoids it. He only responds to things that he believes he can twist into something that doesn't sound ludicrous.

gas_too_high - "Marriage can be defended by ..."

Be serious. You're not defending marriage, you're attacking it. Please note that it's not US that is trying to prevent any marriages, it's YOU who are preventing marriages. YOU are the attackers, and WE are the defenders.

gas_too_high - "But you redefiners ..."

What about YOU redefiners? Marriage has been continually redefined throughout human history, making you just as much a "redefiner" as we are. Marriage has had many definitions, defined to fit the times and locations of the people involved. Emperor Nero of Rome had two different marriages to two different men, and it wasn't all that unusual, historically speaking. All we're asking is that you stop trying to use secular law to enforce your religious beliefs onto people that aren't of your religion.

gas_too_high - "I have also pointed out that no legal restriction of any kind, including sexual orientation, attaches to anyone choosing to marry a person of the opposite gender, should they choose to do so. (Such a restriction, without godo reason, would indicate "discrimination")."

So let's test that with the reverse. Would you be just as happy is ONLY homosexual marriage were allowed? No? Well, that's proof that you are guilty of discrimination.

gas_too_high - "For instance, maybe we should treat homosexuality more like we treat smoking -- as something we try to help people be freed from, and encourage them to seek out assistance to do that."

I know of gays that feel the same way about heterosexuality. Would you be just as happy if we treated heterosexuality as something to be corrected? No? Well, that's proof that you are guilty of discrimination.

If that possibility sounds abhorrent to you, maybe you should re-think your attitude toward redefining marriage into the religious straightjacket of your redefiniton. Clearly, "live and let live" is the last thing that you will tolerate.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 12:34:15 PM

>cymk>And how is ensuring equal rights under the law "thuggish" and "unwise"? That almost sounds like a veiled threat<

Interesting that out of my entire post, this is what you decide to reply to.

GTH>>>Marriage can be defended by simply pointing out that same-sex unions and marriages are different, with different significance to society and thus are treated differently; ergo, there is no discrimination. I have also pointed out that no legal restriction of any kind, including sexual orientation, attaches to anyone choosing to marry a person of the opposite gender, should they choose to do so. (Such a restriction, without godo reason, would indicate "discrimination").<<<

Different how? We are all just dying to know. Many GB memebers have asked you this and you always ignore the question.

GTH>>>But you redefiners reject that view and continually assert that merely by not providing the same legal benefits and status to same sex unions as to opposite-gender marriages. discrimination exists.<<<

The lack of equal benefits is part of it, the other part is how to define love. Shouldn't an adult be able to marry another adult if they are in love with each other? Do you claim to be able to declare someone's love greater than another's love?

GTH>>>To refute that assertion it is necessary to re-examine homosexuality itself, and therefore society's views toward it. (Note I said "homosexuality" not "homosexuals." There is a difference). For instance, maybe we should treat homosexuality more like we treat smoking -- as something we try to help people be freed from, and encourage them to seek out assistance to do that.<<<

Your statement tells me you think homosexuals have a choice. Knowing many homosexuals (and from my conversations with them) they never woke up one day and said, "hey I think I'm gonna go have sex with someone of my own gender and like it!" Like your sexual attaction to women, it just happened; you never consicously made the choice, "hey that woman over there looks good 'I think I want to have missionary position sex just for procreation' with her."

Comparing smoking to being gay is also a bad example. Being gay doesn't casue cancer; smoking does.

GTH>>>If that possibility sounds abhorrent to you, maybe you should re-think your attitude toward redefining marriage. If you want "live and let live" then you should practice it.<<<

It sounds like your the one who thinks being gay is abhorrent. Redefining marriage isn't a threat to my marriage or my life, but from the sounds of it you take it as a threat to yours.

And I'm jsut curious, how is me debating you, not practicing "live and let live"?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 11:37:39 AM

GTH: 'Since the 1960s, society tolerates homosexuality if practiced discreetly. That does not include unconditional acceptance, and still less trying to turn homosexuality into a mirror image of normal sexuality (aka "heterosexuality"). Pushing that issue by agitating thuggishly to redefine marriage is most unwise."

cymk: "And how is ensuring equal rights under the law "thuggish" and "unwise"? That almost sounds like a veiled threat."

Marriage can be defended by simply pointing out that same-sex unions and marriages are different, with different significance to society and thus are treated differently; ergo, there is no discrimination. I have also pointed out that no legal restriction of any kind, including sexual orientation, attaches to anyone choosing to marry a person of the opposite gender, should they choose to do so. (Such a restriction, without godo reason, would indicate "discrimination").

But you redefiners reject that view and continually assert that merely by not providing the same legal benefits and status to same sex unions as to opposite-gender marriages. discrimination exists.

To refute that assertion it is necessary to re-examine homosexuality itself, and therefore society's views toward it. (Note I said "homosexuality" not "homosexuals." There is a difference). For instance, maybe we should treat homosexuality more like we treat smoking -- as something we try to help people be freed from, and encourage them to seek out assistance to do that.

If that possibility sounds abhorrent to you, maybe you should re-think your attitude toward redefining marriage. If you want "live and let live" then you should practice it.

GTH
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,018
Points:2,893,445
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 10:58:45 AM

That particular GB quite often accuses others of what he knows he's guilty of, BabeTruth...
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 10:47:04 AM

"Yet, no proof is offered."

Does anybody see the irony in this complaint from that particular GB?
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 10:29:27 AM

GTH>>>cymk, I suspect if I continue to educate you on the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history, you will use it as an excuse to quibble and distract.<<<

I replied to hotrod, and then you choose to pick apart my reply; who is quibbling and distracting who?

GTH>>>And hotrod10 has said what is truly important:

"Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior. If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay."<<<

You seem to be assuming alot about what hotrod meant with that statement. I would rather discuss what he meant with him instead of your interpretation of what he posted.

As far as your percieved importance of that statement; what about other "deviant behavior" such as interracial marriage or sodomy? Both are now legal in all 50 states. So the deviant behavoir your refering to is subjective and has no clear definition; it is opinion.

GTH>>>and

'…we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society.'

Both are exactly right.<<<<

Go back and read my post about societies who thought they were "civilized."

GTH>>>That overstates it.<<<

Overstate how exactly? There are no longer any laws criminalizing homosexuality. Period.

GTH>>>Since the 1960s, society tolerates homosexuality if practiced discreetly. That does not include unconditional acceptance, and still less trying to turn homosexuality into a mirror image of normal sexuality (aka "heterosexuality"). Pushing that issue by agitating thuggishly to redefine marriage is most unwise.<<<

Society has never been keen on public sex of any kind, so I don't see the point your trying to make. Last time I checked the only laws on the books were laws saying you could ot discriminate against someone, not that you had to buy into thier belief system. For example If I worked at a store (and you came in to purchase something) I would not discriminate agaisnt you even though our beleifs are different.

And how is ensuring equal rights under the law "thuggish" and "unwise"? That almost sounds like a veiled threat.


[Edited by: cymk at 2/12/2013 10:29:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,018
Points:2,893,445
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 10:06:31 AM

gas_too_high - "I see we have yet another true believer in the twin dogmas that homosexuality is innate in certain people (as opposed to a changeable condition), and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same."

Actually, we just saw you jumping to false conclusions, as you once again put faith ahead of thought. We also see you state yet another Straw Man fallacy to cover up your lack of reasoning. I don't believe the first, and I never said the second. Try thinking for a change, rather than just believing, and you might start getting things right.

gas_too_high - "Of course, a dogma by its very definition, requires no proof. It is an act of faith."

That's why I didn't do it, and you did.

[Edited by: ldheinz at 2/12/2013 10:07:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 10:00:50 AM

I see we have yet another true believer in the twin dogmas that homosexuality is innate in certain people (as opposed to a changeable condition), and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same.

Yet, no proof is offered.

Of course, a dogma by its very definition, requires no proof. It is an act of faith.

GTH
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,018
Points:2,893,445
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 9:45:01 AM

"Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior."

Fortunately, our society is recognizing that how it treats minorities is how it defines it's morality. Mistreating minorities clearly shows immorality in a society.

"If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay."

The "moral decay" is NOT accepting that people have a right to live their lives as they choose, whether or not it is "normal".

"…we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society."

Of course, there is nothing in homosexuality that can be considered a "base urge" any more than heterosexuality. Civilized society requires us to be tolerant of the life choices of others that do not influence us in any way.

GTH - "Since the 1960s, society tolerates homosexuality if practiced discreetly. "

As long as it tolerates heterosexuality in the same manner that's fine.

GTH - "That does not include unconditional acceptance, and still less trying to turn homosexuality into a mirror image of normal sexuality (aka "heterosexuality"). "

As long as homosexuals are allowed to discriminate against what they are free to consider the immorality of heterosexuality. See how ridiculous your statement is? The surest way to evaluate the morality of a situation is to turn it around and see if it seems just as moral. If not, you're being immoral.

GTH - "Pushing that issue by agitating thuggishly to redefine marriage is most unwise."

You mean like the redefinition of marriage that you are agitating thuggishly? Please stop pretending that your redefinition of marriage is any less a redefinition than your opponents'. Or do you include forced marriage, dowries, ownership of women and other traditional values in your redefinition of marriage?

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 9:00:20 AM

cymk, I suspect if I continue to educate you on the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history, you will use it as an excuse to quibble and distract.

And hotrod10 has said what is truly important:

"Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior. If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay."

and

'…we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society.'

Both are exactly right.

cymk: "Society has already accepted homosexual behavior. When was the last time someone was arrested for homosexuality in the US?"

That overstates it. Since the 1960s, society tolerates homosexuality if practiced discreetly. That does not include unconditional acceptance, and still less trying to turn homosexuality into a mirror image of normal sexuality (aka "heterosexuality"). Pushing that issue by agitating thuggishly to redefine marriage is most unwise.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 8:57:16 AM

HotRod10 “Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior.”

What's considered deviant is quite subjective. Most people over the age of 30 look at what teenagers do as deviant behavior, even as they were considered deviant themselves when they were teenagers. To some people, keeping a wrecked car beside the carport might be deviant, to others it might make perfect sense. Some gardeners think growing flowers is a waste of precious land, others might think growing vegetables is pointless when they can better ones in the grocery store. And many homosexuals might think masochism or role playing (both of which are common with heterosexuals) is deviant while some heterosexuals think anything other than the missionary position is deviant.

“If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay.”

We're all entitled to out own opinion, but without any sort of supporting logic or proof, my opinion that you're totally wrong carries just as much weight as yours.

“Whether the attraction towards the same sex is genetic or not (despite this so-called study, I maintain it is not), it is still deviant behavior.”

Again, that's your opinion. But with no proof or logic, it counts for almost nothing.

“It may be genetic for men to seek mate with as many women as possible (so-called studys have said that, too), but we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society.”

The morals of civilized society change depending on which civilized society you're talking about, so they can't be used as any standard. What you consider deviant somebody from another society considers standard.

Circumcision is a good example – male or female. Jew consider male circumcision moral, some people think it's terrible. Some N Africans think female circumcision is required, N Americans are horrified by it. In some societies, selling daughters into marriage at the age of 12 is normal. N Americans again think it's terrible. In Montreal business meetings sometimes occur in strip bars with totally nude dancers that in the Middle East would be a major issue. Having a beer in some countries will get you arrested, having an affair will get you stoned to death.

That's the problem with trying to enforce your religious beliefs such as same-sex marriage on others. It's not a constant moral standard, so you cannot make your moral proclamation with any reasonable authority. You must have some sort of proof or support that it's harmful, and so far none of you self-proclaimed defenders has been able to do that.

BTW, if you maintain such tight control of your base instincts, you must have a very boring sex life. Something like “Are you ready?” “Yeah.” “Ok, put it in and let's get it over with.” Normal (non-deviant) sexual intimacy usually means letting go to your base instincts.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:42:18 PM

hotrod10>>>Exactly. Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior. If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay.<<<

Society has already accepted homosexual behavior. When was the last time someone was arrested for homosexuality in the US?

hotrod10>>>Whether the attraction towards the same sex is genetic or not (despite this so-called study, I maintain it is not), it is still deviant behavior.<<<

Is this based on laws or your own moral beliefs? I am going to guess morals.

hotrod10>>>It may be genetic for men to seek mate with as many women as possible (so-called studys have said that, too), but we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society.<<<

Living within society's laws and your morals are two very different things. That term "civilized" is also very subjective; we think we are civilized, but so did ancient rome and greece, and so did medieval europe; the huns and the mongols probably thought themselves to be civilized as well. Would count any of those cultures "civilized" by todays standards?
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:29:29 PM

GTH>>>But neither it nor others you allude to left behind written records and so has no effect on "recorded history."<<<

Not every culture had an abundance of stone and a written language to carve into said stone. Native american cultures talks about same-sexmarriages as I have posted about before, but you ignored this evidence as well.

GTH>>>Of same-sex unions, perhaps, but not of amalgamated gender-nonspecific unions. Gender matters, and even the most primitive of peoples know it.<<<

If, as you just admited, I have given you historical proof of samesex marriages, then why are you still arguming against them (claiming there is not historical proof)?

GTH>>>What "arabian culture"? You mean the short-lived Arab-Islamic civilization of the 9th and 10th centuries, before most of the Arab world fell to the Turks?<<<

The Turks, yet another non-christians based culture! Also the Mongols, the Persians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indian; need I go on? Too bad the Arabian peninsula wasn't under Turkish rule, otherwise you might actually have a point.

GTH>>>Your confusion is caused by your confusing the terms "culture" with "civilization". The Jewish people have maintained their culture but they have not had a separate civilization for centuries. Western civilization encompasses many cultures, not all of them Christian but informed by at least some of the values first spread by Christianity.<<<

And now you try to deflect/change the subject. Point of fact, your "christianity" isn't as important as you make it out to be.

GTH>>>Cultures within civilizations change all the time, but when any civilization departs from the morals and beliefs that made it great, it stagnates and dies, or is overrun.<<<

Oh please show me the historical evidence you have for that; which cultures departed from thier (original) morals and subsequently fell? To give an answer with any amount of accuracy, you woul have to know what a cultures moreals were when it rose into pominence, and then what its morals were when it fell.

GTH>>>Redefining marriage may not, in and of itself, have that result, but it is a significant step down that road.<<<

Again, proof please, that we are headed towards the horrible doom you keep eluding to by extending existing rights to cover homosexuals as well.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:01:03 PM

"And yet our society accepts and sanctions the marriages of convicted bank robbers, street thugs, car thieves, traitors, fraudsters, murderers, perpetrators of assaults including spousal and sexual, and child molesters."

I say that's also a detriment to society, especially allowing them to marry while in prison; when and if they are released, it may be a different matter, at least in some of those cases. I believe child molesters, for instance, should get the death penalty, but at least should never get out.

no1doc says: "But, the article "proves" nothing."

Exactly right. A hypothesis is not proof.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,229
Points:3,070,935
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 10:57:03 AM


no1doc, "Of course another explanation for homosexuality not 'dying out' could simply be that there IS no genetic link"

That's my belief.

Genetic links can be proven statistically.

This "study" is a demonstration on how "scientists" that want to prove one outcome try to explain the reasons the science runs against their hypotheses so that they can maintain their preferred belief system.

Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:28,439
Points:2,317,095
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 9:30:38 AM

Panama, ""Being gay now proven to be genetic..."

So, does that qualify homosexuality as a birth defect?"
..............
That would be the conclusion if a genetic link were proven. But, the article "proves" nothing. It only postulates a defective "trigger" for gene expression to explain why homosexuality hasn't "died out".

Of course another explanation for homosexuality not "dying out" could simply be that there IS no genetic link.

[Edited by: no1doc at 2/11/2013 9:31:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,229
Points:3,070,935
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 7:11:00 AM


"Being gay now proven to be genetic..."

So, does that qualify homosexuality as a birth defect?

Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,171
Points:3,823,790
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 1:06:23 AM

"If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay."

And yet our society accepts and sanctions the marriages of convicted bank robbers, street thugs, car thieves, traitors, fraudsters, murderers, perpetrators of assaults including spousal and sexual, and child molesters.
In what possible way can the marriage of two loving and devoted people who happen to be of the same sex not be better for society than the marriage of criminals in any of the above classes?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2013 6:53:34 PM

"Morals are a subjective thing; every society has had its own version of them."

Exactly. Our society has, to this point, considered homosexuality to be deviant behavior. If our society as a whole accepts it and sanctions it as just another marriage relationship, the society will suffer moral decay.

Whether the attraction towards the same sex is genetic or not (despite this so-called study, I maintain it is not), it is still deviant behavior. It may be genetic for men to seek mate with as many women as possible (so-called studys have said that, too), but we are not just animals who cannot control our base urges; we are expected to control our urges and live within the morals of a "civilized" society.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 10:37:48 PM

cymk: "The clovis culture dates back as far as 20,000 years ago…"

But neither it nor others you allude to left behind written records and so has no effect on "recorded history."

"I have even given you evidence for same-sex marriages, but you just ignore the scientific evidence."

Of same-sex unions, perhaps, but not of amalgamated gender-nonspecific unions. Gender matters, and even the most primitive of peoples know it.

GTH: "Human history is a sequence of civilizations rising and falling, with different "religions, morals, and beliefs systems." The current civilization, which Christianity built on the ashes of the Roman Empire, has been the only one to cover the entire globe and reach technological heights previously undreamed of."

cymk: "Really? Because I didn't see "christianity" building up the arabian culture at all…"

What "arabian culture"? You mean the short-lived Arab-Islamic civilization of the 9th and 10th centuries, before most of the Arab world fell to the Turks?

"..or "Christianity" building up the jewish culture anywhere in any text book. Did you have a "special" history class?"

Your confusion is caused by your confusing the terms "culture" with "civilization". The Jewish people have maintained their culture but they have not had a separate civilization for centuries. Western civilization encompasses many cultures, not all of them Christian but informed by at least some of the values first spread by Christianity.

"Our civilization has already changed from the one you keep claiming that it is; and it will shift again before you die (assuming you live to a ripe old age)."

Cultures within civilizations change all the time, but when any civilization departs from the morals and beliefs that made it great, it stagnates and dies, or is overrun.

Redefining marriage may not, in and of itself, have that result, but it is a significant step down that road.

GTH
Profile Pic
ropegun11
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:775
Points:563,485
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 4:10:50 PM

…Given that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives all citizens freedom of religion: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and given that marriage is seen by many as a religious as well as a legal union, the government (federal or state) should not have the authority to deny two people who are consenting adults the freedom to commit their lives to one another in holy matrimony, regardless of gender, thereby exercising their freedom of religion.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 1:17:16 PM

GTH>>>Set aside for the moment that the span of recorded history is much closer to 5000 years than 20,000. Set aside the fact that even when same-sex unions have been openly tolerated during that history, they have never been treated (or called) the same as "marriages".<<<

The clovis culture dates back as far as 20,000 years ago, and there are probably cultures further beyond that. I know you like ignoring scientific facts. I have even given you evidence for same-sex marriages, but you just ignore the scientific evidence. We can't have a discussion if you just ignore facts.

GTH>>>Human history is a sequence of civilizations rising and falling, with different "religions, morals, and beliefs systems." The current civilization, which Christianity built on the ashes of the Roman Empire, has been the only one to cover the entire globe and reach technological heights previously undreamed of.<<<

Really? Because I didn't see "christianity" building up the arabian culture at all, or "christianity" building up the jewish culture anywhere in any text book. Did you have a "special" history class?

GTH>>>And that civilization has been based on a "religion, moral and belief system" that, among many other things, firmly rejects same-sex sexual relationships.<<<

LOL, please tell me another.

GTH>>>I can't help wondering when our civilization, as it moves away from that moral code, will join the civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, the Mayans, the Romans and many others on the ashheap of history.<<<

Our civilization has already changed from the one you keep claiming that it is; and it will shift again before you die (assuming you live to a ripe old age). Trying to pretend that our current culture is something it was is silly.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,048
Points:2,116,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 12:55:13 PM

The researchers study didn't prove squat...aside from being just another hypothesis, by a group of "researchers" who's motivation for doing so is somewhat suspect at best.

75% of the Gay community can't even come to terms or agreement as to whether being Gay is a result of genetics or lifestyle; many of them admitting outright they were drawn into it as a result of failed relationships with the opposite sex and personality traits. self-esteem, etc..

As to why they ended up Gay verses heterosexual is and remains inconclusive after a myriad of surveys taken among large Gay concentrations in San Francisco's Gay Bay and elsewhere throughout Gay communities.

Whether in fact it ever turns out to be the result of genetics is highly presumptuous and this study is only one but hundreds if not thousands of research on the subject.



[Edited by: KansasGunman at 2/9/2013 1:01:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Edpap
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:7,255
Points:1,012,750
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 11:12:52 AM

I'm all for the rights of Americans,just not for any sexual deviates and debauchery. None of our State or Federal laws should support any deviate behavior that violates the laws of nature. I do support clinics to get medical help and seek a cures for these poor sick people.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,781
Points:2,461,815
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 9:42:46 AM

hotrod10: "As a Christian, I believe that Christian morals are good for society, and to abandon them is to invite the destruction of society; that is why I oppose gay marriage. To normalize that which goes against God's morality and is unnatural (I mean that in its most basic sense, in that homosexual couples cannot produce offspring) will hasten our collapse as a society. Somebody referenced the Roman society earlier; I submit that as a perfect example."

cymk: "Society has survived a multitude of religions, morals, and beliefs systems, none of which were christianity, for at least 20k+ years; I think we can make it another 20k. Same-sex marriages have existed through out most of history, and not just in Roman/Greek society."

Set aside for the moment that the span of recorded history is much closer to 5000 years than 20,000. Set aside the fact that even when same-sex unions have been openly tolerated during that history, they have never been treated (or called) the same as "marriages".

Human history is a sequence of civilizations rising and falling, with different "religions, morals, and beliefs systems." The current civilization, which Christianity built on the ashes of the Roman Empire, has been the only one to cover the entire globe and reach technological heights previously undreamed of.

And that civilization has been based on a "religion, moral and belief system" that, among many other things, firmly rejects same-sex sexual relationships.

I can't help wondering when our civilization, as it moves away from that moral code, will join the civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, the Mayans, the Romans and many others on the ashheap of history.

GTH
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 9:24:04 PM

>...and doing harm to another is...completely natural. It's the law of the jungle;
>survival of the fittest; the natural result of a lack of moral boundaries.

1) You said to make an argument against murder apart from morality. It was done. Morality was not a factor. Causing harm to individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society were factors.

2) How is doing harm natural and NOT unnatural?

3) Survival of the fittest is not due to a lack of morals. In many instances having morals *is* the defining characteristic of the survival of the fittest: Going back to harming society, when fewer people are dead, the better the production of that society - which benefits those in that society. (So one benefits one's self by not murdering people.)

>You really want to argue that a smaller population, made up of the strongest and
>smartest individuals would be harmful to the society?

1) Why did you change the subject? It was "murdering people". Why change it to "removing the least productive"?

2) Even the least productive are still productive. When a certain point is reached, yes - there is humanity and morality involved. I never said that it never was. Just that not "all legal issues are morally based". Many are not. Like marriage.

>A people who govern themselves by God's morality, as laid out in the Bible,
>will be a strong and healthy society, as the United States was from its inception.

That is actually an entire separate discussion. I for one do NOT consider slavery (which is condoned in The Bible) to be moral.

>Think the society should decide the definition of marriage.

One of the very fundamental basis that our country and its government was built around was that the majority would not effect tyranny over the minority. The popular vote is NOT what ultimately rules. Otherwise, I can almost guarantee that women would not have been voting when they did, and slavery & segregation would not have ended when it did.

>As a Christian, I believe that Christian morals are good for society,
>and to abandon them is to invite the destruction of society;

And EVERY person with a religious belief thinks the same way. So should others have the right to force you to not eat pork or cow, or to only eat kosher food, or to only cremate the deceased?

>that is why I oppose gay marriage.

Then one should make certain that one's self and one's Church does not associate with same-sex marriages.

>To normalize that which goes against God's morality and is unnatural ...
>will hasten our collapse as a society.

Go back to the "And EVERY person with a religious belief thinks the same way" part above.
Unless one is ready to accept what EVERY religion states as being God's morality and its relation to the collapse of society, then one should not be so forward as to aspire to force one's OWN beliefs on others.
ie: In other words, what you are saying boils down to "Everyone should be forced to follow the religious beliefs that *I* choose to believe in!" - and is that what YOU would people of other religions to do to you?
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,600
Points:707,560
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 6:53:44 PM

HotRod10 “Not even close. Imposing on society a change in the definition of marriage is a completely unrelated subject to people having the freedom to work on Sunday.”

Actually, it's exactly the same.

The Christian religion used to impose it's definition of the Sabbath on everybody. Jews, Muslims and other religions had different days of the week for their holy days, but they were forced to take Sunday off even though it was nothing special to them.

Meanwhile, allowing same-sex marriage doesn't impose that definition on 'society' because society is more than just Christians.

Again, it's Christians trying to impose their definition of marriage on everybody, even those people who don't have any religious prohibition against same-sex marriage or even against homosexuality.

If a Christian doesn't believe in same-sex marriage guess what? He or she doesn't have to enter into a same-sex marriage. He can even still believe in his heart that a gay or lesbian couple isn't married.

But why do you think said Christian has the right to impose HIS definition of marriage on everybody else in society?

“Anyway, if you want to be strict about the Old Testament Law, it would be doing work on Saturday, the OT Sabbath, that would be objectionable.”

The OT is the Jewish religion. It's Christians who changed it to Sunday.

“Think the society should decide the definition of marriage. So states where the majority vote to define marriage to include any 2 people (or 3 or 4 or a dozen) can do so, and those who wish to define it as 1 man and 1 woman may also do so. Those who don't like how their state defines marriage have the freedom to move to another state.”

Or they can get the laws changed to allow same-sex marriage. Which is exactly what's happening state by state. So when a state does change it's laws to allow same-sex marriage, the ones who have a problem with that have the exact same freedom to move to another state.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:312,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 5:15:55 PM

hotrod10>>>My challenge wasn't related strictly to the morality of the Bible, but morality in general, which is the rules by which people govern themselves, individually and as a group. A people who govern themselves by God's morality, as laid out in the Bible, will be a strong and healthy society, as the United States was from its inception. The farther we stray from those morals, the faster the society decays and collapses. Our founding fathers understood this; that a society built on the principles of Christianity would flourish. One of those principles is the freedom of religion, that no one should be coerced to be Christian. As a Christian, I believe that Christian morals are good for society, and to abandon them is to invite the destruction of society; that is why I oppose gay marriage. To normalize that which goes against God's morality and is unnatural (I mean that in its most basic sense, in that homosexual couples cannot produce offspring) will hasten our collapse as a society. Somebody referenced the Roman society earlier; I submit that as a perfect example. <<<

Morals are a subjective thing; every society has had its own version of them. If we are sticking to bible morals, then we should be stoning people for adultery, cutting off thier hands for stealing and nailing them to crosses for claiming to be god's son (and for stealing).

Some societies believe in burning and/or killing people for practicing magic, others believe in mutilating the body (everything from genitals to hands to ears, etc...). This mutilation occurs for a varietry of purposes, most of which are usually moral or religous in nature (mutilating a womans genitals so she doesn't sleep around or enjoy sex; flogging oneself to be closer to god).

Society has survived a multitude of religions, morals, and beliefs systems, none of which were christianity, for at least 20k+ years; I think we can make it another 20k. Same-sex marriages have existed through out most of history, and not just in Roman/Greek society.

What we call "normal" today will be abnormal in less than 100 years (look at slavery as a recent example).
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 4:23:33 PM

"But, isn't denying same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs and enforcing it on people who don't belong to the same religion exactly the same thing as in your example of the Jews in the mall?"

Not even close. Imposing on society a change in the definition of marriage is a completely unrelated subject to people having the freedom to work on Sunday. Anyway, if you want to be strict about the Old Testament Law, it would be doing work on Saturday, the OT Sabbath, that would be objectionable.

Think the society should decide the definition of marriage. So states where the majority vote to define marriage to include any 2 people (or 3 or 4 or a dozen) can do so, and those who wish to define it as 1 man and 1 woman may also do so. Those who don't like how their state defines marriage have the freedom to move to another state.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 3:58:18 PM

"1) Taking a person's life ends their life, which removes all the potential future that they could have had. It is taken from them.
Result = A HARM is done to that person. Something is taken from them."

...and doing harm to another is...completely natural. It's the law of the jungle; survival of the fittest; the natural result of a lack of moral boundaries.

4)The taking of a life if there are no penalties (ie: no laws against it) would in endless acts of revenge... This actually has the potential effect of removing a very large portion of all of a population.
Result = An ever GREATER HARM is done to society (which is other people) and a local region by taking something from them."

You really want to argue that a smaller population, made up of the strongest and smartest individuals would be harmful to the society? The advancement of human race would progress much quicker if we eliminated the old, the chronically ill, the terminally ill, the stupid, the lazy, etc., etc., but we don't. Why? Because it is immoral.

"Try to make an argument about having to pay for renewing a car's tag that's based on morality."

Easy. You drive your car on the roads. It's fair (or moral) for you to pay part of the cost to maintain them. Consider it a rental fee.

My challenge wasn't related strictly to the morality of the Bible, but morality in general, which is the rules by which people govern themselves, individually and as a group. A people who govern themselves by God's morality, as laid out in the Bible, will be a strong and healthy society, as the United States was from its inception. The farther we stray from those morals, the faster the society decays and collapses. Our founding fathers understood this; that a society built on the principles of Christianity would flourish. One of those principles is the freedom of religion, that no one should be coerced to be Christian. As a Christian, I believe that Christian morals are good for society, and to abandon them is to invite the destruction of society; that is why I oppose gay marriage. To normalize that which goes against God's morality and is unnatural (I mean that in its most basic sense, in that homosexual couples cannot produce offspring) will hasten our collapse as a society. Somebody referenced the Roman society earlier; I submit that as a perfect example.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 12:53:38 PM

>I always thought our system was based on the British judicial system,
>which if it had any antecedent would have come from the Roman judicial system,
>which in turn was definitely not based on the Israelite system.

Many of various society's laws originate from the Code of Hammurabi... but luckily changed over time.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 10:01:10 PM

AC-302, let us know when the LAPD starts enforcing British laws and therefore British terminology on Californians. I'd thought Americans had given up obeying the British monarchy around about the late 18th century.

But as you're almost as far away from Britain as it's possible to be and speaking American, not British, English, I stand by my conclusion that you're using what is a derogatory and prejudicial term in the USA.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,633
Points:3,399,345
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 9:51:18 PM

Babe - for your information, "buggery" is, in fact, a LEGAL TERM in British law. It's not crude, it's accurate. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 9:16:04 PM

HotRod10 “If you and all those people working in the mall were Jews of the Old Testament, to which those laws applied, then you could make that case”

Ok, that makes sense. You shouldn't be able to have a law based on a religious belief and enforce it on people who aren't of that same religion.

But, isn't denying same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs and enforcing it on people who don't belong to the same religion exactly the same thing as in your example of the Jews in the mall?

“but it would still not be legal for you to carry out the sentence.”

That depends on where you are. I don't know for sure but it probably would be legal in a country controlled by the Taliban.

“Even at that time, the Israelites had a judicial system and due process (where do you think ours came from?).”

Can you show some direct connection between the Israelite judicial system and ours? I always thought our system was based on the British judicial system, which if it had any antecedent would have come from the Roman judicial system, which in turn was definitely not based on the Israelite system.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,840
Points:686,575
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 8:53:45 PM

HotRod10 “You are right, not all immorality is illegal.”

Casinos. Lotteries. Strip clubs. Adultery. Pre-marital sex. Out of wedlock pregnancy. Lying. Dating another person's special friend. Dancing (for some religions). Movies (for some religions). Sexting. Swearing. Pictures of Mohammed (for some religions). Ethnic jokes.

It's not hard to come up with many things considered immoral by some but not illegal.

“However, that does not change the fact that laws have their basis in morality of those who institute the laws.”

Try to make an argument about having to pay for renewing a car's tag that's based on morality.

“Try to make an argument against murder apart from morality; I'll bet you find it impossible.”

That one's easy too. Society doesn't work very well if people can kill each other even for good reason. There's always somebody who doesn't like their spouse, parent, boss, elected official, whatever. But just murdering them creates more problems than it solves.

Morality doesn't have to enter the picture. Murder is just not a practical way of dealing with problems.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 6:57:12 PM

>If you and all those people working in the mall were Jews of the Old Testament,
>to which those laws applied

Yet - whenever homosexuality is discussed in this forum, someone always make the point of it being against The Bible. But from what YOU are saying, homosexuality being "an abomination" and immoral is only for Jews of the Old Testament too then. Or is there a double standard for that where *this* only applies Jews of the Old Testament, but *that* applies to everyone today?
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,410
Points:417,965
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 6:53:46 PM

>Try to make an argument against murder apart from morality;
>I'll bet you find it impossible.

1) Taking a person's life ends their life, which removes all the potential future that they could have had. It is taken from them.
Result = A HARM is done to that person. Something is taken from them.

2) Taking the life of someone from a family produces financial hardship upon that family. Often, not just from the cost of funeral and burial, but due to all present *and* future income.
Result = A HARM is caused to others by taking someone and something from them.

3) Taking a person's life often can have the detrimental impact of not having their productivity in our society. Society and that person's local area is weakened by the loss of their productivity.
Result = A HARM is done to society (which is other people) and a local region by taking something from them.

4) The taking of a life if there are no penalties (ie: no laws against it) would in endless acts of revenge; where a family member of friend kills the murderer, and then someone from *that* murdered person's family or a friend kills *that* murderer, and then someone kills.... endlessly.
What that results in is a severe detrimental impact upon our society and the local area, as productive members of those are taken away. This actually has the potential effect of removing a very large portion of all of a population.
Result = An ever GREATER HARM is done to society (which is other people) and a local region by taking something from them.

Now let us examine something like "who can get married". Same-sex couples have existed probably since early humans. In modern times, legal same-sex marriage has existed for almost 12 years... almost 9 years within the U.S. borders. No direct detrimental impact upon a locality, a state, our economy, or our society has yet to be observed. No directly caused harm has come to any individual or family. (Note: If hurt feelings counted, then almost EVERYTHING would be illegal as there is always someone out there who is personally offended by *something*. For example, *I* am personally offended when two Scientifically ignorant people marry.)
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 2:16:14 PM

>>>So are we going to do this or what? I cleared out my schedule for Sunday. We can head on over to the mall around opening time. Do you own enough guns? If not I can pick some up.

We *ARE* talking about what is in Exodus, right? - '...but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.'<<<

If you and all those people working in the mall were Jews of the Old Testament, to which those laws applied, then you could make that case, but it would still not be legal for you to carry out the sentence. Even at that time, the Israelites had a judicial system and due process (where do you think ours came from?).
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,492
Points:59,115
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 2:04:36 PM

"They are things considered immoral by the vast majority of the population, but are still upheld as legal."

You are right, not all immorality is illegal. However, that does not change the fact that laws have their basis in morality of those who institute the laws. Try to make an argument against murder apart from morality; I'll bet you find it impossible.
Post a reply Back to Topics