Texas Law Struck down [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 03:17 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ZalmanEmmes
So is your definition of love just physical love? There is good reason why not just the bible, but several countries have banned homosexual relations, because it's wrong and it's clearly stated as such. If it wasn't so wrong, than why the big fuss over it since the beginning of time?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question, why the big fuss? I don't fuss over it at all. Since your one of the people making the fuss why don't you tell me. And if your going to just go on and on about how the bible says it's wrong then don't bother. It's a totally irrelavant arguement. I understand that you don't think so but many do. You cannot and should not force your religious beliefs on others. Your opinions are no more important and carry no more weight than anyone elses.

There used to be a big fuss over women's clothing that showed more than their ankles. That was then. Times change. Etc, etc....more cliches...blah, blah, blah.

Other countries can kiss my fuzzy white butt. This is the greatest country in the world for a reason. FREEDOM. Not just the freedom that you think people should have. As long as it's in private and it's consentual it's OK.

By the way your drug use arguement is also invalid but I won't go into detail on that unless you decide to argue it some more.

This was a response to ZE's goof post of another thread. Oops. :D

retired

07-07-2003, 03:28 PM

WM,

Originally posted by Watchman
Come on Retired...

Even you cant think thats its "OK" for two guys to diddle each other...

As far as not being "affected", you are wrong. They are contributing to the demise of society and if you agree that its "ok" then you are contributing to the demise also.

As I said previously, I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home as long as it is not harmful to others. That includes both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I don't see where homosexuals are contributing to the demise of society, since homosexuals have been here since the beginning of recorded time, and society is still here. I also don't agree that since I don't care what they do, I am not in any way shape or form contributing to the demise of society.

retired

07-07-2003, 03:34 PM

Zalman,

Originally posted by ZalmanEmmes
So Retired, I assume to you that two adults enjoying crack cocaine or injecting heroin are also none of your business as a fellow in society. Let's let everyone do as they please and they themselves can shape and perceive law as they wish to perceive it! The problem with this post is it ignores a basic human premise of laws of society. It's beyond foolish, nay dangerous to presume that individuals can decide what is perversion and what is not perversion. We have laws for a reason.....and in case you didn't forget we also have the original and tried and tested base for law and justice- the Bible, which has very clear views on what is and what is not perversion.

Using crack cocainne or herion is illegal, the SC has said that sodomy is not. There is a difference, one is illegal, the other is not. Therefore the law against sodomy has been declared unconstitutional, and thus void!

No, of course I don't believe that everyone can do as they please, we are a nation of laws. As far as the bible as a source of law or morals, I don't subscribe to anything the bible has to say. I find the bible ridled with contridictions, absurdities, injustice, and intolerance. So to me the bible is not a good source of justice, and laws.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by ZalmanEmmes
The legal system is based on a judicial system of what is right and wrong. Society without laws, without morals and with a free for all when it comes to what is moral and what isn't is insanity and anarchy.

Homosexuality is wrong. It's been a focus of discussion and taboo for so long and just because it's fashionable in some people's mind to let others live as they do without having to conform to norms or laws or rules of society is tantamount to destructing communities and families.

No, homosexuality is not wrong. Say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so. Many people believe just as strongly in this as you do in your opinions. Their opinions are just as important and have as much weight as yours.

Who's morals should be made into law? Yours? Mine? The majorities? The majority has no right to oppress the minority. Many thing used to be taboo and no longer are.

If you truly think that people are homosexuals because it is "fashonable" then you are seriously lacking in common sense and intelligence.

As far as the drug arguement goes there is a difference. Drugs harm and even kill people. Suicide is illegal, so are drugs. The amount of tangable and intangable damage done to society by the sale and use of illegal durgs is well documented. There are stats available everywhere. Except for some right-wingers crying about the decay of "family values" I see no evidence of the damage homosexuality has done to society. No one I know has either.

Bill R

07-07-2003, 03:55 PM

Chief Wiggum:

As far as the drug arguement goes there is a difference. Drugs harm and even kill people.

Both drug use and homosexual sex have been major contributors to the spreading of AIDS. That's fairly harmful.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Chief Wiggum:

Both drug use and homosexual sex have been major contributors to the spreading of AIDS. That's fairly harmful.

I KNEW someone would say this.

Last I heard heterosexual sex was the leading spreader of AIDS. I don't know if that is still the case.

THERE AIN'T NO WAY IN HELL YOUR GOING TO OUTLAW HETEROSEXUAL SEX. NOW THAT'S A CAUSE I'LL FIGHT FOR:mad: :)

PeacefulDragon

07-07-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Both drug use and homosexual sex have been major contributors to the spreading of AIDS. That's fairly harmful.

The same is true of heterosexual sex.

Watchman

07-07-2003, 04:19 PM

I don't see where homosexuals are contributing to the demise of society, since homosexuals have been here since the beginning of recorded time, and society is still here. I also don't agree that since I don't care what they do, I am not in any way shape or form contributing to the demise of society.

Anybody that cannot tell the difference between right or wrong contributes to the demise of society.

Those that will argue that its OK to be perverted ARE part of the demise of society. Every single great society that ever existed fell from within and that was due to immorality.

Beleive what you want. Yes, it is true that homsexuality has always existed. So has murder. Does that make it right? Even in this great country of ours the Gay Crowd has only been out of the closet for 20 years or so. Now our younger folks think its OK because they have been taught in liberal schools and universitys that there is no clear distinction between right or wrong, as long as it feels good do it.

Im gonna make it simple for you people that cant distinguish right from wrong, or natural from unnatural.If you are not AGAINST it, then you are FOR it.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 04:30 PM

Watchman,

That's just circular logic.

It's wrong because it the demise of society.

It's the demise of society because it is wrong.

This makes no sense.:confused:

Perverted in your opinion. Your opinion is not the only one that counts.

Bill R

07-07-2003, 05:00 PM

Chief Wiggum:
Last I heard heterosexual sex was the leading spreader of AIDS. I don't know if that is still the case.
That's probably true since there are far more heteros. The stat probably also includes Africa. Africa skews the numbers quite heavily. Sex with a person from Africa is considered high risk.
I went and gave blood last month. I had to answer a rather long questionaire. Long story short, If I had had sex with another man they would not take my blood. If I was an IV drug user they would not take my blood. Both were considered high risk for HIV.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Chief Wiggum:

That's probably true since there are far more heteros. The stat probably also includes Africa. Africa skews the numbers quite heavily. Sex with a person from Africa is considered high risk.
I went and gave blood last month. I had to answer a rather long questionaire. Long story short, If I had had sex with another man they would not take my blood. If I was an IV drug user they would not take my blood. Both were considered high risk for HIV.

Yes I guess that's why AIDS is spread more by heterosexual sex.

And your point is............?

Bill R

07-07-2003, 05:13 PM

And your point is............?
IV drug use and homosexual sex are both activities that are considered high risk for spreading AIDS. Heterosexual sex is a lower risk. A far higher percentage of gay men have gotten aids than heterosexuals. The same is true of IV drug users. Homosexual sex has harmed people. People have died as a result. The same is true with using hard drugs. If public health is your reasoning for drugs being illegal the same argument could be made for homosexual sex. That's the point.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
IV drug use and homosexual sex are both activities that are considered high risk for spreading AIDS. Heterosexual sex is a lower risk. A far higher percentage of gay men have gotten aids than heterosexuals. The same is true of IV drug users. Homosexual sex has harmed people. People have died as a result. The same is true with using hard drugs. If public health is your reasoning for drugs being illegal the same argument could be made for homosexual sex. That's the point.

But now your arguing percentages. What percent chance is acceptable and what isn't. The percent chance in Africa for heterosexual sex is probably higher than anything. Should heterosexual sex be banned there? Drugs are different because drug use is linked to other criminal activity which harms any number of people. It's not just public health. It's public safety.

The fact that a blood collecting ageny labels an activity as "high risk" doesn't mean it should be illegal. My wife is from South America. As a result she cannot donate blood here. Perhaps we should outlaw people from South America. I haven't checked but I think that the fact that I have traveled to South America bars me from donating blood. To we ban trips out of country? People have died mountian climbing. Do we ban that. People have died from guns. Uh ohhhhhhh. Better not go there.

Bill R

07-07-2003, 05:30 PM

Chief Wiggum:Should heterosexual sex be banned there?

Much of the AIDS problem in Africa is related to rape. That should absolutely be banned.

Drugs are different because drug use is linked to other criminal activity which harms any number of people. It's not just public health. It's public safety.

Of course drugs are related to criminal activity. They are illegal. If they were legal there would not be gangs fighting over distribution turf. There would not be drug deals gone bad. Drugs would be cheap and druggies would not need to steal to buy drugs. Well, at least not any more so than with alcohol. There would be the same problems that are associated with alcohol.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Chief Wiggum:

Much of the AIDS problem in Africa is related to rape. That should absolutely be banned.

Of course drugs are related to criminal activity. They are illegal. If they were legal there would not be gangs fighting over distribution turf. There would not be drug deals gone bad. Drugs would be cheap and druggies would not need to steal to buy drugs. Well, at least not any more so than with alcohol. There would be the same problems that are associated with alcohol.

OK, I wasn't talking about rape. Just heterosexual sex. It is high risk in Africa. More so than homosexual sex is here. Should it be banned? A simple yes or no.

Your ignoring all of the assaults, DUIs(drug related), domestics, distrubances, rapes, etc... that are the result of drug use. Legal or illegal, that will not change. Plus, the gangs that primarally deal the drugs are not going to lay down there weapons, hold hands, and sing "Give Peace A Chance" if drugs are legalized. They will find other reasons to kill each other. If they even need a reason.

Bill R

07-07-2003, 05:52 PM

Chief Wiggum:

OK, I wasn't talking about rape. Just heterosexual sex. It is high risk in Africa. More so than homosexual sex is here. Should it be banned? A simple yes or no.

The nature of Africa is that rape is very much part of the problem. If Judeo/Christian morals were the norm AIDS would not be an issue.

Your ignoring all of the assaults, DUIs(drug related), domestics, distrubances, rapes, etc... that are the result of drug use.

I'm not ignoring those things. I stated there would be the same problems we have with alcohol. We have ALL of those problems with alcohol. I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs. I think many drugs are very harmful to society. My point has been that overturning laws based on the argument that a person should be able to do as they wish in private opens Pandora's box.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 07:04 PM

Your still not answering the question. As of right now heterosexual sex in Africa is just as if not more likly to spread AIDS than homosexual sex is here.

Do you therefore believe that heterosexual sex in Africa should be banned?

Again it is a simple yes or no question.

retired

07-07-2003, 07:14 PM

WM,

Originally posted by Watchman
I don't see where homosexuals are contributing to the demise of society, since homosexuals have been here since the beginning of recorded time, and society is still here. I also don't agree that since I don't care what they do, I am not in any way shape or form contributing to the demise of society.

Anybody that cannot tell the difference between right or wrong contributes to the demise of society.

Those that will argue that its OK to be perverted ARE part of the demise of society. Every single great society that ever existed fell from within and that was due to immorality.

Beleive what you want. Yes, it is true that homsexuality has always existed. So has murder. Does that make it right? Even in this great country of ours the Gay Crowd has only been out of the closet for 20 years or so. Now our younger folks think its OK because they have been taught in liberal schools and universitys that there is no clear distinction between right or wrong, as long as it feels good do it.

Im gonna make it simple for you people that cant distinguish right from wrong, or natural from unnatural.If you are not AGAINST it, then you are FOR it.

I can distinguish between right and wrong just as well as you. What an arrogant statement!! You have a problem with homosexuals, and I don't. I think you need to get a grip about homosexuality, it's here to stay! You don't have to like it, and neither do I. Do you have a problem with a woman orally copulating a man? How about sodomy between a man and woman? Are these perverted acts as well?

M'Lard

07-07-2003, 07:23 PM

Now what's wrong with a couple a guys enjoying a little "crack"? :D

n567

07-07-2003, 08:03 PM

Anybody that cannot tell the difference between right or wrong contributes to the demise of society.

How are two people that are the same sex, and that love each other going to cause the demise of a largely heterosexual society?

M'Lard

07-07-2003, 08:36 PM

How are two people that are the same sex, and that love each other going to cause the demise of a largely heterosexual society?

Re-read what you quoted.

n567

07-07-2003, 08:56 PM

ofc129

07-07-2003, 09:29 PM

With such strict interpretation of Biblical law, I suppose you believe heterosexual partners who are unmarried and engaging in oral/anal sex should be prosecuted as well? That's covered under the sexual misconduct statutes as well. What about adultery...that's still illegal here too.

The law may have just been struck down, but it's been unofficially off the books for a long, long time, just like adultery...when's the last time you heard of two consenting adults being prosecuted for sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?

Kristen

PeacefulDragon

07-07-2003, 09:30 PM

Ahhhh, I know what he said, I'm focusing on why Watchman thinks that homosexuality is wrong, and is going to result in the demise of a largely heterosexual society? Homosexuality has been in western civilization since the beginning of recorded history, and said civilization is thriving today.

not just western civilization, but all human civilizations, and many other species too...and yet, as you said, here we are...amazing isn't it?

Bill R

07-07-2003, 10:47 PM

Chief Wiggum:
Do you therefore believe that heterosexual sex in Africa should be banned?

Sex within marriage is not the problem. Promiscuous sex and rape are the problem. If sex outside of marriage was stopped AIDS would disappear. You have failed to address how someone doing drugs in the privacy of their home is different. Why is that not their personal business? Why should you care? If they engage in other behavior that bothers other folks shouldn't that be adressed? Many folks do drugs without bothering other people. Many gays do their thing without bothering other people. What's the difference other than someone's moral judgement?

Neinta

07-07-2003, 11:56 PM

Ok, medical opinion... (no I'm not a doctor but was pre-med and one of the classes was on aids and the spread of aids.)

The reason "homosexual" sex is more likely to spread aids is because it usually causes small tears in the rectum and the aids virus infects more easily when put directly into the blood stream. The same occurs during anal sex in heterosexual relationships. There is less chance of a tear with regular hetero intercourse but the risk is still there. Want to outlaw all that too?

Outlawing homosexual intercourse will not stop the spread of aids. Outlawing sex outside of marriage (aside from never being enforcable) will not stop the spread of aids and aids would not disappear. Even without considering Africa into the equation, aids is already deep within our society (both hetero and homosexual alike). It is being passed from mother to child, from one partner who doesn't know they are infected to their now monogomous partner, from one drug user to another. Sex is not the only way to spread aids. Outlawing sex of all kinds would not even stop the spread of aids.

Oregon Mike

07-08-2003, 01:27 AM

We're on page three and no one has addressed the Constitutional issue.

I despise homosexual behavior, but I don't see any justification for outlawing it. I think people should lead moral lives without the government telling them to.

But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that homosexual sex is a protected right. Like so many cases before it, this case is an example of how activist judges create law that would not make it through the legislative process.

What a big stupid mess.

Mike

Bulldawg

07-08-2003, 08:16 AM

To address the Constitutional issue, I posted this in a forum elsewhere:

I'm finding that the majority of participants on a lot of the internet communities I visit are, overall, in support of repealing laws concerning sodomy. Afterall, most in the gun-rights community are likely to understand the concept of privacy and agree that the government has no business legislating concensual bedroom activity. About the only exception I've found are the hard-core Bible-thumpers who insist that we're out there recruiting children, raping chickens, and otherwise destroying the core values of this nation.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the three dissenting Justices, stated in his 17 page dissent:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."

See, a lot of folks thought this was going to be a big gay vs. anti-gay thing. The religious right may still think this, because that's their platform. But what the real issue seems to be amongst most conservatives, however, is that a lot of folks feel that the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds in altering state law. Some are arguing that the Supreme Court has just set a precedence, and that we'll eventually see them altering any state laws they wish at the drop of a hat. See, it's become a States Rights issue.

Now, the argument can go two ways:

Using Amendment X of the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html), some might argue that since the State created the law based on the values and morals of the people of the state, the U.S. Government has no business interfering with that law which was created. If this was the case, would it be okay to revert back to blatant discrimination against blacks as long as the majority of the people of the state agree with it and feel that it's morally right? How about outlawing interracial sex?

Others may argue in the defense of the Supreme Court by citing Amendment XIV of the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/amendments_11-27.html), thus claiming that state sodomy laws which prohibit certain sexual activities "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To go along with argument #2, let's see what the Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html) has to say about sodomy:

[quote][url=http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0002100.html#pe001.21.01]

PeacefulDragon

07-08-2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Oregon Mike
Like so many cases before it, this case is an example of how activist judges create law that would not make it through the legislative process.

Actually, the Supreme Court is doing exactly what it was created for: deciding on issues of constitutionality. They didn't create any laws with this decision, they merely determined that an existing law was unconstitional (and rightly so).

Chief Wiggum

07-08-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Bill R
Chief Wiggum:

Sex within marriage is not the problem. Promiscuous sex and rape are the problem. If sex outside of marriage was stopped AIDS would disappear. You have failed to address how someone doing drugs in the privacy of their home is different. Why is that not their personal business? Why should you care? If they engage in other behavior that bothers other folks shouldn't that be adressed? Many folks do drugs without bothering other people. Many gays do their thing without bothering other people. What's the difference other than someone's moral judgement?

So legalize same sex marrage. Then it will be sex within marriage. Promiscuity is not an exclusive trait of homosexuals. Actually it is a trait of men homo or hetero. Are you suggesting that ALL sex out of wedlock be banned? And pro gunners think they'll be a war if gun confiscation begins!

I guess you havn't read any of my posts. I went on to say how drugs can kill you and they feed into crime all of which would not disappear if drugs were legalized (tax dollars going to rehab etc..) I know I said all of this. Did you read it? By the way, I don't think that drug use in and of it's self is immoral. It's just all of the innevitable damage that goes with it. Damage to the user and society (and I mean actual damage not imaginary damage).

You STILL keep dodging the question about heterosexual sex in Africa so I'll just assume that you are not going to answer. I think that you probably understand that no matter how "risky" heterosexual sex is there (AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RAPE!!!!!) it could not and should not be banned.

And still no one has answered the question of how homosexuality is ruining society.(except for a bunch of vauge nonsensical stuff about "It's just wrong cuz we say so" or "the Bible says so.") Nothing concrete at all. Although the thought of anal sex in general does make me feel kind of icky. Does that count as damage?

You won't answer because you can't. You'll just continue use misdirection with things about rape in Africa or drugs here.

It's all moot. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are not going to allow the govt. or anyone to dictate what they do in the bedroom.

They won't allow it any more than pro-gun people are going to allow their guns to be confiscated.

Get used to disappointment. Homosexuality is here to stay.

That being said, I still can't watch 2 guys kiss. EWWWWWWWWWW!:eek:

retired

07-08-2003, 11:08 AM

Mike,

Originally posted by Oregon Mike
We're on page three and no one has addressed the Constitutional issue.

I despise homosexual behavior, but I don't see any justification for outlawing it. I think people should lead moral lives without the government telling them to.

But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that homosexual sex is a protected right. Like so many cases before it, this case is an example of how activist judges create law that would not make it through the legislative process.

What a big stupid mess.

Mike

The SC just interpreted the constitution and said it was a protected right under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment. Like another poster said, they didn't create any law, they ruled that an existing law was unconstitutional. This is a good example of our checks and balance system of government.

Bill R

07-08-2003, 11:33 AM

Chief: To me the issue is not homosexuality or drugs. The issue is whether laws can be based on morals and whether laws can regulate what takes place in private. Drugs CAN lead to other crimes, they do not always. There is a high risk but it is not inevitable. All of those issues are also associated with alcohol. There are more alcoholics than there are drug addicts so should alcohol be banned? If those other crimes are commited they should be dealt with. Stealing, DV, child neglect etc. would take place even if you eliminated drugs. I agree that people will disobey laws regulating sexual activity. We have had the laws and people have disobeyed them. The same can be said of drug laws. I do not desire to outlaw homosexuality or legalize drugs. Drug laws are based on morality and they do regulate what takes place in private. If you say laws can't be based on morality and regulate what takes place in private, you can't regulate drug use in private. There is a specific Constitutional Ammendment that restricts the government from infringing upon the people's rights to arms. I see nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from having laws based on morality or regulating what takes place in private.

PeacefulDragon

07-08-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Bill R
I see nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from having laws based on morality or regulating what takes place in private.

Glad you're not a Supreme Court justice then! ;)

ofc129

07-08-2003, 12:03 PM

I have to disagree with the statement, "You can't legislate morality." That's pretty much all law is, legislating morality. Why are murder, rape, burglary, robbery, etc. wrong? Because it goes against the moral code of our society; because we BELIEVE it is. Other societies view it as a husband's right to have sex with his wife, not rape; a woman can be killed by her husband for perceived wrongs; it is okay to take the property of another; etc., and those things are not illegal in those societies. The law is merely an extension of the moral code of a society, providing remedy for wrongs. As a society changes, so does its laws.

Kristen

drew9582

07-08-2003, 03:00 PM

my opinion on this matter is this..... as i said before in my previous post, leo's enforce the laws of man, not god and church and no group or single person has the right to persecute another for their beliefs and that also reaches to homosexuals. now the supreme court has ruled on this matter, so get over it:D and yes the u.s. supreme court did the job it was created for, not to make law but to determine the constuitionality of existing law, to quote another.in addition, this doesn't necessarily apply to those whose "religious"
beleifs conflict with the laws of the land. i believe that i mentioned this in a previous post referring to separation of church and state

Bill R

07-08-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by drew9582
my opinion on this matter is this..... as i said before in my previous post, leo's enforce the laws of man, not god and church and no group or single person has the right to persecute another for their beliefs and that also reaches to homosexuals.

What if a group of people believe in not paying taxes? Do you think they will be persecuted? They won't be for the belief, but if they practice their belief they sure will.

Chief Wiggum

07-08-2003, 06:43 PM

You are not going to legislate homosexuality out of existence. There is no reason that homosexual sex shoulld be illegal heterosexual sex legal. You keep returning to morals but that begs the question: Who's morals. I said earleir that you can't legislate morality. I'll flip on that and agree that much of our laws are based on a certain morality. I think that there is a spectrum of morality. Some acts, like murder, we all agree are immoral. And I mean murder, not self defense or the death penality or something like that. I mean murder.

Other acts and topics fall into grey areas. Some will tell you they are definately immoral some will say they are not. This often has to do with religion. Then we get into the whole seperation of church and state or religion vs. religion. This is a whole seperate debate. Some think premarital sex is immoral. Do we outlaw it? Some think dancing is immoral. Do we outlaw it?

Where do we draw the line? Who decides?

Well for one, the Supreme Court decides. And they did. I think that basicly settles it.

I'm STILL waiting for SOMEONE to answer the question: How does homosexuality ruin our society? But no one is going to because they can't.

Bill R, the difference between drugs and homosexuality is that drugs harm many people, homosexuality does not. You can argue all day long about how or why they harm people, but they do. I don't know what other way to say it to make you see this. Yes alcohol harms people also. But as we have seen, outlawing it is even more harmful. I think legalizing drugs would be more harmful.

Watchman

07-08-2003, 10:07 PM

This is probably my last post on this discusting subject for two reasons:

Reason 1. Arguing about sodomy with sodomites is a waste of time.
Reason 2. Those that dont know history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm STILL waiting for SOMEONE to answer the question: How does homosexuality ruin our society? But no one is going to because they can't.

Chief Wiggum. Are you capbable of understanding a few BASIC things ? If not I apologize for wasting your time.

AIDS was initially spread by sodomites. Had there not been sodomites actively engaging each other, their would be no AIDS. Now AIDS is spread by homo and hetero alike. Even so, their is no way to justify sex out side of marriage with hetero or homo.

You say it dosent hurt society. I say you are full of BUllSh*t.Because of people that think like you, I lost a friend of mine to AIDS because he recieved AIDS tainted blood that he got after he was in a life threatening car wreck. Blood that the hospital had "certified" as AIDS free. Guess what.It wasnt.

Our hospitals do what they can to "screen" blood from AIDs carriers that knowingly give blood with the INTENT of infecting people, yet you say it does no harm to society.

Since you refuse to acknowlege the effects of immorality upon the history of civilization, I wont bore you with it. Just suffice it to say that anytime you mess with the basic laws of nature, it's just a matter of time till you get bit in the ***.

Just the other day I arrested a gal for running out of a resturaunt for not paying her bill. I soon got a phone call from dispatch infroming that she was a full blown AIDS patient and was known to bite COPS and had done so on at least two occasions.

You know what though ? I've known a few flamers that died of AIDS. I dont worry about it, because fact of the matter is, they are all short timers.These idiots will engage in their lust for each other KNOWING the consequneces, yet they refuse to let something like the possibility of dieing a slow,pitiful death even slow them down.

Thanks to highly intellegient individuals like that, our insurance rates are going throught the roof. Never mind the fact that more money is spent to combat AIDS than ALL of the various researches combined that try to find cures for things that people have NO control over.

We used to have a rather nice rest stop on the way to the big city here. Unfortunatley, it became a known pickup spot for the Gay crowd. After a few judges, doctors, lawyers and even some city officals got arrested for things like prostitution and lewd behavior, it was decided to shut the park down. Now good people cant even stop to **** because of the "problem" that was there.Yet you say that there are no ill effects on society.

I could go on an on with examples of how preversion has affected even those that want nothing to do with it, but Im sure you wont see it because like others that have been given over to rephrobate minds, you simply arent capbable of grasping the truth.

PeacefulDragon

07-08-2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Watchman
This is probably my last post on this discusting subject for two reasons:

promise? :)

Reason 1. Arguing about sodomy with sodomites is a waste of time.
Reason 2. Those that dont know history are doomed to repeat it.

I can't help but wonder which of us is more Gay -- you really do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing about it.

AIDS was initially spread by sodomites. Had there not been sodomites actively engaging each other, their would be no AIDS. Now AIDS is spread by homo and hetero alike. Even so, their is no way to justify sex out side of marriage with hetero or homo.

and the plague & small pox (sometimes intentionally as a biological weapon) was initially spread by europeans, and SARS was initially spread by Chinese, and...big deal. Its irrelevant.

Our hospitals do what they can to "screen" blood from AIDs carriers that knowingly give blood with the INTENT of infecting people, yet you say it does no harm to society.

nonsense. hospitals screen blood primarily because most AIDs carriers don't know they have it. Yes there are some sicko's out there that will try to infect others, just like there are sicko's that will try to shoot, stab, poison, strangle, rape, etc.

Since you refuse to acknowlege the effects of immorality upon the history of civilization, I wont bore you with it. Just suffice it to say that anytime you mess with the basic laws of nature, it's just a matter of time till you get bit in the ***.

Since you are the one making the claim that homosexuals are the ruin of society, it seems like the burdon of proof is on you.

Just the other day I arrested a gal for running out of a resturaunt for not paying her bill. I soon got a phone call from dispatch infroming that she was a full blown AIDS patient and was known to bite COPS and had done so on at least two occasions.

So? Because this one AIDS patient was a sicko, what does that say? Its like the anti-gun folks saying that Columbine means that guns are evil.

You know what though ? I've known a few flamers that died of AIDS. I dont worry about it, because fact of the matter is, they are all short timers.These idiots will engage in their lust for each other KNOWING the consequneces, yet they refuse to let something like the possibility of dieing a slow,pitiful death even slow them down.

What about all the straight folks that die of AIDS? Or the children? They're all a bunch of evil sinners are they?

Thanks to highly intellegient individuals like that, our insurance rates are going throught the roof.

Smokers costs us a hell of lot more than AIDS patients do.

Never mind the fact that more money is spent to combat AIDS than ALL of the various researches combined that try to find cures for things that people have NO control over.

nonsense. Let's see some evidence to back up that pathetic claim.

We used to have a rather nice rest stop on the way to the big city here. Unfortunatley, it became a known pickup spot for the Gay crowd. After a few judges, doctors, lawyers and even some city officals got arrested for things like prostitution and lewd behavior, it was decided to shut the park down. Now good people cant even stop to **** because of the "problem" that was there.Yet you say that there are no ill effects on society.

Yes, prostitution in a public park is bad. Or, for you is it only bad when its gay folks?

Bill R

07-08-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by PeacefulDragon
Glad you're not a Supreme Court justice then! ;)

Watchman would do a much better job. The SCOTUS could use someone who knows how to read a moral compass. For that matter the SCOTUS needs more members that can read the Constitution.

n567

07-09-2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Bill R
Watchman would do a much better job. The SCOTUS could use someone who knows how to read a moral compass. For that matter the SCOTUS needs more members that can read the Constitution.

Whose moral compass do we refer to?

Well, at least with people like Watchman in charge, us "liberals" would finally be proven right! :D

Chief Wiggum

07-09-2003, 08:26 AM

Watchman,

I could easily tear every single point you just ATTEMPTED to make down. However, like you I am a little tired of this thread. Its obvious that I am beating my head against a wall arguing against people that state their opinions as fact and who also cannot understand a few BASIC things.

I will say this:

You have shown you true nature by ASSUMING that you are debating with "sodomites". You draw poor conclusions and care nothing about facts. All you seem to care about is pushing your agenda on others. I think that we all see that now. The fact that you attempted to discredit me in a different thread by bringing up my opinion in this one shows poor taste.

For the record:

I am a married heterosexual who has never engaged in any type of sodomy. Sorry to burst your bubble Watchman.:( :D

kheya

07-09-2003, 04:45 PM

If we are going to debate the right or wromng of homosexuality I will reply with this letter originally printed in a Vermont newspapaer. She says it better than I do.

by Sharon Underwood
The Valley News
April 30, 2000

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

No choice

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.

For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will?

If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

Principles?

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending.

My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

I happen to agree with the points this woman made. I find her to be intelligent and more articulate than I could ever be.
kheya

Watchman

07-09-2003, 08:15 PM

For the record:

I am a married heterosexual who has never engaged in any type of sodomy. Sorry to burst your bubble Watchman.

For the record:

I never doubted the fact that you were a heterosexual. Once again it is you that ASSUME. Sorry to burst your bubble.Fact of the matter is, you amuse me.
:D

Chief Wiggum

07-10-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Watchman
This is probably my last post on this discusting subject for two reasons:

Reason 1. Arguing about sodomy with sodomites is a waste of time.
Reason 2. Those that dont know history are doomed to repeat it.

So you didn't say this? :confused:

I guess you must have been refering to someone else that you were arguing with.

:rolleyes:

auntysuz63

07-10-2003, 06:55 PM

Sexual activity between consenting adults is private and personal. If a gay couple wishes to commit their relationship by way of marriage, it isn't any of my (or anyone else's) business. If you don't like that lifestyle, then my strong suggestion is that you don't participate in it. But no one has the right to dictate how anyone should lead their sex life, as long as the sex is between consenting adults and does not involve children/underage teenagers/those incapable of consenting.

I don't understand why people feel the need to involve themselves in other's personal lives, especially when it has no effect on them whatsoever. I also don't understand why people feel they should sit in judgement of other people's personal personal lives, when the Bible clearly says it is not our place to judge. The laws of man are judged in court by a jury; that is the way of it. The laws of God are judged by God, and that should be left to God, not a mere human on earth.

And supposing that homosexual activity were outlawed...who is going to be peeking into bedroom windows checking up on all this?

ProWriter

07-11-2003, 02:05 PM

We have laws for a reason.....and in case you didn't forget we also have the original and tried and tested base for law and justice- the Bible, which has very clear views on what is and what is not perversion

The last time I checked, this country still maintains the separation of church and state as one of it's fundamental principles, :rolleyes: even predating the Constitution. In case you forget, this country was founded upon religious FREEDOM.

By some peoples' "biblical" beliefs and definition, oral sex is also "sodomy" and "wrong" even between a legally married man and wife...not to mention plain old masturbation. Furthermore, some religions maintain that even sexual intercourse between husband and wife is "wrong" unless it's specifically for procreation.:rolleyes: What two adults do sexually behind closed doors is nobody's business and your particular "bible-based" religious views are totally irrelevant to any discussion of legal issues...at least, that's the case in THIS country.

Bill R

07-11-2003, 02:33 PM

auntysuz63:
If a gay couple wishes to commit their relationship by way of marriage, it isn't any of my (or anyone else's) business. If you don't like that lifestyle, then my strong suggestion is that you don't participate in it. But no one has the right to dictate how anyone should lead their sex life, as long as the sex is between consenting adults and does not involve children/underage teenagers/those incapable of consenting.

Should polygamy be legal then?

kheya

07-11-2003, 02:40 PM

WHy not? Would I practice it no, but if we really are trying to follow freedom of church and state, then we are crossing the line when a religion says it is okay and we legislate that polygamy is not. Personally, I think as long as all ADULTS know what they are doing it should be no ones business but their own.

kheya

retired

07-11-2003, 08:07 PM

Bill,

Originally posted by Bill R
auntysuz63:

Should polygamy be legal then?

The court has already ruled that polygamy is not legal.

retdetsgt

07-11-2003, 10:52 PM

I've always had to shake my head at the people like Watchman who think they have a franchise on what's moral and what's not.... I seriously doubt God appointed him or anyone else to condemn what other people do that doesn't harm anyone else.

I have a cousin who's as queer as a three dollar bill. He's two years younger than me and all of my generation knew from the time he was four that he would rather be a girl than a boy. And this was in West Texas where there was NOTHING that influenced him in his sexuality.

I worked hate crimes for my last three years and I was always amazed at the ignorance of the people that went out and committed violent crimes against other people simply because they didn't agree with their lifestyle, religion, color, etc. I view your sexuality like your religion. I don't care what it is, but I don't want to hear about it either.

Jim

auntysuz63

07-12-2003, 12:44 AM

Hmmm...I don't know if polygamy should be legal or not. I don't see the relevance though. In my post, I stated that gay marriage should be recognized if those people want to commit to each other...it's not illegal now, it's just not recognized as a legal union. If a gay couple chooses to have a marriage ceremony, and say vows, no one is going to take them to jail, but the aren't going to be "legal" spouses. However, polygamy in this country has been ruled as illegal, and if you're caught committing the crime, you'll do the time. So, it's apples and oranges.

I was thinking about this thread the other day, when I was away from the computer. I've known several people who are gay (male and female) and each of them were positive, contributing members of society. None are law breakers (in fact, there are a couple who are very fine LEO's-medal of valor recipients, no less), all have jobs, committed relationships; they are healthy, happy, well adjusted. All are well educated, intelligent, some politically conservative (the LEO's especially) and others more liberal. They pay their taxes and do not feed off the welfare system. They are NOT hanging out in bars and parks soliciting sex, they are not molesting children (incidentally, pedophile is not another word for homosexual). You probably wouldn't even know they were gay because, while it's no secret, they do not necessarily flaunt their sexual preference, because it really isn't anyone's business but their own and their partner's. So, I would like to know how they are contributing to the "demise of society" just because of their private sexual preference?

Deputy757

07-12-2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by auntysuz63
Hmmm...I don't know if polygamy should be legal or not. I don't see the relevance though. In my post, I stated that gay marriage should be recognized if those people want to commit to each other...it's not illegal now, it's just not recognized as a legal union. If a gay couple chooses to have a marriage ceremony, and say vows, no one is going to take them to jail, but the aren't going to be "legal" spouses. However, polygamy in this country has been ruled as illegal, and if you're caught committing the crime, you'll do the time. So, it's apples and oranges.

I'm sorry, but it's apples and apples...or oranges and oranges, whichever you prefer. The basis of this thread is that homosexual sex had been ruled illegal (in Texas) and if you were caught committing that crime, you would do the time. The only difference I see between this and polygamy is that polygamy is still illegal. So if one can change, why can't the other?

I was thinking about this thread the other day, when I was away from the computer. I've known several people who are gay (male and female) and each of them were positive, contributing members of society. None are law breakers (in fact, there are a couple who are very fine LEO's-medal of valor recipients, no less), all have jobs, committed relationships; they are healthy, happy, well adjusted. All are well educated, intelligent, some politically conservative (the LEO's especially) and others more liberal. They pay their taxes and do not feed off the welfare system. They are NOT hanging out in bars and parks soliciting sex, they are not molesting children (incidentally, pedophile is not another word for homosexual). You probably wouldn't even know they were gay because, while it's no secret, they do not necessarily flaunt their sexual preference, because it really isn't anyone's business but their own and their partner's. So, I would like to know how they are contributing to the "demise of society" just because of their private sexual preference?
Do me a favor...everywhere you have "gay" insert "adulterers". Where you have "preference", insert "activity". Would you associate with someone you knew took great pleasure in cheating on his/her spouse? I mean, it's their own business who they sleep with, isn't it? Why should spouses get so upset about this anyway...it's only sex, right? And who has the right to assert their moral code on me...if I want more than what my wife has to offer...that's my business, right??

ProWriter

07-12-2003, 09:17 AM

Do me a favor...everywhere you have "gay" insert "adulterers". Where you have "preference", insert "activity". Would you associate with someone you knew took great pleasure in cheating on his/her spouse? I mean, it's their own business who they sleep with, isn't it? Why should spouses get so upset about this anyway...it's only sex, right?

You gotta be kidding me with that. Adulterers are, by definition, doing something that violates the (supposed) sacred trust of someone to whom they've sworn to be faithful. They are betraying and deceiving and hurting their partners for a cheap, selfish thrill, etc, etc, etc.

You're comparing THAT to the situation where two unattached, single gay people choose to share a life together? Or simply share a relationship where nobody cheats on, betrays, deceives, or hurts his or her closest companion?? Or a relationship where three adults decide for themselves to have a three-way relationship? Polygamy may be illegal, but if it's what three people desire for themselves, there's simply no moral issue. Plenty of legal things are immoral, and just as many illegal things are morally innocent. That isn't an argument about their illegal status, because that's easy to check by reference to statute. It's a statement that there's no moral basis for distinguishing the two so differently under the law.

I agree it's not appples and oranges...that's closer to apples and ROCKS...or oranges and rocks, whichever you prefer. Logical reasoning skills much?? :rolleyes:

retdetsgt

07-12-2003, 09:20 AM

The difference is that adulterers hurt someone else. Consenting homosexuals do not, unless you have your nose in their business. Under these laws, oral sex between a married hetrosexual couple would be just as illegal and just as prosecutable. I think people should spend less time worrying about what other consenting adults do sexually behind closed doors.

auntysuz63

07-12-2003, 01:27 PM

I repeat, I don't know if polygamy should be legalized or not. I know that if a spouse is entitled to legal benefits (insurance, community property), I don't know what the effect would be if someone had more than one spouse decided to get a divorce from ONE of them. What protects the rights of the other six or seven or ten wives? It could turn into a real legal quagmire. I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't possibly tell you how it could work. As for the sexual relationship of these consenting adults, that's their business, not mine.

Just in case you misinterpreted (I hope that's what it was), the people I mentioned, who are gay and in committed relationships, are not married and cheating on their spouse in another relationship. These people are committed to their same sex partner in life. They are not promiscuous by any stretch.

And lets clear up another little matter here about "sodomy." It is not necessarily "homosexual" sex. There are plenty of women who are "sodomized" by their ever lovin' hubby every day of this world. Wonder if, under the old Texas law that got shot down, they would have been hauled into court just as quickly. Doubt it.

Again I say, get out of consenting adults bedrooms and mind your own business.

Bill R

07-12-2003, 04:19 PM

The issue of polygamy and homosexual marriage are not apples and oranges. Both involve the state having the right to define what marriage is. Either the state can define marriage or it can't.

auntysuz63

07-12-2003, 05:33 PM

You get no argument from me, Bill R. The state has defined whatis a legal marriage. At this point, at least in CA, the state has said that a legal marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy, as I understand it, means that a man or woman obtain marriage licenses for more than one spouse. John has three "marriage licensed" wives, Jane, Mary, and Ann. In other words, you can only have one "legal" wife at a time. Now, if you don't like the polygamy law, then I suggest you start doing whatever has to be done to change it. Personally, I have one husband and he's enough for me. If you feel you need more than one wife and want to do that legally, set about to challenge the constititionality of that law or start a signature campaign to have the law repealed.:eek:

Committed gay couples seek to have the same rights as one spouse: To be next of kin in medical emergencies, to share insurance benefits, to jointly own a house as spouses, etc. That marriage license is the "legal" contract that permits it, but unfortunately they're not able to have it.

But as far as sexual activity between consenting adults go, I don't care if it's a twosome, threesome, whatever-some. As long as it is going on in the privacy of one's home, the government needs to stay out of it.

As for the religious aspect, that is between the parties involved and God. I know what I think personally, but what I think doesn't matter a whole hill of beans. Ultimately, everyone will face the Creator over the decisions they made in life, the activities they chose...their behavior will be scrutinized. The "morality" of their life, the good that they did, the bad that they did will be judged by God, not me. I'm not so righteous that I say, "God'll get you for that." As I said in a previous post, the laws of man are enforced and judged in court by a jury; that is the way of it. The laws of God are judged by God alone, not by mere humans.

Deputy757

07-13-2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by ProWriter
I agree it's not appples and oranges...that's closer to apples and ROCKS...or oranges and rocks, whichever you prefer. Logical reasoning skills much?? :rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want, the analogy is perfectly valid. Both are acts that are (now) perfectly legal. Some people view both as being morally objectionable, some view only one as being morally objectionable, and there are probably also those that view neither as being morally objectionable. This is where the debate lies and that is why it's apples and apples.
On a side note, I think it's interesting that both acts are legal and that, while I agree with you on the incredibly horrific effect adultery can have on a marriage and/or family, most states (if not all) don't consider it an aggrevating factor when seeking a divorce. That's to say...if Spouse A cheats on Spouse B and therefore causes the dissolution of the marriage, there is no penalty for Spouse A for having done so. They are just as entitled to whatever portion of assets of the marriage as Spouse B.

retdetsgt,
The difference is that adulterers hurt someone else. Consenting homosexuals do not, unless you have your nose in their business.
Now that would be a smell, wouldn't it? Sorry...couldn't resist!

:D

djack16

07-13-2003, 07:49 AM

I'm amazed that this post has advanced into the topic of polygamy and the assertion of religion. I guess I should just get my opinions on the matters out there.
1. Homosexual Marriage. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to be legally married. I believe that they should enjoy the same rights under the law of America...the law of man.
2. Homosexual Sexual Activities (say that three times fast...but by yourself). I believe that consenting homosexuals should be allowed to participate in sexual activities with one another without fear of punishment. The only reason they are punished is because people are often turned away by things they do not understand. For a homosexual to engage in sexual activities with their partner is understandable to me just as a heterosexual couple would do such things. It is commonly an expression of love and to a lesser emotional extent an instinctual craving. To me, suggesting that gay sexual relations is similar at all to child molestation only proves that the person making the statement is perverted. By making that statement Santorum also declared himself a moron, at least to me anways.
3. Polygamy. Oy vei. I believe it is one of those that came out of the "Good" book and went into the law books. It is quite obviously a transfer of biblical principles into law. Personally, I would not be satisfied with more than one woman (:D maybe a little). Really though, I am talking about emotionally. I would feel much deeper with just one woman that I could devote myself to. I don't doubt, however, that there are men and women out there that could equally share their love with several people. This is complicating though because you have to consider health issues and the such. Hey, just hypothetically, if they changed the laws to include polygamy...imagine what a DV situation would look like :eek:.
4. Religious Assertion. First, better get a good grip on that bible if your going to be thumping away at it so hard (and that wasn't directed towards auntysuz, tolerance and understanding goes a long way in life as I see it). I don't think that the bible's precepts are exactly the best guidelines for society, especially if we consider our modern value of women as opposed to those in the bible. There are countless other questionable references that, in an American society with the godless constitution, would be heavily frowned upon.
TrafficGoddess...congratulations on such a productive and active post. Nice topic ;). Oh and to those who are going to light a fire under my *** for the religion part, please understand that I have debated at GREAT length with people and haven't the mind energy to do it over and over and over etc.

Chief Wiggum

07-13-2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757
Roll your eyes all you want, the analogy is perfectly valid. Both are acts that are (now) perfectly legal. Some people view both as being morally objectionable, some view only one as being morally objectionable, and there are probably also those that view neither as being morally objectionable. This is where the debate lies and that is why it's apples and apples.

Your wrong. Simple as that.

Adultry is a deliberate deception and harms another. A homosexual marriage does not.

Just because YOU say the debate lies in a particulaar place doesn't mean that it does. Although that would be quite convienent for you wouldn't it?

Apples and rocks. :cool:

FYI adultry is legal. As should be gay marriage.

retired

07-13-2003, 12:03 PM

auntysuz,

Originally posted by auntysuz63
You get no argument from me, Bill R. The state has defined whatis a legal marriage. At this point, at least in CA, the state has said that a legal marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy, as I understand it, means that a man or woman obtain marriage licenses for more than one spouse. John has three "marriage licensed" wives, Jane, Mary, and Ann. In other words, you can only have one "legal" wife at a time. Now, if you don't like the polygamy law, then I suggest you start doing whatever has to be done to change it. Personally, I have one husband and he's enough for me. If you feel you need more than one wife and want to do that legally, set about to challenge the constititionality of that law or start a signature campaign to have the law repealed.:eek:

Committed gay couples seek to have the same rights as one spouse: To be next of kin in medical emergencies, to share insurance benefits, to jointly own a house as spouses, etc. That marriage license is the "legal" contract that permits it, but unfortunately they're not able to have it.

But as far as sexual activity between consenting adults go, I don't care if it's a twosome, threesome, whatever-some. As long as it is going on in the privacy of one's home, the government needs to stay out of it.

As for the religious aspect, that is between the parties involved and God. I know what I think personally, but what I think doesn't matter a whole hill of beans. Ultimately, everyone will face the Creator over the decisions they made in life, the activities they chose...their behavior will be scrutinized. The "morality" of their life, the good that they did, the bad that they did will be judged by God, not me. I'm not so righteous that I say, "God'll get you for that." As I said in a previous post, the laws of man are enforced and judged in court by a jury; that is the way of it. The laws of God are judged by God alone, not by mere humans.

Not everyone believes in God, and therefore doesn't believe that they will be judged by your God. Fine that you believe that you will be judged by your God, but many don't believe that way, myself included. As far as I'm concerned, we will be judged in a court of law, and no other place. I don't subscribe to laws of a God.

Watchman

07-13-2003, 03:49 PM

I don't subscribe to laws of a God.

Do you subscribe to the laws of nature ?Many are the same.

You are getting old arent ya ?

Sorry Retired, couldnt resist...
:D

retired

07-13-2003, 04:56 PM

WM,

Originally posted by Watchman
I don't subscribe to laws of a God.

Do you subscribe to the laws of nature ?Many are the same.

You are getting old arent ya ?

Sorry Retired, couldnt resist...
:D

My old adversary. Yes, sometimes the laws of nature are more than I can bear. :p

Watchman

07-13-2003, 06:01 PM

sometimes the laws of nature are more than I can bear.

Yeah, me too. :eek:

;)

Deputy757

07-14-2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
Adultry is a deliberate deception and harms another. A homosexual marriage does not.
According to whose moral standards...that's the question. Both are perfectly legal acts (thanks for the FYI but I never said adultery wasn't legal..in fact I think I said that both were perfectly legal the first time). You say that adultery harms another person, and you must mean emotionally since there isn't really any physical harm. I agree with this. But whose to say that a homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone emotionally? What about the parents of one or both of the gay men or women who are against this lifestyle that their son/daughter has chosen?
And if adultery is so harmful to the spouse or children of the adulterer, why isn't there any penalty for it...either civil or criminal?
I'm only trying to make the point that Santorum was right. This ruling opens up a pretty large can of worms. Maybe that can needed to be opened, maybe it didn't. But like BillR said, either the government can define marriage or it can't. If a homosexual couple has the right to marry then why can't I marry more than one woman? Why can't a cousin marry a cousin? If the only definition for marriage be that it be between people that love each other than these other categories could also fit.
By the way djack14, where did Santorum compare homosexual sex to child molestation.

Chief Wiggum

07-14-2003, 01:58 PM

Deputy,

So you say a homosexuals parents might be "hurt" by their child being in a gay marriage. I bet racists parents are hurt when their child marries someone of another race. Or what about the feelings of parents when their straight child marries someone that they don't like. Their feelings are hurt. Where is the line drawn?

I guess my point is, if your a bigoted person you need to get used to having your feelings hurt.

Yes the govt. defines marriage but the only reason gay marriage is not allowed is pure bigotry.

Someone please explain why it should be illegal.

By the way, I think that you should be legally allowed to marry more than one woman but why in the HELL would you want to. :confused:

Deputy757

07-15-2003, 02:48 AM

Chief,
I'm saying that because of their belief system, which is based on their religion, they may have a hard time facing the fact that their child is in that type of relationship. So unless you are saying that everyone must be prepared to surrender their religious beliefs in order to accomodate the feelings of others, bigot is not applicable here. You mention parents of a child that marries someone of another race. This is not a good analogy as that person has no control over what color their skin is (unless it's Michael Jackson). And before you say that people should be ready to surrender their religious beliefs if those beliefs advocate hate and violence towards those who are different, remember that Christianity does neither. Hate the sin, love the sinner...you know? But that's also not to say that someone who openly flaunts the teachings of Christ and the Bible is going to be welcomed with open arms into a congregation either.
I have no problem with same sex couples having civil weddings. I do however think it's a mistake for the Catholic or Protestant church to sanctify something that the Bible expressely forbids.
My point in this thread is twofold. One, I believe that if you say that marriage is not a man/wife thing..it's a two people who love each other thing..then you must make allowances that this definition can fit a variety of other situations. Two, any opinion on this must be taken from the context of the persons moral standard. Like retired said...not everyone believes in God so much of what I have posted means nothing to him. I accept that..and consider the debate from his point of view as well.

Bill R

07-15-2003, 09:29 AM

While I am personally against gay marriage/ civil union, I would have far less of an issue with it being legislated rather than brought into being by the courts. If the argument is made that the state has no right to define marriage than the logical progression would be that polygamy and adult incestuous marriage would also have to be allowed. A big can of worms indeed.

Chief Wiggum

07-15-2003, 05:30 PM

Deputy 757,

You say my race analogy is different because people can't choose their race. Are you saying that homosexuals can choose to be or not to be gay?

Can you choose not to be a heterosexual?

I can't. I was born this way.

I'd say my racial analogy fits pretty well.

AGAIN, someone explain why gay mariage should be illegal. Or even why it's immoral.

Bill R

07-15-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
Are you saying that homosexuals can choose to be or not to be gay?

They can choose to not engage in homosexual activity. That is a choice. People can control their behavior.

ProWriter

07-15-2003, 06:40 PM

Homosexuals have the exact same normal sexual impulses as the rest of us...the only difference is that they're attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. So if it's "OK" for two single heterosexuals to have sex, and as long as two homosexual don't happen to subscribe to any religious beliefs like yours, exactly why do they have to "control" their sexual urges any more so than any two single heterosexual people who are mutually interested in each other?

Patiently awaiting another bushel of apples and rocks:rolleyes:

djack16

07-15-2003, 10:05 PM

I misread TrafficGoddess's first post. Santorum may not have outright stated that it takes the same quality of character to molest children but I wouldn't put it past him :rolleyes: . Homosexuals are not contributing to the demise of society, people who re-elect Bush are :D .

auntysuz63

07-16-2003, 12:44 AM

Bill R - should have made my post clearer. My comments about polygamy were in answer to what you posted, not the religious part. Sorry I didn't express that better than I did.

"...whose to say that a homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone emotionally? What about the parents of one or both of the gay men or women who are against this lifestyle that their son/daughter has chosen?"

Well, you know what? You could apply that to a child choosing a school that a parent disapproves of, choosing a different religion than their parents, choosing a job a parent disapproves of, choosing a spouse a parent disapproves of...we could go on here for days about how parents are wounded by their children and the choices they make, lifestyles they live, etc. So where do we draw the line? Does a child NOT live their own life, make their own decisions? I believe in the post about adultery, the reference was being made to the alleged "adulterers" not every person who ever knew and loved the people involved.

"So unless you are saying that everyone must be prepared to surrender their religious beliefs in order to accomodate the feelings of others, bigot is not applicable here."

I don't believe you have to surrender your religious beliefs to accomodate others. You are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish and act on your beliefs, as long as they are not in direct violation of the law of the land (again, the whole separation of church and state thing). If you don't believe in participating in a homosexual relationship because of YOUR religious convictions, then by all means, don't do it. It doesn't make you right or them wrong, or vice versa. It is a difference in a belief system and not something that can be legislated. It is the basis of foundation for who YOU are, who THEY are. It is what makes us all unique and special. The best example is to live what you believe. I don't recall reading anything about Jesus mistreating/not loving the prostitute or the beggar just because of who they were and what they did and how they acted. Why should you?

***I haven't quite mastered moving quotes from other posts around...please bear with me. :D

Bill R

07-16-2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by ProWriter
Homosexuals have the exact same normal sexual impulses as the rest of us...the only difference is that they're attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. So if it's "OK" for two single heterosexuals to have sex, and as long as two homosexual don't happen to subscribe to any religious beliefs like yours, exactly why do they have to "control" their sexual urges any more so than any two single heterosexual people who are mutually interested in each other?

Patiently awaiting another bushel of apples and rocks:rolleyes:

Never said they "have" to control their uges to engage in homosexual sex. It's just a bunch of BS that they have no choice. I've never said it was "OK" for unmarried heterosexuals either. Both are wrong. One is just not normal.

retired

07-16-2003, 10:15 AM

Bill,

Originally posted by Bill R
Never said they "have" to control their uges to engage in homosexual sex. It's just a bunch of BS that they have no choice. I've never said it was "OK" for unmarried heterosexuals either. Both are wrong. One is just not normal.

If they have a choice they made one, and it just doesn't agree with what choice you would have them make. It may not be normal for you, but it certainly is normal for them.

Bill R

07-16-2003, 11:42 AM

Retired:
It may not be normal for you, but it certainly is normal for them.

I won't disagree with that statement. The same could be said of any deviant activity. Not that long, ago cannibalism was considered normal by those that practiced it.

retired

07-16-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Retired:

I won't disagree with that statement. The same could be said of any deviant activity. Not that long, ago cannibalism was considered normal by those that practiced it.

Just as prayer is considered normal by those who practice it!;)

drew9582

07-16-2003, 06:18 PM

as far as i am concerned, it's whatever trips your trigger, the world doesn't move to the beat of just 1 drum, we all have our own version of what is and what isn't morally correct,and as long as it's not hurting anyone,is deemed illegal,or you are a willing participant, then let it drop. :rolleyes: :p

Chief Wiggum

07-16-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Never said they "have" to control their uges to engage in homosexual sex. It's just a bunch of BS that they have no choice. I've never said it was "OK" for unmarried heterosexuals either. Both are wrong. One is just not normal.

Please define "normal".

Bill R

07-16-2003, 06:41 PM

Merriam Webster Online
[QUOTE]Main Entry: 1nor

Chief Wiggum

07-16-2003, 06:45 PM

I'd say that this proves my point quite nicely.

ProWriter

07-16-2003, 08:34 PM

double talk
n.
1. Meaningless speech that consists of nonsense syllables mixed with intelligible words; gibberish.
2. Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language. Also called doublespeak.
3. What many of you think all lawyers do and the reason you can't stand them, right?

Best example of #2 so far:

They can choose to not engage in homosexual activity. That is a choice. People can control their behavior.

followed by...

Never said they "have" to control their uges to engage in homosexual sex. It's just a bunch of BS that they have no choice.

If your point isn't that they "should", "have to", "must", "ought to" control their urges, then what's your point in saying that homosexuality is a "choice" in the first place?

You're entitled to be repulsed PERSONALLY at the thought of homosexuality and even most of us arguing against you on this thread probably feel the same way about it. What you're not entitled to do is say that it's "wrong" without explaining how it's different in a logical sense from heterosexual sex, because that's an objective argument about it in principle and no longer your personal feelings and opinion. You have to present a valid, logical, consistent reason and address good counterpoints to your view.

I've never said it was "OK" for unmarried heterosexuals either. Both are wrong.

You're similarly entitled to be repulsed personally at the thought of pre-marital or non-marital sex and you don't have to justify your personal feelings. What you're not entitled to do is claim that it's "immoral" or that the government "should" only recognize what you believe in, especially to the extent the origins of your feelings are in any religious point of view, because it just doesn't apply to people of different (or no) religious faith in a country that recognizes separation of church and state.

For those of you who like word "substitutions", substitute "virgins" for "heterosexuals" and this is exactly the same as the anti-homosexual marriage lobbyists on this thread:

"The government should only recognize marriage between a virgin male and a virgin female. Marriage is a sacred ceremony of purity originating in the bible. The urge to have pre-marital sex isn't normal and even if it is, it's always a choice whether to engage in it or not and people can and should control their urges. Pre-marital sex is wrong and the government shouldn't condone or reward such behavior. No government sanctioned marriages unless both parties are virgins"

You don't have to explain to anybody why you believe that philosophy either, PERSONALLY, but when you make a statement about what the government "should" do, you are no longer speaking "personally", because you are making an objective argument about principle. In a society that recognizes church and state separation, you cannot suggests "principles" that violate that concept.

So far, every single objective point made on this thread trying to illustrate that there is no logical, social or moral reason OTHER than your personal "feelings" and religious beliefs for objecting to homosexual marriage in PRINCIPLE has been met by completely flawed examples and a switch to a different line of attacking gay marriages...or pure double talk.

I'm talking about when someone here says that consensual adult homosexual relationships are no different from consensual adult heterosexual relationships, and your response isn't to give an example of how they are, but to suggest that homosexuals are damaging to society because they are hurting their own families. Some parents are fine with it and plenty of parents of heterosexuals hate their kids' choices, as has been pointed out already. I'd be willing to bet anybody that statistics would also show LESS domestic abuse and/or misery within long-term homosexual relationships compared to "normal" marriages, too.

I just find it frightening that an experienced officer of the law can't separate his own feelings any better than this, Bill, WM, etc. I happen to share your PERSONAL reaction at the thought or visual sight of actual male homosexuality...that's not something you have to justify to anybody. But I find it amazing that you can't accept that there's simply nothing "immoral" or "harmful" about it in PRINCIPLE just because you happen to find it disgusting. As long as we're taking about homosexuals who don't claim to share your religious faith if experts on your faith agree it's absolutely violative of it, you can't raise a single point that supports your view in an objective sense.

You guys are both cops, too, trained in picking up verbal cues and following lines of reasoning, so you both KNOW the "ring" of a made up story or someone covering their ***** right? This thread has the "ring" of a couple of guys who really just HATE the idea of (even) other people's being gay so much that you will kick and claw your way out out of any reasonable illustration that gender preference is essentially a totally irrelevant aspect of relationships and morality if you're going to evaluate relationships or human morality in any logical or fair way. What IS it, exactly, that you detest so much about OTHER people's being gay that you will make arguments that you could both (hopefully) tear apart on the other end, if this was at work investigating an alibi, etc?

I honestly think that's more of what's keeping this thread alive than people's specific interest in this topic...and as an example, I wasn't even planning on READING the thread originally. I saw the title and thought, "Obviously gay marriage should be recognized...what's the next new thread?"

That's scary to the rest of us who just want to live and let live and feel bad for long-term, healthy homosexual couples who don't get the benefits after two decades together that all states grant by law to any two heterosexual idiots who can stop beating on each other long enough to exchange vows and stay together (and out of jail) long enough to burden all the rest of us to pay their bills for the kids they shouldn't have had if they couldn't afford and weren't going to raise. Their "marriage" may only last a year, but the long-term homosexual couple without any marriage benefits is still obligated by law to help pay for those kids. Is that fair?

auntysuz63

07-16-2003, 11:52 PM

Well said PW, as usual...

Bill R

07-17-2003, 10:53 AM

PW:
If your point isn't that they "should", "have to", "must", "ought to" control their urges, then what's your point in saying that homosexuality is a "choice" in the first place?

Life presents choices. Just because one choice is wrong and another is right does not mean people don't have choice. Just because several religions say something is wrong or immoral does not mean that it is NOT wrong or immoral.

You're entitled to be repulsed PERSONALLY at the thought of homosexuality and even most of us arguing against you on this thread probably feel the same way about it.

Thanks...

I just find it frightening that an experienced officer of the law can't separate his own feelings any better than this, Bill, WM, etc.

First, I'm not a cop. Seperate my feelings from what? Even if I was a cop, have I ever suggested mistreating gays or abusing authority? What I have said is that homosexual sex is wrong. Yes, that is my opinion. As you have been nice enough to admit I have a right to my opinion. I also believe it would be wrong for a man to have sex with his sister, mother, brother, father etc. I also have said I believe the courts are the wrong venue for legislative change. I have read the constitution and I can't find where it says states don't have a right to regulate marriage or enact laws based on morality. From the founding of this country the states have had morality based laws. Those laws have been based on community standards and morals. If the community thinks morals laws should be changed, the legislature is the proper place to change the laws. How does the federal government get off striking down state morality laws when the federal government itself has it's own morality laws?

retired

07-17-2003, 11:25 AM

Bill,

Originally posted by Bill R
PW:

Life presents choices. Just because one choice is wrong and another is right does not mean people don't have choice. Just because several religions say something is wrong or immoral does not mean that it is NOT wrong or immoral.

Thanks...

First, I'm not a cop. Seperate my feelings from what? Even if I was a cop, have I ever suggested mistreating gays or abusing authority? What I have said is that homosexual sex is wrong. Yes, that is my opinion. As you have been nice enough to admit I have a right to my opinion. I also believe it would be wrong for a man to have sex with his sister, mother, brother, father etc. I also have said I believe the courts are the wrong venue for legislative change. I have read the constitution and I can't find where it says states don't have a right to regulate marriage or enact laws based on morality. From the founding of this country the states have had morality based laws. Those laws have been based on community standards and morals. If the community thinks morals laws should be changed, the legislature is the proper place to change the laws. How does the federal government get off striking down state morality laws when the federal government itself has it's own morality laws?

The constitution does not prohibit the states from regulating marriage or other state functions. But what the constitution does say is everyone has the right to equality, and when that right is abused by a state, then the state is not abiding by the constitution. This is what the SC said. The courts don't legislate at all. They are only involved when someone challenges a law on constitutionality. I agree with you about the federal government and its abuses, but in this case the decision is based on the 14th amendment, not your morals or mine. You and I may think other acts are wrong, but our opinion is not the same as the SC. Personally homosexuality is not something that interests me, but then again neither do lower G.I's.

Chief Wiggum

07-17-2003, 12:08 PM

Bill , you just don't get it and I don't think you ever will.

Last I checked it WAS the SC's job to make rulings on cases that are appealed to their court. That's all they did here. The fact that it had an effect on laws nation wide is secondary. They just did their job.

Besides, it's not like sodomy statutes were ever enforced anyway. At least not until whatever idiot TX cops arrested the guys that set this whole ball rolling in the first place.

Every state has laws on the books that no one makes arrests on. That's all that the sodomy laws were.

Bill R

07-17-2003, 03:05 PM

Retired,

But what the constitution does say is everyone has the right to equality, and when that right is abused by a state, then the state is not abiding by the constitution.

Why don't dopers have the same right to mess up their lives that drunks have?

I agree with you about the federal government and its abuses, but in this case the decision is based on the 14th amendment, not your morals or mine.

I personally think if the Court was looking for a Constitutional protection for sodomy the 16th Ammendment would have been much more applicable.

You and I may think other acts are wrong, but our opinion is not the same as the SC.

Agreed. That still doesn't mean they are right, and as citizens we have the right to criticize them. ;)

ProWriter

07-17-2003, 03:56 PM

Agreed. That still doesn't mean they are right, and as citizens we have the right to criticize them.

To me this whole thread is more about the word "criticize" than about the word "citizen". There are logical rules of criticism that we're saying you guys are violating left and right. Nobody is challenging anybody's right to express himself verbally. Basically, most of us are more concerned with how you justify the logic or fairness of your "opinion" about the subject matter than about the technicalities of how laws on it are administrated or evolve.
I am not questioning your right to HAVE an opinion, I'm asking you for the logical chain that convinces you that it is so wrong MORALLY, because that's what I don't understand.

I personally think if the Court was looking for a Constitutional protection for sodomy the 16th Ammendment would have been much more applicable

My constitutional reference was the religious issue underlying anybody's objection to sodomy or homosexuality, to whatever extent one's feelings about it originate from one's religious beliefs or principles...because one can't use them to define moral "right" or "wrong" in any discussion about what our constitutional government "should" recognize in law.

I also believe it would be wrong for a man to have sex with his sister, mother, brother, father etc.

Frankly, there ARE circumstances where even brothers and sisters may want to marry each other, and the only legitimate interest the state has is in ensuring that they don't have children, etc. It's happened once in a great while that siblings separated at birth did actually meet as adults, fall in love and start spending a life together before ever finding out that they were related in the first place. Not that I'm advocating this in general, but if they had a great relationship until they found out, it didn't suddenly become a moral abomination the moment they realized it. Jewish law allows first cousins to marry, so they probably have a good Equal Protection argument too, if it should ever come up.

Why don't dopers have the same right to mess up their lives that drunks have?

As far as drugs go, there really is no logical or moral justification for the different status of alcohol consumption at home by adults and marijuana consumption at home by adults, provided nobody drives under the influence of anything. During prohibition, alcohol was treated like MJ is now, and all it did was fuel the massive growth of organized crime. It probably makes more sense to legalize and tax MJ like alcohol, but either way, it's not an Equal Protection issue.
Alcohol consumption didn't suddenly become "wrong" in a moral sense in 1919 with the 18th Amendment and then magically become "OK" again thirteen years later with the 21st Amendment.

Sometimes the Constitution, our laws, and objective morality all coincide, other times they don't. It is the human mind and its ability to reason logically, to make valid comparisons and to reach objective conclusions that drive the evolution of constitutional law, more than words actually inked onto it.

The point is, the Constitution was written long before many developments of modern life and modern scientific knowledge. Sometimes, modern supreme courts must adapt this very old document to conform to things the framers could never have envisioned or addressed two centuries ago. The fundamental point that the more sympathetic minds are trying to make here is simply that it's much harder to justify governmental intrusion into something that doesn't hurt anybody (else). Laws change back and forth all the time, but this principle does not...so for the purpose of discussing the basis for regulation, prohibition, or distinguishing different types of behavior under the law, you don't weigh what the current laws say very heavily.

have I ever suggested mistreating gays or abusing authority? What I have said is that homosexual sex is wrong. Yes, that is my opinion.

Again, it's not a question of malice or mistreatment, my question is simply why do you think it's immoral in the first place (just asking ok?). I think this thread started out to commend a decision that some people felt was deserved by many of its beneficiaries, right? You came to say that you disagreed because sodomy is wrong. OK...so I keep asking why you think it's so wrong and you keep responding that you have a right to your belief. GRANTED (and never once challenged)...now, after reading all of these arguments back and forth, I'd still simply like to know why it's wrong if you care to explain.

Bill R

07-18-2003, 09:31 AM

PW
To me this whole thread is more about the word "criticize" than about the word "citizen". There are logical rules of criticism that we're saying you guys are violating left and right. Nobody is challenging anybody's right to express himself verbally. Basically, most of us are more concerned with how you justify the logic or fairness of your "opinion" about the subject matter than about the technicalities of how laws on it are administrated or evolve.

My reference to criticzing was the supreme court decision. I disagree with the decision of the court. I have several times stated I believe it is judicial activism and that the SC has overstepped it's bounds. Justice Scalia has a very similar opinion. Retired has disagreed with my opinion of this but at least he understood it.I am not going to try and explain how gay sex is wrong and harmful. If you don't see that, I would have a extremely difficult time explaining it and staying within decent conversation on this forum.

A quote of mine you (PW) respponded to:

I personally think if the Court was looking for a Constitutional protection for sodomy the 16th Ammendment would have been much more applicable

your response:

My constitutional reference was the religious issue underlying anybody's objection to sodomy or homosexuality, to whatever extent one's feelings about it originate from one's religious beliefs or principles...because one can't use them to define moral "right" or "wrong" in any discussion about what our constitutional government "should" recognize in law.

My quote you listed was intended for Retired. I'm sure he will understand my statement. We may disagree at times but he's rather bright. Perhaps you should look at the 16th Ammendment. Perhaps you will understand also.

ProWriter

07-18-2003, 10:01 AM

I was only talking about "criticising" the (seemingly) innocent desire of same sex couples to enjoy legal recognition as married couples, not "criticism" of SC decisions on the legal issues. Any chance of just answering my questions about the actual basis of your personal moral "criticism" of same sex relationships and characterization of them as "wrong"? (Still just as curious)

Bill R

07-18-2003, 11:20 AM

PW: To me it is just plain wrong. I can't simply discard my belief in God and his word that it is wrong. Even if I did not believe in God to me it is obvious it is not the way things are supposed to work. There are two sexes for a reason. The mechanics and potential medical problems that are often associated are further reason to me. The Bible tells me that men and women are supposed to join, not men and men or women and women. To me that is confirmed by common sense and instinct. I understand many do not beieve in God or the Bible and that is their right. That does not mean that everything in the Bible is still not true. Yes, there are ways other than common sense and the word of God. IMO they are not the correct or best way though. If I look in a manual for a motorcycle, it would tell me that to start the motorcycle I should energize the ingnition and hit the starter or kick start it. It might even go into a procedure for push starting the bike if the previous methods should fail. If a person wanted to do it "their" way badly enough, I suppose they could energize the ignition and suck REAL hard on the tail pipe and start the bike. IMO that is the wrong way to do it. They may feel it is the right way, they might even be sucessful at it, they may even convince others to start their motorcycles the same way but IMO it is still the wrong way and not the way the manufacturer intended. I feel it would be wrong for the state to recognize the procedure as well.

Chief Wiggum

07-18-2003, 12:22 PM

This has more or less come down to a discussion of religous beliefs.

Of course the SC, recognizing the seperation of church and state, has ruled properly.

Don

07-18-2003, 01:02 PM

As a Christian, I believe that gay sex is immoral and wrong. I also believe that ANY sex out of marriage is immoral and wrong. (And no, I certainly have NOT lived my beliefs in the past the way I should have.) I do not believe that any Christian church should perform or recognize the marriage as a "contract between the couple and God." Simply because the bible is quite blunt about homosexuality.

That being said, I just do not see where the state has ANY business in the bedroom. If two guys, or two gals decide to get "married" then let them go ahead with a civil ceremony and do so.

And should a person of the cloth feel free to perform the marriage in some type of religious ceremony, then I believe that should be between that person and his/her maker.

In other words, while I disagree with the practice of it, I do not feel like my beliefs should be forced on other people. As Christians, we can present our beliefs, teach to the best of our ability. However each one has to make their own choice as individuals. It is not up to Christians to "ram our beliefs down everyone else's throats."

ProWriter

07-18-2003, 07:31 PM

That's different, and Don has answered the question that seems impossible to get answered directly by Bill:

Don's only MORAL criticism of homosexuality is religious and he acknlowledges (I think) that there really is no other MORAL objection to what any two adults do privately in that regard. I would guess (?) that BUT FOR the religious issue, Don would have no particular moral concern about homosexuality either way.

The difference is that Bill says "part" of his criticism is religious without ever answering what ELSE bothers him about it in a moral sense. If a child (of atheist parents) took candy from a store they would tell him it's wrong to do so. When the child asked why it's wrong, they'd explain something about it belonging to the store, how the store owners make a living and how they had to pay for it too, right? They wouldn't just keep saying "because I think it's wrong".

All I've been asking Bill over and over here, is OTHER than any religious teachings, what is "wrong" with same sex relationships. The reason I want to know is that Don (whose religious objection is similar) expresses what is objectively reasonable...that is, it's wrong in his religion but OTHERWISE seems innocent enough, morally speaking. Bill seems to be saying it's wrong in his religion, and ALSO "wrong" or "immoral" in some objective sense.

All I'm asking here is that Bill articulate some logical justification to explain the difference between his position and Don's, with which I have no argument, precisely, because Don isn't expressing any view at all about what "should" be done by courts or legislators to conform to his religious views. Don seems to be expressing a "live and let live" position, which sounds (to me, at least) to be a much more "Christian" attitude to morality.

auntysuz63

07-19-2003, 05:31 PM

This has more or less come down to a discussion of religous beliefs.

I couldn't agree more. I posted something similar to this on a thread about same sex prom dates, but I feel it's valid here as well. I walked away from organized religion years ago because the churches I attended were so full of judgemental people. They would size up attendees based on the clothes they wore, the jobs they had, the family background they had, and everything else in between, then deem them fit or unfit by their own personal standards, which, in their self-righteous minds, was "god-like." I'm not a perfect Christian...I don't think there is one alive, but I do try to treat people the way I want to be treated.

It's sad that society has gotten to be so biased, bigotted and in some cases, downright hateful in its pursuit of being "moral" and what is "right," losing both morals and what's right in the process.

DaveInTx

07-19-2003, 11:01 PM

I don't see this (homosexual marriage) as primarily a religious issue at all--it is a civil issue with ramifications in many areas, including conferring certain tax and other financial advantages to the persons so certified as "married". The state's interest in setting up rules for marriage and the benefits that accrue to those in such a union are for one reason only: to provide a stable and appropriate family environment for the raising of the next generation. Since homosexuals, by definition, are not capable of having progeny, they should not be afforded the same financial advantages given to couples of mixed gender (which could, at least in principle, produce children). Once the state has provided an environment that could provide a better chance for the raising of children, it has done its job. It does not matter that some couples are physically unable to have children, because determining that would require the state obtaining information about their sex life that should not be available (privacy). This is not the case with same-sex partners, however--it is obvious on the face of it that children cannot be produced by such a union. Oh, but you say that same-sex couples can adopt children--even children that are unwanted by other adoptive parents--and raise them in a loving home? I concede the possibility, but it is by no means a given. I also do not consider such a home as a suitable one since I believe that children are best raised by a set of parents of opposite gender--children learn different things from their fathers and mothers, whether one wants to believe that or not, and I think that "traditional" families with 2 parents, one male and one female, are the best for rearing children. There have been a few studies recently that even support this idea (sorry--no links), much to my supreme surprise, given the extreme liberal tilt of most "experts" making investigations in the area of family life.

You will note that I have not even mentioned the idea that God in the Bible (and quite a few other religions, too) have espoused the concept that children should be raised by "traditional" families. Although I do believe those precepts, they do not form the basis for my position. In the end, "it's for the children".

MHO
DaveInTx

Bill R

07-20-2003, 03:30 PM

PW:

The difference is that Bill says "part" of his criticism is religious without ever answering what ELSE bothers him about it in a moral sense. If a child (of atheist parents) took candy from a store they would tell him it's wrong to do so. When the child asked why it's wrong, they'd explain something about it belonging to the store, how the store owners make a living and how they had to pay for it too, right? They wouldn't just keep saying "because I think it's wrong".

If it is only wrong in a religious sense, why do atheists also see homosexual sex as wrong? Even the godless comminists frowned on homosexuality. Some things are simply universal truths, even people without religious indoctrination see them as wrong. There have been a couple times when my male dog has had another male dog try to mount him. My dog broke bad on the other dog. My dog has no religious background, yet he knows it ain't right for another male dog to hump him. While I'll concede male dogs will try to hump just about anything (even inanimate objects) I haven't really seen any male dogs (even castrated ones) that want to be the bitch. I can't particularly recall ever seeing a female dog use a strapon device to service another female dog either. It is not natural. It is not normal. It is deviant behavior. It does not take religion to figure out that it is not right. I have no desire to persecute gays. If some guy wants to have a penis in his rectum I really don't care. I don't particularly want to hear about it. I sure as heck am not going to say that the practice is normal, healthy behavior that should be sanctioned by the state. I also agree it is wrong for heterosexuals to screw everything in sight, producing illegitimate children and then too often expecting the state to support them because they have produced offspring.

ProWriter

07-20-2003, 04:42 PM

You still haven't articulated what bothers you about it MORALLY. That was the only question asked.

Chief Wiggum

07-20-2003, 07:38 PM

DaveInTx,

Your entire post is assumption, opinion, and supposition. I don't know where you get your information but it's not based in fact.

So if my wife and I cannot have children we shouldn't be married? I think you tried to answer this point in your post but it wasn't very clear.

What about a woman who's had a historectomy. There is NO chance she'll be able to have children. What about her? What about people born with some kind of condition or birth defect that doesn't allow them to have children?

What's the LEGAL difference between a married couple that uses a sperm donation to have a child and a lesbian couple that does the same?

You speak of many things that you don't consider appropriate. Many disagree with you.

auntysuz63

07-21-2003, 01:03 AM

I have no desire to persecute gays. If some guy wants to have a penis in his rectum I really don't care. I don't particularly want to hear about it. I sure as heck am not going to say that the practice is normal, healthy behavior that should be sanctioned by the state.

It is abundantly clear to me that you feel homosexuality is evil, wicked, bad and immoral, and I suspect the why of it has to do with very, very strict religious beliefs. Fine. But that doesn't make you the moral curve to which everyone should adhere to. The God I subscribe to firmly tells me to judge not, lest I be judged, and that he that is without sin cast the first stone. In other words, you worry about your own house and God will take care of the judging. Perhaps when all is said and done, and we face our judgement day, these things will be revealed to us with clarity. Until then, I think it's best for me to treat others as I want to be treated, and I wish more people felt the same way. I feel that "kinder, gentler" nation our current president's father embraced during his campaigning days might come to fruition if more people believed that way.

You say you don't want to persecute gay people, yet you want and encourage the state to continue to deny homosexuals the legal freedom to share insurance coverage, have "next of kin" status, etc, which is only afforded by a recognized "legal" marriage in most states. Is that denial not a form of persecution? If you think homosexuality activity is biblically and morally wrong on a personal level, then I strongly suggest you live what you believe and not participate in that activity, but don't deny others their freedom in the process.

Deputy757

07-21-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
Are you saying that homosexuals can choose to be or not to be gay?

Can you choose not to be a heterosexual?

I can't. I was born this way.

First, sorry it took so long to respond. Been on a much needed vacation!
Anyway....yes, I'm saying that people choose to be either homo or heterosexual. You say you can't choose otherwise but there is nothing that could keep you from having sex with another man...except that you may prefer not to. I'm well aware that there are studies that say sexual orientation is fixed at birth, but for every study that says that there is another that says otherwise.

auntysuz63,
you mention that Jesus was kind to the prostitute, quite obviously a sinner, and you are correct. However, He also told her to "go forth and sin no more". By saving her life, Christ was in no way justifying her immoral activity. He was simply pointing out that we are all sinners. Furthermore, since Christians strive to live their lives as Christ would, it's incumbent upon us to confront our friends and neighbors when they are participating in behavior that is immoral. Not to confront in a mean and judgmental way, but in a kind and forgiving way. Obviously, if the person is committed to continue sinning in that manner..we can only pray for them and hope that they someday see what they are doing to themselves.
Now, before you accuse me of riding a moral high horse...I'm not saying that Christians are immune from sin or somehow better than anyone else. History is filled with those who tried to force their personal views on others in the name of Christianity. It's also filled with those who certainly failed, at some point, to practice what they preach. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is wrong.
PW,
you keep saying that Bill hasn't answered your question, but he has. Accepting homosexual behavior as being normal or moral is impossible, for anyone that accepts the Bible as the living word of God. It's expressly forbidden and named an unnatural act. That's why he, and I for that matter, see it as sinful and immoral behavior.

Chief Wiggum

07-21-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
First, sorry it took so long to respond. Been on a much needed vacation!
Anyway....yes, I'm saying that people choose to be either homo or heterosexual. You say you can't choose otherwise but there is nothing that could keep you from having sex with another man...except that you may prefer not to. I'm well aware that there are studies that say sexual orientation is fixed at birth, but for every study that says that there is another that says otherwise.

The part that you don't seem to understand (and I thought EVERYBODY understood this) is that it is the PREFER part that you speak of that makes us heterosexuals or homosexuals. Not choosing. Is a virgin male that is extremely attracted to women not a heterosexual because he hasn't had sex with a woman? What about a priest that is attracted to men but lives his whole life without so much as kissing a man. Doesn't the fact that he prefers or is attracted to men make him a homosexual even if he never touches a man? A man that is only attracted to men can force himself to have sex with women but that doesn't make him a heterosexual.

What if you went out and had sex with a man right now? Would that make you a homosexual?

Your probably thinking that you wouldn't and you couldn't. But not because god says it's wrong (although you may consider that a factor) but because you are not attracted to men and have no internal desire to do so. You are attracted to women internally, and THAT is what makes you a heterosexual.

But the ultimate question is this:

GIVEN THE PERSECUTION HOMOSEXUALS FACE IN SOCIETY WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL? :confused:

Bill R

07-21-2003, 03:48 PM

Chief Wiggum,
The part that you don't seem to understand (and I thought EVERYBODY understood this) is that it is the PREFER part that you speak of that makes us heterosexuals or homosexuals.

The choice is in the actions. The priest you gave as an example chose to not act on his preference. I prefer to drive really fast. I prefer to not pay taxes. In spite of my preferences I choose to drive somewhere reasonably close to the speed limit and pay taxes.

Chief Wiggum

07-21-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
Chief Wiggum,

The choice is in the actions. The priest you gave as an example chose to not act on his preference. I prefer to drive really fast. I prefer to not pay taxes. In spite of my preferences I choose to drive somewhere reasonably close to the speed limit and pay taxes.

Duh...I get that. What I am saying is....isn't a person who is attracted to people of the same sex a homosexual even without the physical act of sex?

The speeding comparison is irrelavant. Apples and rocks AGAIN.

auntysuz63

07-22-2003, 12:33 AM

Furthermore, since Christians strive to live their lives as Christ would, it's incumbent upon us to confront our friends and neighbors when they are participating in behavior that is immoral.

Christians are supposed to do this? Confront friends and neighbors when they are participating in immoral behavior? By whose standards? I have met VERY FEW Christians who are even close to being Christ-like. They all have their big and little prejudices and they wrap them in and around their Christianity, and use that as justification for mistreating people in the name of Heaven. Christians should lead by example not by confrontation. The truest, purest Christian people I've ever met lived what they believed, did not sit in judgement of their fellow man, and opened their arms to anyone (especially in the church) no matter who they were or what they did or how they lived. I admired them for their faith and the devotion in life to their fellow man, for the better of mankind. In so doing, they enabled people to find the true meaning of life with God.

You have the right to believe as you do and I admire your convictions. I just disagree with your philosophy and I also disagree with the Christian desire of legislating morality. Christianity is not "the only game in town" (referring to those who practice other religions such as catholocism, judaism, buddhism, etc). Once again and I'll say it over and over, if you find a behavior un-Christian-like, immoral or whatever, then my strong suggestion is that you don't participate in it. No one has the right to dictate to others how to live their private lives, as long as it conforms with the law of the land.

A General Comment...

And if we did try to legislate morality, who would be the ones making up the morality laws? Who would make up the morality police? Who would be the ones going into people's bedrooms and saying, "Ah, ah, no no, that's immoral and you can't do that. Off to jail with you." Would part of our civics classes have to include classes dealing with what is legal/moral and illegal/immoral for Johnny and Jane to do in the privacy of their own homes, in their own bedrooms, as consenting adults? I can't think of a single solitary soul in politics today or any religious leader in the US or world that I would want to be the ones making the morality rules for us as a nation.

Glad you had a nice vacation, 757. Aren't they a blessing?

PHXCOP

07-22-2003, 07:00 AM

This is a good debate of sides that dont want to give an inch.

I assume that we are arguing because its fun.

Im not gay, if gays want to be legally gay, let them. What does it really change? You werent named in the insurance policy anyway..

Photogrrlz

07-22-2003, 11:32 PM

Ok I didn't take the time to read all 7 pages of post here, but I will say my 2 cent on what I know. First of all animals have the same tendancies <sp?> as humans to have mates of the same sex. Therefore it should show that it is not perversion and that it is not an choice.

As for the bible there are many different ways people read it and that because one person feels its against god doesn't mean another person sees it the same way. I mean the bible mentions women shouldn't wear pants but yet I dont see that causing the downfall of society. In that case many women are sinning.

Also I like to mention that what goes on in someone's bedroom sexually isn't the governments business nor anyone elses for that matter. I also feel that like our neighbors to the north we should legalize gay marriage and give equal rights and privaliges that come with it.

I also fell that gays should be able to serve openly in the military without the fear of hiding their lifestyle. And if they are found out there should not be any unhonorable discharge with it.

If anyone has any desire here is a good website to check out:

Planetout (http://www.planetout.com)

auntysuz63

07-23-2003, 12:27 AM

I assume that we are arguing because its fun.

Of course we're arguing because it's fun! It's a "spirited debate."

I have found it immensely interesting that there is absolutely, positively no gray area or "well, maybe" about this topic. It's definitely black and white, for it or against it. The reasons for it and against it may vary, but that's the bottom line.

Deputy757

07-23-2003, 01:07 AM

photogrrlz,
Your opinion is welcomed but I'd like to address just a couple of points that you made.
First of all animals have the same tendancies <sp?> as humans to have mates of the same sex.
I'll address the animal issue first. With the exception of one species of ape or monkey, I'm not aware of any others that practice homosexuality. I'm also curious as to what tendency you are referring to above. I wasn't aware that humans or animals have a tendency towards homosexuality. Does that mean that all the straight people are actually just choosing to be heterosexual when their true inclination is otherwise? Finally, I would argue that you can't have a "mate", in this context, of the same sex.
Next, you say that...As for the bible there are many different ways people read it and that because one person feels its against god doesn't mean another person sees it the same way.
I would agree that arguing that homosexuality is wrong based on what is said in the Bible would fall short against someone who doesn't accept that the Bible is actually the inspired word of God. But if you do accept it for being this then it's pretty clear how homosexuality is viewed by God. Notice I said homosexuality, not homosexuals.
Now, having said that, I would agree with what you say here in the sense that many people will try and twist what the Bible says in order to make it fit their agenda, i.e. David Koresh.
Secondly, again referencing the statement above, it's not just a matter of one person not seeing it at another does. Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam...the major faiths of the world all condemn homosexuality. I'll grant you there are many people within those faiths that feel differently but they do so knowing that it's an act expressely noted as unnatural and immoral by the very figure they regard as their Creator.

auntysuz, you ask...Confront friends and neighbors when they are participating in immoral behavior? By whose standards? I guess I should have used the term "fellow believers" instead of friends and neighbors. We are commanded to hold those who are our brothers in Christ accountable for their actions, and to be accountable for our own actions to them. I never said that most Christians were Christ like, just that we (should) strive to be as Christ-like as we can. Obviously, we are going to fall short as none of us are perfect. I would disagree though that...They all have their big and little prejudices and they wrap them in and around their Christianity, and use that as justification for mistreating people in the name of Heaven. Sure, it's probably true for some...but I feel like you are making a blanket statement about all Christians and that's just not appropriate.
You go on to say that...The truest, purest Christian people I've ever met....opened their arms to anyone (especially in the church) no matter who they were or what they did or how they lived. There are touchy-feely churches springing up that advocate acceptance of everyone and everything but they aren't a shiny example of Christianity. Yes...open your arms to someone who wants to try and live their lives in accordance to the commands Christ has given us. Yes...open up your arms to someone who has fallen short and truly repents of what they did. But why would you open your arms to someone who subscribes to a course of behavior that is against the very thing your faith is supposed to stand for? Would you open your arms to a man who publicly and shamelessly cheated on his wife? Or how about a domestic violence abuser who felt it was ok to beat the crap out of his wife? Yes, I know the argument has been made that adultery actually hurts someone else whereas homosexuality does not. But, the arguments for and against this idea aside, you said anyone...no matter who they were or what they did or how they lived. You can't have it both ways!

Photogrrlz

07-23-2003, 01:38 AM

Deputy,

I meant that homosexuality is a normal occurence with all species and it is not a choice that is made. I mean a person doesn't wake up one day and say dang I choose to be gay today like you would deciding what to wear the red shirt not the white shirt.

As for the mate aspect I meant a partner even husband or wife if you will. I mean I don't control who I love and if it is another woman so be it as long as we are happy together. That is what I meant by mate.

Deputy757

07-23-2003, 06:52 AM

photogrrlz,
Again...I would argue that homosexuality is NOT a normal occurrence among ALL species. By and large, animals act on instinct..not by choice. So to say that a dog, for example, could or would choose to be homosexual is incorrect. This is not to say that, as mentioned in my previous post, there aren't ANY species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.
As to the choice issue, as mentioned before, I fall on the side that believes that practicing homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a choice that one makes...not a predestined, "it's in the genes" type of behavior.
Point taken on how you used the word "mate". I would respectfully disagree that you can control who you love. I usually hear this phrase (not saying this describes you) from people who are married, engaged, or otherwise committed, when they cheat on their significant other. If you are in a committed relationship, how do you end up "in love" with someone else? While we like to romanticize about love at first sight, it's usually the byproduct of spending time with someone in an intimate way where feelings are allowed to grow. I'm not saying that it's impossible to fall in love with someone even if you are involved with someone else, I'm just saying that you have most definitely had control over how this happened.

Chief Wiggum

07-23-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757

As to the choice issue, as mentioned before, I fall on the side that believes that practicing homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a choice that one makes...not a predestined, "it's in the genes" type of behavior.
Point taken on how you used the word "mate". I would respectfully disagree that you can control who you love. I usually hear this phrase (not saying this describes you) from people who are married, engaged, or otherwise committed, when they cheat on their significant other. If you are in a committed relationship, how do you end up "in love" with someone else? While we like to romanticize about love at first sight, it's usually the byproduct of spending time with someone in an intimate way where feelings are allowed to grow. I'm not saying that it's impossible to fall in love with someone even if you are involved with someone else, I'm just saying that you have most definitely had control over how this happened.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!!

It's not the "practicing" of homo or heterosexuality that makes one gay. OBVIOUSLY "practicing" either of these behaviors is a choice.

BEING heterosexual or homosexual is not a choice. WHO you are attracted to (either males or females in general) is not a choice. A priest that never touches a female his whole life but is highly attracted to them is still a heterosexual. He is choosing not to "PRACTICE" heterosexual behavior but he is still a heterosexual. IF he were to engage in sex or have an intimate relationship he would exclusively prefer a female.

IT is which gender you are ATTRACTED TO that makes you either heterosexual or homosexual. Not the act of sex.

BEING HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL IS NOT A CHOICE. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

Deputy757

07-23-2003, 08:35 PM

No Chief, I do get it...just not the same way you do (no pun intended)! We quite obviously disagree as to whether it's a choice or not. Since this is the fundamental base of what we each believe, there is in all likelihood no way we could convince each other to see it differently. So chill out...and quit shouting...I hear just fine!:D

auntysuz63

07-23-2003, 11:42 PM

They all have their big and little prejudices and they wrap them in and around their Christianity, and use that as justification for mistreating people in the name of Heaven. Sure, it's probably true for some...but I feel like you are making a blanket statement about all Christians and that's just not appropriate.
Oops...I broke my own rule. You know the one I mean: "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one!" Of course not ALL Christians are self righteous and prejudiced. (see next paragraph).
There are touchy-feely churches springing up that advocate acceptance of everyone and everything but they aren't a shiny example of Christianity. Yes...open your arms to someone who wants to try and live their lives in accordance to the commands Christ has given us. Yes...open up your arms to someone who has fallen short and truly repents of what they did.
Who said anything about "touchy-feely"? Not me. And the church I'm speaking of, and the folks I'm referring to, didn't just "spring up." They've been around for years and years. The people I'm referring to were the leaders of the Salvation Army church were I came from before I moved south. They welcomed anyone into their church, helped them over addictions (if they asked for it), gave them clothes if they needed it or a place to sleep if they were homeless. There were never strings attached...no, "I'll only help you if." They led by example and were the most kind and compassionate people I've ever known. I never once heard a judgemental phrase come out of their mouths. Now I don't know what their church doctrine says, because I've never looked at it or attended. As I said, I gave up on organized religion years ago. But I never heard them say a bad word about anyone. I became associated with these folks during a Christmas campaign for the less fortunate. We formed a coalition to help those in need during one Christmas season, rather than each group going off on our own, we pooled our resources.
But why would you open your arms to someone who subscribes to a course of behavior that is against the very thing your faith is supposed to stand for?
What I stand for and believe doesn't have anything to do with someone else's behavior and it is not the moral curve for how others should live their life. It is the moral curve for how I live my life, how I treat people. I don't believe that what I think of others matters to God at all. However, I do believe how I treat people in this life does matter to God, and I will have to answer for that in the end, both good and bad. I believe God knows we do the best we can in this life.
Would you open your arms to a man who publicly and shamelessly cheated on his wife? Or how about a domestic violence abuser who felt it was ok to beat the crap out of his wife?
What business is it of mine if a man cheats on his wife? That is between the man and his wife and God. If he came to me and asked my opinion, I might tell him that is something I wouldn't do because for me it isn't right, but that he would have to search his own heart and decide what was right for him. A domestic violence abuser is a different matter. Would I shun him? Probably, but not for the reason you think. I would probably be very afraid of him being that I was in a situation with a potentially violent boyfriend that frightened the dickens out of me. So violent people scare me and I'm not too sure I could be their friend.
you said anyone...no matter who they were or what they did or how they lived. You can't have it both ways!
That's taken out of context. Yes, I said anyone, but I was referring to the folks from the Salvation Army, not myself. I do the best I can, but as I pointed out with domestic violence offenders, I don't always succeed. I also have a hard time with baby rapers and murderers. Not sure I could be as loving and forgiving and helping as our jail chaplain was, where I used to work. But again, as for what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, my opinion is irrelevant.

Deputy757

07-24-2003, 05:43 PM

Let me get this straight. You would be ok belonging to a church where people openly flouted the teachings/laws/commandments of whatever supreme being this church happened to recognize? I hear what you are saying...you take care of yourself and leave everyone else to their own devices. But where is the brotherhood in that? Where is the fellowship? The apostle Paul tell us to not associate with sexually immoral people, not meaning the people of the world, but anyone who calls themselves a brother in Christ. He goes on to say that it's not his (our) business to judge those outside the church, that God will judge them. However, it is our business to judge those inside it, and I'm sure conversely, to be judged by them. Paul finishes up by telling us to expel the wicked from among us.
Now Paul is not saying that we should not help or forgive each other when we fall short and sin. But if someone is unrepentant and continues to sin in whatever fashion they have chosen, then how could the church administration allow them to remain member's of that congregation? Wouldn't people (nonmembers) looking in find it awfully hypocritical for the church to say they stand for this or that while church members were allowed to do things that rejected that message? Isn't this what Christians are always being accused of...even within this thread?
I have a lot of respect for the Salvation Army. And the things they do that you mention aren't done with strings attached, I agree. But doing charitable work is another matter. I'm sure the Salvation Army would take issue if one of their members decided that needy people were SOL and needed to just learn how to manage on their own. They would take issue because that attitude is detrimental to their core belief and I would imagine that person would be invited to either come around to their way of thinking or leave.

auntysuz63

07-24-2003, 09:16 PM

Let me get this straight. You would be ok belonging to a church where people openly flouted the teachings/laws/commandments of whatever supreme being this church happened to recognize?
No, I wouldn't be okay belonging to that church. I have clearly said that I have given up on organized religion and will probablynever attend any church ever again. I'm sorry, I thought I made that abundantly clear.
The apostle Paul tell us to not associate with sexually immoral people, not meaning the people of the world, but anyone who calls themselves a brother in Christ. He goes on to say that it's not his (our) business to judge those outside the church, that God will judge them. However, it is our business to judge those inside it, and I'm sure conversely, to be judged by them. Paul finishes up by telling us to expel the wicked from among us.
I am not and probably never will be again, a member of a church,nor do I refer to myself as a "sister in Christ". Rather I think of myself as a believer going through this world trying to do the best that I can do for my family, my friends and my community.
Wouldn't people (nonmembers) looking in find it awfully hypocritical for the church to say they stand for this or that while church members were allowed to do things that rejected that message? Isn't this what Christians are always being accused of...even within this thread?
Yes, I guess you're right and I'm living proof of that. As I've shared in previous posts, at least from where I stood on the outside looking in, churches are hypocritical. Again, not all churches. Churches say things to get you in the door, like "All welcome here" and "We're so glad to have you sharing our service" and "We are all brothers and sisters in Christ." Then, "Aha! You don't/won't conform to our way of thinking, be gone with you and don't come back until you do what WE say." Occasionally, they throw a little scripture at you to back up their snobbishness, holier than thou, better than you attitude, as if the scriptures make this treating people like this okay. And just FYI, this never happened to me personally. But it did happen in more than one church I attended, and that's why I left and never looked back.

So, I worship through prayer, meditation, and study, associating with folks and setting the best example I can, fellowshipping that way. I'll do my part to assist charitably and give of myself. If the Bible is to be translated literally, then I was condemned to hell a long time ago for wearing pants, not taking a husband as soon as I was of age, and when I did marry, not letting my husband rule the roost and me. But I'll still do the best I can, and in faith, God will look favorably upon me anyway. Organized religion sure doesn't.

As for the Salvation Army and the people I came to know that Christmas season, I can only say I admire them and try my best to follow the example they set.

Deputy757

07-25-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by auntysuz63
No, I wouldn't be okay belonging to that church. I have clearly said that I have given up on organized religion and will probablynever attend any church ever again. I'm sorry, I thought I made that abundantly clear.

Fine, I get it..you don't believe in organized religion. But is that your reason for not belonging to the church I described...or because that kind of church is exactly the kind that people point to when they say that organized religion is unproductive?

I am not and probably never will be again, a member of a church,nor do I refer to myself as a "sister in Christ". Rather I think of myself as a believer going through this world trying to do the best that I can do for my family, my friends and my community.
Ok...you're a believer...but a believer in what? Are you saying that you believe in Christ but not His message? That you accept what He says is right...unless it makes you feel uncomfortable? Or do you just believe that as long as we are good people and do the things you mention (be nice to everyone, do our best for our friends/family, etc.), you will be ok? This a nice notion, and one that is perpetuated by lots of churches, but it clashes with what we are told when Paul says that we have been saved by grace, through faith-not by works, so that no one can boast!

Churches say things to get you in the door, like "All welcome here" and "We're so glad to have you sharing our service" and "We are all brothers and sisters in Christ." Then, "Aha! You don't/won't conform to our way of thinking, be gone with you and don't come back until you do what WE say." Occasionally, they throw a little scripture at you to back up their snobbishness, holier than thou, better than you attitude, as if the scriptures make this treating people like this okay.
Except for saying that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (only those who have accepted Christ as their Savior would be considered a brother/sister "in Christ"), I don't see anything wrong with what they are saying. Churches evangelize all the time...that's how they grow. But are you saying that if someone comes there, rejects the core belief that the church is based on BUT still wants to remain are part of the congregation, that the church should allow that person to remain?

If the Bible is to be translated literally, then I was condemned to hell a long time ago for wearing pants, not taking a husband as soon as I was of age, and when I did marry, not letting my husband rule the roost and me.
Check the bible again...there is only one unpardonable sin and none of those that you listed are it. As a matter of fact, the bible says that it's better not to marry. As for the husband ruling the roost...I imagine you are refering to the scripture that says, "Wives..submit to your husbands as to the Lord". If the passage left it at that...I too would find it a bit disconcerting. But there are about 8 or 9 more verses after that.

You sound like a wonderful person and I'm glad that you have found a way of dealing with life that brings you happiness. I also rejected organized religion many years ago when I could no longer take the inconsistencies between what the Catholic church was teaching (then) and what the Bible had to say. I found something better within Christianity. But let me tell you about the Christian church that I know. It does not condemn people to hell because of who they are or what they do. However, it does condemn acts that people commit as being immoral and wrong. It points to the teachings of Christ as to what those people can expect if they never repent of those sins. It also points out that if I sin by gossiping about someone, or lying, or whatever....I'm no better than those who sin by engaging in adultery or homosexuality. Sin is sin...it's how we deal with it that makes the difference. I know, I know...if all it takes is to tell God we're sorry and we are forgiven..then we are free to do this over and over again, living a life that is morally corrupt while enjoying God's mercy. But do you really think that God is that stupid..that He doesn't know our hearts better than we do? I don't think so!
Well..I'm done preaching!! :D I think we've reaching a pretty good understanding of where we all stand on this issue. I'm surprised Don hasn't shut it down already since a little controversy seems to trigger his censor button! (Sorry Don..just calling it like I see it...;) ) I respect your position..and everyone else who has posted.
Take care!

Chief Wiggum

07-25-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
No Chief, I do get it...just not the same way you do (no pun intended)! We quite obviously disagree as to whether it's a choice or not. Since this is the fundamental base of what we each believe, there is in all likelihood no way we could convince each other to see it differently. So chill out...and quit shouting...I hear just fine!:D

I guess you can't argue with those that choose to live in ignorance (in case there is any confusion I'm refering to Deputy 757, not myself). I guess I just can't believe that any inteligent person really thinks that it is a choice.

But you still haven't answered any of my questions.

Why would someone choose homosexuality?

If the behavior is what makes a heterosexual or a homosexual then what about a virgin priest that has never even touched a woman but is still very attracted to them? Is he a heterosexual?

I was attracted to girls at a young age. Are you saying that I wasn't a heterosexual until I had sex for the first time (last week :D )?

What about a gay man that stays in the closet his whole life and never touches a man despite being very attracted to them? Is he a homosexual?

How do we chose who we are attracted to?

DaveInTx

07-25-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
If the behavior is what makes a heterosexual or a homosexual then what about a virgin priest that has never even touched a woman but is still very attracted to them? Is he a heterosexual?
He would be a latent heterosexual, but not a practicing heterosexual.

I was attracted to girls at a young age. Are you saying that I wasn't a heterosexual until I had sex for the first time (last week :D )?
You were not a practicing heterosexual until you had sex the first time; obviously you were a latent heterosexual earlier.

What about a gay man that stays in the closet his whole life and never touches a man despite being very attracted to them? Is he a homosexual?
He would be a latent homosexual, but not a practicing one.

How do we chose who we are attracted to?
Perhaps we do not, but we can influence the choice by limiting the group we allow ourselves to become intimate with.

I believe the nature of the argument about this reflects the difference between latent tendencies and actual practice. The law, by its very nature, ought not to be looking at latent tendencies but should only address actual behaviour. This is true of any law, about any subject. That we have laws today that attempt to comprehend thought, intent, etc. is regretable, since no one can know the thoughts of another with certainty--all that can be discovered for sure is what actions occurred. Although a person may not be able to change or influence his latent tendencies toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality, he certainly is able to control his actual behaviour, and that is really all that anyone is expecting of him. (I'm using the he/his/him as generic for both genders, here). And behaviour does not only cover actual sexual activities, but also the espousal or encouragement of such activities as "normal" among the children of persons who clearly do not believe them to be such.

Incidentally, there are "asexual" persons who are not inclined to have sexual encounters with either gender (nor with any other creatures, I might add). I would presume that they would not be considered to be either homo- or heterosexual, even though they might marry for the purposes of obtaining the benefits thereof.

MHO
flashguy

Chief Wiggum

07-25-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by DaveInTx
[B

Perhaps we do not, but we can influence the choice by limiting the group we allow ourselves to become intimate with.

[/B]

I guess you can call it "latent" if you want but the point I was making is that we do not choose who we are attracted to. We can obviously choose who we are intimate with. I choose to be intimate with my wife and only her. It doesn't mean I'm not attracted to other women.

Who we are intimate with is a choice. Who we are attracted to is not a choice (ie men or women). Call it "latent" homosexuality or heterosexuality if you want. It's still one or the other. And yes I know that there are asexual people as well. There are bisexuals too but I think that they're just greedy :D .

Point is that being a homosexual ("latent" or otherwise) is not a choice.

DaveInTx

07-25-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
...Point is that being a homosexual ("latent" or otherwise) is not a choice.
And my point is that it is no one else's business what your tendency is as long as it remains only latent. It is only society's business when it becomes overt.

flashguy

Chief Wiggum

07-25-2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by DaveInTx
And my point is that it is no one else's business what your tendency is as long as it remains only latent. It is only society's business when it becomes overt.

flashguy

And why is it society's business when it becomes overt?

I'm "overtly" heterosexual. Is that society's business?

Deputy757

07-25-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
I guess you can't argue with those that choose to live in ignorance (in case there is any confusion I'm refering to Deputy 757, not myself). I guess I just can't believe that any inteligent person really thinks that it is a choice.
So..if I don't agree with the way you think...I'm ignorant? And you accuse me of being closeminded??? There have been numerous studies by scientists, socialogists, psychologists, etc., that have come down on both sides of the issue. I'm quite sure that most of these people, no matter what they believe, are not ignorant. Some people, like me, don't need to be told by man that it's right or wrong. My God has made it quite clear that it's an unnatural act and I happen to agree.

But you still haven't answered any of my questions.

Why would someone choose homosexuality?
Why would anyone choose to commit any sin...because it feels good, or because they just can.
Since you have a problem understanding what I'm trying to say...we are all born heterosexual. Now you can choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and people will call you a homosexual, just as you could choose to live a lifestyle that was comprised of fast and easy sex with lots of partners...and people would call you a slut/whore!
It's no wonder it's called an alternate lifestyle..it's an alternative to what is right and moral!

n567

07-25-2003, 08:53 PM

Why would someone choose homosexuality?
Why would anyone choose to commit any sin...because it feels good, or because they just can.
Since you have a problem understanding what I'm trying to say...we are all born heterosexual. Now you can choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and people will call you a homosexual, just as you could choose to live a lifestyle that was comprised of fast and easy sex with lots of partners...and people would call you a slut/whore!
It's no wonder it's called an alternate lifestyle..it's an alternative to what is right and moral!

It's a choice? You don't have very many homosexual friends, do you?

Though, 757, perhaps you're just bisexual, and you repress these tendencies; because not all of us can choose what sex we're attracted to, if you can, perhaps it's not a choice, 757! :D

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

auntysuz63

07-26-2003, 12:40 AM

...we are all born heterosexual. Now you can choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and people will call you a homosexual, just as you could choose to live a lifestyle that was comprised of fast and easy sex with lots of partners...and people would call you a slut/whore!
You believe that we are all born heterosexual. If that is so, then why do many homosexuals, when asked why they have the lifestyle they do, reply, "I don't know, I guess I was born this way." This is not like saying chocolate is your favorite candy or that red is your favorite color; it can't be compared to choosing to drive fast or fixing a motorcycle properly (Bill R's analogies). I would venture to say that for the same reasons heterosexuals don't know "why" they are the way they are, they just are, so are homosexuals. Some heterosexuals would tell you "that's the way God made me." At risk of being declared a blasphemer, I believe that homosexuals feel the same way. Whether they are right or wrong, I don't know. This is different from a pedophile or rapist, who uses sex as a weapon or a power play. We're talking about people in loving, giving relationships and there is a very distinct difference. There ARE promiscuous homosexuals and there are promiscuous heterosexuals, true. But not all are considered that way.

Tell me, before the TX law was struck down, were any men ever prosecuted for sodomizing their wives (we're talking here about consenting adults...not rape, two totally different things)? Or was this law targeting homosexual males only? Because if the law was not applied equally, then guess what? It was discriminatory in nature and should have been declared unconstitional.

Deputy757

07-26-2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by auntysuz63
You believe that we are all born heterosexual. If that is so, then why do many homosexuals, when asked why they have the lifestyle they do, reply, "I don't know, I guess I was born this way."
Ummmm...because it's easier than saying, "I've decided that I don't care about what is right or wrong and just want to do what feels good!"
I would venture to say that for the same reasons heterosexuals don't know "why" they are the way they are, they just are, so are homosexuals.
Who says we don't know why we are the way we are? I guess some might say that but it is pretty obvious to me and most of the people I know!

Some heterosexuals would tell you "that's the way God made me." At risk of being declared a blasphemer, I believe that homosexuals feel the same way. Whether they are right or wrong, I don't know.
The big difference is, if we are speaking within the context of how God made people, that the heterosexual people would be right. Homosexuals may claim that they are born that way, but they can't (legitimately) claim that God made them that way when God expressly condemns homosexuality.

Tell me, before the TX law was struck down, were any men ever prosecuted for sodomizing their wives (we're talking here about consenting adults...not rape, two totally different things)? Or was this law targeting homosexual males only? Because if the law was not applied equally, then guess what? It was discriminatory in nature and should have been declared unconstitional.
I don't know about how the Texas authorities went about enforcing this law. However, I agree that a law that doesn't apply equally to everyone is not a good law. And I also think that the government should stay out of our lives, especially our bedrooms, as much as possible. But I still believe that this opens the door to allow other consensual relationships, such as incestual or those involving multiple spouses, that are currently illegal to be ok'd. What is the difference after all..as long as it involves adults who love and care for one another...why should the government try to legislate their behavior?

ProWriter

07-26-2003, 05:20 AM

One who knows he's homosexual but chooses not to act out his sexual urges is not a "latent" homosexual. Latency in the psychological sense means someone has desires of which he is consciously unaware, or which he has repressed into his subconscious. One typical example of "latent homosexuality" indicators is unexplainable hostility toward homosexuals or very strong feelings of intolerance toward other's gay lifestyles. Show me a guy who "hates queers" and I'll show you a guy who's pretty likely to be afraid on some level of his own sexual inclination, and/or someone who maybe has some past experience or childhood "experiment" of which he's deeply ashamed. Speaking of tests that psychologists do...one of them tested straight men for their physical reactions to gay porn: Heterosexual males with very intolerant views on homosexuality had much more of a response (as measured by a standard penile blood flow meter used in impotency testing) to gay porn than did heterosexual males without strong feelings about homosexuality. Heterosexuals who have no "latent" fears of their own sexual tendencies generally are indifferent toward homosexuals and simply couldn't care less what homosexuals do in private.

Furthermore, suggesting that one isn't "heterosexual" until one actually has sex is totally idiotic and hardly what any psychologists believe. Like most males, I was exclusively drawn to females and sexually attracted to women as far back as I can remember, and I fantasized and masturbated to the images of women long before I had my first actual sexual experience. What if I'd been extremely unsuccessful dating and/or just too ugly to ever meet someone despite my desire and efforts to do so? I wouldn't be "heterosexual" while only fantasizing about women and spending $50/week on straight porn as an adult? I only "become heterosexual" at the age of 35 if it takes that long for someone of the opposite sex likes me enough to actually have sex with me? That's just ridiculous. A male who is sexually attracted to males and desires sex with males is homosexual regardless of whether (or when) he has his first actual homosexual experience...and same goes for heterosexuals.

auntysuz63

07-26-2003, 02:51 PM

And I also think that the government should stay out of our lives, especially our bedrooms, as much as possible.
Something we both agree on!!!
Ummmm...because it's easier than saying, "I've decided that I don't care about what is right or wrong and just want to do what feels good!"
I don't agree with that one at all. You're saying that homosexuals find it EASY to say and defend (although why they have to defend their life I do not understand) that they are what they are because they were born that way? No...no...no. The easy thing would be to do what they did for years, hide, and keep their life a secret, rather than face the scorn, disapproval, and hatred of their own family, friends, neighbors, employers/co-workers, church, and government.

Deputy757

07-26-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by auntysuz63
I don't agree with that one at all. You're saying that homosexuals find it EASY to say and defend (although why they have to defend their life I do not understand) that they are what they are because they were born that way?

No, I'm saying that it's harder to admit what you are doing is wrong than to say, "Hey..I can't help myself..I was born this way". What an easy way out...IMHO!

ProWriter

07-26-2003, 11:31 PM

Could one of you please explain what you mean by "choosing" to be homosexual? So far, all of you keep saying that the "choice" is between doing something "sinful" that feels good and not doing it.
But homosexuality isn't what feels good...homosexuals don't get any "more" pleasure out of their sex than heterosexuals get from ours. The only difference is the gender they're attracted to.

If the "choice" is between enjoying sex with someone of the opposite gender or enjoying sex with someone of the same gender, what person would purposely choose the same degree of enjoyment from homosexuality when that "choice" means a life of rejection, ostracism from society, discrimination, disdain from others, and all the other negative aspects of being gay?

The only "choice" people make is to express the sexuality they feel or not to express it. We all understand the choice to be sexual rather than abstinent, so that doesn't require your explanation. What DOES require your explanation (if you want anybody to understand your position, that is), is why would anybody who COULD derive the same sexual pleasure from heterosexual relationships EVER "choose" all the difficulties and problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle instead of a straight lifestyle if he could simply "choose" one or the other?

auntysuz63

07-27-2003, 12:52 AM

No, I'm saying that it's harder to admit what you are doing is wrong than to say, "Hey..I can't help myself..I was born this way".
One has to believe one is doing something wrong, in order for the above statement to be true. How can you believe you are doing something wrong if you feel in your heart of hearts you were born this way? We aren't talking about knee jerk decisions here. Most of the gay people I know are educated, articulate, thoughtful individuals. I understand that you feel that gay people "choose" to be gay, rather than heterosexual. I know you feel that it is biblically wrong. That's fine.

But how do you explain the young men and women, growing up in average households who feel "different" from the time they hit puberty, sometimes younger? These are not abused, unloved, misguided people, they come from average, run of the mill households. Are you telling me that these children decide that they WANT to be different from all their friends? No, they figure it out and then they realize that their way in this world is going to be a heck of a lot tougher than others, just because they were born different. Earlier in the thread, there was a letter from the mother of a gay child. Read those words and tell me that child "chose" to live that way.

Deputy757

07-27-2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by ProWriter
If the "choice" is between enjoying sex with someone of the opposite gender or enjoying sex with someone of the same gender, what person would purposely choose the same degree of enjoyment from homosexuality when that "choice" means a life of rejection, ostracism from society, discrimination, disdain from others, and all the other negative aspects of being gay?

Good question! I guess they're akin to the kind of person that get's pleasure from cheating on their wife/husband, or being very permiscuous, or from other immoral acts. Or perhaps, to also answer auntysuz's question, perhaps they just want attention, even negative attention, to satisfy some craving they have to be noticed. In any case, you're asking me to explain why someone else would do something and that's really not fair. All I'm saying is that it's a choice and I've given my reasons for believing so.

ProWriter

07-27-2003, 04:21 AM

Deputy, no offense, but you still don't understand this simple question. You can't seem to get past the apple/rocks thing either. In this case, APPLES would be any choice someone would make that results only in something pleasurable. ROCKS would be something that only results in negative consequences and not extra pleasure. That's exactly why my last post said you DIDN'T need to explain why people have sex in the first place. Heterosexuals (and your cheating spouses) have sex for the fun of it; homosexuals also have sex for the fun of it. EVERYBODY has a choice of whether to be celibate or sexually active and sex is always pursued for fun and it's a sin unless you're married...we got it, ok?

I asked why would anybody make a choice that ONLY reults in [sexual fun + misery] if he could choose [sexual fun w/out misery]. Your answer was to give another example of [fun w/out misery], or APPLES again, when I'm asking only about ROCKS here. Cheating on one's spouse is perfectly understandable from a selfish perspective, so it doesn't need explanation...and it's NOT logically comparable to homosexuality in this conversation or debate because it provides only pleasure and not negative consequences like homosexuality.

(Note: If you start telling me about the "negative consequences" of heterosexual infidelity here, you're introducing oranges to the mix of apples and rocks that I'm already trying to separate so we can discuss only the rocks. In any case, the answer to the example I hope you DON'T give is that there are "consequences" of infidelity, etc. Whether it's casual dating or a monogamous relationships, we all know that cheating has "consequences" obviously...but that's not what we're discussing and gay people who cheat have similar consequences to straight cheaters...plus the additional problems of being gay.)

The whole point is that homosexual sex does not provide any more pleasure for homosexuals than heterosexual sex does for heterosexuals...in other words, there's no possible REASON anybody would "choose" to be homosexual, because there's nothing to GAIN from it if it's something you have a choice in, in the first place. Infidelity has something to GAIN for the cheater because he enjoys it. If people could "choose" what gender they're sexually attracted to nobody would ever voluntarily prefer to suffer the social consequences of being gay. There's nothing to GAIN because there are no social consequences of enjoying heterosexual sex, and if it's something you can "choose", then anybody but an outright masochist would purposely choose to be an outcast in society. I'm not asking about gay masochists, so please don't ask me why anybody would pierce body parts for fun or whatever...that's not my question. For the purpose of this question ignore anybody seeking negative attention...we're only asking about the 90-99% (or whatever you think) who AREN'T into homosexuality for the negative attention ok?

If it's clearer for you in religious terms, why would anybody purposely "choose" a road that leads even faster to eternal HELL when heterosexual sex would be just as "fun" as gay sex. If you didn't have the will power to stay celibate, why would anybody purposely make every sexual sin they engage in that much worse by making it gay sex also if there's no gain and one sends you to hell faster. Please don't answer with another example that sounds analagous to your ear, and just answer my simple question directly if you can. My only question is: "If people could choose which gender they desired sexually, can you give me a single logical reason that sounds plausible to you why anybody would choose to be homosexual rather than heterosexual?" Please don't refer to any other moral sin or pose a different question that sounds analagous to you. I would just like you to give me a direct straight answer that you think makes sense...please just tell me a reason you think someone would choose to be gay if it were a matter of his or her choice to pick. After you suggest some reason, you can give all the examples and comparisons you think make sense too.

Let me also ask you a hypothetical question if you don't mind: Just for argument's sake, let's imagine what many gay people say is true (just pretend ok?): Let's say we actually believe that most gay people have been attracted to the same sex as long as you and I remember being attracted to women...they honestly don't know "why",because they never made any "choice" because and didn't even realize there was a name for it or that they were different until they already "felt" gay for years. If that were truly the case for most people who were gay...and if they passed a polygraph on that as well as to the question "would you prefer to be heterosexual like most people?"...Would that have any effect on your thoughts about homosexuality? Just curious.

Bill R

07-28-2003, 06:33 PM

PW,
I asked why would anybody make a choice that ONLY reults in [sexual fun + misery] if he could choose [sexual fun w/out misery].

Why do people choose to participate in any sinful/harmful activity? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people put extra holes in their body? The adulterer has the exact same choice you described and they choose the one that has the very real risk of misery. For some reason people have a tendency to want to do what they are not supposed to do. People are defiant. People are self-destructive. The Bible explains our sinful nature.

Chief Wiggum

07-28-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Bill R
PW,

Why do people choose to participate in any sinful/harmful activity? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people put extra holes in their body? The adulterer has the exact same choice you described and they choose the one that has the very real risk of misery. For some reason people have a tendency to want to do what they are not supposed to do. People are defiant. People are self-destructive. The Bible explains our sinful nature.

This was already covered and dismissed. It's not the same. See Prowriter's last post.

retired

07-28-2003, 10:49 PM

Bill,

Originally posted by Bill R
PW,

Why do people choose to participate in any sinful/harmful activity? Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people put extra holes in their body? The adulterer has the exact same choice you described and they choose the one that has the very real risk of misery. For some reason people have a tendency to want to do what they are not supposed to do. People are defiant. People are self-destructive. The Bible explains our sinful nature.

Obviously homosexuals don't think they are engaging in any sinful or harmful activity. You may think they do,, and you are entitled to your opinion just like they are entitled to engage in homosexual activity. Your opinion is no more wrong or right than theirs.

auntysuz63

07-29-2003, 12:14 AM

For some reason people have a tendency to want to do what they are not supposed to do. People are defiant. People are self-destructive.
That might describe you Bill, but speak for yourself. I don't have tendencies to do what I'm not supposed to do. I don't defy the law, authority, or God on a routine basis, and I don't think of myself as self destructive. Nor have I put myself on a moral pedestal casting judgements about on other's personal lives. Hate and discrimination are self destructive and defiant. If you think it's wrong/immoral to participate in homosexual behavior then by all means, don't participate in it. You have no right, however, to dictate what is and is not moral to others. In short, it is absolutely, categorically, none of your business.

retired

07-29-2003, 12:36 AM

auntysuz63,

Originally posted by auntysuz63
That might describe you Bill, but speak for yourself. I don't have tendencies to do what I'm not supposed to do. I don't defy the law, authority, or God on a routine basis, and I don't think of myself as self destructive. Nor have I put myself on a moral pedestal casting judgements about on other's personal lives. Hate and discrimination are self destructive and defiant. If you think it's wrong/immoral to participate in homosexual behavior then by all means, don't participate in it. You have no right, however, to dictate what is and is not moral to others. In short, it is absolutely, categorically, none of your business.

While Bill has no right to dictate to homosexuals what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their home, he does have the right to express an opinion of the right or wrong of it. His opinion doesn't stop them from engaging in activity he deems immoral. I don't agree with his opinion, but he certainly has a right to express it. Youor I just don't have to agree with it. I also think he has the right to judge their activity. His judgement of their activity doesn't deter or encourage their choice. We all have the right to judge. We just don't have the right to determine the choice of others because of our judgements. Only a legal enitity has the authority to impose a judgement.

ProWriter

07-29-2003, 03:07 AM

While Bill has no right to dictate to homosexuals what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their home, he does have the right to express an opinion of the right or wrong of it.

Nobody is challenging anybody's right to an "opinion". But whether or not something is "immoral" is not just an "opinion"; it's a conclusion that is subject to logical analysis in an objective sense. It is not unfair to ask Bill to define "morality" in objective terms and then to explain what objective principle of morality homosexuality violates.

So far, Bill just keeps saying his religious beliefs consider it immoral and he just doesn't ever respond to a polite request for any reason OTHER than his particular religion that would make it "immoral" in an objective sense. And no matter how many different ways I try to phrase it, I cannot seem to get across the idea to him that his examples of things like adultery are a logically FLAWED comparison, because adultery DOES violate objective moral issues, while homosexuality does not. That isn't "opinion" either: The objective reasoning is that adultery implies deceit, violation of trust, behavior that is probably hurtful and/or injurious to at least one other person, etc. Those things make adultery objectively immoral, Bill. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily involve those things, so it's not a logically sound comparison.

I don't know how to get the point across or have my question answered in a relevant way. I'll try again:

Bill, imagine if a Jew posted a response to the MacDonald's thread and said, basically, that he disagrees with any court decision or legislation in favor of fast food places because in his "OPINION", cooking or serving or eating meat products together with milk or cheese products was totally "immoral" and against what his bible clearly says?

He's entitled to follow the rules of his religion, but what the f--- should anybody who isn't Jewish care why HE doesn't eat meat with milk Bill? Your religious basis for criticising homosexuality are your right to believe, but they are no more relevant to a "morality" discussion than his beliefs about what foods are "kosher" or not by his bible. His god prohibits food that isn't "kosher", yours prohibits homosexuality.

Can you provide some reason OTHER than religion to justify your objective CONCLUSION that homosexuality is "immoral"?

Bill, your bible also prohibits sex outside marriage, but do you have any objective belief about legally married, heterosexual couples who "swing" with other similar couples? Please don't avoid the question by asking a different one like "why get married then?" which is totally irrelevant to the issue. I'd just like to know whether you'd agree or disagree with a law that criminalized (or let's say "invalidated" the legal marital status, or whatever) anytime it could be proven subsequent to a prosecution for the violation that a married couple, in fact, maintains a sexually "open" relationship.

I don't really have any hopes of my questions getting direct answers but I suppose this thread is good practice...just not sure for what exactly.

Thanks.

Deputy757

07-29-2003, 03:56 AM

ProW, though I know you will continue to say that your questions are not being answered simply because you do not like the answers that you are getting, I will try once more!
Comparing homosexuality to adultery is a valid comparison because both, in their own right, violate the biblical premise that marriage is to be between a man and woman. Adultery does so by breaking the vow to forsake all others. Homosexuality does so because by (biblical) definition, marriage is between man and woman. Since sex outside of marriage is forbidden, then homosexual sex should not be occuring at all.
Homosexuality and adultery are both about people doing what makes them feel good, no matter what the consequences to themselves or others. And like retired said, this is an opinion that I'm perfectly within my rights to have. I'm not saying that I hate homosexuals or adulterers, just that their behavior is something I find immoral, distasteful, and unnatural. The reason I find it unnatural is that if all people were heterosexual, the human race would endure. However, if all people were homosexual, we would eventually die out.
Why should we have to have any other reason besides the fact that our faith preaches that these types of behavior are wrong? I know that it means nothing if you are debating the issue with someone who doesn't accept that the bible is the living word of God, but it should mean something to those that do

n567

07-29-2003, 05:20 AM

I don't see what the deal is, to me this law is less about homosexuality, and more about the fact that the government doesn't have the right to legislate morality (when it doesn't harm others, at least). The same thing that prevents us from outlawing Christianity is the same thing that should prevent us from outlawing sex.

We'll just ignore that homosexuality is a common trait in many species that oddly manage to thrive. Heck, maybe homosexuality is a subtle form of population control, god knows we need it.

Anywho, this isn't a Christian country, it's a secular one, so biblical law is irrelevent, in my view.

Deputy757

07-29-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by n567
I don't see what the deal is, to me this law is less about homosexuality, and more about the fact that the government doesn't have the right to legislate morality (when it doesn't harm others, at least). The same thing that prevents us from outlawing Christianity is the same thing that should prevent us from outlawing sex.
I agree with the first sentence but I would argue that it's two different things (amendments) that prevents us from outlawing Christianity and/or sex.

We'll just ignore that homosexuality is a common trait in many species that oddly manage to thrive.
Please list the species that you are referring to and any information that shows how they are thriving! Thanks!

Heck, maybe homosexuality is a subtle form of population control, god knows we need it.
Maybe the control we need more of is self, not population.

Anywho, this isn't a Christian country, it's a secular one, so biblical law is irrelevent, in my view.
I would imagine you meant to put "government" not country. Since catholicism/christianity makes up the largest religious belief in the US, I would argue we are a Christian country. That doesn't mean you are wrong in saying that biblical law is irrelevant, in the sense that it affects our legal system. But I would say it's hugely relevant when you consider how people view certain issues.
US religions (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001481.html)
US religions 2 (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

Bill R

07-29-2003, 09:41 AM

PW,
Bill, your bible also prohibits sex outside marriage, but do you have any objective belief about legally married, heterosexual couples who "swing" with other similar couples?

It's sinful. It drives people away from God. You of course don't like that answer. It's also a great way to spread disease. More often that not, it is very destructive to a marriage. I've actually known some people that were swingers, granted my sample is rather small but all of their marriages eventually ended in jealousy, distrust and divorce. If the couple has children, they then suffer from being raised in a broken home.

retired

07-29-2003, 05:23 PM

Bill,

Originally posted by Bill R
PW,

It's sinful. It drives people away from God. You of course don't like that answer. It's also a great way to spread disease. More often that not, it is very destructive to a marriage. I've actually known some people that were swingers, granted my sample is rather small but all of their marriages eventually ended in jealousy, distrust and divorce. If the couple has children, they then suffer from being raised in a broken home.

Some people are not near to a God to be driven away. As you know, many people don't believe in a God, and are still great citizens. believing in God doesn't make a person good. The jails are full of vermin who believe in God. In fact the majority of criminals in jail are devout christians.

Chief Wiggum

07-29-2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757

Homosexuality and adultery are both about people doing what makes them feel good, no matter what the consequences to themselves or others. And like retired said, this is an opinion that I'm perfectly within my rights to have.

No, homosexuality is about who you are attracted to (ie men), which one has no control over. In fact many homosexuals are tortured by the fact that they are gay because of the distain they recieve from society. Many would rather be straight but they don't have a choice.

Your above statement is not an opinion. You are attempting to factually state what homosexuality "is about", and your wrong.

You are however, perfectly within your rights to be wrong.:D

n567

07-29-2003, 05:29 PM

I agree with the first sentence but I would argue that it's two different things (amendments) that prevents us from outlawing Christianity and/or sex.

Quite true, but in the end it does come down to freedom...

Please list the species that you are referring to and any information that shows how they are thriving! Thanks!

This website should help obliviate any obfuscation.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Maybe the control we need more of is self, not population.

Indeed, damn heterosexual humans are just breeding like rabbits!

I would imagine you meant to put "government" not country. Since catholicism/christianity makes up the largest religious belief in the US, I would argue we are a Christian country. That doesn't mean you are wrong in saying that biblical law is irrelevant, in the sense that it affects our legal system. But I would say it's hugely relevant when you consider how people view certain issues.

Quite true, government would have been much more apt a word, for now, as Christianity is declining in our nation. Regardless, I thought one of the proud tenets of this nation was that we protected the rights of the minority.

DaveInTx

07-29-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by retired
....In fact the majority of criminals in jail are devout christians.
I would really like to see the source of this statistic, please.

DaveInTx

Bill R

07-29-2003, 06:02 PM

Reired,
In fact the majority of criminals in jail are devout christians.

I question this statement also. I can see how if you asked most prisoners what religion they are they would say Christian. That does not mean they are devout or for that matter that they are even Christians. Many will say they are a Christian simply because their grandmother went to church. The majority of people in this country identify themselves as Christians. Many are not "devout".

Edited to add: If asked, most convicts would also say they are innocent. That doesn't mean they are.

retired

07-29-2003, 07:18 PM

Bill and Dave,

I am basing my comment on my personal experience with inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "devout", but just Christians. When each inmate arrives in the LA County jail, they are classified, and this includes noting what religion they are in the event they may need religious attention. It also serves to determine how much staffing of religious volunteers are needed at the jail to serve the needs of the inmates. If you guys doubt this, I suggest you do a couple of tours of duty at the jail and find out for yourself.

Deputy757

07-29-2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum

Your above statement is not an opinion. You are attempting to factually state what homosexuality "is about", and your wrong.
Of course it's an opinion, just as when you write, "No, homosexuality is about who you are attracted to (ie men), which one has no control over., you are expressing your opinion. Neither of us can actually prove our belief with incontrovertable (sp?) fact.

You are however, perfectly within your rights to be wrong.
As are you!!

auntysuz63

07-30-2003, 12:04 AM

While Bill has no right to dictate to homosexuals what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their home, he does have the right to express an opinion of the right or wrong of it.
I never said Bill or 757 or anyone else did not have the right to express their opinion. My concern here was being "lumped in" a category. His reference was to "people" being defiant of the law, "people" being self destructive and "people" doing what they are not supposed to do. I'm people, and I don't like being categorized in that negative way, just as most Christians wouldn't like being categorized as self righteous bigots. Not all Christians are; in kind, not all "people" are self destructive and defiant of the laws of God and man. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post: "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." Bill has the right to his opinion and the right to express it, and I would defend to the death that right, but he nor the government has the right to dictate to others what is moral, and I don't have to agree with his opinion.

Bill R

07-30-2003, 11:40 AM

auntysuz,
I never said Bill or 757 or anyone else did not have the right to express their opinion. My concern here was being "lumped in" a category. His reference was to "people" being defiant of the law, "people" being self destructive and "people" doing what they are not supposed to do.

So you've never done something you knew was wrong, defiant or harmful to yourself??? You've never had the desire to???

Chief Wiggum

07-30-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
Of course it's an opinion, just as when you write, "No, homosexuality is about who you are attracted to (ie men), which one has no control over., you are expressing your opinion. Neither of us can actually prove our belief with incontrovertable (sp?) fact.

I disagree. The proof is that I'm human and I can't control who I'm attracted to. Neither can anyone I know or anyone I've spoken to. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda (usually Christian). Many christians seem to have some need to change or disprove things in the world around them that don't jive with their beliefs. Because they believe that homosexuality is wrong they MUST prove that it is not "natural" because god would never create such a thing. Therefore they must prove that it is a choice and that homosexuals are just sinners (despite all evidence to the contrary). Because if homosexuality was a natural occurance then that would fly in the face of their faith, and they can't have that.

I have no agenda either way. I just think that it's obvious.

If you've ever walked into a room and suddenly seen a beautiful woman (or man if you are attracted to them) and kind of lost your breath and train of thought for a moment then you know what I'm talking about. :eek: :D

auntysuz63

07-30-2003, 11:21 PM

So you've never done something you knew was wrong, defiant or harmful to yourself??? You've never had the desire to???
If you count the time when I was four and ran in the sprinkler in my church clothes, or the time when I was 15 and backtalked my mom, then yes, I guess I have been defiant. But that doesn't mean that I do it every day, as an adult, capable of making my own decisions without benefit of parental control. Your comments referred to "people." Not children, not adults, just "people" without any qualifications. I disagree with that generalization. I can tell you categorically that I've never had the desire to harm myself. I'm not one of those "people" to which you're referring. Those are undeserved negative connotations, and I don't see "people" that way, unless a "person" gives me reason to. I have to admit, I'm far more cynical than I used to be (ten years in law enforcement can do that to you) but I try to be as open and fair minded about folks as I can be.

ProWriter

07-31-2003, 07:39 AM

These guys are just never gonna get it folks. Try to explain to them how ridiculous it is to claim that anybody purposely "chooses" to be gay when all that "choice" earns is negative consequences...and instead of realizing the flaws in their arguments we get back this utter nonsense comparing innocent homosexuals to cheating spouses...or now, these idiotic responses that if homosexuals get nothing positive from their "choice" to be gay, then it must be that all of them are self destructive or "defiant" or whatever.

These guys are totally brainwashed by their religious upbringing to the extent they can't even follow or respond appropriately to a logical argument or train of thought...and/or they're completely homophobic and their entire moral base is guilt and shame, rather than even remotely related to objective concepts that define moral and immoral behavior. To them it doesn't matter that adultery and monogamous homosexuality are apples and oranges...in their view it's "irrelevant" that one entails betrayal and deceit while the other doesn't. LOGICAL issues don't define moral behavior for them, so as long as both are considered "sins", they are psychologically incapable of separating HARMFUL "sins" from HARMLESS "sins"...and I can already anticipate the responses about how god defines morality and not humans because only god is perfect and all that stuff. They mix up issues (probably on purpose, because I truly doubt they're stupid enough to believe some of their own arguments expressed on this thread), they offer all these totally irrelevant and incomparable "examples" to support their flawed reasoning, which they think they can save just by calling them "opinions", and our rhetorical questions specifically designed to illustrate how silly some of their points are go straight over their heads.

They aren't going to get it. Part of that might be understandable since one tenet of Christian philosophy is that it's a "sin" to even question anything...so they're just psychologically blocked from evaluating the arguments logically...or from even considering the moral difference between homosexual marriage and adulterous betrayals. They type with straight faces that anybody who is gay clearly must have "chosen" to be gay out of defiance and because they purposely need the abuse...and they can't even consider any evidence of gay people who have simply always NATURALLY been attracted to the same sex the way the rest of us have always been attracted to the opposite sex. No part of them ever thinks "Gee, you know, that does make sense: if sex is sex nobody ever WOULD puposely "choose" homosexuality which only makes one's life more difficult with ZERO GAIN". Homosexuality makes life tough? Ok, then all homosexuals must WANT a tough life...very simple.

There is simply no argument that is eloquent or persuasive enough to convince someone who refuses to even THINK about the issue because he is psychologically blocked, and/or fearful of his god, and/or that hateful (even if passively so rather than actively hateful). They aren't interested in questioning or examining the logical soundness of their "opinions", because doing so is a sin, in and of itself.
We have been just typing for our own benefit since the start of this thread and that's not going to change no matter what combination of words anybody tries to get them to understand. They aren't going to get it. Period.

Bill R

07-31-2003, 09:30 AM

auntysuz,
If you count the time when I was four and ran in the sprinkler in my church clothes, or the time when I was 15 and backtalked my mom, then yes, I guess I have been defiant. But that doesn't mean that I do it every day, as an adult, capable of making my own decisions without benefit of parental control. Your comments referred to "people." Not children, not adults, just "people" without any qualifications. I disagree with that generalization. I can tell you categorically that I've never had the desire to harm myself.

You never as an adult have broken the speed limit? Failed to come to a complete stop? You've never called in sick when you weren't? You never have urges to do things you aren't supposed to? You never eat or drink something that you know is bad for you?

Chief Wiggum

07-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Well said and 'nuff said Prowriter.

Deputy757

07-31-2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
I disagree. The proof is that I'm human and I can't control who I'm attracted to. Neither can anyone I know or anyone I've spoken to. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda (usually Christian).
This is a typical aspersion cast upon people who have convictions and stand by them...that they must have an agenda. News flash...I'm not out to save the world but I'm quite happy to offer my opinion on any issue that comes along! You say that you can't control who you are attracted to...well I say you're wrong. I'd argue that people can and do. I know, I know...you are going to say that if I think any woman is attractive, then I must be attracted to her in a sexual way. But that's making a blanket assumption that all men think in that manner. So you're actually advocating the notion that men can't help but lust after a pretty woman? One thing that really strikes me as funny is that we, as a society, actually consider people who can't control who they are attracted to, such as pedophiles, as sick and in need of help. So if you feel the need to lump yourself in with that type of person, go ahead. But please leave me out of that boat!

Many christians seem to have some need to change or disprove things in the world around them that don't jive with their beliefs. Because they believe that homosexuality is wrong they MUST prove that it is not "natural" because god would never create such a thing.
Again, I feel no need to change or disprove anything but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to speak out against something that I consider immoral. Especially if I feel that it will negatively impact the world that my children will grow up in. If children are raised in a society that accepts everything as being ok, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, then that society must be prepared for what it get's. Skyrocketing teen (and under teen) pregnancies, STD's, drug/alcohol abuse, promiscuity, self-mutilation, sexual perversion, suicide, etc.

If you've ever walked into a room and suddenly seen a beautiful woman (or man if you are attracted to them) and kind of lost your breath and train of thought for a moment then you....
are simply admiring beauty when you see it. If you start entertaining some ideas of what it would be like to bed her (or him) then you are, according to scripture, committing adultery (married or not)! Again...I'm not saying that people, OMG...YES..even Christians, don't do this...just that it's not something that's out of our control. If it was..then God could have had a big laugh and made breathing sinful too!

Deputy757

07-31-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by ProWriter
These guys are just never gonna get it folks.
True..we're never going to get that it's ok to do anything you want as long as it feels good. Fine, so it doesn't hurt or affect anyone else...but that's not to say it's moral or ok.

These guys are totally brainwashed by their religious upbringing to the extent they can't even follow or respond appropriately to a logical argument or train of thought...
You and Chiefy must be taking notes from the same "How to Slander a Christian" book. So if someone actually has the temerity to take a stand on an issue based on their religious and personal convictions, they are "brainwashed by religion"? And you want to accuse us of having faulty arguments?
...and/or they're completely homophobic and their entire moral base is guilt and shame...
Hmmm...this is another page from the book referred to above! If someone is against homosexuality..they must be homophobic! Puh-lease!

in their view it's "irrelevant" that one entails betrayal and deceit while the other doesn't.
So the only qualifying edicts for a "sexual sin" are that they entail betrayal and deceit? Ok..then beastiality and incest must be alright then. Or are these the qualifiers for all sin? So gossiping, belittling others, helping no one but yourself..all of the things we are taught not to do are ok...because we aren't deceiving anyone?

they are psychologically incapable of separating HARMFUL "sins" from HARMLESS "sins"
You're absolutely right about this though...I don't make any distinction about sin. If you are advocating that we should, then who is the real hypocrite here? Sin is sin..it doesn't matter what type it is. Sure, society sets different penalties for things that are also against our laws. But we are all sinners, big and small, in God's eyes and the only thing that makes a difference is how we have dealt with that during our life.

Part of that might be understandable since one tenet of Christian philosophy is that it's a "sin" to even question anything... Hmmmm....could you please show me where this "tenet" is listed! Thanks!

They aren't interested in questioning or examining the logical soundness of their "opinions", because doing so is a sin, in and of itself.
First, if it were only my opinion, then of course I would question it because I'm just as fallible as the next guy. But it's the fact that it's also expressely forbidden by God that I accept it without question. Now, lest Chief should protest, I would point out that if someone did not believe in the same God that I do, then it again becomes simply my opinion. Second, again...please show me this "questioning is a sin" edict pops up. We all question things, even Christ questioned whether He really needed to die on the cross.

We have been just typing for our own benefit since the start of this thread...
No...I'm sure Satan is getting a pretty big kick out of it!

Neinta

07-31-2003, 10:52 PM

Ya'll just need to agree to disagree. Everyone has different views on things. Everyone thinks they are right... and maybe for them they are.

I was cool with PW up until his last post. Persecuting someone because of their religion and religious beliefs is beyond wrong. This country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. So their beliefs don't coincide with yours... move on. This thread has been entertaining but when the mudslinging starts about something as dear to people as religion, it's not fun anymore. Who are you to say that what they believe is wrong or that they "will never get it."

Just for the record, I'm not a Christian... by choice. But I do have a religion and I have been the brunt of "your religion is wrong" for the past 7 years. I know how difficult it is when people tell you that everything you believe in is wrong.

Just as you believe their morals shouldn't dictate law, you also need to understand that your beliefs should not dictate what others believe.

auntysuz63

07-31-2003, 11:54 PM

You never have urges to do things you aren't supposed to?
You make broad statements about how "people" want to be defiant and self destructive. The negative words you constantly use bring to mind malice and evil. Yes, I have done things that are wrong in the past, and probably will again in the future, but certainly not because I had or have an overwhelming need to be self-destructive or defiant. I've made out and out mistakes, errors in judgement and everything in between. We are all works in progress and bound to. But I don't believe I ever made a malicious mistake. I never claimed to be perfect, but I do the best I can in this life to do what's right. I've never purposely discriminated or mistreated someone because of their sexual preference, nor passed judgement on them because it's none of my business.

I know that you are never going to change your thinking about this, and I have to admit, I admire your dedication to what you believe, even if I don't agree with your philosophy. Your mind is closed on the subject and there's no opening it, and I can accept that.

It's time to agree to disagree, or at very least come to an understanding that we're running around in circles accomplishing nothing by this back and forth debate.

ProWriter

08-01-2003, 02:11 AM

Neinta, I wasn't persecuting anybody for his religious beliefs at all. I was referring to Martin Luther's doctrine from the middle ages that made mere questioning about god or the bible a sin in and of itself. It is difficult for me to believe that these guys don't see how flawed their own arguments are, so I postulated one explanation: they are afraid on some psychological level to even think about the topic honestly without a preconceived conclusion.

The last response is typical: Make an argument that homosexuality is morally different from adultery because adultery involves deceit and their response assumes that the ONLY acts I consider morally wrong must involve "deceit". They can't be that stupid (and that's not an insult, because I believe they AREN'T that stupid, but blocked on some psychological level from using their minds to separate OBJECTIVE right and wrong from RELIGIOUS right and wrong, or "sin").

I'm the one who's preaching religious freedom here, not them. They have been saying all along that a GOVERNMENTAL function like marital recognition under the law should incorporate their RELIGIOUS beliefs that homosexuality is "wrong". The rest of us have been begging for some rationale OTHER than anybody's religion to justify their claim that the GOVERNMENT "should" refuse to recognize gay marriage. I support total separation of church and state; they keep discussing "god" and "sin" and now "satan" in a thread about civil rights in this country. The only "persecutors" here are those who want to treat homosexual marriage like it's a moral outrage, and they all happen to express Christian views on "sin" and morality to back their position. The rest of us on this thread are just as disgusted as they are by homosexuality in terms of our own sexuality, but we express a live and let live attitude as long as homosexuals aren't hurting anybody else by marrying and especially since homosexuality is not something a person can "choose" for himself in the first place. I have yet to see a single response opposing homosexual marriage that didn't also mention "god" and "sin"...and I don't think it's a coincidence.

DaveInTx

08-01-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by ProWriter
I have yet to see a single response opposing homosexual marriage that didn't also mention "god" and "sin"...and I don't think it's a coincidence.
OK, here's one. The institution of marriage is primarily intended to provide a safe and secure environment for raising the next generation of humans; to this end, governments have often (and now do) make benefits accrue to married couples to improve their ability to provide a secure environment (more money) to support this end. By definition, homosexuals are the same sex and thereby cannot produce offspring. My personal belief is that it is also inappropriate for them to adopt and raise children, but that is my personal belief. Since the financial benefits (tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc.) are in place for the benefit of the progeny, the inability to have such negates, in my mind, at least, the rationale for the benefits of marriage. If same-sex marriages are to be allowed, then other provisions in the law should remove any benefits accruing from such a marriage, with the possible exception of inheritance by the signifant other. You will note that none of this is based on religious principles. You may argue that my personal bias against adoption by same-sex couples is based on my religious beliefs, and you would be partially correct in that; however, my principal reason for opposing such adoptions is that it makes same-sex marriages appear "normal" (which I believe it is not) and could encourage impressionable children who might not already have a predisposition toward homosexuality to think it a good idea to adopt that life style. It's for the children!

MHO
flashguy

ProWriter

08-01-2003, 03:22 PM

The institution of marriage is primarily intended to provide a safe and secure environment for raising the next generation of humans

According to whom, you? Someone else already responded to that point on this thread by pointing out that people who have absolutely no intention of becoming parents sometimes get married, as do infertile couples, and elderly couples who marry much later in life than their respective window of opportunity to become parents. By your rationale, people over reproductive age should also be barred from marrying since they don't satisfy YOUR personal definition of what marriage is "intended" to be. Post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry according to your line of reasoning, and if you realize that suggestion is kind of stupid, then your reasoning for banning same sex marriage evaporates completely. You can't have it both ways and support or condone the former while criticizing the latter.

Furthermore, marriage hardly guarantees that children will necessarily be raised in a wholesome or loving environment just because their parents are legally married.

You're entitled to the opinion that the institution of marriage "should" relate to parenthood, but your opinion is devoid of any objective rationale. You're similarly entitled to the personal opinion that marriage is "intended" to further racial purity and therefore oppose interracial marriage as white supremacists believe. But the rest of us don't care why you're of either of those ridiculous "opinions" because they are equally devoid of any objective rationale...nor is it up to you to decide what the "purpose" of marriage is. You have the right to have opinions that don't make any logical sense...but the rest of us are entitled to point out the flawed reasoning if you present them in a discussion.

DaveInTx

08-01-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by ProWriter
According to whom, you? Someone else already responded to that point on this thread by pointing out that people who have absolutely no intention of becoming parents sometimes get married, as do infertile couples, and elderly couples who marry much later in life than their respective window of opportunity to become parents. By your rationale, people over reproductive age should also be barred from marrying since they don't satisfy YOUR personal definition of what marriage is "intended" to be. Post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry according to your line of reasoning, and if you realize that suggestion is kind of stupid, then your reasoning for banning same sex marriage evaporates completely. You can't have it both ways and support or condone the former while criticizing the latter.
This is not just my personal view of what marriage "should be", it is the accumulated history of the concept of marriage, which is the societal institution which has been found over the centuries to be the best guarantee that the race will continue, otherwise something else would have been put into place instead of it. Survival of the human race is a strong motivator, and it will have its way. The fact that some marriages cannot and do not produce progeny, is, admittedly, a poor determiner of whether that institution should be extended to such unions, and I will concede that point. I will not concede that such unions (even the disfunctional ones you mentioned) should be afforded monetary rewards by the state that are, implicitly or explicitly, intended to provide that stable environment for child-rearing. If it would make you happier, I will concede to agree to same-sex marriages if all monetary rewards (except inheritance to partner and progeny) were removed. I would also accept removal of all other benefits (except inheritance as noted above) to other marriages which do not produce and rear progeny. I suspect that removal of all the tax breaks would also remove a lot of the current desire for same-sex marriages, but that is another situation.
Furthermore, marriage hardly guarantees that children will necessarily be raised in a wholesome or loving environment just because their parents are legally married.
I agree, but just because there are no guarantees is no reason not to try it. I believe (flame on) that statistics show that the probability of a wholesome, loving environment improves when legal marriage is involved.
You're entitled to the opinion that the institution of marriage "should" relate to parenthood, but your opinion is devoid of any objective rationale. You're similarly entitled to the personal opinion that marriage is "intended" to further racial purity and therefore oppose interracial marriage as white supremacists believe. But the rest of us don't care why you're of either of those ridiculous "opinions" because they are equally devoid of any objective rationale...nor is it up to you to decide what the "purpose" of marriage is. You have the right to have opinions that don't make any logical sense...but the rest of us are entitled to point out the flawed reasoning if you present them in a discussion.
I fully agree with all the above except the "devoid of any objective rationale". Do you honestly believe you are speaking for "the rest of us", though? It is not me who has decided what the purpose of marriage is, it is society, and for thousands of years it has meant a union of a male and a female. I believe that is not an accident.
DaveInTx

Deputy757

08-01-2003, 04:01 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ProWriter
I was referring to Martin Luther's doctrine from the middle ages that made mere questioning about god or the bible a sin in and of itself.
So you admit that you assigned a man's doctrine (which is therefore fallible) to God. This is how people skew what is actually in the Bible so that people who don't know any better will believe that it's something that it isn't.

They have been saying all along that a GOVERNMENTAL function like marital recognition under the law should incorporate their RELIGIOUS beliefs that homosexuality is "wrong". The rest of us have been begging for some rationale OTHER than anybody's religion to justify their claim that the GOVERNMENT "should" refuse to recognize gay marriage.
I've never said this. In fact, I stated early on that I did not oppose civil unions. I also stated that I opposed allowing homosexuals marry within the church (any church that recognizes the God of the Bible) as homosexuality is expressly forbidden and said to be unnatural, immoral, an abomination, etc. It's when the church begins to accept such things as being normal that Christians have to speak out.
The rest of us on this thread are just as disgusted as they are by homosexuality in terms of our own sexuality, but we express a live and let live attitude as long as homosexuals aren't hurting anybody else by marrying and especially since homosexuality is not something a person can "choose" for himself in the first place.
Wow..talk about being a hypocrite then. You are disgusted by something that you have been defending over and over again? Live and let live...yes, a handy cop-out when one lacks any kind of moral courage. And again...you say it's not something that a person can choose for themselves, but you have not one iota of proof that say's otherwise. Important point to keep in mind.

Neinta, I agree that there is really no way in which I or PW could change one another's mind about this issue (or other's I'm sure!). And there is no harm in having different points of view..about anything. People seem to think that Christianity is all about pointing out how everyone else is wrong but it's really about keeping yourself, and those that believe as you do, on the right track. Sure, spreading God's word (evangelizing) is an important function but it's only done properly through showing love for one another. Lest PW or Chief should seize upon this...yes, even for homosexuals. Yes, they are sinners and not worthy of God's love but you know what? I'm a sinner and I'm not worthy of God's love. But He love's me (us) anyway and that's the really unbelievable part as far as I'm concerned.

Bill R

08-01-2003, 04:16 PM

auntysuz,

You make broad statements about how "people" want to be defiant and self destructive. The negative words you constantly use bring to mind malice and evil. Yes, I have done things that are wrong in the past, and probably will again in the future, but certainly not because I had or have an overwhelming need to be self-destructive or defiant.Yes, I have done things that are wrong in the past, and probably will again in the future, but certainly not because I had or have an overwhelming need to be self-destructive or defiant.

I have never claimed you or that most people are evil. This sub-topic came in response to the statement that gays would not choose to be gays because of the negative consequences. That because there were negative consequences to being gay they must not have any choice in the matter.ALL people do things that they know they shouldn't. It is human nature. You have admitted to it yourself. I got fat because I ate too many of the wrong foods. It doesn't make me evil, but it did make me fat. In spite of the known negative consequences I still ate what I wanted to.

I've made out and out mistakes, errors in judgement and everything in between. We are all works in progress and bound to. But I don't believe I ever made a malicious mistake.

Either we have differing ideas of what mistakes are or we have differing ideas of what malice is. To me, there is no such thing as a maliciious mistake.

I never claimed to be perfect, but I do the best I can in this life to do what's right.

That's all any of us can do.We are all sinners, myself most certainly included.

I've never purposely discriminated or mistreated someone because of their sexual preference, nor passed judgement on them because it's none of my business.

Nor have I. By my beliefs, judgement is up to the Lord. I work in an area that has a very significant gay population. I have no propblem associating with gays. I never bring the topic of their sexual preference up. It is none of my business and I really don't care to hear about it. OTOH, if they raise the topic, I speak my belief that homosexuality is wrong. To me it would be sinful and two faced to contradict God's word and my own instinct.

Chief Wiggum

08-01-2003, 05:20 PM

Your just making this stuff up as you go aren't you. Please tell me where I can find this "accumulated history of the concept of marriage". I have never heard anyone anywhere (except you) make these statements regarding what marriage is "intended" for. Your little supposed factual statements quickly erode into opinions of what you think marriage should be.

It's interesting to see that you don't just harbor distain for homosexual couples seeking the benefits of marriage but childless heterosexual couples as well. I'm glad your not in charge because your OPINIONS (and that is what your entire post is, an opinion) are pretty hard to swallow.

By the way Bill R, your fat cuz you chose to eat fatty foods. Homosexuals don't choose to be gay. They're born that way. That's the difference.

Deputy 757, a "live and let live" attitude is not a cop-out. I have plenty of moral courage. I JUST DON'T SHARE THE SAME MORALS THAT YOU DO!(I'm shouting because this has been said over and over and no one seems to get that). You don't know what kind of morals and beliefs I hold because I don't shove them down your throat every 5 seconds.

retired

08-01-2003, 05:30 PM

Bill,

I'm not a sinner!:D

DaveInTx

08-01-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Chief Wiggum
Your just making this stuff up as you go aren't you. Please tell me where I can find this "accumulated history of the concept of marriage". I have never heard anyone anywhere (except you) make these statements regarding what marriage is "intended" for. Your little supposed factual statements quickly erode into opinions of what you think marriage should be.
It is not necessary to resort to disparagement (your use of the term "little" above) as I have endeavored to be civil in all my responses to you and to others here. These ideas are not original with me, so I cannot lay claim to "making them up". It will, however, require some digging to locate sources for them, and I'm not convinced that the effort is worth it, frankly.
It's interesting to see that you don't just harbor distain for homosexual couples seeking the benefits of marriage but childless heterosexual couples as well. I'm glad your not in charge because your OPINIONS (and that is what your entire post is, an opinion) are pretty hard to swallow.
I don't see why my unwillingness to allow financial benefits to couples who are not rearing or have not reared children constitutes "disdain". I do not have bad thoughts about those people nor do I consider them less worthy individuals. I just don't think my tax money should be used to subsidize their lifestyle if they are not helping in a direct way to insure survival of the human race. I believe that couples living together already have some financial advantage since sharing resources is usually more efficient (same house, more efficient use of food, utilities, travelling together, etc.) so I don't understand why it would be "disdain" to think that they should do so without the state's help. If they are involved with the rearing of children, I can see some reason why the state would want to provide some subsidy for that, and I don't disagree with it. I will confess that I am single, have always been single, and will probably stay single (as I am now 65), and I have never believed that there should be tax breaks for couples just because they are married. The fact that they are married confers no benefit to the state that I can see. I have already indicated that I agree with moderate subsidization of child-rearing. I extend that benefit to those whose children have grown up in the belief that some assistance with the grandchildren will occur.
By the way Bill R, your fat cuz you chose to eat fatty foods. Homosexuals don't choose to be gay. They're born that way. That's the difference.
There is good evidence that the tendency to be fat or obese has a strong genetic influence (read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by Rushton), which would mean it is possible that Bill R. was "born that way".

DaveInTx

ProWriter

08-01-2003, 06:59 PM

So you admit that you assigned a man's doctrine (which is therefore fallible) to God. This is how people skew what is actually in the Bible so that people who don't know any better will believe that it's something that it isn't.

Not to change the subject, but how could I ever "assign doctrine" to god when I don't believe there's such a thing as any "god"? Are you saying that Lutherans and other large segments of Christians DON'T subscribe to the belief that questioning their god's reasoning is another sin altogether?

I stated early on that I did not oppose civil unions. I also stated that I opposed allowing homosexuals marry within the church (any church that recognizes the God of the Bible) as homosexuality is expressly forbidden and said to be unnatural, immoral, an abomination, etc. It's when the church begins to accept such things as being normal that Christians have to speak out.

Isn't this entire thread about civil unions? I don't think anybody here ever suggested that Christians should accept church members who live un-Christian lifestyles. I don't think orthodox Jewish synagogues should accept ham sandwich eaters either...what does either one have to do with civil rights and what types of unions a NON-DENOMINATIONAL, secular government recognizes by LAW. You saying the government should outlaw gay marriage is the same as an orthodox Jew saying the government should outlaw any unkosher foods for all Americans. None of you responded to that point before...any chance of it this time?

Wow..talk about being a hypocrite then. You are disgusted by something that you have been defending over and over again? Live and let live...yes, a handy cop-out when one lacks any kind of moral courage. And again...you say it's not something that a person can choose for themselves, but you have not one iota of proof that say's otherwise. Important point to keep in mind.

Simply amazing. I happen to also be disgusted by anything sexual involving FEET...but I'd defend foot fetishists if anybody wanted to outlaw THAT or discriminate against them, for the exact same reason: IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY. I would not defend anything that I thought was MORALLY disgusting, that's the difference. Don't you even understand that it only STRENGTHENS my position arguing for homosexual rights when it's something disgusting to me sexually? I would have LESS credibility and be LESS objective if I had a personal stake in the issue. The fact that EVEN people who AREN'T gay are so annoyed at your intolerance should clue you in to how out of touch you are. The point is that EVEN someone who finds the underlying activity disgusting (male-male sex, in this case) is able to be objective about the issue of homosexual rights because homosexuality just isn't a MORAL issue anywhere on THIS side of your church door. Take a lesson.

ProWriter

08-01-2003, 07:24 PM

There is good evidence that the tendency to be fat or obese has a strong genetic influence (read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by Rushton), which would mean it is possible that Bill R. was "born that way".

Nope. Fat people are either self destructive or they are defiant to dietery authorities. Nobody is born with a genetic trait toward obesity. Obesity is a choice. We'd all like to eat junk food and skip the gym for years at a time but we choose not to. Heck, I don't know why anybody would prefer to be fat, unattractive, pre-diabetic, and generally unhealthy, but hey, we all have the same choice to either do the things that we like regardless of the consequences or avoid temptation and do what we know is right and easy. Being fat is always a choice.

Sounds pretty stupid don't it?

Firebug

08-01-2003, 07:54 PM

I am just curious how this question will be answered. Playing devils advocate. Some of the opinions I have seen expressed here have been based upon what happens between two consenting adults in the bedroom should not be regulated or made illegal. How does this position relate to say the subject of prostitution?

Firebug.

PS. Personally for the record I don

DaveInTx

08-01-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by ProWriter
Nope. Fat people are either self destructive or they are defiant to dietery authorities. Nobody is born with a genetic trait toward obesity. Obesity is a choice. We'd all like to eat junk food and skip the gym for years at a time but we choose not to. Heck, I don't know why anybody would prefer to be fat, unattractive, pre-diabetic, and generally unhealthy, but hey, we all have the same choice to either do the things that we like regardless of the consequences or avoid temptation and do what we know is right and easy. Being fat is always a choice.

Sounds pretty stupid don't it?
I'm sorry, but I did provide a reference for my statement. In that book are a number of studies by respected investigators that say there is a genetic linkage. What studies can you quote that say otherwise? I doubt that the genetic linkage to homosexuality is any stronger--certainly the studies in the book I referenced do not indicate it is. You are correct that one does not have to succumb to the influences of ones genes. I would say that applies to both conditions.

DaveInTx

DaveInTx

ProWriter

08-01-2003, 08:54 PM

The whole point of posing a rhetorical question in a logical argument is to come up with a hypothetical scenario that's too stupid for anybody to accept. But you guys keep blowing my strategy by accepting my purposely stupid premise: I come up with something as utterly ridiculous as discriminating against post-menopausal women who wish to marry to illustrate how stupid similar lines of reasoning are...and the next thing I know you guys are accepting my premise and supporting it. I admit I don't know what to do with that, but this is good practice I guess.

I was being facetious (yet again). The fact that obesity usually has a huge genetic component is OBVIOUS...and the exact same types of literature and peer reviewed pyschology studies (not to mention common sense and simple observation) that document that fact also establish at LEAST the same degree of genetic influence of homosexuality in many (if not MOST) cases. I don't suppose you've run across any of THAT scientific literature in your thirst for knowledge about human nature and psychology, huh? How about doing a simple Google search for combinations of words like "homosexuality"+"genetic"+"component"+"born" to see what the secular scientific community has to say on that topic?
Or would that be a sin?

I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me how Christians expressing views on a civil rights thread lobbying against a secular government's recognizing gay marriage is any different from Jews lobbying a secular government against unkosher foods.

n567

08-02-2003, 12:16 AM

To me it would be sinful and two faced to contradict God's word and my own instinct.

God made a little snafu here... See, he says homosexuality is bad, but he forgot to make it a choice... Nobody's perfect, after all. :)

Deputy757

08-02-2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by ProWriter
Not to change the subject, but how could I ever "assign doctrine" to god when I don't believe there's such a thing as any "god"? Are you saying that Lutherans and other large segments of Christians DON'T subscribe to the belief that questioning their god's reasoning is another sin altogether?
You do so by saying that a "tenet" of the Christian faith is that God's word is never questioned. That implies that it's biblical (and therefore from God) as that is the only place we derive our principles of Christianity. As for the Lutherans, I have no idea what they subscribe to, however as I said before...many a man has created his own church and rules and stamped it with God's approval.

Isn't this entire thread about civil unions? I don't think anybody here ever suggested that Christians should accept church members who live un-Christian lifestyles.
I believe so. However, aunty and I kind of got off that subject while we were discussing if it was proper to hold those within your own church accountable for their actions.

You saying the government should outlaw gay marriage...
But I'm NOT saying that! Don't you ever listen?

I would not defend anything that I thought was MORALLY disgusting, that's the difference. Don't you even understand that it only STRENGTHENS my position arguing for homosexual rights when it's something disgusting to me sexually? I would have LESS credibility and be LESS objective if I had a personal stake in the issue. The fact that EVEN people who AREN'T gay are so annoyed at your intolerance should clue you in to how out of touch you are.
And therein lies the base of our disagreement. You don't consider homosexuality morally wrong and I do. I know, I know...you discount the idea that someone can find something morally wrong based solely on religious beliefs, but that's really the topic for another thread. But I wouldn't say it strengthens your argument that you are not homosexual yet argue for homosexuals. By lobbying to allow one form of sexual perversion to be universally accepted, and flaming (no pun intended) those who stand against it, you open the door for other things to become "the norm" as well. Perhaps that is where your motives lie, perhaps not..I don't know. The point is that arguing that you have no ulterior motive is ridiculous on a bulletin board.

Deputy757

08-02-2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Firebug
How does this position relate to say the subject of prostitution?
Good question, which should also include other acts such as incest and bigamy/polygamy.

Deputy757

08-02-2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by n567
God made a little snafu here... See, he says homosexuality is bad, but he forgot to make it a choice... Nobody's perfect, after all. :)
Ahhh...but He didn't forget to make it a choice. In fact, He didn't make it at all! It's a perversion of what He did create. Why else is it called an alternate lifestyle...alternate to what? To what is normal...right?

retired

08-02-2003, 11:44 AM

I don't consider homosexuality morally wrong. I only consider it wrong for me, not for anyone else.

n567

08-02-2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757
Ahhh...but He didn't forget to make it a choice. In fact, He didn't make it at all! It's a perversion of what He did create. Why else is it called an alternate lifestyle...alternate to what? To what is normal...right?

How is it a perversion of what he did create? Are you suggesting that nature itself altered god's creation?

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

Apparently god didn't make it a choice, he did, like everything else, make acting upon it a choice, is this what you're suggesting?

By the way, who originally called it an alternative lifestyle? As research is quickly proving, homosexuality is a very common aspect of nature, one could even call it normal... And if normal is what's right, like you say...

Deputy757

08-02-2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by n567
How is it a perversion of what he did create? Are you suggesting that nature itself altered god's creation?
No, I'm suggesting man did!

Apparently god didn't make it a choice, he did, like everything else, make acting upon it a choice, is this what you're suggesting?
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that practicing homosexuality is like committing any other type of sin. We can choose to do it or not to do it.

As research is quickly proving, homosexuality is a very common aspect of nature..
Yes, as I've said before, you can find plenty of studies that will state that homosexuality is genetic. However, you can find just as many that say it is a matter of choice.
Choice1 (http://www.presbyweb.com/News2001/05090101.htm)
Choice2 (http://www.cathmed.org/homosexuality_and_hope9-4-02.htm)
And finally...though this is not a study or a finding that homosexuality is a choice, it does pretty much sum up how I feel about it!
Homosexuality (http://www.thecommonpatriot.com/homo.htm)

n567

08-03-2003, 01:16 AM

No, I'm suggesting man did!

Man altered the genes of himself, and thousands of other mammals thousands upon thousands of years ago?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that practicing homosexuality is like committing any other type of sin. We can choose to do it or not to do it.

That's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from practicing heterosexuality

Choice One

some gays. I won't deny it's possible for some homosexuals to change orientation, but... that sample of 200 people is rather small considering the enormity of the pool they're drawing from. And it certainly doesn't indicate that all homosexuals can just change orientation if they so desire (if that was the case... why would they go through many of the agonizing ordeals they go through?).

Choice Two

5) CATHOLIC FAMILIES

When Catholic parents discover that their son or daughter is experiencing same-sex attractions or engaging in homosexual activity, they are often devastated. Afraid for the child's health, happiness, and salvation, parents are usually relieved when informed that same-sex attraction is treatable and preventable. They can find support from other parents in Encourage. They also need to be able to share their burden with loving friends and families.

Parents should be informed about the symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder and the prevention of gender identity problems, encouraged to take such symptoms seriously and to refer children with gender identity problems to qualified and morally appropriate mental health professionals.

Gender Identity Disorder is not homosexuality.

auntysuz63

08-03-2003, 03:27 AM

Parents should be informed about the symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder and the prevention of gender identity problems, encouraged to take such symptoms seriously and to refer children with gender identity problems to qualified and morally appropriate mental health professionals.
Morally appropriate mental health professionals? Will someone kindly tell me what, exactly, that means? Because if that means a "professional" who will only tell the person afflicted with this devastating challenge that they are who they are because God made them that way, and they should accept their gender as such, then there's no sense in seeking help at all. A morally appropriate(?) mental health professional, in my opinion, is a trained professional who keeps their own personal beliefs out of the session. In other words, it's not a priest or minister or rabbi, but an educated, unbiased and objective individual who would help the patient sort out their feelings and determine the best course of action.

This thread just continues to surprise me.

Deputy757

08-03-2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by n567
Man altered the genes of himself, and thousands of other mammals thousands upon thousands of years ago?
This is getting ridiculous. You keep answering as if we are arguing from the same premise and we are not. You obviously contend that homosexuality is genetic and I contend it's a choice. You also infer that just because (some)animals exhibit behavior that in human beings would be construed as sexual in nature, this must mean they are homosexual as well. Or even if it is sexual behavior, are you saying that when your dog humps your leg, you think he's making a pass at you?

That's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from practicing heterosexuality
No, that's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from sleeping with every man/woman that happens to come their way, just because they can.

I won't deny it's possible for some homosexuals to change orientation, but... that sample of 200 people is rather small considering the enormity of the pool they're drawing from. And it certainly doesn't indicate that all homosexuals can just change orientation if they so desire (if that was the case... why would they go through many of the agonizing ordeals they go through?).
I'm sorry...if it's possible to change, then it's a choice. And as to why they go through whatever they go through, we've discussed this ad nauseum with ProWriter. Sometimes the momentary pleasure people derive from just doing what feels good blinds them to the potential consequences.

Gender Identity Disorder is not homosexuality.
Agreed. But the article/study was about homosexuality and other types of sexual identity problems that people face.

n567

08-03-2003, 04:17 PM

This is getting ridiculous. You keep answering as if we are arguing from the same premise and we are not. You obviously contend that homosexuality is genetic and I contend it's a choice. You also infer that just because (some)animals exhibit behavior that in human beings would be construed as sexual in nature, this must mean they are homosexual as well. Or even if it is sexual behavior, are you saying that when your dog humps your leg, you think he's making a pass at you?

Okay, so from your point of view, homosexuality is a choice... Therefore you believe that other mammals have the cognative ability to choose homosexuality? Or is it just something they do naturally?

No, that's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from sleeping with every man/woman that happens to come their way, just because they can.

You said... No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that practicing homosexuality is like committing any other type of sin. We can choose to do it or not to do it.

Homosexuality is not merely about sex. Homosexuals do not go galavanting around in hedonistic bliss, contrary to popular stereotype.

I'm sorry...if it's possible to change, then it's a choice. And as to why they go through whatever they go through, we've discussed this ad nauseum with ProWriter. Sometimes the momentary pleasure people derive from just doing what feels good blinds them to the potential consequences.

If, and that is a big if. Besides which, are you heterosexual merely because of the momentary pleasure of having sex provides? Or are you saying that you find yourself attracted to men, and that you could easily have sex with them for pleasure, but you prevent yourself from doing so out of religious stipulation?

Chief Wiggum

08-03-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757

That's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from practicing heterosexuality
No, that's much like asking a heterosexual to abstain from sleeping with every man/woman that happens to come their way, just because they can.

So if homosexuals were monogamous you'd think it was OK.

Gender Identity Disorder is not homosexuality.
Agreed. But the article/study was about homosexuality and other types of sexual identity problems that people face. [/B]

Homosexuality is not a sexual identity problem.

Chief Wiggum

08-03-2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757

Apparently god didn't make it a choice, he did, like everything else, make acting upon it a choice, is this what you're suggesting?
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that practicing homosexuality is like committing any other type of sin. We can choose to do it or not to do it.

The key word is "practice". Yes practicing it is a choice. BEING a homosexual is not a choice. I can choose to never "practice" heterosexuality again but I'd still BE a heterosexual.

As research is quickly proving, homosexuality is a very common aspect of nature..
Yes, as I've said before, you can find plenty of studies that will state that homosexuality is genetic. However, you can find just as many that say it is a matter of choice.
Choice1 (http://www.presbyweb.com/News2001/05090101.htm)
Choice2 (http://www.cathmed.org/homosexuality_and_hope9-4-02.htm)

It is quite obvious that these sites are pushing an agenda and are not objective. They will twist facts or just flat out lie to reach their ends.

retired

08-03-2003, 09:58 PM

What difference does it make if it is achoice, or not a choice? Does the fact it is or isn't a choice cause someone who finds it a perversion or abnormal to change their opinion? I don't think so.

Deputy757

08-03-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by n567
Okay, so from your point of view, homosexuality is a choice... Therefore you believe that other mammals have the cognative ability to choose homosexuality? Or is it just something they do naturally?
You haven't shown me any proof that other mammals engage in homosexual behavior. Yes, you've referenced some studies that show that some species of animals do things that we humans would find sexual in nature. But holding that they are doing so for sexual gratification would mean that most male dogs have a human leg fetish. They just do it because it feels good...which is ok for animals because...well, they are animals. But for humans it's different because we should be able to control our desire to do things that, though they feel good, are sinful and immoral.

Homosexuality is not merely about sex. Homosexuals do not go galavanting around in hedonistic bliss, contrary to popular stereotype.
It's either about sexual attraction to or sexual relations with those of the same gender. Either way, it's about sex. And, Chiefy's argument notwithstanding, if someone is attracted to those of their same sex, and choose's not to act on those desires, they are, in my book, heterosexuals who are choosing not to act on their unnatural desires. Otherwise, people who "practice" heterosexuality but are attracted to their own gender would still be homosexuals.

If, and that is a big if. Besides which, are you heterosexual merely because of the momentary pleasure of having sex provides? Or are you saying that you find yourself attracted to men, and that you could easily have sex with them for pleasure, but you prevent yourself from doing so out of religious stipulation?
Perhaps I should have used the word "since" instead of if. But to answer your question, I'm heterosexual because I'm attracted to, and engage in sexual relations with those of the opposite sex. This satisfies me and I have no desires to experiment with other sexual acts that aren't natural. I don't think I can make it any plainer than that.

It is quite obvious that these sites are pushing an agenda and are not objective. They will twist facts or just flat out lie to reach their ends.
Chiefy, so if the conclusions don't suit your values then they are pushing an agenda or twisting facts? How convenient that is for you!

ProWriter

08-04-2003, 12:12 AM

...if someone is attracted to those of their same sex, and choose's (sic) not to act on those desires, they are, in my book, heterosexuals who are choosing not to act on their unnatural desires. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That "book" must really be some read there. :rolleyes:

OK, So:

Heterosexuality = People attracted to the opposite gender
Homosexuality = People attracted to the same gender

Therefore:

People with homosexual urges who choose to refrain from
expressing them even though they never lose their internal desires and attraction to the same gender aren't simply celibate homosexuals the way celibate heterosexuals are simply celibate heterosexuals;
they're suddenly "heterosexuals resisting unnatural urges".

Learn somethin' new everyday :rolleyes:

n567

08-04-2003, 12:31 AM

It's either about sexual attraction to or sexual relations with those of the same gender. Either way, it's about sex. And, Chiefy's argument notwithstanding, if someone is attracted to those of their same sex, and choose's not to act on those desires, they are, in my book, heterosexuals who are choosing not to act on their unnatural desires. Otherwise, people who "practice" heterosexuality but are attracted to their own gender would still be homosexuals.

It's either about sexual attraction to or sexual relations with those of the same gender. Either way, it's about sex. And, Chiefy's argument notwithstanding, if someone is attracted to those of their same sex, and choose's not to act on those desires, they are, in my book, heterosexuals who are choosing not to act on their unnatural desires. Otherwise, people who "practice" heterosexuality but are attracted to their own gender would still be homosexuals.

How many homosexuals are you friends with? Because that's just weird. By the way, you're saying homosexuality is merely about sex, therefore those animals are homosexual. Could you please clarify these seemingly contradictory points?

And since humans are animals, noting homosexuality in thousands of other species of animals is quite relevent.

Perhaps I should have used the word "since" instead of if. But to answer your question, I'm heterosexual because I'm attracted to, and engage in sexual relations with those of the opposite sex. This satisfies me and I have no desires to experiment with other sexual acts that aren't natural. I don't think I can make it any plainer than that.

But if you wanted to, you could choose to enjoy unnatural sex, right? Or are some people born differently, with the ability to choose any gender they want to enjoy sex with?

Deputy757

08-04-2003, 12:53 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by n567
By the way, you're saying homosexuality is merely about sex, therefore those animals are homosexual. Could you please clarify these seemingly contradictory points?
And since humans are animals, noting homosexuality in thousands of other species of animals is quite relevent.
If the animals had sex with each other, perhaps. But the studies that I read indicated that the same sexed animals engaged in behavior (not sex) that was also noted in those of the opposite sex. Are the same sexed animals doing it because they are attracted to each other or because it just feels good so they do it?
Finally, you may consider humans to be animals, but I don't. Sure, people say we act like animals, or have an animal instinct, but we are obviously quite different from animals!

But if you wanted to, you could choose to enjoy unnatural sex, right? Or are some people born differently, with the ability to choose any gender they want to enjoy sex with?
Nope...you are right, if I wanted to..I could choose to do that!

n567

08-04-2003, 01:53 AM

If the animals had sex with each other, perhaps. But the studies that I read indicated that the same sexed animals engaged in behavior (not sex) that was also noted in those of the opposite sex. Are the same sexed animals doing it because they are attracted to each other or because it just feels good so they do it?
Finally, you may consider humans to be animals, but I don't. Sure, people say we act like animals, or have an animal instinct, but we are obviously quite different from animals! [i/]

Good point, I would surmise it is only for pleasure, and therefore in our world of self imposed morals, doing something only for pleasure may just be wrong! I find it difficult to reach a consensus of the various ideas floating around this thread.

Obviously we can't hold animals to the human created moral laws we have. They do it for pleasure, that's okay; we do it for pleasure, that's not okay.

[i]Nope...you are right, if I wanted to..I could choose to do that!

So really, all it comes down to is a few passages in an arbitrary book, right?..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

This website views the bible from two opposing viewpoints, rather interesting...

Thus, when it comes down to a battle of philosophies, I suppose the conflict will never be settled! Though, as far as I can recall, you don't have a problem with the ruling, correct... And it's more over arching importance in the evolution and improvement of our government, correct?