Forum
 |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
If there's anything that I loathe about the gay-movement, it is their justifications for their worldview rather than the actual topic that they support. I find the equivocation between racial distinction and sexual activity to be absolutely deplorable to say the least. Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is thuoe same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features. But I guess these types of arguments extend to more than they.



What exactly do you believe is deplorable? Do you believe that a persons sexuality is chosen, rather than something they are born with? If not, then you cannot control sexual attraction any more than what race you are. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, so please elaborate And as a Christian, may I suggest that you not call people who disagree with you "ignorant fools". It turns people off.

 

What about a brother and a sister who are physically attracted to each other OR a Father and his daughter or mother and son.

 

Because they by nature are attracted and desire each other, are you for them in engaging a sexual relationship or getting married?

 

In pro gay views, the above scenarios are NO DIFFERENT to a normal homosexual relationship...After all, just like the examples above, they are attracted to each other.


Brother/Sister: If they are trying to have kids, I would have problems, for the high chance of genetic problems (actually I have never looked into how high the chances of a defect are really) but as far as them being together, I have no problem with it. Do I find it weird? Sure, but I wouldn't ban them from being married if they wanted to.

What if they went down the same rout as any other gay couple and adopted? And be honest here, would you see brother and sister getting married in the same "light" as homosexuals?


Father/Child: Same as above about genetic deficiencies. As far as them being together, I have no problem with it. Once again, I would think it is weird, and I could never imagine myself or anyone I know engaging in it. But if it doesn't hurt anyone, or violate anyone's rights, what is the problem?

 

See above responses. I am trying to get to the point, deep down, do you feel it is "right"?




Sure they can adopt. Would i view it in the same light of what?
and i dont think the 'deep down' question is very good. Not too long ago many people didnt feel it was right for a black man to marry a white woman. I dont feel deep down that it is wrong. Different? Yes.

 

Ok, so concluding from this is that you have no problem a brother and sister marrying each other or a mother and son or father daughter having sexual relations....interesting indeed.

Reply with quote  #77 
Mhm. I find those things weird, but if nobodies rights are being violated im not too concerned. I personally am more concerned with issues of global poverty and animal rights than on marriage rights here in america. Not to say it isnt important, just not what i spend much of my time or money on.
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Mhm. I find those things weird, but if nobodies rights are being violated im not too concerned. I personally am more concerned with issues of global poverty and animal rights than on marriage rights here in america. Not to say it isnt important, just not what i spend much of my time or money on.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "biting the bullet"?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_the_bullet
Reply with quote  #79 


You guys are aware that a person can approve of homosexuality and homosexual marriage while at the same time disapprove of pedophilia and incest right?

Thus far i have seen no evidence that homosexuality or homosexual marriage causes social ills so unless anybody has studies  showing such i do not see any reason to persecute a good % of the population.

Now if Christianity or any other religion has a issue with homosexuality or homosexual marriage due to some of its texts then it obviously cannot and should not be forced to marry homosexuals.
Reply with quote  #80 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieg


You guys are aware that a person can approve of homosexuality and homosexual marriage while at the same time disapprove of pedophilia and incest right?

Yeah sure, but that means they are not consistent in there views. The central theme that i am getting from pro gay advocates is that they are born that way, they dont have a choice in terms of liking / disliking a sex. This is no different to a brother and sister, they cant help it that they are physically attracted to each other or a father and his daughter or mother and son. They are physically attracted to each other. It seems to me by your comment that there is a double standard. I am not talking about pedophillia, strictly incest.

Thus far i have seen no evidence that homosexuality or homosexual marriage causes social ills so unless anybody has studies  showing such i do not see any reason to persecute a good % of the population.

 

I am pretty sure i have read a study that someone has shown here that shows are less happy than hetro marriages. I am pretty sure i saw this. Someone may re-post the link. I could be mistaken, but i am pretty sure.

Now if Christianity or any other religion has a issue with homosexuality or homosexual marriage due to some of its texts then it obviously cannot and should not be forced to marry homosexuals.

Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Yeah sure, but that means they are not consistent in there views. The central theme that i am getting from pro gay advocates is that they are born that way, they dont have a choice in terms of liking / disliking a sex.

This is no different to a brother and sister, they cant help it that they are physically attracted to each other or a father and his daughter or mother and son. They are physically attracted to each other. It seems to me by your comment that there is a double standard. I am not talking about pedophillia, strictly incest.


You may consider that to be a argument for it or one that is presented but i find it irrelevant to the fact that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is harmless to society and as such denying people like that the right to marry is dehumanizing them and that is harmful.

Quote:
I am pretty sure i have read a study that someone has shown here that shows are less happy than hetro marriages. I am pretty sure i saw this. Someone may re-post the link. I could be mistaken, but i am pretty sure.


I would need to see it before accepting such a claim and see if the sort of prejudices people like you show towards homosexuals is a contributing factor towards the unhappiness, a comparison with other minority marriage groups like black white etc would also be interesting and i would still want to see how it could negatively effect society.


However as i said if Christianity or any other religion has a issue with homosexuality or homosexual marriage due to some of its texts then it obviously cannot and should not be forced to marry homosexuals.
Reply with quote  #82 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieg
Quote:
Yeah sure, but that means they are not consistent in there views. The central theme that i am getting from pro gay advocates is that they are born that way, they dont have a choice in terms of liking / disliking a sex.

This is no different to a brother and sister, they cant help it that they are physically attracted to each other or a father and his daughter or mother and son. They are physically attracted to each other. It seems to me by your comment that there is a double standard. I am not talking about pedophillia, strictly incest.


You may consider that to be a argument for it or one that is presented but i find it irrelevant to the fact that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is harmless to society and as such denying people like that the right to marry is dehumanizing them and that is harmful.

Well, neither are "insest relationships".

Quote:
I am pretty sure i have read a study that someone has shown here that shows are less happy than hetro marriages. I am pretty sure i saw this. Someone may re-post the link. I could be mistaken, but i am pretty sure.


I would need to see it before accepting such a claim and see if the sort of prejudices people like you show towards homosexuals is a contributing factor towards the unhappiness, a comparison with other minority marriage groups like black white etc would also be interesting and i would still want to see how it could negatively effect society.

 

The study that i saw has nothing to do with my view. Homsexuals are no better or worse people that i am. We are all sinners. I dont look down on them at all. If someone asked me my opinion on homosexuals, i will say it is wrong, but that doesnt mean i dislike them, hate them or i think i am better than them. My first cousin is a homosexual, he is no better or worse than me in terms of a person.


 However as i said if Christianity or any other religion has a issue with homosexuality or homosexual marriage due to some of its texts then it obviously cannot and should not be forced to marry homosexuals.

 


Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Well, neither are "insest relationships".


Even if that were true the fact remains we are discussion homosexual relationships not incestual ones.

Quote:

 

The study that i saw has nothing to do with my view. Homsexuals are no better or worse people that i am. We are all sinners. I dont look down on them at all. If someone asked me my opinion on homosexuals, i will say it is wrong, but that doesnt mean i dislike them, hate them or i think i am better than them. My first cousin is a homosexual, he is no better or worse than me in terms of a person.


I assume then that you are going to actively try to prevent yourself and others like you from getting married?

I am betting not.

The fact is that i would support your right to do so if you wanted to stop homosexuals from having a christian wedding or at least a your sect of Christianity wedding but when you try to stop them from having any wedding outside your religion you are imposing your religious beliefs on them.
Reply with quote  #84 
1) Actually, IIRC gay couples have a higher relationship satisfaction than heterosexual ones, which I'd attribute to a selection effect.

2) Incest actually is really harmful and almost always consists of a father raping his daughter. In theory I suppose there's nothing wrong with an adult brother and sister going at it as long as they don't have children, but this happens so rarely that I can't imagine it becoming a political issue. If the twincestuous start advocating for their (admittedly super gross) rights maybe we can reconsider.

3) Nobody's going to make a religious institution recognize gay marriage as sacramentally valid; likewise, gay marriage not being recognized by the state hasn't gotten in the way of other religious institutions recognizing it as sacramentally valid. The religious may be forced to fail to prevent same-sex spouses from visiting each other in hospitals or the like, just as the religious may be forced not to stone witches, but so what?
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Mhm. I find those things weird, but if nobodies rights are being violated im not too concerned. I personally am more concerned with issues of global poverty and animal rights than on marriage rights here in america. Not to say it isnt important, just not what i spend much of my time or money on.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "biting the bullet"?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_the_bullet


Yup. Why?
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
If there's anything that I loathe about the gay-movement, it is their justifications for their worldview rather than the actual topic that they support. I find the equivocation between racial distinction and sexual activity to be absolutely deplorable to say the least. Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features. But I guess these types of arguments extend to more than they.



[...]

You find it deplorable because racial factors are 100% out of your control, but sexual orientation is within it? If I am off, then please explain.
Thank you, I didn't think I was an idiot haha. WHO were you calling ignorant fools? When you say "Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features" it seems to me that you are calling people who do believe that the discrimination between homosexuality and physical features equal "ignorant fools". If I am way off, let me know why.


All of your questions and concerns are right there in my post, Mae. Here look:

I find it deplorable because: "I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features."

Secondly, I did not call anyone fools. In order to call someone something, you need a subject-verb agreement where the subject is there, and the verb is calling someone a fool (typically this is done by the use of a conjugation of the verb "to be", as in "they are fools" or something to that effect). However, in my post, you see nothing like that. I make a mention of entities that are inherently called fools, but I did not extend that title to anyone but those who are inherently fools. Furthermore, my last sentence should make it more than obvious that the people who I disagree with within this topic are not those "ignorant fools". It's actually plainly obvious. Like, it's right there.
Lion_IRC
Reply with quote  #87 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Mhm. I find those things weird, but if nobodies rights are being violated im not too concerned. I personally am more concerned with issues of global poverty and animal rights than on marriage rights here in america. Not to say it isnt important, just not what i spend much of my time or money on.


Some animals have non-consensual intercourse - rape. (No age limits apply.) Some animals eat their offspring. Some animals copulate with humans - and there's no doubt about mutual consent. The human is giving consent - not asking for it.

Dont forget to defend those "animal rights" as well.

Meanwhile, in other news.....

Canadian polygamy supporters (human beings) denied the "right" to State-recognized cohabitation in "marriage"             ......
discriminated against by their government which legalised "gay marriage" in 2003.
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
If there's anything that I loathe about the gay-movement, it is their justifications for their worldview rather than the actual topic that they support. I find the equivocation between racial distinction and sexual activity to be absolutely deplorable to say the least. Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features. But I guess these types of arguments extend to more than they.



[...]

You find it deplorable because racial factors are 100% out of your control, but sexual orientation is within it? If I am off, then please explain.
Thank you, I didn't think I was an idiot haha. WHO were you calling ignorant fools? When you say "Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features" it seems to me that you are calling people who do believe that the discrimination between homosexuality and physical features equal "ignorant fools". If I am way off, let me know why.


All of your questions and concerns are right there in my post, Mae. Here look:

I find it deplorable because: "I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features."

Secondly, I did not call anyone fools. In order to call someone something, you need a subject-verb agreement where the subject is there, and the verb is calling someone a fool (typically this is done by the use of a conjugation of the verb "to be", as in "they are fools" or something to that effect). However, in my post, you see nothing like that. I make a mention of entities that are inherently called fools, but I did not extend that title to anyone but those who are inherently fools. Furthermore, my last sentence should make it more than obvious that the people who I disagree with within this topic are not those "ignorant fools". It's actually plainly obvious. Like, it's right there.


I think people need to grow up get over the physical act of intercourse and focus on the facts regarding the emotions involved.

Homosexual partners love each other as much as any other kinds of partners and as such if they want to they deserve to be married just as much as others.
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archsage
If there's anything that I loathe about the gay-movement, it is their justifications for their worldview rather than the actual topic that they support. I find the equivocation between racial distinction and sexual activity to be absolutely deplorable to say the least. Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features. But I guess these types of arguments extend to more than they.



[...]

You find it deplorable because racial factors are 100% out of your control, but sexual orientation is within it? If I am off, then please explain.
Thank you, I didn't think I was an idiot haha. WHO were you calling ignorant fools? When you say "Honestly, I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features" it seems to me that you are calling people who do believe that the discrimination between homosexuality and physical features equal "ignorant fools". If I am way off, let me know why.


All of your questions and concerns are right there in my post, Mae. Here look:

I find it deplorable because: "I would think that only ignorant fools would try and make the point that what a person does with their genitalia is the same as the discrimination people get from just having different physical features."

Secondly, I did not call anyone fools. In order to call someone something, you need a subject-verb agreement where the subject is there, and the verb is calling someone a fool (typically this is done by the use of a conjugation of the verb "to be", as in "they are fools" or something to that effect). However, in my post, you see nothing like that. I make a mention of entities that are inherently called fools, but I did not extend that title to anyone but those who are inherently fools. Furthermore, my last sentence should make it more than obvious that the people who I disagree with within this topic are not those "ignorant fools". It's actually plainly obvious. Like, it's right there.


I think people need to grow up get over the physical act of intercourse and focus on the facts regarding the emotions involved.

Homosexual partners love each other as much as any other kinds of partners and as such if they want to they deserve to be married just as much as others.


Alright, well since you quoted me...

We are supposed to love everyone. This is not an issue of love. We are not discussing whether people are to love others. They ARE supposed to love others and wholly so. That's just the plain truth. Love is the most important Law in this world.

So the question is not about "should people love others?". Of course they should. They should love all. The question is, "should people have sex with anyone"? That's the question being discussed. That's the question we are talking about, and that's the topic that we find ourselves ending up in whenever we get into a discussion of gayness and/or marriage.

So yes, people should love others. But should they have sex with others? That is the question, stevieg. That is the issue. Not Love. Love for all people is something that is debatable for those actually following the Christ.
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion_IRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mae
Mhm. I find those things weird, but if nobodies rights are being violated im not too concerned. I personally am more concerned with issues of global poverty and animal rights than on marriage rights here in america. Not to say it isnt important, just not what i spend much of my time or money on.


Some animals have non-consensual intercourse - rape. (No age limits apply.) Some animals eat their offspring. Some animals copulate with humans - and there's no doubt about mutual consent. The human is giving consent - not asking for it.

Dont forget to defend those "animal rights" as well.

Meanwhile, in other news.....

Canadian polygamy supporters (human beings) denied the "right" to State-recognized cohabitation in "marriage"             ......
discriminated against by their government which legalised "gay marriage" in 2003.


lol. By animal rights I am talking about their right not to be slaughtered by us when there is no need for us to do so.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.