http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3951669.stm

The above link is about a new TV channel dedicated to homosexual viewers and hopes to make the practice more acceptable.

My question - should homosexuals be allowed to get married, adopt children etc?

My view is that they should be allowed to be married, however I don't think they should be allowed to change religious regulations i.e. get married in Catholic or Protestant churches if this is the churches wishes.

The channel hopes to attract heterosexual viewers too
"I hope that PinkTV becomes a broad space of freedom and culture allowing all of our fellow citizens live their freedom and respect one another,"Just look at the ridiculousness of that sentence. Is one gay channel the saviour of all French civilisation and foundation of great edifice of freedom yet to come to future generations? Come on, please. Do show some moderation. Am I not free and do I not respect people or am I not respected by people if I don't watch gay channels? Please. Let's be serious.

That's how I see the totality of the gay movement, as a matter of gross simplification, of course, but a true one, in its robust way.

As I see it, the channel will promote most of all sexual freedom in it's promiscuous form (shag whomever you want whenever you want wherever you want however you want, in teams if that's your preference) and earn bucks questionning traditional authorities and ethics to placate the masses yearning for the thrill of something new and unrestrained by the babbling of old bigots. Yeah.

Now, as to rights and allowances. No child adoption. No equal parental rights for gay couples. "Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not "deprived" of the right to marry: they can marry a person of opposite sex and have children with that person as much as anyone else of legal age and sane mind in the society. Don't want that? Well, there are heterosexuals who live in concubinates, as well, why make homosexuals privileged and call that marriage which visibly is not?

Discrimination? Heck, that someone is gay it doesn't mean he will run around molesting men, or she will hit on every woman she sights. And if someone is gay, it doesn't mean he or she will be a bad teacher because of that and focused on making your children gay. In any case just the regular conduct regulations will be enough, if only they're applied justly, which means no compensational freedom of conduct for gay people. For instance, if we aren't appreciative of hetero couples making out in public transport, we shouldn't make an exception for gay couples just because they're gay.

To sum up, equal right: yes; special rights: no.

This essentially means no pro-gay propaganda where it doesn't belong. For instance, if I were the headmaster of, let's say, a Catholic school, I would still hire a gay teacher and I would ask the protesters to mind their own business. But any sort of unprovoked pro-gay rhetoric in the class would get the person fired.

Godless homos will burn in hell! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp). No questions please.

Or, to add to Ragusa's link some more "mainstream" evidence of sensible conservative opinion on homosexuality: a Hawaii Republican who would support the execution of homosexuals. (http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320)

And, from Focus on the Family's James Dobson, how gay marriage "will destroy the Earth." (http://www.newsok.com/electok/article/1345390/)

And from a pro-Bush 527, a tasteful advertisement about Kerry/Edwards and gay marriage. (http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/gaymarriage.htm)

So obviously Pink TV is a clear and present danger to all right-thinking people, no?

I'm all for Lesbian rights. :hahaerr:

But all male homos should of course burn in hell, it's filthy.

:rolleyes:

What? :shake:

<vaguely serious> Let them do what they want, but don't let them dictate when they become a majority. Same as always.

They already have all rights to do as they please here in the Netherlands, they are allowed to get married, they are allowed to adopt children, they have all kinds of stupid national parades, they even had their own gay Olympics.... what more is it that they want ?

They are already accepted in our society, nobody thinks of them as freaks anymore, isn't that what they sought ? It's because of useless attentionseeking actions like his, that they place themselves right back out of society again. I'm just glad that this proposal wasn't made in the Netherlands where 75% of all showhosts, newsreaders, actors and singers is already gay to begin with. Any more queers on TV and i'll throw it out of the window.

I have no real problem with gays. I must confess to twinging whenever I see 2 blokes snogging or whatever. They are not hurting anyone I 'spose, leave 'em with it.

they even had their own gay OlympicsI know, and that is what makes me kind of pissed of. They want to be accepted? Sure, I have nothing against it, but gay olympics? I mean, it's like having afroamerican olympics or even female olympics.

IMHO, they can have children, adopted or not.
IMHO, they should have the same rights as everyone else.
IMHO, they should be allowed to marry BUT, and I repeat BUT, not in curches that don't want to. Each church votes, not just the elders but all members of the curch, and if they allow it, sure. But if they disallow it, find a new curch or have a civil marriage. Don't go crying to the goverment about it. Seperation of curch and state, y'now.

IMHO, they can have children, adopted or not.:eek: I'm amazed Caled -- what did they teach you in liberal sweden in your biology lessons ??! :eek:

Well there have been quite a few cases of gay women getting inseminated in one way or another. Heck, one even sued the guy who helped her after she broke up with her girlfriend for childsupport. He was kinda peeved.

It is funny how we all think FAGGOTS when the word gay is used. There are female gay people too.

Ok, let's keep this clean, shall we?

Ragusa, you'll be surprised how many men find out at a much later age what their true sexual feelings are, and by the time they do, they have a wife and three children. So yeah, gay people don't necessarily have to adopt, all they need is a slow working mind. It might happen to you, so easy on the cynicism. :D

*sigh*

I support the right of any couple, no matter what their plumbing compactibility is, to be able to have the legal benefits of a marriage. (After all, marriage is all about finances... imho, that is)

Also, I think that same goes for adopting children.

and Chev? Sexual preference and promscuity does not go hand in hand.

and Chev? Sexual preference and promscuity does not go hand in hand.That's basically what I said in:

Heck, that someone is gay it doesn't mean he will run around molesting men, or she will hit on every woman she sights.However, the gay rights movement is full of promiscuity, as it promotes sexual freedom in all its randomness, as well as same-gender sex itself.

I support the right of any couple, no matter what their plumbing compactibility is, to be able to have the legal benefits of a marriage. (After all, marriage is all about finances... imho, that is)

Also, I think that same goes for adopting children.Adopting children is not about the rights of those who adopt, but about the rights of those who are adopted. There is a reason why not even all biological parents have custody.

Marriage? No.
Equivalent of marriage? Yes.

Equal rights? Who says they don't have them?

A homosexual channel? Great, good for them, just don't expect/demand government funding.

Children? I don't see why not. They couldn't do a worse job than many hetrosexual parents.

Gay Olympics? Can't they already compete in the normal Olympics? Are they implying that homosexuals are disabled in some way and are at a disadvantage competing with hetrosexuals? AFAIK no gays have been denied the right to compete in the Olympics because of their sexuality and no gays have been denied a medal unless they were proved of cheating.

Marriage in churches? The chuch has a right to deny them but there are many alternatives to religious marriage. Why don't they start a homosexual religion?

And my own question: will there be naked lesbians on PinkTV? :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, they can have children, adopted or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm amazed Caled -- what did they teach you in liberal sweden in your biology lessons ??!

WHAT THE F**K is wrong with sweden, kid? it's probably better than the rock you're living on anyway. now you're a christian and you linked to Ford Chick the most gay man in the world. why would you do that??

god LOVED gay people. otherwise, he wouldn't have created so many a** holes, wouldn't he....

more to the point, how come so many priests are gay? molesting children? doing all kinds of UNCHRISTIAN things, child abuse ect. ect. explain that, ragusa

I wondered how long it would be before this old topic reared its tired head again.

I have no real problem with gays. I must confess to twinging whenever I see 2 blokes snogging or whatever. They are not hurting anyone I 'spose, leave 'em with it. Scary thing is, I agree with Barmy Army.....

In New Zealand, the people who protest against homosexual marriage are a group of nutters called The Destiny Church who wear black T-shirts and stomp around in big black boots waving flags outside parliament (when they should be at work) with their kids (who should be at school). In my opinion, these loonies are a bigger threat to society than homosexual marriage or same-sex parents.

Gay olympics is typically what I deem over-compensation (no pun). There is no more need for that that there is a need for all-black or all-women or all-whatever olympics.
So yeah, they can't be denied that because they were oppressed and stuff... pity.

Btw, Prime, I think Ragusa's posts were more humorisitic than anything. :hippy:

why not get an all nazi olympics while we're at it? a good way of assembling all morons and then blow it sky high to kingdom come. then let in a special swat team massacre the burning remains?

Oxymore, ya think so? dunno, he could have been serious. better safe than sorry, just look in Max Payne. They shot that guy with a full clip then reloaded and shot some more. ain't that being on the safe side?

[ If you've got something personal to say to an individual poster, use PM. Read up on the rules sticky for the Alley of Dangerous Angles while you're at it. ] - Beren

[ October 27, 2004, 07:24: Message edited by: Beren ]

Have said this on several boards, will say it again:

Gays and lesbians should have a right to REGISTER their relationship to gain equal stance (sharing of property, widow's rights, etc). About that I can agree, but they NEVER should have a right to normal, church weddings or to adopt children. They are abnormal. Dot.

I agree 100% with Ragusa...and please don't anyone come and tell me what a horrible closed-minded person I am; I dont want to hear it!

Well, you are, so there. :p

I've said it before in another thread...live and let live. Btw..that link with the bible stories, is by far the lamset thing i've seen in a long time. I thought Jesus was all about tolerance, equality, and love thy neighbour and stuff ?

I agree that homosexuality is 'abnormal'. But so is deafness, but nobody says that that a deaf person should be banned from being a parent (even though deafness would impact their ability to be a parent) or from marrying the partner of their choice.

They should be able to marry; I can't see any reason why not. Of course, reason and faith are different things, and you can't force a faith to accept homosexual marriages. This creates a problem for some, I realise, but I see no real difference between secular and religious ceremonies except for what is invested in it (as an institution) by the people who follow that faith.

Adoption, I'm not sure what I think. I know there's no reason not to believe that gay parents will be any better or worse than hetero parents, but I just have an uneasy feeling on this issue. Anyone can be a good or bad parent and short of testing people before letting them have children, we'll never get around that; my concern is more for the kid's mental health than anything else as they grow up and become aware that their lived reality is not "normal" (in the majority sense). Undecided as yet on adoption.

I support the right of any couple, no matter what their plumbing compactibility is, to be able to have the legal benefits of a marriage. (After all, marriage is all about finances... imho, that is) Arabwel, you've hit the nail on the head. As much as the issue of whether gay men and lesbians should be able to marry is about morals and denominational attitudes, we shouldn't ignore the monetary side of things in the development of marriage laws.

Yes, I know I'm flip-flopping a little, but my views have changed somewhat.

I think it is hypocritical to ban homosexual couples from raising children. If you did that, you'd have to ban so many other groups as well. What about solo parents (oh no! the child might grow up thinking all kids only have one parent!), divorced parents (oh no! the child might think marriage is just a myth), drunks, gamblers, fans of rap music, and people with speeding fines. While you're at it, you'd better ban all foreigners from having kids too (we all know foreigners have no clue).

Why not just make it easy and ban everyone from being parents who is at all different from yourself? Then we can all live in a happy fantasy bubble-land where everybody is exactly the same and we all feel safe and comfortable and nothing can hurt us.....

@ Pac man, the bible says you can sell your children into slavery and stone people to death, not to mention the whole Crusades thing, a bit off topic there but oh well.


I think they should have all the rights of "normal" people, I mean after all, we have no problem with different races getting married or adopting, or other religions for that matter, why not people with a different sexual preferance?

Good points, HB. The key issue (as I see it) is that gay male couples have no legal or biological way of bringing a child into the world, and therefore is not just a matter of choice. It is hypocritical to ban people from adoption just on one aspect of their humanity, but everybody else on your list can have kids without legal intervention.

...but dammit, people who have speeding fines raise kids who get speeding fines! It's a DISGRACE!

(ahem)

I didn't say I had a rational unease about it, though - it's just a gut thing. And as I said, anyone can be a bad parent, no matter their sexual orientation. But until attitudes of bigotry or heteromania are less strident, no matter how nurturing and loving an environment the kids are raised in, they will cop it as they grow up. They might be bludgeoned into feeling ashamed of who they are, of who their family are. I know that's not fair, but I can't shake that feeling.

Maybe I'm taking this too personally, but I've had too many friends and relatives commit suicide or have clinical depression to wish that on anyone or their families. I don't see this as a clear-cut issue, and while I don't think there should be any reason why not, social reality doesn't care what I believe.

Pac-man,
I'm being reminded daily as I work in a gay company and as one of my flatmates is lesbian - that godless wench is studying ... ironically theology and is atm in Jerusalem for bible studies.

You remind me of a co-worker, who, when I mentioned that I have a girlfriend, only replied that I just hadn't seen the light yet. And that I maybe just didn't like HIM. Well, whatever :shake:

... as for my alleged cynicism -- the whole debate here is so utterly pointless, predictable and repetitive ...

[ October 27, 2004, 04:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yes, it would certainly be tougher to be a child of same-sex parents and my preferred family structure is definitely one with a Mother and a Father.

But I don't think that's a good enough reason to ban them as parents.

Life would also be tough for a kid who's Mum was a famous topless model (think of hassles he'd get at school) but we don't ban Jordan from being a mother.

Homosexuals could always avoid the problem by simply marrying ANOTHER homosexual (i.e. homosexual man marries homosexual woman) just to adopt a child. They adopt the child then divorce and go off to live with their same sex partner while the child goes with the family that agreed upon having the child at the start.

Can a single person adopt a child?

"whole Crusades thing, a bit off topic there but oh well." I don't think the bible promoted this. It was just as corrupt as the current war we are involved in. People wanted to conquer foreign lands and just twisted a few sentences to drum up support - just like today come to think of it! Its amazing how little changes.

I thought Jesus was all about tolerance, equality, and love thy neighbour and stuff ?Jesus was one with Father who said clearly "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind". Refer to Ragusa's link for more quotes.
Equality has been covered as well - homosexuals are equal.

I didn't say I had a rational unease about it, though - it's just a gut thing. And as I said, anyone can be a bad parent, no matter their sexual orientation. But until attitudes of bigotry or heteromania are less strident, no matter how nurturing and loving an environment the kids are raised in, they will cop it as they grow up. They might be bludgeoned into feeling ashamed of who they are, of who their family are. I know that's not fair, but I can't shake that feeling.A homosexual can still be a good parent, granted. However, a homosexual couple is not the same as a mother and a father.

that godless wench is studying ... ironically theology and is atm in Jerusalem for bible studies.What is her opinion on the Bible prohibiting gay intercourse (thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind) and counting it amongst blasphemies (fornicators... effeminate... shall not inherit the Kingdom of God), I'm curious?

the bible is full of commandments and stuff, but how many truly follows them now?

it states on many levels that you should kill a lot of people but it also says, Thou Shalt Not Kill. for instance, how many poeple smashes their sons heads in a stone, just because he's rebellous? it's a crime to kill, both biblically and otherwise, but the bible says on many occasions to kill many pepole, like the godless for instance.
and how many of us follows ALL the commandments, christian or not?

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... bring him unto the elders of the city... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt you put evil away from among you!"

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

how many does THIS anymore??? can't think of many

That was the old testament. Jesus had died for our sins and to show God how hard life is for mortals - thats why he endured all the torture.

Another reason why the new testament is much kinder than the old. Thats why Jesus saved the woman commited of adultry from being stoned to death "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone". Therefore do not judge people unless you yourself are perfect.

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... bring him unto the elders of the city... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt you put evil away from among you!"There's one thing that escapes you. This passage is Law. Law is not even so much tenets of faith as religion-based law for the nation of Israel. This particular passage is an instance of death penalty. Numerous other passages are either Law or references to war against the enemies of Israel. In war, you kill or get killed, simple as it is.

But how do you imagine homosexual intercourse being justified or required by the situation? Is it wrong unless the man is really hot? Is it wrong unless you really want it so much you can't resist? Sorry, that doesn't work. Perhaps adultery is bad unless your friend's wife has great legs? Please...

the bible is full of commandments and stuff, but how many truly follows them now?So who's sinning - the Bible?

and how many of us follows ALL the commandments, christian or not?So, should we make exceptions for things we like or things that are trendy?

Regarding Ragusa's 'chick.com' website from earlier in this topic:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1053/1053_01.asp

This site is full of lies and hate. The above suggests that Halloween comes from Old England and that Saman is the Lord of Death.

Halloween comes from the Scottish word 'Hal'oween' which means Hallows Eve. Hal'oween comes from Scottish folklore shared with Irish folklore. Its called 'Samhain' not 'Saman' and is the 'fire festival' not 'lord of death'. Yes its a pagan celebration of when the barrier separating the spirit world and our world is at its weakest point.

So my advise is do not beleive everything you read on the internet. If you continue to explore Ragusa's chick.com site you will see that playing Dungeons and Dragons is wrong and that Harry Potter is the devil himself. I thought most Christians would take pity on orphans.

Eh, that site is an obvious exaggeration. It surprises me that not everyone realises that. But the quotes are real.

I thought the gay movement already had plenty of tv airtime. Whats next "Sheep Eye for the Farm Guy"

I think the following explains my complete disregard for any argument on Homosexuality using the Bible as a basis.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an
abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot
be condoned under any circumstances.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding
some of the other specific laws and how to follow
them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -
Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman
while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness -
Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have
tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put
to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should
they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He
also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

That was very funny but the new testament puts an end to old traditions.

All I can say is the same stuff I've said before.

In princible, gays should be accepted as a part of the society. Mainly because while I think what they do is sick, it's not my place to decide as long as nobody is hurt in the process. Unlike some animalsex or paedophilia or somesuch, gay sex means two grownup people with the understanding and ability to make this choice.

However, I agree with Chev that holy religious rules should not change to support the modern trend. Otherwise they'd be nothing but opinions. And I also don't pretend to like this trend one bit.

To me, and to basically all of my heterosexual friends as well, seeing gay people make out is like seeing someone give a mouthjob to their dog. No pun intended, it's just that much out of the ordinary. Now despite what I've said before, on a strictly logical basis I can't claim that gay people should not have the right to make out in public. But I do think it a very valid point that it can be too disturbing for a normal heterosexual person.

That's right. I don't think it's just a matter of growing accustomed to it (well of course you can grow accustomed to being beaten every day by your parents, as some people could prove... but it's not like the consequences are too good from that either). I think that while the unnatural nature of gayness must be accepted because even "flaws" are a part of human nature and add to the whole, it must also be accepted that heterosexuals do indeed have a natural psychic defense against homosexuals. It must be accepted, that for some who might accept homosexuality for another as an idea, seeing it in action equals having sex with their own parents. And the nausea that is accompanied with such a thought.

What I hate the most about this thing is the trend to stick gays in every TV show. Sure, they can be quite funny with their strange sense of humour sometimes. But I still don't want to see them licking each other in every other show I look on TV. Or rather, used to look.

Bear in mind that I have a friend who is gay. And I've tried for what seems like several years to accept gayness as a normal thing that I can see in its every form and not care about. But I can't. I've realised the fact about myself and life in general that no person is supposed to accept or 'like' everything. Tolerate perhaps, but not like. I find gay people repulsive, and it's my right to feel that way. As personalities they can be ok, but to me two people of the same sex just don't belong together that way. And I'd prefer the gays kept their physical endeavors to their own bedchamber.

This is just my opinion. And I think it a far more openminded one than those of the people who really have no opinions on anything, but rather say "yes" to everything instead.

As a wise older friend of mine once said: "too much tolerance equals ignorance". And I agree.

Cesard,
great you eventually got the joke about that site, congrats :roll:

I didn't know that you were joking. It was too early in the day for me.

I am having fun at the moment pressing control and f , typing in a word of interest and seeing what advice the mighty chick.com has for me.

If anyone wants to see something very arrogant go to:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

This one is designed to spread fear "we expect to see a Muslim flag fly over the White House by 2010"

@ Cesard

Agreed, apart from: (Post before your last one)

Jesus himself said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17.)

If we discount the Old Testament and look at the New Testament, would someone like to provide a quote by Jesus condeming Homosexuality? I don't believe one exists. In fact the question of Homosexuality as a sin appears to come down to a matter of translation:

In the New Testament there are three scriptures often cited to show the "sinfulness of homosexuality." There are many English translations of the Bible and each of them uses different English words to translate the passages from ancient Greek, so some words will depend upon which version or translation is used. Two Greek words are used by Paul in two similar passages. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. These words are used in I Corinthians 6:9 and in I Timothy 1:10. Literally translated, malakos means "soft" and arsenokoitai means "male-bed."

Neither word meant "homosexual" in the Greek used during Paul's time. Unfortunately, Biblical language scholars disagree on what these words really did mean in the context of these two passages or to the people to whom Paul wrote. There were many Greek words for same-sex activity or "homosexuals," but Paul did not select them. Somehow translators have attached various "homosexual" meanings to these two words.

Notice the following versions of an excerpt from I Corinthians 6:9 . (I Timothy 1:10 is very similar):

-King James: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

-New International: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,

-Revised Standard: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

-Jerusalem Bible: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites,

-New English: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion,

Which version is closest to what was intended when the original words did not mean "homosexual"? It is strange that some preachers confidently condemn gays and lesbians when scholars and different translations of the Bible do not even agree upon what certain words actually mean!
"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean". (Romans 14:14) RSV

Which version is closest to what was intended when the original words did not mean "homosexual"? It is strange that some preachers confidently condemn gays and lesbians when scholars and different translations of the Bible do not even agree upon what certain words actually mean!If having sex with someone of your gender is not sexual perversion, than what is?

Plus, if sex was expressly or even implicitly limited to marriage for heterosexuals, and marriage was between man and woman, then why make an exception for homosexual intercourse, which can only be non-marital? So much as that cute girl from the agora isn't your wife, neither is that guy, you know. Of course, one could argue that for men it wasn't considered sinful to have sex with female slaves (though not really free women), but how about lesbians then? Although lesbians can't perform insertion, whereas for male gay people it's possible to a limited degree, so we could say there's no intercourse between lesbians and problem solved :/.

Just a note: to whatever degree homosexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, to that degree it can't be considered sinful. Indulging in homosexual carnal activity is a different thing.

Wake up, kids! Lose your fears and just give it a try. There are two kinds of people: the sensual and tactile ones; and the uptights.

And the very middle class statement "mind you, I have a friend who's gay"! If anything is non-intellectual, this is it. Made me chuckle myself.

Oh, and chevalier: even the pope is more laid-back than you are. You really do believe the Vatican believes the stuff you believe them to believe, don't you?

A homosexual can still be a good parent, granted. However, a homosexual couple is not the same as a mother and a father.This quote is highly problematic, and it's a point I've seen you raise numerous times. I'm not sure why a "father" is required to raise a child. A mother provides breast milk, but what can a father provide that another woman could not? Perhaps you could enlighten me.

From a medical point of view gay sex between men is very harmful to the body - I don't think you need me to explain further!

Personally I don't see the appeal in gay sex.

This quote is highly problematic, and it's a point I've seen you raise numerous times. I'm not sure why a "father" is required to raise a child. A mother provides breast milk, but what can a father provide that another woman could not? Perhaps you could enlighten me.Ever met a man raised without a father?

Oh, and chevalier: even the pope is more laid-back than you are. You really do believe the Vatican believes the stuff you believe them to believe, don't you?Ever read anything the Pope wrote in the subject?

Try here: http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=homosexuality&CFGNAME=MssFindEN.cfg&en=x


Or here (lots): http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&QUERY=homosexual&EN=X&NO_DL=X

Wake up, kids! Lose your fears and just give it a try.Thank you very much for kind invitation, but I'll stick to girls.

[ October 27, 2004, 15:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]

if sex was expressly or even implicitly limited to marriage for heterosexuals, and marriage was between man and woman, then why make an exception for homosexual intercourse, which can only be non-marital? I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but this seems to read that any sexual activity outside of marriage is morally and reprehensibly wrong? Do you therefore judge that any heterosexual activity outside of marriage is as "wrong" as you are judging Homosexual activity? After all, they are mentioned in the same line.

I could probably argue that "No sex before marriage" is an abnormal attitude now, i.e. it is not the most commonly believed or practiced. I'm not saying it's a wrong attitide, just that few practice it.

Homosexuality is a natural thing, because you do actually get homosexual animals, one case that made the news a year or so back in Britain was of two male swans. I recall some Biologist friends at Uni discussing a study showing Rats also tend to homosexuality in over-crowded conditions.
Can you claim some animals are perverted? As the definition is "to depart from what is reasonable or required" then no, as you can't expect them to know what is reasonable or required. Is homosexuality a perversion? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable.

A previous argument used by the scientic community for it being unnatural is the inability to pass on genes. However a recent study has shown the nature compensates by having siblings produce larger families.

Before the church decidided to go about codifing their means of controlling the populace, it wasn't exactly uncommon in the ancient world. It's recognised that the Greek Spartans had homosexual partners before they took wives. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the concept of it as a "sin" only arose to give more fervour to one countries soldiers attacking another country. Much as the Church changed it's mind about murdering people (in this case if they were non-christian) during the crusades.

Speaking as someone who thinks the Bible is an allegorical, entirely human work rather than being The Word Of God, I don't really care what homosexuals of either gender do with each other.

Religions, as private organizations, should be allowed to make rules prohibiting homosexual marriage if that's within the tenets of the belief system, but they absolutely DO NOT have the right to impose those beliefs on any other group or the society at large. Equally, it shouldn't be up to the state to discriminate against any of its (civil) law-abiding citizens.

Chev, amazingly enough you've actually said something I agree with in this thread: Equal right YES, Special rights, NO. The difference is that I see acknowledging a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner as being an equal right. Same with adoption of children. What matters is growing up in a stable, loving environment, not being steeped in the "proper" gender roles. :rolleyes: Kids will get plenty of that from society at large - what they need at home is an environment that encourages human dignity and respect in all forms, not something that reinforces society's narrow-mindedness.

Pink TV? I doubt I'll watch, but I certainly don't care that it's on. I'm sure they'll broadcast nothing any more offensive the stuff some of the race-oriented stations air.

Well even if animals are homosexual that does not mean that it makes the practice normal. Animals do a lot of strange things like breed with their mother/daughter etc and I am sure most people here would say no es acceptible!

Yeppedy-yep, Knight of the Everfull Chalice, I did my share of reading. However, I threw in some degree of understanding as well.

What do you expect the Pope to say? "Cheers, mates, come to think of it, I've been wrong for all those years, sorry for that, now off you go and give each other a good hmph!"?

It will be a gradual process, same with abortion. Some day, maybe even in my lifetime, those strict interpretations and dogmas will have vanished - or the Catholic Church will have. The members of the Vatican are pragmatical about those things, they are old and experienced, change is nothing new to them. The task of the Church is to stall those social developments long enough to give the people who are full of fear some time to get their bearings.

Thank you very much for kind invitation, but I'll stick to girls. Not that I wanted to imply that you should give me a try, but ... do you now what your prostate gland is? Girls could never give you that kind of pleasure! :grin:

Yee-Haw!

are you sure about that?

About what? That stimulating one's prostate does arouse sexual excitation? Yep, I'm sure.

Or do you mean that girls can stimulate my prostate as well? Well well, what a nasty boy you are, Cesard! I didn't know you had it in you, but you are right, man!

Can a single person adopt a child? In the U.S., it's decided upon by the state. Most states say single people can adopt children, while others prohibit single people from adopting. In states where single people can adopt, it is possible for a gay person to adopt a child. I doubt they ask you what your sexual orientation is, and even if they did, one could always lie. However, it does not allow for a gay couple to adopt a child. So a gay woman can adopt a child, and her gay partner could adopt a child, but there's no way they could set it up where they both had joint custody of the child in the sense that they would both be considered parents.

In other states, they prohibit single people from adopting entirely, which effectively prohibits gay people from adopting children.

As Rally basically said exactly what I would have said, I'll just say "Ditto."

@ Darkthrone

:lol:
I dreaded what you would have to say to this topic, as we seemingly were bound to disagree on most issues. Til now.

Wunderbar.
:thumb:

Yee-Haw?! tehehehe

Likewise I very much agree with Rallymama. :)

Most states say single people can adopt children, while others prohibit single people from adopting.So if you're homosexual and want a child you just need to hop states and find one? Seems like the law has some catching up to do if they want to prohibit same-sex partners raising children.

Considering how most adoption agencies have religious backgrounds it's no surprise homosexuals find it hard to adopt. You couldn't pass a law that a huge majority of the 'service providers' disagree with.

So if you're homosexual and want a child you just need to hop states and find one? Actaully, you won't have to hop much because, as I said, most states do allow single people to adopt children. That having been said, this is open to all single people, regardless of whether you're gay or straight. Now, no state says it's OK for two gay people to jointly adopt a child. Bob and Joe can't go down to the adoption center and try to adopt a child. However, Bob can do it on his own, and Joe can do it on his own. (Hmmm... I should have used two female names, as single men rarely attempt to adopt children.)

Hmm, it seems there's little to say which hasn't already been said. I agree with Rallymama.

Chev, amazingly enough you've actually said something I agree with in this thread: Equal right YES, Special rights, NO. The difference is that I see acknowledging a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner as being an equal right.According similar benefits without setting similar requirements is no equal rights. A gay union is not the same as a mutually complementing union of a man and a woman, no matter how you put it. The privileges that marriage enjoyed are geared towards and tailored for prolongation of families, which is no goal that a gay union can reach. All that a gay union can achieve is to emulate the union of a man and a woman committed to each other and the life they beget.

Same with adoption of children.Adoption of children is not a right.

What matters is growing up in a stable, loving environment, not being steeped in the "proper" gender roles.Children learn their societal roles from parents. For some reason, I don't want a fresh new human being to be taught how to be a good same-gender-spouse and co-same-gender-parent of adopted children.

Kids will get plenty of that from society at largeWhich is no valid justification for making petty concession in such an important matter as the good formation of family.

what they need at home is an environment that encourages human dignity and respect in all formsDignity is innately human, but respect is innately due to fellow human so long as it is respect for him or her as a human being. No one has any right to respect for his or her chosen lifestyle. In fact, affirmative stance has not much to do with respect. It's based more on general indolence.

not something that reinforces society's narrow-mindedness.It is a debatable matter what makes narrow-mindedness. To me, narrow-mindedness is, for instance, happy affirmation of gay life style including such travesty as male anal intercourse or male oral intercourse, which creeps out most people even on purely aesthetical grounds. Not all that exists is good.

I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but this seems to read that any sexual activity outside of marriage is morally and reprehensibly wrong? Do you therefore judge that any heterosexual activity outside of marriage is as "wrong" as you are judging Homosexual activity? After all, they are mentioned in the same line.In fact, you are taking it out of context, because it was clearly given in reply to arguments against the significance of condemnation of homosexual carnal activity in the Bible. The Bible favours marital sexual activity and, given the Bible only knows heterosexual marriage and refers to gay pairing as travesty, there can be no marital homosexual carnal activity, simply because there's no homosexual marriage.

Homosexuality is a natural thing, because you do actually get homosexual animals, one case that made the news a year or so back in Britain was of two male swans. I recall some Biologist friends at Uni discussing a study showing Rats also tend to homosexuality in over-crowded conditions.Over-crowded, you say? But if there is an even proportion between males and female, just what purpose would such a method of regulation serve? There's about the same number of men and women in the world (in fact, women are slightly more numerous, but it's not a big difference). Also, the sole fact that something happens in the animal world doesn't make it natural. Example: two-headed animals are born. Is that natural?

Can you claim some animals are perverted? As the definition is "to depart from what is reasonable or required" then no, as you can't expect them to know what is reasonable or required. Is homosexuality a perversion? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable.Apart from homosexuality, also rape appears among animals. It's no secret sex is not always consensual for both animals involved. And you can't expect animals to know what is reasonable or required (mild objection as to the latter, btw). So, is rape a perversion then? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable...

Before the church decidided to go about codifing their means of controlling the populace, it wasn't exactly uncommon in the ancient world. It's recognised that the Greek Spartans had homosexual partners before they took wives.The Greek Spartans also left weak infants to die in mountains with mutilated heels so as to make sure they wouldn't survive. So, is infanticide good because the Greek Spartans did it? Mind you, the Greek world knew its fair share of pillage and slaughter. Is that good as well?

By this kind of logic, we can arrive at a conclusion that whatever happens in the world is good and natural and can't be wrong. Don't even need examples to know that for absurd.

Children learn their societal roles from parents. For some reason, I don't want a fresh new human being to be taught how to be a good same-gender-spouse and co-same-gender-parent of adopted children. But Chev, there are SO many other 'undesirable' roles that parents could model for their kids, several of which I have mentioned above. I would much prefer orphaned children to be raised by a couple of loving, caring, homosexuals than a couple of drug-running, swinging, child-beating, drunk, techno-music playing suicide cult heterosexual gangsters.

Which is no valid justification for making petty concession in such an important matter as the good formation of family. Define 'good formation of family'.

It is a debatable matter what makes narrow-mindedness. To me, narrow-mindedness is, for instance, happy affirmation of gay life style including such travesty as male anal intercourse or male oral intercourse, which creeps out most people even on purely aesthetical grounds. Not all that exists is good. Why is this narrow-minded to you?
Define 'good'.

In fact, you are taking it out of context, because it was clearly given in reply to arguments against the significance of condemnation of homosexual carnal activity in the Bible. The Bible favours marital sexual activity and, given the Bible only knows heterosexual marriage and refers to gay pairing as travesty, there can be no marital homosexual carnal activity, simply because there's no homosexual marriage. Not everyone agrees with the Bible.

Also, the sole fact that something happens in the animal world doesn't make it natural. Example: two-headed animals are born. Is that natural? If it happens in nature, without interference, and you still deem it unnatural, I don't see what you define as 'natural'. Not common, perhaps, but, by very definition, natural.

Apart from homosexuality, also rape appears among animals. It's no secret sex is not always consensual for both animals involved. And you can't expect animals to know what is reasonable or required (mild objection as to the latter, btw). So, is rape a perversion then? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable... So, consensual homosexuality is now akin to rape?

The Greek Spartans also left weak infants to die in mountains with mutilated heels so as to make sure they wouldn't survive. So, is infanticide good because the Greek Spartans did it? Mind you, the Greek world knew its fair share of pillage and slaughter. Is that good as well?

By this kind of logic, we can arrive at a conclusion that whatever happens in the world is good and natural and can't be wrong. Don't even need examples to know that for absurd. Define 'wrong'.
You're implying firstly that the Spartans were wrong on all counts, and then suggesting that by invalidating some of the the currently-morally-distasteful acts (infanticide, for example), it also invalidates homosexuality. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you convey.

If I may ask, why is homosexuality wrong, in your opinion (without quoting, or getting reference from anywhere)?

[ October 28, 2004, 01:01: Message edited by: Midwinter ]

...including such travesty as male anal intercourse or male oral intercourse, which creeps out most people even on purely aesthetical grounds. Well, Chev, I think we can definitely see a progress here. Not so long ago the disclaimer 'male' would not have been included :D Welcome to the light side. :thumb: And, surely, even you must admit that no such argument of aesthetic disapproval can be made for sexual intercourse between two women :hippy:

But seriously now, I have a major problem with the following statement:

All that a gay union can achieve is to emulate the union of a man and a woman committed to each other and the life they beget. Does that mean that a marriage of a man and a woman which have no [intention of having] children, in your eyes, deserves the same condemnation as gay marriage?

My point with the bible thing was that it is sued as a tool of hate, when all it is, is a good fantasy novel, written way back when.

And I'll use the "i know some gay people" thing here, becosue well I do, and both are great guys and will make great fathers some day.

But I think it is about change, peopel are afraid of change, and they dont want to do it with the oldest institutions, Religion and Family.

You want change ? The just rewrote the whole bible. If such a divine item as the bible can change, surely us puny mortals can do the same thing ? :D

I wont comment on my veiws of religion. It might get me stoned to death.

Lets not forget that morals change. It USED to be morally acceptable to crucify people, to own slaves - now it is not acceptable. It used to not be morally acceptable for a black man and a white woman to have a sexual relationship - now it is acceptable.

If you think homosexuality is forever going to be immoral then you've got a new thing coming. Morality changes, even the Bible recognises that, the problem is that there hasn't been a new edition of the Bible for the last 2000 odd years - morals have changed significantly since then.

Homosexuality does appear in the natural world, as with rape. Yet rape is immoral because it is one being forcing themselves upon the other, the other has no choice in the matter. Homosexuality is mutual consent between both parties. You might as well say sex is immoral since it involves two people having a good time despite not harming anyone else (assuming contraceptives are involved).

Well said Abomination.

the same could be said about incest - that can be between 2 consenting parties but its still wrong.

Good points about society's moral evolution, Abomination. If anyone wants to read something about this, just look at Norbert Elias' "The Civilising Process". Somewhat archaic, but relevant nonetheless. Social morals change - this is not a good or bad thing, better or worse, it just is. It's how we react to those changes that defines our perceptions of it as good/bad.

Unfortunately, though, the matter is not as simple as the evolution of morality and socially-accepted norms (although to be fair, that's the part that gets the most play since it's the most emotionally charged aspect of it). Your argument makes the fatal mistake of assuming that it is not value-laden in and of itself. And here's where this post goes a bit post-modern... my apologies.

As much as I don't agree with Chev in principle (I'm very much a liberal at heart), he is right when he says that because something happens in nature, it doesn't mean that it's an inevitably good thing. We construct meaning over the top of "the real"; we assign a value to it that has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon itself, only our take on it. "Natural" does not equal "good" - by this logic, we shouldn't try to prevent flooding or bushfires, for example. If we wanted to stick with that line of thought, then virtually any form of sexual activity is "natural", and therefore unassailable, unless you get into degrees of naturalness, which is absurd for a binary thing like natural/unnatural. It's an excessively fatalistic step to take, and one which oversimplifies the issues here (as does a resort to the Bible or any other document as the sole justification for action).

Human beings are unique in that (1) we can affect our environment in a massive way, (2) we have a written history and historical traditions that are culturally and racially defined, (3) we are capable of abstract thought, unlike most animals, and (4) the capability to form abstract thought and eventually progress to philosophical considerations means that we are outside of nature, to a point. Our perspectives and understandings are not simply determined by genetics, instinct and personal experience; there is a wealth of external influences. If it was as easy as you would have us believe, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

I wish it was, though, I truly do.

@ Midwinter: I know Chev can defend himself, but you're being a bit nit-picking by asking for definitions of "good" and "wrong". From your post, you obviously know they're subjective personally-delineated concepts. In your defence, though, I think the word "abnormal" might be a better choice than "unnatural".

NonSequitur: I disagree about nit-picking. When Chev uses these words, I want to know what *he* means. He should also know it's not the best idea to use them in a debate, unless everyone is crystal-clear on their meaning. Given that, as you said, they are subjective, this is difficult.

As for abnormal\unnatural, this was *exactly* the point I was trying to make - the examples are not common, they could be said to be abnormal. They cannot, however, be said to be unnatural. There is a clear dividing line.

Abomination - your points on moral evolution are well-constructed.

Cesard - again, moral evolution plays a large part in this. Was it wrong in Ancient Eygpt? No - it kept the family bloodline 'pure'. Nowadays, it is frowned on.

I think that they should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Marriage, adoption, whatver. They are people to.

I hate the religous argument against homosexuality. But thats mostly because I find that organized religions are the downfall of society, but we'll burn that bridge when we get there.

the same could be said about incest - that can be between 2 consenting parties but its still wrong. No, Cesard, I don't view it that way. The very thing about incest is that (in most cases) there aren't two consenting parties. If there were, I wouldn't see anything wrong with incest (mor-ally culpable bastard that I am). And I don't talk about child abuse here, at least not in a physical manner.

The main drawback of incest is (skipping the obvious genetical implications that can be avoi-ded technically) that the parties can be and mostly are being mislead in their emotions and feelings. Love and affection between close relatives can adopt many forms, but as soon as sexual attraction comes into play this is an indicator of something being fundamentally wrong. For example, a girl emotionally neglected by her father may view her sexuality as the only way to secure her the badly needed bond of affection to him. Is this healthy and right? I doubt it. Is she really consenting, so that her father may be free to act upon this displayed sexuality? Not so.

The consent between the two involved persons is there only at first glance. It vanishes at closer inspection.

Again: if there was a healthy and satisfying incestous relation of 2 consenting adults, what could possibly be wrong with that?

(This is not in order to provoke dissent; this is what I believe.)

@Dendri: Maybe the Broder thingy had been a mistake. I am (or at least try to be) open min-ded, you know. I am just precociously aggressive. And egocentric. :(

This is all a matter of opinion really. If there *are* things that can be "proven", then this is not one of them. Telling one's own view is one thing, but some of you are taking this way out there with attempts to prove why things are the way you think they are. ;)

I would say I agree with Chev though, mainly because he has the energy and the information to say something generally more acceptable in a debate than my own "I think..."


And the very middle class statement "mind you, I have a friend who's gay"! If anything is non-intellectual, this is it. Made me chuckle myself.
Yes if it's a hypocrite lie. In my case however, it's true. And saying that serves a purpose, as it was there to prove that despite my opinion of gays being repulsive, I don't hate them. Call it an example to tell the over-interpreting sort that I'm not a nazi.

As for the intelligence comment.. You know I learned something a long time ago. People who provoke others can rarely be taken seriously, because they tend to base their opinions on anything that invokes a reaction, rather than something that makes sense. Although the world is pretending to be tolerant of gays, the reality is still far from it (for good and bad). That 'intelligent' response gave me a good chuckle too. How nice that we're both having fun. ;)

Refer to my signature. Unlike the previous one, that one's there for a reason. I prefer simplicity and consideration for others to egoism and elitism, even if the latter might seem to accomplish more (well the words aren't exactly opposites or mutually exclusive, but I find they fit this situation best). And I didn't say that to provoke anyone, I just felt a reminder was in order for all the people here in general.

But if all people would try to make sense, we would be going nowhere. Common sense is something like the smallest denominator. It's boring as hell - as Sarevok* would say.

Your signature speaks the truth: life is very simple. We won't change each other through a debate on the internet, so why try? Like Ragusa said. Debates really are pointless in most cases; people listening to themselves all the time, trying to feel cosy in the knowledge that they are not alone with their thoughts and feelings.

I will try to make sense now: I can't understand anyone not seeing the eroticism of his own gender. The only possible explanation I can come up with would be fear of one's own body, emotions and instincts. Something I'm sure chevalier would reject forcefully. But what other explanation is there?

From Midwinter:

But Chev, there are SO many other 'undesirable' roles that parents could model for their kids, several of which I have mentioned above. I would much prefer orphaned children to be raised by a couple of loving, caring, homosexuals than a couple of drug-running, swinging, child-beating, drunk, techno-music playing suicide cult heterosexual gangsters.Please, let's not take extreme examples in place of general outlook. While a homosexual "family" is innately flawed, not all heterosexual couples are drug-running, swinging, child-beating, drunk, techno-music playing suicide cult heterosexual gangsters. How could you even think that? I'm hetero and techno music is awful to me!

Define 'good formation of family'.I believe I have already. I don't think there can be an accurate short definition, but at any rate, it starts from a healthy union between a man and a woman, complementing each other, committed to passing on life and protecting it, also teaching, by example and otherwise, healthy standards of social coexistence and interaction. Healthy does not include homosexual, by definition of healthy.

Why is this narrow-minded to you?Why is the opposite (i.e. my stance) narrow-minded to the other side of the fence?

However, to answer your question: as Foradasthar said, too much tolerance implies ignorance. That is because adopting total affirmation as one's default stance of things is not really a sign of ability to ponder things and embrace complex concepts. In fact, there's nothing "mental" in such a stance.

Define 'good'.Please...

Not everyone agrees with the Bible.Of course. But here's something on which every logical debater will agree, regardlessly of his religious convictions or lack thereof: if someone calls upon the Bible for arguments to support his or her position, he or she cannot exempt himself or herself from Bible-based arguments against that position.

In short, if someone calls upon the Bible to dispel a certain point, it's only logical to dispel the dispelling point basing on the Bible, isn't it? If I, let's say, call upon the US Constitution, I can't say "sorry, I'm not American, the US Constitution is not relevant to me" when I meet opposition on the grounds of the US Constitution. Right?

If it happens in nature, without interference, and you still deem it unnatural, I don't see what you define as 'natural'. Not common, perhaps, but, by very definition, natural.You know, this way all sort of travesty should be natural to you if you aren't involved in it yourself. After all, it happens without your interference. Ah, and define interference. From the point of view of a passive human beholder, rape amongst animals happens without interference, as a natural thing. You can say it's between animals, so it doesn't really count because it can't be good or bad between animals. But the same I can say about homosexualism happening among animals.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from homosexuality, also rape appears among animals. It's no secret sex is not always consensual for both animals involved. And you can't expect animals to know what is reasonable or required (mild objection as to the latter, btw). So, is rape a perversion then? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, consensual homosexuality is now akin to rape?How in the universe did you conceive that analogy? The link is that both homosexuality and rape happen among animals. You say that, because it happens between animals, homosexuality is good for people. If we use only this and no other distinction, then rape is good for people, too. Why? Because it happens among animals. And incest, too, if we are at it.

See? That something happens between animals doesn't really make it good for people.

Define 'wrong'.Please... what next am I going to define? True and false?

From Vukodlak:

You're implying firstly that the Spartans were wrong on all counts,:eek:

and then suggesting that by invalidating some of the the currently-morally-distasteful acts (infanticide, for example), it also invalidates homosexualityNo. I'm only showing that validating currently morally distasteful acts through ancient Spartans doesn't work. That Spartans did it, doesn't mean it's good. Spartans had gay sex, so it must be good? Wrong! Spartans killed infants and no one is telling me killing infants is morally good.

It may not be what you meant, but it is what you convey.Apparently, we're in disagreement here.

Well, Chev, I think we can definitely see a progress here. Not so long ago the disclaimer 'male' would not have been included Welcome to the light side.Eerr.. how do you imagine female anal? Oral maybe, but it's more in the petting than sex area for women. Not like it's good, of course. Anyway, yeah, lesbian sex is also disgusting to me if that's what you're asking? ;)

Does that mean that a marriage of a man and a woman which have no [intention of having] children, in your eyes, deserves the same condemnation as gay marriage?If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? I plead Ockham's Razor here.

From Darkthrone:

First you say:

No, Cesard, I don't view it that way. The very thing about incest is that (in most cases) there aren't two consenting parties. If there were, I wouldn't see anything wrong with incest (mor-ally culpable bastard that I am).Then you say:

The main drawback of incest is (skipping the obvious genetical implications that can be avoi-ded technically) that the parties can be and mostly are being mislead in their emotions and feelings. Love and affection between close relatives can adopt many forms, but as soon as sexual attraction comes into play this is an indicator of something being fundamentally wrong.So, do you see something morally wrong in incest or not? It can't be both nothing wrong and fundamentally wrong.

The main drawback of incest is (skipping the obvious genetical implications that can be avoi-ded technically) that the parties can be and mostly are being mislead in their emotions and feelings. Love and affection between close relatives can adopt many forms, but as soon as sexual attraction comes into play this is an indicator of something being fundamentally wrong.The same way, I could say that love and affection between people of the same gender can take many forms, but if sexual attraction comes into play, somthing is being fundamentally wrong. In fact, I do say that, anyway.

And it's not so much about attraction as about acting on it. I'm not saying that being homosexual is wrong - so long as it isn't chosen by the individual, it can't be counted as morally good or wrong. Acting on it is a different thing.

The consent between the two involved persons is there only at first glance. It vanishes at closer inspection.So much as incest can be used to cement fading bonds between family members, gay sex can happen because of misled feelings towards friends (there's a difference between needing physical contact and needing sexual contact, and this difference sometimes escapes people), because of social pressure ("oh my, I think my friend is an attractive guy, so I should probably sleep with him or I'll be a homophobe denying my natural instincts").

I will try to make sense now: I can't understand anyone not seeing the eroticism of his own gender. The only possible explanation I can come up with would be fear of one's own body, emotions and instincts. Something I'm sure chevalier would reject forcefully. But what other explanation is there?Forcefully? Haven't seen me forceful...

Well, men just aren't erotic to me. Sure, they can be objectively attractive and one guy can be more attractive than another. Unavoidably, if we took a group of men, you would sooner or later differ with me on which guy is the more attractive one of a random two. So there's something subjective about it, too. But does that mean I see guys as sex object? Hell, no. I've been dumped by various women more than 20 times in my 21 years and somehow I still haven't switched to gay mode! :shake: :lol:

Ever met a man raised without a father? Ummm... quite a few. By the way, they turned out alright. Again, I'll ask you the same question: what can a father provide that another woman can not? Please answer the question instead of avoiding it for a second time.

According similar benefits without setting similar requirements is no equal rights. What similar requirements are you after? Other’s have already pointed out that single people can adopt, so it’s can’t be purely based on having both Male & Female role models. Please explain how a Gay couple could not fulfil any “requirements” other than being of different sexes.

A gay union is not the same as a mutually complementing union of a man and a woman, no matter how you put it. Why is a gay union not the same as a heterosexual union, other than a question of the sex of the people involved? What makes it different, other than someones attitude to it?

The privileges that marriage enjoyed are geared towards and tailored for prolongation of families, which is no goal that a gay union can reach. As other’s have pointed out, people with no intent of having families enjoy those privileges, so why shouldn’t a gay couple. We are also discussing the opportunity for gay couples to have families.

All that a gay union can achieve is to emulate the union of a man and a woman committed to each other and the life they beget. I agree, they can only emulate it, because as a society we refuse to recognise it. They can be as equally committed to each other.

For some reason, I don't want a fresh new human being to be taught how to be a good same-gender-spouse and co-same-gender-parent of adopted children. What reason? How can this possibly impact on you? Should we lock up the children of murderers because they might have been taught by their parents how to murder? Sexuality can’t be just about the societal roles of parents otherwise we wouldn’t have homosexual behaviour!

It is a debatable matter what makes narrow-mindedness. To me, narrow-mindedness is, for instance, happy affirmation of gay life style including such travesty as male anal intercourse or male oral intercourse, which creeps out most people even on purely aesthetical grounds. Not all that exists is good. Oxford Dictionary of Common English:
Narrow Minded: intolerant, prejudiced, rigid or restricted in ones views.
Please explain how being narrow-minded applies to the description “happy affirmation”, but not to the description “travesty”.

In fact, you are taking it out of context, because it was clearly given in reply to arguments against the significance of condemnation of homosexual carnal activity in the Bible. The Bible favours marital sexual activity and, given the Bible only knows heterosexual marriage and refers to gay pairing as travesty, there can be no marital homosexual carnal activity, simply because there's no homosexual marriage. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, not for the first time. My point is that the Bible (New Testament) equally condemns all non-marital sexual activity (i.e. Fornicators, used in exactly the same sentence as (translation in Bible) Homosexuality). You've already indicated we shouldn't be able to pick & choose.

So, should we make exceptions for things we like or things that are trendy? So if you use the bible as an argument against Homosexuality, you must equally use it as an argument about any non-marital sexual activity.

I would say I agree with Chev though, mainly because he has the energy and the information to say something generally more acceptable in a debate than my own "I think..." I rather object to this Foradasthar, I have used reasoned arguments and facts to challenge Chev’s statements, as have most people in this thread.

Healthy does not include homosexual, by definition of healthy. Which dictionary do you use? Health: State of being well in body or mind, person’s mental or physical condition. No statement of Homosexuality anywhere. If you are referring to Male Anal/Oral intercourse then it’s not exactly confined to homosexuality, and I would imagine Heterosexual intercourse for women is a lot less healthy for women than Lesbianism. Or do you mean mental health? Very dangerous ground if you do.

Of course. But here's something on which every logical debater will agree, regardlessly of his religious convictions or lack thereof: if someone calls upon the Bible for arguments to support his or her position, he or she cannot exempt himself or herself from Bible-based arguments against that position. Totally agree, which is why I’ve been quoting from the bible to combat your arguments.

too much tolerance implies ignorance. That is because adopting total affirmation as one's default stance of things is not really a sign of ability to ponder things and embrace complex concepts. I can almost agree with that. My main objection is that because it is a sensitive matter, the people that make decisions to allow such things to occur (especially if any politicians are involved) will think long and hard about it. It would be fair to say that most people in this debate with the opposing view to you have a fairly good ability to think for themselves, and still believe your view is wrong.

You know, this way all sort of travesty should be natural to you if you aren't involved in it yourself. After all, it happens without your interference. Ah, and define interference. I think the interference alluded to is, rather obviously, human and not an individual. If humans are in no-way involved then something is natural.

No. I'm only showing that validating currently morally distasteful acts through ancient Spartans doesn't work. That Spartans did it, doesn't mean it's good. Which was never my point, just that in previous societies it was acceptable to be homosexual. It is a product of our current society that it is not.

If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? Why marry?, well other than to stop the Government getting their hands on more of your money, then possibly as a means of showing affirmation of love for each other. As it happens, I don’t believe in Marriage and neither my girlfriend or myself feel the need to affirm our to love in any form of ceremony.

So, do you see something morally wrong in incest or not? It can't be both nothing wrong and fundamentally wrong. I believe the point was that it was an indicator of deeper problems, not that it was wrong in itself. The main argument against incest is genetic. Incest is not so common in the Natural world, but is common in breeding programs, especially Dog.

If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? I plead Ockham's Razor here.
Chev, this doesn't make much sense to me. People who never intend to have children probably get married for the exact same reasons as people who intend to have children, but then find out they cannot. To be specific, I don't see why having children is necessary to affirm a marriage.

Maybe you aren't saying this but this is how I interperet this arguement: Case A - Two people who have no intention to have children should not bother being married.

Case B - Two people intend to have children, but later find out that one of them is incapable of having children. To me, applying the reasoning in Case A to Case B, these people should get divorced. Once they find out that they cannot have children, they obviously no longer have any intention of having them, as they know they cannot. From Case A, people who have no intention of having children should not bother being married, so the people of Case B should no longer bother being married.

I know you can't possibly mean this to be true, as it just makes no fundamental sense. You could even expand that arguement more ridiculously to the point where you say a couple that was married for 25 years, but has now reached an age where the woman has entered menopause should not remained married because they have no intention of having children. There's a disconnect here. Why is having children, or at least the desire to have children essential in a marriage?

I couldn't agree more with Ankiseth, Carcaroth and Aldeth. One more thing springs to the eye in chevaliers posts: chevalier, you seem to be quite obsessed with the idea of sexual intercourse between men. What with all your careful differentiating between being homosexual and acting upon it, or between gay, penetrating sex and lesbian, non-penetrating sex. How comes?

This was the very reason for my last post. Do you think of yourself of erotic? Or do you think there's some kind of dirty, immoral component to what you are doing during sex?

Being more explicit: if you like receiving oral pleasures, how should it be possible that giving them to someone could make you vomit? Do the women do so in your case? Same holds for kissing.

No. I'm only showing that validating currently morally distasteful acts through ancient Spartans doesn't work. That Spartans did it, doesn't mean it's good. Spartans had gay sex, so it must be good? Wrong! Spartans killed infants and no one is telling me killing infants is morally good. This strikes me as curious, chev.
Homosexuality wasnt considered an "unnatural" act by some cultures of the past. Your reply to this is that these cultures acted wrong in other situations, when measured by our standards. Therefor their acceptance of gay relations has no meaning. They are ill-suited to be a moral compass. Okay. If you put it this way - agreed.
However, Carcaroth listed some commands of the Bible - commands that advocate slavery, slaying of infidels and those who wont behave according to the Holy Book.
Nothing of this is deemed morally acceptable by our society, no more than the slaying of crippled chrildren. Thus by your logic, what the Bible has to say on homosexuality must not necessarily be right for our time, with its different morals.
When the people who compiled the Bible some 2000 years ago were without a doubt immoral, rigid-minded, intolerant from our point of view in these aspects, why should we trust their dubious wisdom when it comes to our gay fellows? Where is the difference here? Perhaps it is not a good idea to make these sources of the past our guides without questioning their authority. Obviously we havent that much in common with their time anymore.

And lest anyone think there's a unified Catholic stance on sexuality, there's always this (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1176) line of reasoning. Then again, I doubt that Chev has much of an opinion of Rosemary Ruether and her ilk, but there are alot of people like her out there...

Posted by: Foradasthar

I would say I agree with Chev though, mainly because he has the energy and the information to say something generally more acceptable in a debate than my own "I think..."
Posted by: Carcaroth

I rather object to this Foradasthar, I have used reasoned arguments and facts to challenge Chev’s statements, as have most people in this thread.
You shouldn't for it's a matter of opinion. I wasn't saying Chev is doing better in this debate than you all were, I was only saying that I agree with most of what he's said because we share a smiliar opinion in this matter. Opinions are based on things far greater and more important than a piece of text in an internet discussion forum, so it would be rather unrealistic to assume someone would change his just like that. Especially since general debates are filled with information that would have to be verified to be true in the way the reader would understand, before you should believe it. And as I said, I don't have the energy to do that with the 10-20 serious debates I browse through and comment upon each day.

Appologies, I misinterpreted your sentence to mean you agreed with Chev because the others of us were only able to use the argument "I think".
I tend to skim read sometimes as I dislike the brown writing on black background.

I guess the only thing we can say about homosexuality is that time will tell. In time homosexuals will not be persecuted by the majority but by the minority who in turn will be persecuted themselves for persecuting the homosexuals... gee that gets confuddling. In fact I would say that we are approaching or have already approached that stage where the majority will not insult or harass a homosexual.

In my opinion the harassment is the main problem. The only real reason homosexuals are denied the ability* to adopt a child is to protect the child from harassment due to his or her homosexual parents. When that harassment diminishes to the stage that people who harass homosexuals are viewed as either insensitive or downright stupid (and it will diminish to this stage - you can count on it) then a government will be faced with a time to change. Homosexuals will be granted equality in ALL areas, no longer must a couple have to be a man and a woman in order to adopt a child but merely have to be a couple. You all know this will happen. The only people who openly object to homosexuals are Bible-bashers and bigots.

What makes them bigots? The fact that they are intolerant of homosexuals. Circular argument I know, but that’s what a bigot is – someone who is intolerant of other being different to them. The occupation of the bigot is becoming less and less popular with racism being a serious social offence and sexism is gone (at least in western society). Religions have stopped trying to burn infidels a long time ago (had a habit of earning more enemies than friends – not to mention it doesn’t help conversion rates, despite appearances). However, on the note of religions, the only common ground for hate is against Islam extremists who themselves are hated for being bigots, very harmful to society and downright insane. Bigotry is losing heaps of popularity.

Although not the main problem there is a problem of the idea that homosexuals will raise homosexual children. This argument is completely unfounded. On what evidence do they base this? It's simply a theory. It's not even a rule! Homosexuals MIGHT raise homosexual children or bisexual children but, so what? But they might also raise heterosexual children, nobody knows. However this argument in itself is flawed. Using it as a reason to not allow homosexuals to raise children is the same as saying that homosexuality is bad for society. Why is it the same as saying homosexuality is bad for society? Well, if you try to prevent something you don't prevent it because it is good for society... do you? You try to prevent something because it is bad. Why is there a tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Because they are deemed to be harmful to society. Why is heroin and other ‘hard’ drugs illegal? Because they are deemed to be harmful to society. Preventing homosexuals from raising children due to the theory that homosexuals have a higher chance of raising homosexual children can only be justified if homosexuals are deemed harmful to society.

Are homosexuals harmful to society? I guess that’s something someone has to prove in order to justify denying them the ability* to adopt children. I’d love to see someone prove it. They reduce the number of births? Well, who cares? It’s not like we’re going to run out of people anytime soon and damned if we can keep this rate of population growth for a few more centuries.

If you can prove that homosexuals are bad for society then by all means deny them the ability* to adopt children. However if you cannot then there is no justification to homosexuals being denied thus.

* - I use the word ‘ability’ rather than ‘right’ since I hear it is not a ‘right’ to adopt a child. However if a homosexual couple is declined in adopting a child because they are homosexual then could an adoption agency decline an Asian couple from adopting a child because they are Asian? I don’t think so.

First of all, I don't think it's fair to say:

homosexuals have a higher chance of raising homosexual children can only be justified if homosexuals are deemed harmful to society I think this misses the point. I don't think we even need the part "if homosexuals are deemed harful to society" because I do not think one can be influenced to become a homosexual. While I do not doubt that a child raised in a homosexual household would probably be more accepting of homosexuals, and be more in favor of granting homosexuals equal rights, I do not think you can become homosexual because your foster parents are. That just doesn't seem right, as it implies homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe it is.

From Ankiseth Vanir:

Ummm... quite a few. By the way, they turned out alright. Again, I'll ask you the same question: what can a father provide that another woman can not? Please answer the question instead of avoiding it for a second time.I can't say that men raised without a father (which doesn't automatically equal biological father) whom I know haven't turned out all right, but they all have difficulties with relationships with women, ranging from mild complications to serious issues. While lacking a father figure doesn't automatically make issues, the risk is so high that it cannot be considered a desirable environment, therefore invalidating a homosexual union as desirable foster parents. Also, we need to realise that foster parents is all they can possibly be.

From Carcaroth:

What similar requirements are you after? Other’s have already pointed out that single people can adopt, so it’s can’t be purely based on having both Male & Female role models. Please explain how a Gay couple could not fulfil any “requirements” other than being of different sexes.Answered in the last post or one or two before.

Why is a gay union not the same as a heterosexual union, other than a question of the sex of the people involved? What makes it different, other than someones attitude to it?As above.

As other’s have pointed out, people with no intent of having families enjoy those privileges, so why shouldn’t a gay couple. We are also discussing the opportunity for gay couples to have families.As above.

I agree, they can only emulate it, because as a society we refuse to recognise it. They can be as equally committed to each other.Friendships can be more committed than marriages, so what? Next, social recognition has no bearing on biological differences. I refuse to discard my sense of perceived biological reality in the name of political correctness and its current trends.
It's not society what makes people male and female.

What reason? How can this possibly impact on you? Should we lock up the children of murderers because they might have been taught by their parents how to murder? Sexuality can’t be just about the societal roles of parents otherwise we wouldn’t have homosexual behaviour!Children learn from parents and living in a homosexual environment is not what I want any children in the society to learn.

Oxford Dictionary of Common English:
Narrow Minded: intolerant, prejudiced, rigid or restricted in ones views.
Please explain how being narrow-minded applies to the description “happy affirmation”, but not to the description “travesty”.You must realise that aprioric affirmation of anything that happens is a very rigid stance and imposes severe restrictions on your views. It is usually associated with a firm negation of the opposing stance on a fairly personal and emotional level, thus making the term "prejudice" well merited.

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, not for the first time. My point is that the Bible (New Testament) equally condemns all non-marital sexual activity (i.e. Fornicators, used in exactly the same sentence as (translation in Bible) Homosexuality). You've already indicated we shouldn't be able to pick & choose.Indeed. Agreed with you, as well.

Before it escapes some people, there is a need to point out one thing: the degree of immorality of an act on its own is not always the same as the degree of moral culpability of the persons who performed an act. For instance, the moral culpability for one particular instance of a certain behaviour may be reduced almost to null by mitigating circumstances. However, it doesn't make the act (or type of acts, to be precise) any less immoral.

So if you use the bible as an argument against Homosexuality, you must equally use it as an argument about any non-marital sexual activity.That I do, in fact. Although it's not like I chase people and shout it in their ears.

I rather object to this Foradasthar, I have used reasoned arguments and facts to challenge Chev’s statements, as have most people in this thread.Arguments yes, but facts... not really. Most of it is questions and the rest is quite ostensibly based in the sphere of evaluation and judgement. That isn't wrong, of course, but there's a long way from there to facts.

Which dictionary do you use? Health: State of being well in body or mind, person’s mental or physical condition. No statement of Homosexuality anywhere.Is flu healthy? And which dictionary on this planet includes flu under the word "healthy"? I have to reject this argument.

Or do you mean mental health? Very dangerous ground if you do.Yeah, I know, I'll be sssoooo politically incorrect. Like I care. Look, what is trendy or not makes such a big difference to me that I'm inclined to yawn and ask "what next?". Homosexualism is not just an alternative orientation. Homosexual carnal activity is not just an acceptable alternative way of "doing it".

I can almost agree with that. My main objection is that because it is a sensitive matter, the people that make decisions to allow such things to occur (especially if any politicians are involved) will think long and hard about it. It would be fair to say that most people in this debate with the opposing view to you have a fairly good ability to think for themselves, and still believe your view is wrong.That is more or less correct, although from arguments used in this thread it all too often transpires that whatever happens on this planet we should tolerate. Errr... except lack of tolerance (hint, hint).

I think the interference alluded to is, rather obviously, human and not an individual. If humans are in no-way involved then something is natural.Ergo: rape is natural, incest is natural, infanticide is natural.

Which was never my point, just that in previous societies it was acceptable to be homosexual. It is a product of our current society that it is not.In what previous societies? Ancient Israel or Rome maybe? Mediaeval Europe?

Why marry?, well other than to stop the Government getting their hands on more of your money, then possibly as a means of showing affirmation of love for each other.The economical benefit of marriage is not made for two people to escape taxes. It is made to offset child raising expenses to some extent.

Aldeth:

Chev, this doesn't make much sense to me. People who never intend to have children probably get married for the exact same reasons as people who intend to have children, but then find out they cannot.Eerr... decide if they can't or don't intend to. That they don't intend to implies they make a choice, that they can't implies they have no choice. 1!=0

From Darkthrone:

One more thing springs to the eye in chevaliers posts: chevalier, you seem to be quite obsessed with the idea of sexual intercourse between men.I believe this quote gives more insight into your personality than mine.

What with all your careful differentiating between being homosexual and acting upon it, or between gay, penetrating sex and lesbian, non-penetrating sex. How comes?Yes, there is a difference between feeling a drive to do something and actually doing it. Also, that sexual activity that doesn't include penetration is not intercourse is pretty obvious, unless you make no such difference because it's all the same to you. Again, I don't want to hear anything about your sex life and I'll be grateful if you stay away from mine.

Being more explicit: if you like receiving oral pleasures, how should it be possible that giving them to someone could make you vomit? Do the women do so in your case? Same holds for kissing.
Look, I appreciate you as a fellow SP-er and all, but your investigation of my sex life makes me feel quite uncomfortable. Nothing personal, I just prefer women. Hope you don't mind.

From Dendri:

Homosexuality wasnt considered an "unnatural" act by some cultures of the past. Your reply to this is that these cultures acted wrong in other situations, when measured by our standards. Therefor their acceptance of gay relations has no meaning. They are ill-suited to be a moral compass. Okay. If you put it this way - agreed.Missing the point. I'm not invalidating gay sex through Spartans. I refuse to acknowledge the validation of gay sex through Spartans.

Reasoning like "It's OK because someone else did it." doesn't really make it.

From Bion:

And lest anyone think there's a unified Catholic stance on sexuality, there's always this line of reasoning. Then again, I doubt that Chev has much of an opinion of Rosemary Ruether and her ilk, but there are alot of people like her out there...The whole document keeps repeating words like "new" and "recent" as if they were positive qualities (note: that they aren't positive qualities doesn't make them negative qualities - just in case someone feels an urge to make such an assumption; they are neutral descriptions, which means neither positive nor negative per se).

Also, they fall into a serious fallacy: they insist on person-based view rather than act-based view, but they try to validate particular acts or even whole categories of acts through potential non-culpability of actors. That is a contradiction and they are in denial.

Supposing we have an adulterer. We can find lots of excuses for just him in his given case. As a result, we can claim that his moral guilt is vastly reduced. Perhaps there's even no "crime" of adultery (in the moral sense of crime), but was there no adultery in the objective sense, in the very first place? Is it a good thing that this adultery has taken place? Heck, no. Even less can we claim that all adultery should be allowed because in a small percentage of cases the culpability of offenders can be reduced. Their reduced culpability doesn't validate the whole category of acts as morally positive or even morally neutral.

Next, they make a couple of false assumptions about marriage, and the most important one of them is that Catholic marriage is a matter between two people. Sorry, there's God still. The matter is between two people and God and God's laws come into question. They're expressed in the Bible, so here goes. Neither spouse has the authority to exempt the other from fidelity, for instance. No arrangements can make group sex, swinging, beastiality (mentioned in the article) etc right and proper in the light of Catholic doctrine. I guess this is also true for non-Catholic Christian Churches, but with so many denominations as they are, there probably are exceptions.

From the article:

Swinging and adultery, on the other hand, are viewed as so impeding the values of fidelity and mutuality that it would be difficult to find an instance where such behavior belongs to a humanizing rather than a dehumanizing pattern.Sorry, but what moral good comes from swinging? How does it teach you responsible commitment to ONE partner? Unless you consider learning through mistakes but the idea behind mistakes is that they aren't right. You can't have a cake and have it eaten.

As for adultery, the matter is more complex and in some cases, where the adulterer seems to have found loving, lasting and responsible commitment outside his marriage, it is possible that his consent to marriage was invalid because he simply had no idea to what he was consenting. If that is true, the whole marriage is invalid and the statement of mutual consent needs to be repeated in order to validate the marriage. If the marriage is declared void, he can marry his partner and live together happily ever after. But does it make it right to seek fulfilment outside your marriage? No.

Plus a couple of doctrinal errors. Well, it's obvious the document is written by someone who wants the church to allow more freedom to the faithful and considers the doctrine to be of secondary importance compared to his wishes. Inconsistency with the Bible is not even addressed. Is that an alternative Catholic view? No. It's a view represented by some Catholics who want leeway to do things and still receive benefits of being Catholic.

Well, that's it for now.

I realize this is going to be unpopular with some folks, and may be perceived as trolling, but...

All of this pseudo-intellectual justification of dislike/discrimination/whathaveyou of homosexuals is no different than the tripe certain people spouted to justify discrimination against blacks.

What you have is a dislike of homosexuality on an emotional level. All of this "well they can't have kids and are harmful to society, etc, etc, etc" nonsense stems from that, not the other way around. Don't bother trying to argue against folks like that; their dislike of homosexuality isn't rational, so rational discussion won't change it.

*braces for flames* ;)

chevalier, I couldn't be less interested in your sex life, as it is. I'm more after Abomination, y'know. Your dodging all the arguments that are brought up against yours. Nothing new. Quite a lengthy post of yours just to say "I said it all before, and now stop bothering me."

AMaster is right, of course.

chevalier, I couldn't be less interested in your sex life, as it is.Ah, he is just flattering himself. ;)

@ AMaster
If I may be so bold: I absolutely agree with you.

*hands AMaster a big bucket of water*

Agreed.

*sigh*

I think we need to clarify what "homosexual marriage" actually means.

As far as I can see, Chev thinks about catholic marriage in a church conducted by a priest. IMHO, there is no chance that this is going to happen. Ever.

Could it be that the others here think about it as an act of the state the couple lives in? Like in Denmark or Germany?

I think this misses the point. I don't think we even need the part "if homosexuals are deemed harful to society" because I do not think one can be influenced to become a homosexual. While I do not doubt that a child raised in a homosexual household would probably be more accepting of homosexuals, and be more in favor of granting homosexuals equal rights, I do not think you can become homosexual because your foster parents are. That just doesn't seem right, as it implies homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe it is.Read my post again. I said that it is a THEORY that is used to deny homosexuals the ability to adopt children. I'm simply arguing away the theory by saying that even IF homosexuals had a higher chance of raising homosexual children (raising, not breeding - the argument of a homosexual gene is itself a theory) then it could only be justified denying them the ability to raise these 'higher probability of homosexuality children' if homosexuality is deemed harmful to society.

My argument is based on IF the theory that 'homosexuals raise homosexual children' was a rule. But it is not a rule. Even so people use it in argument.

Chev: I can't say that men raised without a father (which doesn't automatically equal biological father) whom I know haven't turned out all right, but they all have difficulties with relationships with women, ranging from mild complications to serious issues. While lacking a father figure doesn't automatically make issues, the risk is so high that it cannot be considered a desirable environment, therefore invalidating a homosexual union as desirable foster parents. Also, we need to realise that foster parents is all they can possibly be.The risk is high and due to this risk it INVALIDATES homosexual unions as desireable foster parents? Just like that? You would deny these people the ability to adopt based on a slightly higher chance the child will have problems in later life? It's a theory! It could also be argued that children raised by single parents lacking a father figure have problems in later life because they only had ONE parent. One parent who had to work all day to raise the child and pay all the bills. If a homosexual MALE couple adopted a child would you have this problem? Since there is obviously a father figure - two in fact - so shouldn't the risk of having problems in later life be HALF of a normal hetrosexual couple based on your argument?

Children learn from parents and living in a homosexual environment is not what I want any children in the society to learn.Why? What could the negative effects be here? The child would be very tolerant of homosexuals, we can be quite certain of that. But apart from that there is no real proof that this child will be disadvantaged in later life.

Arguments yes, but facts... not really. Most of it is questions and the rest is quite ostensibly based in the sphere of evaluation and judgement. That isn't wrong, of course, but there's a long way from there to facts.And we have yet to see any hard evidence from the anti-homosexual viewpoint either. Theories are not facts. Linking single parent problems to homosexual couple problems when raising children is not valid because the situations are different.

Eerr... decide if they can't or don't intend to. That they don't intend to implies they make a choice, that they can't implies they have no choice. 1!=0You're missing the point chev. People are allowed to get married and they're not asked at the alter to state if they are going to have children or not and if they say they do not intend on having children then the minister/bishop/cardinal/reverend/monk whatever won't suddenly declare the marriage null and void. People get married as a statement to society expressing their love and devotion to each other in both legal and real terms - children are not the main ingredient for marriage. Even so there is no reason to deny homosexuals a 'form' of marriage - not marriage per se but something that emulates marriage. Obviously they can't look to the churches for this but they can look to the state yet the state will not grant this based on religious grounds... something's up and it smells - I thought church and state were supposed to be separate?

can't say that men raised without a father (which doesn't automatically equal biological father) whom I know haven't turned out all right, but they all have difficulties with relationships with women, ranging from mild complications to serious issues. While lacking a father figure doesn't automatically make issues, the risk is so high that it cannot be considered a desirable environment, therefore invalidating a homosexual union as desirable foster parents. Also, we need to realise that foster parents is all they can possibly be.
Once again, Chevalier, your statements are highly problematic. Seriously, who are you to make such value judgments as to what's desirable and what isn't? The fact is your claims are completely baseless; you have no statistics, no reasoning, no nothing. Sadly, for the sake of your argument, you have failed to show 'why' such a thing is true.

And, for the second time, you have utterly failed in the very simple task I put before you. To answer the question "what can a man provide to a child that another woman cannot?"

If you can answer this you might actually have an argument. (And, no "legitimacy" is not an acceptable answer.)

And another huge problem with your "argument" is the whole problem with that darned slippery slope. Perhaps we should bar working class families from adopting children because it is a "less desirable environment" than an adoption from say, 2 well educated, well-off college professors. Hmmm? But that is still a moot point because you have failed to show why a homosexual couple is less capable. Do that first then you can address the next obstacle, the slippery slope.

"Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman.

Bull, marriage is supposed to be about love. Marriage shouldn't be able to discriminate especially in this day and age.

Marriage is marriage, when two people love each they should be able to get married regardless of sexual preference.

Well, I kinda agree with chev in his first post, the gay movement is way of chart and needs a good kick in the head, every year there is the gay parade in Amsterdam, boats filled with half-naked homos dancing around making asses of themselves sail around the canals, and oh boy do we have *fun*... where did I left that shotgun?
Gay Olympics? Bull, why not have Pedo Olympics? Or Necro Olympics.

Equal rights, yeah.
Special rights, no.

However, since christianity holds no copyrights on marriage (christianity officialy only existing since Jesus started his cult in give or take 30 AD),
and earliest mention we know of marriage is around 2350 BC in Mesopotamia, we can therefor conclude that Jews, and it's decending religions; did not invent marriage, teehee.

Technically, you should be able to marry your goat (but except PETA to drop by soon).
But because marriage should remain a serious ritual, let's put the definition at:
A legal union between two consenting people.

(Flame suit? Check) :flaming:

@ AMaster: As I said to Abomination earlier, as much as I can't agree with your statement entirely, I truly wish I could, because things would be much simpler and much better for it. Please don't count this as a flame; it isn't intended as one, just a discussion of your assertion.

(damned inner Devil's Advocate...)

All of this pseudo-intellectual justification of dislike/discrimination/whathaveyou of homosexuals is no different than the tripe certain people spouted to justify discrimination against blacks.

What you have is a dislike of homosexuality on an emotional level. All of this &qu