Same sex marriage

[smt]

Anyone who follows the bible so strictly as to say that a gay couple should "be put to death" is frankly retarded, but I'm assuming no one follows it that strictly, the Bible - as with other holy writings from other religions - are incredibly outdated and just don't really work in modern times anymore, I'm pretty sure the Torah still has writings about stoning people etc etc, I have no problem with people being religious but following the Holy writings word for word (when most people around the foundation of these religious probably couldn't write anyway) is just a little on the silly side

[Pielolz]

Where in the bible, exact page, line, pargraph and so forth, does it say gay marriage is wrong?

And when did Jesus, day, month, year, context, situation, did he say "Gays are wrong"?


I genuinly want to know.

There may be more but I don't really  know the bible so I just looked a few up.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Come @ me

But; you cannot allow such VIOLENT and horrendous writings guide your life, for you will bring yourself unto ruination. Whom dare claims they have the right to murder some one in cold blood for their preferences?  Are you God, Zealot? Are you in such lofty position of power to bring death upon some one for their preferences? I doubt you are in such a lofty position; you cannot judge others without bringing judgement upon yourself.

Also, God always preached peace, and equality, whom are you to twist such words into hatred and bile?

[GamingZealot]

Where in the bible, exact page, line, pargraph and so forth, does it say gay marriage is wrong?

And when did Jesus, day, month, year, context, situation, did he say "Gays are wrong"?


I genuinly want to know.

There may be more but I don't really  know the bible so I just looked a few up.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Come @ me

But; you cannot allow such VIOLENT and horrendous writings guide your life, for you will bring yourself unto ruination. Whom dare claims they have the right to murder some one in cold blood for their preferences?  Are you God, Zealot? Are you in such lofty position of power to bring death upon some one for their preferences? I doubt you are in such a lofty position; you cannot judge others without bringing judgement upon yourself.

Also, God always preached peace, and equality, whom are you to twist such words into hatred and bile?

When did I say that I was religious? Never, my opinoins are my  own and I hate gays for my own reasons, and I was just quoting the bible as you asked someone to do. Also, despite all the preaching about it people like you tend to do, it doesn't require some lofty position to judge others. I can judge others how I wish, just as I do not deny others the right to judge me. For someone who was unaware that the bible had direct anti-homosexuality quotes, you seem to know a lot about what God says as well. You ever heard a Christian say that "ours is a vengeful God?" In case you haden't noticed Christians willingly pray to a God who killed off all but Noah and his family just because he didn't like how the humans turned out. After thinking of that, you really believe they're going to question if the bible tells them gay people should be killed? I don't need a lofty position or religious power to justify my views, nor do I need permission from such people either, and definatly not from you. I judge who I want to judge.

[tics]

Leviticus also says that one must be killed if they wear clothing that is a mix of two different materials, or that if your wife is not a virgin she must be stoned. If you're going to follow any of the principles of Leviticus, you must follow all of them.

No politician is arguing to force churches to marry gays. That's a fact. You can lollygag with your idiotic ramblings all you want and try to disprove it, but you're wrong. Churches would not be required to give service as businesses are. Why? Churches don't perform civil marriages, they perform religious marriages. While many religious marriages are also civil marriages, the church is not the one performing or granting the civil marriage, the state is. Therefore, the only entities that would be required to marry gays are the individual states, not the churches. I refuse to argue with you on this particular point any further until you actually read a book. I am absolutely sick and tired of discussing politics with people who think they know everything without ever actually reading anything about the subject and automatically assuming they're correct.

While you are correct that it cannot be conclusively proven that gays are born gay, it also can't be conclusively proven that the Earth is broken up into tectonic plates. They're both theories. In science, many widely accepted statements are theories. The reality is, that in this day and age, the United States is full of know-it-all jackasses who can look at a fact or widely accepted theory and deny it on zero grounds. A theory is true so long as it isn't proven incorrect by someone. However, I can prove that you are born without hate. Factually, your personality is developed by early childhood interactions. You were taught to hate and you were taught that heterosexuality is "natural" and "right" and you were taught to feel disgust towards two gay men or two lesbian women leading happy, successful lives.

People like you who refuse to tolerate other people will be the downfall of this country. No other nation on the world has more discriminating, bigoted people than the United States. For us being the City on a Hill, we sure do set a poor example. No wonder the world hates us.

[BltElite]

I'm fine with gays, as long as you don't shove it down my throat.
I'll admit it freaks me out abit thinking about it as i'm not gay myself, but If somebody else wants to be, by all means they can, just don't get me involved in it.

[GamingZealot]

Leviticus also says that one must be killed if they wear clothing that is a mix of two different materials, or that if your wife is not a virgin she must be stoned. If you're going to follow any of the principles of Leviticus, you must follow all of them.

No politician is arguing to force churches to marry gays. That's a fact. You can lollygag with your idiotic ramblings all you want and try to disprove it, but you're wrong. Churches would not be required to give service as businesses are. Why? Churches don't perform civil marriages, they perform religious marriages. While many religious marriages are also civil marriages, the church is not the one performing or granting the civil marriage, the state is. Therefore, the only entities that would be required to marry gays are the individual states, not the churches. I refuse to argue with you on this particular point any further until you actually read a book. I am absolutely sick and tired of discussing politics with people who think they know everything without ever actually reading anything about the subject and automatically assuming they're correct.

While you are correct that it cannot be conclusively proven that gays are born gay, it also can't be conclusively proven that the Earth is broken up into tectonic plates. They're both theories. In science, many widely accepted statements are theories. The reality is, that in this day and age, the United States is full of know-it-all jackasses who can look at a fact or widely accepted theory and deny it on zero grounds. A theory is true so long as it isn't proven incorrect by someone. However, I can prove that you are born without hate. Factually, your personality is developed by early childhood interactions. You were taught to hate and you were taught that heterosexuality is "natural" and "right" and you were taught to feel disgust towards two gay men or two lesbian women leading happy, successful lives.

People like you who refuse to tolerate other people will be the downfall of this country. No other nation on the world has more discriminating, bigoted people than the United States. For us being the City on a Hill, we sure do set a poor example. No wonder the world hates us.

I feel almost like just posting "You mad bro?" and leaving this board, because your wording has already made it obvious that I've won the argument just by getting under your skin, but I'll take a short time to answer you. For the last time, I was simply citing bible quotes as requested, I do not use the bible to dictate what I should and should not do. I refuse to argue with you on the second point on the grounds that, just like a stated in my last post, despite all your preening about it not being a religious thing, you still refuse to agree with the idea of changing its name to Civil Union and seperating it completly from the church. You cannot conclusivly prove that I was not born with a revulsion towards gays. There are many things we don't know about the psyche upon birth and in the period afterwards when the brain developes. If we were to assume that you were born gay, it means it couldn't be a gene thing, with all the time  humans have been around, the innability for gays to effectively reproduce would have seen it eliminated a long time ago. This means the most likely cause would be a complication durring birth, otherwise known as a DEFECT. Not something to be accepted and fused into society without a thought, something to be researched, cured, and eliminated. I personallyfind it more likely that being gay is either dictated by experience in society durring childhood, or a mix of both defects and experiences. Either way I see no reason for it to be embraced.

I don't really appreciate you insinuating I'm intollerant, I have no issues with many people generally discriminated against, such as blacks or asians. And saying we have more intolerant people than any other country is both debatable and biased. Since we have more people than many countries obviously that means we need to base it on a percent of population to make it fair, and given that premise I'm sure other countries have us beat in the intollerant category.

[tics]

Leviticus also says that one must be killed if they wear clothing that is a mix of two different materials, or that if your wife is not a virgin she must be stoned. If you're going to follow any of the principles of Leviticus, you must follow all of them.

No politician is arguing to force churches to marry gays. That's a fact. You can lollygag with your idiotic ramblings all you want and try to disprove it, but you're wrong. Churches would not be required to give service as businesses are. Why? Churches don't perform civil marriages, they perform religious marriages. While many religious marriages are also civil marriages, the church is not the one performing or granting the civil marriage, the state is. Therefore, the only entities that would be required to marry gays are the individual states, not the churches. I refuse to argue with you on this particular point any further until you actually read a book. I am absolutely sick and tired of discussing politics with people who think they know everything without ever actually reading anything about the subject and automatically assuming they're correct.

While you are correct that it cannot be conclusively proven that gays are born gay, it also can't be conclusively proven that the Earth is broken up into tectonic plates. They're both theories. In science, many widely accepted statements are theories. The reality is, that in this day and age, the United States is full of know-it-all jackasses who can look at a fact or widely accepted theory and deny it on zero grounds. A theory is true so long as it isn't proven incorrect by someone. However, I can prove that you are born without hate. Factually, your personality is developed by early childhood interactions. You were taught to hate and you were taught that heterosexuality is "natural" and "right" and you were taught to feel disgust towards two gay men or two lesbian women leading happy, successful lives.

People like you who refuse to tolerate other people will be the downfall of this country. No other nation on the world has more discriminating, bigoted people than the United States. For us being the City on a Hill, we sure do set a poor example. No wonder the world hates us.

I feel almost like just posting "You mad bro?" and leaving this board, because your wording has already made it obvious that I've won the argument just by getting under your skin, but I'll take a short time to answer you. For the last time, I was simply citing bible quotes as requested, I do not use the bible to dictate what I should and should not do. I refuse to argue with you on the second point on the grounds that, just like a stated in my last post, despite all your preening about it not being a religious thing, you still refuse to agree with the idea of changing its name to Civil Union and seperating it completly from the church. You cannot conclusivly prove that I was not born with a revulsion towards gays. There are many things we don't know about the psyche upon birth and in the period afterwards when the brain developes. If we were to assume that you were born gay, it means it couldn't be a gene thing, with all the time  humans have been around, the innability for gays to effectively reproduce would have seen it eliminated a long time ago. This means the most likely cause would be a complication durring birth, otherwise known as a DEFECT. Not something to be accepted and fused into society without a thought, something to be researched, cured, and eliminated. I personallyfind it more likely that being gay is either dictated by experience in society durring childhood, or a mix of both defects and experiences. Either way I see no reason for it to be embraced.

I don't really appreciate you insinuating I'm intollerant, I have no issues with many people generally discriminated against, such as blacks or asians. And saying we have more intolerant people than any other country is both debatable and biased. Since we have more people than many countries obviously that means we need to base it on a percent of population to make it fair, and given that premise I'm sure other countries have us beat in the intollerant category.

I do not agree with calling it a civil union for same-sex couples and a marriage for opposite-sex couples because this is treating gays as second class citizens. Marriage is NOT solely a religious institution. It is, first and foremost, a state institution. People get married for state benefits. The first marriages in ancient civilizations had nothing to do with religion. That is why I don't agree with it.

You are not a qualified scientists. Qualified scientists will tell you that homosexuality while not conclusively genetic, is not a defect. You also have a false understanding of natural selection. Your logic is that if it is genetic, it would die off since homosexuals can't naturally reproduce. But that would be assuming that the trait can only be dominant. Two brown-haired parents can have a blonde kid because one (or both) of the parents had the blonde gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait for hair color. Similarly, two straight parents can have a gay kid because one (or both) of the parents have the gay gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait. (That is, of course, assuming it is genetic.)

Hypothetically, however, let's assume it is a defect. Is it your place or even society's place to tell a person what to embrace and what not to embrace? Hell no. If someone's gay (like me) and fine with being gay (like me) and embraces being gay (like me) and wants to lead a happy life with a boyfriend or husband (like me), then that is their choice to embrace their sexuality. It shouldn't matter to you.

Lastly, when I said we have the most bigoted people, I didn't mean numerically. I meant that the United States has the people who are most bigoted out of other societies. Our American society is full of hatred, violence, and discrimination. If you deny that, then you are blind.

[GamingZealot]

I do not agree with calling it a civil union for same-sex couples and a marriage for opposite-sex couples because this is treating gays as second class citizens. Marriage is NOT solely a religious institution. It is, first and foremost, a state institution. People get married for state benefits. The first marriages in ancient civilizations had nothing to do with religion. That is why I don't agree with it.

You are not a qualified scientists. Qualified scientists will tell you that homosexuality while not conclusively genetic, is not a defect. You also have a false understanding of natural selection. Your logic is that if it is genetic, it would die off since homosexuals can't naturally reproduce. But that would be assuming that the trait can only be dominant. Two brown-haired parents can have a blonde kid because one (or both) of the parents had the blonde gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait for hair color. Similarly, two straight parents can have a gay kid because one (or both) of the parents have the gay gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait. (That is, of course, assuming it is genetic.)

Hypothetically, however, let's assume it is a defect. Is it your place or even society's place to tell a person what to embrace and what not to embrace? Hell no. If someone's gay (like me) and fine with being gay (like me) and embraces being gay (like me) and wants to lead a happy life with a boyfriend or husband (like me), then that is their choice to embrace their sexuality. It shouldn't matter to you.

Lastly, when I said we have the most bigoted people, I didn't mean numerically. I meant that the United States has the people who are most bigoted out of other societies. Our American society is full of hatred, violence, and discrimination. If you deny that, then you are blind.

There is no proof that the first marriages were either state or religious, we don't have accurate records back then because you'd have to go back further than even the bible, so good luck arguing that point. Religions and the state have always gone hand in hand where marriage is concerned and still do, which you can't even argue since that's one of the major reasons gay marriage has been outlawed so long. That means it should be something else, if you are really only concerned with the state benefits you wouldn't care if it was named civil union and gay unions got all the same state benefits. Its not treating you as second class citizens as you get the same benefits, so you shouldn't care.

There is proof that even recessive genes that hurt the chance of survival enough will die out. If it was indeed a recessive gene then throughout all of history people who got double recessive obviously would not repopulate, and by sheer chance when people with one recessive gay gene reproduced they would still create double dominant. The sheer astronomical odds that a gene even recessive that limits the odds of reproduction that much surviving all of human's history means no "qualified" scientist would claim it to be without definate proof, of which there is none.

Defects mean they are detrimental, therefore they should be eliminated. Once a cure for homosexuality (assuming it is indeed biological) is found, a way to prevent it in new children, it should immediatly be used. It is societies place, and always has been to decide what is correct, that is the entire point of democracy. Why it matters to me is my own buisness just like you don't have to give a reason to be gay, and like I've said, I can judge you if I want.

I would argue your last point, there are societies that are far more intollerant than ours. China for example has a heritage of sexism and discrimination towards different groups. America certainly has its bigots but you really can't say other countries cant' match or surpass us.

[tics]

I do not agree with calling it a civil union for same-sex couples and a marriage for opposite-sex couples because this is treating gays as second class citizens. Marriage is NOT solely a religious institution. It is, first and foremost, a state institution. People get married for state benefits. The first marriages in ancient civilizations had nothing to do with religion. That is why I don't agree with it.

You are not a qualified scientists. Qualified scientists will tell you that homosexuality while not conclusively genetic, is not a defect. You also have a false understanding of natural selection. Your logic is that if it is genetic, it would die off since homosexuals can't naturally reproduce. But that would be assuming that the trait can only be dominant. Two brown-haired parents can have a blonde kid because one (or both) of the parents had the blonde gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait for hair color. Similarly, two straight parents can have a gay kid because one (or both) of the parents have the gay gene, it just wasn't the dominant trait. (That is, of course, assuming it is genetic.)

Hypothetically, however, let's assume it is a defect. Is it your place or even society's place to tell a person what to embrace and what not to embrace? Hell no. If someone's gay (like me) and fine with being gay (like me) and embraces being gay (like me) and wants to lead a happy life with a boyfriend or husband (like me), then that is their choice to embrace their sexuality. It shouldn't matter to you.

Lastly, when I said we have the most bigoted people, I didn't mean numerically. I meant that the United States has the people who are most bigoted out of other societies. Our American society is full of hatred, violence, and discrimination. If you deny that, then you are blind.

There is no proof that the first marriages were either state or religious, we don't have accurate records back then because you'd have to go back further than even the bible, so good luck arguing that point. Religions and the state have always gone hand in hand where marriage is concerned and still do, which you can't even argue since that's one of the major reasons gay marriage has been outlawed so long. That means it should be something else, if you are really only concerned with the state benefits you wouldn't care if it was named civil union and gay unions got all the same state benefits. Its not treating you as second class citizens as you get the same benefits, so you shouldn't care.

There is proof that even recessive genes that hurt the chance of survival enough will die out. If it was indeed a recessive gene then throughout all of history people who got double recessive obviously would not repopulate, and by sheer chance when people with one recessive gay gene reproduced they would still create double dominant. The sheer astronomical odds that a gene even recessive that limits the odds of reproduction that much surviving all of human's history means no "qualified" scientist would claim it to be without definate proof, of which there is none.

Defects mean they are detrimental, therefore they should be eliminated. Once a cure for homosexuality (assuming it is indeed biological) is found, a way to prevent it in new children, it should immediatly be used. It is societies place, and always has been to decide what is correct, that is the entire point of democracy. Why it matters to me is my own buisness just like you don't have to give a reason to be gay, and like I've said, I can judge you if I want.

I would argue your last point, there are societies that are far more intollerant than ours. China for example has a heritage of sexism and discrimination towards different groups. America certainly has its bigots but you really can't say other countries cant' match or surpass us.

You're correct in saying that defects are detrimental. Homosexuality is not detrimental though. You won't die because you're homosexual. In this day and age, the inability to reproduce or procreate is not detrimental, as many choose not to. And if you think that the core purpose of democracy is to decide what's right and wrong, then you don't have any good understanding of democracy. The core principle of democracy is upholding personal freedoms, i.e. the personal freedom to choose how to lead your life. Also, hypothetically if your false understanding of democracy's purpose was true, the majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is not wrong, and therefore the choice of society would be that people should embrace it.

You ought to research natural selection more, because your understanding of it is poor. Many qualified scientists actually do agree with exactly what I said.

Lastly, I actually did give a reason for me being gay. Scientifically, certain circumstances (whether they be genetic or from experience or any others) have made me have a more dominant attraction to males than females. So don't try to give me this crap that your intolerance and bigotry does not need a reason. You're essentially saying, "I can hate homosexuality because I can." Well, no shit Sherlock. Also, most people who argue on your side of aisle as vehemently as you are either a) religious, bible-thumping extremists, b) homosexuals who cannot accept who they are, and therefore hate others, or c) poorly educated people. Which one are you?

I've made my point here. I don't intend on posting further. Goodbye.

[Mr Jive]

Disliking homosexuality isn't even really a personal opinion, you are not born hating them in the same way that you are not born straight or gay your views are put forward by the society around you. As an individual growing up the majority of your opinions are based around what is the norm in your society and so it is only logical that many people in America would dislike Gay people. They follow the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.) and these religions specifically say that homosexuality is bad, among over things and so in societies based off these beliefs there will be hatred towards these people. But it is in no manner the norm because these are pretty much the only religions that follow this belief system so strictly. In many other societies not defined by these beliefs, throughout time, homosexuality is not even thought of as an issue, it isn't even a thing because it is so normal.

For example in Ancient Greece Beauty was not gender specific, which is why there is paintings and statues of both beautiful men and women. In ancient Rome it was common for many men to be Bi-sexual, many emperors would have a wife for political reasons and to reproduce but they would also have sexual intercourse with men as well, for pleasure and intimacy. Hadrian famously had a male lover who he loved even more so then his own wife, and when that lover died he erected many statues in the memory of that man. My point is that homosexuality is in fact the norm throughout Human history, it is Christianity (and the other beliefs) that are abnormal. It is our western viewpoint that we have tainted on the rest of the world that is wrong and that is bizarre. In most other cultures past and present that are not subject to Abrahamic beliefs homosexuality is often accepted.

Which leads onto my second point, I do not understand the need for Gay marriage. I myself am Bisexual and I would never want to get married in a church or anything like that, however I do believe that the benefits of marriage should be available to anyone, which is why we have civil partnerships. If a religion says something that you disagree with you should not try to change it, you should accept it as wrong and find a new religion. I do not want to be married under a religion that disagrees with my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I don't mind having a religion marriage, if it was part of a religion that is accepting of what I am doing.

I also believe that it is not in our right to change a religions rule because we disagree with them; it makes more sense to ignore that religion for its views are warped and wrong. Take the Ku Klux Klan, their views are wrong and I strongly disagree with everything they stand for. That doesn’t mean I should try to change them so that I can be part of the KKK, it means they are wrong and I shouldn't let that continue/associate myself with it. But this is just my opinion, if you really want to stick to your beliefs despite what they say and think they can change then go-ahead, but I think the more rational choice is to accept it is wrong and leave it behind.

To sum up though, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and people should be allowed to love as they please, but we should not be allowed to change people’s rules and opinions to fit our own. And at the same time I must respect anyone’s opinion and anyone who disagrees with what I have said.

[GamingZealot]

You're correct in saying that defects are detrimental. Homosexuality is not detrimental though. You won't die because you're homosexual. In this day and age, the inability to reproduce or procreate is not detrimental, as many choose not to. And if you think that the core purpose of democracy is to decide what's right and wrong, then you don't have any good understanding of democracy. The core principle of democracy is upholding personal freedoms, i.e. the personal freedom to choose how to lead your life. Also, hypothetically if your false understanding of democracy's purpose was true, the majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is not wrong, and therefore the choice of society would be that people should embrace it.

You ought to research natural selection more, because your understanding of it is poor. Many qualified scientists actually do agree with exactly what I said.

Lastly, I actually did give a reason for me being gay. Scientifically, certain circumstances (whether they be genetic or from experience or any others) have made me have a more dominant attraction to males than females. So don't try to give me this crap that your intolerance and bigotry does not need a reason. You're essentially saying, "I can hate homosexuality because I can." Well, no shit Sherlock. Also, most people who argue on your side of aisle as vehemently as you are either a) religious, bible-thumping extremists, b) homosexuals who cannot accept who they are, and therefore hate others, or c) poorly educated people. Which one are you?

I've made my point here. I don't intend on posting further. Goodbye.

Ah, but hasen't homosexuality caused a division in even this day and  age? Wouldn't the world be better off is scientist started insuring that homosexual children are corrected before birth? It would discontinue this arguing and the children would be no worse off for it. If it is a defect caused by complications durring birth then it is not supposed to happen and should be crushed. I was merely saying that the reason we all love democracy is it allows society to govern what is right and wrong, isn't that the entire point? Democracy at its truest form is saying that the majority knows best, no matter how uneducated and stupid they may be. The constitution is what upholds personal freedoms you fool, democracy only cares about the whole, not the individual.

In regards to natural selection, just as many scientists would agree with what I've said, otherwise your theory would be law, not theory.

My "intolerance and bigotry" does have a reason, but yes, my point was that even if I didn't, I don't need a reason to hate gay people. Also, I'm not exactly arguing vehemently, I quite enjoy this friendly little conversation we're having. Out of the three options you've given me the closest one would have to be A I guess, although none really fit me. If we are going to go by steryotypes, you are a homosexual aren't you? Are you A) A sex driven psycho that will fuck any male with a pulse, B) a flamboyant peacock with an over inflated sense of self importance, C) A homosexual who only came out of the closet so he could whine and moan about how unfair life is to his kind, or D) Some pumped up macho who hangs out in gay bars 24/7 and never does anything with his life?

I think I've made my point, although I may or may not post in the future if necessary, I do so enjoy a good debate. Goodbye for now then.

[tics]

Disliking homosexuality isn't even really a personal opinion, you are not born hating them in the same way that you are not born straight or gay your views are put forward by the society around you. As an individual growing up the majority of your opinions are based around what is the norm in your society and so it is only logical that many people in America would dislike Gay people. They follow the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.) and these religions specifically say that homosexuality is bad, among over things and so in societies based off these beliefs there will be hatred towards these people. But it is in no manner the norm because these are pretty much the only religions that follow this belief system so strictly. In many other societies not defined by these beliefs, throughout time, homosexuality is not even thought of as an issue, it isn't even a thing because it is so normal.

For example in Ancient Greece Beauty was not gender specific, which is why there is paintings and statues of both beautiful men and women. In ancient Rome it was common for many men to be Bi-sexual, many emperors would have a wife for political reasons and to reproduce but they would also have sexual intercourse with men as well, for pleasure and intimacy. Hadrian famously had a male lover who he loved even more so then his own wife, and when that lover died he erected many statues in the memory of that man. My point is that homosexuality is in fact the norm throughout Human history, it is Christianity (and the other beliefs) that are abnormal. It is our western viewpoint that we have tainted on the rest of the world that is wrong and that is bizarre. In most other cultures past and present that are not subject to Abrahamic beliefs homosexuality is often accepted.

Which leads onto my second point, I do not understand the need for Gay marriage. I myself am Bisexual and I would never want to get married in a church or anything like that, however I do believe that the benefits of marriage should be available to anyone, which is why we have civil partnerships. If a religion says something that you disagree with you should not try to change it, you should accept it as wrong and find a new religion. I do not want to be married under a religion that disagrees with my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I don't mind having a religion marriage, if it was part of a religion that is accepting of what I am doing.

I also believe that it is not in our right to change a religions rule because we disagree with them; it makes more sense to ignore that religion for its views are warped and wrong. Take the Ku Klux Klan, their views are wrong and I strongly disagree with everything they stand for. That doesn’t mean I should try to change them so that I can be part of the KKK, it means they are wrong and I shouldn't let that continue/associate myself with it. But this is just my opinion, if you really want to stick to your beliefs despite what they say and think they can change then go-ahead, but I think the more rational choice is to accept it is wrong and leave it behind.

To sum up though, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and people should be allowed to love as they please, but we should not be allowed to change people’s rules and opinions to fit our own. And at the same time I must respect anyone’s opinion and anyone who disagrees with what I have said.

Except that the governing churches of Christianity and Judaism haven't actually put out any particular opinions, and it's actually not so clear cut.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY</a>
Post Auto-Merged: November 04, 2012, 06:55:11 PM

You're correct in saying that defects are detrimental. Homosexuality is not detrimental though. You won't die because you're homosexual. In this day and age, the inability to reproduce or procreate is not detrimental, as many choose not to. And if you think that the core purpose of democracy is to decide what's right and wrong, then you don't have any good understanding of democracy. The core principle of democracy is upholding personal freedoms, i.e. the personal freedom to choose how to lead your life. Also, hypothetically if your false understanding of democracy's purpose was true, the majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is not wrong, and therefore the choice of society would be that people should embrace it.

You ought to research natural selection more, because your understanding of it is poor. Many qualified scientists actually do agree with exactly what I said.

Lastly, I actually did give a reason for me being gay. Scientifically, certain circumstances (whether they be genetic or from experience or any others) have made me have a more dominant attraction to males than females. So don't try to give me this crap that your intolerance and bigotry does not need a reason. You're essentially saying, "I can hate homosexuality because I can." Well, no shit Sherlock. Also, most people who argue on your side of aisle as vehemently as you are either a) religious, bible-thumping extremists, b) homosexuals who cannot accept who they are, and therefore hate others, or c) poorly educated people. Which one are you?

I've made my point here. I don't intend on posting further. Goodbye.

Ah, but hasen't homosexuality caused a division in even this day and  age? Wouldn't the world be better off is scientist started insuring that homosexual children are corrected before birth? It would discontinue this arguing and the children would be no worse off for it. If it is a defect caused by complications durring birth then it is not supposed to happen and should be crushed. I was merely saying that the reason we all love democracy is it allows society to govern what is right and wrong, isn't that the entire point? Democracy at its truest form is saying that the majority knows best, no matter how uneducated and stupid they may be. The constitution is what upholds personal freedoms you fool, democracy only cares about the whole, not the individual.

In regards to natural selection, just as many scientists would agree with what I've said, otherwise your theory would be law, not theory.

My "intolerance and bigotry" does have a reason, but yes, my point was that even if I didn't, I don't need a reason to hate gay people. Also, I'm not exactly arguing vehemently, I quite enjoy this friendly little conversation we're having. Out of the three options you've given me the closest one would have to be A I guess, although none really fit me. If we are going to go by steryotypes, you are a homosexual aren't you? Are you A) A sex driven psycho that will fuck any male with a pulse, B) a flamboyant peacock with an over inflated sense of self importance, C) A homosexual who only came out of the closet so he could whine and moan about how unfair life is to his kind, or D) Some pumped up macho who hangs out in gay bars 24/7 and never does anything with his life?

I think I've made my point, although I may or may not post in the future if necessary, I do so enjoy a good debate. Goodbye for now then.

Answer me this: Do you believe everything in nature happens for a reason? I'm not necessarily saying with homosexual humans, just in general, do you believe everything in nature happens for a reason?

[Mr Jive]

Disliking homosexuality isn't even really a personal opinion, you are not born hating them in the same way that you are not born straight or gay your views are put forward by the society around you. As an individual growing up the majority of your opinions are based around what is the norm in your society and so it is only logical that many people in America would dislike Gay people. They follow the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.) and these religions specifically say that homosexuality is bad, among over things and so in societies based off these beliefs there will be hatred towards these people. But it is in no manner the norm because these are pretty much the only religions that follow this belief system so strictly. In many other societies not defined by these beliefs, throughout time, homosexuality is not even thought of as an issue, it isn't even a thing because it is so normal.

For example in Ancient Greece Beauty was not gender specific, which is why there is paintings and statues of both beautiful men and women. In ancient Rome it was common for many men to be Bi-sexual, many emperors would have a wife for political reasons and to reproduce but they would also have sexual intercourse with men as well, for pleasure and intimacy. Hadrian famously had a male lover who he loved even more so then his own wife, and when that lover died he erected many statues in the memory of that man. My point is that homosexuality is in fact the norm throughout Human history, it is Christianity (and the other beliefs) that are abnormal. It is our western viewpoint that we have tainted on the rest of the world that is wrong and that is bizarre. In most other cultures past and present that are not subject to Abrahamic beliefs homosexuality is often accepted.

Which leads onto my second point, I do not understand the need for Gay marriage. I myself am Bisexual and I would never want to get married in a church or anything like that, however I do believe that the benefits of marriage should be available to anyone, which is why we have civil partnerships. If a religion says something that you disagree with you should not try to change it, you should accept it as wrong and find a new religion. I do not want to be married under a religion that disagrees with my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I don't mind having a religion marriage, if it was part of a religion that is accepting of what I am doing.

I also believe that it is not in our right to change a religions rule because we disagree with them; it makes more sense to ignore that religion for its views are warped and wrong. Take the Ku Klux Klan, their views are wrong and I strongly disagree with everything they stand for. That doesn’t mean I should try to change them so that I can be part of the KKK, it means they are wrong and I shouldn't let that continue/associate myself with it. But this is just my opinion, if you really want to stick to your beliefs despite what they say and think they can change then go-ahead, but I think the more rational choice is to accept it is wrong and leave it behind.

To sum up though, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and people should be allowed to love as they please, but we should not be allowed to change people’s rules and opinions to fit our own. And at the same time I must respect anyone’s opinion and anyone who disagrees with what I have said.

Except that the governing churches of Christianity and Judaism haven't actually put out any particular opinions, and it's actually not so clear cut.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY</a>
Post Auto-Merged: November 04, 2012, 06:55:11 PM

This is very true, but my point is there is a definite correlation between nations founded on the Abrahamic religions and a negative opinion on homosexuals. And I do not want to insuate that the vatican, the Church of England or anyone other religious organisation is so clear cut on the matter, as it is with many matters that are considerd complicated for them (such as abortion, contreception, IVF etc)

[GamingZealot]

Depends on what you mean by reason Nik. If you mean for some higher purpose, no I don't. If you mean cause and effect, as in it happened because somethign caused it, then yeah sure.

[garry :D]

I judge who I want to judge.

I thought God's children weren't supposed to judge others?