Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general: Yes or No?

[Fused]

That is an impossibility. Heterosexuals have always had the right to marry because we are the majority of the people on the planet. Until gays somehow outnumber heterosexuals (not sure how that could occur), that won't happen.

Actually, majority and minority have nothing to do with this issue. Please look at any social movement in history to see that discrimination, even agaisnt a minority, is still discrimination. Blacks are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Italians are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Buddhists are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Samaritans are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Boy oh boy, your logic is so much fun.

 

[Zenotwapal]

Actually, majority and minority have nothing to do with this issue. Please look at any social movement in history to see that discrimination, even agaisnt a minority, is still discrimination. Blacks are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Italians are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Buddhists are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Samaritans are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Boy oh boy, your logic is so much fun.

Actually, he didn't mean all rights in general, he meant the right to marry.

Oh, your logic is so much fun.

 

[Fused]

Actually, he didn't mean all rights in general, he meant the right to marry.

Oh, your logic is so much fun.

It is fun because you can easily replace "rights" with "right to marry" and still get the same effect.

I also like that you agree that it is a right instead of a privilege or something dumb like that that you can get if you act a certain way.

 

[John13wb]

It is fun because you can easily replace "rights" with "right to marry" and still get the same effect.

Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

 

[Fused]

Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

*sigh*

I really don't even want to deal with this for the FORTY-SEVEN MILLIONTH TIME.

Beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia are all sex acts that involve only ONE, I repeat, ONE, consenting party while homosexuality, just like heterosexuality and bisexuality involve the consent of ALL, I repeat ALL of the parties involved. Lack of consent from ONE of the parties is easily viewed as rape, while if EVERYONE IN THE PARTY CONSENTS, it can be seen as a legitimate relationship that everyone involved has agreed upon. You've also got **** for evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is just a fetish instead of a legitimate variance of human sexuality.

The right to marry is also not a trivial thing. When the slaves were emancipated and were actually deemed something as actual citizens, having the ability to have a legitimate marriage was nothing trivial to them. When interracial marriage was an issue, it was certainly not a joke to the people it was denied to. Marriage has been used to demean minority groups, and because of that it is not trivial. When you use something as a weapon, its not a joke.

The only thing that's a joke is your post, considering how thought it WASN'T.

 

[Carlisle]

Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

*sigh* not THIS idiotic argument argument.

Since I am too lazy to go over this again, I am just going to say nothing you could mention besides polygamy involves legal consent. Children, objects, and animals can not legally consent to a legal contract such as marriage.

 

[7 tyranitars]

That is an impossibility. Heterosexuals have always had the right to marry because we are the majority of the people on the planet. Until gays somehow outnumber heterosexuals (not sure how that could occur), that won't happen.

oh that's nice let''s take away rights because someon is a minority, Idk how you count but gay people are aprox 10% of the average population

Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

this:

*sigh* not THIS idiotic argument argument.

and this:

Since I am too lazy to go over this again, I am just going to say nothing you could mention besides polygamy involves legal consent. Children, objects, and animals can not legally consent to a legal contract such as marriage.

(since I am even more lazy then carlisle)

 

[Antiyonder]

The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

Animals can't consent. Homosexual adult humans on the other hand are able to. Seriously it's not rocket science or geometry.

If a man were to propose to a dog, the dog wouldn't be able to comprehend the question asked. Now if this man was to instead as a human adult man for his hand in marriage, the man will be able to choose and either accept or reject.

Now if you still believe that marrying an animal is the same as a gay marriage perhaps you can prove it by touching on the factor of consent we have to remind everyone of. Is there a flaw in the whole consent argument or do you completely ignore that argument so that your argument will be valid?

 

[J.T.]

Uh-uh-uhn! Tha's not what I said! I said that I don't think that you should use the Bible as reason to make a law against it.

Which is exactly my point. You don't believe the Bible should be used to make a law against gay marriage or gay rights in general. Soooo... it's really not something either of us care about when it comes to this topic.

Is not the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is moral an important part of the discussion of what rights they should get?

It is. However, "the Bible says it's immoral" is not a valid reason to say it's immoral.

And I only started talking about the Bible once you went into what you thought the problems with it were. You know, this stuff:

Which, in turn, I posted because someone else used the Bible as a reason to be against gay marriage.

It's one thing to say you don't think that a religion's view on a particular subject isn't good but it's an entirely different thing to say that you think that the religion is bogus.

Which is why I didn't say that.

And who says Christianity should change with the times? The Bible says "I am the Lord. I change not." Or what about the verse that says "The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever."(1 Peter 1:24-25)? And these: "But the LORD shall endure forever; He has prepared His throne for judgment" (Psalm 9:7), "For I am the LORD, I change not...." (Malachi 3:6) "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)?

That directly contradicts a few things, but I'll just bring up that moral/priestly/civil laws thing that SouthernWitch talked about. Either God is unchanging and the civil/priestly laws still apply, or the civil/priestly laws no longer apply and God does in fact change sometimes. Which is it?

Let's look at what you said: That doesn't sound like it's only talking about same-sex relationships, does it? The point (which you missed entirely) is that even though some of these religions accept homosexuality in some forms, none of the major religions accept same-sex marriage! There is no way to justify same sex-marriage from any of these! Nada!

If your definition of "major religion" is "mine and ones like it", then yeah, you're right. But Hinduism, for example, is a pretty major religion.

For the most part, I agree that homosexuality doesn't affect me. But when they want benefits from the government (which is funded by the people's tax dollars) for their union, that is when it affects me. I don't want my tax dollars, or (whatever) going to benefits for same-sex couples. I don't really care if the amount going to these benefits is small, I still don't want it going there, just like I don't want my mo-net goin' to fund abortions or embryonic stem-cell research. I am free to oppose a law establishing something I disagree with on these grounds.

So you don't want a group of people to have equal rights to everyone else because it means you'll be paying a little bit of money for them to be doing it? That's a totally unselfish, Christ-like reason to oppose it.

And note bolded part. Why aren't you complaing at J.T.? He does it too. Guess you shouldn't be complaing then.

Because, as SunnyC said, when I make giant posts, I at least make them as soon as I can to prevent the debate from going stale.

But the reason I did it is that some of the people in this discussion were making very bold claims that need to be backed up if they are to be made.

None of the points I made that you required sources for seemed very bold to me.

I only complained once when J.T. made the unfair accusation that I was taking away other people's rights and then tried to back-pedal by saying "I meant your side." Don't believe J.T said that? Take a look!

I wasn't backpedaling. It's not my problem if you didn't understand what I was saying. Even if you or someone with the same views as you are not actively voting to take away rights to a group of people, you are advocating it, which is still bad.

Actually, if I wanted to, I could report anybody who prints out cuss words that aren't what you would hear on daytime TV if they are cussing at me. Just ask Ethan.

No one's cussing at you. There's a difference between swearing (which would be like saying "holy ****"), and cussing at you (which would be insulting you).

And I am not allowed to insert a funny sound effect to add a little humor when I don't want to reprint the cussin'?

You are, but it comes across as more obnoxious or prudish than funny.

I have an idea! Let's look at the Greek! This place goes into what the Greek is in those two verses. Notice the context of the word that is translated "use". It is used in relation to the phrase "vile affections" and "burned in their lusts".

"Natural sexual use of women". So that would mean... what, exactly? The "natural sexual use of women" could just mean vaginal sex, for all we know. Oral sex could, by that definition, fall under an "unnatural use".

You know better than that. Stop saying that. According to Genesis 1, God did not create people to be homosexual.

I just read through all of Genesis 1. Never saw anything about him not creating homosexual people. Closest I could come up with was "male and female he created them", followed by "Be fruitful and increase in number". Is that what you're referring to? Because that doesn't prove anything, except that He made men and women and had them populate the earth.

If you're gonna argue like that, why aren't you arguing that God made everyone sinners?

Who said I don't? God made us capable of sin to such a degree that, according to you, it is nigh impossible to live your whole life without sinning unless you're Jesus. He could have easily made us incapable of sin.

Once again, no. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." This means that since Jesus has said what the acceptable way of salvation is, then those who don't accept that way bear the responsibility of their unbelief. You don't think that God should make those people who don't want to believe and love Him into Christians, do you? Surely you don't!

Force them them? Probably not. Give them a better reason to believe other than "I'll send you to hell for eternity if you don't worship me without any proof that I exist"? Yes. Prove that He exists if he loves us so much and wants us to go to heaven, so those who don't believe for lack of evidence can finally come to Him? Absolutely.

Not quite the same problem. When you divide the genders into seperate barracks the women won't have to worry about being raped by a man. But they still have the problem of being raped by a lesbian. The same thing applies to the men. The problem is that you can't seperate the homosexuals from the heterosexuals (because it would have the same problems with keeping them with the heterosexuals because they are attracted to people of the same gender) and you can't keep them mixed in with the heterosexuals for the reasons defined above.

Okay, ignoring the fact that you seem to think gays are unable to control themselves and want to have sex with every single person of the same gender, and that only gay people rape people of the same gender...

Keep in mind that gays already serve in the military, they just have to bottle it up. If this were anywhere near as much of a problem as you make it out to be, then such rape problems would exist in the military right now, and removing DADT would not change anything. Furthermore, with that in mind, I'd argue that DADT worsens that fear. With DADT in place, you have no idea which people around you are gay, and by your logic, a potential rapist. Removing DADT at least lets you be more on guard, because you know who may potentially (again, by your logic) rape you.

What evidence would you have that is not historical? You can't use the fossil record becuase that doesn't contain written accounts of things. You can't use other species to say how our species got its morals and you can't even use homo habilis or any of those guys to show that our morals were something that we devoloped to help us hunt better becuase they's all dead!!

Let me clear up a few things. When I said there's probably not much historical evidence for the development of morals, I meant written documents. And I said that because rudimentary morals would have come around before writing. I suggest reading the book(s) if you want to learn a bit about their claims. I will admit I haven't read either book myself yet, on account of I can't find them anywhere, but hopefully it'll shed a little light on this topic.

Not quite sure what this has to do with gay rights though.

Actually, it's more like if the first human contracted HIV and passed it down to everyone of his descendandts and we all die of AIDS. It looks like you didn't even read the article I linked to (or quoted, don't remember) that talked about why we are punished for what Adam did. Since you didn't listen, let me quote it again.

(Source)
Emphasis added.

But God punishes us for having sin, doesn't He? So it's more like someone throwing your descendants in jail because all of them have AIDS from your great-great-great-ancestor.

Then what was this about? [Bold added for emphasis]

I wasn't aware "many" or "so much" were absolutely descriptive phrases. All I said was that many Christians spend a lot of time preaching against gays. You don't need a source to know that, you just need to have access to the news, TV, the Internet, or any form of mass communication. I never gave an exact number. I never gave a statistic. I never gave a fraction. All I said was "many" and "so much", which in context pretty much means "a lot".

The answer is ya caint.

So you see my point, right? Because I've only spoken to you online, all I know about you is what you've said, but I still feel confident that you are a Christian, because a lot of what I know about you points towards you being a Christian. But there's a lot more information on Ferdinand II, all of which points toward him being a devout Catholic. Saying he wasn't a true Christian is a desperate attempt to save face.

Do you know what the work of God is? This: "Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Okay. So did Paul believe in Jesus as the son of God?

J.T, do you realize that you didn't bring forward anything that supports what you were saying that those people actually accepted Jesus as their Savior. And do you realize what you just did with what you said about those two dude? You complained at me for saying that certain actions indicated to me that they weren't Christians and then when I ask you to show me some statements that they believed in Jesus as their Savior, you point to their actions to prove that they are. Do you not see your reprehensible logic?

Going to church and publicly worshiping Christ indicate that one is a Christian. Being an unpleasant person doesn't necessarily imply that one is not a Christian.

But okay. So you're telling me that despite the fact that they picket funerals saying "God Hates ***s", despite the fact that they clearly like Jesus enough to protest against Jews for killing him, despite the fact that they have outright said "the Lord Jesus" during one of their major sermons (which was, again, anti-Semitic), despite the fact that they identify as Baptist, despite the fact that they preach God's wrath, and despite the fact that they claim to want to bring the word of the Christian God to them... you're telling me that unless I can find a quote from someone associated with the WBC directly saying Jesus is their Lord, then they can't be Christian?

...

Okay.

[...]the only true Jews are Christians. The rest of the people who claim to be Jews aren't, and they are nothing more than typical, impenitent sinners ... the vast majority of Jews support ***s. In fact, it is the official policy of Reformed Jews to support same-sex marriage. Of course, there are Jews who still believe God's law, but most of them have even departed from that. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew or a Gentile...as long as you believe in Christ.

Ok, your right. That should have been obvious. When you said "sources that show that they can pass laws that deny rights to those the Bible oppose" by "they" did you mean the President?

No, I didn't. I meant that Christian views on homosexuality can and have been turned into law, either on the state level or the federal level.

Also, the other two were by one man: Bill Clinton. If you want to prove your point about the laws, why not find some other Presidents that did something like this and not just one of them.

I don't care who it was who passed those. The fact that they passed at all proves my point.

But since most of the witnessing I do is via printed material

Please tell me you don't mean Chick tracts.

I understand that is probably the most widespread but to treat it like it is the only one is fallacious. And you have done that a few time. Do I need to show you?

No. I'm aware that I have, and I acknowledged that. I've been trying to appease you by using more than just the KJV since you started complaining.

An unflattering number of their contradictions are like the one I just pointed out. The ones about where and how Moses got water out of the rock are due to poor reading.

How so?

Also, let me say this. If the contradictions they listed about who lived where and who was born to whom were proven to be contradictions, what does it matter to the central teaching that Jesus died for our sins and rose again? Let's take that one step further. What if all of the Bible, except one, just one, of the Gospels was incorrect? There is still the call to repentance. There is still the statement that Jesus rose from the dead and that we can be saved.

It brings the legitimacy of the claims of Jesus dying for our sins into question. The morals and teachings, though, do not necessarily hinge on how truthful the story is. A fiction book may still have a good moral.

Yes. To all of them. Reasons: insert any reason you want

You... don't have any reasons yourself?

Nope.

So why the hell are you squeezing abortion and evolution into a debate on gay rights when neither have anything to do with the original topic?

J.T., you're confusing opinion with inborn desire. Big dif.

What does this "big dif" matter in the context of this debate?

Dude, reading fail. I was talking about trying to tell the Islamic world that their Qu'ran says homosexuality is ok.

That's still no better than what I thought you said at first.

Yeh...shoulda' said that better. But I did not say "don't think for yourself." I said "forming you own opinion is not the most important thing here."

No, blindly following the opinion this book that totally came from God says you should have is much more important.

And , really, is forming your own opinion the most important thing if it is a bad opinion?

Could be. You have yet to prove this particular opinion is bad, though.

-I never said gay people should crusade for other orientations. I said that if we accept same-sex marriage then we should accept the others. There is a difference.

Not really. The major point and the intent were the same.

-I never said that they should pretend to be someone they're not in the military. I said that they should leave their sexual attractions at home. Which is what the military asks all employees.

If a heterosexual soldier jokes around about his sexual experiences with a woman, I very highly doubt he would even get anyone around him to raise an eyebrow. If a homosexual soldier jokes around about his sexual experiences with another man, he is legally allowed to be discharged.

-I didn't say anything about disrupting the peace. I said that the people in the pride parades shouldn't be allowed to break public indeceny laws just because they are taking pride in who they are.

As someone pointed out, there are few people who actually do that.

Sure, use a strawman, J.T. I said that everyone has the right to vote according to their conscience or religious views (or atheistic views) and nobody should say that anyone shouldn't vote becuase of x reason.

You said

As TFP said, anyone and everyone is allowed to take their opinions to the ballot box. To say otherwise is to restrict their rights.

In the context of this debate, the two are pretty much the same. So it's not really a strawman if that's pretty much what you're saying

Sure! This one,

Okay, so is this the one that they were messing with in the fruit flies you were talking about earlier?

that one

'kay, so additional testosterone in female rats and removal of testosterone production in male rats will mess up their sexuality. That's not all that surprising.

and that one over there.

That's basically restating something I said earlier. So part of the brain varies in size with sexual preference? Um... okay. Your point?

I notice that some people keep saying that you shouldn't say homosexuality is unnatural becuase appliances are unnatural. The problem is when you talk about computers and appliances, you're talking about invention, not desires you are born with. Listen carefully! A behavior can be called unnatural when the means by which it is established in an organism is something abnormal. For example, if a mutation caused me to want to flap my arms like a bird, would that be normal? No. The same principle can be applied to homosexuality.

Too lazy to repeat what GA said.

Looks like somebody wasn't listening. Did you have a little bias in your ear?

No, I just got a bit confused.

Notice what I said, "laws against same-sex marriage are not aimed at gay people only." Do you think that there would be nobody who was straight that would marry someone of their own gender just to get a rise out of others?

... So some people might enter a huge commitment with someone they don't love just for the shock value, and that's a valid reason to not allow gay marriage?

The thing is...he's right! Everyone that does not except Jesus, whether they are white, black, tall, short, straight, or gay, is going to Hell!

So once again, it's okay to be gay as long as you believe in the Christian God?

(Source)
This is exactly how I feel about homosexuality. This correlates to what I said before about what causes homosexuality.

So it's not even their own sin that makes them gay? It's all the rest of the sin in the world?

Now when have TheFightingPikachu or I advocated forcing our beliefs on anyone?

I haven't really talked about making laws against anything but same-sex marriage.

Right there, for starters.

Big problems with this statement. You are assuimg that the Bible is wrong in your interpretation of it. Could it not be that the theory of evolution and the evidence gathered in support of it are in "defiance" of the Bible?

Maybe they're only in defiance of your interpretation?

And about the ark. The Bibles says that God brought the animals to the ark. Your problem here is in assuming that there could be no supernatural.

Well, can you prove there is supernatural?

 

[The Doctor]

Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.

Have you missed the several thousand times people have pointed out why this slippery slope argument doesn't work?

ANIMALS CAN'T CONSENT TO MARRIAGE.

 

[Zenotwapal]

I think John used a bad example, but however, I agree with the fact that being gay seems more like a fetish than a life style.

And by the way JT, using the WBC as a example of all Christians is like using a zebra to show parts of a canine.
The WBC isn' t a church at all, it's more of a hate group.

 

[John13wb]

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed? I mean, sure, calling me an idiot and telling me you are too lazy to respond may SEEM like good responses, but I didn't really understand how they responded.

But, yes, we would have to allow those things. All of the arguments you've given for why homosexuals should be able to marry are all arguments that they would use. Such as:

"Marrying a child/dog/corpse doesn't affect you, get out of my life."
"Amazing how the 'Land of the Free" would dare oppress us."
"Its natural to be attracted to those things."

...and the list goes on.

7tyranitars, I'd like to see the facts that says the ten percent of the humans on the plant are gay. Or did you just make that up to support your argument?

Also, calling my argument a joke is great. Because I feel the same way about gay marriage. It's the biggest joke of 'oppressed groups', right up there with furries.

 

[Fused]

I think John used a bad example, but however, I agree with the fact that being gay seems more like a fetish than a life style.

How so? Any logic for this opinion?

Fetish Something nonsexual, such as an object or a part of the body which arouses sexual desire or is necessary for one to reach full sexual satisfaction

Lifestyle A style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group

While neither of these scare words paint a correct view on sexual orientations, which one does homosexuality, and all other sexual orientations, best fall under?

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed?

You obviously read the first five words of my argument and then thought of this response. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have asked that question, because everyone has given you the same exact explanation,b ut let me tell you again below.

"Marrying a child/dog/corpse doesn't affect you, get out of my life."

Yes, but it does affect the child/dog/corpse, meaning they need to consent to the union, which chidlren, aniamls, and corpses don't have the legal standing to do. Fail #1.

"Amazing how the 'Land of the Free" would dare oppress us."

Like I said above, without informed consent from all parties invovled, such a union would be rape in the eyes of the law. Fail #2.

"Its natural to be attracted to those things."

Besides complex biology which I've gone through before (most notably, the role pheromones are beleived to play in sexual attraction (pheromones are strongest during puberty (children) and pheromones are noticable only among a certain species (animals) and only living things create them (corpses)) there is no evidence that attractions to children, animals, or corpses is a naturally occuring variance. Fail #3.

...and the list goes on.

And so do the counter arguments.

Also, calling my argument a joke is great. Because I feel the same way about gay marriage. It's the biggest joke of 'oppressed groups', right up there with furries.

Calling something a joke is one thing. Having a logical reason behind it is another thing, soemthing which you don't have. I've explained why gay marriage, marriage as a whole, equality and minority discrimination are not jokes but serious social issues to those it affects. If you've never felt the sharp end of a sword, it must be easy to call it a joke.

 

[GhostAnime]

yeah, because you have the first-hand experience in being gay.

edit: this was directed at John.

 

[The Doctor]

And by the way JT, using the WBC as a example of all Christians is like using a zebra to show parts of a canine.
The WBC isn' t a church at all, it's more of a hate group.

J.T. wasn't using it like that. It was to demonstrate that ShinySandshrew's argument that "you're not a true Christian if you don't outright state that Jesus is Our Lord and Saviour" doesn't work.

Besides, everyone knows the WBC don't represent Christianity.

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed?

The law requires both recipients sign a contract agreeing to marriage. A dog can't do that, a child wouldn't qualify since they're underage, and a corpse is a legal non-entity.

 

[Zenotwapal]

How so? Any logic for this opinion?

Fetish Something nonsexual, such as an object or a part of the body which arouses sexual desire or is necessary for one to reach full sexual satisfaction

Lifestyle A style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group

While neither of these scare words paint a correct view on sexual orientations, which one does homosexuality, and all other sexual orientations, best fall under?

Haha
See I would say fetish.
Since somebody could technically uh have a **** fetish?

 

[GhostAnime]

....

then everybody has fetishes under that definition.

jesus christ.

 

[The Director]

Haha
See I would say fetish.
Since somebody could technically uh have a **** fetish?

Not all homosexuals have a **** fetish, so homosexuality is not a fetish, instead a life style.

 

[GaZsTiC]

Haha
See I would say fetish.
Since somebody could technically uh have a **** fetish?

What is hidden under those asterisks, may I ask?

 

[Fused]

Haha
See I would say fetish.
Since somebody could technically uh have a **** fetish?

Then you obviously have a **** fetish and shouldn't be allowed to legalize your fetish.

@GaZ: D. I. C. K.

I'm assuming, since we all like to forget lesbians.