POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Some of those of which you speak find their sins to me morally reprehensible. Sexuality is very personal, and no matter what sexuality you choose, it should remain that way. The antics of the Gay Pride celebrations go well beyond those limits that they wish to tolerate, hence shoving them under a rock would be a great idea.

Peer pressure and mob mentality sometimes obscure the vision and feelings of love that ought to prevail. We are human, and thus imperfect, and may yield to certain bloodlust like stoning the sinner. As the example that both Chev and LKD put forth, the mob lost sight of the desires of God, and rather sought retribution on a sinner, rather than concern for the welfare of the person's soul.

It is out of love that I speak of repentance and obedience to God's laws. I believe that obedience to God's laws is the way to the greatest of joy, and should I not desire that all partake of that joy?

I believe that God expects more from us than simply satisfying our base urges. And what better way to have joy than to share eternity with an eternal companion rather than a life partner, where you have your children and their children and on down the lines? I can feel the joy in my heart that I have accepted God's laws, and desire that as many of you as would do so partake of this as well.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou liest with a woman. It is an abomination.

Paul also condemns it in his epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians. References to this also in Deuteronomy, Jude and First Timothy.

If they believe themselves to be happy the way things are, then I doubt my words will sway them from their stance. I doubt that happiness will last beyond this world.

That was uncalled for. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire to make a jab, but this seems to mock something deeply personal.

By this, would you support someone that chooses to be a serial killer? or a pedophile? I somehow doubt it. This is a question of morality. Just as you wouldn't support someone in becoming a eerial killer on moral grounds, I don't support their decision fo live as a homosexual on those same grounds.

 

I would marry a dude, but only if he reminded me of my mother.

 

Then we're again back as to where we draw the lines. I mean don't you think there's a wide cliff between being a serial killer or a pedophile and then a gay?

 

Oh well, everyone's into his own favourites and personally I think being blindfolded could be fun, but don't let us take it to such extremes as going after the same gender. That's not just a quirk.

IMHO public orgies fall under obstruction of public order, demoralisation of the youth and a couple of others. What's even worse, it's so extremely tacky...

I think I can answer that one. According the same privileges under the law to gay couples as to traditional couples would blur the difference and then gay activists would say it's legally the same, so screw biology. Then gay lifestyle gets propagated to teenagaers in schools along with condoms and pills. In short: no. Plus, legal privileges exist for a reason and gay couples don't meet that reason.

Every instance of propagating the gay lifestyle as a valid alternative is harm to the society and particularly the individuals directly targeted. Yes, I am much tempted to say let gays live as they won't if they don't come down your way, but realistically thinking, the consequences of that approach wouldn't be good. Don't get me wrong. John and Tom cuddling in the park aren't the devil, and it's certainly not as much of a problem as a Jack raping a Helen or going after a little Susan, but still it's not right to treat that couple on par with a traditional male-female couple.

 

I really do not see how gay lifestyle can be propagated , as far as i know homosexuality is a genetic disfunction so "normal" teenagers aren't very likely to contact the "disease"

 

They are likely to seek both heterosexual and homosexual experience if they are told both are equally good (not like I approve of seeking experience, for the sake of the record ). I can well see "professionals" tellng kids to try both before making their choice, or that they should see if they aren't gay if something doesn't work with the opposite gender and so on and so forth. I don't want any children to fall into a flawed pattern. I don't want to see same gender come ons regarded as normal behaviour.

 

But when we say homosexuality is un-natural, we do so by biological standards, not social.
Furthermore, there are the religious standards to the ones who hold them.

What do you mean exactly? I have an idea, but I am not sure, and I dont want to say crap because of a misunderstading issue.

I believe I have discussed this with Aldeth the Foppish Idiot already. Homosexualism is not un-natural because it is the majority or the deviant behaviour, but rather because it is a behaviour which ensues the extinction of the species.

I kind of agree with Chevalier when he says it is a disorder.
Furthermore, accepting is one thing, but when we start to create privilegies for the homosexual situation, then we are going a step over and actually supporting it. Assuming homosexualism is a wrong behaviour - by the account that is un natural, among other considerations - we should not do it.

We can accept a wrong choice, but how can we support it?
When we support a wrong behaviour, we stimulate that others shall follow.

 

@ Svyatoslav

What I mean is whether it couldn't be discussed that weird tendencies (not only homosexuality) could be called a "natural" thing when it comes to humans, because human behavior somewhat is un-natural and destructive... This is also linked to your statement #2 and 3.

What I ment by this is that the above written would only hold truth if we chose to label homosexuality as a bad thing, thus saying that homosexuality is natural, because humans are un-natural . I understand this might be difficult, as I have some difficulties fully explaining what I'm thinking here.

This is one of the reasons why homosexuality shouldn't be encouraged as such. But I still think that if one so chooses to live his life one way or another, he or she should be supported in his choice (am I going in circles?).

I agree with you on this one. Though not on the account that it is un-natural, but rather on the account that homosexuals should be on the same standing, not gain privilegies.

I don't say support as in saying to a friend or family member who is gay that it's about time he finds a man, or she a girl. But support him/her in the way that we shouldn't treat them in a way we otherwise wouldn't, but rather in accepting that is his/her choice and just be glad that he/she is happy...

 

How so? I dont think human behaviour is particularly un natural.
It is true we destroy nature, but then we do so in the name of evolution, which I tend to think is a natural behaviour.
Of course annihilating Nature is un-natural though, as it would ensue our own destruction.
Furthermore, if you read my posts you would realise I think homosexuality is more than a "weird tendency".

But humans are neither natural or un-natural, by themselves. We are creatures of nature, which is a diferent thing. Our behaviour can be either natural or not though.

But when you support a behaviour, you are already encouraging it.

They already do. Have you ever heard about heterosexual street protests?

There are laws against physical assaults, murder, etc. You can not commit those actions against homosexuals, because it is forbidden by law - as it is against anyone else.
I dont see why we should have special laws to protect homosexual behaviour, when their basic rights are already assured as they are for everyone else.
I guess you can not demand more acceptance than that from anyone.

 

I know

Of course.

But I don't encourage or support the behavior, I'm support the person in letting him live as he wants to, and not judging him soley by that.

If the tables were turned I am sure we would.

Absolutely...

 

This arguement demonstrates the fallacy of many questions.

The arguement is such:

If all humans were homosexual,
we could not exist,
so homosexuality is unnatural.

For this arguement to be valid, you must presuppose that all humans could be homosexual, which has never been demonstrated to be true.

Just to demonstrate the point: I imagine if I was surrounded by nothing but men for years and years and years, when I finally found my girlfriend again, we would go at it like lab rats all over again.

 

Homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view has aspects that go beyond questions of mere reproduction. Humans are social beings, too.

Of course, pure homosexuals are not reproducing, how could they. But the argument If all humans were homosexual we could not exist, so homosexuality is unnatural ignores the possibility that only a fraction of mankind actually is homosexual and that this doesn't neccesarily affect reproduction, as they are a minority. And besides, there are also bisexuals who do reproduce.

There has the point been made that homosexuals could contribute on a social level, and not on a reproduction level, to our species. Homosexuality might in fact be an advantageous behaviour from an evolutionary point of view.

That could explain why evolution didn't spare us this discussion by making homosexuality disappear 10.000 years ago.

I'll leave that as food for thought, and google searches ... (hint: how about the string "homosexuals + contribute + socially + evolution" for instance)

 

Perhaps one of the most significant contributions of homosexuals to this grossly overpopulated world of ours is the very fact that they DON'T reproduce.

(hmm, should I add that some homosexuals are willing to share the societal burden of raising children in good homes, or will that simply set off another tangential ranting?)

 

Actually, from an evolutionary point of view there is little more important than reproduction.

Ragusa and others are correct in pointing out that saying something is unnatural is not the same as saying it is wrong.

Homosexuals -- or, as I prefer to say after meeting author David Morrison and reading his blog, Sed Contra -- people living with same sex attraction, undoubtedly contribute to the quality of life of mankind. This is wholly immaterial, however, when it comes to evolution -- for they neither extend life, encourage genetic mutation, nor aid in reproduction, which are the key elements in Darwinian evolution.

 

(Nah, you would only get me to protest the "good homes" denominator. )

Theoretically correct, but even if so, it still doesn't fit the construct of marriage, so while I too believe homosexuals shouldn't be criminalised, discriminated etc, you still won't get me to approve of gay marriage and adoption.

 

See Chev,
not liking homosexuals is one thing. I work with many homosexuals and got used to them. I'm still straight, so I guess it's not infectious.

Still, I share some of your points of view, and while I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a civil union, I would want to see it kept distinctly different from marriage. That's strictly an emotional thing with me.

However, the lawyer in me tells me: 'So what? For the meaning part you go to church, we're merely regulating relations in a way that solves existing problems.' A good point IMO.

Rally makes another good point: That the sexual orientation of the parents is beside the point if they raise a child well and love it. That would be preferrable to heterosexual parents who beat it or neglect it. And it is hard to disagree with that, if it's about the wellbeing of the child.

And then, the reason why I originally made that point was that: Attemptiong to discredit homosexuality with para-scientific arguments, usually is just a figleaf for people who'd like to say 'I hate fags' but want to play their homophobia PC

If you're looking close enough you might be even find people favouring ID and creationism bring up the evolution argument against homosexuals, and that now is really amusing, and not even improbable.

 

I keep hearing that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior. Homosexual behavior is actually found in several parts of the natural world, like amoung young male dolphins.

Evolutionarily, reproduction is vital, but homosexuality is in essence an extension of normal sexuality.

 

@Ragusa:

A very good point and rest assured it doesn't leave my mind. Part of the reason we have laws at all is solving existing problems. Still, laws not only affect the present problems but they also shape the future. Apart from regulating things, they also show the citizens what's good and right. While sometimes people who are religious or live according to a philosophical system, family tradition or another code, may be nonchalant towards this aspect of the law. There are, however, many people who shape their values after the law. If we tell those people homosexual unions are legal to have, they will get the message that there is nothing wrong with those. That is a message I wouldn't like to send.

Ingrained homosexual behavioural patterns are in my view much more potentially damaging than some level of abuse arising from the parents' shortcomings. Of course, if we find an extremely incompetent heterosexual couple, gay adoptive parents will appear (and maybe even be) better, but that's an exception.

Ahhh... Don't fall for the charm of the "homophobia" word. Please.

@Tiana:

Already refuted in this thread. That argument contracts to, "whatever happens is natural". That's also true for all sorts of things animals do or even humans, and if the term "natural" were to include everything at all, we could as well forego it totally as meaningless.

How so?

 

I would completely agree with the fact that "natural" is a completely meaningless term in the context of an objective arguement.

And now about evolution...

Evolution is incredibly complex; in its full-throated sense it means the accumulation of three and a half billion years of separate and individual events. It is quite a feat to be able to distill that process down, and then apply it to homosexuals, such as this sentence demonstrates:

A gross oversimplification, but the caveat must be added that all statements about evolution are to some degree or another gross oversimplifications.

That being said, humanity is the most social organism ever to exist on Earth. Almost everything we do, including even the manner in which we draw breath, has a social implication. Homosexuality creates strong social bonds between men. The ancient Greek military units (phalanx?) were some of the most feared and mighty social units of their day; between battles they spent their time tweaking each others' nipples and playing hide the spear.

With humans, as with most other highly social animals, sex is a social phenomenon with reproduction only occuring occasionally. The social strength that sex affords is a benefit in and of itself.

 

Not really. When we are talking about theory, it does not need to be demostrated that X behaviour has any chance to become prevalent for it to hold any relevance. The mere demonstration of it is enough. Like Max Weber "ideal types". They are pure concepts, and although they do not exist in society in their pure forms, they dont lose their purpose on tha account.
In other words, a behaviour that ensues extinction - admitedly un natural thing by all of us - does not need to be proven dominant - or totalitarian - in order to be regarded as un natural.