Religious Controversies: Homosexuality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What about the countries that will probably never allow homosexual unions, but are under that as well?[/quote]

You really aren’t reading my posts, are you?

We’re both bigots Cappie. Nice having ya. After all, you and I both favor state recognized marriage, which inherently excludes some consenting adults in whatever number, in whatever private arrangment or sexual/nonsexual relationiship/lifestyle they prefer, in order to provide the exclusivity need to even define what a state-recognized marriage is. You just happen to include one homo marrying another of the same sex. You one of them progressive bigots, cappie?

Sigh…

302

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, if marriage is already shot to hell, why aren’t you rallying against no fault divorce with the same intensity as you are against gay marriage?

[/quote]

You may want to follow my posts in other threads, and even here, more carefully…

303

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And lets consider other factors involved: the nations listed in the latter link are generally more affluent and progressive – better sex education, use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, probably = lower birthrates.

Or, its them evil gays. What do you think, Sloth?[/quote]

Now I’m having to repeat myself. And, for a guy who couldn’t help but stoop to namecalling. You don’t deserve the energy, but here’s a brief summary:

I said gay marriage would be a further erosion of marriage in the western world, where, largely, marriage and fertility have already been eroded. I specifically said that there wasn’t much room for further decline in the western world. That, this erosion is exactly why this stupid debate is even possible. I will not help reinforce said erosion. I want to reverse course fella, as difficult and painful as it may be.

[/quote]

So, sex education teaches young teenagers how to avoid accidently makin babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit… you say nothing.

The place of women in general society changes, women no longer feel they are obligated to make babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Condoms, birth control, and other contraceptive methods are popularized - probably lower the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Abortion - chances are you’re against that for moral reasons that don’t include fertility rates. (though, come to think of it, makes a good point next time you get into that debate)

You “guess” that gay marriage “might” lead to lower fertility rates – OH GOD WE NEED TO STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.

This is why I call you a bigot: Other things cause the same issues that you rally against homosexuals/gay marriage for, yet you seem to have little or no problem with those other things, but only get bent out of shape over the issues when they align with an anti-gay agenda. [/quote]

Yep, you’re apparently not all familiar with my ardent social conservative beliefs. Are you homosexual? I ask because you’re namecalling and using caps. Very emotionally involved.

304

Nope, Sloth. One man marrying another man is different than 20 women on facebook “getting married”. Yours is a slippery slope argument.

305

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And lets consider other factors involved: the nations listed in the latter link are generally more affluent and progressive – better sex education, use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, probably = lower birthrates.

Or, its them evil gays. What do you think, Sloth?[/quote]

Now I’m having to repeat myself. And, for a guy who couldn’t help but stoop to namecalling. You don’t deserve the energy, but here’s a brief summary:

I said gay marriage would be a further erosion of marriage in the western world, where, largely, marriage and fertility have already been eroded. I specifically said that there wasn’t much room for further decline in the western world. That, this erosion is exactly why this stupid debate is even possible. I will not help reinforce said erosion. I want to reverse course fella, as difficult and painful as it may be.

[/quote]

So, sex education teaches young teenagers how to avoid accidently makin babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit… you say nothing.

The place of women in general society changes, women no longer feel they are obligated to make babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Condoms, birth control, and other contraceptive methods are popularized - probably lower the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Abortion - chances are you’re against that for moral reasons that don’t include fertility rates. (though, come to think of it, makes a good point next time you get into that debate)

You “guess” that gay marriage “might” lead to lower fertility rates – OH GOD WE NEED TO STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.

This is why I call you a bigot: Other things cause the same issues that you rally against homosexuals/gay marriage for, yet you seem to have little or no problem with those other things, but only get bent out of shape over the issues when they align with an anti-gay agenda. [/quote]

Yep, you’re apparently not all familiar with my ardent social conservative beliefs. Are you homosexual? I ask because you’re namecalling and using caps. Very emotionally involved.[/quote]

No, I’m not homosexual.

306

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Nope, Sloth. One man marrying another man is different than 20 women on facebook “getting married”. Yours is a slippery slope argument. [/quote]

No, it isn’t a slippery slope argument…

You’ve used the word bigot, and discrimination. I’ve asked you repeatedly to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Now stop flailing around, acting like a buffoon, and admit it’s impossible.

307

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Nope, Sloth. One man marrying another man is different than 20 women on facebook “getting married”. Yours is a slippery slope argument. [/quote]

No, it isn’t a slippery slope argument…

You’ve used the word bigot, and discrimination. I’ve asked you repeatedly to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Now stop flailing around, acting like a buffoon, and admit it’s impossible.[/quote]

It is possible, because not every restriction is discrimination. Why can’t you understand this?

308

Now, Slothy, if you were actually looking for an answer, or wanted to honestly discuss guidelines for what constitues a valid restriction on marriage and what would be an invalid restriction on marriage, I’d actually think that would be pretty interesting, and we could have a rational, honest discussion on it.

BUT, that isn’t your point at all. Your point is to be hardheaded and keep chanting “If you let people be whatever religion they want, you have to let them rape! Otherwise you’re encroaching on their freedom to rape!”

When you admit that there are legitimate restrictions and illegitmate restrictions on marriage, and admit that calling one the other does not make it so, we can continue. Till then we just call each other names. Assclown.

309

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

It is possible, because not every restriction is discrimination. Why can’t you understand this?[/quote]

Excellent. Since it’s possible, I now await your non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. This is all I’ve been waiting on.

310

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

It is possible, because not every restriction is discrimination. Why can’t you understand this?[/quote]

Excellent. Since it’s possible, I now await your non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. This is all I’ve been waiting on.

[/quote]

No, Sloth, it hasnt: What you’ve been waiting for is an answer so you can point out a legitimate restriction on marriage (such as 20 people who have never met), and cry that not allowing them to marry is “Discrimination!”

Now stop acting like the fact that nobody has fallen for your shit proves you right.

311

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Now, Slothy, if you were actually looking for an answer, or wanted to honestly discuss guidelines for what constitues a valid restriction on marriage and what would be an invalid restriction on marriage, I’d actually think that would be pretty interesting, and we could have a rational, honest discussion on it.

BUT, that isn’t your point at all. Your point is to be hardheaded and keep chanting “If you let people be whatever religion they want, you have to let them rape! Otherwise you’re encroaching on their freedom to rape!”

When you admit that there are legitimate restrictions and illegitmate restrictions on marriage, and admit that calling one the other does not make it so, we can continue. Till then we just call each other names. Assclown.[/quote]

Oh please. You’ve done nothing but implicity (since you refuse to provide the explicit definition) define state marriage as solely between one man and one woman, or one homo to another home of the same sex, discriminating against any other arrangement consenting adults might choose. cough-bigot-cough.

312

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Now, Slothy, if you were actually looking for an answer, or wanted to honestly discuss guidelines for what constitues a valid restriction on marriage and what would be an invalid restriction on marriage, I’d actually think that would be pretty interesting, and we could have a rational, honest discussion on it.

BUT, that isn’t your point at all. Your point is to be hardheaded and keep chanting “If you let people be whatever religion they want, you have to let them rape! Otherwise you’re encroaching on their freedom to rape!”

When you admit that there are legitimate restrictions and illegitmate restrictions on marriage, and admit that calling one the other does not make it so, we can continue. Till then we just call each other names. Assclown.[/quote]

Oh please. You’ve done nothing but implicity (since you provide the explicit) define state marriage as solely between one man and one woman, or one homo to another home of the same sex, discriminating against any other arrangement consenting adults might choose. cough-bigot-cough.[/quote]

There you go hijacking the word again. When you’re ready to play like an adult, we can continue. Till then, peace sir.

313

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked you repeatedly to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Now stop flailing around, acting like a buffoon, and admit it’s impossible.

Capped wrote:
It is possible, because not every restriction is discrimination. Why can’t you understand this?[/quote]

I asked one final time, after you said it was possible, and you still didn’t do the possible. Namecalling and this? You’re wasting my time. Go beat up some polyamorous bi-sexuals, you bigot! Zing!

314

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked you repeatedly to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Now stop flailing around, acting like a buffoon, and admit it’s impossible.

Capped wrote:
It is possible, because not every restriction is discrimination. Why can’t you understand this?[/quote]

I asked one final time, after you said it was possible, and you still didn’t do the possible. Namecalling and this? You’re wasting my time. Go beat up some polyamorous bi-sexuals, you bigot! Zing!

[/quote]

So, my computer just randomly started connecting to the internet again. I’m too happy about this to be upset about anything else.

Yes, its possible, but would take a long time to hammer out, and there’s a whole lot of things to consider.

Btw, I’m polyamorous myself, bit surprised you’re familiar with the term – and, no, I wouldn’t support multiple person marriage.

315

[quote]forbes wrote:
After reading parts of the evolution thread and the more recent trinity thread, I had an idea of making a series of threads related to religious controversies. One that came up in my mind is homosexuality.

Now, I know there is probably a thread somewhere about it already, however it might be good to start a new one. Maybe those previously opposed changed their minds, and vice versa. Maybe some of you came up with new arguments in support or against homosexuality.

I think threads like this are good because many of us are confronted with these controversies in our daily lives. I’m a Christian and someone asked me a few years ago if being gay was wrong. I said yes, but I couldn’t explain why. Reading various responses from here can help many understand the opposing argument to better formulate reasons as to why you believe what you believe. Then you won’t be dumb founded like me and provide no response.

I’m hoping this thread kicks off.

So, is homosexuality a sin, or is it another healthy variation of human sexuality?[/quote]

It matters what you mean by homosexuality, and what Religion you are talking about.

Take Evangelicals and Catholics for example. Evangelicals say that no one is born a homosexual, Catholics do not really make a claim, but do not condemn homosexuals like Evangelicals, but they do condemn people who act out homosexual acts. However, the Catholic Church realises that all people are sinners so the condemnation is not really that hard besides the usual change your ways.

316

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
After reading parts of the evolution thread and the more recent trinity thread, I had an idea of making a series of threads related to religious controversies. One that came up in my mind is homosexuality.

Now, I know there is probably a thread somewhere about it already, however it might be good to start a new one. Maybe those previously opposed changed their minds, and vice versa. Maybe some of you came up with new arguments in support or against homosexuality.

I think threads like this are good because many of us are confronted with these controversies in our daily lives. I’m a Christian and someone asked me a few years ago if being gay was wrong. I said yes, but I couldn’t explain why. Reading various responses from here can help many understand the opposing argument to better formulate reasons as to why you believe what you believe. Then you won’t be dumb founded like me and provide no response.

I’m hoping this thread kicks off.

So, is homosexuality a sin, or is it another healthy variation of human sexuality?[/quote]

It matters what you mean by homosexuality, and what Religion you are talking about.

Take Evangelicals and Catholics for example. Evangelicals say that no one is born a homosexual, Catholics do not really make a claim, but do not condemn homosexuals like Evangelicals, but they do condemn people who act out homosexual acts. However, the Catholic Church realises that all people are sinners so the condemnation is not really that hard besides the usual change your ways.

[/quote]

Agreed. Though even in the evangelical(protestant) branch of Christianity, there are several views on the subject. Thats why its frustrating hearing people put Christians all in one category as “bigots” since it sometimes even comes down to individual stand or belief. Hell Im sure there are some Muslims who are not totally against it. Especially more civilized and modern ones

317

Okay, well let’s go Catholic for a second.

Catholics think everyone is guilty, although we are the perfect creation of God, our free will (also part of that perfect creation) screws us because we don’t always have the right direction. So, saying that you are going to Hell because you are a homosexual, pedophile, nymphomaniac, alcoholic, &c. whatever is beyond ridiculous, because these have been shown to be either to be genetically imprinted or non-inclusive if they are a choice or not. It could not possibly be the standing of the Church that being a homosexual with send you to Hell because you did not have choice in it. However, committing homosexual acts is another thing entirely.

Marriage is the only place sex is allowed, and one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. The Churches stance on homosexual acts stems from this belief. If you are having sex that would not lead to procreation then it is a sin.

318

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Okay, well let’s go Catholic for a second.

Catholics think everyone is guilty, although we are the perfect creation of God, our free will (also part of that perfect creation) screws us because we don’t always have the right direction. So, saying that you are going to Hell because you are a homosexual, pedophile, nymphomaniac, alcoholic, &c. whatever is beyond ridiculous, because these have been shown to be either to be genetically imprinted or non-inclusive if they are a choice or not. It could not possibly be the standing of the Church that being a homosexual with send you to Hell because you did not have choice in it. However, committing homosexual acts is another thing entirely.

Marriage is the only place sex is allowed, and one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. The Churches stance on homosexual acts stems from this belief. If you are having sex that would not lead to procreation then it is a sin.[/quote]

You know Chris, Im sure most of the believers(including me) will agree or at least acknowledge your statement. But the others could care less about it since it is a Christian reference. And that is where we are butting heads.

319

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Marriage is the only place sex is allowed[/quote]

Are you married?

If not, you better be a virgin.

320

I guess I’ve never really understood the homosexual religious debate. The Bible makes it clear that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. It makes a lot of things people do a sin. If you believe in the Bible, then you believe it’s a sin. If you don’t, then you can believe what you want.

The Bible never calls for the persecution of homosexuals. I have family and friends that are gay. I could really care less. I also have family and friends that are heavy drinkers. It’s pretty much the same thing. They’re sinners. So am I. I guess I never understood why people make such a big deal about homosexuals vs. other things.