Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

blazindave · August 26, 2008, 5:24pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
But why the Bible? What makes that the forefront of your decision? I’m sure a lot of non-Christians would take offense to being dictated to by a religious book, not to mention the atheists.[/quote]

I’m agnostic and i know very little about the bible.
Like it or not, alot of the USA’s ideas and beliefs stem from the bible. So it is important to take it as reference.

blazindave · August 26, 2008, 6:11pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I’m sorry, but by your logic then a man fucking a woman should be the same as a woman fucking a dog.

Explain.

You say if it’s just sex then it’s the same as a dog and human having sex. Not all male/female sexual relations are for the sole purpose of procreating but are for recreation. Meaning it’s… just sex.[/quote]

Well yea. Because just sex is usually done for pleasure.
Like how though homosexuality was rampant in greece, it was done as an act of love, pleasure and brotherhood. Yet men still “used” the women for procreation. That’s the difference. They weren’t so much gay as they were bi.
So then if the sex is just for pleasure, does it matter if it’s a with a dog or man? The woman won’t care. But just like if a man would like to stick his dick in someone’s turd cutter or a vagina is his choice same could be said towards animals.

[quote]forlife wrote:
By whose definition? In Massachusetts and California, marriage is between two loving, committed adults regardless of their gender. Likewise in several countries around the world, and the number is growing.[/quote]

Marriage’s definition comes from the bible. So you can’t say by whose definition. There are only 5 countries were homosexual marriage is officially doable.

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’ve discussed this extensively, but in a nutshell I believe loving, informed, adults should be able to marry except when doing so is inherently harmful. In cases like beastility and pedophilia, there is no informed consent and the potential harm to children is unacceptable. I don’t know enough about the research on polygamy to have an opinion on whether or not it is inherently harmful. I think each case should be evaluated and considered on its own merits.[/quote]

The possible spread of aids is one thing. Beastiality harms no one and consent for animals has got to be one of the most retarded things i have ever heard. You can enslave the animal and fucking eat it if you like…but god forbid you have sex with it.

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’ll say it again:

Allowing gays to marry is beneficial to the couple, to any children they may have, and to society in general. The major medical and mental health organizations have done the research and reached this conclusion, and I agree with them.
[/quote]
Course you agree with them…you’re gay. Even if they were wrong you d still agree with them.

[quote]forlife wrote:

No, because you are causing harm to others. Gay marriage doesn’t harm anyone, but it does benefit the couple and society.

It shows that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. People don’t choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. Whatever way you’re wired, that determines who you find attractive and can love fully and completely. [/quote]
Disagreed. Did you read my post about my lesbian friends and the reason they all became lesbians. It’s not wired…its an acquired trait from experience.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Homosexuality was common in greece

This alone is enough to show that homosexuality hasn’t always been rejected by society. Homosexuality has been accepted in other countries/cultures as well, both ancient and modern.[/quote]
Yes, homosexuality was done…but there was no such thing as homosexual marriage. A man could not have a husband. He could have a lover or a brother or whatever…but husband and wife is how it worked. I never said homosexuality never happened…i was taking about MARRIAGE.
Again people, learn to read.

[quote]forlife wrote:
i dont think greeks sleeping with 8 year old boys is so far fetched.

Don’t confuse sexual orientation with pedophilia. Men have slept with 8 year old girls too, but that doesn’t make heterosexuality evil.[/quote]

Strike two. I was answering the guy telling me how old the “kids”, that the greeks were sleeping with, were. Read the context.

[quote]forlife wrote:
There are many religions in the world that don’t view homosexuality as a “sin”, including a large number of Christian faiths. Of course, people always view their particular brand of religion as the “real truth”, but that doesn’t make it objectively so.[/quote]
If your original christianity says homosexuality is “wrong” and someone branches off and says they “its ok” then thats not a branch of christianty. That’s a delusional fucktard thinking he can invent religions. Religions usually have some sort of criteria written somewhere. Take for example the Koran or the bible.
Scientology is an example of “fake religions”.
I’d also like you to name the “large number of christian faiths” which promote homosexuality. I’m sure they’re real christians.

You know what? I’m such a great guy ill do the work for you.
I CALL UPON THE POWER OF WIKIPEDIA. THUNDER

"Though the relationship between homosexuality and religion can vary greatly across time and place, within and between different religions and sects, and regarding different forms of homosexuality and bisexuality, current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world’s largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively. "

Abrahamic religions = both for and against homosexuality (the far off branched groups are for)

Judaism = against

Christianity = against

Islam= against

Zoroastrianism= against

Dharmic religions (including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)= against

Chinese religions= discouraged

Confucianism= you can be gay only if you have sex with women as well = neutral

Taoism= discouraged

Paganism= for

against: 8
for: 1
neutral= 3

I once quoted shakespear and it pissed someone off but ill do it again

“There is no right or wrong only thinking it makes it so”.
Unfortunately we define morality and what is right by the large majority. And it seems an extremely large majority disagree with homosexuality and marriage. Technically that makes it wrong.
This is just food for thought.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you implying that marriage didn’t exist before the bible? I’m sure you know that marriage has existed in many countries and cultures which don’t have a Judeo-Christian history.[/quote]

Yes i am implying that. And prove that it existed in countries before hand please.

[quote]forlife wrote:
I respect the right of people to believe in whatever holy book they want to believe in, but they shouldn’t try to force their religious beliefs on others.[/quote]

The united states is extremely religious as are many countries in the world. You can say “no no no” all you want but that’s how it is.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Especially when people are inconsistent in their application. I love how people quote scriptures from the bible on homosexuality, while ignoring scriptures about slavery, women speaking in church, wearing mixed fibers, or eating shellfish. If you’re going to enforce the bible, do all of it or none of it. Better yet, keep it to your church or synagogue and leave religion out of government policies and laws. [/quote]

This had to do with before…about the animal thing.
I’d like to point out that homosexuality doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom. Really…it doesn’t.
A male will have sex with a male…and it ends there.
“Love” is not something an animal can experience.
If it can experience love like you think it can, then you undermine all of the love and emotional complexity of human emotions. You bring us down to an “animal” level. And if you’re willing to do that, then everything goes. This includes…shitting on your lawn.

And that argument was used to counter the bullshit spewn from before about “if animals do it, then its ok”.
Rainjack is the only one who seems to be following anything at all and he’s not even really participating in this “discussion”.

You can’t use homosexuality as being natural with animals unless you use everything. Don’t be inconsistent!! So that makes it ok for me to shit on your lawn, see? Because unless we apply everything to prove our point then our argument is invalid.
Honestly, how childish can you be?
“IF YOU DONT APPLY ALL OF IT, ITS CAUSE YOU RE A HYPOCRITE, SO THERE.”
But then turn around and do exactly what the guy did. Homosexuality is punishable by death in many religions. If you want us to enforce everything, then ill guess we ll be hanging you soon.

forlife · August 26, 2008, 7:26pm

[quote]blazindave wrote:
Marriage’s definition comes from the bible. So you can’t say by whose definition.[/quote]

Wrong. Marriage existed long before the bible was published, and in cultures that preceded Judeo-Christian beliefs. You do realize that ancient egyptians, greeks, romans, etc. practiced marriage right?

You also need to read up on the “biblical definition” of marriage. Are you aware that people like Abraham, Jacob, etc. practiced polygamy? The Jewish culture evolved from a polygamous to a monogamous definition, just as other cultures did.

Encouraging gays to commit themselves to one partner through marriage, and holding them accountable for adultery would reduce the spread of aids, so why wouldn’t you support it?

The point isn’t whether or not I agree with them. The point is that the major medical and mental health organizations have objectively researched it, and have unanimously concluded that gay marriage is in the best interest of gays and of society in general. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

Then explain the twin studies, among the hundreds of other studies showing a genetic factor in sexual orientation. It doesn’t mean sexual orientation is 100% genetically determined, but it shows clearly and unequivocally that genetics play a role.

The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. (Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc.)

Christians that believe homosexuality is not contrary to the bible claim that it is the other way around. They believe the “breaking away” happened by anti-gay zealots, perhaps as early as the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, by decree of the Roman Emperor Constanine I.

Who is right?

(Hint: as an agnostic, you are allowed to say “neither”).

As an agnostic, don’t you believe all religions are invented? If not, where did they come from?

You can find a good starting list here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm

As noted:

The same could be said of slavery 100 years ago.

Also, the number of people supporting gay marriage has consistently grown, even (but not quite yet) to the point of the majority supporting it in the U.S. In several other countries, the large majority already support gay marriage.

I never said otherwise. What I did say was that religion doesn’t belong in politics. I wonder how the fundamentalist Christians would feel if Muslims took over the government and tried to enforce Muslim laws on everyone.

[quote]I’d like to point out that homosexuality doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom. Really…it doesn’t.
A male will have sex with a male…and it ends there.[/quote]

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is about more than just sex. In many cases, it extends to long term mating. For example:

[quote]Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called “ecstatic behavior”: That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren’t interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. “They did a great job,” he said.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them “animalistic.”

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean it is natural for humans? And that raises a familiar question: If homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new.

“There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it,” said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, “Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape” (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality.

Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, “American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all,” said de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, ‘The females are very affectionate.’ "

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” (St. Martin’s Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.

Last summer, the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a “friend of the court” brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.

In his book, Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate.

Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peekaboo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of “Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn About Sex From Animals” (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives’ young. “That is a contribution to the gene pool,” she said.

Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality “is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life.”

She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male.

“Male-male cooperation is extremely important,” Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves “could be practicing” for that later, crucial adult period, she added.

Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. “For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural,” Vasey said. “They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable.”

But he added: “Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.”

What the animal studies do show, Zuk observed, is that “sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think.”

“You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic,” she said, “that they have sex just to procreate.”

In bonobos, she noted: “you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly, you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction.” [/quote]

Explain how anything I said is inconsistent?

[quote]If you want us to enforce everything, then ill guess we ll be hanging you soon.
[/quote]

I specifically said that religious beliefs should not be legislated.

My point was that even if you did enforce religious beliefs, people are inconsistent in following what their holy book says. On one hand, they take a verse about homosexuality from the New Testament. Then they blatantly ignore other verses from the identical New Testament declaring that women should cover their heads in church, that women should not speak in church, that if a man discovers a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death, that slaves should obey their masters in all things, etc.

Makavali · August 26, 2008, 8:18pm

[quote]blazindave wrote:
Dharmic religions (including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)= against[/quote]

Might want to double check that.

blazindave · August 26, 2008, 8:42pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Dharmic religions (including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)= against

Might want to double check that.[/quote]

I did…it’s against homosexuality.

Makavali · August 26, 2008, 8:51pm

[quote]blazindave wrote:
Makavali wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Dharmic religions (including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)= against

Might want to double check that.

I did…it’s against homosexuality.[/quote]

Don’t go off “modern” India’s perception of Hinduism. Within Hinduism there are several different schools of thought.

“A “third gender” has been acknowledged within Hinduism since Vedic times. Several Hindu texts, such as Manu Smriti and Sushruta Samhita, assert that some people are born with either mixed male and female natures, or sexually neuter, as a matter of natural biology.”

Medieval Hindu temples such as those at Khajuraho depict sexual acts in sculptures on the external walls. The meaning of the erotic images is disputed. Some of these scenes involve same-sex sexuality:

* An orgiastic group of three women and one man, on the southern wall of the Kandariya Mahadeva temple in Khajuraho. One of the women is caressing another.

* A similar group, also on the southern wall, shows a woman facing the viewer, standing on her head, apparently engaged in intercourse, although her partner is facing away from the viewer and their gender cannot be determined. She is held by two female attendants on either side and reaches out to touch one of them in her pubic area.

* Also at Khajuraho, a relief of two women embracing one another.

* At the Lakshmana temple in Khajuraho (954 CE), a man receives fellatio from a seated male as part of an orgiastic scene.

* At the Shiva temple at Ambernath, constructed in 1060 CE, a badly weathered relief suggests an erotic interest between two women.

* At the Rhajarani Temple in Bhuveshvar, Orissa, dating from the 10th or 11th century, a sculpture depicts two women engaged in oral sex.

* A 12th century Shiva temple in Bagali, Karnataka depicts a scene of apparent oral sex between two males on a sculpture below the sikhara.

* At Padhavli near Gwalior, a ruined temple from the 10th century shows a man within an orgiastic group receiving fellatio from another male.

An 11th century lifesize sandstone sculpture from Orissa, now in the Seattle Art Museum, shows Kama, god of love, shooting an arrow at two women who are embracing one another.

blazindave · August 26, 2008, 9:28pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Wrong. Marriage existed long before the bible was published, and in cultures that preceded Judeo-Christian beliefs. You do realize that ancient egyptians, greeks, romans, etc. practiced marriage right?[/quote]

"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract.

[…]
No specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage among the Greeks and Romans; only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly"
Doesn’t sound like marriage to me.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Encouraging gays to commit themselves to one partner through marriage, and holding them accountable for adultery would reduce the spread of aids, so why wouldn’t you support it?[/quote]

It’s illegal to perform adultery? And marriage doesn’t encourage you to not be a slut or whatever. You can control yourself in or out of marriage. You don’t have to be married to stay with one purpose. That is a personal issue that needs to addressed, not something that marriage will necessarily change.
You can still be married and be a swinger.

[quote]forlife wrote:
The point isn’t whether or not I agree with them. The point is that the major medical and mental health organizations have objectively researched it, and have unanimously concluded that gay marriage is in the best interest of gays and of society in general. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
[/quote]

It seems society is pretty much against gay marriage.
Gay marriage is in the interest of gays and no one else.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Then explain the twin studies, among the hundreds of other studies showing a genetic factor in sexual orientation. It doesn’t mean sexual orientation is 100% genetically determined, but it shows clearly and unequivocally that genetics play a role.
[/quote]

Sure, i will:

"Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: “More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed.”

Conclusions

Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including ascertainment bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. As all the studies show, homosexuality cannot be purely genetic, otherwise, all identical twins would have the identical sexual orientation as their twin."

Regardless, genetics will have an effect in everything. This goes without saying. You are governed by your brain. So your genetic “point” is flawed.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Christians that believe homosexuality is not contrary to the bible claim that it is the other way around. They believe the “breaking away” happened by anti-gay zealots, perhaps as early as the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, by decree of the Roman Emperor Constanine I[/quote]

They can believe anything they want. It’s written in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. That is fact.

[quote]forlife wrote:
As an agnostic, don’t you believe all religions are invented? If not, where did they come from?[/quote]

Do not confuse athiest with agnostic.
Agnostic means that i state that i do not know what to believe.
Basically i am on the fence.
The question could be asked “when did it all begin and from what”.
That’s why the idea of a God is compelling. Life and existence really make no sense.

[quote]forlife wrote:

You can find a good starting list here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm[/quote]

“Most Christian denominations, sects, and new religious movement have stated policies towards gays and lesbians”

The thing is, if you don’t have your own name for your religion (catholic, christian, etc) then you are basically a branch of the main religion. Just because you believe slightly differently and don’t agree with how things are done, does not mean you are a “new religion”. So unless you are something other than a “new religious movement” you do not show anything.

Also, the website is “religious tolerance”. Seems to be just a bunch of people trying to be politically correct. Am not convinced sorry.

[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said otherwise. What I did say was that religion doesn’t belong in politics. I wonder how the fundamentalist Christians would feel if Muslims took over the government and tried to enforce Muslim laws on everyone.[/quote]

Religion and politics go hand in hand because both are systems of belief and morals.
Why do you think abortion is such a big deal?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called “ecstatic behavior”: That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.[/quote]

so you remove penguins from their natural environment…and force them to coexist together and with no other females for long periods of time…and their behaviour will be normal.
You lock up two guys together in a jail and see what happens.
Yes, totally “normal” behaviour.

I like this quote:

"Well, maybe not angry. As Roberta Sklar, a spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, put it: “There’s almost an obsession with questions such as, ‘Is sexual orientation a birthright or a choice?’ And looking at the behavior of two penguins in captivity is not a way to answer that question.”

[quote]forlife wrote:
“There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it,” said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, “Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape” (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality.