Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage

[Halo_92]

yes it does my friend and you agree becuase your avatar is nodding

[Tyrion]

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.

That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.

 

In the 1500's:

 

No democracy or power of the people, very little freedom of religion(around the same time as the protestants, mind you), absolutely horrid levels of health and education. Coincidentily, in the 1500's the Renaissance was in full swing, which focused on classical antiquity such as Rome which was known for it's decadence and yes, homosexuality.

 

Now, compare this to the modern era:

 

Unprecedented levels of freedom; health, technology, education, ect. are at all time highs and marvels are created on an annual basis. We, particularly in the democratic societies and not the theocracies, enjoy life much more than any of our ancestors ever did. We're concerned for the well being of even our most embittered enemies, while those from the 1500's would hardly blink at the thought of mass tortures.

 

If you ask me, I sure do like the "moral decline" of today.

[SkinWalker]

More rhetoric and rant, but still no logical reason to disallow same-sex marriage.

 

Because it bothers you, is not a valid reason.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.

That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.

That'd imply that homosexuality is wrong. And seeing you haven't convinced me it's wrong, I cannot buy that.

 

There is a "moral decline" in some areas (how many Americans thought torture was right six years ago? Today, on the other hand, there's a ton of Neo-cons defending America and Israel's right to torture prisoners).

 

But homoseuxality? Not a sign of moral decline. Moral advancement, if you ask me.

[Spider AL]

That'd imply that homosexuality is wrong. And seeing you haven't convinced me it's wrong, I cannot buy that.

It is not "wrong". Nor is it "right". Once again I feel that it is important to point out that while people should be allowed to place their genitals anywhere they wish, (provided it's with the legal consent of any other relevant parties,) they should not be lauded for doing so. It is not a "good" thing that they wish to engage in rumpy pumpy of a risky, not-intended-by-manufacturer nature. It may not be a very bad thing either, but it is not something to rejoice about.

 

I do personally believe that there are better ways to spend one's time than campaigning for the right to marry your sports bag, but each to their own. Marriage in general should be outlawed, in particular the secular recognition of marriage. It is a quasi-religious and superstitious tool of state sanctioned financial injustice. BAN IT I SAY!

[toms]

no offence to halo92, and maybe i'm wring, but he appears to be simply trolling to get a response. Unless he actually puts together a post with any sort of coherent argument, backup for his (brainwashed) opinions or anything else senate worthy, its probably best just to ignore him, or humour him.

 

It sounds to me like he's a little repressed and afraid to come out because he's been brainwashed into thinking these new urges he feels are wrong..

 

..though of course maybe he'll prove me wrong with a well thought out, coherent post with rational argments: the stage is yours..

[Good Sir Knight]

There is alot of outrage on the right regarding homosexual marriage since it was brought to the forefront by activist judges, not the people.

 

My opposition to same sex marriage is more based on the semantics of 'marriage'.

 

It's also surprising that the secular left would push for representation in a historicaly religious institution. Why not something new?

 

I guess I could see someone coming out of the Anglican church with concerns ....

 

I wonder what happened to the 80's homosexuals who scoffed at marriage as some type of 'breeder' institution?

 

I'm all for civil unions and equal rights for everyone. Some object to the term 'Civil Unions' and I don't see why the left in all their creativity couldn't come up with a better name.

 

Frankly the word marriage makes me shiver... but that could be for other reasons. : )

[sockerbit89]

Ah marriage another wonderful sideeffect we have to thank religion for.

 

To love another person of the same sex is not unatural. To deny oneself to love is unatural. Marriage is unnatural.

 

This whole debate is unnatural. If a country is a democrazy than it's laws should oblidge to all. Give me a reason why not homosexuals should be able to marry. If the specific religion forbids it than i say **** religion call it whatever you want. Personaly i wouldn't want to be married under a religion that sees me as less worth.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ah marriage another wonderful sideeffect we have to thank religion for.

Actually, I believe marriage pre-dates not only religion, but also ancient mythology.

[SkinWalker]

The evidence that marriage is independent of religion comes two-fold: 1) monogamy is present in many other animals besides humans, including primates, which dedicate their lives to a single mate; 2) marriage is a human construct that exists independent of religions in various societies and is consistently present cross-culturally where religious beliefs vary drastically.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

[it sounds to me like he's a little repressed and afraid to come out because he's been brainwashed into thinking these new urges he feels are wrong..

And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

[sockerbit89]

The evidence that marriage is independent of religion comes two-fold: 1) monogamy is present in many other animals besides humans, including primates, which dedicate their lives to a single mate; 2) marriage is a human construct that exists independent of religions in various societies and is consistently present cross-culturally where religious beliefs vary drastically.

 

Ah yes, I meant the whole church, priest, til death do us part thing. Hmm never heard that with primates it's quite extrodinary. Although the whole debate that many conservatives claim is wrong is as i understand it mostly about homo-marriage in christianity. (I believe?)

[TK-8252]

And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

 

I'm actually not a liberal or a lefty. I'm more conservative than most people here would think... we just don't seem to discuss socialism vs. capitalism here.

[toms]

Marriage itself is a strange concept, from a purely religious standpoint.

 

I can understand why SOCIETIES and GOVERMENTS might want the institution of marriage. It makes societys more stable and predictable. But, if there is a god sat up ther watching all this, why on earth would he give a stuff whether the two people, in love, living happily together, having sex, with kids, went to a church and went through a weird ceremony or not. I can't think of a single reason why he would care either way.

[Good Sir Knight]

And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

 

Amen to that.

 

 

 

Is any body for some type of civil union? It's sad that there was a voter backlash against it in some states, that usually happens when you circumvent the people on such matters.

[toms]

I thought there was a voter backlash because a load of evangelical priest whipped up their congregations to protest against it?

 

I have no problem with civil marriages for gay people. I just think ALL marriages should be equal and civil.. and then if individuals want to add religious "extras" to their civil marriage, fine.

[edlib]

As long as the legal definitions of the rights afforded by those who are deemed to be "Married" as opposed to being in a "Civil Union" are exactly the same in official State and Federal statutes, then who really cares what you call it?

 

If a civil union is somehow afforded less rights than their married counterparts though, then it seems to me the state that is encouraging and sanctioning discrimination.

If the state is to support long-term, committed, monogamous relationships with an official sanction of some sort, then can you call it fair to have 2 neighbors living side-by-side with a completely set of rights regarding their relationships just because one household has a matching set of genders instead of a mixed-pair?

 

However; if a civil union is exactly the same in every way (from the State's point of view legally) then why not call it "Marriage"? Y'Know: if it quacks like a duck...

 

But if calling it something different makes it an easier sell to the public (kinda like stretching out a the trunk of mid-size sedan, putting a hatchback on it, and naming it a "compact SUV"... instead of it's traditional name, a "station-wagon" or "minivan" just so you can move more of them among the snobbish soccer-mom set) then go for it!

 

But seems like a silly use of semantics to me...

[Nedak]

Hey, Sorry to pop in but I just wanted to comment on one of Saberist's comment.

According to Christianity, it's exactly right that gays burn in hell.

 

Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.

[Kurgan]

The Christian would argue that despite what problems we may be born with, we always have the choice of what to do with them. So they would say God wouldn't send them to hell for BEING gay, only for having gay sex (which they chose to do), which is sinful.

 

Not all Christians believe that being gay is a "lifestyle choice," but most would agree that doing the nasty with somebody is something you do in fact choose, just like taking a drink or getting behind the wheel. Being addicted to something or poorly informed may lessen your responsibility, but not eliminate it.

 

Of course some (very liberal) Christians would say that gay sex is not sinful at all... and sexual sins, if they even exist, are limited to anything non-consensual (which would include with non-human animals and children) and possibly incest.

[Davinq]

Hey, Sorry to pop in but I just wanted to comment on one of Saberist's comment.

 

 

Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.

My point exactly, han sala!

 

...even though I haven't posted before on this thread...

 

Adding on to that, if homoosexuality = bad, I present this query:

 

If being gay is so evil, then why did God create it? We certainly didn't, because, as has been said, love in any form is a part of nature.

[Kurgan]

Well, are all sexual desires natural and normal though? Some people are seemingly born with an attraction to pre-pubescent children. Others have a desire to rape people or harm them or be harmed (sado-masochism). Others absolutely hate everything to do with sex. Some like to have lots and lots of partners with no attachments.

 

Do we privilege those too just because they seem to be something people are born with (or develope early on)?

 

So saying that homosexuality must be good simply because it is "natural" does not follow (the opposite of the also invalid argument that homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE it is "unnatural").

[Nedak]

^Whether it is natural or unnatural it is their choice and we should respect it. It is not going to help if we argue about if it is right or wrong.

We should just worry about ourselves, and worry less about those around us.

If people chose to partake in gay sex let them do it. Don't worry about the sexual orientation of your coworkers, or friends and family. If they are a good person and does good to the community that should be all that matters.

If a Homosexual person gets married it should not affect us if they choose to do so.

What is marriage anyway these days?

Most straight couples get married, and divorce in a matter of time anyways!

[CapNColostomy]

If being gay is so evil, then why did God create it? We certainly didn't, because, as has been said, love in any form is a part of nature.

 

Of course man created gay sex amongst their own species. To say otherwise is rediculous. Are you actually implying that God created gay sex? Oh...so that's where he went on the seventh day. Also, what does love being a part of nature, and man not creating gay sex have to do with one another or the price of tea in China?

[Jae Onasi]

Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.

 

I don't think God sat around and decided one day "You know, I hate homosexuality after all, and I feel like making Joe Gay-guy burn in Hell. Only married people and singles who didn't screw around can get through the pearly gates."

 

When you look at a number of the rules in the Bible (and I imagine in other religious texts) about marriage/sex, there's usually some better reason than 'God just decided to arbitrarily hate gays today'. I'm going to look at the health ramifications. And bear with me....

 

I'll give you the "Jae's entered teaching History of Medicine mode" warning, and believe me, I'm keeping it brief....

There's some debate about _the_ first antibiotic, but Penicillin is usually considered the first to come into widespread use. It was 'discovered' in 1929 and didn't come into widespread use until 1942.

Anesthesia for surgery didn't happen until 1846 when ether was used for the first time during a surgical procedure.

Pasteur didn't develop the germ theory of disease til 1865

Antiseptic technique in surgery wasn't discovered until 1867 by Lister

DNA fingerprinting was first used only in 1989.

Some current stats from the WHO show that developed regions of the world have lower infant mortality rates.

 

I'm saying all that because modern medicine and surgery didn't really come into being until the last 150 years. The oldest antibiotics are only about 70 years old. DNA testing for paternity is only 17 years old. Infant mortality drops as wealth increases.

 

OK, what's the point?

Mind you, I'm speaking entirely in generalities. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some scholarly articles on this subject that are likely more articulate and better researched, but I just haven't looked around for them at this point.

 

In a pre-modern medicine society (which was most of history until the last 100 years or so), monogamous relations in a married setting were less likely to cause/spread STDs, which couldn't be successfully treated until antibiotics were invented. Single mothers are more likely to be impoverished both then and now, and poverty increases infant mortality. So, being married may have helped enhance both child and maternal survival. Currently in undeveloped countries, infant/early child mortality rates approach 16% of live births, I would be surprised if it was much lower in the pre-modern medicine world, because without anesthesia and c-sections for complicated births, and various medications and prenatal/antenatal/postnatal care, women and babies died in childbirth a lot more often than they do today.

Anal intercourse carries some health risks that other types of relations don't have (Medline will probably have more technical details). The risk of problems may be low, but since bacterial infections could kill much more frequently prior to anti-infectives, it was probably more significant a risk then we would recognize now. The prohibition against gay relations may have resulted from this, in addition to the fact that they don't produce children.

Inbreeding increases risks of some genetic conditions, and child sexual abuse has psychological and physical effects. Sexual abuse of younger children can cause enough internal damage to cause infertility, infection, and death, though death is very rare in modern times. Taboos on incest likely developed because of this.

Without DNA testing, there was no good way to ensure paternity--a monogamous relationship ensures that.

This isn't even addressing some of the health benefits from marriage and the advantages for children of being in a 2-parent household--that'd make this a lot longer....

 

Religious taboos weren't necessarily put in place for arbitrary reasons to cramp someone's fun. There may be legitimate medical, scientific, and psychological reasons for the prohibitions. We're just starting to learn in the medical/scientific realm why some of those laws/rules were put into place. I don't think we've fully explored some of those aspects completely enough to just toss them out the window because they happen to have the tag of 'religion' attached to them.

 

And I'm not making a diatribe against gay unions/nom du jour--we should just make sure to study any potential consequences/benefits carefully. Just like we should with marriage, too, for that matter.

 

And I've rambled long enough....

[Emperor Devon]

Technically, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Should homsexuals be allowed to live together and do what straight couples should do? Yes. Should they be allowed a ceremony that states their union? Yes. Should it be called marriage? No, since technically it isn't.