Homosexual Marriage (aka digging up a hot-button topic)

[Philip]

If we're talking about men, I'd say one is somewhat feminine and the more submissive one is more feminine. As for women, there's typically one fem and one appearing to imitate a feminine version of a man - why else is one often more mannish-looking in dress and appearance, and more dominating in the relationship. No way would I compare the roles typical in homosexual unions with a those in a healthy heterosexual marriage. How ironic that so many gay women have enormous issues with and are uncomfortable around men (often from dysfunction, sexual and otherwise), with their own fathers) but yet they become masculine-acting (at least to a point) women. How many masculine-looking gay women have I seen with an unhappy scowl on their face - especially when a man comes close. Very sad, very dysfunctional.

[Danieltwotwenty]

One issue I have with people saying homosexuality occurs naturally in animals which in turn makes it ok for us to do likewise is the fact that animals also beat each other, kill each other, neglect their young, ostracise their own species from a group, rape each other etc. etc.

Just because something occurs within nature naturally does not mean that humans who have objective morals and duties should also participate in such activities, unless you don't believe in objective morals and duties and then everything becomes permissible.

To use the argument that it occurs naturally in nature would have to deny any objective morals and duties and opens the flood gates for all acts including rape, murder, theft, paedophilia, bigamy etc. etc.

Who are you to say that the psychopathic person should not kill for his pleasure because after all he was born that way and is just doing what he does naturally.

Dan

[PaulSacramento]

One issue I have with people saying homosexuality occurs naturally in animals which in turn makes it ok for us to do likewise is the fact that animals also beat each other, kill each other, neglect their young, ostracise their own species from a group, rape each other etc. etc.

Just because something occurs within nature naturally does not mean that humans who have objective morals and duties should also participate in such activities, unless you don't believe in objective morals and duties and then everything becomes permissible.

To use the argument that it occurs naturally in nature would have to deny any objective morals and duties and opens the flood gates for all acts including rape, murder, theft, paedophilia, bigamy etc. etc.

Who are you to say that the psychopathic person should not kill for his pleasure because after all he was born that way and is just doing what he does naturally.

Dan

And that is why very few gay rights advocates go to that "train of thought".
Homosexuality occurring in nature doesn't make it natural just because it happens ( much less make it right).
Even when it does occur it is still not the norm for that species, it is still a deviation.
And again, bisexuality occurs not homosexuality.
I don't recall any study that showed a male ( or female) be EXCLUSIVE to another "mate" of the same gender.
Studies have shown that some mammals do have sex with the same gender within the group BUT not exclusively.
Again, none of this makes it right for humans to do so.
But the issue of right and wrong in regards to the SEX ACT is a different one.

The issue of gay marriage is NOT about sex, it is about basic human rights and that is how it must be addressed, IMO.

My point all along has been that while the government can make it legal for gay people to marry in a civil union, it should NOT enforce a law for religious organizations to do so IF homosexuality is against it's core doctrines.

On the same token, religious organizations can voice their opinion about it BUT can't force the government to NOT allow it.

Separation of Church and state, right?

[Jac3510]

I don't recall any study that showed a male ( or female) be EXCLUSIVE to another "mate" of the same gender.

Actually, this has been documented as far as I understand things. Certain penguins do this, for instance.

But regardless, it doesn't help or hurt the argument. Whether or not it happens in the wild has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to allow, much less promote, it in human society. And make no mistake: to allow gays to marry is to promote homosexuality. Gay activitists need to go back and look at the purposes of marriage laws. They give incentive for acting a certain way (namely, getting married), because society has always recognized that it is good for society if people are married.

Of course, activists actually have looked at those purposes, and they know that marriage promotes the behavior, and that is why they want marriage and not simply civil unions. They want their "lifestyle" promoted to "norm." Nothing less will be tolerated, and those of us who disagree with them are not tolerated. We are called every name in the book. If there is an intolerant bigot, its the gay activist.

[PaulSacramento]

On a related note:
Views on Pope Francis's admission of a "gay lobby" inside the Vatican?

[BryanH]

@PaulSacramento

There IS a norm in sexuality and the norm for humans is heterosexuality and ANY deviation of that norm is deviant sexual behaviour ( that is what the word means, to deviate from the norm).

Do you know what sexuality is? You think that sexuality just simple refers to procreation? Really now?

Heterosexuality is no longer the NORM for humans. You are outdated by at least 30 years...

Sexuality is who are you are, it's part of your identity, it has mental components, biological components, emotional components, social components... scientifically researched...

You keep talking on and on about leaving the emotional aside... Are you a ROBOT? Unless the answer is YES, I refute your childish naive explanation.

There IS a norm in sexuality and the norm for humans is heterosexuality

In civilized countries where people have done research and understood that sexuality is not that simple, gay people have equal rights and even there it took a while. People don''t go around bashing gay people on the head.

See, I can look at sex from the scientific and dispassionate view point, which is where we should look at it.
Sex is NOT love and is NOT relationships and people seem to forget that.

Which is where we should look at it? Really? Who do you think you are? There are literally thousands of studies that demonstrate the complexity of sexuality and you tell me how I should look at it. Go read some books... Sex is not the only part of sexuality...

And secondly, we are not talking about sex, but about gay marriage. Do you think that gay people are not capable of making love or something? What's your angle?

Look, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say people are born homosexual and say it is the norm when it is NOT and no matter how much you say there is no norm in sexuality or who is to define the norm, the reality is there IS a norm and it IS defined in biology and anything outside that norm is a deviation.

Look Paul I don't want to offend you, but I need to tell you something: you know I have participated in quite a few discussion here on this forum and I've never seen you make such poor arguments.

You can't judge homosexual people just from a biological perspective and deny them rights based on that. Homosexual people are not just animals... If we reduce things to a biological perspective, moral values are useless/pointless. We get born, we live, we die... THE END.

Now, once you accept that you then realize that same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with sex but human rights and that is what I have been saying all along.

So people outside the NORM shouldn't have the same rights you say? Who created this NORM we are talking about?
Do you think that of we need heterosexuality for procreation and survival that is THE NORM?
Dear friend, human beings have been having sex for thousands of years without any intention to procreate.
We have evolved past that point a "million" years ago...

You are also implying that THE NORM can't change... I don't think so...

However, the state CAN NOT and SHOULD not force any religion to follow suit if it is against their doctrines.

You seem to have a problem understanding a simple concept of how society works nowadays.

Let me make it rather simple for you:

1) State > People > God
2) God > People > State

You are advocating for number 2. I am sorry Paul, but you need to understand that gay people have the right to be religious as well. And since you are using scientific arguments to deny them rights, I am going to use the same on you. Until science proves God and He can confirm that gay people can't get married in a church, well, I'm going to stick by supporting gay people. Seems quite fair, right?

A common misconception, but still a misconception:

There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet.
Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot.
Now, physically, how big is the suburb of houses we’ve created?

What is wrong you with you lately? Please pay attention to what I'm saying.

Let me say it again: There are 7 BILLION PEOPLE on this planet and growing exponentially. WE DON'T HAVE RESOURCES to sustain even more growth.

You talk about building houses. Houses need resources to be built and you also need land to grow crops and feed the population. Kind of logic wouldn't you say?

Unless God will give us resources and another planet... well... sex for procreation might be banned at some point. In China they already have 1 child/family.

Hope this time it's quite clear.

@philip

And just how far do you want to take these manufactured "rights?" Should a man be able to marry a duck, a dog, a sheep, a goat? Three men marry one woman? Just because something is legal for all doesn't mean it's a good thing for society. And ALL so-called rights necessarily discriminate against someone, somewhere, shows favoritism in some way. The idea that the majority should always allow a minority to do anything and everything they want to can lead to some very bad places. And just making it legal for EVERYONE often does little better. Our society is killing itself over trying to be fair to everyone - it doesn't work! And our laws are often designed to encourage or discourage behaviors, like it or not. Plus, in America, we live in a democracy governed by a constitution - a document which limits various things and rights. People want to declare everything a "right," as if they are entitled to it - but this attitude is not constitutional. Most people who bandy about lose talk about what should be rights for everyone clearly know very little about constitutional law. And merely living in a democracy means that you will NOT always get what you want - no one does. But as for what we currently subsidize, let's quit subsidizing everything under the sun - married, single, homosexual or hetero.

If a duck/dog/sheep/goat is proven to be able to consent I don't mind. But I think you are stretching things too far.

Three men marry one woman? That would be quite fortunate for the woman.

Our society is killing itself over trying to be fair to everyone - it doesn't work! And our laws are often designed to encourage or discourage behaviors, like it or not. Plus, in America, we live in a democracy governed by a constitution - a document which limits various things and rights. People want to declare everything a "right," as if they are entitled to it - but this attitude is not constitutional.

So because it doesn't work, gay people should be treated in a unfair manner?

Would you be happy if starting tomorrow Christianity would be banned and considered illegal? Think about it. If you were caught praying/going to church you would be arrested and sent to jail. Would you like that?

but this attitude is not constitutional

Actually the main purpose of the Constitution is to offer a fair treatment for EVERYONE and EVERYONE to have freedom of speech and choice.

So Christian people are able to be quite vocal about their doctrine, but gay people are not allowed to speak up for them. Ok... Really?

If we're talking about men, I'd say one is somewhat feminine and the more submissive one is more feminine. As for women, there's typically one fem and one appearing to imitate a feminine version of a man - why else is one often more mannish-looking in dress and appearance, and more dominating in the relationship. No way would I compare the roles typical in homosexual unions with a those in a healthy heterosexual marriage. How ironic that so many gay women have enormous issues with and are uncomfortable around men (often from dysfunction, sexual and otherwise), with their own fathers) but yet they become masculine-acting (at least to a point) women. How many masculine-looking gay women have I seen with an unhappy scowl on their face - especially when a man comes close. Very sad, very dysfunctional.

This is the kind of comment and mentality that should be educated more. You are using some cliches that only apply for a small number of people. You are trying to generalize a particular behavior to an entire class... That's a HUGE mistake.

@Paul + Daniel

And that is why very few gay rights advocates go to that "train of thought".
Homosexuality occurring in nature doesn't make it natural just because it happens ( much less make it right).
Even when it does occur it is still not the norm for that species, it is still a deviation.
And again, bisexuality occurs not homosexuality.
I don't recall any study that showed a male ( or female) be EXCLUSIVE to another "mate" of the same gender.
Studies have shown that some mammals do have sex with the same gender within the group BUT not exclusively.
Again, none of this makes it right for humans to do so.
But the issue of right and wrong in regards to the SEX ACT is a different one.

I didn't say any of the things you have inferred.

The only I said is that homosexuality occurs natural within animals and that sometimes research studies have a starting point in the animal kingdom so later we can research humans beings to get more precise answers.

And Paul, if would have bothered to actually look up information, you would know two things:

1) Homosexuality happens for RAMS. This is a confirmed study.
2) Homosexuality within animals has just started to be researched more because of the past bias in regard to this matter.

The fact that you separated bisexual from homosexual and you say that we don't have just homosexual sex in animals is quite right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is "homosexual sex". You are just arguing for technicalities.

@jac

But regardless, it doesn't help or hurt the argument. Whether or not it happens in the wild has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to allow, much less promote, it in human society. And make no mistake: to allow gays to marry is to promote homosexuality. Gay activitists need to go back and look at the purposes of marriage laws. They give incentive for acting a certain way (namely, getting married), because society has always recognized that it is good for society if people are married.

Of course, activists actually have looked at those purposes, and they know that marriage promotes the behavior, and that is why they want marriage and not simply civil unions. They want their "lifestyle" promoted to "norm." Nothing less will be tolerated, and those of us who disagree with them are not tolerated. We are called every name in the book. If there is an intolerant bigot, its the gay activist.

You say some things here from a societal point of view.

Gay people "do not tolerate" Christian people because when they try to advocate against their rights, they use double standards: they can't use the Bible and science to advocate against them.

The moral values they are trying to promote are descending from their own religious view. They can't enforce that on them.
Scientifically speaking, they can't argue again because science hasn't proven God.

Now if you want to argue scientifically, you don't have much of a chance. Society changes. That's how it has always been. Minorities fight for change.

To be honest, I think it's quite hard to be a Christian nowadays, but nobody said it would be easy so good luck with that.

No matter how you look at this gay marriage issue, I don't think you can actually make a valid point for why they should not be allowed to get married.

[PaulSacramento]

Well then.
To each their own.
And some gay rights advocates wonder why their arguments don't persuade people...

[PaulSacramento]

The issue of gay marriage has ZERO to do with the "gay" part because marriage is NOT about sexuality.
If marriage is viewed as a "human right" then the argument for OR against marriage for homosexuals is one of basic human rights and NOT whether one agrees or disagrees with homosexuality.
Not sure how much clear I have to be on that point.

As for religious organizations, government CAN NOT dictate doctrine anymore than the church and dictate legislation.

[BryanH]

Then why do we have so many human beings trying to bash other human beings in regard to this matter? Why is there so much hate for those who are different? Who don't go with the norm?

[Philip]

Well, here's the HUGE lie coming out of pro-homosexual advocates: "Christians who believe God condemns homosexual practices are bigots and homophobes." And so with this assertion, gay people and their advocates simultaneously dismiss our Christian beliefs, God's teachings in the Bible, and our own right to believe as we feel God is leading.

I attend a church that unanimously believes homosexual PRACTICES (but not temptation) are viewed as an abomination by God and also are a danger against the fabric of society. But I can also tell you that the people in our church view homosexuals with tremendous compassion and love, and who desire that gay people discover healing and change through belief in Christ. And in Christian evangelical circles, I'd say that this desire to love and heal homosexuals through the love of Christ is the overwhelming attitude. Those who believe otherwise have not spent much time around such Christians. And supposed "christians" who show anger and hate towards homosexuals are not following how the Bible says we are to view and treat non-Christians and those with beliefs and practices the Bible teaches against. Such protesters and in great error and are only harming those we are told to love.

Now, there are those who want to stand outside of gay churches and hold signs up in condemnation ("God hates [homosexuals], etc.") - but such people are in serious need of understanding how the Bible tells we are to love and treat such people, helping them to understand God's standards and to seek Jesus and all He has taught us. People who hold such signs are only further hurting those they condemn because they do it with hate and malice, and the ears and eyes of such a message will want to do anything but seek Christ, as they will only see His followers as bigots and haters.

But if God exists and His words in the Bible are true, then those are the only measures of what is right and wrong. And this means that unrepentant homosexuals will only inherit hell. That is not to say that a homosexual can't be saved who is prayerfully struggling with this powerful sin. Being saved doesn't mean that one is instantly free of struggles against difficult sins. But it does mean that we are committed to and also doing the will of Christ, and this necessarily means that we will want to prayerfully and intentionally struggle to eliminate all those things within us and our actions that God says are sinful. Our hearts must conform to His heart and also be committed to doing so. But if God says something is wrong, then it is WRONG! And all human desires and rants against God's word are all in vain. And a homosexual need not be LOCKED in their sexual attitudes and morality - God can and does change those who desire and allow Him to. THEY can't but HE can!

Here's a link to an organization that offers hope to those locked in homosexual bondage: http://livehope.org

[PaulSacramento]

Then why do we have so many human beings trying to bash other human beings in regard to this matter? Why is there so much hate for those who are different? Who don't go with the norm?

Not sure what you are asking Bryan?
People bash each other for a bunch of reason, usually selfish ones.
Some people are racists and bigots and yes, homophobic while others are not BUT are worse, they don't care at all.
I can't speak for anyone else but myself, no one can.
I am not homophobic, I have family members that are gay and one right now that has lost contact with his kids because He is gay and finally has admitted it.
I have been working hard to help him get back with his kids and trying to make his kids understand that love, truly, is above all.
I have seen up close and personal the dangers of homophobia, to close at times ( a friend spend a week in the hospital after being beaten).
I am sure many others here may have similar stories.

Look, what I have learned ( and you may not agree) is that we must make people understand that it is NOT about sex and sexual activity, it is about basic human rights and that homosexuals deserve to be tread with dignity and respect.

People the continue to try and make the homosexual ACTIVITY "acceptable and mainstream" fail to realize that it will never be as such, not for all people.
BUT what CAN be and MUST be acceptable is that homosexuals MUST be treated with dignity and respect and with equal rights.

[Jac3510]

You say some things here from a societal point of view.

Gay people "do not tolerate" Christian people because when they try to advocate against their rights, they use double standards: they can't use the Bible and science to advocate against them.

The moral values they are trying to promote are descending from their own religious view. They can't enforce that on them.
Scientifically speaking, they can't argue again because science hasn't proven God.

Now if you want to argue scientifically, you don't have much of a chance. Society changes. That's how it has always been. Minorities fight for change.

To be honest, I think it's quite hard to be a Christian nowadays, but nobody said it would be easy so good luck with that.

No matter how you look at this gay marriage issue, I don't think you can actually make a valid point for why they should not be allowed to get married.

If other people want to waste their time with you, that's on them. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Paul. I don't try to explain to white supremacists why their position is wrong any more than I'm going to bother arguing with you about this, and that for the same reason: I don't waste my time arguing with bigotry, which is exactly what I'd be doing were I do bother trying to talk about this with you.

All the best to you.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't recall any study that showed a male ( or female) be EXCLUSIVE to another "mate" of the same gender.

Actually, this has been documented as far as I understand things. Certain penguins do this, for instance.

But regardless, it doesn't help or hurt the argument. Whether or not it happens in the wild has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to allow, much less promote, it in human society. And make no mistake: to allow gays to marry is to promote homosexuality. Gay activitists need to go back and look at the purposes of marriage laws. They give incentive for acting a certain way (namely, getting married), because society has always recognized that it is good for society if people are married.

Of course, activists actually have looked at those purposes, and they know that marriage promotes the behavior, and that is why they want marriage and not simply civil unions. They want their "lifestyle" promoted to "norm." Nothing less will be tolerated, and those of us who disagree with them are not tolerated. We are called every name in the book. If there is an intolerant bigot, its the gay activist.

I hear what you are saying and I see your point and, I myself have been there on the receiving end of that intolerance.

What I don't get is the whole "there is no norm for sexuality".
I mean, there is a norm for virtually everything else right?
NORM:A designated standard of average performance of people of a given age, background, etc.
Normal:Conforming to a standard or common type.
See, we can say that homosexuality is normal based on this view:
Biology, Medicine/Medical .
a.
free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b.
of natural occurrence.

YET, that sets us up for a slipper slope, to suggest that because something is a natural occurrence that it is the norm is probably not the road we want to go down for obvious reasons.

[BryanH]

@jac

If other people want to waste their time with you, that's on them. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Paul. I don't try to explain to white supremacists why their position is wrong any more than I'm going to bother arguing with you about this, and that for the same reason: I don't waste my time arguing with bigotry, which is exactly what I'd be doing were I do bother trying to talk about this with you.

Ok...
One quick question though: did you formulate this comment in this manner on purpose?

@ just for Paul

What I don't get is the whole "there is no norm for sexuality".
I mean, there is a norm for virtually everything else right?

A society always has a norm, but that "norm" can be a very thin line. Besides that you have a formal kind of norm and more informal one.
And there is also the "panta rhei" issue as well. A societal norm is dynamic. Sometimes it can take longer for a change or sometimes a change happens very fast.

When you talk about people and the societal norm, you don't actually have a "global" standard.

If you may just compare twin brothers: they look the same but they can be so different.

You can't just analyze people from a rigid perspective.


I mean, there is a norm for virtually everything else right
A norm there is but change it can.

P.S.: The best of wishes with your family issues. You have a big heart. Problems there are but solve them you will

[PaulSacramento]

P.S.: The best of wishes with your family issues. You have a big heart. Problems there are but solve them you will

It's been very hard on him and his family, the kids are teenagers now and there is much resentment there.
He had been living like this for so long but he couldn't anymore and his ex-wife is so pissed and angry that she is filling the kids heads with lies.
Painful to watch, so much hurt and pain.
His brother is gay too but he came out a long time ago and was never married.
His other brother just got divorced...

So much turmoil in that family right now, so sad to see.