Gay marriage

[darvlay]

A family is a family is a family. Whether the members, parents, offspring, are gay, unmarried, or whatever they are all part of someone's family unit regardless of whether the parents are married or if the government and religious bigots don't agree. There will always be small-minded people to try and box family up into a nice T-form available the Department of Justice which fits their religious beliefs to some weird literal meaning but it means so much more than that.

Ironic that Christians of all people fail to see the totality of it.

[Snorri1234]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

What is this natural law you speak off?

[Napoleon Ier]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

What is this natural law you speak off?

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale. Furthermore, a family cannot naturally be two men. Sure they can have strong desire to d each other, that doesn't make them a family unit. Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family. To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

[darvlay]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

What is this natural law you speak off?

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale. Furthermore, a family cannot naturally be two men. Sure they can have strong desire to d each other, that doesn't make them a family unit. Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family. To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

A damaging psychological phenomenon? What would you recommend for treatment, doctor?

[Snorri1234]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

What is this natural law you speak off?

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale. Furthermore, a family cannot naturally be two men. Sure they can have strong desire to d each other, that doesn't make them a family unit. Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family. To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

A family has not always been a man and a woman. It frequently has been a man and multiple women. Besides, what it has always been doesn't mean anything. Slavery was pretty motherfucking common not so long ago, doesn't mean we couldn't change it.

[Roger Dodger]

i just have one question. say you have a son with your wife. 1 son. no more no less. no other children.

and at some point he turns out to be a homosexual. because, it happens. what are you going to do?

are you going to love him because he's your flesh & blood or are you going to take your only child and kick him out of your house and disown him or better yet beat him to death.

who here honestly can say they will do the later ?

[Napoleon Ier]

i just have one question. say you have a son with your wife. 1 son. no more no less. no other children.

and at some point he turns out to be a homosexual. because, it happens. what are you going to do?

are you going to love him because he's your flesh & blood or are you going to take your only child and kick him out of your house and disown him or better yet beat him to death.

who here honestly can say they will do the later ?

No one, but you can still think that homosexual acts are wrong. I know gays, and I am friends with a few. I still think homosexuality is wrong.

[darvlay]

i just have one question. say you have a son with your wife. 1 son. no more no less. no other children.

and at some point he turns out to be a homosexual. because, it happens. what are you going to do?

are you going to love him because he's your flesh & blood or are you going to take your only child and kick him out of your house and disown him or better yet beat him to death.

who here honestly can say they will do the later ?

No one, but you can still think that homosexual acts are wrong. I know gays, and I am friends with a few. I still think homosexuality is wrong.

Do you tell your "friends" how you really feel about them being psychologically damaged or do you just keep that to yourself?

[Roger Dodger]

what are you talking about. I am a lesbian and, i ask this question because one of my sons is gay. it was very disappointing to me when he told me. regardless of my sexual preferences.

for men it is harder and, even though i would have been happier if he were not. i love him with all my heart and support him.


btw RD is my user name. i just happen to be a female. huh

[darvlay]

what are you talking about. I am a lesbian and, i ask this question because one of my sons is gay. it was very disappointing to me when he told me. regardless of my sexual preferences.

for men it is harder and, even though i would have been happier if he were not. i love him with all my heart and support him.


btw RD is my user name. i just happen to be a female. huh

Interesting. Why did it disappoint you, if you don't mind me asking?

[jiminski]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

What is this natural law you speak off?

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale. Furthermore, a family cannot naturally be two men. Sure they can have strong desire to d each other, that doesn't make them a family unit. Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family. To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

I am converted! Nappy has all the answers! .. in fact Nappy i am feeling quite drawn to you.. how about it? you, me, a bucket of lard and a civil ceremony!?
I don't want the lord to sanction what i'm going to do with the lard anyway.

But in all honesty the term 'family' is a far broader church than your definition.

And homosexuality is only damaging psychologically if we isolate and bastardise it.
By calling it a sin we create the 'sinner', guilt and internal then external damage may result.

Will society change and become less masculine if we allow the solely heterosexual gender agenda to share acceptability? Yeap of course but we don't want humanity to remain in the grasp of the old testament..do we?

[The Chosen One]

Beastly and Napolean, your "point by point" arguments are founded on the arrogant and ignorant belief that your way of life is the only one that ever existed that knew the love of our Creator. I grew up learning of a culture founded on principles of God's love, peace and acceptance and when war was necessary it was done to protect that which one loved, not for financial gain or personal power agendas. Your belief system is structured on the limited notion that a medieval germanic based system is the ONLY one that ever counted. And when I say germanic I mean the tribal system that existed prior to the forming of the nations as we now know them. In my culture prior to the destruction by the "Christian white eyes", polygamy was not only a way of life, it was a way of caring for each other and ensuring the old people and the children were always cared for in the best possible way. Often times, when a man was killed, his brother would take his wife and children as his own, to love, protect and feed. It was NOT about sex. It was about love and stability within the tribe. And the tribe was the family. Everything you seem to think about other cultures is narrow minded and totally ignorant of the real truths. God is not exclusive to the religion you call Christianity, God is not exclusive the religion you call Islam or Muslim. But then none of this is truly about our Creator. It is all about SEX... Beastly the underlying theme in Paul's messages was not about sexuality, it was about RESPECT (or the lack of it in that culture), first for God, then for others and ultimately for one's self. Everything you described comes back to that---RESPECT or a lack of it. The Greek and Roman cultures were not destroyed by homosexuality, that has existed since the first animals were formed...those cultures were destroyed by an arrogant belief that their way of life was the only one that counted and that they were ENTITLED to rule as they believed or did not believe. It was a lack of true respect for others that started them down the slippery slope of no respect for our Creator and ultimately, though lots of arrogance, no real respect for themselves...study history, study yourself, look deeper...it is all about respect, not sexuality.

[vtmarik]

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale. Furthermore, a family cannot naturally be two men. Sure they can have strong desire to d each other, that doesn't make them a family unit. Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family. To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

Ah, the traditionalist argument.

By that logic, we should still be living in caves. I mean, that's what was done for so long. There's no reason to develop past where we've been already. Because then we'd have to realize that change is good. We can't have that now can we?

[heavycola]

A family is a family is a family. Whether the members, parents, offspring, are gay, unmarried, or whatever they are all part of someone's family unit regardless of whether the parents are married or if the government and religious bigots don't agree. There will always be small-minded people to try and box family up into a nice T-form available the Department of Justice which fits their religious beliefs to some weird literal meaning but it means so much more than that.

Ironic that Christians of all people fail to see the totality of it.

I like the cut of your jib, sir. And your avvy.

[Napoleon Ier]

i just have one question. say you have a son with your wife. 1 son. no more no less. no other children.

and at some point he turns out to be a homosexual. because, it happens. what are you going to do?

are you going to love him because he's your flesh & blood or are you going to take your only child and kick him out of your house and disown him or better yet beat him to death.

who here honestly can say they will do the later ?

No one, but you can still think that homosexual acts are wrong. I know gays, and I am friends with a few. I still think homosexuality is wrong.

Do you tell your "friends" how you really feel about them being psychologically damaged or do you just keep that to yourself?

I do, some agree with me and are Christians. A number of studies concur as well, incidentally.

[Napoleon Ier]

i just have one question. say you have a son with your wife. 1 son. no more no less. no other children.

and at some point he turns out to be a homosexual. because, it happens. what are you going to do?

are you going to love him because he's your flesh & blood or are you going to take your only child and kick him out of your house and disown him or better yet beat him to death.

who here honestly can say they will do the later ?

I see what you mean. It is not my position to hate the sinner, or condemn him, since I have sexual immoralities just as much the result of weak and pathetic behaviours and just as dangerous, but to expose hmosexuality fr the moral abhorrance it is.

[jiminski]

The moral man without temperance is evil by his own definition!

[darvlay]

A number of studies concur as well, incidentally.

Let's see them...

[vtmarik]

I see what you mean. It is not my position to hate the sinner, or condemn him, since I have sexual immoralities just as much the result of weak and pathetic behaviours and just as dangerous, but to expose hmosexuality fr the moral abhorrance it is.

"Moral Abhorrance" is a term that is just as enforceable as the term "Obscene." You can't legislate abstract concepts like that because everyone has a different place where they draw the line on what is and is not.

Sorry, but there's no legal reason why gay marriage should be disallowed or even demoted down to a second-class "Civil Union." You don't want it to happen because it will legitimize homosexuality and if that happens then you can't relegate them to the back of the societal bus (for lack of a better term).

I don't care what your moral indignation is based on, but spurious claims of mental illness and/or social decay is not a foundation for laws.

[Napoleon Ier]

A number of studies concur as well, incidentally.

Let's see them...

In the 1980s, scholars (12) examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute (4) study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females.

It is remarkable that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed essentially the same pattern. A child's first sexual experiences were strongly associated with his or her adult behavior.

Kinsey reported "less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously less active groups." (2) The 1983 FRI study found those raised in irreligious homes to be over 4 times more likely to become homosexual than those from devout homes. These studies suggest that when people believe strongly that homosexual behavior is immoral, they are significantly less apt to be involved in such activity.

Recently, because of the AIDS epidemic, it has been discovered that, relative to white males, twice as many black males are homosexual (14) and 4 times as many are bisexual. Perhaps it is related to the fact that 62% of black versus 17% of white children are being raised in fatherless homes. But even the worst racist wouldn't suggest that it is due to genetic predisposition.

Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

(12) P.H van Wyck; CS Geist
(4) A.P Bell : Homosexualities, Their range and character
(5)P Cameron 1986 Psychlogical reports
(14) AIDS in bisexual males in the US (Public Health 1992)
(2)Kinsey (who is considered one of the great figures of modern sexology)

Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena (desire, sexual attraction, fantasy).

[Napoleon Ier]

I see what you mean. It is not my position to hate the sinner, or condemn him, since I have sexual immoralities just as much the result of weak and pathetic behaviours and just as dangerous, but to expose hmosexuality fr the moral abhorrance it is.

"Moral Abhorrance" is a term that is just as enforceable as the term "Obscene." You can't legislate abstract concepts like that because everyone has a different place where they draw the line on what is and is not.

Sorry, but there's no legal reason why gay marriage should be disallowed or even demoted down to a second-class "Civil Union." You don't want it to happen because it will legitimize homosexuality and if that happens then you can't relegate them to the back of the societal bus (for lack of a better term).

I don't care what your moral indignation is based on, but spurious claims of mental illness and/or social decay is not a foundation for laws.

1) The claims are not spurious, the spurious claims are the "it is all genetic". Homosexuality is psychological, the experts agree.
2) You're right. I was playing devil's advocate earlier on, I don't oppose gay marriage. In fact I don't really care eithe r a way, a healthy society will eradicate the homosexual disease.

[vtmarik]

You do know that one's being hetero or homo has less to do with sex than it has to do with what gender one forms emotional and romantic attachments to.

If it was sex alone that made someone gay, then everyone who ever "experimented in college" is gay.

[jiminski]

If homosexuality is a choice you must have chosen not to be gay Nappy ...

Fair enough! i never had to make that 'choice' so your self restraint interests me.

can you tell us how you keep your tendencies in check please?

[Napoleon Ier]

If homosexuality is a choice you must have chosen not to be gay Nappy ...

Fair enough! i never had to make that 'choice' so your self restraint interests me.

can you tell us how you keep your tendencies in check please?

Not a choice so much as a result of psychology, which can and has been reversed (this is incontestable).

[Napoleon Ier]

You do know that one's being hetero or homo has less to do with sex than it has to do with what gender one forms emotional and romantic attachments to.

If it was sex alone that made someone gay, then everyone who ever "experimented in college" is gay.

hmmm.