Hun, if a man "perverts" himself by wiggling his ears for the entertainment of his neighbours instead of using them exclusively for their "natural" function of hearing, no one thinks of consigning him to prison.Face it or not, there is no need whatsoever for us to defile marraige in the name of making special allowances for an unatural behaviour.
As you're probably aware, I am Christian.Hun, if a man "perverts" himself by wiggling his ears for the entertainment of his neighbours instead of using them exclusively for their "natural" function of hearing, no one thinks of consigning him to prison.
If he abuses his teeth by using them to pull staples from memos--a function for which teeth were clearly not designed--he is not accused of being immoral, degraded, and degenerate.
The fact that people are condemned for using their sex organs for their own pleasure or profit, or for that of others, may be more revealing about the prejudices and taboos of our society than it is about our perception of the true nature or purpose or "end" (whatever that might be) of our bodies.
Yes. There are plenty of Gay Christians too. Ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church?As you're probably aware, I am Christian.
Most cases of sexual infection and HIV/AIDs are caused by heterosexual intercourse. Read your statistics. Rates of infections in lesbians for example is very low.That said I can't pretend that such acts are permissable or should be tolerated, let alone encouraged by our society, simply because the people who engage in said behaviours are not be hurting anyone (but themselves, f you consider risk of STI infection)
Not Christians are allowed to get married because heterosexual marriage, even among non-believers is good and wholesome.Pretty much the only argument against gay marriage is that it is a christian institution, because anything else is either just opinion and or misguidance about relationships not being equal. Arguing about this thing cannot be an argument of religion, it is an argument of what people should be allowed to do in society. But the thing is that christianity doesn't own marriage at all because if it did non-christians would not be allowed to get married. There really is no case to ask after this. If they don't own marriage, if non-believers can get married, then it is not the christians right to say gay people can't. : )
Lol, the convincing reason is that your beliefs and the christian beliefs don't own marriage. Unless you want to make it so that the christian faith owns marriage then you stating that under your faith it shouldn't happen is not an argument. People of any beliefs can get married.Not Christians are allowed to get married because heterosexual marriage, even among non-believers is good and wholesome.
That said, not all demoninations will marry non-believers or a believer to a non-believer.
In the case of a heterosexual couple having sex outside of marriage, the sin can be avoided through instigating the title of marriage on the couple. In homosexual unions, it is the homosexuality itself which is the sin and can't get averted through marriage.
This debate (in regards to marriage) is about whether or not a previously unacceptable behaviour should be tolerated in society. Simply becuase most gays are nice people and all, isn't really a convincing reason.
I have no objection with people being allowed to be gay in society and to have their unions recognised and protected by the state, and being given the same legal "rights" in regards to tax and medical issues (as has been raised) etc. But I object with society legislating for a behaviour, which whether you are religious or not and disregarding the political spin, can never be considered truly equal to that of a heterosexual union and "proper" (for lack of a better word) family (i.e. biological parents caring for their own children).
Personally I havn't.Yes. There are plenty of Gay Christians too. Ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church?
Homosexuality is quite clearly condemned as an immoral behaviour in both the OT and NT...The way you read the bible has a lot to do with your bias.
In developed countries, the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals, particularly gay men is significantly higher than that of heterosexuals.Most cases of sexual infection and HIV/AIDs are caused by heterosexual intercourse. Read your statistics. Rates of infections in lesbians for example is very low.
There is nothing wrong with eating shrimp if you are a Christian (as you follow NT, sigh), however divorce and premarital sex are also examples of immoralities promoted by our increasingly depraived society.Why don't you start a campaign against eating shrimp, or divorce, or premarital sex?
See how far it gets you. Gay people are the last available targets for the Catholic Church.
Are you going to get married in a Church?Lol, the convincing reason is that your beliefs and the christian beliefs don't own marriage. Unless you want to make it so that the christian faith owns marriage then you stating that under your faith it shouldn't happen is not an argument. People of any beliefs can get married.
No, probably not. On a beach sounds better. Regardless, unless you are going to restrict marriage to only believers your religious arguments don't make sense. Christianity doesn't own marriage. Christian beliefs don't own marriage. Non-believers can get married.Are you going to get married in a Church?
You make too many assumptions about my beliefs. I never said nor suggested what you have said here.I think you are very ignorant if you truly believe in the sterotyping of Christians within America as the primary source of the US's various social problems, of which this "gay right" movement isn't one...
My opinion is backed up by logic. Christians' on the other hand, from what I have seen so far, are not.The USA is a democratic country, simply because you may not agree with the opinions of many of its people (not saying that I agree with every or even most US Christians on various issues etc.) doesn't make their opinion any less valid than yours.
If you have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, you wouldn't be against gay marriage, nor would you find it a moral issue. Clearly, your posts tell otherwise.Look thats great ok, I have no problem with other people falling in love and doing whatever they feel is necessary to demonstate this love behiend closed doors.
That's good.I respect others enough to allow them to govern their own personal lives, regardless of whether I think what they are doing is right or wrong.
It's all about equality, my friend. Equality is the keyword here. By not giving them equality, you devalue them. And once again, the allowances are not special, and I have already made it clear that it is so in my earlier posts. I don't want to have to repeat myself.But once again, introducing gay marriage and adoption does not suddenly allow gay people to love each other or to have sex, they can do both of these presently, and have unions which are recognised and protected by the government. Face it or not, there is no need whatsoever for us to defile marraige in the name of making special allowances for an unatural behaviour.
Catholic Church has already does that.Regardless, unless you are going to restrict marriage to only believers your religious arguments don't make sense.
Lol well then what is the problem? if your church has banned the marriage of certain people under its banner than what do you want? You are fine to restrict who YOU want to marry, but you don't own marriage outside christianity and can't dictate what everyone else does. Christian beliefs don't own the marriage of people. Unless you want to restrict the marriage of all people to believers than your arguments only pertain to the services you do. But people of all beliefs can get married. Non-believers can get married.Catholic Church has already does that.
Sorry but that was the what it appeared you were suggesting.You make too many assumptions about my beliefs. I never said nor suggested what you have said here.
Gay relationships are doomed to fail in the fact that they don't stand for anything more than the selfish desires of those involved, not that they won't all last as in, the two people will split.On the other hand, you have stereotyped gays way too much in this debate, as demonstrated in your assumption that all homosexual relationships are doomed to fail.
Without trying to sound malicious, your opinion is backed by your logic only, and nothing "concrete" in the minds of others.My opinion is backed up by logic. Christians' on the other hand, from what I have seen so far, are not.
But I do have a problem with homosexuality, one would have though that much to be somewhat evident at this stage.If you have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, you wouldn't be against gay marriage, nor would you find it a moral issue. Clearly, your posts tell otherwise.
That's good.
It is my belief and that of many others, that gays already have equality.It's all about equality, my friend. Equality is the keyword here.
All people are equal, and should be treated as such under the law.By not giving them equality, you devalue them.
By legalising gay marriage you set a precedent for all future generations that "lowering the bar" (of standards, in this case in regards to marriage) is acceptable. This means that in the future, further "lowerings" will become progressively easier to introduce.And once again, the allowances are not special, and I have already made it clear that it is so in my earlier posts. I don't want to have to repeat myself.
I don't support gay marriage becuase it is basically a homosexual enterprise. I am opposed to homosexuality, as I and many others see it a moral issue.Throughout this entire debate, you have basically said "I respect their right to be equal, but I don't support gay marriage because their behaviour is "unnatural".
This isn't about "rights"... Anyone can marry already, it means a union between a man and a women, thats the law books talking.Throughout this entire debate, I've pointed out that your saying houses multiple contradictions, such as that prohibiting gay marriage = not giving them equal rights, but you have continued to meander around my points, eventually re-using the same already-refuted points elsewhere in the debate.
Your opinion is that morality is subjective. That doesn't mean that I automatically subscribe to the same train of thought. I believe that truth and morality are fixed.I've noticed that your main reasons consist of your moral values which are not based on fact. However I've also pointed out that morality is subjective.
Excuse me, but with all due respect, you don't know what I believe.The reason why you have your moral values as they are is because of your religion, Christianity, which is passed on by others onto you, and hence not logically decided for by yourself, because you blindly accept it due to your faith.
You're an agnostic who believes God is impossible?However, I have logically proven that the Christian God is impossible and thus religion is flawed.
Simply because I don't agree with you doesn't make me close-minded...I am confident that you cannot argue any further about this topic without going around in circles and hence be further refuted, but can only think deeply, if your mind is truly open, without bias, why you are as you are, and why your opinion is as it is.
But as citizens of this country, a person who identifies themselves as a homosexual does have exacly the same rights...
Point to me, please, where in any law in this country that the law states something along the lines of "an individual is entitled to ....., unless they identify themselves as homosexual in which case they are not".
There is no descrimination in our laws regarding gays.
The problem is that being Christian, we see homosexuality, regardless of its popularity as an example of immoral behaviour, whose perpetrators, while definately not as malicious as those of various other misdeeds, are nonetheless in the wrong.Lol well then what is the problem? if your church has banned the marriage of certain people under its banner than what do you want? You are fine to restrict who YOU want to marry, but you don't own marriage outside christianity and can't dictate what everyone else does. Christian beliefs don't own the marriage of people. Unless you want to restrict the marriage of all people to believers than your arguments only pertain to the services you do. But people of all beliefs can get married. Non-believers can get married.
I wasn't aware of that, but even so, that law doesn't descriminate against homosexuals at all.Sorry to nitpick.
Much of what you said is very logical, and only slightly misguided.
This is the only bit I can be bothered picking out, and only because I was looking into the laws on concent recently.
Queensland maintains that the law of consent for anal sex is 18, while that of vaginal sex is 16, effectively ensuring that homosexual males are unable to participate in sexual intercorse untill the age of 18.
It is the only state in Australia to make such a distinction in its laws.
Yes but your belief that gay marriage is sinful is not one that allows you to own marriage. Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is immoral, but non-believers get married. Own your own institution, not everyone elses.The problem is that being Christian, we see homosexuality, regardless of its popularity as an example of immoral behaviour, whose perpetrators, while definately not as malicious as those of various other misdeeds, are nonetheless in the wrong.
The Bible, or any of the Churches teachings say that heterosexual marriage is wrong, even among non-believers. The Church, as a private organisation can refuse to recognise and carry out marriages between non-believers, but that doesn't make them sinful. This means that the Church has no objection to other religious groups agreeing to recognise unions between non-believers as legitimate.
Gay marriage on the other hand however is sinful, stemming from the simple fact that homosexuality is immoral inunto itself. As such, the Church, and many Christian groups are publically speaking out against the state's recognition of gay unions under "marriage" and the ability for any religious group to authorise such a ceremony.
Pfft. Stereotyping, again. I know personally plenty of gay couples whose relationships have lasted longer then those of straight marriages. They have raised children together and can hardly be called selfish.Gay relationships are doomed to fail in the fact that they don't stand for anything more than the selfish desires of those involved, not that they won't all last as in, the two people will split.
).
If homosexuality is a chosen behaviour then so is heterosexuality.Name_Taken said:Homosexuality however is a behaviour, and an abnormal and unhealthy one at that. Just because all people are equal does not make all behaviours equally so.).
You are reading the bible the wrong way.Name_Taken said:Homosexuality is quite clearly condemned as an immoral behaviour in both the OT and NT...
In all the passages which can be interpreted as God's outline for love, sex and marriage, homosexuality was not mentioned, presumably because it clearly was not relevant to His plan.