Gay Marriage page 92

3421 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Beegum:

So, you {FlabbyWoofWoof}believe that homosexual couples achieve success where even step parents and devoted single moms seem to fail? That doesn’t seem reasonable on its face.

NO, it is YOU that aren’t being reasonable. YOU aren’t allowing yourself to actually comprehend what he is saying. Rather, YOU are pathetically distorting his concept of “pluses-&-minuses” being equal between homosexuals and most any other forms of parenting couples, individuals, & groups. It is YOU who induges “selfish logic”.

Originally posted by Beegum:
. A sort of fear tactic. Homosexual couples will still have poorer parenting results and poor health (such as poor tone in anal tissue) as a result of the actual activities they partake in. The real futility is in fighting reality. And, it seems I have found the gay propaganda machine very alive here.

Yup. YOU certainly should know all about “fear tactics”. Such is absolutely ALL your whole position on Gays rights is….esp. when it comes to their parenting capabilities.

BUT, “…results ….poor health (such as POOR TONE IN ANAL TISSUE…”. What the fuck is THAT about? YOU have managed to be awarded the Badge of Lowest Ignorant Statement EVER.

AND, “Gay propaganda machine very alive here.”? Oh, fershur…only it is YOU who merits THAT “dubvious honor”.

 
Flag Post

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

 
Flag Post

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

That’s actually kind of offensive. None of us suggested you should have lesser rights because of your religion. Several of us have defended religion from other atheists on these forums who seem to think people don’t do things, religions do. If you want to straight faced compare your unwillingness to allow homosexuals to get married to the opinions of people on here of theists, I’m going to start tying you to farm fences and beating you to within an inch of your life if I see you walking out of a church. Good lord, that’s almost as whiny and self-centered as when atheists on these forums try to argue they experience gross inequalities that are comparable to treatment of “other minorities” because of their non-theism. Everyone’s a victim.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

I’m surprised at how quickly you can turn yourself into the victim.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

BUT, “…results ….poor health (such as POOR TONE IN ANAL TISSUE…”. What the fuck is THAT about? YOU have managed to be awarded the Badge of Lowest Ignorant Statement EVER.

To be fair, that’s actually true. The colon isn’t sturdy enough to stand up to repeat thrusting penetrations. It tears far more easily than the uterine tract. Over time, those who have sex by that method often, well, they lose the ability to easily pass solid wastes.

HOWEVER, that has absolutely no bearing on their suitability as parents, unless you are trying to argue that anyone not in the peak of fitness, or with any disability, is automatically going to be a poor parent who should not be allowed kids.

A torn colon is similar in some ways to a tendency towards gall stones, or a weight problem. It could be compared to someone who has heavy periods, or even appendicitis. If you are going to bar people from being parents for one of these reasons, you might as well ban them all. There’s no reason to just single out one.

 
Flag Post

Not to mention, homosexual men tend to be very careful about anal sex, and many don’t have it at all. Also, straight people can have buttsex.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Also, straight people can have buttsex.

Yea, its quite common when you wish a little pain with the pleasure. It’s also the only real way a strap-on can function in a heterosexual relationship.

But doesn’t that mean that straight people are unsuitable parents too?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

That’s actually kind of offensive. None of us suggested you should have lesser rights because of your religion. Several of us have defended religion from other atheists on these forums who seem to think people don’t do things, religions do. If you want to straight faced compare your unwillingness to allow homosexuals to get married to the opinions of people on here of theists, I’m going to start tying you to farm fences and beating you to within an inch of your life if I see you walking out of a church. Good lord, that’s almost as whiny and self-centered as when atheists on these forums try to argue they experience gross inequalities that are comparable to treatment of “other minorities” because of their non-theism. Everyone’s a victim.

Yes and no. If thinking homosexuality is wrong makes you a ‘homophobe’, then thinking Christianity is wrong makes you a ‘Christophobe’, and he’s most likely quite accurate with his statement.

However, and more importantly, the tossing around of labels like these does no one any good. If you can’t make your point without throwing derogatory names at someone, then you have no point at all.

Less importantly, I think the victim mentality is a comfortable spot to be in. However, it’s ultimately worthless, and there is nothing more annoying that whining. It’s better to roll with a punch then to take it in the face and complain about how it hurt.

 
Flag Post

But nobody has said Christianity is necessarily wrong. Ung’s point was that state-sanctioned religious marriage existed prior to Christianity, which is true.

 
Flag Post

Bob, perhaps it would be worth you learning the meaning of the suffix phobe.

From this source:

-phobe

a combining form used to form personal nouns corresponding to nouns ending in -phobia.

In other words, it refers to things that people have a fear of. Unless you are accusing BSG of living in fear of Christians – or worse, how all gay people have an utter fear of Christians, then you are shooting blanks this time.

Of course, you could always make sure you know what a word means before you try to use it. Just a thought, as it might avoid these kinds of situations.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Bob, perhaps it would be worth you learning the meaning of the suffix phobe.

From this source:

-phobe

a combining form used to form personal nouns corresponding to nouns ending in -phobia.

In other words, it refers to things that people have a fear of. Unless you are accusing BSG of living in fear of Christians – or worse, how all gay people have an utter fear of Christians, then you are shooting blanks this time.

Of course, you could always make sure you know what a word means before you try to use it. Just a thought, as it might avoid these kinds of situations.

Are you serious? The use of the phobe/phobia suffix in homophobia and similar words is already an abuse of its original meaning, and the term homophobe gets shot around plenty of times when it has nothing to do with fear. I was simply going off the meaning of homophobe/ia that JaumeBG defined it as, and as people seem to use it: “Having antipathy towards homosexuality.” As Ung pointed out, this is somewhat of a ludicrous definition. My statement was accurate: if you define homophobia that way, then you also should define ‘Christophobia’ in the same manner. And if you define it in the same manner, it’s definitely present in this forum. But as I said before: However, and more importantly, the tossing around of labels like these does no one any good. If you can’t make your point without throwing derogatory names at someone, then you have no point at all.

My use of the word ‘you’ was the generic ‘you’, and had nothing to do with BSG personally. BSG has said multiple positive and negative things about Christianity and religion in general in the past.

 
Flag Post

There’s a lot hatred and blame on both sides of this discussion.
I personally don’t feel that lifestyles and worldviews are the issue here.
The government is all too happy to prey on our fears and sympathies to divide an manipulate us. “Gay marriage” is only a big deal because people are making it into a big deal. Dueling political parties are all too happy to force feed the controversy. I think we’ve all been duped

Ignorance and Christianity are not synonymous. A hateful mean spirited person claiming Christ is like an idiot who claims to be a rocket scientist because he read about the space shuttle on the back of cereal box.

The government should stay out of all marriages altogether. The the individual churches and communities decide what is right for them, and let the government choose a term other than marriage to identify all united couples.

If I post in this thread again, please remind me that I said I wouldn’t. This is pointless.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

I think you have debatophobia.

If thinking homosexuality is wrong makes you a ‘homophobe’, then thinking Christianity is wrong makes you a ‘Christophobe’, and he’s most likely quite accurate with his statement.

It would be okay if they went just as far as thinking “homosexuality is wrong” (just as much as it would be okay and, not to mention, extremely moronic to think being left-handed is wrong: both are physical features you cannot change, and on a side-note the latter was actually true in my country), but they go further. They then suggest to restrict homosexuals in their rights or, worse, suggest that everything homosexuals shouldn’t have, while heterosexuals should, is a privilege that can be rejected on a whim. Perhaps there’s another word for it, but when I use the concept of homophobe I observe them being discriminating against homosexuals themselves instead of homosexuality.

However, and more importantly, the tossing around of labels like these does no one any good. If you can’t make your point without throwing derogatory names at someone, then you have no point at all.

Damn, and here I was thinking if you reject logic and randomly attack homosexuals over some non-proven book means you have no point at all. The thing is, they don’t like the labels because they are too clear to define what they really do. Surely we won’t open their eyes, but perhaps we can open the eyes of those not necessarily involved yet to stop discrimination of those who do not deserve it.

I remember you, specifically, stating something along the lines of thinking that homosexuality is “wrong” or that you dislike it. I forgot what it was exactly. I believe it was the latter, and you added you don’t dislike homosexuals. I think I can agree with such an idea (not that I personally dislike homosexuality). I dislike any system other than the metric system, but I don’t necessarily dislike those who don’t use it. They were raised to use the other one, and it will be difficult to switch over. So, I don’t dislike the people, but merely the system. You may even bring up cancer. Hate the cancer, but not the people having it. And certainly we wouldn’t randomly want to stop people who use another system or have cancer from marrying .. do we? That would be silly. This would be great for Christians. However, the key difference is that homosexuality is of no harm. Using different systems means there is more difficulty in communication. Cancer harms the body. Homosexuality actually reduces the size of Earth’s population, so it could even be seen as positive. You can have the opinion of disliking homosexuality (I dislike soccer), but why on Earth would one randomly decide to stop homosexuals from legally marrying?

“Gay marriage” is only a big deal because people are making it into a big deal.

It is only a big deal because we’re discriminating against them. I’m not sure how you can’t call that a big deal.

let the government choose a term other than marriage to identify all united couples.

Nah, they didn’t invent the term.

 
Flag Post

The reaction to “Christophobia” was as expected. You people are laughable. Lousy arguments and victimization are only allowed from one side.

 
Flag Post

Victimising yourself when all you do is inflict and discriminate upon others is what I don’t merely find laughable, but repugnant.

 
Flag Post

MyTie, all you do is stir things up and either deliberately or unconciously troll the discussion by even mentioning it, and then deliberately troll by mentioning how we don’t get it without explaining it. I already consider you as one, but the problem is that you sometimes do post something meaningful. So, please, don’t resort to such low tactics and get back to the actual discussion. It is childish.

 
Flag Post

Forgive me, if I am intruding on the debate. While I will admit that I am still young enough to not know the world in its entirety, I would like to contribute what I know so far, if that’s alright.

I know a lot of Christians who are entirely accepting of homosexuals. Heck, I know A LOT of people across different religions supporting same sex marriage. So just because there are some Christians that are homophobic, it doesn’t mean everyone is.

I see statements from a few people regarding the fact gays cannot marry because offspring cannot be produced. If that were the case, why are infertile men and women not being persecuted? Elderly? And besides, who needs more production of children when there are so many already at risk and in foster care, waiting for someone to take them in and love them?

Homosexual behavior is commonly seen in animals, especially between males as a form of social standing. So if it’s naturally found in nature, and humans are a part of nature, why is it such a big deal?

Marriage is a symbol of union between two loving people who vow to be there for one another, and a legal agreement that allows one to consolidate their assets into a whole that also guarantees protection in the form of distribution of valuables should death occur. I’ve seen many people form partnerships and yet because they do not have a marriage certificate when their spouse has passed away, despite there being a will, the belongings of that person is taken into possession by (I can’t recall if it’s the state or federal government.. my memory fails me, my apologies.) All because a piece of paper claims that they’re not legally recognized as together. This also falls the same for life insurance for couples. So if two people truly love each other, and wish to take care of their spouse, why shouldn’t they have the same legal rights and protections as a heterosexual couple?

Not trying to impose on anyone, but I’m genuinely curious as to opinions on the matter. Again, forgive me if I seem a bit.. dull. Was just a thought.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Sapphirakitten:

Forgive me, if I am intruding on the debate. While I will admit that I am still young enough to not know the world in its entirety, I would like to contribute what I know so far, if that’s alright.

Well you already know how to make a complete sentence, that’s a start.

I know a lot of Christians who are entirely accepting of homosexuals. Heck, I know A LOT of people across different religions supporting same sex marriage. So just because there are some Christians that are homophobic, it doesn’t mean everyone is.

Well, for the same of argument, there are more homophobes (of varrying degrees) who are religious than those that are not, though that’s partially due to religious people being kind of the majority in this world.

I see statements from a few people regarding the fact gays cannot marry because offspring cannot be produced. If that were the case, why are infertile men and women not being persecuted? Elderly? And besides, who needs more production of children when there are so many already at risk and in foster care, waiting for someone to take them in and love them?

Thankfully no new ground has been broke here.

Homosexual behavior is commonly seen in animals, especially between males as a form of social standing. So if it’s naturally found in nature, and humans are a part of nature, why is it such a big deal?

Okay, there’s something newer.

Marriage is a symbol of union between two loving people who vow to be there for one another, and a legal agreement that allows one to consolidate their assets into a whole that also guarantees protection in the form of distribution of valuables should death occur. I’ve seen many people form partnerships and yet because they do not have a marriage certificate when their spouse has passed away, despite there being a will, the belongings of that person is taken into possession by (I can’t recall if it’s the state or federal government.. my memory fails me, my apologies.) All because a piece of paper claims that they’re not legally recognized as together. This also falls the same for life insurance for couples. So if two people truly love each other, and wish to take care of their spouse, why shouldn’t they have the same legal rights and protections as a heterosexual couple?

I dunno, because Constitution?

Not trying to impose on anyone, but I’m genuinely curious as to opinions on the matter. Again, forgive me if I seem a bit.. dull. Was just a thought.

Oh no, far from it, you’re just unintentionally (I’m assuming, at least) unoriginal with most of your points, and that’s really a good thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I’m just surprised at all the Christophobia here.

I think you have debatophobia.

If thinking homosexuality is wrong makes you a ‘homophobe’, then thinking Christianity is wrong makes you a ‘Christophobe’, and he’s most likely quite accurate with his statement.

It would be okay if they went just as far as thinking “homosexuality is wrong” (just as much as it would be okay and, not to mention, extremely moronic to think being left-handed is wrong: both are physical features you cannot change, and on a side-note the latter was actually true in my country), but they go further. They then suggest to restrict homosexuals in their rights or, worse, suggest that everything homosexuals shouldn’t have, while heterosexuals should, is a privilege that can be rejected on a whim. Perhaps there’s another word for it, but when I use the concept of homophobe I observe them being discriminating against homosexuals themselves instead of homosexuality.

However, and more importantly, the tossing around of labels like these does no one any good. If you can’t make your point without throwing derogatory names at someone, then you have no point at all.

Damn, and here I was thinking if you reject logic and randomly attack homosexuals over some non-proven book means you have no point at all. The thing is, they don’t like the labels because they are too clear to define what they really do. Surely we won’t open their eyes, but perhaps we can open the eyes of those not necessarily involved yet to stop discrimination of those who do not deserve it.

I remember you, specifically, stating something along the lines of thinking that homosexuality is “wrong” or that you dislike it. I forgot what it was exactly. I believe it was the latter, and you added you don’t dislike homosexuals. I think I can agree with such an idea (not that I personally dislike homosexuality). I dislike any system other than the metric system, but I don’t necessarily dislike those who don’t use it. They were raised to use the other one, and it will be difficult to switch over. So, I don’t dislike the people, but merely the system. You may even bring up cancer. Hate the cancer, but not the people having it. And certainly we wouldn’t randomly want to stop people who use another system or have cancer from marrying .. do we? That would be silly. This would be great for Christians. However, the key difference is that homosexuality is of no harm. Using different systems means there is more difficulty in communication. Cancer harms the body. Homosexuality actually reduces the size of Earth’s population, so it could even be seen as positive. You can have the opinion of disliking homosexuality (I dislike soccer), but why on Earth would one randomly decide to stop homosexuals from legally marrying?

“Gay marriage” is only a big deal because people are making it into a big deal.

It is only a big deal because we’re discriminating against them. I’m not sure how you can’t call that a big deal.

let the government choose a term other than marriage to identify all united couples.

Nah, they didn’t invent the term.

Couple points, not necessarily in disagreement:


  • As far as I’m aware, homosexuality is caused by a variety of factors. Homosexual acts, of course, are a choice. I don’t think you can quite call it a ‘physical feature’. Just like someone might have a violent predisposition, violent acts are a choice.

  • Yes, that’s about what I stated earlier and I do stand by it. The problem with gay marriage, from a Christian standpoint, in my opinion, is not that so much that non-Christians make an immoral choice, but the influence it has on people in society as a whole. Now I have mixed feelings, but I think that this worry is not as important as this: As a Christian, I cannot force others to believe what I want, for one reason, because I cannot force anyone to believe anything. For another reason, as far as I know, forcing people to act like Christians is unbiblical, for they must make that choice for themselves. So, do I particularly want to see homosexuality abounding? No. But is it effective for me as a Christian, to say through government laws that you cannot get married? I’m not so sure it is. Ravi Zacharias, respected Christian apologist, on politics and religion.
 
Flag Post

As far as I’m aware, homosexuality is caused by a variety of factors. Homosexual acts, of course, are a choice. I don’t think you can quite call it a ‘physical feature’. Just like someone might have a violent predisposition, violent acts are a choice.

Determinism would disagree with you there, but let’s not get into that one.

I don’t think you can link “homosexual acts” with “homosexuality” in a way that we can talk about choices. Homosexual acts are a choice, true, but they are as much of a choice as writing with your left hand is.

The problem with gay marriage, from a Christian standpoint, in my opinion, is not that so much that non-Christians make an immoral choice, but the influence it has on people in society as a whole.

And don’t you think that’s a silly viewpoint?

As a Christian, I cannot force others to believe what I want, for one reason, because I cannot force anyone to believe anything. For another reason, as far as I know, forcing people to act like Christians is unbiblical, for they must make that choice for themselves.

I respect that.

Ravi Zacharias, respected Christian apologist on politics and religion.

Do you agree that, even though he didn’t specifically say it, he would support legal homosexual marriage?

 
Flag Post
Homosexual acts, of course, are a choice.

And it’s a natural choice that harms nobody.

Just like someone might have a violent predisposition, violent acts are a choice
Terrible analogy. Homosexual acts don’t cause harm to others.
I hope the next time you decide to make love to your wife or girlfriend, you seriously consider that this action you are about to do is your choice. You DON’T have to make love to your wife…it’s a choice remember!

 
Flag Post

The problem with gay marriage, from a Christian standpoint, in my opinion, is not that so much that non-Christians make an immoral choice, but the influence it has on people in society as a whole.

And don’t you think that’s a silly viewpoint?

Well, perhaps. I may have been wrong in making that statement in the first place. I’ll give it some thought, I don’t feel as if I have a decent response tonight.

Ravi Zacharias, respected Christian apologist, on politics and religion.

Do you agree that, even though he didn’t specifically say it, he would support legal homosexual marriage?

Two things. One, I originally missed a pretty important comma in my description, but I added it in for clarity.
Secondly, in response to your question, I concentrated mostly on his statements from 4:20ish to 4:50 ish. I honestly can’t tell for certain what his opinion is. His first statement about legislating clearly seems to not be against homosexual marriage (I feel there’s a difference between supporting it / not opposing it) but I’m not sure if his following statement about culture is meant as a counterpoint or a complement to his first one.

 
Flag Post

He seems to say there shouldn’t be anything political about religion, so my conclusion would be that at the same time religion shouldn’t be forced into politics.