What do otakus think about Homosexuality?

[DarkOtakuBoy]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Probably not, but when I see a verse inbetween 'don't have sex with animals' and 'don't commit adultery', I take it rather seriously.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Woah, wait a min....I understand you putting your faith into something thats important to you and thats commendable, but you must understand that not everyone HAS the Christian idea of values, not everyone FOLLOWS that faith or believes in it. Everyone has their own idea of how the universe works and they have their own set of values. But quoting passages from the Bible wont change anything or anyones minds, just as if I were to quote to you, accounts of Pagan sabbats and their dogmatic and ethical belief structures. Religious argument becomes moot to those who just dont share that faith.

I personally dont beleive that pentrating another boy will send me to what you call Hell. I dont even beleive in Hell. lol. So the Bible thing is irrelevant. Religion is personal, it should not be mixed with debate, because how can you argue against someones faith, intellectually?

[Miryoku]

I'm glad every one is vocing their opinion, but does some ones negative opinion on homosexuality realy matter? It"s thare and will always be thare if they want to not like it thats fine but its still gonna happen. That also fits in with the gay marrige thing. Here in utah ( which i might add is a vary
"red" state) amendment three just passed, wich defines marrage as between a man and a woman. So it was vary unfair of course homosexuals were out numberd. How was that even a voters issue, how can they choose waht some ones life will be like, homosexuals getting married has nothing to do with them, they may not like it but it should'nt matter to them. And the whole thing is that is if they don't want to se us expressing our feelings the 3rd amendment won't help we'll kiss any way. i just don't get what it means to the strate people it is'nt their life to ruin.

[Adahn]

[quote name='DarkOtakuBoy']Woah, wait a min....I understand you putting your faith into something thats important to you and thats commendable, but you must understand that not everyone HAS the Christian idea of values, not everyone FOLLOWS that faith or believes in it. Everyone has their own idea of how the universe works and they have their own set of values. But quoting passages from the Bible wont change anything or anyones minds, just as if I were to quote to you, accounts of Pagan sabbats and their dogmatic and ethical belief structures. Religious argument becomes moot to those who just dont share that faith.[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, I guess you don't have anything against bestiality or adultery, then? Those are religious ideals.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=DarkOtakuBoy]
I personally dont beleive that pentrating another boy will send me to what you call Hell. So the Bible thing is irrelevant. Religion is personal, it should not be mixed with debate, because how can you argue against someones faith, intellectually?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery. Do you want me to provide some sort of evidence for why I feel this way? I can't, all I can say is that it is a part of my nature. The Bible, surprisingly, is mostly about human nature. If you can find a more expansive literary document that is focused on human nature, tell me what it is, because I'm extremely interested in the subject. You're asking me to disregard one of the most expansive books written about human nature, and here we are discussing...human nature.[/color][/size][/font]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If there is a male homosexual relationship that doesn't involve what is described in that verse, then I've got no beef with it. There is no 'broad definition' of sex that involves all actions men and women can do to please each other. Sex is vaginal or anal penetration by a male.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Probably not, but when I see a verse inbetween 'don't have sex with animals' and 'don't commit adultery', I take it rather seriously.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Goldensensei, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain yourself further, because I can't seem to understand what you're trying to say.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

Doesn't it strike you as being a little strange that God would prohibit male-male sex, but not hot and heavy female-female... uh, carnal relations?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where you're coming from, particularly in regards to this whole "penetration" business. So homosexual acts are only sinful when penetration is involved? I believe that many people of your faith would disagree with that assertion. Assuming the same definition also applies to adultery and bestiality, is it okay for me to fool around with someone other than my spouse--just as long as we don't actually have intercourse? To me, that doesn't make sense, neither in the context of homosexuality nor anything else.

Do you think heterosexual anal sex is a sin?

EDIT: Christianity does not have a monopoly on what is right and wrong, Adahn. Just because someone rejects religious ideals (Christian or otherwise) doesn't mean he endorses, say, incest or murder. That kind of reasoning drives me crazy.

~Dagger~

[DarkOtakuBoy]

Adahn......Go to Barns and Noble and check the Philosophy section if you want books on human nature. I hear Plato is pretty popular. As I said....Not all of us agrees with the Bible. lol
Its a SOURCE. There are many sources. And by the way.....its opinion, not the end-all-be-all facet of human understanding. Everyone has their vantage point.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Dagger IX1']Doesn't it strike you as being a little strange that God would prohibit male-male sex, but not hot and heavy female-female... uh, carnal relations?[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'm sure He doesn't look fondly on them, but nowhere in the Bible does He say that female-female relationships are a mortal sin.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where you're coming from, particularly in regards to this whole "penetration" business. So homosexual acts are only sinful when penetration is involved? I believe that many people of your faith would disagree with that assertion. Assuming the same definition also applies to adultery and bestiality, is it okay for me to fool around with someone other than my spouse--just as long as we don't actually have intercourse? To me, that doesn't make sense, neither in the context of homosexuality nor anything else.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You would have a very difficult time finding someone of my faith. Fooling around with someone else is definitely wrong, but it does not constitute adultery. Certain acts are not at all good, but they are forgiveable. But, once your wife/husband has sex with someone else, a very distinct line has been crossed, and no amount of forgiveness can restore that relationship to what it was before.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
Do you think heterosexual anal sex is a sin?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think it is unnatural. I believe the word to describe it is 'sodomy'. From what I can garner, any word named after a city destroyed for its immorality is a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
EDIT: Christianity does not have a monopoly on what is right and wrong, Adahn. Just because someone rejects religious ideals (Christian or otherwise) doesn't mean he endorses, say, incest or murder. That kind of reasoning drives me crazy.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Incest and murder are naturally wrong. There is no intellectual basis for prohibiting bestiality. It actually seems odd to me that we live in a country where animal torture...I mean testing...is legal, while bestiality, which has the potential to do no harm, is strictly prohibited.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for adultery, I have a different definition of marriage. I will consider myself married when I make love with a woman who loves me, and who I love. Once that bond is formed, no religious or political ceremony is going to strengthen it, because they are just that; ceremony.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you'll notice, I didn't mention incest or murder in any of my previous posts, so please, don't put words into my mouth.[/color][/size][/font]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you'll notice, I didn't mention incest or murder in any of my previous posts, so please, don't put words into my mouth.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

I'm not putting words into your mouth, dear. I chose "incest" and "murder" because I was tired of repeatedly typing "bestiality" and "adultery." If you like, feel free to substitute those in the next time you go over my previous post.

You asked DarkOtakuBoy, "So, I guess you don't have anything against bestiality or adultery, then? Those are religious ideals," as though you felt that it was impossible for or hypocritical of a non-religious person to object to said activities. I don't see why incest and murder should be placed in a different category, but whatever.

There is no intellectual basis for prohibiting bestiality? Uh... I am bewildered. Care to elaborate? Although, in this case, my gut feeling is more than enough to let me know that bestiality is wrong.

EDIT: I used the term "faith" in its most general sense. You say you are Christian--thus, you are a member of the Christian faith. I did not planning on getting into your specific personal beliefs.

~Dagger~

[Brasil]

I was hoping to steer clear of this thread, but...some of what is being said is absurd gibberish.

[quote name='Adahn']I'm sure He doesn't look fondly on them, but nowhere in the Bible does He say that female-female relationships are a mortal sin.[/quote]So, then, you're perfectly fine with Rosie O'Donnell coming out, kissing her wife in public, etc? If you're basing your assessment of homosexuality on the Bible, and you're saying that female-female relationships aren't considered mortal sins, and aren't explicitly or implicitly forbidden in the Bible, then...if two women who love each other very much embrace...you wouldn't have a problem with it. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong, so therefore, you can't have a problem with it, because if you did, you would be going against God and His teachings.

[QUOTE]You would have a very difficult time finding someone of my faith. Fooling around with someone else is definitely wrong, but it does not constitute adultery. Certain acts are not at all good, but they are forgiveable. But, once your wife/husband has sex with someone else, a very distinct line has been crossed, and no amount of forgiveness can restore that relationship to what it was before.[/QUOTE]And do you hold every relationship to this, no matter what type of relationship (hetero or homo)?

[QUOTE]I think it is unnatural. I believe the word to describe it is 'sodomy'. From what I can garner, any word named after a city destroyed for its immorality is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]But it's between a man and a woman, so it's heterosexual, so it has to be okay, because it's not same-sex relations. Or are you disagreeing with the Bible here? By the way, Sodom was burned because of homosexuality, Adahn, not hetero anal.

[QUOTE]Incest and murder are naturally wrong. There is no intellectual basis for prohibiting bestiality. It actually seems odd to me that we live in a country where animal torture...I mean testing...is legal, while bestiality, which has the potential to do no harm, is strictly prohibited.[/QUOTE]...are you arguing for beastiality? And also, nowhere did Dagger mention beastiality. She specifically said "incest or murder." And what is your point here? How does what you said have any bearing at all on the topic at hand?

[QUOTE]As for adultery, I have a different definition of marriage. I will consider myself married when I make love with a woman who loves me, and who I love. Once that bond is formed, no religious or political ceremony is going to strengthen it, because they are just that; ceremony.[/QUOTE]This is what your view translates into:

[quote]Teenage girl is in "puppy love," but she thinks it's true love. Boyfriend of teenage girl is in "puppy love," but he thinks it's true love. They both puppy love each other, and make puppy love.[/quote]You do realize that you just presided over the ceremony for about...oh...50% of the teenage population of the United States?

[quote]If you'll notice, I didn't mention incest or murder in any of my previous posts, so please, don't put words into my mouth.[/QUOTE]Yes, you've got enough absurdity coming out of there already.

Remember:

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]"I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society."[/color][/size][/font]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]
So, then, you're perfectly fine with Rosie O'Donnell coming out, kissing her wife in public, etc? If you're basing your assessment of homosexuality on the Bible, and you're saying that female-female relationships aren't considered mortal sins, and aren't explicitly or implicitly forbidden in the Bible, then...if two women who love each other very much embrace...you wouldn't have a problem with it. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong, so therefore, you can't have a problem with it, because if you did, you would be going against God and His teachings.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I said people could not argue against female homosexuality using what is written in the Bible.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Adahn][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]anybody who is against female homosexual relationships cannot say that the grounds for their decision is based on the Bible.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
And do you hold every relationship to this, no matter what type of relationship (hetero or homo)?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes. While I don't approve of male homosexual relationships, cheating in that relationship is just as wrong as cheating in a heterosexual relationship. I recognize the bond that those couples share, I just don't approve of it.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
But it's between a man and a woman, so it's heterosexual, so it has to be okay, because it's not same-sex relations. Or are you disagreeing with the Bible here? By the way, Sodom was burned because of homosexuality, Adahn, not hetero anal.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Still, sodomy describes any form of anal penetration. I would just assume that any word associated with that city would be a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
...are you arguing for beastiality? And also, nowhere did Dagger mention beastiality. She specifically said "incest or murder." And what is your point here? How does what you said have any bearing at all on the topic at hand?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]One could make the same arguments for bestiality that people make for homosexuality (ignoring love).[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
This is what your view translates into:

You do realize that you just presided over the ceremony for about...oh...50% of the teenage population of the United States?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Sex without love is fornication. Teenagers fornicate. Fornication forms no bond between two people.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']I said people could not argue against female homosexuality using what is written in the Bible.[/quote]I know what you said, but you didn't answer my question.

If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, in effect saying it's okay, is it right?

[QUOTE]Yes. While I don't approve of male homosexual relationships, cheating in that relationship is just as wrong as cheating in a heterosexual relationship. I recognize the bond that those couples share, I just don't approve of it.[/QUOTE]So, then, a healthy male-male relationship that may or may not involve intercourse is perfectly okay, because if there's no cheating involved, then the relationship is secure and good. Since you view adultery as equally damaging to both types of relationships, and therefore view both relationships the same way there, why not approve of both types of relationships when the relationship is a healthy and loving one?

[QUOTE]Still, sodomy describes any form of anal penetration. I would just assume that any word associated with that city would be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]The city was destroyed because of homosexuality, not hetero anal. Your argument has no validity.

[QUOTE]One could make the same arguments for bestiality that people make for homosexuality (ignoring love).[/QUOTE]Firstly, homosexuality does not equal beastiality, and to try to compare the two is absurd for a few reasons.

One, humans have something called reasoning.

Two, humans have higher levels of cognition.

Three, humans may become aroused, but they do not go into heat.

Four, (most) humans have self-control. (Most) animals do not.

[quote]Sex without love is fornication. Teenagers fornicate. Fornication forms no bond between two people.[/QUOTE]The teenagers believe themselves to be in love, though, and their engaging in sex comes out of that belief. They honestly feel like they're in true love, so, therefore, it's not fornication, therefore, invalidating your above statement, or making it so that half of the teenage population of the US is already married, which reveals the absurdity of your argument.

And since you say that sex without love isn't "honorable," that would suggest you believe that sex out of love is "honorable," so then why isn't a homosexual sexual relationship based on love honorable?

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]I know what you said, but you didn't answer my question.

If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, in effect saying it's okay, is it right?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]No, the Bible is rather old, and cannot be applied to [i]every[/i] situation that exists today. It has homosexuality covered, though.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
So, then, a healthy male-male relationship that may or may not involve intercourse is perfectly okay, because if there's no cheating involved, then the relationship is secure and good. Since you view adultery as equally damaging to both types of relationships, and therefore view both relationships the same way there, why not approve of both types of relationships when the relationship is a healthy and loving one?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I do not disapprove of the relationship. I disapprove of the male-male homosexual act involving sodomy. It disgusts me, about as much as incest/murder/bestiality/adultery disgust me.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
The city was destroyed because of homosexuality, not hetero anal. Your argument has no validity.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Do you want me to say that heterosexual anal sex is okay? I see it as an act of lust, and not love. I, personally, consider acts of lust as a kind of fornication.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Firstly, homosexuality does not equal beastiality, and to try to compare the two is absurd for a few reasons.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Siren]
One, humans have something called reasoning.

Two, humans have higher levels of cognition.

Three, humans may become aroused, but they do not go into heat.

Four, (most) humans have self-control. (Most) animals do not.
[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Well, there are some common arguments I see used in favor of homosexuality that apply to bestiality.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. It does no harm to anyone.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. It's a personal matter, and not anyone else's business.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
The teenagers believe themselves to be in love, though, and their engaging in sex comes out of that belief. They honestly feel like they're in true love, so, therefore, it's not fornication, therefore, invalidating your above statement, or making it so that half of the teenage population of the US is already married, which reveals the absurdity of your argument.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Have you ever seen [i]Gone With the Wind? [/i]Scarlett believed herself to be in love with what'shisface, but she never was. She did everything she could to try and get him, until she realized that she was never really in love with him. My statement is valid, and is not absurd. Belief is not truth, Siren.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Perhaps in the context of the Bible, male homosexual relationships were strictly active/passive, and therefore could not involve love. If this were true, then male-male sexual relationships based on love would not be wrong. I believe you yourself said something in an AIM conversation about 'law' in the new testament referring specifically to 'Roman law'. If this is the case with Leviticus, where one must understand the time period relating to the statement, then it is possible that homosexuality is not wrong, according to the Bible.[/color][/size][/font]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] In the bible, God tells humans to multiply, so I don't see how anal sex is less worse than homosexual penetration.[/color]

[i]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery.[/i]

[color=darkslateblue] Huh. I agree wholeheartedly that in the bible, homosexuality is a sin. Too bad anger and hate are also sins, and as a Christian, you should know that no sin is 'worse' than another. As a Christian you're supposed to love and embrace everyone, and saying that something is 'disgusting' is not exactly what I'd say is loving. It's hardly your place to go around judging things. Dislike/hate homosexuality, I could really care less. Using religion as a scapegoat for your hate is something I depsise. So much for an 'intellectual' response. [/color]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] In the bible, God tells humans to multiply, so I don't see how anal sex is less worse than homosexual penetration.[/color]

[i]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery.[/i]

[color=darkslateblue]Huh. I agree wholeheartedly that in the bible, homosexuality is a sin. Too bad anger and hate are also sins, and as a Christian, you should know that no sin is 'worse' than another. As a Christian you're supposed to love and embrace everyone, and saying that something is 'disgusting' is not exactly what I'd say is loving. It's hardly your place to go around judging things. Dislike/hate homosexuality, I could really care less. Using religion as a scapegoat for your hate is something I depsise.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Let me repeat myself. I hate the action, not the people.[/color][/size][/font]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you would treat a gay man the same way you'd treat a heterosexual man.

Now by saying this I'm also going aginst what Drix said earlier, but sometimes using words like 'disgusting' leads someone to think that they will be prejudice against the sinners as well.[/color]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you would treat a gay man the same way you'd treat a heterosexual man.

Really, it's human nature.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Well, I tend to treat people the same, man or woman. I'm extremely anti-social, and I do my best to ignore everyone's existence. If you would like to continue this conversation, please send me a PM.[/color][/size][/font]

[Juke Box Hero]

The problem with the whole argument over homosexuality is that people automatically assume that it is a religiously based problem. For clarification, I am a Protestant Christian.

I propose the look at this from a purely secular viewpoint. Put the Bible away. Put Ellen DeGeneres' diary away. Put the Koran away. Think about this from the point of secular morality.

And yes, there is secular morality. It is the fundamental absolute truths that all of successful human societal is based on: No murder, theft, rape, purjury, etc. Although the Bible stands STRONGLY against these things, they have been implemented in non-Biblical societies for thousands of years.

We have society A. Society A is a relatively new group of people, they have established government A. Government A has all of the basic laws: No murder, theft, rape, purjury, etc.

But one law that is still on the voting floor is that of banning the practice of homosexuality.

The idea of banning two human beings from anything is rather absurd, because they will do it anyway, if they really want to. Thus the true question is: Does society A want to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle?

A few things must be considered before the pro's and con's can be wieghed.

A. The homosexuality debate is not a matter of civil rights.

B. Some homosexuals are productive citizens, others are not, just like straight people.

Those things aid, its time for the con's:

If a man-man and woman-woman relationship is acceptable,

why not child-adult, animal-human, or corpse-human relationships?

These are doors a society cannot afford to open. Or even consider knocking on.

Children need a defined system of human interaction if they are to grow up psychologically sound. A child will be confused if he sees 2 moms, or 2 dads, instead of 1 mother and 1 father. The family is the amino acid of society. To break it up or damage it is an irreparable blow to the fabric of that society itself.

Pro's-

I cannot think of even 1 way a society would benefit from accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Keyword: benefit.

Think about that, and then ask yourself, why should homosexuality be considered an acceptable lifestyle?

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Actually, in a scientic study, children who grow up in families of gay parents are no more likely to become gay themselves or to have an odd lifestyle. They'll probably get teased a lot, but so does everyone.

Perhaps it will teach them to love more unconditionally and to become more open-minded about things. [/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']No, the Bible is rather old, and cannot be applied to every situation that exists today. It has homosexuality covered, though.[/quote]
Right to bear arms. It's outdated by some 250 years now. They were talking muskets, not assault weapons. It's similar to the Bible, only the Bible is outdated by some 2500 years, give or take.

[QUOTE]I do not disapprove of the relationship. I disapprove of the male-male homosexual act involving sodomy. It disgusts me, about as much as incest/murder/bestiality/adultery disgust me.

Do you want me to say that heterosexual anal sex is okay? I see it as an act of lust, and not love. I, personally, consider acts of lust as a kind of fornication.[/QUOTE]
But what if the act of anal sex, whether homo or hetero, is out of love, compassion, caring, and [i]isn't[/i] an act of lust? How would you respond to that? Would it still be wrong, even when it's out of love?

[QUOTE]Well, there are some common arguments I see used in favor of homosexuality that apply to bestiality.

1. It does no harm to anyone.
2. It's a personal matter, and not anyone else's business.[/QUOTE]
And how does the animal feel? What does the animal think? Is it consenting to this? Come on, lol. Remember the quote.

[QUOTE]Have you ever seen Gone With the Wind? Scarlett believed herself to be in love with what'shisface, but she never was. She did everything she could to try and get him, until she realized that she was never really in love with him. My statement is valid, and is not absurd. [b]Belief is not truth[/b], Siren.[/QUOTE]
I've bolded an interesting idea there. "Belief is not truth." Hmm...what have people been saying to you in this entire thread? That Christianity doesn't apply to everyone, and that Christian doctrine is not truth...interesting.

So, if two people who truly love each other make love, then they're married? I think you just made millions of homosexuals very happy, Adahn. You may argue that they didn't really make love...but somehow, I don't think your assessment is all that substantial. If they connected on both an emotional and a physical level...I'd say that's certainly making love, as opposed to screwing like there's no tomorrow.


[quote]EDIT: Perhaps in the context of the Bible, male homosexual relationships were strictly active/passive, and therefore could not involve love. If this were true, then male-male sexual relationships based on love would not be wrong. I believe you yourself said something in an AIM conversation about 'law' in the new testament referring specifically to 'Roman law'. If this is the case with Leviticus, where one must understand the time period relating to the statement, then it is possible that homosexuality is not wrong, according to the Bible.[/QUOTE]
So, then, you're entertaining the possibility that the Bible isn't really saying what you've been saying it's been saying?

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Actually, in a scientic study, children who grow up in families of gay parents are no more likely to become gay themselves or to have an odd lifestyle. They'll probably get teased a lot, but so does everyone.

Perhaps it will teach them to love more unconditionally and to become more open-minded about things. [/color][/QUOTE]


Actually, there really aren't enough studies or children to study in order to prove conclusively that homosexual parents do/do not effect the children adversly. Both sides have some studies with a very small group of subjects which 'prove' their side is correct.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Raid3r']Children need a defined system of human interaction if they are to grow up psychologically sound. A child will be confused if he sees 2 moms, or 2 dads, instead of 1 mother and 1 father. The family is the amino acid of society. To break it up or damage it is an irreparable blow to the fabric of that society itself.[/quote]
And it doesn't really break up the fabric of society. Kids who grow up in a gay home accept it as nothing out of the ordinary, and don't become confused. I believe that you don't choose to be gay, it just is something you're born with, so you can't sexually confuse the kid. They'll act on their primal instinct.

I know a girl who's parents were lesbian. She grew up fine. I know her, and she's living a completely normal life, and is in college. I also know a guy who is growing up in a lesbian home. He's fine too. Sure, he gets ribbed a few times every now and then from it, but by no means is he sexually confused, or socially confused.

Children who grow up in gay or lesbian homes are no less normal than anyone else. If anything they probably grow up to be more free-minded and acceptant of everyone else's differences growing up in a different home than everyone else.

[quote]
I cannot think of even 1 way a society would benefit from accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Keyword: benefit.

Think about that, and then ask yourself, why should homosexuality be considered an acceptable lifestyle?[/QUOTE]
And how does it hurt? Actually, it can help the people in the marriage. They are happy, so it can make people who are gay happier. And isn't that what's life about?

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Well, I suppose it'd be hard to do so many studies with families like those, but I really don't think that children who grow up with gay parents will turn out to be abnormal or some freak who goes around killing people or anything.

Let's face it. I don't know about the present times, but sometime in the future, homosexuality will be accepted and although prejudice against will never go away, it will lessen considerably. I really doubt anyone here who is strongly opposed to it can do anything to stop it in the future.

Just remember when 50 years ago, it was illegal in some states to marry interacially. I know what you're thinking: "that's a totally different topic." It is, in some ways, but 50 or 100 years from now, people will look upon people trying to stop gays from getting rights with that same attitude when they look at people trying to stop blacks and white getting married.

[/color]

[Onix]

[QUOTE=Raid3r]If a man-man and woman-woman relationship is acceptable,

why not child-adult, animal-human, or corpse-human relationships?
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Child-Adult relationships often mentally, if not physically, harm the child in the relationship. You take two people, one who was sexually abused as a child and one who wasn't, and odds are the person who was sexually abused as a child will have more social/mental problems.

Animals and humans cannot have relationships. A person who has intercourse with, lets say, a dog does not have a relationship with said dog. They merely used it to relieve sexual tension and obtain pleasure. Ergo, the poing is invalidated.

As with animals and humans, corpses and humans do not actually have relationships. That aside, in almost every religion, social group, and basically to every person but a few with Necrophilia, it is a terrible thing to desecrate the dead, especially in a sexual manor. You ask any one beyond someone who actively practices Necrophilia if it is wrong, and they will agree. You ask anyone who doesn't actively practive homosexual activity if it's wrong, and you'll get very diverse answers (depending on where you live and the demographic that's being asked, of course).

Homosexuality does not harm anyone (excusing rape, which is harmful no matter what the gender of the two+ people), pedophilia does. Homosexuality is a relationship, bestiality and necrophilia aren't. Homosexuality does not desecrate the dead, necrophilia does. See my point? Homosexuality does nothing to harm a community other than cause these kinds of debates. In fact, I believe that homosexuals make on average about 15% more than straight people (please correct me if the number is incorrect).

Oh, and to harken back to a previous sub-debate, a human having sex with a (insert animal name here) is not like a horse having sex with a donkey/vice versa. The equivalent of a horse having sex with a donkey is a chimpanzee having sex with a Bonobo (which, conicidentally, is one of the few animals that practices sex for recreation), or a dolphin having sex with an orca. Horses and donkeys are close enough genetically to have offspring. Excluding some simians, humans are not.

And if you couldn't guess, I have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage.

-ULX[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Afire]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Actually, in a scientic study, children who grow up in families of gay parents are no more likely to become gay themselves or to have an odd lifestyle. They'll probably get teased a lot, but so does everyone.

Perhaps it will teach them to love more unconditionally and to become more open-minded about things. [/color][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2][COLOR=RED]I'm sorry Maladjusted, but how could a child learn true communication with the opposite sex with two same sex parents? Men and women are so very different. No one can tell me that they are alike in thought or deed. My parents are so different emotionally and every other way. I do watch them communicate... fight... and love. The children that homosexuals raise may turn out to be heterosexual, but will they truly know how to deal with the problems that arise from a heterosexual union? The same with children that are raised with divorced parents. It's not a healthy atmosphere to be raised in. If there is no healthy communication between the opposite of sexes, how will they learn? Children learn by seeing. Not every child has to get teased about their parents sexual preferences. There is enough other teasing going on. I don't think it will make them stronger...I think it will cause permanent damage.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Raid3r']I propose the look at this from a purely secular viewpoint. Put the Bible away. Put Ellen DeGeneres' diary away. Put the Koran away. Think about this from the point of secular morality.[/quote]

[color=green]Since when is religion an invalid point in any discussion? Religion guides morality, and is a huge factor in many people's lives. Nevermind what particular religion someone follows, their opinion should never be written off simply because its based in religion.[/color]

[quote name='Raid3r']A. The homosexuality debate is not a matter of civil rights.[/quote]

[color=green]The government should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If it does, as it is currently, I think that's a civil rights issue.[/color]

[QUOTE=Raid3r]If a man-man and woman-woman relationship is acceptable,

why not child-adult, animal-human, or corpse-human relationships?[/QUOTE]

[color=green]You're seriously going to compare gay relations to necrophilia?

That's crazy.[/color]

[QUOTE=Raid3r]
Children need a defined system of human interaction if they are to grow up psychologically sound. A child will be confused if he sees 2 moms, or 2 dads, instead of 1 mother and 1 father. The family is the amino acid of society. To break it up or damage it is an irreparable blow to the fabric of that society itself.[/QUOTE]

[color=green]Would you have a child live in a orphanage, or in a home with two loving parents?[/color]

[quote name='Raid3r']I cannot think of even 1 way a society would benefit from accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Keyword: benefit.[/quote]

[color=green]That's a one-sided argument if I ever saw one.

I?m sure that you, along with everyone else here, can think of [b]at least[/b] one positive and negative to each side.


I agree with most everything you said that I didn?t respond to.

The US Government, in my opinion, needs to do several things. It firstly, needs to allow gays to marry. To outlaw this is discrimination akin to segregation. You cannot say someone is equal if you do not allow them to marry.

However, who is to say the government of the US should be marrying [b]anyone[/b]? Our government is a separate from all forms of religion. It would perhaps be better if the government recognized civil unions for everyone who wanted to have a legal relationship with another person.

This still does leave problems yet to be resolved. Many special interest groups on both sides have vested interests in this debate. Insurance companies don?t want people getting married for insurance benefits. In addition, married couples are given special legal privileges because of their implied contribution to society (Children). So what of those heterosexual couples who do not have kids? Should they lose those benefits? Should gay couples that adopt gain them?

It?s a difficult question.[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Afire][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2][COLOR=RED]I'm sorry Maladjusted, but how could a child learn true communication with the opposite sex with two same sex parents?[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][i]Oh please.[/i]

Boys don't talk to their mothers as though they were "girls", and girls don't talk to their fathers as though they were "boys".

They're Mom and Dad.

You learn to communicate with the opposite gender from your peers before you even come to think of your parents as husband and wife as oppose to Mum and Dad.

Additionally, Reap3r, gay marriage is now legal in Canada and I don't feel any bedrock shattering.
I think the ol' Shield can take a bit of guy-on-guy action without crumbling.

Honestly--[i]some people[/i], eh?[/FONT][/COLOR]