What do otakus think about Homosexuality?

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]
So, then, you're entertaining the possibility that the Bible isn't really saying what you've been saying it's been saying?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]That's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm a little surprised you didn't say it first. But, perhaps you lead me in that direction? I [i]am[/i] easy to manipulate.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]So, everyone, what would you say to the possibility of homosexual relationships being prohibited in the Bible only pertaining to the situation that existed at that time?[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If this were true, then homosexual people pushed away from Christianity based on 3 or 4 lines could reconsider disregarding the Bible. Do you think this is possible?[/color][/size][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]So, everyone, what would you say to the possibility of homosexual relationships being prohibited in the Bible only pertaining to the situation that existed at that time?[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

[color=green]You mean being limited to the time in which Jesus "lived"?

I doubt it. If that were true, you could discount everything the bible says, because it'd have no relation to the events of today's world.

I'm thinking that mainstream organized religion won?t be recognizing homosexuality for a very, very long time. If at all.[/color]

[Afire]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][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.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2][COLOR=Red]Oh please! LOL! I've always known that my dad is a man and that my mom is a woman. I talk to them each differently. Very differently! I always have.
Your family life is so much different than life with your peers. It's where you learn to live. Peers are only temporary.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]You mean being limited to the time in which Jesus "lived"?

I doubt it. If that were true, you could discount everything the bible says, because it'd have no relation to the events of today's world.

I'm thinking that mainstream organized religion won?t be recognizing homosexuality for a very, very long time. If at all.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Umm, Leviticus wasn't written any time near when Jesus lived. You should have a chat with Siren. He can tell you all about how certain things written in the Bible [i]must[/i] be read with regard to the time period they were written in. Also, there are churches that perform homosexual marriages, and accept homosexual couples.[/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Alright, first thing's first: Xander Harris, I tip my hat off to you, for being one of the few people I've ever met to know about the huge "pseudo-facts" that surround homosexual debates and ideas. There's just not enough study/resources, and guess what, there's not enough study to know if homosexuality is something environmental or genetic, and if both, to what degree each factor plays. X-linked allele/mutation or not, there's no solid evidence (and if there was, it WOULDN'T help homosexuals in arguing they are right).

Next, I shake my fist at Dagger for pointing out a VERY good point (because I was SO going to point it out), and for Adahn for forcing the point out: every argument people have made for homosexuality in this thread... well... it can be applied to incest and beastiality (among other things). Rather than stand their in stupor at how such a comparison can be made, look at your argument and tell me how such an idea could not have been derived. Within a debate, "I can't believe" or "how dare you" are not valid rebuttals, and don't justify your side of the argument.

So please, unless you are being hypocritical, tell me why the arguments supplied are exclusive to homosexuality. I am truly shocked at the flawed comparisons people who are for homosexuality have made.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='AzureWolf']So please, unless you are being hypocritical, tell me why the arguments supplied are exclusive to homosexuality. I am truly shocked at the flawed comparisons people who are for homosexuality have made.[/quote]


[color=green]As far as bestiality and homosexuality, the difference has been clearly stated previously by Siren. Gay relationships are between consenting sentient individuals. Others, including bestiality, aren't.

Incest, while I suppose there are cases between consenting individuals, is biologically counterproductive. While gay relationships aren't necessarily productive with regard to progeny, children of incestual relationships are much more likely to have genetic problems.

I guess the second argument isn't as solid as the first; deal with this was you will.
[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Altron]Yes, you're reading waaay between the lines. Stop overanalyzing. You know what I mean.

Seriously, cut the elusive answer stuff. From what you are saying, if the constitution doesn't explicitly say it, it's a loophole? *sigh* Anyway.

... I didn't quote the Constituion like it'll solve anything, only to further my point, in that we, in my opinion, have no right voting over this, because in our Representative Democracy, we can't vote to change the Constitution. Only our reps, therefore, we can't vote on this issue, so how could I be even claiming to remove your right to it? You never had it in the first place. And why do gays need your or someone else's permission to live their life? I guess you can always pull that 'immorality' think on me again, like people seem to be doing now.[/QUOTE]

That's right, because no law in our society has anything to do with whether it is concieved as "right" or "wrong"... So let me get this straight, you aren't solving anything by quoting the constitution... but you are furthering your point? I can understand why you think I'm overanalyzing, but you really need to think before you type. Not only that, if you knew the first thing about our consitution, one of the only ways it [i]can[/i] be changed.. IS BY THE VOTING POPULATION.

[QUOTE=Altron]
Yes and no. Homosexuals do want to change marriage, in the sense that it isn't only between a man and woman, but also a man + man, woman + woman. No, because laws never said that it [i]had[/i] to be between a man and woman. That's why Bush and his people are scrambling to ban it in the states..[/QUOTE]

So you say that homosexuals don't want to change marriage... they just want to change it's definition. Wow, I must have had it alll wrong!

[QUOTE=Altron]
Pushing my beliefs down your throat? No, I was defending my position, stating my opinion, and answering your questions, as well as posing some of my own. Pushing my beliefs down your throat would be something like
... I'm a Christian, and you're a Jew. In the Bible, it says that all other religions are sinful and wrong. So I either forcibly convert you to Christianity or killl you.
I've read your posts, and I'm only voicing my opinion. How that sounds to you is for you to determine..[/QUOTE]

So when you implied that anyone bringing a religious argument was "pushing their beliefs" down people's throats earlier, you meant there's some vast crusade of people threatening to kill homosexuals if they want to voice their opinions? We both know that isn't true, so then we can conclude that the whole phrase "pushing one's beliefs down another's throat" is blissfully inaccurate and just trying to tug the heartstrings that defy any sort of logic.(Please note that my use wasn't the least bit serious... oh well)

Ok, I hate to pick on you, but there?s a few issues that need to be put to rest.
[QUOTE=Altron]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.
[b]I believe that you don't choose to be gay, it just is something you're born with,[/b] [/QUOTE]

Hang on? bold text. Read that again? ?born gay?. Really? Please, please explain just how anyone is ?born? gay. Are you telling me it?s hereditary? Care to back that up with a little science? Let?s talk genetics then? please answer me this fundamental question: Why in the world would our genetic material? the very information that is ONLY maintained by being ?passed? from generation to generation somehow mutate to create a gene that worked counterproductively to its own survival??? Homosexuality is [b]not[/b] genetic, it is psychological.

[QUOTE=Altron]
so you can't sexually confuse the kid. They'll act on their primal instinct. [/QUOTE]
Please, where are you drawing these conclusions? I mean really, do you have ANYTHING to back this up with? Instinct? We are talking about human beings here.. our instinct is nothing but a vestigial husk.
[QUOTE=Altron]
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]
Once again, where do you draw these conclusions? And ?openmindedness? is a wonderful world brought up in this thread very often? who the hell thought of it? Think about it for a second without suffering an aneurism. ?Open-mindedness? basically means accepting whoever?s viewpoint is told to you without giving any regard to the other, not merely discriminating between the two, but eating right off the plate of any ?gay rights? advocate. That?s openmindedness? I?m just as ?openminded? as anyone here, that doesn?t mean I have to [i]agree[/i]!
[QUOTE=Altron]
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?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for revealing how truly naïve you are?

Guys, Adahn does have a point here. You can support acts such as necrophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality on the same grounds you support homosexuality! By repeating ?No no, that?s a totally different issue? as your only rebuttal isn?t proving anything. Not only that, why can?t a son and father get a civil union? Why can?t they have shared health insurance? Why can?t my college roommate and I get a civil union for our stay at college and reap a few benefits off of that one? You?re going to tell us that we can?t because we aren?t in ?love?? Since when did the government ever demand a marriage be recognized between two people that ?love? eachother?

Homosexual marriage is just another step down the slippery slope of "everything's okay, doesn't matter what you do." And as far as I'm concerned: if you leave it [i]out[/i] of the Government (aka me, Adahn, everyone else) I DONT CARE what you ****!

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']Umm, Leviticus wasn't written any time near when Jesus lived. You should have a chat with Siren. He can tell you all about how certain things written in the Bible must be read with regard to the time period they were written in. Also, there are churches that perform homosexual marriages, and accept homosexual couples.[/quote]
Your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid. In that AIM convo you and I had, I was explicitly referring to [i]your[/i] blatant misinterpretation of scripture in your Reincarnation debacle, Adahn, and was showing you precisely how you were mis-reading it. Dave knows this, because he knew exactly what I was telling you, and had also been saying it the entire time. I say again, your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid.

I view the Bible as a piece of Literature that is heavily, heavily rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, and Economics, and fundamentally, it's no different than any other piece of Lit, except people have elevated it to unreasonably high levels and believe it to be suitable material from which one can quote in support of supposedly "reasonable" social dogma (i.e., your Reincarnation debacle, religious-based arguments against homosexuality, etc).

All I was telling you back there on AIM was to read things [i]in context[/i], both textually and historically, that's it.

Now, I'd like for you to address the other points of mine that you omitted:

[quote=Siren]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?

And how does the animal feel? What does the animal think? Is it consenting to this? Come on, lol. Remember the 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]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth]Homosexual marriage is just another step down the slippery slope of "everything's okay, doesn't matter what you do." And as far as I'm concerned: if you leave it [i]out[/i'] of the Government (aka me, Adahn, everyone else) I DONT CARE what you ****![/quote]

[color=green]This whole slippery slope thing...

What about marriages that last weeks, even some as brief as days? Marriages in Las Vegas that take place while everyone involved is drunk?

Wouldn't you think such marriages are just as problematic, if not much more so, than a stable homosexual marriage?

And while we're talking about marriage and government, since when does the government "marry" people? I thought church and state were separate. If people don't support gay marriage in their nation, that's their perrogative. However, they should attempt to follow their own constitution and the guidelines for government that it lays out.[/color]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]Your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid. In that AIM convo you and I had, I was explicitly referring to [i]your[/i] blatant misinterpretation of scripture in your Reincarnation debacle, Adahn, and was showing you precisely how you were mis-reading it. Dave knows this, because he knew exactly what I was telling you, and had also been saying it the entire time. I say again, your sarcasm is as clumsy as it is stupid.
[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying that the strength of sin was the law, and you told me that that line was referring to [i]Roman[/i] law. It was all about interpreting the Bible in terms of the time period it was written in. I'm a big fan of sarcasm in RL, but I'm almost never sarcastic here.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I view the Bible as a piece of Literature that is heavily, heavily rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, and Economics, and fundamentally, it's no different than any other piece of Lit, except people have elevated it to unreasonably high levels and believe it to be suitable material from which one can quote in support of supposedly "reasonable" social dogma (i.e., your Reincarnation debacle, religious-based arguments against homosexuality, etc).[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I won't argue against your personal opinion, you're entitled to it.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
All I was telling you back there on AIM was to read things [i]in context[/i], both textually and historically, that's it.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This is what I was talking about, it was a good point. Sorry, no sarcasm here, either. Maybe next time.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Now, I'd like for you to address the other points of mine that you omitted:[/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?

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you in presenting the possibility that homosexuality in the Bible was written in the context of the active/passive relationship that characterized male homosexuality in that time period.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
And how does the animal feel? What does the animal think? Is it consenting to this? Come on, lol. Remember the quote.

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Is it going to cause any physical/emotional harm to the animal? From what I can tell, that's the direction the morals of the country are heading in. If there are no real harmful consequences to an action, then the action is not wrong.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
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.

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Are you trying to tell me that right and wrong are relative?[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
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.

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yep. If two people who are in love make love, then I would consider them 'married' in a spiritual sense, despite the lack of a political or religious recognition. Marriage is a ceremony. The act of love is what God recognizes as binding two souls together. Anything else is fornication.[/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]As far as bestiality and homosexuality, the difference has been clearly stated previously by Siren. Gay relationships are between consenting sentient individuals. Others, including bestiality, aren't.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm not sure how bestiality can't be consenting. Are you saying that every instance of bestiality is rape? The mere existence of rape means there AT LEAST exists consentual sex on the theoretical level. And what of times when the animal is the one who initiates the act of sex? Dogs do hump humans all the time... [QUOTE']Incest, while I suppose there are cases between consenting individuals, is biologically counterproductive. While gay relationships aren't necessarily productive with regard to progeny, children of incestual relationships are much more likely to have genetic problems.[/quote]Alright, now you are debating on a genomic angle. Inbreeding is a lot more conservative than homosexuality on the basis that the human gene pool still has a greater probability of keeping the parental genes within the human populace. Granted, there are a lot of lethal, recessive traits that are activated due inbreeding, but even these factors don't put homosexuality's rank above incest on the genomic level.

So, as you can see, homosexuality is quite biologically counterproductive (and quite selfish): to knowingly knock one's genes out of the bank is quite the doozy when it comes to being productive, at least using a genomic angle.[QUOTE]I guess the second argument isn't as solid as the first; deal with this was you will.[/color][/QUOTE] It's not a big deal, really. Any argument where your gut instinct gives you an answer is worth arguing, IMO. *shrugs*[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

EDIT: I thought I'd point out that Drix and I were making our posts at the same time, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: the pro-homosexual points really aren't solid enough to be specific for homosexuality. I thought that was neat.

[Brasil]

Jordan, you wanted me...to pleasure you...deeply, so here goes. XD

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth]Not only that, if you knew the first thing about our consitution, one of the only ways it can be changed.. [b]IS BY THE VOTING POPULATION[/b'].[/quote]Psst, hey Jordan, for a fun little activity, check out the Election results. Compare the Sanctity of Marriage poll results against the Presidential electoral results. I don't think it's coincidence that most states deciding on that SoM Act turned out Red. ~_^

Okay, I hate to pick on you, but there are a few issues that need to be put to rest.

[QUOTE]Hang on? bold text. Read that again? ?born gay?. Really? Please, please explain just how anyone is ?born? gay. Are you telling me it?s hereditary? Care to back that up with a little science? Let?s talk genetics then? please answer me this fundamental question: Why in the world would our genetic material? the very information that is ONLY maintained by being ?passed? from generation to generation somehow mutate to create a gene that worked counterproductively to its own survival??? Homosexuality is not genetic, it is psychological.[/QUOTE]I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology.

[QUOTE]Once again, where do you draw these conclusions? And ?openmindedness? is a wonderful world brought up in this thread very often? who the hell thought of it? Think about it for a second without suffering an aneurism. ?Open-mindedness? basically means accepting whoever?s viewpoint is told to you without giving any regard to the other, not merely discriminating between the two, but eating right off the plate of any ?gay rights? advocate. That?s openmindedness? I?m just as ?openminded? as anyone here, that doesn?t mean I have to agree![/QUOTE]Jordan, remember, I'm no mindless drone. I make sure to ask why when someone tells me something. I don't just naively accept anything and everything, and here I am, standing as an advocate for gay rights. I'm not a pushover (you definitely know that, haha), and here I am, supporting a cause, the supporters of which you've just labeled as...blank, essentially.

[QUOTE]Guys, Adahn does have a point here. You can support acts such as necrophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality on the same grounds you support homosexuality! By repeating ?No no, that?s a totally different issue? as your only rebuttal isn?t proving anything.[/quote]It sounds like you're against homosexuality here, and I had already gone into [i]why[/i] it's an entirely different issue back a few posts ago.

[quote]Not only that, why can?t a son and father get a civil union? Why can?t they have shared health insurance? Why can?t my college roommate and I get a civil union for our stay at college and reap a few benefits off of that one? You?re going to tell us that we can?t because we aren?t in ?love?? Since when did the government ever demand a marriage be recognized between two people that ?love? eachother?[/QUOTE]I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me?

[quote]Homosexual marriage is just another step down the slippery slope of "everything's okay, doesn't matter what you do." And as far as I'm concerned: if you leave it out of the Government (aka me, Adahn, everyone else) I DONT CARE what you ****![/QUOTE]Slippery slope, eh? The same was said back during the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Lib, the American Revolution...virtually every single societal progressive movement in history, and society is better for them.

[QUOTE=Adahn]I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying that the strength of sin was the law, and you told me that that line was referring to Roman law. It was all about interpreting the Bible in terms of the time period it was written in. I'm a big fan of sarcasm in RL, but I'm almost never sarcastic here.

This is what I was talking about, it was a good point. Sorry, no sarcasm here, either. Maybe next time.

I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you in presenting the possibility that homosexuality in the Bible was written in the context of the active/passive relationship that characterized male homosexuality in that time period.[/quote]Okay, whatever.

[QUOTE]I won't argue against your personal opinion, you're entitled to it.[/QUOTE]Not opinion. When people are able to distance themselves from the emotional attachment they have to the Bible, they'll see that it is no different at all from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Iliad, etc. Bible as Literature. Pure fact. The Bible is a piece of Literature rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, Economics, etc.

[QUOTE]Is it going to cause any physical/emotional harm to the animal? From what I can tell, that's the direction the morals of the country are heading in. If there are no real harmful consequences to an action, then the action is not wrong.[/QUOTE]If you ask a human how they're feeling, they can reply because they [i]have[/i] the capacity to understand the question. If you ask an animal the same thing, they're going to sit there and just stare at you blankly, because they [i]lack[/i] the capacity to even [i]realize[/i] you're asking a question. Until animals are able to fully communicate their emotions and feelings, attempting to compare homosexuality and beastiality is absurd.


[QUOTE]Are you trying to tell me that right and wrong are relative?[/QUOTE]Do you think Bush believes right and wrong are relative? (you want to play Socratic Method, fine)


[quote]Yep. If two people who are in love make love, then I would consider them 'married' in a spiritual sense, despite the lack of a political or religious recognition. Marriage is a ceremony. The act of love is what God recognizes as binding two souls together. Anything else is fornication.[/QUOTE]Then what's the problem with the government recognizing it in a legal state of marriage?

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Siren']I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm not filling in for Drix: he will answer whenever he does, but since he and I are in a similar major and agree on this particular topic, I think his answer would be something like mine.

There are a group of scientists who claim that homosexuality is due to a mutation (well, they call it an allele :rolleyes: ) on a particular gene located on the X chromosome, which is repsonsible for some-such part of brain development. There has yet to be any data produced that supports the claim. The group is still working on it apparently. *shrugs*

However, it has been the geneticists' experience that, for humans at least, even the simplest things don't seem to be exclusively genetic. Take eye color, for example: a phenotype which has been found to be based to various unrelated genes on different chromosomes. Something as simple as that, is indeed determined by not only multiple genes, but also the environment or random noise (random noise = the unexplainable factor in genetics/genomics, clearly not from genes or environmental factors). Identical twins, should their experiences in life be different, usually end up with different shades for their eye color.

So, the weight, without any more word from the "allele" weirdos who claim homosexuality is X-linked, is towards environmental conditions or random noise. [QUOTE]I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me?[/QUOTE] I think he was trying to point out the absurdity of not homosexuality itself, but the marriage benefits James was talking about. If two men can get benefits for being married, you can bet there will be few poor fathers who are not married to their college-bound sons, haha.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren] Not opinion. When people are able to distance themselves from the emotional attachment they have to the Bible, they'll see that it is no different at all from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Iliad, etc. Bible as Literature. Pure fact. The Bible is a piece of Literature rooted in Historicity, Ideology, Sociology, Economics, etc.

[i]I view the Bible as a piece of Literature that is...[/i][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'm sorry, when I start sentences with 'I view', what usually follows is an opinion of mine.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
If you ask a human how they're feeling, they can reply because they [i]have[/i] the capacity to understand the question. If you ask an animal the same thing, they're going to sit there and just stare at you blankly, because they [i]lack[/i] the capacity to even [i]realize[/i] you're asking a question. Until animals are able to fully communicate their emotions and feelings, attempting to compare homosexuality and beastiality is absurd.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Tell me, then, why bestiality is wrong.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Do you think Bush believes right and wrong are relative? (you want to play Socratic Method, fine)[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't really care what Bush believes, I didn't vote for him. He's got free reign of the country for another four years, and there is [i]nothing[/i] I can do about it. I don't concern myself with matters that don't concern me.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Then what's the problem with the government recognizing it in a legal state of marriage?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There is no problem with it. I voted for it. We aren't debating homosexual marriage, here, we are debating the morality of homosexuality.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']I'm sorry, when I start sentences with 'I view', what usually follows is an opinion of mine.[/quote]
Yes, and you haven't been studying Literature for the past four years.

[QUOTE]Tell me, then, why bestiality is wrong.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why I'd even have to explain this...if animals cannot communicate what they are feeling, and thus, communicate consent, how can anyone view beastiality on any comparable level with activity between two cognitively-developed humans, who [i]are[/i] able to communicate consent? Beastiality is wrong because a party involved has absolutely no way of fully communicating and/or fully expressing cognitive processes. Animals lack the ability to. It's essentially inter-specie rape.

[QUOTE]I don't really care what Bush believes, I didn't vote for him. He's got free reign of the country for another four years, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't concern myself with matters that don't concern me.[/QUOTE]
But it does concern you, because you are living in the United States of America, the same country that dear ole Bushy is President of. You're more willing to be apathetic to the entire process than to make your voice heard? Bush doesn't really display any lean towards moral relativism, by the way.

[quote][b]There is no problem with it[/b]. I voted for it. We aren't debating homosexual marriage, here, we are debating the morality of homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
[quote]This:

[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.[/color][/size][/font]

Compared to the following:

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yep. If two people who are in love make love, then I would consider them 'married' in a spiritual sense, despite the lack of a political or religious recognition. Marriage is a ceremony. The act of love is what God recognizes as binding two souls together. Anything else is fornication.[/color][/size][/font][/quote]
Quote above, you were describing how you thought it was vile and disgusting, and in the second quote, you're fine with it--in fact, you seem to be glad about it. Now, call me crazy, but given that first quote there, it seems that you're completely unable to "have no problem" with homosexual marriage, lol. Regarding the morality of homosexuality, the two quotes above seem to contradict each other pretty badly.

[James]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]This whole slippery slope thing...

What about marriages that last weeks, even some as brief as days? Marriages in Las Vegas that take place while everyone involved is drunk?

Wouldn't you think such marriages are just as problematic, if not much more so, than a stable homosexual marriage?

And while we're talking about marriage and government, since when does the government "marry" people? I thought church and state were separate. If people don't support gay marriage in their nation, that's their prerogative. However, they should attempt to follow their own constitution and the guidelines for government that it lays out.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=#811C3A]Yes, thank you. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument at all. Nobody is talking about having family members marry or polygamy or anything. All we're talking about are two consenting adults, who are in a stable relationship, who want the same rights that other couples have. That's a pretty simple concept. I mean, if marriage is between a man and a woman...what's stopping me marrying my sister? Or having a marriage of opportunity between myself and my female college roommate? The issues are all the same on both sides.

In terms of government/church, marriage is definitely a religious event -- however, the purpose of marriage in society is primarily a legal one. If you get married in a church but the state doesn't recognize you at all and you have no legal benefits of marriage, then you might as well not be married (other than for the point of delcaring your commitment). See what I mean?

So, whether it gets called "marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever -- gay people should be granted some of those basic legal rights.

Again, I'm not asking for churches to recognize these unions, nor am I saying that churches should be responsible for marrying couples.

The church doesn't need to be put in that position, as a religious institution. But the government should be looking out for everyone, to provide equal protections under the law.

But really, I've mentioned all of the reasoning and logic behind my argument in previous threads. I think those of you who have followed those threads in the past have probably read those more detailed posts/reasonings. So yeah. I think this thread has actually generally gone very well, but at this point it's getting a bit repetitive.

But I won't close it or anything, if you guys still want to discuss the topic. But I'm out, I think. I'll discuss it with you again in a few months. ~_^[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']Nobody is talking about having family members marry or polygamy or anything. All we're talking about are two consenting adults, who are in a stable relationship, who want the same rights that other couples have. That's a pretty simple concept. I mean, if marriage is between a man and a woman...what's stopping me marrying my sister? Or having a marriage of opportunity between myself and my female college roommate? The issues are all the same on both sides.[/color][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]While we realize no one is talking about incest or polygamy, the reason these... "possibilities" were pointed out were to show the flawed argument people have been using. I don't recall saying that marrying a consanguine person is the same as marrying an outbred person, and I don't recall anyone on the same side as I saying anything that could be interpreted as such. In fact, we have been arguing quite the opposite: there IS a difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, and there IS a difference between different types of heterosexual (and homosexual) love/sex.

Yes, we have been saying just "heterosexual love," but everyone knew it meant heterosexual love that is outbred. The arguments we've supplied show that, and there's little point to argue otherwise since what we've presented doesn't contradict this stance. If you want, we'll make a distinction from now on, saying that there is a difference and that we only condone heterosexual love that is outbred. It's nitpicking now.

The burden of proof lies on your side of the fence: you are trying to show how homosexual love is just like heterosexual love, but at the same time, your arguments are justifying other types of love you wouldn't approve. It's hypocritical, really. Do you really have some argument that is specific to displaying how human-human homosexual love is the same as human-human heterosexual love without pulling in all the other variations possible?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Lunai]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
The burden of proof lies on your side of the fence: you are trying to show how homosexual love is just like heterosexual love, but at the same time, your arguments are justifying other types of love you wouldn't approve. It's hypocritical, really.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

OK, wait just a moment. I personally do not understand how burden of proof comes in to play when you are talking about the emotions and relationships of two consenting adults of the [b]human race[/b] (note the bold type, please).

We are not discussing bestiality. Or any situation in which one party is unable to say "no" or make the decision to stop. We are talking about 2 people, over the age of 18, whom are of the same sex and wish to get married.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's *** if the whole of Otaku Boards believes that sexual acts between two men together or two women together are disgusting. And how can anyone ask if a homosexual couple would be productive to society? Aren't the majority of law abiding citizens productive to their current society? What does whom they sleep with have to do with that? When they are adults?

My argument does not justify anything in which there is a [u]victim[/u]: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurous action or agency. My argument is regarding consenting adults.

Some members, I would imagine, need to get out of high school and into the real world with the rest of us.

常の愛 Caitlin

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Lunai]OK, wait just a moment. I personally do not understand how burden of proof comes in to play when you are talking about the emotions and relationships of two consenting adults of the [b]human race[/b] (note the bold type, please).

We are not discussing bestiality. Or any situation in which one party is unable to say "no" or make the decision to stop. We are talking about 2 people, over the age of 18, whom are of the same sex and wish to get married.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Alright, that's fine, but this incorporation leaves consanguine (i.e., incestuous) relationships possible, so all I ask is that your argument doesn't consist of such. Unless, that is, you actually agree with incest.

Also, I was merely pointing out the error in people's current argument, since, by just based on their support for why homosexuality is right, you could also condone things such as beastiality.[QUOTE]Honestly, I don't give a rat's *** if the whole of Otaku Boards believes that sexual acts between two men together or two women together are disgusting. And how can anyone ask if a homosexual couple would be productive to society? Aren't the majority of law abiding citizens productive to their current society? What does whom they sleep with have to do with that? When they are adults?[/QUOTE]With all due respect, who said I cared what you thought? However, it's usually a nice thing to have some type of logical justification for your beliefs. A solid philosophical foundation is what I thought we were testing in this thread.

I don't recall saying anything about homosexuals being unproductive except in a genomic sense, so I don't know where you are going with your argument. However, I should also point out that a person being homosexual is not the reason they are productive.[QUOTE]My argument does not justify anything in which there is a [u]victim[/u]: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurous action or agency. My argument is regarding consenting adults.[/QUOTE]I don't recall ever having said otherwise.[QUOTE]Some members, I would image, need to get out of high school and into the real world with the rest of us.[/QUOTE]Again, with all due respect, in the real world, people aren't going to accept "I don't care what you think" as an argument if you are debating with them. If you are creating a product line, trying to convince the buyer by saying "I don't care what you think" isn't going to cut it. This example is in the same vein, since a solid, supporting foundation is what is essential in both cases.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Sara]

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] you are trying to show how homosexual love is just like heterosexual love, but at the same time, your arguments are justifying other types of love you wouldn't approve. It's hypocritical, really. Do you really have some argument that is specific to displaying how human-human homosexual love is the same as human-human heterosexual love without pulling in all the other variations possible?[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote][size=1]It isn't justifying incest.

*pauses* I'm really not very good at getting my thoughts out on matters like this, but I'll try.

People say that "marriage is between a man and a woman." I've seen bumperstickers, and I'm sure you have too: Marriage=Man+Woman.

If... male + female is the defining criterion for marriage, as many people make it out to be, then any incestual (or otherwise, there have been other examples in this thread) relationship is okay.

The fact of the matter is, "male + female" is not the single, [i]defining[/i] criterion for marriage, as evidenced by the fact that certain male/female relationships are not accepted.

I think...that's all I'm going to try and say at the moment. Does that make sense?

mmm mmm good,
Sara[/size]

[James]

[QUOTE=Lore][size=1]
If... male + female is the defining criterion for marriage, as many people make it out to be, then any incestual (or otherwise, there have been other examples in this thread) relationship is okay.

[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=#811C3A]Exactly. This is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work. I could say to you "You can't have marriage between a man and a woman, because that would open the floodgates for fathers marrying daughters, uncles marrying nieces and brothers marrying sisters."

So really, this kind of logic could chase its tail all day. As human beings, surely we have the ability to make key distinctions (as has been made about beastiality and so on -- the comparison there is something I actually find quite shocking). I just wanted to make that addition, because I think that you have really understood one of the key problems I have with that type of argument.[/color]

[DarkOtakuBoy]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth]Hang on? bold text. Read that again? ?born gay?. Really? Please, please explain just how anyone is ?born? gay. Are you telling me it?s hereditary? Care to back that up with a little science? Let?s talk genetics then? please answer me this fundamental question: Why in the world would our genetic material? the very information that is ONLY maintained by being ?passed? from generation to generation somehow mutate to create a gene that worked counterproductively to its own survival??? Homosexuality is [b]not[/b'] genetic, it is psychological.[/quote]

Alright....i have a biology degree and im eventually going for a Ph.D in biochem/genetics. First of all...people are under the impression that genetic info must be mutated for the good of the species, for things that will insure its survival. It doesnt work like that. Evolution isnt about making better and better, its natural selection via RANDOM mutation. In the animal kingdom, if an analog of the 'gay gene' were to be passed in the animal kingdom, it wouldnt survive long, because that species would natually become extinct Works different for us humans with a cerebral cortex and the ability to reason. Aside from THAT..... umm, dude....mutated genes that threaten a species are created in nature all the time. NATURE IS INDIFFERENT.
The latest papers by some up and coming bio genetic researchers are almost positive that there is a 'gay gene', an 'intellegence gene', etc. and its a moot point...because once the Genome Project is finally done and decoded, we will have all the answers (and prob. put the world in some kinda Eugenic War, but thats for another topic)

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']So really, this kind of logic could chase its tail all day. As human beings, surely we have the ability to make key distinctions (as has been made about beastiality and so on -- the comparison there is something I actually find quite shocking). I just wanted to make that addition, because I think that you have really understood one of the key problems I have with that type of argument.[/color][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]No, you are ignoring what I've been saying. I already addressed this: [QUOTE]In fact, we have been arguing quite the opposite: there IS a difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, and there IS a difference between different types of heterosexual (and homosexual) love/sex.

Yes, we have been saying just "heterosexual love," but everyone knew it meant heterosexual love that is outbred. The arguments we've supplied show that, and there's little point to argue otherwise since what we've presented doesn't contradict this stance. If you want, we'll make a distinction from now on, saying that there is a difference and that we only condone heterosexual love that is outbred. It's nitpicking now.[/QUOTE] Look, from the get-go, both sides knew that we were not talking about incest in any form, or bestiality, or etc. Even for your side of the argument, there was homosexuality that was outbred, and outbred heterosexuality.

HOWEVER, when you look at our arguments, the difference is obvious. We ARE saying there is a difference between all types of love. ON THE OTHER HAND, on your side, your supporting arguments are such that the logic could be applied to what we were not originally talking about: that is, incest, bestiality, etc.

Take any logic we've been applying and see how it doesn't work with incest because we've been trying to say the reason homosexual acts are wrong is they aren't natural and different from the norm. Take your arguments and notice how they do apply to incest and the like because you are talking about any two people being allowed to love if that's how they feel and they are forced to feel as such.

Again, burden of proof is on your side to explain why your support is exclusive to homosexuals and not anything more. If you want, by all means, show how ours logic that we've used to support our claim supports anything further than outbred heterosexuality, but I doubt anyone will get far with that.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. The point I'm trying to show is that your arguments for why homosexuality is right/ok/whatever is flawed because it can be applied to things like incest. Now, if you actually approve of incest and the like, then we can leave this point and move on. And again, if you feel we've been making an equally flawed argument, I strongly welcome you to show me.

So, I could understand the whole slippery slope argument since you (meaning people arguing for homosexuality) haven't presented a good enough reason to not believe it. If homosexuality was legitimized on the grounds mentioned in this thread, there's no reason other versions of various sex interactions couldn't be legitimized.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

EDIT: To illustrate and clarify:

[B]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual."[/B]
[i]"Animals also do other species (see mule), so beastiality must be right as well."[/i]
Notice how I don't even need to go out of the realm of animal SEXUAL behavior to make my point. I'm not making an extreme case about it at all: sticking with the sex acts. Was I even the one to bring up anime sexuality? Nope.

[B]"Why must you come between two people's love?!"[/B]
[i]"You are right, we shouldn't come between this brother and sister."[/i]
Again, based on logic presented, hardly a farfetched thought.

I thank Boba Fett for addressing my point. If you want to take any one of the reasonings we've presented and twist it as such to show an error, there's no one holding you (the opposing side) back.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Siren]I don't see why I'd even have to explain this...if animals cannot communicate what they are feeling, and thus, communicate consent, how can anyone view beastiality on any comparable level with activity between two cognitively-developed humans, who [i]are[/i'] able to communicate consent? Beastiality is wrong because a party involved has absolutely no way of fully communicating and/or fully expressing cognitive processes. Animals lack the ability to. It's essentially inter-specie rape.[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Animals are unable to communicate consent? You're putting them on the same level as humans. I suppose we should all take everyone's pets away, because it's very obvious that the relationship is master/slave. We even breed them and sell their children! Do you see what I'm getting at? If you want to show me how bestiality is wrong, tell me how it hurts someone, or how it's anyone's business but the person's and the animal's. That's the argument for homosexuality, isn't it? It doesn't hurt anyone, it's nobody's business, and people are going to do it anyway. You can sit there all day and call it 'rape' because of a lack of 'consent', but I'm asking you [i]why[/i] it's [i]wrong.[/i] Remember, by today's definition, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not wrong.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
But it does concern you, because you are living in the United States of America, the same country that dear ole Bushy is President of. You're more willing to be apathetic to the entire process than to make your voice heard? Bush doesn't really display any lean towards moral relativism, by the way.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I cannot affect the President's actions, so I will not concern myself with them. Have you ever read the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People? The President is well out of my sphere of influence, so concerning myself with it is a waste of time.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Quote above, you were describing how you thought it was vile and disgusting, and in the second quote, you're fine with it--in fact, you seem to be glad about it. Now, call me crazy, but given that first quote there, it seems that you're completely unable to "have no problem" with homosexual marriage, lol. Regarding the morality of homosexuality, the two quotes above seem to contradict each other pretty badly.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]They're hardly relating to the same topic. One is my personal opinion, and the other is my understanding as a compassionate human being. I can [i]understand[/i] how it could be seen as right, and even agree with it on some level based upon my understanding, even though it conflicts with my personal feelings.[/color][/size][/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Siren']Jordan, you wanted me...to pleasure you...deeply, so here goes. XD[/quote]
It?s been a while since you?ve Q&O?ed me. (Quote and Owned) ;) Drixspeak for the rest of you.
[QUOTE=Siren]
Psst, hey Jordan, for a fun little activity, check out the Election results. Compare the Sanctity of Marriage poll results against the Presidential electoral results. I don't think it's coincidence that most states deciding on that SoM Act turned out Red. ~_^[/QUOTE]

You?re exactly right! I am not for a constitutional change, personally? as far as marriage is concerned I?m not for much change at all. I understand why people [i]have[/i] chosen the SoM act, and that the supporters are vastly republican? It still must be understood to the rest of the people that we can, and should be able to decide on this issue; what better way than voting it? Hey, we can?t forget the fact that my good ol? blue state of Michigan passed the SoM/DoM. Heck, even the Florida of 04?s election: Ohio did the same thing!
I?m not sure how polls are today, but I?m pretty sure the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage. Now, despite my babbling, what do you think should happen? Should we change our constitution? Vote by state?

[QUOTE=Siren]
I honestly don't think there's evidence that concretely supports one or the other, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something more to it than pure psychology and/or biology. [/QUOTE]

It?s really not concrete yet, as we have only recently finished mapping the Genome. Now, I?m pretty sure we?ll be able to try to test any significant difference between a ?homosexual? genetic code and a ?heterosexual? genetic code to see if there are any concrete differences that might explain it. As far as I can tell, we haven?t found anything. I guess time will tell.

[QUOTE=Siren]
Jordan, remember, I'm no mindless drone. I make sure to ask why when someone tells me something. I don't just naively accept anything and everything, and here I am, standing as an advocate for gay rights. I'm not a pushover (you definitely know that, haha), and here I am, supporting a cause, the supporters of which you've just labeled as...blank, essentially. [/QUOTE]

*tsk tsk* Not true. I was merely deterring people from the casual use of the phrase ?openmindedness?. It?s rhetoric not fit for this debate. This wasn?t an attack on the people supporting gay rights as being mindless, at all.

[QUOTE=Siren]
It sounds like you're against homosexuality here, and I had already gone into [i]why[/i] it's an entirely different issue back a few posts ago. [/QUOTE]

Fair enough, I?ll let you guys duke it out and save my arguments concerning incest/bestiality a few more weeks when the next homosexuality-related thread pops up.

[QUOTE=Siren]
I actually can't quite find the point here, Jordan, lol. Maybe you could help me? [/QUOTE]

My point is that, when concerning benefits, there?s no reason why a homosexual couple should receive the benefits where any other couple (such as mother/daughter roommate/roommate) cannot. Sex has nothing to do with it, and we can?t really legally ?prove? love, so why not?

[QUOTE=Siren]
Slippery slope, eh? The same was said back during the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Lib, the American Revolution...virtually every single societal progressive movement in history, and society is better for them.[/QUOTE]

Comon Alex, who wants women voting anyway? Heh Heh (oh god.. I?m going to get flak for that one)

In all seriousness, it surprises me that you forget that the same moral foundation that opposes same-sex marriage was the groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement and could be equally equated to the Women?s Liberation (I?m not going to say if it was, I really do not know). As for the American Revolution, well, we were pissed that our unalienable rights endowed by ?our creator? were so heinously stolen from Georgie?

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]Exactly. This is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work. I could say to you "You can't have marriage between a man and a woman, because that would open the floodgates for fathers marrying daughters, uncles marrying nieces and brothers marrying sisters."

So really, this kind of logic could chase its tail all day. As human beings, surely we have the ability to make key distinctions (as has been made about beastiality and so on -- the comparison there is something I actually find quite shocking). I just wanted to make that addition, because I think that you have really understood one of the key problems I have with that type of argument.[/color][/QUOTE]

Hey, incest and polygamy have been up for debate as much as same-sex marriage. The trick is, it was fought with the same arguments that fight homosexual marriage. Not only that, it?s just plain icky.

[QUOTE=DarkOtakuBoy]Alright....i have a biology degree and im eventually going for a Ph.D in biochem/genetics. First of all...people are under the impression that genetic info must be mutated for the good of the species, for things that will insure its survival. It doesnt work like that. Evolution isnt about making better and better, its natural selection via RANDOM mutation. In the animal kingdom, if an analog of the 'gay gene' were to be passed in the animal kingdom, it wouldnt survive long, because that species would natually become extinct Works different for us humans with a cerebral cortex and the ability to reason. Aside from THAT..... umm, dude....mutated genes that threaten a species are created in nature all the time. NATURE IS INDIFFERENT.
The latest papers by some up and coming bio genetic researchers are almost positive that there is a 'gay gene', an 'intellegence gene', etc. and its a moot point...because once the Genome Project is finally done and decoded, we will have all the answers (and prob. put the world in some kinda Eugenic War, but thats for another topic)[/QUOTE]

Okay, let?s say the gay gene mutates. Now, we all know that mutation is quite a frequent occurrence, yet it may take thousands of mutations before any drastic change is visible. Let?s take a population of 200 individuals and 2 have the gay allele. Now, this gay couple can either have children and preferentially ignore that gene, which would slowly pass down through the offspring, or decide that they should be a homosexual couple and?. the gene dies off. This sounds disjointed, I know? but despite the gene even possibly occurring, that?s like saying someone is born with a preference between pepsi and coca-cola.

[url]http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html[/url]
(the above site seemed the most reasonable and credible site I could hastily provide.. please take a look at the articles. If anyone can find a different source, please provide)

I understand that certain mutations threaten our species (heck there are seven deadly alleles that would kill us upon conception)? I?m just saying that if a gene really influenced someone to have homosexual sex it WOULDN?T be passed on! I know what you are saying ?homosexual sex was just never accepted before, so it was passed on anyway?? then how can it account for a nearly exponential increase in the number of admittedly ?gay? people in the last decade?