What do otakus think about Homosexuality?

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']You're putting them on the same level as humans.[/quote]
Adahn, how am I putting animals on the same level as humans? Fact of the matter is, I'm [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b]. Nowhere in my post was I placing animals at the same level as humans. In fact, I was placing them beneath humans, and that's very clear to see in my post. I'm just as much as an animal rights activist as the next guy, but even I know that the family dog isn't going to be able to help me put up the Xmas tree, or to bounce thesis ideas back and forth with him.

[quote]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 why it's wrong. Remember, by today's definition, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not wrong.[/quote]
You honestly and truly believe that homosexuality is akin to beastiality? And I'm the twisted one?

How about that it's taking advantage of a lesser being, one that can't fight back, can't speak out, can't even tell you what it's thinking. Beastiality isn't homosexuality. Beastiality is rape of an invalid.

Do I still need to tell you how it's wrong, Adahn? I've said it about five times now and you keep asking why. Any further question on your part is a result of deliberate ignorance.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
You would be surprised what you can do when you put your mind to it (which, I recall, is said in that book).

[quote]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 understand 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.[/QUOTE]
They very much relate to the same topic. You said you find the act to be vile and disgusting, but then say that if two people love each other very much, and make love, you're happy about it, and happy for them, and consider them married. Which is it? Do you find it vile, disgusting, wholly disturbing and without any moral value whatsoever, or do you appreciate the love something like that can stand for?

[Break]

[color=purple]Um... since when was homosexuality genetic?[/color]

[Sara]

[size=1][color=purple]Azure, can you read my post and tell me what you think? I'd like to know if you thought that made sense. (Not necessarily that you agree with it, but that it makes sense.)[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][COLOR=blue][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[/font][/color].[/QUOTE]Side note: "Anime sexuality." Heh.

Okay, here are my thoughts. This isn't meant to argue, exactly, but give my opinion on why this was brought up.

In the past (not in this thread, that I've seen, but eh) one arguement I have seen [i]often[/i] against homosexuality is along these lines. "It's unnatural. No other species engages in homosexual activity."

So when people bring up evidence of homosexual activity in animals, I didn't view that as "Animals do it so it's okay!" It seems more that they are presenting evidence against a common (and by this point in time, almost [i]implicit[/i]) arguement against homosexuality.

That being said, I agree with something James posted earlier:[quote name='James][color=#707875']In terms of whether people actually "agree" with it or not...it's a bit like the sky being blue. It's there. It is what it is. I think that each individual simply has to choose how they deal with that.[/color][/quote]th-th-th-th-that's all, folks,
Sara[/color][/size]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Afire][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][/QUOTE]

Yes, of course you treat them differently. You aren't a very good people-person if you treat everyone the same way, as far as behavior around them goes. I talk differently around my mom than I do around my dad, but seriously, my learning to communicated with other males, as well as females has come from going to school. Not my parents. Because you will never have the same bond you do with (good) parents like you will with a friend.

Peers are temporary, but they help you get a grip with reality. If your parents shield you, you may think that's how the world is, then run into a huge surprise. If your parents let you dive into this screwed up world, you will at least know reality, and not try to live in a 'dream world' to borrow from the Matrix. Family life is much more important than peers, but not always in the communication aspect. How many times have you poured out your heartfelt troubles on their laps? Not too many, if you are an average teen. If you are like most, you would've gone to your friends... friends/peers are how you learn to deal with people you dont like, get along with people you do, and react effectively in the real world.

Sorry about the tangent there...

[Adahn]

[quote name='Siren]Adahn, how am I putting animals on the same level as humans? Fact of the matter is, I'm [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b']. Nowhere in my post was I placing animals at the same level as humans. In fact, I was placing them beneath humans, and that's very clear to see in my post. I'm just as much as an animal rights activist as the next guy, but even I know that the family dog isn't going to be able to help me put up the Xmas tree, or to bounce thesis ideas back and forth with him.[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You're saying that bestiality is wrong because of an animal's inability to consent to sex, correct?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
You honestly and truly believe that homosexuality is akin to beastiality? And I'm the twisted one?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]All this says is, 'your idea is disgusting and wrong!' There's no intelligent argument here.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
How about that it's taking advantage of a lesser being, one that can't fight back, can't speak out, can't even tell you what it's thinking. Beastiality isn't homosexuality. Beastiality is rape of an invalid.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Then what is hunting, or the mass slaughter of animals in factories? If bestiality is rape, then hunting is murder. You [i]are[/i] putting animals on the same level as humans. Don't deny it.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Do I still need to tell you how it's wrong, Adahn? I've said it about five times now and you keep asking why. Any further question on your part is a result of deliberate ignorance.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Deliberate ignorance? It's just that your argument can be used to argue against pet ownership as slavery and hunting as murder. I would suggest you choose a different path of logic to explain to me how bestiality is wrong.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
You would be surprised what you can do when you put your mind to it (which, I recall, is said in that book).[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Well, there's also the complete lack of desire to do anything about it. What do you think this country is, a democracy? I have a vote, but I have no voice.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
They very much relate to the same topic. You said you find the act to be vile and disgusting, but then say that if two people love each other very much, and make love, you're happy about it, and happy for them, and consider them married. Which is it? Do you find it vile, disgusting, wholly disturbing and without any moral value whatsoever, or do you appreciate the love something like that can stand for?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]What I think is right (my morality) and what I can understand (my wisdom) are different. It's perfectly ok for me to understand [i]why[/i] something could be thought of as right because of my wisdom, and still disagree with it because of my morality. Not everything is black and white.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Adahn]You're saying that bestiality is wrong because of an animal's inability to consent to sex, correct?

Then what is hunting, or the mass slaughter of animals in factories? If bestiality is rape, then hunting is murder. You are putting animals on the same level as humans. Don't deny it.

Deliberate ignorance? It's just that your argument can be used to argue against pet ownership as slavery and hunting as murder. I would suggest you choose a different path of logic to explain to me how bestiality is wrong.[/quote]
Pet ownership (i.e., taking care of one's pet) versus abusing an animal for sexual pleasure. Come on, Adahn. You're trying to spin this and it's not working, because there's no way in hell you're ever going to be able to draw some type of correlative link between those two. You're trying to argue the slippery slope angle, and it's not working, because as you go farther and farther down the [i]imagined[/i] slippery slope, your "argument" is becoming more and more asinine and removed from reality.

I'm going to say this again. I'm putting animals [i]beneath[/i] humans. I never treated them as being on the same level, because they're not. But regardless of the different levels, taking sexual advantage of a lower being that lacks the capacity to communicate--[i]regardless of what specie, class, level[/i]--is wrong.

[QUOTE]All this says is, 'your idea is disgusting and wrong!' There's no intelligent argument here.[/QUOTE]
Funny, that's precisely what you were saying about homosexuality. So, then, you also have no intelligent argument?

[QUOTE]Well, there's also the complete lack of desire to do anything about it. What do you think this country is, a democracy? I have a vote, but I have no voice.[/QUOTE]
Your apathy is your own fault. You have a voice; everyone does. The people driving our country are drunk at the wheel, Adahn. We need to take the keys from them.

[quote]What I think is right (my morality) and what I can understand (my wisdom) are different. It's perfectly ok for me to understand why something could be thought of as right because of my wisdom, and still disagree with it because of my morality. Not everything is black and white.[/QUOTE]
Okay, and wisdom should prevail all the time, then, so you should never have even had those morality-based thoughts to begin with, because wisdom (i.e., logic, intelligence, reason, rationality) overrules emotion.

I find that last night's South Park is useful here. The episode centered around a Woodland Critter Christmas, with the whole immaculate conception thing. As the episode proceeds, we learn that a mountain lion is hunting these critters, year after year killing their lord and savior. They get Stan to go kill it.

He comes back, and they reveal themselves to be demonic woodland critters, and the "lord and savior" is actually the antichrist. Here comes the end of the world, basically, and the animals sing with malicious glee. One of the bunnies is happily sacrificed, then the other critters go, "Blood orgy!" and start making love to one another, using the bunny's blood as lubricant.

The slippery slope argument is a lot like that. It basically boils down to because of homosexuality, gay rights, etc., the world is going to degenerate into a blood orgy.

The complete and utter void of logic in the slippery slope argument should be obscenely apparent to anyone there.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Siren]Pet ownership (i.e., taking care of one's pet) versus abusing an animal for sexual pleasure. Come on, Adahn. You're trying to spin this and it's not working, because there's no way in hell you're ever going to be able to draw some type of correlative link between those two. You're trying to argue the slippery slope angle, and it's not working, because as you go farther and farther down the [i]imagined[/i'] slippery slope, your "argument" is becoming more and more asinine and removed from reality.[/quote]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I never said that recognizing homosexuality as a morally right thing would cause other traditionally accepted morals to come into question. Is it better for animals if we kill them and skin them to make fashionable clothing for people to wear, or is it better for people to screw them? Is it better to put them in labs and perform agonizing experiments on them? Is it better to kill them indiscriminately in order to prepare delicacies to eat? If we do all these things now, why is using them for sexual pleasure wrong? I'll answer the question for you. It's wrong because it goes against [i]morality. [/i]There is no logical explanation for it being wrong other than that it [i]feels[/i] wrong.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I'm going to say this again. I'm putting animals [i]beneath[/i] humans. I never treated them as being on the same level, because they're not. But regardless of the different levels, taking sexual advantage of a lower being that lacks the capacity to communicate--[i]regardless of what specie, class, level[/i]--is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're saying it's wrong because it's wrong. You know what? I agree with you. It is wrong. If you can give me any explanation other than that it is [i]morally[/i] wrong to take sexual advantage of something, I'd like to hear it.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Funny, that's precisely what you were saying about homosexuality. So, then, you also have no intelligent argument?[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Morality is illogical. It sets up rules and regulations that don't make sense. If you want an intelligent argument, I'll give you one. We [i]need[/i] a system of morality, no matter how illogical it may seem. The reason humanity is crying out against homosexuality is because its system of morality is being attacked. We've taken it for granted for so very long, and now we're trying to break it down. I'm not saying that all hell will break loose, I'm just saying that Morality is being eroded, and we don't know what the consequences will be. Changes that seem good now may prove to be disastrous later.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
Your apathy is your own fault. You have a voice; everyone does. The people driving our country are drunk at the wheel, Adahn. We need to take the keys from them.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I suggested localizing government to create smaller democracies to allow everyone to have a voice, but my idea was absurd. We don't have a democracy, the country is too large. I may have a voice, but I would have to scream in order to be heard above the din of our republic.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[QUOTE=Siren]
Okay, and wisdom should prevail all the time, then, so you should never have even had those morality-based thoughts to begin with, because wisdom (i.e., logic, intelligence, reason, rationality) overrules emotion.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Fine. Let's eliminate morality and see what happens.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
I find that last night's South Park is useful here. The episode centered around a Woodland Critter Christmas, with the whole immaculate conception thing. As the episode proceeds, we learn that a mountain lion is hunting these critters, year after year killing their lord and savior. They get Stan to go kill it.

He comes back, and they reveal themselves to be demonic woodland critters, and the "lord and savior" is actually the antichrist. Here comes the end of the world, basically, and the animals sing with malicious glee. One of the bunnies is happily sacrificed, then the other critters go, "Blood orgy!" and start making love to one another, using the bunny's blood as lubricant.

The slippery slope argument is a lot like that. It basically boils down to because of homosexuality, gay rights, etc., the world is going to degenerate into a blood orgy.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]First of all, that episode was heavenly. Second of all, actions have consequences. Eroding morality is an action, and since this is [i]unprecedented[/i], anyone's prediction of the consequences is valid. Absolutely nothing may happen, and the world could be a better place full of happy, happy gay people. On the other hand, everything could happen, and the world could degenerate into a blood orgy. We're opening a door, and we don't know what's on the other side. Is the possibility of a better world for gay people worth the possibility of a worse one for everyone?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]
The complete and utter void of logic in the slippery slope argument should be obscenely apparent to anyone there.[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Are you saying that the idea that unprecedented actions could have unprecedented consequences is absurd? I'll say it again. We don't know what's going to happen, but we know what could happen. It's really a gamble for humanity. It's not a very good one, either. We don't know what the odds are, and we don't know what we can win or lose. It's not the kind of bet I'd be willing to make, but so many people here would stand behind it diligently, putting their [i]faith[/i] in the [i]hope [/i]that they will win, and that the prize will be good.[/color][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Are we discussing homosexuality or vegatarianism?

I'm too lazy to wade through 9 pages of debate so I'll just say this:

Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but it also says that having relations with a woman during her period is wrong and so is wearing clothes made with more than one fabric. The Bible says that you can beat your children or sell them for slaves.

But the Bible also has a lot of things to say about how you should love your neighbor, how God loves everyone and that Jesus told a crown of people once: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Bible has a lot more to say about love than hate so maybe those who subscribe to a Judeo Christian tradition and read their Bibles should skip over the part about how God hates everyone and read more about love.

Other than that I don't have much else to add and I'll let people debate as they wish.[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I agree with Azure that homosexuality is some kind of disorder, but I still don't have a problem with it.

Homosexuality, even if it is "unnatural" or "illogical" or "disgusting" still exists and being homosexual does not automatically make you a pervert. It does not mean you go around raping bunnies or other women or dead people.

It simply means you are attracted to members of the same gender, in a way that it can only be interpreted as the same as the attraction between heterosexual couples.

And if men are going to marry their sons all of a sudden, why aren't they already marrying their daughters?

I am for gay marriage because homosexuality is something that you can't control and persecuting people for something they can't control is wrong, according to [i]my[/i] morals.
Gay people aren't hurting you, they aren't destroying our society, and their getting married is simply a recognition of a long-term relationship.

And when I say married, I mean married as in visiting rights, not married as in The Bible.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Onix]

[QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]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]

[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Fine, you want to know why bestiality is wrong? Then I'll borrow an argument against homosexuality.

This level of cross-breeding [I]does not occur in the natural world.[/I] You know why we have mules? Because people stick a horse and a donkey together and then, with a lack of any other sexual partner, they go at it. Then you have a mule. Have you ever heard of a wild mule? No. Because there are none, or very, very few at least. Crossbreeding, especially the same level of cross-breeding as a Homo Sapien having sex with an [I]Ovis aries[/I], [I]Sus scrofa[/I], or [I]Tursiops truncatus[/I] (that's your common Sheep, Pig, and a Bottle-Nosed Dolphin to you and me), rarely, if ever, occurs in nature.

Happy now, Adahn? A logical, non-morality based argument against Bestiality.

-ULX[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Absolutely nothing may happen, and the world could be a better place full of happy, happy gay people. On the other hand, everything could happen, and the world could degenerate into a blood orgy. We're opening a door, and we don't know what's on the other side. Is the possibility of a better world for gay people worth the possibility of a worse one for everyone?[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]
I would like to know what you think what could possibly happen if we let gays marry each other. They're still going to have relations with each other, if that's what you're worried about. I fail to see a negative.

Besides, all of this stuff is pretty close to segregation and such back in the 60's. Why did white people want to keep black people away from them? Not quite sure, but black people weren't gonna go shoot them all to death if they were allowed to drink at the same water fountain. I'll try plugging in racist responses to Adahn's sentense frames. Both issues are/were opposed, in the same general manner, and both issues are/were very controversial.

If we let black people into our neighborhoods, who know what might happen? We're opening the door, and we don't know what's on the other side. For all we know, they could bring in poverty, crime, and whatever else. We don't want America degenerating into that, do we?

Sorry if that offended you, but do you see the similarity? Both arguments don't have much ground to stand on. White folk were just racist and scared back then. Now, I don't see the ground where you stand on, saying that gays could degenerate the world into a 'blood orgy,' or could 'worsen the world for everyone else.'

And when you think about it, for every decision our country makes, there is always the chance that things will go wrong, and we will be significantly wounded as a country. It's like not wanting to drive in a car, for fear that you might crash and die. There is always a chance, however low, that you will crash, but you should just go ahead and live your life. That analogy wasn't exactly perfect, because gay marriages don't have as high a chance of hurting either person as driving in a car does.

[Dagger]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']? then how can it account for a nearly exponential increase in the number of admittedly ?gay? people in the last decade?[/quote]

Genetic arguments aside, I think this can be attributed to the fact that more people are unafraid to come out of the closet. Historically--or even just in this past century--the number of gay people proportionate to the overall population has probably remained more or less constant. However, in earlier decades/centuries, a gay person would have been much more likely to remain in denial or never come out (for obvious reasons). A greater level of tolerance simply means that more homosexuals will acknowledge what was already there in the first place. That's my way of looking at it, at least. :)

~Dagger~

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='Altron']Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA.[/quote]That's nice. But I live in AUSTRALIA. Aren't capitals fun?

I think DarkOtakuBoy is the most intelligent new member I've seen recently [judging by his post]. And he likes Bad Religion. Must be an alright guy.

Anyway, just because you don't like the idea of something, does this mean that this something should have no rights?

[quote name='Adahn']A donkey and a horse are completely different species. A species is defined as 'organisms capable of mating and producing viable offspring'. Mules are sterile.[/quote]
I know that. Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post. Anyway, I'd call a donkey and a horse a lot closer than a human and a...dog. Or whatever floats their particular boat ~_^ Gay sex is between members of the same species who are involved in a consentual [and generally] loving manner. Waaay different to animal sex.

[quote name='Adahn']Would you care to explain how humans having 'morals and ethics' supports your point?[/quote]
I think most people would agree with me that having intercourse with an animal is [b]wrong[/b].

[quote name='Adahn']From what I know, male-male sexual relationships are more enjoyable for one person than the other. Since we can't ask animals how they feel, there's no reason for us to assume that the passive partner enjoys it any more or less than an animal would.[/quote]
So, sex is for enjoyment? Only? There need be nothing else involved... as a Christian [which you obviously are] you seem to be spreading rather a contrary message.

[quote]So, I guess you don't have anything against bestiality or adultery, then? Those are religious ideals.[/quote]
He was arguing against people who use a religious base [b]as their sole reason for disliking something[/b]. Geez, why can't people understand what they read?

[quote]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.[/quote]
Is it terribly different to anal sex? Not incredibly.

[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.

I cannot think of even 1 way a society would benefit from accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Keyword: benefit.[/quote]
Which means of course that children from single parent families [like me] are psychologically unstable. And what about partners who don't have children? Or can't. What should we do with them...pass a law saying that every couple must have two children? A boy and a girl?

[quote name='Afire']I'm sorry Maladjusted, but how could a child learn true communication with the opposite sex with two same sex parents? [/quote] Again, what about single parent families? And, what about schools, and socialising? And, if everybody acted how their parents did towards one another, men would still be able to beat their wives.

[quote name='Adahn']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?[/quote]
Actually, I don't. Based on what you've written, I think that the issue of love was not a factor in the Bible, and that the Bible places a ban on any sort of sexual actions between two men.

[quote name='Azurewolf']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).[/quote]
What do you mean? Are you saying that being sexually involved with another species is acceptable? That risking malformed offspring is acceptable? That taking advantage oif a child is acceptable? That desecrating the dead is acceptable? You tell me where it's acceptable. Go on. Which of those is acceptable?

[quote name='Drix][quote=Altron']I believe that you don't choose to be gay, it just is something you're born with,[/quote][/quote]
Drix, man, he is wrong, but so are you. Nobody is born to be genetically pre-disposed towards being gay, but at the same time, people do not actually choose to be gay.

[quote name='Drix']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] What you're saying there is not open mindedness, its foolishness. Openmindedness involves being open to the opinions of others...not necessarily taking them for your own.

[quote name='Drix']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?[/quote]
No he doesn't. Read higher up my post. As to why only [b]couples[/b] should get civil unions [or marriage, whatever] it is because the relationship is different. And the circumstances are different. There is a difference between 'couples' and 'friends'.

[quote name='Lunai']Some members, I would imagine, need to get out of high school and into the real world with the rest of us.[/quote] Azure is in college, or Uni, or whatever Americans call it. And just because someone is younger than you, or is still in the education system references nothing to their intelligence. Don't forget it.

[quote=Azurewolf]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual."
"Animals also do other species (see mule), so beastiality must be right as well."
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.[/quote]
Nobody said homosexuality was right because animals do it. It might not be right, but it shows that it is not entirely [b]unnatural[/b]. I'd say that humans are a lot diferent to a horse and a donkey though, wouldn't you? In terms of, oh, you know, intelligence and cognitive ability? And in terms of realising "Oh God, this isn't Lisa, [b]its my dog[/b]".

[quote=Azurewolf]"Why must you come between two people's love?!"
"You are right, we shouldn't come between this brother and sister."
Again, based on logic presented, hardly a farfetched thought.[/quote]
There is a victim in this. The children who may be born.

I'm hardly the one doing the twisting here Azure. In fact, I'd have to say that your points are doing a helluva lot of twisting. And mis-managing.

[Finally, after three whole pages of typing, I'm done][/size]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Lore][size=1][color=purple]Azure, can you read my post and tell me what you think? I'd like to know if you thought that made sense. (Not necessarily that you agree with it, but that it makes sense.)[/color'][/size][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I can't believe you would even THINK I skipped over your post. Of course I read it. :p Anyway, [QUOTE=Lore][size=1][color=purple]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, defining 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?[/color][/size][/QUOTE]Yeah, it makes perfect sense, and I agree 100%. You are right that "male + female" is not the only requirement for a legitimate marriage. I've been trying to point out the absolute differences between all possible types (and sub-types if you want to call it that) of love, so I'm with you there.

Why did you bring this up, out of curiosity? Does it support homosexuality? If so, how? What are you scheming?! O_O [quote name='Lore][size=1][color=purple]Side note: "Anime sexuality." Heh.[/color'][/size][/quote]Ack... You know, when proofreading, I saw "animal," and for some reason, I actually "corrected" it to "anime"... o_O [QUOTE=Lore][size=1][color=purple]In the past (not in this thread, that I've seen, but eh) one arguement I have seen [i]often[/i] against homosexuality is along these lines. "It's unnatural. No other species engages in homosexual activity."

So when people bring up evidence of homosexual activity in animals, I didn't view that as "Animals do it so it's okay!" It seems more that they are presenting evidence against a common (and by this point in time, almost [i]implicit[/i]) arguement against homosexuality.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]Thank you, Sara. This little bit of history clears up why people have been making a point to stress the animal fact. It works perfectly as a rebuttal, but doesn't really work as an opening argument. Because the reasoning before against homosexuality was that other animes don't practice it, of course the fact that they indeed do would be a huge blow.

However, I can't take responsibility for previous threads. At the same time, I understand the point people were trying to make and so there's no need to pursue the animal angle any further. Indeed, both sides were at fault for relying on it in the past. [quote name='The Baron-ator!']What do you mean? Are you saying that being sexually involved with another species is acceptable? That risking malformed offspring is acceptable? That taking advantage oif a child is acceptable? That desecrating the dead is acceptable? You tell me where it's acceptable. Go on. Which of those is acceptable?[/quote]Sorry I'm not formatting your text, Baron. Anyway, to address your point, you are now treading on another facet of sex: making love with infected or reproductively-unsound persons. Why should two people who genuinely love each other be forced not to make love because one of the partners has, say, HIV or Huntington's?

Ignoring that discussion, though (since it has nothing to do with the thread - yet), I would say you are implying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality is that it bears no disgruntled offspring. I'm willing to ignore the genomic and biological aspect of the argument and agree that homosexuality has a saving grace because it doesn't result in an unnatural "love child."

Yes, that takes care of the heterosexual versions of incest and bestiality. Now, what about homosexual incest and bestiality? I know I said I'm willing to ignore it, but based on your response, I may not be able to disregard the genomic and biological aspect this time around. *shrugs* [quote name='The Not Red But Still Cool Baron']Nobody said homosexuality was right because animals do it. It might not be right, but it shows that it is not entirely unnatural. I'd say that humans are a lot diferent to a horse and a donkey though, wouldn't you? In terms of, oh, you know, intelligence and cognitive ability? And in terms of realising "Oh God, this isn't Lisa, its my dog".[/quote] Yes, Sara has pointed out why people have been stating the whole animal thing, and so we won't have to go into an argument about whose interpretation is right, haha. Sara is indeed awesome.

While we don't need to argue the point any further since I was in the wrong (but only because the point was wrongly stated :p), I should point out that this paragraph seems a little hypocritical: you are saying that animal sexual behavior demonstrates how something is not entirely unnatural, and then you turn around and say that the animal sexual behavior between a horse and a donkey is too different to be applied to humans...[QUOTE]There is a victim in this. The children who may be born.

I'm hardly the one doing the twisting here Azure. In fact, I'd have to say that your points are doing a helluva lot of twisting. And mis-managing.[/QUOTE] "Love child" argument again, huh? I'm not doing any twisting, and I don't recall saying that you specifically made any twisting of any sort. If you want, change the "brother and sister" to "brother and brother," but my point still stands: the points presented just aren't logically sound.

Just one last point: if it's about having kids, well, homosexuals aren't the only ones who have ways around that. ;)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote=Azurewolf]Sorry I'm not formatting your text, Baron. Anyway, to address your point, you are now treading on another facet of sex: making love with infected or reproductively-unsound persons. Why should two people who genuinely love each other be forced not to make love because one of the partners has, say, HIV or Huntington's?

Ignoring that discussion, though (since it has nothing to do with the thread - yet), I would say you are implying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality is that it bears no disgruntled offspring. I'm willing to ignore the genomic and biological aspect of the argument and agree that homosexuality has a saving grace because it doesn't result in an unnatural "love child."

Yes, that takes care of the heterosexual versions of incest and bestiality. Now, what about homosexual incest and bestiality? I know I said I'm willing to ignore it, but based on your response, I may not be able to disregard the genomic and biological aspect this time around. *shrugs*[/quote]
Thats OK Azure. I don't format when I quote. Plus I don't know who uses what, really, lol.

Essentially, I was referring to incest, and whether incest rights should even be an issue, what with the danger of a malformed child being produced. I was touching lightly on why each of those issues [incest, beastiality, pedophilia and necrophilia] could not really have any points applied to them [in favour]. Because doing that would be condoning actions that truly do harm society.

So, I wasn't saying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality was the offspring thing. That was my argument against incest, lol.

Incest is wrong, but technically, you could say that there is nothing wrong with it as it doesn't produce offspring. The fact is though, that offspring is only one of the reasons people look down on incestual practices.

[quote=Azure 'is teh cool' Wolf] Yes, Sara has pointed out why people have been stating the whole animal thing, and so we won't have to go into an argument about whose interpretation is right, haha. Sara is indeed awesome.

While we don't need to argue the point any further since I was in the wrong (but only because the point was wrongly stated :p), I should point out that this paragraph seems a little hypocritical: you are saying that animal sexual behavior demonstrates how something is not entirely unnatural, and then you turn around and say that the animal sexual behavior between a horse and a donkey is too different to be applied to humans...[/quote]
Heh. I was refrring to other threads [lol] where it has been proven that other animals do indulge in homosexual practices. Which proves homosexuality is not unnatural. The other part of that quote you, err, quoted [again: lol] was to reference the 'cross-species' mating of horses and donkeys to produce mules. And to show that beastiality was wrong, lol.

[quote name='Teh Wolf'] "Love child" argument again, huh? I'm not doing any twisting, and I don't recall saying that you specifically made any twisting of any sort. If you want, change the "brother and sister" to "brother and brother," but my point still stands: the points presented just aren't logically sound.[/quote]
You referenced 'brother and sister', and I said that there is a victim. People have been stating that 'it's only wrong if it hurts someone' and the person hurt in this case, would be any offspring. Incest on any level is wrong though, whether or not it produces offspring.

That 'twisting' comment was right after my last quote [ie. from your post] and said something like 'You can twist these comments around to fit your purposes' [or something, lol] and I was saying that I thought your comments were very twisted, because you didn't look at all the facts.

But now I feel awful, because I felt vindictive when writing my previous post, but you were so cool :p

So, in the name of good sport: Reply.

-Josh XD[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Are we discussing homosexuality or vegatarianism?

I'm too lazy to wade through 9 pages of debate so I'll just say this:

Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but it also says that having relations with a woman during her period is wrong and so is wearing clothes made with more than one fabric. The Bible says that you can beat your children or sell them for slaves.

But the Bible also has a lot of things to say about how you should love your neighbor, how God loves everyone and that Jesus told a crown of people once: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Bible has a lot more to say about love than hate so maybe those who subscribe to a Judeo Christian tradition and read their Bibles should skip over the part about how God hates everyone and read more about love.

Other than that I don't have much else to add and I'll let people debate as they wish.[/color][/QUOTE]

Why do you post the Bible when you obviously have no idea what the texts hold? Having sex with a woman during her period was considered ?unclean? for the same reason the Torah instructed the Jews not to eat pork; it was a survival mechanism. Just as hogs were quite dirty, endangering the fragile Jewish population, blood is an excellent vector for disease, and infection. As for the ?wearing of two threads?, that deals with linen and cotton, because linen was the official fabric of the priesthood, and the wearing of those threads would defile some of the sanctity of the temple. As for child-slavery.. I don?t know who was cut and pasting your version of the Bible, but could you please, please provide some sort of reference to that?

Besides, I doubt anyone here actually [b]hates[/b] gay people. I don?t. I?ve said that I really don?t mind that they are gay; I just don?t believe it should be a part of our government. I don?t believe we should change this particular institution.

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
And if men are going to marry their sons all of a sudden, why aren't they already marrying their daughters? [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Uhh, I?m pretty sure in several key states they have tried.

I mentioned this to Alex and Erik earlier, but every time I have to quote this guy I feel like I?m committing child abuse.
[quote name='Altron']I would like to know what you think what could possibly happen if we let gays marry each other. They're still going to have relations with each other, if that's what you're worried about. I fail to see a negative. [/quote]

Have you even paid attention to the ?slippery slope? argument? Hey, I don?t hold the keys to the future, but I don?t believe our country really needs to destroy one institution that holds meaning to me.

[QUOTE=Altron]
Besides, all of this stuff is pretty close to segregation and such back in the 60's. Why did white people want to keep black people away from them? Not quite sure, but black people weren't gonna go shoot them all to death if they were allowed to drink at the same water fountain. I'll try plugging in racist responses to Adahn's sentense frames. Both issues are/were opposed, in the same general manner, and both issues are/were very controversial.
If we let black people into our neighborhoods, who know what might happen? We're opening the door, and we don't know what's on the other side. For all we know, they could bring in poverty, crime, and whatever else. We don't want America degenerating into that, do we? [/QUOTE]

Glory, glory Hallelujah! If it isn?t the ?I don?t care if you think it is immoral? ?we shouldn?t use religion to justify anything? argument biting itself in the ***. Newsflash? without a religious argument as the moral foundation in the ?60s the Civil Rights movement wouldn?t have happened ^_^. Ouch, that?s gotta sting.

[QUOTE=Altron]
Sorry if that offended you, but do you see the similarity? Both arguments don't have much ground to stand on. White folk were just racist and scared back then. Now, I don't see the ground where you stand on, saying that gays could degenerate the world into a 'blood orgy,' or could 'worsen the world for everyone else.'[/QUOTE]

Hey, people are going to steal. No matter what we do, thousands of dollars worth of property is probably stolen in my county alone! I mean? no use trying to regulate it because it?s just going to happen anyway! Here?s an idea? let?s make only petty theft legal, then crime will drop. I know the comparison is a rough one, but look at it from a moral perspective. Stealing is wrong. I think homosexuality is wrong. I do not want my government to recognize the practice as being as morally sound as the current man+woman conception of marriage. God forbid I don?t want those rules changed?

Here?s another analogy. Next time you play soccer, play offense. When the ball reaches you, pick it up and throw it in the goal. Declare to everyone that you have scored a point. If anyone refuses to accept your goal, just say they are prejudice and cannot accept the fact that you put the ball in the net just like everyone else, you are just a little different in the actual ?practice?. No big deal? Actually, not really? I?ll just play another game of soccer with my friends who won?t pick up the ball with their hands? not only that, if this hand-soccer fellow wants to play his version of soccer with his buddies I won?t try to stop him. Now, let?s say this person decides he wants to change the rules for [b]everyone[/b]. That?s how the current defense of marriage advocates feel. We?re not being forced to play soccer with our hands, but the rules are changed for good.

Here?s the tie in to the slippery slope argument: Let?s say another guy plays soccer an entirely different way? he scores on his own team and counts it as a goal for himself.. etc. The point being, if one guy can change the rules for everyone, why can?t another guy do the same exact thing? How can one say homosexual marriage is OK but incest is not?

[QUOTE=Altron]
And when you think about it, for every decision our country makes, there is always the chance that things will go wrong, and we will be significantly wounded as a country. It's like not wanting to drive in a car, for fear that you might crash and die. There is always a chance, however low, that you will crash, but you should just go ahead and live your life. That analogy wasn't exactly perfect, because gay marriages don't have as high a chance of hurting either person as driving in a car does.[/QUOTE]

Swing and a miss?.

Edit: Quickly after reading Baron's post.. I noticed that you said incest, bestiality, etc "harm society". How exactly does homosexuality benefit society?

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]How do heterosexuals who purposely choose not to have children benefit society? As I said in an earlier post, "What should we do with them...pass a law saying that every couple must have two children? A boy and a girl?"

Homosexuals do not harm society. Beastiality brings us back to a period when sex was instinctive...and lacked any 'connection'. It harms society. Incest is dangerous, and goes against all moral values, not just religious ones.[/size]

[Break]

[color=purple]I think you're both addressing homosexuality completely the wrong way. It's not a case of benefiting society or harming society - I could say someone of any sexual preference does any of these things, simply on their behaviour, e.g. a murderer who is homosexual or a really successful business man who commits incest.

You should not argue a case for or against homosexuality based on what homosexuals do for society, then I could say "Oooh I know a heterosexual - perfectly nice guy and all - who has not got a job, he is doing nothing for society." It doesn't work like that. If people were sorted based on what they did for society, there would be a very few number of 'good' people.

However things like incest [i]do[/i] harm society because offspring as a result of incest can be physically and mentally quite weak (all families' genes stay with the children, undesirable recessive alelles linger). So, homosexuals do not harm society - in fact homosexuals do not harm [i]anyone[/i], unless you are biggoted in your views.

As long as something does not affect me, even in the slightest way, then I can tolerate it very readily. There's a gay guy at college, I talk to him just as much as I did before I knew he was gay. He's a nice guy, and the fact that he is gay does not move me in the slightest. Perhaps if everyone was like this society would not be harmed by conflict [i]between[/i] homosexuals and heterosexuals. Yes, that's right. Homosexuals do not directly harm society, no not at all. But the tension that it creates among the... intolerant among us [i]does[/i] harm society. Perhaps this is what your argument is missing.[/color]

[Sword Breaker]

Frankly, nothing bad happens due to gay marrage. Recently, Paul Martin passed a bill that allows gay marrige in Canada, and thingsa are just fine. Hell, things are better!

Besides, gays aren't harmful in the least!

Somthing I really don't get is why people think that others shouldn't be politicians if they're gay! Like the senetor/guy who stepped down a while ago, because he said he was gay. That doesn't make sense! I still don't understand that. Is it because there are to many homophobic people? Anyway, I don't live in the US so I have no idea. Confuses me, to say the least.

[Retribution]

Man... stop twisting my words around.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Have you even paid attention to the ?slippery slope? argument? Hey, I don?t hold the keys to the future, but I don?t believe our country really needs to destroy one institution that holds meaning to me.[/quote]
Slippery slope? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Is that something like if gays can marry, why not let other things happen too? Just asking.

[quote]
Glory, glory Hallelujah! If it isn?t the ?I don?t care if you think it is immoral? ?we shouldn?t use religion to justify anything? argument biting itself in the ***. Newsflash? without a religious argument as the moral foundation in the ?60s the Civil Rights movement wouldn?t have happened ^_^. Ouch, that?s gotta sting.[/quote]
I wasn't referring to how it [segregation] ended, only to how it began. I wasn't talking about how black people got equal rights, only why white folk were afraid/hateful, and was relating it to the way people seem to be treating homosexuality. Obviously, homosexuals aren't getting discriminated as harshly, such as being banned from drinking from the same water fountain as straight people, but it's still there in the form of denying them marriage.

Of course there was a strong religious arguement, but one could also logic their way through it. Why would one group of people be considered better than the other because of their skin color? I bet that's what a lot of black people were thinking. Why do they get to have better stuff, more priveledges etc? People naturally don't like being ruled over, so it was mostly religion, but also a little human nature. If people had religion, but no human nature or logic, it wouldnt've happened either. They would think 'aww... this sucks. my religion says their wrong and we're all equal. oh well.' They would've have no desire to rise up.

[quote]God forbid I don?t want those rules changed?[/quote]
You're entitled to your own opinion.

[quote]How can one say homosexual marriage is OK but incest is not?[/quote] See my response below...

[quote]Swing and a miss?.[/quote]
... I know it wasn't too effective of an analogy.

[quote]How exactly does homosexuality benefit society?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't benefit society as a whole, but it doesn't hurt it either. There won't be retarded children coming from a homosexual marriage. I think if children could come out alright as much of the time with an incestual union as with a non-family union, why not?

Like I said, it makes the gay people who want to marry happy, and it's not hurting you or your family, or your neighborhood. If it makes some people happy and doesn't benefit others, but doesn't cost/hurt them either, why would it be a question of 'Does it benefit society.'?

[Godelsensei]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Have you even paid attention to the ?slippery slope? argument? Hey, I don?t hold the keys to the future, but I don?t believe our country really needs to destroy one institution that holds meaning to me.[/quote]
[COLOR=Gray]
[FONT=Courier New]Since marriage is such a significant institution all over the world and is something that most people value very strongly, why should a specific group of people be disallowed from taking part in it?

You can't control whether or not you're gay, and you can't control the shade of your skin.

Additionally, what about couples married at City Hall, whose being wed is completely unrelated to the Church? Are they not considered married?
Marriage is a significant legal practice, more than anything else. To be "married" is no longer a religious statement. It's a contract that allows two people to set up their own family unit, intact with shared posessions and custody of children. (Unless they get divorced, of course.)

The whole, "Gay people are destroying marriage!!!!!1!!!1one" argument is basically invalid.

Maybe they're destroying [i]Christian[/i] marriage, but that isn't what society considers marriage to be any more.

Gay people marrying is offending you, and, as an atheist, gay people not being allowed to marry offends me.

Incest makes no sense.

I believe homosexuality is, as Azure-jiji suggested, a disorder of sorts, but does not defy the purpose of reproduction, when you think about it along those terms.
Homosexuality is a woman having a man's sexual orientation, or vice versa, and that orientation would be towards females, for the purpose of reproduction. So you could say something is wired incorrectly, but it still makes sense, unlike incest which simply does not.
It's going off on a tangent, but I think you learn to not be attracted to your own family. If you grow up with your older brother, for instance, you subconciously know that you should not be attracted to him. If you met your brother after being seperated your entire lives, not knowing he was your brother, you might be attracted to him, however.
Oedipus-like, and all.

Since humans have sex for fun, specifically, more often than not, anyway, the "unnatural" argument also flies out the window. It doesn't really make too much sense to run around fornicating for no reason, as far as evolution goes, but we do it anyway.
So, if the purpose of sex isn't to reproduce, why does it matter if it can result in reproduction or not?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='Break']I think you're both addressing homosexuality completely the wrong way.[/quote] In case any of that was aimed at me, I would like to clarify that I believe what you said. Other people have referred to homosexuality as harming society...which is crap. So, thats where I was coming from.[/size]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]That 'twisting' comment was right after my last quote [ie. from your post] and said something like 'You can twist these comments around to fit your purposes' [or something, lol] and I was saying that I thought your comments were very twisted, because you didn't look at all the facts.

But now I feel awful, because I felt vindictive when writing my previous post, but you were so cool

So, in the name of good sport: Reply.[/size][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I quoted you? O_o Are you referring to the bold text in my edit, where I state the [B]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual"[/B] and the [B]"Why must you come between two people's love"[/B] comments? I wasn't quoting anyone specific (or else I would have used quote tags). I was just showing the only two arguments pro-homosexuals have presented, and demonstrating why they are flawed.

And if I did quote you, I seriously don't remember and apologize if I was harsh.

I didn't really notice anything vindictive. Baron, maybe you are just too nice a person and your definition of "mean" is rather PG compared to other people's. :p The only reason I even played around with the quote tags when quoting you was that I formatted Sara's text but not yours, heh.

ANYWAY, I'm removing myself from this discussion (thanks anyway Baron: the invitation is appreciated). No, I wasn't forced into a corner (I really wanted to talk about the scientific angle a little more, heh), but other discussions beckon. This thread is just too active and fast to keep up with, haha.

I had fun, and I'm very thankful that everyone (except Lunai) was very curteous in their responses to me.

In closing, I would just like to reiterate my stance:
[i]There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual, but trudging along that path and committing homosexual deeds (i.e., guy-on-guy action) is wrong. I know a lot of people prefer to use "nicer" examples when relating to homosexuality, such as two heterosexuals or Martin Luther King Jr., but I see homosexuality along the lines of, say, alcoholics. In other words, the biggest problem lies in the first step: admitting something is wrong.

After admitting that, I would have liked to have seen where this discussion would have went, but the "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" stance would not budge, even though I still feel a sound reasoning behind the stance was never developed (at least as of this writing).

Most importantly, I'm a huge fan of using your gut instinct (or even your religion) to determine if something is right or wrong. However, it's just not something that a discussion can use. So, if you, some heterosexual, feels that homosexuality is right just because it "feels" right or "should be" right, that's cool with me, heh.[/i][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='Azure']I quoted you? O_o Are you referring to the bold text in my edit, where I state the "Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual" and the "Why must you come between two people's love" comments? I wasn't quoting anyone specific (or else I would have used quote tags). I was just showing the only two arguments pro-homosexuals have presented, and demonstrating why they are flawed.[/quote]
No..err. I don't think I wrote that paragraph very well. lol. I quoted you, but the quote of yours that I used was directly above the twisting comment that you made in your own post. I think.

Yes, thats it, lol.[/size]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1][[I]Tries to count how many times these threads have appeared in the last 6 months but fails due to the results huge number[/i]]

Well my own opinions on homosexuality are only too well known, myself, Jordan [Drix] and Dave [Boba] have consistently given our reasons why we oppose gay marriage. They appear to have got to this thread a few times before I have, in fact I?m trying to steer clear of these threads because they always end the same way with people saying things they regret and the thread itself getting closed. Personally I don?t honestly mind whether or not someone is homosexual, as a Catholic maybe I should because the orientation of being homosexual is considered a sin, as is gay intercourse. What annoys me is when people start clamouring to flame the Church because it and their particular set of views clash, one particular quote from Transtic Nerve about the Pontiff comes to mind, however I will not repeat it. As a Catholic I use the morals set down by the Church as well as some common sense to formulate a good working idea of what?s right and wrong, after all the Church was founded to be a institution of Good.

Although I don?t mind homosexuals when it comes to them looking for the right to marry, that?s when the red light starts flashing in my mind. Because I consider a ?marriage? to be a ceremony performed in a Church it is a sacred blessing, and since homosexuality is considered a sin (as said by Pope John Paul II a few months back) then I cannot support the defilement of the sacrament. I don?t think that giving gay people the rights of a married couple is acceptable, yes the may love each other but they cannot fulfil the singular reason of a couple, they cannot produce children. Now yes I?m aware of practices that allow lesbian couples to have children however the child is not both of theirs and is merely a case of Artificial Insemination. Recently in Ireland a pair of Canadian lesbians looked to have their marriage recognised under Irish Law, unfortunately for them Ireland is still a very Catholic country and their request was denied. I personally was happy about this because I would view the acceptance of their marriage as legal would open the floodgates for others to look for gay marriage, something which I think would destroy the institution of marriage.

I personally don?t accept that marriage has ever changed from what it first was, many of the founded governments of many countries have specific religious backgrounds (the Founding Fathers of America for instance). Religious morals are built into every society, they were the founding blocks of what was good and what was evil in times past, yes certain zealots used those beliefs to commit wrongs but the beliefs themselves are inherently good. People who say that religious morals play not part of society are blindly dismissing their own pasts, whether that faith be Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism or any other faith the morals set down in those faith have shaped the world we live in. I accept that I?ve got slightly off point but what I just said I felt needed to be said before I progressed any further with this post. I think the comparisons between the movement for gay marriage and gay ?rights? and the Civil Rights Movements are farce, black people were being oppressed because of their skin colour. However they like couple from every other race are capable of continuing the species, homosexuals are [b]not[/b], plain and simple.

My opinions have once again been given in one of these threads, now all I wait for is for someone to start quoting me, stuff to get personal, and eventually for the thread of be closed.[/SIZE]