Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Darren'] [SIZE="1"]This is the part that I don't get. I agree with you on the point that you feel gay marriage infringes on your personal rights, but you bring up the definition of marriage. I understand that the country defines traditional marriage as a union between man/woman due to it's Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it seems that your personal definition is a union between two people who simply love each other. Is that about right? You've said repeatedly that "Sex =/= Love," and I agree with that statement whole-heartedly, but let's also not forget that humans are one of the few mammals on this planet that engage in intercourse simply for pleasure. Not everyone can deny their primal lusts and instincts simply because some consider it immoral.
But that's really beside the point. I personally believe that love leads to sex, but it's not necessarily for reproduction. if a married couple wants to have a child, yes they do have sex, but they also have sex simply for pleasure. Are you implying that it's always wrong to have sex (even for a married couple) unless you have the intent of reproduction, thus making it wrong for gays simply because they can never have kids?
I'm just trying to understand your personal definition here because your views are very confusing. You've even said here:[/SIZE]

[SIZE="1"]So, if I understand your definition of marriage correctly, this statement implies that you're okay with gay/lesbian marriage as long as the relationship is really based on love rather than sex/lust. If that's the case, then the previous statement is a contradiction.
Also, I believe what Vicky, Esther, and I are talking about here is sexual orientation, not preferences. Yes, I believe there is a big difference, but that's a debate for another time.[/SIZE][/quote]

Well, before I respond to the point, I’d like to indicate that the initial condition (Definition of marriage due to Judeo-Christian beliefs) is not true. The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman isn’t just Judeo-Christian. It is standard set down from the earliest of cultures:
[url]http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58[/url]
is an interesting link about how marriage rituals and rights go back as far as Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Back then, marriages were over property and children, and were only between members of the opposite sex. When researching other early cultures (Mayans and Egyptians, for example), similar ideals apply.

For my personal definition of marriage, it is the legal and biological union between a man and a woman. Marriages will operate better on every level with a love relationship present, and this I do encourage. The biggest point with my emphasis between divorcing sex and love is to divorce the romantic ideal of lust and love being the same thing. Any relationship that has love (from brother to sister, friend to friend, parent to offspring, ect.) can exist outside of a sexual relationship. To bring a relationship to a sexual relationship is a choice, and it is also a bit arbitrary (existential fulfillment and acceptance being defined by sexual intercourse is a cultural aspect. Nothing more).

In regards to sex only as an act of reproduction: there is not that much of a finite definition for sex. A common mistake of the conservative position is to think that marriages are only “means to” having children. This is not the truth of the matter. Marriage is “ordered towards” having children, and the nature of marriage that makes it ordered toward having children (including the sexual aspect of the relationship) is itself good enough to be a means to have marriage on its own, even if procreation is not possible or present. Same-sex marriages would not be ordered toward having children, for they lack the dichotomous relationship that exists between a man and a woman, the idea that the biological interaction is a means for having children, and the possibility of having children.

The question that I asked that helped me define this stance was the following: If love and sex are independent, then why doesn’t male person (a) just fall in love with female person (b) and marry in that relationship, rather than the relationship between male person (a) and another male person (c)? Homosexuals already do marry members of the opposite sex, and have a relationship with that spouse. So, for what reason would they re-define the objective definition of marriage? And even more, what reason would the common man agree with them over it? The answer I came to was the one that I fight against today: That the romantic connotation of marriage is being applied as an expression of freedom and acceptance towards the practice of free intercourse. That is what the whole issue is about: Freedom, and your freedom being condoned.

Same-sex marriages will only be marriages under one condition: The thousands of years of the historical meaning and purpose of marriage and definitions for sexual interaction are cast aside for pathological fulfillment in both sexual desires, and freedom from criticism. At nearly every point in this conversion, I disagree with the purpose for doing so.


[quote name='Darren'] [SIZE="1"]Yes, you can. Through brainwash and mental torture. For the homosexuals who actually chose to be gay, I think it's vastly experimentation and they're never really gay; just bicurious. But I believe that there are some people who are born that way and statistics have also proven that the methods used to cure someone of homosexuality either fail or the homosexual in question revert back to their old tendencies later on in life.[/SIZE][/quote]
An ineffective method does not mean an incorrect cause. After reading a few articles by therapists for reparative treatment for homosexuals, I discovered that I was going about fixing issues the wrong way. Similar to how a bad method for fixing a smoking habit doesn’t mean that the smoking habit is natural or incurable. Will it always be successful? The answer is no, it will not. Therapy for nearly every issue has proven that it is not successful 100% of the time. But you shouldn’t be so apt to say that someone who is concerned with changing someone’s sexual orientation is resorting to brainwash and mental torture. Ex-homosexuals already face way too much discrimination for violating the paradigm that idolizes freedom facing adversity.

[quote name='Darren'] [SIZE="1"]Obviously, statistics will show that the straight couples show more promising results in raising a child. The reason is simply because nearly every family has a mother/father, (step-parents included) whereas two men/women families are fairly recent and looked down upon by the majority. For the statistics that aren't biased, the rest can be attributed to the fact that the numbers aren't available to compare to the "regular" families because the American government has made it difficult for that to ever happen.
There have also been statistics showing how divorce, abuse, etc. can really effect a child. The numbers show that while gay parents' children may face a harder childhood, children of "regular" families have a harder time coping with life after they've left home. So again, there's no accurate way to prove either side of the story, and the statistics have shown that the only reason why children of gay couples face a rough childhood is because they're bullied in school and that point has already been covered by Esther and Vicky.

Really, I don't see the need for the argument. Things will change eventually, regardless of what Crimson Spider and the numerous other people I know believe. It's just going to take time. Views change throughout history. It's not going to stop here.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
There is much more behind the troubles that children of same-sex parents face other than the sting of the un-accepting masses. Children are not so stupid that they will be unable to realize that their family dichotomy is different, that they have a different relationship than everyone else, and their “parents” only act in one manner toward each other. The ideal that relationships will take willful ignorance to their nature is an ideal that is impossible. People will never be so dumb that they can’t observe their environment and then criticize it.

Statistics can also do something called a “weighted average”. This is when they take percentages based on the particular phenomena, and then scale those numbers to give an occurrence rate for any particular phenomena within that group. It is these averages that are lacking, since the vast majority of same-sex couples with kids have children carried over from a divorce, so the factor in question is not isolated. Even then, I’m sure any unbiased evaluations will show a higher occurrence rate of problems from the ideal norm. It is impossible for it not to, since any change in a condition as fundamental as the gender of the parent will undoubtedly affect that child.


[quote name='Esther']
[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Like I've said so many times before in this debate: this shouldn't be a vote, this shouldn't be a debate, this should be a given. Those of us in favor of same-sex marriage are not in favor of creating laws to limit your freedom of speech. We're in favor of [I]amending[/I] laws to ensure that every law-abiding citizen in this nation has the same rights as the law-abiding citizen next to them.

Before this country can sit on a pedstal and proclaim our supposed tolerance to the rest of the world, we must practice what we preach. We cannot truthfully call ourselves the "home of the free" when we ourselves refuse to live by the very statement. [/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Oh, how I wish it were true. Too bad it isn't.

[url]http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-09-19[/url]

Documents how the "hate crime legislation" is really being used as a "silence critics". The reason why is because, well, this is an issue about authority and freedom. It is given that legalizing same-sex marriages won't do a thing to stop the discrimination against them, and that is the ultimate goal of homosexual activism. Things have and are taking the next step in various other nations.

The people rule, unfortunately. Darren is right: Things will change, just as they always have. We currently have legislation that will make our grandparents roll in their graves, and in the future we will see legislation from our grandchildren that will make us want to turn in the afterlife. What will not change, however, is me. I continue to hold my stances, and the current activism’s goal is to just try and ostracize and insult and undermine my position until I am out-ruled by popular opinion. In the end, they are putting a culture change to make me the enemy.

Whether or not you yourself do this personally is not so important. But you have to acknowledge this presence.

The people rule, unfortunately, and they don't necessarily have to be correct to make a law. If they are convinced that atheists should rule the courts (violating the precedent that avoids any religious discrimination because it creates a church of secularism), and that the mushy gushy feel good cultural idea attached to an institution is more objective than the objective definition, or that any logic other than generalized freedom speeches that take willful ignorance to the issue for a "greater good" are all that is required for legalization, and even that their actions are wholly justified if they can point the finger and claim "This man is dumb, and therefore I can do what I want!" then they will do this.

The universe operates by objectivity and logic. Humans do not.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The question that I asked that helped me define this stance was the following: If love and sex are independent, then why doesn’t male person (a) just fall in love with female person (b) and marry in that relationship, rather than the relationship between male person (a) and another male person (c)? Homosexuals already do marry members of the opposite sex, and have a relationship with that spouse. So, for what reason would they re-define the objective definition of marriage? And even more, what reason would the common man agree with them over it? The answer I came to was the one that I fight against today: That the romantic connotation of marriage is being applied as an expression of freedom and acceptance towards the practice of free intercourse. That is what the whole issue is about: Freedom, and your freedom being condoned.

Same-sex marriages will only be marriages under one condition: The thousands of years of the historical meaning and purpose of marriage and definitions for sexual interaction are cast aside for pathological fulfillment in both sexual desires, and freedom from criticism. At nearly every point in this conversion, I disagree with the purpose for doing so.[/QUOTE]

So - and correct me if I'm wrong here - it is your understanding that two people of the same gender cannot be in love with each other because, from what you say, whatever they think they feel is only a justification of lust?

You have gay couples who have been with each other for decades sometimes, in stable, committed relationships. Do you think they are deceived by lust? The only reason they can't marry is because the law won't allow it. Living together that long, they would already be defined as a common law marriage, except they can't even have that recognition because they are both of the same gender.

Lust is a condition that can affect anyone, no matter what your orientation is. Heterosexuals can lead wild, lustful lives as well. To say what all gay people are feeling is only lust cheapens and demeans the emotional connection between two people.

If anyone who has come out as homosexual has been in a marriage with someone of the opposite gender, it's usually because they were trying to hide their nature from themselves, family, friends, the community, etc. They were trying to conform to society's expectations. Many have come out after living those lives for many years.

And people are too quick to apply this "traditional definition of marriage" defense. Marriage has also, for many thousands of years, been about enhancing social status and gaining more power, back when women were considered property, and the idea of love was not always considered.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I said love exists outside of sex. Two people of the same gender can be love each other, regardless of any sexual interaction. BTW, this is assuming that when you say the phrase "in love", this has a the connotation of sexual attraction.

If you love another person of the same gender, that means nothing towards your sexual orientation, preferences, or your actions. That only becomes an issue when you make the relationship one that has sex as part of its foundations.

Heterosexual couples as of late are also committing the exact same problem, which is why I say that the issue is greater than whether or not a vast and mostly hidden minority can see each other on their death bed. In fact, the culture that breeds heterosexual couples based around lust is the one that breeds the other, more minor side-effect.

The fly by marriages bred only for money and lustful passion, those are not to be encouraged by anyone, regardless of gender.


I wouldn't say that a homosexual in a same-sex marriage only does so because they are trying to hide their identity. That devalues the relationship into one only being for the function of lying and leeching off of the government.


Also, according to ancient Egyptian marriage customs ([url]http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/womneg.htm[/url]), women had plenty of rights as far back as then. But really, saying that you should allow same-sex marriages because obscure culture X had particular unacceptable laws W, Y, and Z is a red-herring towards the real issue: Why it is that the objective definition of marriage is being changed. My clarification towards Darren wasn't any sort of argument on the matter, but really to show that the No True Scotsman Fallacy that the only people to ever disagree with homosexual activities are irrational Bible thumpers is an incorrect assumption. No, you will find my original argument against legalizing same-sex a few pages back had little to do with marriage in the past.

[Nony]

This thread seems to have transformed from just a question of homosexuality being right or wrong to one of gay marriage being acceptable or not. Although the two are interrelated, I'd like to address the former option a bit more.

But first, I want to reply to this:

[quote name='TimeChaser']Since most of the argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry is couched in religious belief, I see this as a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. You cannot make laws that are clearly biased toward a particular religious view.[/QUOTE]

Separation of church and state simply means the government can't support any particular religion; basically, the Founding Fathers didn't want another Church of England happening. But, if it just so happens that the majority of Americans are religious, then the laws will naturally reflect that and I don't consider that a violation of the separation of church and state at all.
The problem that often comes about when people use the separation of church and state argument is the implication that people who happen to be religious are not allowed to hold their own points of views if those views also happen to be something their religion teaches.
Everyone has their own set of morals. Everyone has an idea of what they think is right. To deny someone else that right to vote for what they consider is right would be discriminating. From there, it's a decision of whether or not what we're voting for or against may not be discriminatory in the first place.

In regards to the morality of being homosexual, I like the statement Allamorph made awhile back: "Hating the sin, loving the sinner." That's my personal viewpoint, and it just so happens to lie within the realms of Christian theology.
The argument that Christians shouldn't follow rules and/or guidelines set in the Bible because it was written ages ago is a ridiculous argument. Of course we shouldn't take [i]everything[/i] the Bible states as pure fact; some of the things written in there were very cultural and specific to the time. But then there is also a lot of things in there that are still applicable to our day and can be used for our continued benefit. Although human thought may seem to change, human beings have pretty much been the same throughout history. That's the major reason I could give for why the morals given in the Bible are still good ones to keep today.

And now that leads me into the homosexual rights issue. Again, it's more about loving the sinner and hating the sin than anything. As I believe Crimson implied before, if we think someone is doing something we believe to be unhealthy, we'll try to stop them.
One of the questions of being homosexual is a matter of health. In the same way that I would discourage a prostitute to sleep with strange men, so would I do for homosexuals. It's partly about misusing sex and abusing the person's body. Why does religious theology warn against sex before marriage? Because there are serious health benefits if someone sleeps with a lot of people and doesn't protect themself. We have condoms nowadays to help prevent things like AIDS, so that helps.

But then, when we move from health benefits - which should seem clear to anyone, religious or not - to questions of morality, that's really when we tread in dangerous territory.
Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me, but I believe that morally homosexuality is wrong. This doesn't mean I hate people who are gay or that I judge them as more "sinful" than anyone else. It's rather straightfoward, I think. Similarly, I would think it morally wrong for someone to have sex before marriage, yet plenty would also disagree with me there. But I believe following these moral "laws" is also a form of keeping oneself healthy.
And from there, I'm not quite sure how to expand my argument, at least for now. Just as a note: there's a lot of things I would say are morally wrong and I wish people wouldn't do, such as stealing, murder, greed, etc etc.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Miss Anonymous']The problem that often comes about when people use the separation of church and state argument is the implication that people who happen to be religious are not allowed to hold their own points of views if those views also happen to be something their religion teaches.
Everyone has their own set of morals. Everyone has an idea of what they think is right. To deny someone else that right to vote for what they consider is right would be discriminating. From there, it's a decision of whether or not what we're voting for or against may not be discriminatory in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I maintain what I said in my first post in this thread: The rights of people are not up for vote.

Again I turn to the example of African American rights, as well as Womens' Suffrage. Both of these were denied in the past, and religion was often used as a justification African Americans finally won recognition of their rights by law. It wasn't something people were given the choice to vote on, because their rights were recognized as fundamental because we are all human beings.

You can still be free to disagree and see things from the way your beliefs tell you to, because that is your right. Allowing other people to enjoy their rights is not an absolute restriction of your opinion. But why can that opinion be translated into laws for all of us, when we don't all believe the same thing? Why should I respect a law based in a certain religious viewpoint, when I am not of that religion? Making laws based on any one particular interpretation of religion is a dangerous step back toward theocracy.

I don't think we'll ever be able to come to an accord on the question of whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong", on the grounds that everyone does have their own opinion about it. Given that, what's really important is the issue of civil rights.

And to address Crimson Spider:

[B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B]

I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Mr. Blonde]

I've looked at this thread multiple times but anger. frustration and not wanting to type out a 30 page post have prevented me from doing so. But now I only have one thing to say:


Gay rights is human rights. I don't care how you were raised, what you believe in or what you were told as a kid. Get over it and except the fact that people exist and behave outside of the protective bubble of Jesus and gumdrops that have shielded you from the real world.

And Crimson, quoting babylonian and egyptian definitions of marriage... Really?
It's 2008, times change, definitions change, laws change. And thats exactly why sacrificing goats is no longer socially exceptable.

People have a hard time coming to terms with modern ideals because they're holding true the words of men that died thousands of years ago, Grow up.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Couple of things I want to hit for clarity.

[quote name='Miss Anonymous]Of course we shouldn't take [i]everything[/i'] the Bible states as pure fact; some of the things written in there were very cultural and specific to the time.[/quote]
Pure fact? Yes. Whole darn thing. (As long as we can make certain there weren't additions made to the text, Beowulf style. Yeesh.)

[I]Applicable?[/I] Ehh. Laws against eating pigs and other unclean animals were overtly struck in one of Peter's visions. (Acts, I believe.) Laws governing not shaving beards or sideburns are also rather silly. So yes, discrimination based on time and purpose is necessary.

[QUOTE=TimeChaser][B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B]

I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Love is love. A flower is a flower. Love is not a flower.

The statements are equivalent. However, both sex [I]and[/I] flowers can be used as [U]tools[/U] to express love.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Katakidoushi[/COLOR], how 'bout we leave the pointless slamming out of this, neh?[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']I've looked at this thread multiple times but anger. frustration and not wanting to type out a 30 page post have prevented me from doing so. But now I only have one thing to say:


Gay rights is human rights. I don't care how you were raised, what you believe in or what you were told as a kid. Get over it and except the fact that people exist and behave outside of the protective bubble of Jesus and gumdrops that have shielded you from the real world.

And Crimson, quoting babylonian and egyptian definitions of marriage... Really?
It's 2008, times change, definitions change, laws change. And thats exactly why sacrificing goats is no longer socially exceptable.

People have a hard time coming to terms with modern ideals because they're holding true the words of men that died thousands of years ago, Grow up.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Crap. I really didn't want to get back into this debate.:animeangr
Answer me this......................how the heck could you get over what you were taught for your whole life?! Disregarding the fact that there is proof that it's true!!! I believe it's true, anyways, there's some people who don't agree with me...........anyway, As for holding the truths that men that died thousands of years ago....................don't you think that almost all of their teachings are still held today??? Don't lie, don't kill, don't steal. I don't mind modern ideals, I'm just about all for that, but almost all of our modern ideals are a basis for stuff we do today. For example, the concept that America is free and that you'll go to jail if you kill someone. That was something that men who died centuries ago said.[/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="DarkRed"]
Crap. I really didn't want to get back into this debate.:animeangr
Answer me this......................how the heck could you get over what you were taught for your whole life?! Disregarding the fact that there is proof that it's true!!! I believe it's true, anyways, there's some people who don't agree with me...........anyway, As for holding the truths that men that died thousands of years ago....................don't you think that almost all of their teachings are still held today??? Don't lie, don't kill, don't steal. I don't mind modern ideals, I'm just about all for that, but almost all of our modern ideals are a basis for stuff we do today. For example, the concept that America is free and that you'll go to jail if you kill someone. That was something that men who died centuries ago said.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Well, since you asked...

It is possible for people to come to realize that things they were taught as children are wrong or untrue, and to move past them. It's not always easy, but it's not impossible.

And we can still have morality without having it dictated to us by religion.

But yes, this discussion does seem to be slipping a bit.

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Well, since you asked...

It is possible for people to come to realize that things they were taught as children are wrong or untrue, and to move past them. It's not always easy, but it's not impossible.

[B]And we can still have morality without having it dictated to us by religion. [/B]
But yes, this discussion does seem to be slipping a bit.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Not necessarily.............anyways, now I'm out of the debate for good. [/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='TimeChaser']But yes, this discussion does seem to be slipping a bit.[/QUOTE]Welcome to the hell known as [B]The Lounge[/B] TC :p [[SIZE="1"]I kid[/SIZE]]

It is normal for things to get off course around here though, especially in discussions about this topic. Because it's easy to forget that one: people don't have to respond and two: they have an ignore function for a reason. [[SIZE="1"]I am not referring to you TC[/SIZE]]

Anyway my opinion on this topic has not changed. I'm just posting as a semi reminder to people to keep it civil and to think twice about posting when they're upset, since you'll say things that otherwise you might not. And even if you still would (say the unnecessarily rude things), being civil and polite [I]is [/I]required.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Darren]

[quote name='TimeChaser'][B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B]

I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I've been trying to say from the very beginning. I think there's a communication error on someone's side. (I was going to suggest myself, but since you seem to be on the same page, I offer up Crimson)

The entire argument seems to be a contradiction to me. (and yes, I guess the debate about gay marriage is off topic from one of sexual orientation being right or wrong, but it's all-encompassing) It seemed, at the beginning, Crimson was against sex in general because it was all about lust. After that was cleared up, it was implied that only heterosexual couples could truly love each other and that's why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. When I questioned him, he even admitted that gay couples (he pointed out lesbians, in particular) have the capacity to truly love each other without the need to have sex. So I ask: "What's so wrong with it?"

You can't have both Crimson. Either you say that gay couples can truly love each other, and admit to the fact that the only reason you don't want them to get married for whatever reason. (I can't find the exact post in this monster thread, but I believe you said something about taxes) Or else you say that they can't truly love each other. Either way, it seems that you've caught yourself and no matter which stance you choose, it makes you seem like the bad guy and somewhat makes the point of what everyone in this thread has been advocating. That judging someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong. Denying them certain rights that are protected under the constitution is wrong.

And now just for my general statement (And then I'm done with this thread, I swear) : I think it's funny how the majority tends to point the fingers at homosexuals and tell them that they're wrong. But the ruthless means that they use to degrade, demean, and diminish homosexual is the biggest bag of hypocrisy I've ever heard. The fact is. It took a while before white men without property, black men, and then women were able to attain their equal rights. If anyone thinks it stops there, they obviously don't know very much about life.

[Mr. Blonde]

I have an odd feeling that this thread has lived out its usefulness. It's making way too many people angry.

But as for what Darren said...

This is absolutely true. After "Resconstruction" african americans were considered to by only 3/4 of a white man. To not give everyone in the country equal rights is not a matter of religion or beliefs it's a matter of human rights. All of the commandments or ideals that have survived into modern law are in place to protect the people, but the ban of gay marriage only hurts the people. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is law just like every other thing that people never thought would happen.

And I'm done with this thread as well.

Also, if I offended anyone with my comments earlier I apologize.

[Nony]

[quote name='TimeChaser']You can still be free to disagree and see things from the way your beliefs tell you to, because that is your right. Allowing other people to enjoy their rights is not an absolute restriction of your opinion. But why can that opinion be translated into laws for all of us, when we don't all believe the same thing? Why should I respect a law based in a certain religious viewpoint, when I am not of that religion? Making laws based on any one particular interpretation of religion is a dangerous step back toward theocracy.[/QUOTE]

I don't think we're anywhere near becoming a theocracy.
I still stand by my earlier statement that if the majority of a population leans towards one religion, then naturally the laws will reflect at least some of those views. The issue is whether those views are very clearly biased towards said religion (such as any mention of God in a law).

From what I can understand, you're basically saying, "Why should I follow a law I disagree with?" Well, if you disagree with it, there are ways to change it.

And now, very quickly, touching on the issue of gay marriage, I don't approve [i]religious[/i] gay marriage; basically, if a church decides to marry two gay people together, I disagree with that. However, if people want to get a governmental marriage, I don't care as much.
That's the opinion I have right now, anyway.

[quote name='Allamorph']Pure fact? Yes. Whole darn thing. (As long as we can make certain there weren't additions made to the text, Beowulf style. Yeesh.)

[I]Applicable?[/I] Ehh. Laws against eating pigs and other unclean animals were overtly struck in one of Peter's visions. (Acts, I believe.) Laws governing not shaving beards or sideburns are also rather silly. So yes, discrimination based on time and purpose is necessary.[/QUOTE]

Ahh yes, thank you for clarifying, Alla. That's what I was trying to get across. No, not trying to say parts of the Bible are untrustworthy, just that all the laws are not necessarily applicable to today.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I will now use a tactic that annoys people, but becomes a necessity in threads like this.

[quote name='TimeChaser']
And to address Crimson Spider:

[B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B]

I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]

Has been answered by:

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
Love is love. A flower is a flower. Love is not a flower.

The statements are equivalent. However, both sex [I]and[/I] flowers can be used as [U]tools[/U] to express love.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Next point:

[quote name='Katakidoushi']
Gay rights is human rights. I don't care how you were raised, what you believe in or what you were told as a kid. Get over it and except the fact that people exist and behave outside of the protective bubble of Jesus and gumdrops that have shielded you from the real world.

And Crimson, quoting babylonian and egyptian definitions of marriage... Really?
It's 2008, times change, definitions change, laws change. And thats exactly why sacrificing goats is no longer socially exceptable.

People have a hard time coming to terms with modern ideals because they're holding true the words of men that died thousands of years ago, Grow up.[/QUOTE]

Has already been addressed by me:

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] But really, saying that you should allow same-sex marriages because obscure culture X had particular unacceptable laws W, Y, and Z is a red-herring towards the real issue: Why it is that the objective definition of marriage is being changed. My clarification towards Darren wasn't any sort of argument on the matter, but really to show that the No True Scotsman Fallacy that the only people to ever disagree with homosexual activities are irrational Bible thumpers is an incorrect assumption. No, you will find my original argument against legalizing same-sex a few pages back had little to do with marriage in the past.[/QUOTE]

And on to Darren.

[quote name='Darren']
The entire argument seems to be a contradiction to me. (and yes, I guess the debate about gay marriage is off topic from one of sexual orientation being right or wrong, but it's all-encompassing) It seemed, at the beginning, Crimson was against sex in general because it was all about lust. After that was cleared up, it was implied that only heterosexual couples could truly love each other and that's why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. When I questioned him, he even admitted that gay couples (he pointed out lesbians, in particular) have the capacity to truly love each other without the need to have sex. So I ask: "What's so wrong with it?"

[/quote] You have not read the thread very closely, and have misunderstood my argument.

From my first post in the thread: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=822101&postcount=14[/url]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']
Secondly, Sex =/= Love. Love exists outside of sexual intercourse. Sex is an act of reproduction, and sexual desires can be for inanimate objects as easily as it could be for another person. Sexual preferences, if they are not for personal comfort in committing the act, are largely vanity tailored by society.

... snip...

Now, the reason why it is incorrect is because it objectifies the aspects of sex into being about nothing more than physical appearance or a state of being. De-humanizing, prideful, lustful, discriminatory objectifying to serve only as a purpose of entertainment. No different from liking someone only because they are rich. This problem exists outside of the specific definition of homosexual or heterosexual.

This is a big problem in today's society, for many reasons. Women are seen only as possessions and trophies by men,....

/snip[/quote]

I have maintained that position in this thread from day #1. There is one position that I recently changed after browsing up on some interesting literature that I found a much more compelling idea than the one I previously had (ordered towards instead of a means to. Link is here: [url]http://www.ccgaction.org/index.php?q=family/protectmarriage/principles/MeaningofMarriage[/url] And last I checked, Amazon.com was out of the book.)

[quote]
...snip

Now, I'm sure you are going to say the obvious counter-argument: "Oh, but I love my partners! I respect who they are, so I can have sex with them anyway!". Now, this commits the [strike]first[/strike] second problem that I listed above, but it is also untrue, [u]because a sexual relationship is still bred on either the purpose of procreation, or the obsessive objectifying[/u]. If you are not doing it for procreation, then it is for objectification or vanity.

You can take any relationship of "love", and argue that you should not have sex with the individual. For instance, I can love my neighbor's wife, and in this love I will have enough respect for her in which I would not put her into a position where she would cheat or be given the option to cheat. Not be so cruel as to take my primal desires and ignore the situation that someone else is in.

/snip[/quote]

The underlined part was the point that I was eventually proved wrong on by external sources. Marriage isn't only a means towards having children, but ordered towards having children. The nature of marriage between a man and a woman causes the attraction, not the other way around. So, this does very little to change my initial point: the issues of Vanity in the world is still the reason why homosexuality is incorrect. A better understanding of marriage has little to do with the initial nature of homosexuality, which I still maintain.

The next issue of love not being sex, which is something that I have also clarified and does not contradict my point in any way, was done on page 2. My first post on the subject matter:

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=822118&postcount=19[/url]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Women, strangely, are much easier to diagnose because they are more attracted to things like status and power rather than a nice butt. This focus is more oriented towards the emotional satisfaction rather than the physical stimuli, and so lesbian relationships are founded more on pathological desires rather than physical association. The sex is just a side benefit.

/snip [/quote]

Then you, Darren, raised the question, which I answered soon after (again, maintaining my original point):

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=822136&postcount=23[/url]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I see your statement, and I do think I should have made the distinction for gay relationships as well. Two men who "love" each other don't necessarily have to have sex with each other, either. There are going to be couples that are based more on compatibility than on the physical nature of the relationship, and in fact this seems to be the dominant type of relationships in lesbian relationships.

But... love and sex are not the same. You can have a relationship without having sex. Just the same, you can have sex without a relationship. I am not talking about love. I am talking about sex, and sexual preferences. Also, you can't just throw your hands up in the air and cry prejudice whenever your beliefs face criticism or are challenged.[/QUOTE]

It seems the issue is that you have not divorced the notion that sex = love, and the following paragraph proves this point:

[quote name='Darren']
You can't have both Crimson. Either you say that gay couples can truly love each other, and admit to the fact that the only reason you don't want them to get married for whatever reason. (I can't find the exact post in this monster thread, but I believe you said something about taxes) Or else you say that they can't truly love each other. Either way, it seems that you've caught yourself and no matter which stance you choose, it makes you seem like the bad guy and somewhat makes the point of what everyone in this thread has been advocating. That judging someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong. Denying them certain rights that are protected under the constitution is wrong. [/quote]

What I am not talking about, and never will argue against is love. I am talking about sex, which is what this whole issue is about.

Anyway, my first post on the marriage issue is here:

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=822753&postcount=59[/url]

And a very long one at that. The marriage issue is the last section, but the others also provide interesting reads.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Miss Anonymous']I still stand by my earlier statement that if the majority of a population leans towards one religion, then naturally the laws will reflect at least some of those views. The issue is whether those views are very clearly biased towards said religion (such as any mention of God in a law).

From what I can understand, you're basically saying, "Why should I follow a law I disagree with?" Well, if you disagree with it, there are ways to change it.[/QUOTE]

But in a nation as diverse as ours, even if there is a majority opinion, why should that one religious view have any more precedent over any other? We are well-served by our secular laws without intruding religious belief on them. I still consider it a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I still say allowing gay people to marry is a human/civil rights issue. Those are rights we are all guaranteed in this country because we are all human beings. Those sort of rights are not a matter for voting. How can you vote away people's natural rights?

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]
What I am not talking about, and never will argue against is love. I am talking about sex, which is what this whole issue is about.[/QUOTE]

Sex can come about as an expression of love. To deny it is to deny human nature.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Sex can come about as an expression of love. To deny it is to deny human nature.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]......what?!

First, I think it's safe to say we're all (ALL) in agreement that sex can be an expression of love. However, as today's society proves tenfold, sex is not [I]exclusively[/I] an expression of love. To some it is merely a pastime, to others a means of earning a living.

So then to deny [I]love[/I] is to deny human nature.

In a parallel example (not exactly the same, but close), I know of a great many people who hug as a way of greeting. The action for them shows that they are happy to see the other person and enjoy being around them. It's an expression of friendship.

By contrast, I don't hug really at all, even with the one-armed version. I might say it a lot online, but that again is to express the same pleasure as above, which I can't use my face or body language to do. In reality, the action means a lot more to me than just simple happiness, and I only use it with family members, and when parting with very close friends. The person I hug most is my youngest sister, just because she's my sister. I don't hug friends when I see them. Most of the time I don't even touch them.

The same can be said for sex. I don't engage in it because I am reserving it to express an extremely powerful emotion at some point in the future. Just like hugging shows a person not that I care, but [I]how much[/I] I care, so sex does not show that I love, but [I]how much[/I] I love.

There is no denial of sex. There is only reservation. And to 'reserve' sex is not to deny love, but simply to find another means of expressing love.[/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

What Allamorph said.



Also, I don't think that Anonymous is saying that it is correct that the law be decided democratically, but that it will be decided democratically on various issues due to it's culture.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]......what?!

First, I think it's safe to say we're all (ALL) in agreement that sex can be an expression of love. However, as today's society proves tenfold, sex is not [I]exclusively[/I] an expression of love. To some it is merely a pastime, to others a means of earning a living.

So then to deny [I]love[/I] is to deny human nature.

In a parallel example (not exactly the same, but close), I know of a great many people who hug as a way of greeting. The action for them shows that they are happy to see the other person and enjoy being around them. It's an expression of friendship.

By contrast, I don't hug really at all, even with the one-armed version. I might say it a lot online, but that again is to express the same pleasure as above, which I can't use my face or body language to do. In reality, the action means a lot more to me than just simple happiness, and I only use it with family members, and when parting with very close friends. The person I hug most is my youngest sister, just because she's my sister. I don't hug friends when I see them. Most of the time I don't even touch them.

The same can be said for sex. I don't engage in it because I am reserving it to express an extremely powerful emotion at some point in the future. Just like hugging shows a person not that I care, but [I]how much[/I] I care, so sex does not show that I love, but [I]how much[/I] I love.

There is no denial of sex. There is only reservation. And to 'reserve' sex is not to deny love, but simply to find another means of expressing love.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Let me clarify my point.

What Crimson Spider seems to be saying is that gay people can be free to express love, so long as they stop there and don't go further into having sex.

This is what I mean by "human nature": Everyone has the right to choose how they express love for their intimate partner, including sexually. It shouldn't matter what the gender of both individuals is. They can be free to express that love in whatever way they choose, just as much as anyone who is heterosexual.

To say something to the effect of: "Anyone can love whomever they choose, but only straight people are allowed to take that next step and express intimate love sexually," is to invoke 'Heterosexual Privilege'.

[dd protector]

Religion's are phasing out and slowly becoming less important in our society anyways. Many aruge that this is leading to a society with less morals, but since morals are defined by religion its a funny statement.
Love whoever, the law doesn't dictate who you should love, only says you can;t have the titled of 'marriage'

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=TimeChaser]Let me clarify my point.

What Crimson Spider seems to be saying is that gay people can be free to express love, so long as they stop there and don't go further into having sex.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Right, right. I got'cha. Clarity issues. Glad I could be of service, then. :p

And the paragraph after makes perfect sense. Still....

[quote name='TimeChaser']To say something to the effect of: "Anyone can love whomever they choose, but only straight people are allowed to take that next step and express intimate love sexually," is to invoke 'Heterosexual Privilege'.[/quote]
Well . . . not to be insensitive, or anything, but the only privilege us heteros have is that . . . well, that the parts fit. And really, that's what sexual [I]inter[/I]course is. Not me bein' discriminatory there; biology's doin' that for me.

Now, they can make do with [I]outer[/I]course....[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Well . . . not to be insensitive, or anything, but the only privilege us heteros have is that . . . well, that the parts fit. And really, that's what sexual [I]inter[/I]course is. Not me bein' discriminatory there; biology's doin' that for me.

Now, they can make do with [I]outer[/I]course....[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Which goes right back to my claim that sex is also a means to express intimate love. It is not only a matter of biological compatibility in order to produce offspring, it is also a pleasurable thing that people can engage in to express intimacy.

Whether they stick things in or not doesn't really matter.

[Sangome]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Whether they stick things in or not doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]DOHOHOHOHOHO. TC, YOU [I]CARD[/I].

...Um, yeah, I have nothing else to contribute, as I don't feel like sifting through the rest of the threads, other than I do believe kids need to learn how to control their hormones, or learn how to use their hands. :p Carry on![/SIZE]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]o_O This thread has gotten huge. So if I repeat anyone or miss stuff I hope you keep that in mind when you read my post. Now originally the question was whether or not being gay or lesbian was wrong. Based on my religious beliefs (yes I used the word religion) it is. Now before anyone attempts to clobber me over that statement I want to address what I see as a bit of a misuse of the term "civil rights". It has been said many times that denying gay marriage is a civil rights issue but on many levels it's not, or rather it's not the main issue in my opinion.

Civil rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. (borrowed from wiki)

What we really have here is a fight over legal rights that can be obtained from a marriage that is recognized at both a state and federal level:

[B]Tax Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
[*]Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allow you to divide business income among family members.[/LIST]
[B]Estate Planning Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
[*]Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
[*]Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
[*]Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse?s behalf.
[/LIST]
[B]Government Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
[*] Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
[*] Receiving public assistance benefits.[/LIST]
[B]Employment Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
[*]Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
[*] Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
[*]Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse?s close relatives dies.[/LIST]
[B]Medical Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
[*]Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.[/LIST]
[B]Death Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
[*]Making burial or other final arrangements.[/LIST]
[B]Family Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
[*]Applying for joint foster care rights.
[*]Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
[*]Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.[/LIST]
[B]Housing Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*]Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
[*]Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.[/LIST]
[B]Consumer Benefits[/B]
[LIST][*] Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
[*] Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
[*] Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.[/LIST]
[B]Other Legal Benefits and Protections[/B]
[LIST][*] Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
[*] Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
[*] Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can?t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
[*] Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
[*] Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
[*] Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.[/LIST]
When it comes down to it, whether or not a couple has sex has absoutely nothing to do with it. The "rights" being fought over are ones meant to make raising a family easier as well as making it easier for a couple to simply support themselves.

Marriage, tossing out the sacred bond bit, is a commitment to take care of your spouse and whether or not you can or will have children is not necessary. There are millions of couples out there who for whatever reason can't or don't have children.

So to attempt to deny these legal rights over the idea it's for people intending to have children is a bit ludicrous in my opinion. Otherwise, we'd be doing that to all the straight couples who have no kids.

In the end, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. I still think it's wrong, but at the same time I wonder if it's wrong to continue to deny them the same legal rights I would have if I were to get married.[/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Let me clarify my point.

What Crimson Spider seems to be saying is that gay people can be free to express love, so long as they stop there and don't go further into having sex.

This is what I mean by "human nature": Everyone has the right to choose how they express love for their intimate partner, including sexually. It shouldn't matter what the gender of both individuals is. They can be free to express that love in whatever way they choose, just as much as anyone who is heterosexual.

To say something to the effect of: "Anyone can love whomever they choose, but only straight people are allowed to take that next step and express intimate love sexually," is to invoke 'Heterosexual Privilege'.[/QUOTE]

Good to know you misunderstand my position.

If you love someone of the same gender, you are not homosexual. You are free to do that however much you please. You are only homosexual if you want to have sex with someone of the same gender, and that is about sex, not love. An "intimate relationship" is not a sexual relationship. Only a sexual relationship is a sexual relationship, regardless of the gender. A heterosexual sexual relationship is still a sexual relationship.

You are still assuming that love = sex, when they are separate things. Sex being used to express love is completely arbitrary, just like using a flower to express love, or tickets to the next Yankees game.

Does love make it easier to fulfill the existential satisfaction and pathological desire of a sexual relationship? Yes, it does. However, that is under the given that a relationship is sexual, and still remains completely arbitrary.