Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']But it's about more than just the pleasure when it's in an intimate relationship. It is combined with that emotional aspect of your love for the other person and their love for you, which raises it up beyond the level of lust or just satisfying an urge.

And that love doesn't have to absolutely [I]need[/I] marriage to be valid.

We're more complex than other animals in our emotions and intellects, we have evolved in ways that set us apart from them. We have gone beyond the simple in-built need to procreate.[/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Sienna"]Evolution??? I don't think so. Me don't believe in "evolution." It's kinda dumb when you think about it.:animeswea Anyways, I don't think we have evolved, I think the need for sexual pleasure was built into us[I] for[/I] procreation. The world is changing because the thoughts of people have changed because of television. And the Devil is influencing entertainment, that's bringing the relegious view into the picture. You're right that love doesn't need marriage to be valid, but are you saying that someone should not get married although it makes sense because they love each other so much? I mean, if they love each other, why [I]not[/I] get married?[/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Evolution??? I don't think so. Me don't believe in "evolution." It's kinda dumb when you think about it.:animeswea Anyways, I don't think we have evolved, I think the need for sexual pleasure was built into us[I] for[/I] procreation. The world is changing because the thoughts of people have changed because of television. And the Devil is influencing entertainment, that's bringing the relegious view into the picture. You're right that love doesn't need marriage to be valid, but are you saying that someone should not get married although it makes sense because they love each other so much? I mean, if they love each other, why [I]not[/I] get married?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The fight for womens' rights and birth control started long before TV, and remember back in the 40s and 50s, TV wasn't filled with racy programs like it is today.

People have the right now to enjoy sex in their intimate relationships without wanting to procreate. Like I said before, we've unshackled ourselves from the notion that it is only a biological means to an end.

And your last statement brings us right back to the subject of this thread: a same-sex couple CAN'T get married, even though they are in love. This is applying a double standard: "If you love each other, get married, but you can't if you're gay, even though you're in love."

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']The fight for womens' rights and birth control started long before TV, and remember back in the 40s and 50s, TV wasn't filled with racy programs like it is today.

People have the right now to enjoy sex in their intimate relationships without wanting to procreate. Like I said before, we've unshackled ourselves from the notion that it is only a biological means to an end.

And your last statement brings us right back to the subject of this thread: a same-sex couple CAN'T get married, even though they are in love. This is applying a double standard: "If you love each other, get married, but you can't if you're gay, even though you're in love."[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, but they weren't gay in the first place, though. And in the 40's and 50's they had the same thing without television. I forget the name of them, but they went against wearing long dresses and went to wearing stuff that show a little too much skin. We were born with the need to love the opposite sex, not the same sex. I think the love between a gay couple is something completely different than love between a man and a woman. [/COLOR]

[Vicky]

[size=1]I'm pretty sure I was born gay. There's just absolutely no emotion between me and a man - it's not about the physical at all. I can kiss a man but I'd never love a man and it's always been like that, despite how long it took me to realise it out of about ten years of being extremely uncomfortable. There's also been a lot of insight, theory and possibly proven now (I haven't kept up) into the 'gay gene'. Which there probably is one in my family, seeing as my uncle is gay.

Also, the whole 'sex only for procreation' thing fails because dolphins - an animal through and through by standards - are the only other creatures who have sex for pleasure. That was built into them as an instinct but obviously evolved into something else. And, dolphins have also been shown to engage in homosexual behaviour (also there have been claims in the same behaviour with other animals but, again, I haven't looked into that).

I don't think there's any difference between love between straight couples and gay couples, the only difference being the gender. Saying that is pretty much discrimination and almost demeaning if it's implied straight love is better, somehow, because it's... normal. Personally, I think straight couples are pretty weird myself. Matter of opinion and perspective.[/size]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, but they weren't gay in the first place, though. And in the 40's and 50's they had the same thing without television. I forget the name of them, but they went against wearing long dresses and went to wearing stuff that show a little too much skin. We were born with the need to love the opposite sex, not the same sex. I think the love between a gay couple is something completely different than love between a man and a woman. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

This comes back to the idea of whether being gay is a choice, or is it the way some people are born. I believe some people are born that way.

If you look in nature, there are examples of homosexual behavior in animals, the most famous example of which being two male penguins in a zoo forming a pair-bond. The people running the zoo took an extra egg from one female penguin (since penguins can only care for one offspring at a time, the chick would have died eventually), and gave it to the male pair. These two males took care of the egg and raised the chick together.

Humans are animals too, just ones with a higher degree of intelligence and more complex social structures. Therefore, if two animals can exhibit homosexual behavior - and being animals, it obviously wasn't something they chose - then why not two people of the same gender?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, it is. But most of the time, when people have sex, it's just for the pleasure, not for love. When someone gets married it's most of the time(hopefully) because they love each other. I'm not talking about a Vegas marriage, a marriage that they spent time on, a marriage in which they spent months engaged. So, it kinda matches up, when a married couple has sex they do it because they love each other and so they can procreate! Isn't it awesome the way some things work??:catgirl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


[color=#9933ff]My brother and sister-in-law were married a few weeks ago in Vegas and have been in a relationship for over seven years so I take offense to that statement. Some people might get married in Vegas because they just like the place and you can get a good deal. Not because they're drunk and there's a twenty-four hour drive thru chapel.

Also being engaged for months isn't always the sign of a good marriage, I was enaged to my ex-husband for over a year and since there is an ex before husband you all can imagine how that turned out. :animesigh.

I have sex with my boyfriend for two main reasons because I love him and because I like it. Yes I am admiting on the OB that I like sex- which way to Oprah? :animeblus [I]Maybe[/I] some day I'll have it to pro-create, but the pro-creating deal isn't all it's cracked up to be.

That said (consentiual) sex is done because people love eachother and it feels good. People also have sex out of boredum, pity, appeasement (IE: okay if I sleep with you will you shut up about my shoes all over your side of the closet?) attention, it's cheaper than therapy, Escape (I mean have you looked at the economy lately? I'd rather get laid, thanks) to feel wanted, because there's nothing on TV or just because they want to.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with building a family. So why should sexuality matter?

That said if gays and lesbians having sex bothers you, then let them get married. Because like the old jokegoes: How do you get a woman to stop having sex? Marry her. [/color]

[Clash]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]My brother and sister-in-law were married a few weeks ago in Vegas and have been in a relationship for over seven years so I take offense to that statement. Some people might get married in Vegas because they just like the place and you can get a good deal. Not because they're drunk and there's a twenty-four hour drive thru chapel.

Also being engaged for months isn't always the sign of a good marriage, I was enaged to my ex-husband for over a year and since there is an ex before husband you all can imagine how that turned out. :animesigh.

I have sex with my boyfriend for two main reasons because I love him and because I like it. Yes I am admiting on the OB that I like sex- which way to Oprah? :animeblus [I]Maybe[/I] some day I'll have it to pro-create, but the pro-creating deal isn't all it's cracked up to be.

That said (consentiual) sex is done because people love eachother and it feels good. People also have sex out of boredum, pity, appeasement (IE: okay if I sleep with you will you shut up about my shoes all over your side of the closet?) attention, it's cheaper than therapy, Escape (I mean have you looked at the economy lately? I'd rather get laid, thanks) to feel wanted, because there's nothing on TV or just because they want to.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with building a family. So why should sexuality matter?

That said if gays and lesbians having sex bothers you, then let them get married. Because like the old jokegoes: How do you get a woman to stop having sex? Marry her. [/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I don't think Calypso meant that kinda wedding, I'm sure there are many marriages that start out in Vegas that go well, I just think she meant something else. Besides, Vegas isn't one of the greatest places to get married. "Sin City" ring a bell? Anyway, I'm sure she didn't mean to offend you. She's not that kind of person.........I think. As for pro-creation, sure some kids can be total brats, but if you raise someone a certain way, they will do their part in the world and make you proud.:p I think it's kinda dumb that people have sex 'cause they're bored. And also it's dumb when it's had out of appeasment and/or pity. You must have enough sense to know that there are other ways of appeasment than sex. Having sex to feel wanted is a foolish choice because that means you don't have enough self confidence in yourself whatsoever. As for the saying towards the end, never heard that one before. And that joke is probably from some guys who were mad at their wives or something like that........[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']I prefer to think of it in nobler terms than that. I find that view just too clinical. And anyone can ignore the procreative aspect of sex and just do it because it is an expression of their love for someone. And it's hardly analogous to giving someone a flower or taking them out to a nice dinner, it's on a different level than those things.

And you will never get everyone to agree to go back to the old view that sex should only be for procreation.[/QUOTE]

But you can. If you provide enough reasoning and evidence, a person will eventually admit their view if they look at the situation honestly. Anyway, I am annoyed that some of the largest markets on the planet are dedicated to ignoring the procreative aspect of sex, and just going for the pathological appeals. After all, you can get all of the visual stimuli that you want for a few cents a day, and this is a billion dollar industry.

But I do have a question: Why sex instead of something else? Sex isn't something that is "just done" as an expression of compatibility, comfort, or personal attachment. Those exist with nearly everyone. And an even bigger question: Why sex with someone of the same gender instead of a different gender?

The biggest reason to bring a relationship into a sexual relationship that isn't ordered toward procreation is because it fulfills the emotional pride. If the relationship is ordered toward procreation, then the pleasure that sex brings also orders towards procreation.

[quote name='TimeChaser']Sex in a monogamous relationship is also used to express love, not just for procreation.

And the rest of your argument doesn't really hold up, because it's also a matter of people's own personalities and foibles. We're not all like that just because sex is pleasurable. Some of us want to hold off from sex until we are with a person we truly love. I have no desire to go out and run wild merely because I believe sex is not only for procreation. I believe it's a noble expression of deep love that isn't something to be trivial about as so many people are, sadly.[/QUOTE]

So are flowers, and tickets to the next Yankees game. You need something better than "an expression", because that completely ignores the concept and says that because it is the medium for something else that is O.K., then the medium is O.K. This logic doesn't fly, for it is akin to saying that the ends justifies the means.

BTW, my argument was towards the peoples' own personalities. It is the person who objectifies women as possessions that treats them horribly. It is the person who obsesses over sex that transmits STDs to his otherwise faithful spouse. It is the person desiring effortless status that tries to "bag the rich one". Similarly to how someone can eat themselves obese: the problem isn't the food being delicious. The problem is [i]them[/i] and whatever underlying cause that spawns this issue.

That is what I am fighting against, and it is unfortunately a growing trend in society to disregard the reproductive aspect, and go just for pleasure and all of it's arbitrary definitions towards pride. Though so many have chosen to idolize the homosexual, you must not forget that polygamy, pedophilia, rape, and prostitution are also within my crosshairs. It just happens that those haven't become socially acceptable, while homosexuality has.

[quote name='TimeChaser']But it's about more than just the pleasure when it's in an intimate relationship. It is combined with that emotional aspect of your love for the other person and their love for you, which raises it up beyond the level of lust or just satisfying an urge.

And that love doesn't have to absolutely [I]need[/I] marriage to be valid.
[/QUOTE]

When I read this, I ask myself: What aspect about an "intimate relationship" makes sex somehow about some abstract aspect not covered, and when it isn't in an "intimate relationship", it isn't about this abstract aspect not covered? There is one way that it will make the sex "better" or raised up beyond nameless intercourse by having an intimate relationship, and this is the pathological desires that I had listed prior. If you have some other aspect of sex that is somehow justified by an intimate relationship, please do explain.

I also ask another question: Why no marriage instead of marriage? If you are in a relationship that is ordered toward procreation and isn't some pride-fulfilling lust fest, then why not get married?


[quote name='TimeChaser']The fight for womens' rights and birth control started long before TV, and remember back in the 40s and 50s, TV wasn't filled with racy programs like it is today.

People have the right now to enjoy sex in their intimate relationships without wanting to procreate. Like I said before, we've unshackled ourselves from the notion that it is only a biological means to an end.

And your last statement brings us right back to the subject of this thread: a same-sex couple CAN'T get married, even though they are in love. This is applying a double standard: "If you love each other, get married, but you can't if you're gay, even though you're in love."[/QUOTE]

Personally I think that it is a bad thing that we have unshackled ourselves from this notion, since it can be logically linked to a variety of problems.

Though I feel like I am beating a dead horse here:

[quote]The re-definition of marriage is akin to someone redefining words like "estate", "brother", "month", or "cheese", because some minority chosen a lifestyle that acts in a manner that is unhappy with the current objective definition. The minority seeks to have an abstract romantic ideal placed on marriage applied to their own actions and it does so by trying to change the objective definition. The connotation that is applied, like the kinship applied to the word "brother", is strictly arbitrary, and is the responsibility of a person themselves to handle. These redefinitions have absolutely no regard for the operation of the act, or the legal status in the act.[/quote]

There is no double standard, because love =/= sex. Same-sex marriages exists only to condone the sexual aspect of a relationship, because as you have said yourself, the "love" aspect (in all of it's abstract in-definition) doesn't require marriage.


I am a little dissappointed in you, Timechaser. I expected someone who "lives in the age of reason" to not attach metaphysical, abstract, undefined, gushy-spiritual feelings towards the nature of reproductive acts.


[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]I'm pretty sure I was born gay. There's just absolutely no emotion between me and a man - it's not about the physical at all. I can kiss a man but I'd never love a man and it's always been like that, despite how long it took me to realise it out of about ten years of being extremely uncomfortable. There's also been a lot of insight, theory and possibly proven now (I haven't kept up) into the 'gay gene'. Which there probably is one in my family, seeing as my uncle is gay.

Also, the whole 'sex only for procreation' thing fails because dolphins - an animal through and through by standards - are the only other creatures who have sex for pleasure. That was built into them as an instinct but obviously evolved into something else. And, dolphins have also been shown to engage in homosexual behaviour (also there have been claims in the same behaviour with other animals but, again, I haven't looked into that).

I don't think there's any difference between love between straight couples and gay couples, the only difference being the gender. Saying that is pretty much discrimination and almost demeaning if it's implied straight love is better, somehow, because it's... normal. Personally, I think straight couples are pretty weird myself. Matter of opinion and perspective.[/size][/QUOTE]

Or you just have a similar problem to what my sister has (she's straight.) You see, my sister never feels comfortable kissing a man because she has a hard time finding a man she likes. A very hard time. Going through college in Las Vegas, all of the men she would ever find were atheist, sex hungry, immature, or just plain stupid. She is still single today, and largely introvert as well.

Anyway, the interesting thing about dolphins (totaling three specie, or less than 0.001% of animals have sex for pleasure) is that they have other behaviors that aren't respectable from a moral standard. Like how groups of male dolphins will try to kill the female's calf to force her to reproduce again, or how males will work in pairs to isolate females in an attempt to force the female to reproduce with one of the two males. Dolphins are also one of the few animals that are true murderers. The problem with using animals as an example of human sexuality is the fact that humans are not animals. Animals are dumb, and will often try to have inter-specie reproduction or reproduction with inanimate objects, not knowing the wiser.

The issue with homosexuality isn't compatibility, comfort, or personal attachment. Homosexuality is about sex. The issue with homosexual sex is an issue that is just an offshoot from an issue with heterosexual sex. Really, homosexual sex isn't anything special. Just something that society has chosen to idolize.

[Clash]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Man, that was just an awesome post right there:animesigh. Kudos and applause and more kudos and applause. Some of the stuff in there I've never thought about but makes total complete sense!!! [/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] [B]The biggest reason to bring a relationship into a sexual relationship that isn't ordered toward procreation is because it fulfills the emotional pride. If the relationship is ordered toward procreation, then the pleasure that sex brings also orders towards procreation...[/B]

[B].. it is unfortunately a growing trend in society to disregard the reproductive aspect[/B], and go just for pleasure and all of it's arbitrary definitions towards pride. Though so many have chosen to idolize the homosexual, [B]you must not forget that polygamy, pedophilia, rape, and prostitution are also within my crosshairs. It just happens that those haven't become socially acceptable, while homosexuality has...[/B]

[B]If you have some other aspect of sex that is somehow justified by an intimate relationship, please do explain.[/B]
[B]
I also ask another question: Why no marriage instead of marriage? If you are in a relationship that is ordered toward procreation and isn't some pride-fulfilling lust fest, then why not get married?[/B]

[B]Personally I think that it is a bad thing that we have unshackled ourselves from this notion, since it can be logically linked to a variety of problems.[/B]

[B]I am a little dissappointed in you, Timechaser. I expected someone who "lives in the age of reason" to not attach metaphysical, abstract, undefined, gushy-spiritual feelings towards the nature of reproductive acts...[/B][/QUOTE]

1) It strengthens the emotional connection between two people in love. And you can't expect people to accept the idea that they should go back to sex-as-means-of-procreation-only. What about everyone's rights to live their life the way they chose? Not everyone wants to get married, and not everyone wants to have kids. You can't expect women to give up their rights to their own bodies and just go back to being baby factories simply because that's what our biology is designed for. We are so far beyond mere biology now.

2) I find this argument old, tiring, and lame. Homosexuality is not in any way related to polygamy, pedophilia, rape, etc. When a gay couple wants to get married, they are just that, [I]a couple[/I], a unit of two. Two people who love and have a commitment toward each other the same as any heterosexual couple.

3) I have already explained how sex is connected to our emotions for another person. While we may have come from a simple biological urge to mate and breed, humanity has developed emotionally in ways that transcend that.

4) See what I said in #1, and also: gay couples cannot get married, obviously. And they are fighting for the right to so, also obviously.

5) I have no problem admitting that society does have problems related to sex, but it's hardly a problem shared by the entire population. And going back to a procreation-only system is not the right answer, nor is it even plausible to believe that would solve everything.

6) I am also a romantic, and for the reasons I have stated, I don't take a cold, clinical approach to love and sex.

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']

5) I have no problem admitting that society does have problems related to sex,[B] but it's hardly a problem shared by the entire population. [/B]And going back to a procreation-only system is not the right answer, nor is it even plausible to believe that would solve everything.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Uh, yes it is. Just because the whole population doesn't have a problem with the porno stuff doesn't mean that they are not tempted by it. Example: a husband who finds it hard to stay faithful to his life because women at his job are underdressing or shows on television make being unfaithful more appealing.[/COLOR]

[Guest turtle_chris]

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with being gay, les or bi. I know a few people on theotaku chat who are those things, and they are awsome people. I don't even know what the U.S laws are about it, but I'm sure their sad selfish people who made them up. People should be with whoever they like, there's not point leading a miserable life, not being able to be with the person you love! :animesmil

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][B]↑[/B] Hey Chris, welcome to OB by the way.

Anyway, time for the topic! And yes I'm skipping what's been said so far and going straight to what I think. Personally I do not think it's wrong. I think the act of sex, whether it's someone who's straight or gay, is being confused with intent. What makes sex wrong, regardless of the situation, is the reason [I]why[/I] one is having it.

In my mind, if it's someone who's being forced in someway or not old enough to consent, then it's wrong. If it's someone who's married or committed to each other then I see no problem with it.

Limiting yourself to platonic love and saving sex only for having kids seems one sided to me. Humans engage in a lot of activities that aren't necessary for survival so why should sex somehow be any different?

The key is not so much moderation but rather responsibility. And that's true of anything, eating, gaming, reading, etc. What level of sexual activity one has is best determined by that person and what's healthy (as in how often) will depend on the person.

What a person's orientation is, skirts the issue and is being used as a means to discriminate against someone. Much like women couldn't vote and blacks were also treated unfairly. It's just a shame that quite a few people refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are being bigoted. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']There is no double standard, because love =/= sex. Same-sex marriages exists only to condone the sexual aspect of a relationship, because as you have said yourself, the "love" aspect (in all of it's abstract in-definition) doesn't require marriage.

[...]

I am a little dissappointed in you, Timechaser. I expected someone who "lives in the age of reason" to not attach metaphysical, abstract, undefined, gushy-spiritual feelings towards the nature of reproductive acts.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]This is ridiculous, and I'll tell you why.

Your definition of marriage is flawed. You assume marriage is an institution that aims primarily at procreation; this is fundamentally wrong. Marriage at its core and foundation is a survival mechanism for the two parties involved. It allows the pooling of resources, increases the purchasing power of the couple, and increases efficiency of almost all tasks related to survival (finding food, mutual protection, etc).

The entity of "marriage" in this day and age is still fundamentally the same. While we fetishize it and project notions of "happiness" and "finding the love of your life," marriage is still for the mutual benefit of both parties involved for survival purposes. Governmental policy is heavily indicative of this -- married couples have MANY more benefits than an unmarried couple. It's simply beneficial to marry up, from a fiscal perspective.

Gays can and do live together if they are a couple. They live their lives as a married couple would. The only thing that is different is their lack of access to these benefits that heterosexuals are afforded.

The ability to procreate is a moot point -- what of infertile couples? Should they be denied the ability to marry, simply based on this [arbitrary/irrational] criterion?[/font]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]The ability to procreate is a moot point -- what of infertile couples? Should they be denied the ability to marry, simply based on this [arbitrary/irrational] criterion?[/font][/QUOTE]

Or their ability/right to have sex at all, given that they can't fulfill it's primary (and only legitimate) goal, according to Crimson Spider.

Those are some good points, Retribution. Well made.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR="DarkRed"]Crimson[/COLOR], you might as well stop trying now. The only way one can confidently claim that same-sex marriages or relationships are wrong is in the context of religion, and claiming religion will achieve only an attritionary argument, since on the one hand you have those backed by the laws of their faith and on the other you have those backed by the laws of reason.

Basically, as [COLOR=DarkRed]Kastom[/COLOR] tried to point out before (although his point was crudely fashioned), without a clear definition of Right and Wrong one cannot disavow at all the rights of same-sex couples in anything.

To use psychological arguments traces directly back to religion, for according to Christianity that is not how we were designed. To use physical arguments traces directly back to religion, for according to Christianity that is not how we were designed. Point of order, the only solid ground for an argument against same-sex couples is that such a union is a [I]direct perversion[/I] of God's creation.

And since that line of thinking has no place here, since religion is a personal and not universal application, there is no solid ground for anyone. Thus in this context, I would argue [I]for[/I] same-sex rights, despite my beliefs against them.[/FONT]

[Claire]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]To use physical arguments traces directly back to religion, for according to Christianity that is not how we were designed.[/font][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Arial"]I've been wanting to go against this argument with one of my own for a while.

Biologically, humans are not intended to mate with others of the same sex. Science can't disprove this.

With that logic, eating meat must also be a sin.

Humans originally had to fashion spears and go out of their way to hunt, whereas carnivorous animals were born with sharp claws, teeth, and senses, and great strength. Humans have to tenderize meat and cook it well in order to be able to chew it and digest it and not get sick, whereas carnivorous animals merely consume their prey raw.

But every single Christian I know goes out for some fried chicken for Sunday dinner.

The point is that there are many things that humans were not designed to do, but have found a way to accomplish.

That being said, I fully support equal rights for all human beings. Blacks, women, gays, etc. I would always answer this kind of survey question with "Love is love," but Retribution brings up a great point that married couples have benefits unavailable to the unmarried (are these benefits not available for people involved in civil unions?), which is unfair to people who are legally unable to become married.

This is not the 1800s, this is not 1920 or 1960. We should be above rights exclusions.

At the base of matters, marriage originated as an institution of religion. So did Christmas. Now you have atheists and agnostics taking part in both. Okay.

However, it may be a good idea to take small steps towards total equal rights. Civil unions should be legalized in every state (if they aren't already, I'm not very informed on the subject and I only know that same-sex marriages are still illegal practically everywhere) and should offer every benefit of marriage. To please the religious, it would be marriage before the government and not before God - not "marriage," so to speak.

...yep.

[SIZE="1"](Disclaimer: I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not about to condemn anyone for eating meat. It's a personal choice, and this is America!)[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I've been wanting to go against this argument with one of my own for a while.

Biologically, humans are not intended to mate with others of the same sex. Science can't disprove this.

[B]With that logic, eating meat must also be a sin.[/B]

Humans originally had to fashion spears and go out of their way to hunt, whereas carnivorous animals were born with sharp claws, teeth, and senses, and great strength. Humans have to tenderize meat and cook it well in order to be able to chew it and digest it and not get sick, whereas carnivorous animals merely consume their prey raw.

But every single Christian I know goes out for some fried chicken for Sunday dinner.

The point is that there are many things that humans were not designed to do, but have found a way to accomplish.

That being said, I fully support equal rights for all human beings. Blacks, women, gays, etc. I would always answer this kind of survey question with "Love is love," but Retribution brings up a great point that married couples have benefits unavailable to the unmarried (are these benefits not available for people involved in civil unions?), which is unfair to people who are legally unable to become married.

This is not the 1800s, this is not 1920 or 1960. We should be above rights exclusions.

At the base of matters, marriage originated as an institution of religion. So did Christmas. Now you have atheists and agnostics taking part in both. Okay.

However, it may be a good idea to take small steps towards total equal rights. Civil unions should be legalized in every state (if they aren't already, I'm not very informed on the subject and I only know that same-sex marriages are still illegal practically everywhere) and should offer every benefit of marriage. To please the religious, it would be marriage before the government and not before God - not "marriage," so to speak.

...yep.

[SIZE="1"](Disclaimer: I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not about to condemn anyone for eating meat. It's a personal choice, and this is America!)[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Sienna"]Correction: We are allowed to eat meat because God said that eating meat was okay in the later chapters of Genesis, we just aren't allowed to drink blood and we really aren't supposed to eat food that comes from pigs or other hooved animals. Just to let you know.................and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded under "Christianity"?[/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Just to let you know.................and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded under "Christianity"?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]Have you even read the Constitution of the United States? The Constitution forms a [I]secular[/I] document, it does not appeal to God or any form of Christianity. To make a point here the language is quite clear: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." Key word being [I]people[/I], not God.

Part of the point was to grant the freedom to worship or not according to your own beliefs instead of dictating or forcing everyone to follow one paticular religion. It clearly states here:
[INDENT]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/INDENT]
So no, it was not founded under Christianity. You could say it was founded to grant more freedom to be a Christian, but not for Christianity to actually use religious values to dictate laws.[/COLOR]

[Vicky]

[size=1]The bible says a lot of things. God also says we're allowed to buy slaves - why don't we, then?

This is the really weird thing. People are all too willing to jump out and say "it's wrong because the bible said so," but they ignore the majority of the bible itself. And their excuse? "It's the modern age - that passage on slavery was written in a time when so and so...". There's so many things you should not do in the bible but people do it anyway because, you know, it's not [i]as bad[/i].

And the New Testament is not an excuse to ignore the Old. Why? Because:

[quote]Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV), "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."[/quote]

If the bible will be used to condemn and promote the law, then the whole bible should be use, and not just picking bits out because homosexuality is the easiest thing to have a go at.

I don't think whether or not homosexuality is natural should be a problem, either, because humanity has changed diversely beyond the natural. There are many things that are unnatural today, including faith. We developed it. And if there's the argument that homosexuality isn't natural, then it shouldn't matter, and it's as much a part of us as faith, reason and science. You condemn such a lifestyle then you might as well reject all forms of this, too.[/size]

[Claire]

[FONT="Arial"]A reason why many people came to this continent was in the pursuit of religious toleration.

Also, the Pledge of Allegiance did not make mention of any deity until the fifties, when "under God" was added. Basically 100 years after the fact.

People want to make this a Christian nation as part of the doctrine of their religion - something about going forth and spreading the word to all people of all nations, and what better place to start than your own country?

EDIT - Haha, I was going to say everything that both Indi and Vicky have said, but I'm glad they got to it before me because I wasn't sure I could find the evidence to support my points. Hooray!

EDIT 2 - More proof that this country is not based on Christianity:

Nowhere in the Bible does it mention sins having degrees. Each is viewed as the same. This means that cheating on a test is just as bad as killing somebody. But are you about to be sent to the electric chair for peeking at someone else's test?

For a less broad example, you steal a car, you get jail time. Kill someone in the process, you go to Death Row. The government holds some sins as worse than others.

[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]That being said, I fully support equal rights for all human beings. Blacks, women, gays, etc. I would always answer this kind of survey question with "Love is love," but Retribution brings up a great point that married couples have benefits unavailable to the unmarried [B](are these benefits not available for people involved in civil unions?[/B]), which is unfair to people who are legally unable to become married.
[B]
This is not the 1800s, this is not 1920 or 1960. We should be above rights exclusions.[/B]
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Just to clarify the civil unions bit. The rights, or at least some of them, are provided, but what people desire is that full recognition of "We are married." The people who fight for gay marriage rights are saying that there shouldn't have to be one form of marriage for everyone else, and then a special exception below marriage for them.

I also agree with your second point. Society does not exist inside a static bubble, it is always advancing and changing with the times. We don't live in the Revolutionary period, or the Middle Ages, or Biblical times anymore. The founders of the country set the framework that guarantees out freedom, a framework that is also allowed to expand with the times.

[quote name='Calypso'].................and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the U.S. founded under "Christianity"?[/quote]

Indi has already tackled this in her response, but I'd like to add something else that I mentioned much earlier in the thread that is proof that the country was not founded on any one single religion. This an an extract from the American treaty with Tripoli, drafted under George Washington in 1796 and signed by John Adams in 1797:

[I]As the government of the United States of America is not, in any way, founded on the Christian religion...[/I]

[Nomurah!]

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="HotPink"]Ah yes, and wasn't it the phrase "All men are created equal", that came from the Declaration. I suppose that means that gays are just the same as any straight man or woman. After all, it does say in Romans 2:3, that people have no right to judge people, for it would not clear them for condemnation (this being relevant considering Romans 1 was about homosexuality). So I guess, it's not for us to say if being gay is right or wrong. I for one, I'm completely okay with it. In fact, I find it very much so ignorant not to be okay with it, of course, it's all a matter of opinion.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Claire]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Just to clarify the civil unions bit. The rights, or at least some of them, are provided, but what people desire is that full recognition of "We are married." The people who fight for gay marriage rights are saying that there shouldn't have to be one form of marriage for everyone else, and then a special exception below marriage for them.[/QUOTE]
[FONT="Arial"]
Ah, thanks. At least in some places the existence of same-sex marriage is merely a matter of semantics.

I'll admit, I have no desire to ever get married myself. This hinders my ability to understand why anyone else would want to. But if they want to, then there is not one good reason why they shouldn't be able to.

I would also like to address the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

It's not.

Thank you.[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]The bible says a lot of things. God also says we're allowed to buy slaves - why don't we, then?[/size][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Sienna"]To Vicky: Where so?
To Indi: You are right, terribly sorry. I just thought Columbus came here under Christianity, gotta brush up on my history.........:animeswea
To Clurr: About your second edit: everything has its consequences whether you get caught for it or not. Ties into what I was saying to Indi.

So to all of you guys, what would you say this nation is based on? Christianity mixed with something else?

I feel all alone here.........oh well, can't expect people to agree with me all the time. *sigh*
[/COLOR]