Homosexuality Debates

Hey, don't try to switch the blame to me. |:

On 01-Oct-2009 super craig said:

I don't want any religion imposing laws on any country (except the Vatican, of course), but am I not free to base political opinions on a religion's philosophy?

In which case you will need to provide some political arguements as to why we should ban homosexuality, since unless you can come up with a good reason for it without refering to religion then any such law would be religion imposing upon socitey without any benefit to socitey. Of course your free to chose how you want but what will the benefit be to everyday people of getting rid of homosexuality? None.

In order to be genuinely married, a couple?any couple?must: (a.) commit themselves to the type of personal union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together; and (b.) perform the conduct by which they become biologically one, conduct that, with the addition of conditions extrinsic to that conduct, might result in procreation (and even if those extrinsic conditions do not obtain, as in infertile couples, their act has still biologically united them). (a.) and (b.) together constitute the beginning of a marriage and are necessary for consummated marriage. Any couple who is unable to fulfill those conditions is unable to marry. Not only same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples who are too young to form a commitment and opposite-sex couples who (because of impotence) cannot consummate their union are unable to marry.
^no, I don't think that infertile couples should be forbidden from marriage. If a couple doesn't want to have kids, that's fine, but I don't condone birth control or infanticide (abortion). If they choose to have intercourse, they must be open to the possibility of children.

As Cath has already pointed out how can you agree with one thing from that arguement and disagree with others? That article clearly says that infertile couples can't marry yet you say that you think that could get married, why go against that sentiment but agree with the fact that homosexuals can't marry? Talk about picking and chosing. In the words of comedian Andy Parsons 'how come we've got to the stage where those who never have sex, are telling us that do, how to do it?'

You've gone on about marriage is religious etc and pretty much go on to say that even marriages that aren't religious are religious (they are still inextricably bound to each other in the eyes of God) Now from where I am sitting that just seems like the church trying to extend its influence over people who don't want it to, if I was gay and I wanted to be married in a church I could accept that the church could say no, but if I chose to get married in something outside of the church with no religious attachments at all, what right has religion got to impose its will on me outside of its own religious circle.

"In which case you will need to provide some political arguements as to why we should ban homosexuality"

Okay. Just think of how many more dependents would be added to the already-failing Social Security system. There would be too much strain on it and if it failed, everyone, hetero and homosexual, will be screwed over.

The article says that infertile couples can marry. It said that the impotent can't. As I've said in my response to Catharsis, I don't have much of an opinion on impotent men marrying.

The Church isn't trying to extend its influence as you've described and it's not imposing its will on you. All I'm saying is that regardless of whether or not a marriage occurs in the Church, a marriage is considered a marriage by God. Just as all people, in or outside of a religion, are loved by God, the same is true for a marriage, even if it is outside of the Church. Either way (whether or not God exists), the Church has no real power over you.

« Last edited by rate_me on Oct 1st 2009 »

On 30-Sep-2009 rate_me said:

Why would I think that? That would be stupid. Really stupid. What made you think I believed that marriage was invented 4000 years ago?

"Marriage is sacred. It's one of the Sacrements."

Right, in your religion. Other cultures, it is not a "Sacrement," but you say it is a "Sacrement.". It's **** that the United States in practically being run by your religion. What is this about "Segregation of State and Religion" that still hasn't fully happened. Sure, Christians don't have to allow gay marriage in their church, but it still be called "marriage" even if it's not in a church.

On 01-Oct-2009 XZYOE said:

"Marriage is sacred. It's one of the Sacrements."

Right, in your religion. Other cultures, it is not a "Sacrement," but you say it is a "Sacrement.". It's **** that the United States in practically being run by your religion. What is this about "Segregation of State and Religion" that still hasn't fully happened. Sure, Christians don't have to allow gay marriage in their church, but it still be called "marriage" even if it's not in a church.

And how exactly does what it's called matter?

Church and State are separated. However, it is generally the public that votes down gay marriage, not the state.

On 01-Oct-2009 rate_me said:

I am not trying to convert people. All I am saying is that if a bill allowing homosexual marriage was on the ballot, I would vote against it. The only reason why I posted in this thread for the first time in about a month was to let Ryuujin know that he was not looking at any side of the debate aside from his own, not because I'm campaigning against gay marriage. Normally I would have ignored his post and this topic, but I felt insulted when he said "Some people believe that marriage is sacred and gays taint it by marrying. I believe those people are f*cking morons" and "all organized religion does is make you stupid", and I felt the need to correct him. I don't really think that it is fair when Ryuujin can say that religions brainwash their members and that organized religion makes you stupid and nobody but me challenges him on it, but when I say what I define marriage as everyone takes it to mean more than it does.

I'm not selectively choosing which topics regarding my faith to debate on. I was just responding to Ryuujin's post. If there was a birth control topic, I might post in it, but there isn't one. I only seldom post in this thread because my stance on it is, in my opinion, fairly simple. That's why I prefer the existence of God thread more: my opinion on it is much more developed.

Speaking of opinions, I don't really have one on whether or not men who are impotent should get married. Same with people who don't intend to have intercourse getting married. Sorry :/

Ultimately, yes, it is up to the individual to decide how to live their life, and I can't do anything about it. If gay marriage is legalized, all I can do is keep my opposition to it to myself.

I don't care if atheists get married because there is no sin in them marrying. If they choose to focus on the ceremony and not on the spiritual part, that's their choice. If Christians decide to focus more on the spirituality, that's their choice. Marriage is not purely Christian. I encourage people of other religions getting married however they want because they're celebrating the same unity lauded in a Catholic wedding, just in a different way.

Also, where did you get that all sins are equal? If that were true, a life of stealing pennies from fountains would be equivolent to the kind of life Jeffrey Dahmer left. Not all sins are equal.

But why impose your beliefs on others? I can understand things can be personally unappealing to you, for religious reasons, but you must accept that people have the right to choose not to follow God, even if you do. I'll use a ridiculous example to try and convey to you how your views might seem to others - I find the game of American football distasteful. It would surely be ridiculous of me to argue that it be banned, yes? But if I say that "I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on others" but that I'm just stating my opinion, does that mean that I have a case for American football being illegalised? Would I vote on a ballot for American football to be illegalised, if one were to be taken?

(Incidentally, Ryuujin was out of line for making such statements, either in or out of a serious debate. I decided to let it slide this time, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out for such statements in other threads.)

Your stance is fairly simple, yes. Yet I'm asking why you view this aspect of your faith as being one that's so important that there should be legislation against it. You confess that you don't believe in theocracy, with the exception of the Vatican. So why should religion be allowed to dictate this aspect of the law, as marriage has a secular side - married couples get tax breaks, for example, and in hospitals when visitors are restricted to "family only", married partners are also included. No-one is saying that Catholic churches, or any churches, should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to. So why should religion be allowed to dictate who is permitted the secular benefits of marriage?

But the definition of marriage you quoted clearly includes them in the list of people who aren't permitted to marry. Why be uncertain over those areas of your quote, when you're so sure about gay couples?

Actually, whether it's legalised or not, you have the right to free speech. You can state your opinions on whether or not something should be legal regardless of its current legality. But I'm arguing that opinions alone shouldn't decide laws. Taxes aren't exactly popular, for instance, but many are necessary and therefore must be part of law despite the fact that most people's opinions are against them.

Not so, I'm afraid. Atheists may engage in practices forbidden according to Catholicism. Other religions' followers may also do so - some religions even permit polygamous marriages. Yet I don't think you'd be voting for those marriages to be banned if it was down to you, even though you know these things full well.

I have been told it by various Christians. It's a position that I never really fully understood myself, but apparently it doesn't matter which of God's rules is broken if forgiveness is not sought, as any unforgiven sin would keep one from keeping one from entering Heaven. That's the most commonly used argument I've encountered. Obviously, as someone who's not religious, the argument has me unconvinced and I personally believe that there is indeed a difference between living as a necrophiliac cannibalistic serial killer, and stealing pennies from a fountain.

« Last edited by Catharsis on Oct 2nd 2009 »

As said by Kingdom1234hearts, a member from a few years back, our god is a forgiving god--even the Christian bibles say that. So why would he send us to Hell to be tortured forever?
=/ Think about that.

On 01-Oct-2009 Ryuujin said:

As said by Kingdom1234hearts, a member from a few years back, our god is a forgiving god--even the Christian bibles say that. So why would he send us to Hell to be tortured forever?
=/ Think about that.

I think that this is the wrong debate for that.

You say that God is watching you, accounting your sins. Think about this.

Ryuujin, rate_me is right. This isn't the existence of God thread.

(Although, please, do feel free to go there. rate_me is quite a capable debater on the subject if you engage him over it in the right thread, believe me.)

You may notice that I've managed to debate against the religious arguments for gay marriage for the last half a page or so without calling the existence of God into question. Ultimately, whether he exists isn't the important thing in this context - the important thing is that there are, and possibly always will be, people who believe that he does, and that he condemns homosexuality. The argument therefore isn't whether their beliefs are right or wrong, as you will almost certainly not convert even one of them with those arguments, but whether their beliefs give them the right to legislate against things that their religion condemns. Do you not think that this is a better angle to take, not only on a practical level, but also on an intellectual one?

You finally found a way to but my thoughts into words. Even though I could argue both ways. Religion does have your angle on it. But truthfully, it's not quite possible to do. We'll always end up debating with the religion angle fully in tact. Religion will always decide peoples views on gays, or failing that, hurtful stereotypes, phobias, or propaganda, spawned from religion. It's always going to get back to that.

Science can play a part too, but right now religion plays dominance

Ok guys and girls. i view myself as a christian. but anyway. If someone wants to be gay or whatever its that persons choice. If someone wants to be gay or straight, then thats there choice. But im not saying that they wont be judged in the end. Im not turning this into a god debate but i want u guys to know that God gave us a choice. If u want to be gay, then thats ur right as a person, but i believe that u will be judged in the end. So thats how i feel about that. if anyone agrees please tell me. I want to know what the rest of the world thinks.

On 29-Oct-2009 upcboy said:

Ok guys and girls. i view myself as a christian. but anyway. If someone wants to be gay or whatever its that persons choice. If someone wants to be gay or straight, then thats there choice. But im not saying that they wont be judged in the end. Im not turning this into a god debate but i want u guys to know that God gave us a choice. If u want to be gay, then thats ur right as a person, but i believe that u will be judged in the end. So thats how i feel about that. if anyone agrees please tell me. I want to know what the rest of the world thinks.

If you want to know what people think you'd be better of reading the rest of the debate, though I know its not exactly a quick summary. Again though this brings us back to the old arguement of choice, did you chose to be straight, did you make a conscious desicion to, or were you born that way? If someone believes that they are truely born gay (most do) but chooses to be straight, even though its not what they want or like and live the rest of their lives as a lie how is that a good thing?

Just a very small point, if you could write u as you in this forum please. It just stops everyone thinking text talk is ok. Cheers.

I've already pointed this out to many people. Religion have connections with racism. And this is a proof. Because religious writings are easliy misunterstood. I once viewed a research, when they asked over 50 people in diffrent countries(US was one of those countries) what they thought about gay marrige. Guess what the procentage was?100. All people have right to live, no matter who they are and what they do in life. What religion do is to classify people as evil/second class society people, and even humilliates homosexual people. This is so wrong that I just think that the religion have twisted people's minds. Also, I would like to see a clear explanation of why people think homosexuality is wrong, not just saying that it's gross, it's wrong, and other stuff. Those are just clear prejductures. And they keep saying, I'm not a racist, but yet they are. Because they classify them as other people, and set abilities on them, which is all what racism is about. I don't think that we ever are going to get rid of the homophobia of the religious fanatics, or normal religious people, because the religions say that it's wrong, that's all they need for an explanation. But it isn't good enough! It just proves that they don't know how homosexual people are. They don't even know any homosexual people. Because they're afraid to come in contact that homosexual people will suddenly fall in love with the same sex as they are. this is just terrific. Just tell them how it is instead of being afraid, for ***** sake. Be honest.

On 14-Nov-2009 SomeWhere said:

I've already pointed this out to many people. Religion have connections with racism. And this is a proof. Because religious writings are easliy misunterstood. I once viewed a research, when they asked over 50 people in diffrent countries(US was one of those countries) what they thought about gay marrige. Guess what the procentage was?100. All people have right to live, no matter who they are and what they do in life. What religion do is to classify people as evil/second class society people, and even humilliates homosexual people. This is so wrong that I just think that the religion have twisted people's minds. Also, I would like to see a clear explanation of why people think homosexuality is wrong, not just saying that it's gross, it's wrong, and other stuff. Those are just clear prejductures. And they keep saying, I'm not a racist, but yet they are. Because they classify them as other people, and set abilities on them, which is all what racism is about. I don't think that we ever are going to get rid of the homophobia of the religious fanatics, or normal religious people, because the religions say that it's wrong, that's all they need for an explanation. But it isn't good enough! It just proves that they don't know how homosexual people are. They don't even know any homosexual people. Because they're afraid to come in contact that homosexual people will suddenly fall in love with the same sex as they are. this is just terrific. Just tell them how it is instead of being afraid, for ***** sake. Be honest.

"religious writings are easliy misunterstood"
You exhibit that quite well in your posts about them.

"I once viewed a research, when they asked over 50 people in diffrent countries(US was one of those countries) what they thought about gay marrige. Guess what the procentage was?100."
I can just imagine it: "Q: What do you think about gay marriage? A: 100".

"All people have right to live, no matter who they are and what they do in life"
I agree, and believe it or not so do most modern religions.

"see a clear explanation of why people think homosexuality is wrong, not just saying that it's gross, it's wrong, and other stuff"
A marriage is between a man and a woman. Clear enough?

"I'm not a racist, but yet they are"
Homosexuals are a race of their own?

"Because they classify them as other people, and set abilities on them, which is all what racism is about"
No. Racism doesn't classify them as people.

"I don't think that we ever are going to get rid of the homophobia of the religious fanatics, or normal religious people"
I don't think we'll ever get rid of fear of organized religion because of the atheist fanatics, or normal atheists.

"They don't even know any homosexual people"
You strike me as someone who knows 3 religious people tops.

Again, there is so much hypocrisy in your post it's not funny (well, actually it is a bit funny).

And I think you should just shut up, because you clearly saying right now(when you said that marrige is between a man and a woman) that you are against homosexual people right now. So just quit it. It's nothing wrong it it. It's completley normal, and you probably will be coming with the answer that I'm a idiot, but it's pretty much you who is the idiot, because you just say against your own opinions right now.

"They don't even know any homosexual people"
You strike me as someone who knows 3 religious people tops.


"see a clear explanation of why people think homosexuality is wrong, not just saying that it's gross, it's wrong, and other stuff"
A marriage is between a man and a woman. Clear enough?

Why are you even writing in this thread?You seem against homosexuality marrige, but at the same time...well i don't know...It's just sad to see you write that.

On 16-Nov-2009 SomeWhere said:

And I think you should just shut up, because you clearly saying right now(when you said that marrige is between a man and a woman) that you are against homosexual people right now. So just quit it. It's nothing wrong it it. It's completley normal, and you probably will be coming with the answer that I'm a idiot, but it's pretty much you who is the idiot, because you just say against your own opinions right now.

"They don't even know any homosexual people"
You strike me as someone who knows 3 religious people tops.


"see a clear explanation of why people think homosexuality is wrong, not just saying that it's gross, it's wrong, and other stuff"
A marriage is between a man and a woman. Clear enough?

Why are you even writing in this thread?You seem against homosexuality marrige, but at the same time...well i don't know...It's just sad to see you write that.

"And I think you should just shut up, because you clearly saying right now...that marrige is between a man and a woman) that you are against homosexual people right"
What do you think a debate is?

"and you probably will be coming with the answer that I'm a idiot, but it's pretty much you who is the idiot, because you just say against your own opinions right now."
Wow, is that your best rebuttle? I'm here looking for a serious debate and you call me an idiot because I disagree with you. Despite your poor grammar and unfollowable logic, I won't call you an idiot. Keep this up and I'll let an smod or admin take care of you.

"Why are you even writing in this thread?You seem against homosexuality marrige"
I am and I like to debate.

Let me just say first off that discrimination against homosexuals is not racism, it's prejudice. The term racism gets used an awful lot. I guess prejudice is just too hard to spell.

I've read most of the thread (not all - I like to read, but 696 posts is quite a few when the posts are as long as most of these), so please forgive me if I bring up arguments that have been "successfully" debated against.

SomeWhere seems, to me, a person who is very passionate about his opinions and extremely righteous. His grammar and logic are both flawed, but the general point he's trying to get across is well understood: gay marriage is fine and there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Those are his beliefs, but without any supporting statements to back them up he just comes across as not very intelligent.

rate_me, on the other hand, seems like a person who is open to debate but will always believe he's right and will always stick to his side even when he's proven wrong (not that has happened or can happen in a debate like this). His general point is that homosexual marriage is wrong because marriage is between a man and a woman: the church says so, it must be true, right?

All of this may seem like a diversion from the topic, but analyzing who is involved in the debate can help bring up points and issues that haven't been put out there before.

I have nothing against homosexuals or homosexual marriage. I don't understand why people have problems with it. Is it because it's a change, something different? In the United States, commonly described as a "melting pot", we're supposed to tolerate and even accept people who are different. Homosexuals, overweight people, people who are mentally or physically disabled, people who have extreme birth defects, ect. There is nothing to stop people who have severe birth defects that are passed down through genes to keep from marrying and raising a family. These humans create more defected humans. At least homosexuals aren't reproducing and creating more of these abominations, right?

Change is important. So what if marriage has been between a man and a woman for as long as we know? Can't we change that? It's sacred, you say? Well back hundreds of thousands of years ago, a lot of things were sacred. Things have changed. People who think marriage should only be between a man and a woman simply because "that's how it's always been" are becoming increasingly outdated. Homosexuals are like any other human. Personally, I think it's better if homosexuals marry and be happy together than for them to have anonymous sex and spread diseases and such. (I do not mean to say homosexuals spread STDs any more than heterosexuals or that they are more faithful to their partners; I just believe that if a person is married they are far less likely to be having sex with random people)

I am not afraid of organized religion, but I don't believe one should follow everything their religion tells them to do blindly without asking questions if their religion says for them to act a certain way or believe certain things. I am a Christian, but I don't believe discrimination against homosexuals is right, even when it comes to marriage.

If a person participates in consensual homosexuals acts, then that is their choice. Is that "choosing to be gay"? I believe homosexuality is the desire to participate in sexual acts, or having physical/sexual attraction to a member of the same sex whether they actually indulge these desires is irrelevant. I don't think desires are usually by choice.

So, what you're basically saying is that you are against handicapped now, when you want people to stop making abnominals? This is just fine. I thought this debate was about homosexuality. And it's nothing wrong with handicapped people. And I agree with you that it's a person's choice to be homosexual. And I agree with you that change is a part of what we are. But if people refuse to belive that change is the option, then what is the solution you say? Changing isn't always the solution. Sometimes, it's best to keep it the way it is, because some things aren't supposed to be touched if it already has. It's like a pandora's box to me. Homosexuality debates for me is like a pandoras box. If you have opened it, you shouldn't open it again. Why? People wants it to change, but sometimes, debates can change into bad, and we don't want that, do we?

On 16-Nov-2009 SomeWhere said:

So, what you're basically saying is that you are against handicapped now, when you want people to stop making abnominals? This is just fine. I thought this debate was about homosexuality. And it's nothing wrong with handicapped people. And I agree with you that it's a person's choice to be homosexual. And I agree with you that change is a part of what we are. But if people refuse to belive that change is the option, then what is the solution you say? Changing isn't always the solution. Sometimes, it's best to keep it the way it is, because some things aren't supposed to be touched if it already has. It's like a pandora's box to me. Homosexuality debates for me is like a pandoras box. If you have opened it, you shouldn't open it again. Why? People wants it to change, but sometimes, debates can change into bad, and we don't want that, do we?

Just to point out I am 100 with you that been homosexual is fine but you must understand that people will always view things from more than 1 angle, it would be a very boring debate if we all agreed all of the time. People have a right to voice their opposition.

On 16-Nov-2009 SomeWhere said:

So, what you're basically saying is that you are against handicapped now, when you want people to stop making abnominals? This is just fine. I thought this debate was about homosexuality. And it's nothing wrong with handicapped people. And I agree with you that it's a person's choice to be homosexual. And I agree with you that change is a part of what we are. But if people refuse to belive that change is the option, then what is the solution you say? Changing isn't always the solution. Sometimes, it's best to keep it the way it is, because some things aren't supposed to be touched if it already has. It's like a pandora's box to me. Homosexuality debates for me is like a pandoras box. If you have opened it, you shouldn't open it again. Why? People wants it to change, but sometimes, debates can change into bad, and we don't want that, do we?

I think you totally misunderstood my arguments.

I'm not against handicapped people in any way. I'm saying that if people are against homosexuals marrying each other, why aren't they against handicaps having children? I'm not going to bother repeating myself as for how those are connected; please refer to my previous post.

I also said that it's not a person's choice to be homosexual. They can choose to participate in (consensual) homosexual acts; this is not the same as being homosexual. Just because I have not participated in heterosexual acts does not mean I'm not heterosexual.

I don't really understand your last points about change, sorry. These forums are for debating (of course, nothing will ever get done by what we say on these forums so I find it a little hilarious that we take ourselves so seriously here), the point is to open issues regardless of if people want to talk about it or not.

Everything changes over time.