Homosexuality Debates

Well, all right, i can agree with you for a bit that homosexuality isn't someones choice(sometimes, it is, sometimes it isn't), because it's your own emotions that decides your actions of your sexual appeal. And what i was trying to say about the change thing is about that change isn't always good. Sometimes changing can lead to bad things.

On 16-Nov-2009 super craig said:

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.

Just a heads-up, craig, but the percentage sign doesn't work any more. It just vanishes for some reason. But yes, I agree with your post, we do need people to provide counter-arguments in any thread or it'll just be full of people saying "I agree". Hm... I should put something in the rules about this.

Also, I don't know if you've looked at the Mod Shake-Up thread that's pinned at the top of this forum, but you'll lose your spot if you don't reapply for this forum in that thread.

On 17-Nov-2009 Catharsis said:

Just a heads-up, craig, but the percentage sign doesn't work any more. It just vanishes for some reason. But yes, I agree with your post, we do need people to provide counter-arguments in any thread or it'll just be full of people saying "I agree". Hm... I should put something in the rules about this.

Also, I don't know if you've looked at the Mod Shake-Up thread that's pinned at the top of this forum, but you'll lose your spot if you don't reapply for this forum in that thread.

I have seen it, I'm just waiting till I've got the time to do a decent job of it since it might take a bit longer than usual, haven't applied for anything in awhile. When exactly is the deadline for submission? And cheers for reminding me anyway.

Not much longer. Part of the reason behind this is that many of the moderators have become somewhat inactive and people who have more of an interest in the forum are missing a chance to get spots. I wouldn't like you to lose your spot for that reason seeing as you've been online and posting in here plenty of times since this was started, but just haven't gotten round to applying.

Anyway, now that I've reminded you that you need to do that, let's get back on topic. Let's see... can anyone provide a reason for homosexual marriages being forbidden aside from religious doctrine, or the non-argument that "marriage is between a man and a woman"?

On 17-Nov-2009 SomeWhere said:

Well, all right, i can agree with you for a bit that homosexuality isn't someones choice(sometimes, it is, sometimes it isn't), because it's your own emotions that decides your actions of your sexual appeal. And what i was trying to say about the change thing is about that change isn't always good. Sometimes changing can lead to bad things.

As a Presbyterian by denomination, I'm inclined to say that change doesn't exist, because the 'change' was predestined. If you want to look at it that way, go ahead.

However, I believe there's a balance between predestination and freewill, so I see where you're coming from.


It's not always a choice, no. When it is, the person is considered bisexual.


Here's a tricky question though, with me coming from a completely non-biased (as much as I can be) view (whilst it not be mine own): While being homosexual is considered alright in many places, it's still considered unnatural. Does the fact that it's unnatural make something wrong? One could argue yes, because the naturality(sp?) of man in essence, 'decides' what is right vs. wrong (Agian, not my view, but still). Yet, many times people do things against the nature of a person, and it's not wrong.

Just a little queshun

If you look closely, you actually answer your own question.

Multiple things are considered unnatural in peoples eyes and natural in others. That's somewhat uncontrollable.

On 18-Nov-2009 tbug2007 said:

As a Presbyterian by denomination, I'm inclined to say that change doesn't exist, because the 'change' was predestined. If you want to look at it that way, go ahead.

However, I believe there's a balance between predestination and freewill, so I see where you're coming from.


It's not always a choice, no. When it is, the person is considered bisexual.


Here's a tricky question though, with me coming from a completely non-biased (as much as I can be) view (whilst it not be mine own): While being homosexual is considered alright in many places, it's still considered unnatural. Does the fact that it's unnatural make something wrong? One could argue yes, because the naturality(sp?) of man in essence, 'decides' what is right vs. wrong (Agian, not my view, but still). Yet, many times people do things against the nature of a person, and it's not wrong.

Just a little queshun

Well, those that consider anything "unnatural" wrong should shun all clothing, refuse to use any modern technologies or synthesised medicines, refuse to listen to music, and... well, essentially divest themselves of anything that you wouldn't see an animal doing or using.

...Although interestingly, that leaves gay sodomy as an option of things you can do. Seeing as there have been many cases of homosexual behaviour reported in animals, from the 100 percent bisexuality of the bonobo monkey to the homosexual mountings that male giraffes actually engage in more often than heterosexual ones.

Bumping this, as Patriot X wished to discuss homosexuality in another thread, indicating that there are elements of this discussion that people still have an interest in debating. I believe you specifically wanted to mention the religious sides of this debate, Patriot, but do feel free to discuss the secular side as well (and indeed, be prepared to, as some here may force you into that region of debate).

alright, first of all I'd like to present my view on this issue. I believe in the bible's veiw on this: that homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not think it is the government's role to define marriage. The church should not marry homosexuals because it is disobeying God. However, the government should not be able to say that you can or cannot be gay.

Patriot X said:

alright, first of all I'd like to present my view on this issue. I believe in the bible's veiw on this: that homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not think it is the government's role to define marriage. The church should not marry homosexuals because it is disobeying God. However, the government should not be able to say that you can or cannot be gay.

.

What would be the point of the government not being able to say if it is right or wrong? I just mean that if it doesn't say anything that it is to be assumed that it is ok with homosexuality, so why not just say that it is ok? Alternatively by not saying definately if its allowed or not you could effectively end up stifling discussion of it, you'd deny homosexuals the right to ever feel that its ok to be gay and they wouldn't be able to argue against it since technically there's nothing to fight against, they wouldn't be banned but neither would they be recognised the situation would hardly be any better.

I agree that the church should be allowed to not marry gay people if it doesn't want to but by the same token should have no say whatsoever in marriages that occur outside the church.

« Last edited by super craig on Feb 18th 2010 »

Patriot X said:

alright, first of all I'd like to present my view on this issue. I believe in the bible's veiw on this: that homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not think it is the government's role to define marriage. The church should not marry homosexuals because it is disobeying God. However, the government should not be able to say that you can or cannot be gay.

Marriage is not a religious institution any more. It's not restricted to Christians, or even restricted to people who believe in any religion, but atheists and agnostics are free to marry. They can do so without the involvement of a church - indeed, the only reason that marriages that happen in churches are legally recognised is because priests are licensed to marry people by the government. Why do you feel that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals when the church doesn't have to be involved in it at all? Would you support gay marriage if it was with the provision that no church that disliked the notion of marrying gays would be forced to do so?

Patriot X said:

alright, first of all I'd like to present my view on this issue. I believe in the bible's veiw on this: that homosexuality is wrong. However, I do not think it is the government's role to define marriage. The church should not marry homosexuals because it is disobeying God. However, the government should not be able to say that you can or cannot be gay.

I agree with the point that churches should not marry homosexuals. Correct. Down with Government. But as Cath said, the church is not needed period. Just go get ordained and a license.

And the governement sparks this little tiff with me.

On the "don't ask don't tell policy" the generals are trying to say it's too soon. Stop it. I'm frankly annoyed. Views?

Craizen said:

On the "don't ask don't tell policy" the generals are trying to say it's too soon. Stop it. I'm frankly annoyed. Views?

Actually, it's the Republicans in congress that are stalling it. One of the generals in charge of combat testified that he believed the policy was antiquated and discriminatory.

Yes, I know, but in an article I was reading the other day, there attempting to "ease" into it. You know how long that can take.

Actually, all it would take is an act of Congress and *poof* it all goes away. But the Pentagon just overturned a rule that said women weren't allowed on submarines because it was discriminatory. But DADT is gonna take forever to repeal. That's the good ol' USA for ya.

To my knowledge, the don't ask don't tell policy is to prevent discrimination of gays from homophobic soldiers. I personally don't care for it one way or the other, but there is a possibility that its removal will lead to a different kind of discrimination.

rate_me said:

To my knowledge, the don't ask don't tell policy is to prevent discrimination of gays from homophobic soldiers. I personally don't care for it one way or the other, but there is a possibility that its removal will lead to a different kind of discrimination.

Regardless of the intent (I don't believe your entirely right or wrong here), the outcome is a policy that discriminates against gays and lesbians. Preventing discrimination would mean stiffer penalties and education within the military system.

I'd like to revive this thread, with a somewhat new point that was only briefly touched upon before.

I believe that all forms of discrimination against the LGBT community, whether it be denying them marriage, policies such as DADT or the ban on giving blood, are based on the irrational belief that LGBT individuals are in some way inferior to "normal" heterosexual individuals. I also believe that there is no justification for that belief, aside from perhaps religious justification which should have no place in the legislative processes of a non-theocratic society.

Would anyone care to disagree?

Catharsis said:

I'd like to revive this thread, with a somewhat new point that was only briefly touched upon before.

I believe that all forms of discrimination against the LGBT community, whether it be denying them marriage, policies such as DADT or the ban on giving blood, are based on the irrational belief that LGBT individuals are in some way inferior to "normal" heterosexual individuals. I also believe that there is no justification for that belief, aside from perhaps religious justification which should have no place in the legislative processes of a non-theocratic society.

Would anyone care to disagree?

I really don't get the ban on giving blood, obviously it is due to fear of HIV but heterosexuals are just as likely to get it. It does seem to say that you are gay therefore you must have HIV. Same with DADT, I couldn't give a flying monkeys about a persons sexuality so long as they are watching my back when the bullets start flying.

I agree entirely with you that there is no justification of these, almost all of the justifications that people do put forward have absolutely no evidence or it is twisted, nothing more than a mask for religious justification.

Ok religion aside, most people vote against homosexuality, so that would be a clear view on what the majority wants, not that I think that any person has the authority make the decision and make it a law for people to follow, it should just stay as it is and have people keep their own opinions. Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice anyway, so if they're sick of the way they're treated they can do something about changing, because I sure won't feel sorry for you because you want to take the easy way out.

« Last edited by Black Mamba 19 on Jun 19th 2010 »