Same Sex Marriages

[kbm8795]

crazy did you actually read the story of lot and his daughters getting him drunk. no where did it say that was appropriate. it was about 4 verses long that related a story without an explanation. no where was that showing christian ideals. thats probably why no one responded to it, it wasnt worth the effort. ("I'm sorry, You've lived a good, moral and loving life, BUT you're gay) i dont consider pre-marital sex moral why would gay be?
"America has always been about hating somebody, oppressing somebody under the pretense of the American ideal. All the wars that have been fought and are still being fought over freedom, all the lives that have been sacrificed, and yet our country seems to try harder and harder to restrict that freedom within its own borders." i couldnt disagree more. thats an exptremely negative view of your country.
incorporating Christian ideals into our law is not a state mandated religion. nor did the founding fathers think so. thats not a contradicion at all. Im not looking for any type of vindication at all. i dont see any joy in anyone going to hell at the judgement at the "gates of St Peter" Nor did i ever say or imply homosexuals would go to hell. and truthfully i dont consider the opression felt by homosexuals to be any where near to par with what african americans faced in the past.

You make a lot of assumptions here. For one thing, there are lots of churches that don't hold the "ideal" of persecuting others over property and inheritance rights. And despite Pat Robertson's claim that these churches just aren't "christian" anymore, anyone who has turned into all of the talks Pat tells the country about what God tells him is gonna happen already knows he must have had too much wax in his ears.

I hate to burst your bubble, but state marriage statutes don't mention God. They are about nothing more than practical property matters, health decisionmaking rights, automatic inheritance, tax regulations and funeral arrangements. There's nothing sacred about those statutes other than the state's interest in protecting public health and ensuring an orderly transfer of property. If you visit your local courthouse, you'll notice that divorces and marriages are both conducted there, rather than the church down the street. Why is that? Because the church doesn't decide whether someone is married or divorced. Oh, a church can sure have its opinion about it, and sanction you if you are a member, but they have no power to grant or deny those property rights.

And that is because the churches do NOT make the laws of the land, nor may they select and regulate who enters into a contract with the state for the purposes of highly personal relationships. So, whether you like it or not, civil marriage is nothing more than an agreement with the state. For about $15 in my county, a couple of witnesses and ten minutes of time, you can gain access to those benefits without saying a word to the minister across town or the neighbor next door. In fact, the last survey taken on that subject indicated that 40% of Americans opted OUT of a church wedding - and that number is rising.

So sorry, bud. . .all they are asking for is access to those benefits in the state contract - and the only reason many Americans are being fired up is because "religious" zealots are claiming some kind of church privilege. Of course, do you think, if we had a national referendum in 1860, that the slaves would be freed? Or if we had a national referendum in 1964, that Blacks could ride anywhere on the bus or eat at any lunch counter? Exercising the tyranny of the majority (an easy thing to do if you are voting against something you don't have much chance of becoming) is an easy end-run around constitutional guarantees for everybody. You take those away from one group of people and sooner or later your butt is gonna fall into the next group of victims.

I don't care how many people in this country call themselves "christians"...but I do know there are a helluva lot more who are "christian impersonaters." And there isn't one single denomination in this nation in which a majority of Americans worship - and there are lots and lots of reasons why we have lots of denominations. . .meaning no one group believes all of the same things.

And you do miss one very important point here, especially for someone who has strong moral beliefs on this issue. Would you like to be the government representative who knocks on the door of those thousands of married Massachusetts gay couples and tell them their marriage has just been dissolved? Yeah - think about it. . .and then think about how you'd be lookin' at the purpose of the Second Amendment if someone knocked on your door and told you that the town took a vote and you aren't married any longer, either.

 

[bio-chem]

how did you get all that out of that post? man, your amazing. i think ive already said im not opossed to giving them those rights you spoke about. how much of this thread did you read before you posted your reply to that? what you quoted of mine was in response to a.....never mind it's not important. good luck with that "look at me im opressed" talk. di na ako magtatagal. kayapaan.

 

[kbm8795]

how did you get all that out of that post? man, your amazing. i think ive already said im not opossed to giving them those rights you spoke about. how much of this thread did you read before you posted your reply to that? what you quoted of mine was in response to a.....never mind it's not important. good luck with that "look at me im opressed" talk. di na ako magtatagal. kayapaan.

That is the whole point. The very things you claim to be not opposed to are essentially the major statutes governing marriage. That's what marriage is, according to the state.

And I was reading this damned thread months and months ago - and probably have at least a dozen posts wrapped in here, or maybe more...geesh.

As for the "look at me I'm oppressed talk" . . .I don't think there was something called a "closet" simply because it was a real nice cozy place to get it on for those people. But any citizen in this country should have the right to seek redress for injustice, and I can't think of many things more unjust than denying the right to take care of the person you love and demanding that they pretend they are "single" in the eyes of the law. We all know there has been no real discussion about those grievances they brought to the table - only hysterical "religious" paranoia that claims if we let a partner ride in an ambulance, we'll be dooming the nation and humanity to eternal damnation.

Of course, you don't hear any of them thumping to instate the death penalty for adulterers, or refuse to allow divorced people to remarry. It's all a selective little scriptural shell game - look for a few little verses that can be interpreted one way to persecute some fellow citizens who have already been ostracized in society. It's really a very simple tool.

Do you think you'd let the government knock on YOUR door and tell you that your legal marriage is no longer recognized? Maybe..well, take your kids, cuz 'conservatives" don't think you should be raising them? Conservatives are all about defending Second Amendment rights for this very reason. . .the right to defend your family. Do ya wanna say those Americans don't get that right, too?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Think about it...... the gay amendment is the only amendment to actually restrict rights! Anyone with any respect for our first two amendments and their understanding should have their hair crawling with horror. I honestly think most Americans are just clueless about their own country's amendment laws and what our soldiers are supposedly dieing to protect.

 

[RexStunnahH]

Hi Rex,

Now I CAN NOT LET THIS GO BY without saying this: It does NOT matter the "WHO" loves "dat" but that THEY DO - TRULY. I am VERY GLAD I am a BiSexual Man. And a Man in the truest sense of the word FOR SURE! Those that I LOVE - I ABSOLUTELY DO, and NOT just "sexually"... but I do, also. ............

Take Care, John H.

I am confused...

 

[RexStunnahH]

sacred, schmacred...marriage stopped being a sacred institution the moment divorce became more popular than happily ever after, the moment someone first cheated on their spouse, the second a person ever raised a hand in anger to the one person they vowed to honor, love and cherish. Something can only be considered sacred for as long as these vows are honored and respected....without that, they're just words.
QUOTE]

Just because some of mankind has stopped treating it in a sacred way does not mean it is not sacred.

I dont think a few bumps in a marriage make it no longer sacred.

 

[kbm8795]

I dont think a few bumps in a marriage make it no longer sacred.

I would hardly think that an estimated 50% divorce rate can be translated to a "few bumps" - if any other government program had that high a failure rate, a few million cases of domestic violence associated with it and criminal behavior in terms of adultery exhibited in it, conservatives would be screaming to have it dismantled as a waste of money and a symbol of social welfare gone wild.

What is sacred are the vows of fidelity, nurture and commitment made between two individuals, not the promise made to the neighbors, the town, the minister or audience for the ceremony. Those who choose to make their public commitment before God do so in a church or synagogue or with their selected minister; those who don't sanction it with a justice of the peace. Simply stopping by the church and declaring you are getting married doesn't meet state requirements nor does it make you "married" in the eyes of the law.

What is also sacred is how states are required to prove a practical harm in not recognizing the spousal choices of individuals - it is considered one of the most basic of human rights - in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has often ruled that marriage is a buffer between the power of the state and the rights of individuals to exercise their own liberty and happiness. That's one reason why the neighbors can't all get together and sign a petition ordering your own marriage dissolved, or that the state can't step in if you commit adultery and unilaterally end your "sacred" union.

Shouldn't we all be given a list of people every couple of months who want to get married and vote on whether we think they deserve the right? After all, we already know that at least half the heteros are too irresponsible to keep their sacred vows - it seems like the community should step in and have a say in such an important life decision.

 

[John H.]

john boy you never answered my questions. the one you did attempt to answer you came up with the inherant problems with yourself, good job. When God has an important message for his people then, he tells it to someone who will listen and under that guidance and inspiration others will be able to recieve his message clearly. if he tells everybody his message individually then just like you said many people will not get the message because they were not listening. now im not saying i dont believe in personal inspiration from God, i most certainly do. however it is easier for someone to hear a prophets words or read them in a book and recieve the inspiration that they are true and should be followed compared to starting from nothing and being able to understand Gods promptings. and you never even touched on my other questions. And before everyone goes on and on about bigotry and hatred, i dont care about giving property rights to homosexual couples, or allowing you to file your tax claims together that doesnt bother me at all. i feel the sanctity of marriage is defiled when a man cheats on his wife, as i feel allowing same gender marriages takes away from the sacredness of the insitution. i feel marriage is a sacred union of man and woman and must be protected. and the majority of the united states believes that as well.

Hi Bio,

What question did I not answer? You'll have to let me know. I answer a lot to a lot of people. I thought I did answer you - I only have so much time to respond (as does everyone else) maybe in haste I missed something...

I think it sounds as if YOU depend on OTHERS to "hear the message God has to say" and that YOU LISTEN TO THEM and what THEY TELL YOU what it is "He said". I prefer to listen to God Himself because I feel ONLY GOD can and does speak FOR HIMSELF and that He can and does speak to ME. I do not subscribe to the "theory" that we can ONLY go to the "religious leaders" (or whatever you or anyone else want to call them) and NEVER DIRECTLY to God and that we are somehow "not worthy" to even speak DIRECTLY TO GOD. To me, that is PURE BULLSHIT (notice I have not minced my words here or even remotely attempted to smoothe this aspect of "religion" over!)... I do not believe IN ANY FASHION that I need someone else to tell me what God has to say to me - He CAN AND DOES HIMSELF. Neither He nor I need someone else as some kind of "go-between" because I am somehow so "unworthy"!

I do NOT subscribe to the "theory" of "religion" that you need a "prophet" and that using them is really the only way to hear "the message".

"Religion" DEPENDS on people's ignorance and even stupidity to survive. They have always in the past subscribed to the belief that people should be basically ignorant except only to those things which they (the "higher-ups") felt others should know and only those things - nothing else. I firmly feel God gave each of us a brain and He wants us all to utilize that brain as best as possible and to QUESTION all things independently as individuals. After all we all are individuals.

As for hatred and bigotry I find "religion" and "religious people" are more often than not VERY MUCH filled with it. Oh they will deny that but the proof is in the "pudding". The evidence of what I have said is all around us in this world. More people have been killed in the name of religion and politics than for any other reason in the history of the world. "Religious people" are quick to damn others and do that all the time. They seem to live for the damning of others like "pack men". They seem to have a voracious appetite for it. They seem to "thrill" in the exercise!

"Sanctity" and "Sacredness" of marriage - Marriage IS A MAN-MADE thing. Truthfully. It is THOSE SO INVOLVED that make it "more" or "less" THEMSELVES. HOW they treat it or not. HOW they look on it or not. How they conduct themselves in that - or not. How THEY treat each other or not. The mere joining of anyone - regardless of their Gender - into a relationship THEY AGREE ON and no matter what it is termed (and ARE OF AGE AND ABILITY OF CONSENT AND GIVE THAT CONSENT FREELY) - and its "success", "sanctity", "sacredness", etc. DEPEND COMPLETELY ON EACH PERSON INVOLVED - PERIOD! And that CAN NEVER BE "LEGISLATED" by ANYONE EVER. By wanting to have this government (USA) have a Constitutional Amendment that states that only one man and one woman constitute a marriage is VERY WRONG. You - or this government - CAN NEVER "LEGISLATE" MARRIAGE. Not successfully, unless once you do and you find those you feel are somehow not "living up to" "marriage" you end up taking to court and prosecuting and fining - I guess that could drum up more money for the legal system though and maybe even "religion" could get a "piece of that pie" too. And it would be a new source of EMployment.

What YOU are doing or attempting to do is have ALL people BELIEVE AS YOU DO and LIVE as YOU DO. I hate to break it to you but there are people on this earth THAT ARE INDIVIDUALS, each with THEIR RIGHT to believe or not AS THEY CHOOSE. You do NOT have ANY right to force your religious beliefs on someone else. You can share them with someone else. Then, if the other person chooses, they can either accept it or reject it. But you do NOT have any right to FORCE your religion on someone else. And having this government in some manner do that IS FORCING a "religious" viewpoint of some on the ALL. That IS VERY WRONG and VERY COUNTER to the founding principles of this country.

Even the "majority" do NOT have the "right" to force their views on others who disagree or see things differently through legislation that is based on "religion". This country is for ALL people regardless of their religious affiliation - or none. "Religion" has surely become a BIG BUSINESS and IS NOTHING MORE. And they conduct themselves as does a business. And for profit especially monetarily speaking.

The joining of two people in a "domestic union" (or whatever you or anyone want to call it) regardless of their Gender - AS LONG AS EACH IS OF AGE AND ABILITY OF CONSENT AND GIVE THAT CONSENT FREELY - is NO ONE'S BUSINESS except those involved. PERIOD. It is a PRIVATE MATTER between those involved. It is NOT your business, it is NOT my business, it is NOT the "religions" business, it is NOT the government's business. EVER!


Take Care, John H.

 

[John H.]

I am confused...

Hi Rex,

I quoted your original post but the part you said - or were quoting - did not come up.

I was just "messing" with ya.... Go back to the post you originally made and see what you said and then add what I said to it. See what I was saying?

(It was pretty far back when I searched, page 21, I think - you were quoting Crazy Enough - she said "...turn me into a cock-loving female...) , you made your comment and then I responded to you....

Take Care, John H.

 

[bio-chem]

i cant believe im still posting here. ive never had any intention of trying to force anyone to believe the way i do. i never entered this thread with any delusions of converting anyone to my way of thinking. i had hoped to share how others may view this issue, where they are coming from, and why they are against it as a life style. and i was hoping to understand how homosexuals view this issue. some of what you said made sense. from your point of view i can see how you may feel this is your right. If homosexuals are allowed to marry it will be a fundamental change in our society. in schools, in life, children will be raised in an enviornment that says this is an acceptable life style. i do not believe it is an acceptable lifestyle, i do not want that message sent. nor do i want my future children to grow up in an enviornment where that is taught as normal.

 

[crazy_enough]

Imma keep this post short bio: What will you do if one of your kids/grand-kids is gay?

 

[bio-chem]

ive thought a lot on that very subject actually. i have a cousin who is homosexual, and it has never affected my ralationship with him. i would say i have the same relationship with him as i have with all my other cousins. however if it was even closer to home such as a child/grandchild? thats one of those things thats difficult to say. it does not change the fact that i will not consider it an acceptable life style. suddenly i would just change my position and say its ok? i would not disown my child/grandchild if thats what you mean.

 

[kbm8795]

ive thought a lot on that very subject actually. i have a cousin who is homosexual, and it has never affected my ralationship with him. i would say i have the same relationship with him as i have with all my other cousins. however if it was even closer to home such as a child/grandchild? thats one of those things thats difficult to say. it does not change the fact that i will not consider it an acceptable life style. suddenly i would just change my position and say its ok? i would not disown my child/grandchild if thats what you mean.

Well, you say you wouldn't, but don't you think your rather obvious opinion about the "acceptability" of that child/grandchild's identity and life might cause a strain in the relationship? It is, to a degree, the same way you treat your gay cousin. You don't think his life is acceptable, but that doesn't affect your relationship with him? Let's see here - but all the other cousins lives ARE acceptable? I would suspect your cousin is a lot more perceptive than you think - and bears that burden of "unacceptability" without complaining or letting you know about it.

It sounds like accepting reality is the issue here. If you don't want to recognize the existence of productive lives of some Americans, you'd rather have them suffer or pretend in order to protect the pretense that everyone mirrors some cloned heterosexual ideal. Is there some inherent harm in children realizing that these people exist? Some statistics that indicate children exposed to these people will more likely grow up to become gay? Nope. . .

I'm beginning to wonder if heterosexuality is so fragile and insecure among so many people that they have to repress others or risk questioning themselves. If that is the case, it isn't the gays who have a problem.

Hmm...so..how would you deal with YOUR family if they decided they didn't like the person you married . . .that they'd be polite with you, but consider your marriage choice just unacceptable, even if your siblings' spouses were warmly welcomed and liked and accepted in the family? Would you be able to sense any difference?

 

[bio-chem]

you dont know jack about how my family runs so dont go acting like you have a clue. there are aspects of each others lives that we do not agree with. for instance a child out of wedlock. i was very open about how i thought he should take resposibility and marry the girl. and when it comes down to it my extended family does not agree with or understand why my imediate family has decided on a different church than the one my father grew up in. yet when we get together we have a good time despite our differences. and when i get married my wife comes first. i will do just as my father did if necessary.
my wife's happiness comes before my parents happiness, or my siblings. period. end of story. however when i get married my parents will just be so happy a girl accepted my they will love her on the spot .
that must be it i totally think that heteroseuality is fragile so we repress others in order to hide our own insecurities. (if you didnt catch it, that last sentence is dripping with sarcasm)

 

[RexStunnahH]

I would hardly think that an estimated 50% divorce rate can be translated to a "few bumps" - if any other government program had that high a failure rate, a few million cases of domestic violence associated with it and criminal behavior in terms of adultery exhibited in it, conservatives would be screaming to have it dismantled as a waste of money and a symbol of social welfare gone wild.

What is sacred are the vows of fidelity, nurture and commitment made between two individuals, not the promise made to the neighbors, the town, the minister or audience for the ceremony. Those who choose to make their public commitment before God do so in a church or synagogue or with their selected minister; those who don't sanction it with a justice of the peace. Simply stopping by the church and declaring you are getting married doesn't meet state requirements nor does it make you "married" in the eyes of the law.

What is also sacred is how states are required to prove a practical harm in not recognizing the spousal choices of individuals - it is considered one of the most basic of human rights - in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has often ruled that marriage is a buffer between the power of the state and the rights of individuals to exercise their own liberty and happiness. That's one reason why the neighbors can't all get together and sign a petition ordering your own marriage dissolved, or that the state can't step in if you commit adultery and unilaterally end your "sacred" union.

Shouldn't we all be given a list of people every couple of months who want to get married and vote on whether we think they deserve the right? After all, we already know that at least half the heteros are too irresponsible to keep their sacred vows - it seems like the community should step in and have a say in such an important life decision.

Those marriages aint my marriage.So it dont mean a thing to me.You can try and post what you can I was just that a few bumps dont mean a marriage aint sacred,but I guess if gays had been marying since the begining of time,they would have apretty close divorce rate as well.

 

[crazy_enough]

Those marriages aint my marriage.So it dont mean a thing to me.You can try and post what you can I was just that a few bumps dont mean a marriage aint sacred,but I guess if gays had been marying since the begining of time,they would have apretty close divorce rate as well.

there, u said it, gay marriages wouldnt be your marriage, so they dont mean a thing to ya ...right??

And just for conversation's sake, whats telling u that homosexual values arent that much better than traditional heterosexual ones...?After all, maybe we learned form decades of straight failed marriages!

 

[John H.]

i cant believe im still posting here. ive never had any intention of trying to force anyone to believe the way i do. i never entered this thread with any delusions of converting anyone to my way of thinking. i had hoped to share how others may view this issue, where they are coming from, and why they are against it as a life style. and i was hoping to understand how homosexuals view this issue. some of what you said made sense. from your point of view i can see how you may feel this is your right. If homosexuals are allowed to marry it will be a fundamental change in our society. in schools, in life, children will be raised in an enviornment that says this is an acceptable life style. i do not believe it is an acceptable lifestyle, i do not want that message sent. nor do i want my future children to grow up in an enviornment where that is taught as normal.

Hi Bio,

Believe it or not, I do understand YOUR viewpoint. I do not agree with it though in that YOUR "learning" has TAUGHT you that there are "only certain people that are 'acceptable'" and that ONLY "heterosexual" people are "natural" which could never be any FURTHER from the actual truth or fact. You were TAUGHT what you now "believe" is "normal".

My looking at all this is that ALL people should be free to live and that they let others live as well. I am NOT in the "business of" damning others. If that happens they do that themselves, I have absolutely nothing to do with that.

EVERYONE! - AS LONG AS EACH IS OF AGE AND ABILITY OF CONSENT AND FREELY GIVE THAT CONSENT UNENCUMBERED - must be able to enter into a "civil union" if that is what they each CHOOSE to do. Without ANY interference from ANYONE ever. It IS a PRIVATE MATTER between people who FREELY CONSENT. It is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. PERIOD. As with looking at a photo, for example, if you do not want to "see", do NOT look. NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO DENY ANYONE ELSE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. No individual. No "religion". No government! And NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT to dictate or legislate how someone else will live or not especially with regard to their most basic of rights and their happiness and wellbeing.

Having said this, I DO APPRECIATE your imput because it tells me how you truly feel - you are being honest and you are basing that on what you have learned as well. I would submit to you that that "learning" is not all inclusive on the entire subject from all perspectives and does not reflect all the information on the subject. It is reflected in your statements. I would much rather have someone tell me the TRUTH then to tell me what they think I want to hear.

Remember too, "marriage" IS MAN-MADE. It simply IS. Have you ever read any histories on the subject?

IF a couple wants to get "married" I feel they can do that in a "church" of their choosing. I would prefer to call EVERY union - whether it BE an actual "marriage" or "civil union" as a "domestic union" that WOULD APPLY TO WHOEVER EQUALLY that freely agrees to live together as partners no matter what anyone terms that "partnership". The ONLY reason government should get into this is as a "registry" for the purposes of laying legal groundwork so that those so-joined can obtain EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else "married" or otherwise, such as BUT NOT LIMITED TO property rights, visitation rights, health-care issues, etc.

I have no problem whatsoever myself with having those that want to "marry" do that in a church and that it be considered some kind of a "religious function".

But people who truly care about each other must be freely able to do that if they so agree equally and freely and can do that because they are able (can make that kind of decision).

Take Care, John H.

 

[John H.]

Those marriages aint my marriage.So it dont mean a thing to me.You can try and post what you can I was just that a few bumps dont mean a marriage aint sacred,but I guess if gays had been marying since the begining of time,they would have apretty close divorce rate as well.

Hi Rex,

There is one book I am aware of at present that discusses same-sex marriage in history. It is: SAME-SEX UNIONS IN PRE-MODERN EUROPE, by John Boswell. These "marriages" were in the church.

Take Care, John H.

 

[RexStunnahH]

there, u said it, gay marriages wouldnt be your marriage, so they dont mean a thing to ya ...right??

And just for conversation's sake, whats telling u that homosexual values arent that much better than traditional heterosexual ones...?After all, maybe we learned form decades of straight failed marriages!

HOw Dare you respond to my post without asking me for permission! Who do you think you are?....nah jus joking hahahahaha wassup crazy?Long time we haven't debated this topic huh,hahahahaa.Anyhow,it's against my religon and I like my religon so will choose one over the other.

 

[crazy_enough]

HOw Dare you respond to my post without asking me for permission! Who do you think you are?....nah jus joking hahahahaha wassup crazy?Long time we haven't debated this topic huh,hahahahaa.Anyhow,it's against my religon and I like my religon so will choose one over the other.

Wait til I kick your arse without asking u for permission!!lol Im kewl Rex, Urself?!
Anyhow, Ure against my sexual orientation, I like my wife, so will choose one over the other!!lolol

 

[sgtneo]

well i think its wrong, i dont midn gay or lesbian people but in my view its not the way nature and "god" intended and since marrage is a thing of the church if its not the way god amd mother nature intended it should not be allowed

 

[sgtneo]

forgive my typo's lol feeling bit rough and cba to go back and change em

 

[bio-chem]

good luck with that answer sgtneo. i hope you have more luck explaining your views on that then i did.

 

[RexStunnahH]

Wait til I kick your arse without asking u for permission!!lol Im kewl Rex, Urself?!
Anyhow, Ure against my sexual orientation, I like my wife, so will choose one over the other!!lolol

hahahahaha.....Nice to hear from you.Stay cool!

 

[John H.]

well i think its wrong, i dont midn gay or lesbian people but in my view its not the way nature and "god" intended and since marrage is a thing of the church if its not the way god amd mother nature intended it should not be allowed

Hi Sgtneo,

God HIMSELF - NEVER SAID THAT EVER. Christ NEVER HIMSELF said that EVER.

As for Nature - it DOES EXIST in Nature and the Natural World and always has and in all areas of the world, so for you to say "...its not the way nature and "god" intended..." is very incorrect.

Where did you learn what you have said above? Who told you that? It is not factually correct.


Take Care, John H.

 

[gococksDJS]

John H, I am not here to argue but to simply state a point. You say that homosexuality is natural but let me point out a few basic facts of life. The basis of nature is reproduction, or to pass your genetics successfully on to another generation to ensure survival, and this is not possible with homosexuality. If we look at the simple laws that govern the natural world we see that homosexuality is not meant to be a natural occurence. The theory of Social Darwinism states that the species who posesses the genetic potential to live in a certain environment and successfully pass their genes onto their offspring and so on to other generations is what governs life. While homosexuality may exist in the human species, who also have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction, it is not a natural occurence. You could call it a "synthetic" occurence within the natural cycle of life. Homosexuals do not have the capability to pass their genetics on to future offspring unless they do so heterosexually, which further proves that it is not a natural process. If homosexuality existed in a species that has sex purely for reproduction, then the homosexuals would quickly die off. You can say that God and Christ never said anything about homosexuality but the simple laws of life and reproduction show you that homosexuality is in no way natural. It is impossible for the haploid cells(sex cells) of two men or two women to fuse and form a zygote, which is what grows into a mature organism, and this by itself shows that homosexuality is not natural. I am not expressing any opinions on this, im simply stating a scientific view on what you call natural.

 

[sgtneo]

Hi Sgtneo,

God HIMSELF - NEVER SAID THAT EVER. Christ NEVER HIMSELF said that EVER.

As for Nature - it DOES EXIST in Nature and the Natural World and always has and in all areas of the world, so for you to say "...its not the way nature and "god" intended..." is very incorrect.

Where did you learn what you have said above? Who told you that? It is not factually correct.


Take Care, John H.

because it is natures way and "gods" way for us to use our reproductie organs to reproduce and as marrage is a thing of the church i dont think it should be allowed personlly but thats IMHO

Neo

 

[Minotaur]

well i think its wrong, i dont midn gay or lesbian people but in my view its not the way nature and "god" intended and since marrage is a thing of the church if its not the way god amd mother nature intended it should not be allowed

A lot of what humans do is not natural, and not what God or Nature planned. Flying is not natural to man, neither is drinking alcohol, nor smoking cigarettes. Yet I don't hear calls for these things to be outlawed. So to say what is natural or not is a piss-poor argument.

Moreover, gay marriage has nothing to do with the church. It's not about church recognition, it's about state and civil recognition. God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Minotaur]

John H, I am not here to argue but to simply state a point. You say that homosexuality is natural but let me point out a few basic facts of life. The basis of nature is reproduction, or to pass your genetics successfully on to another generation to ensure survival, and this is not possible with homosexuality. If we look at the simple laws that govern the natural world we see that homosexuality is not meant to be a natural occurence. The theory of Social Darwinism states that the species who posesses the genetic potential to live in a certain environment and successfully pass their genes onto their offspring and so on to other generations is what governs life. While homosexuality may exist in the human species, who also have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction, it is not a natural occurence. You could call it a "synthetic" occurence within the natural cycle of life. Homosexuals do not have the capability to pass their genetics on to future offspring unless they do so heterosexually, which further proves that it is not a natural process. If homosexuality existed in a species that has sex purely for reproduction, then the homosexuals would quickly die off. You can say that God and Christ never said anything about homosexuality but the simple laws of life and reproduction show you that homosexuality is in no way natural. It is impossible for the haploid cells(sex cells) of two men or two women to fuse and form a zygote, which is what grows into a mature organism, and this by itself shows that homosexuality is not natural. I am not expressing any opinions on this, im simply stating a scientific view on what you call natural.

And your advanced degree in human sexuality, sociology, genetics and biology is from where?

 

[bandaidwoman]

I really think what John H is saying is that homosexuality occurs in nature as well as the human species (seagulls, some primates etc. ) and is not some evil abberancy linked to some intellectual defect in mankind. Of course it's not prevalent but does not mean it isn't natural.....natural for a homosexual to feel the way he or she does because of underlying genetic or biochemical triggers. In seagulls they note that homosexual behavior seems to increase with high population density so this may be a way of natural populati0n control ( so resources are not utilised past the potential for survivability of the population species) and thus.....homosexuality does not defy the realm of social darwinism.