Whenever religion tries to use scientific reasoning to justify their moral standpoints, the result is hilarious and quite pathetic.
Homosexuality is about fucking. Heterosexuality is about fucking. Or if you want another term- it's sexual attraction. Most average man and a woman will fuck to reproduce only a grand total of 2-3 times in their lifetimes, meaning that the rest of the occasions are for pleasure. Some will NOT want to reproduce at all. So right now, you've invented a psychological difference between them.
That's ... a very excellent point. Although I'm not sure where you got the religious bit from.
Impossible to believe. If you can have as much love (as you claim) for them irrespective of their sexual orientation, you would have realized your approval counts a big part in the love too.
I don't quite agree with that. Say we have said morals, since you're already arguing that parents would. If said parents believed stealing was wrong, wouldn't it be the best expression of their love to not approve of a child stealing things? Exactly the same concept. Assuming a parent believes something isn't right, it would be the best expression of his or her love to enforce the same morals on the children. Not to do so could be viewed as not loving the child. You only think differently because you have different morals.
@Seth: regarding the las part, I totally agree on your point about parents should try to teach their children their own moral values, it's their paramount prerogative. But, in the other hand, it's my opinion that when they do this they must be very cautious about not fomenting bigotry on their kids, as difficult issues as this are today, it's very important to enforce both values, both heterosexuality and tolerance, and that's the tricky part...
edit: btw, I just wanted to say that you guys made me very proud of being part of this community... I love the fact that this debate is being taken seriously and so maturely... it's normal (yeah I use that word in this thread :P) for opinions on this subject to clash... what is rare is that this didn't turned into a flame war in 3 pages
Frankly, I applaud Argentina. I think it's awesome what they did, and I think it makes us look like fools for still not giving equal rights to everyone.
Oh, and in the United States, when you get married, you get 1,049 rights right off the bat. And the mere fact that you have to carry papers to the hospital if your in a "civil union" to see your love vs simply being able to say "she's my wife".
Apparently one significant difference between gay and straight men is that sections of the brain which are more developed in men (Spatial Sense, Orienteering) are underdeveloped, while sections more developed in women (Seeing shades of colour, communication) are more developed in gays. So there is an actual difference, as far as brain development. Cause is, as of yet, unknown.
As for it being natural, well, as far as I can tell it is a naturally occurring mutation. Mutations are, in many cases, natural, you know.
That is the most awesome thing I heard the entire day, cause I´m terrible at seeing shades of colour, I even mix up shades of purple and blue, and shades of red and brown. xD
I`M A MAN
Well actually seeing shades of color is very difficult. Lets say your wearing a red shirt. The shadow of it will most likely be a shade of purple as opposed to a shade of red.
And now you know!
Don, your out of your mind if you think I'm reading all of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I don't quite agree with that. Say we have said morals, since you're already arguing that parents would. If said parents believed stealing was wrong, wouldn't it be the best expression of their love to not approve of a child stealing things? Exactly the same concept. Assuming a parent believes something isn't right, it would be the best expression of his or her love to enforce the same morals on the children. Not to do so could be viewed as not loving the child. You only think differently because you have different morals.
It is not remotely the same concept Seth. Obviously your arguments originate from the belief that a person chooses to be homosexual. For all the support I show them, I simply cannot be attracted to another man. It's not I prefer women- am just not attracted at all to men.
This gives me an indication along with scientific research done on the matter, that homosexuality is much more a state than a choice.
My morals continuously grow and evolve for it is my personal belief that I what embrace of the world will teach me more than a couple of people. I do not expect the same of every person but instead of trying to rationalize (you've jumped everywhere from anatomy, psychology, love to moral) a standpoint, question it and seek deeper.
@nekro: I'm not saying it is a value per se... but for some people/moral systems it could be... that's the way I was trying to use the term...
But in the same rite, anything could be a value. If you were to take everyone's moral system, and follow all of it, women wouldn't be able to vote, African Americans would be slaves, anyone of Native decent would be murdered, Mexico and Canada would both be part of America, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
When you are talking about people, you cannot say that person A has a right, or doesn't have a right, because person B's moral values dictates as such.
@nekro: I'm not saying it is a value per se... but for some people/moral systems it could be... that's the way I was trying to use the term...
But in the same rite, anything could be a value. If you were to take everyone's moral system, and follow all of it, women wouldn't be able to vote, African Americans would be slaves, anyone of Native decent would be murdered, Mexico and Canada would both be part of America, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
When you are talking about people, you cannot say that person A has a right, or doesn't have a right, because person B's moral values dictates as such.
no, no ... you're taking it out of context, let me clarify:
I said that is a prerogative of parents to teach their children their own moral values (if they understand that heterosexuality is a value then is up to them to teach it to their children, etc, etc...). But along with this is also important to teach them tolerance and that not everyone share the same moral convictions
I wasn't trying to say that we should follow all of moral values of every single person, obviously this is impossible...
Now it is true that almost everything could be value, that's what freedom is all about, for everyone to be able to choose and decide what they think it's good and bad (moral judgement), but as we live in a society there are some ground rules, if you want to be free, let the other to be free also, this means that nobody can impose their own moral to others...
you may say that parents do that to children, but that's the idea of education, to teach kids social values and stuff like that... maybe some parents aren't very good at it and end up raising bigots and criminals, but that's part of life I suppose...
no, no ... you're taking it out of context, let me clarify:
I said that is a prerogative of parents to teach their children their own moral values (if they understand that heterosexuality is a value then is up to them to teach it to their children, etc, etc...). But along with this is also important to teach them tolerance and that not everyone share the same moral convictions
I wasn't trying to say that we should follow all of moral values of every single person, obviously this is impossible...
Now it is true that almost everything could be value, that's what freedom is all about, for everyone to be able to choose and decide what they think it's good and bad (moral judgement), but as we live in a society there are some ground rules, if you want to be free, let the other to be free also, this means that nobody can impose their own moral to others...
you may say that parents do that to children, but that's the idea of education, to teach kids social values and stuff like that... maybe some parents aren't very good at it and end up raising bigots and criminals, but that's part of life I suppose...
Ahh, I see where you are coming from now. But if it is up to the parent to decide what is good and what is bad, wouldn't it be their place to decide if tolerance is a good thing or a bad thing?
But then, I think that may be one of the big problems that is causing the issues that are going on today, no? The idea that your value system is the right value system and anyone who has a different value system is wrong and should not be tolerated, don't you think?
One of my main beliefs in life is that religion should not come in play with politics, meaning that if you are to argue against gay marriage, just because you say that "My church says it's BAD!!!" is not a reason enough to disallow gay marriage. To me, I think it's disturbing that people would not allow 2 people who love each other to get married, but that's another issue to discuss.
So therefor, I am 100% for gay marriage and that it should be called "marriage" because like Magistrate said, Christianity did not invent marriage. Get over it. They're not.
And can someone really explain why Christians believe that gay people CHOOSE to be gay? Is it just me, or is that the most desperate act of trying to blame people for their "disabilities" that has ever come up in the 21st century.
Ahh, I see where you are coming from now. But if it is up to the parent to decide what is good and what is bad, wouldn't it be their place to decide if tolerance is a good thing or a bad thing?
But then, I think that may be one of the big problems that is causing the issues that are going on today, no? The idea that your value system is the right value system and anyone who has a different value system is wrong and should not be tolerated, don't you think?
But then who is able to say what's good and what's bad? We have the freedom to make good and bad choices, as do parents. I think it makes the people who make the right choice better by contrast than if they were just forced to teach and act and think the right way. Of course, I'm not saying what is right and wrong here, and what is right and wrong is entirely dependent on personal opinion and is relative to...everything.
It's always going to come down to what is right and what is wrong, though. That's just how our brains work in the end: true and false, black and white, zero and one on the most base level. Even if someone says that we should tolerate all walks of life, they would have to agree that they think intolerance of every walk of life is wrong.
And if a man loves a man instead of a woman (or a woman a woman, instead of a man) why should they be forced to live without marriage? Because some dusty old farts YEARS ago wrote some guidelines they thought would be best for mankind? Times have changed, IMO what we need is a new bible. Or maybe no bible at all, if it treats people likethis.
Really, it's just a symbol of love. The love itself is what's important. People tend to forget that.
And these people in love want to have a legally binding bond. Let them. Who cares if they're rooting for what you consider the wrong team, it feels right to them.
And if a man loves a man instead of a woman (or a woman a woman, instead of a man) why should they be forced to live without marriage? Because some dusty old farts YEARS ago wrote some guidelines they thought would be best for mankind? Times have changed, IMO what we need is a new bible. Or maybe no bible at all, if it treats people likethis
THANK YOU! The Bible is so cultural and opinionated. Almost everything is so unclear and some people will literally go crazy over it. I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the Bible.
The only reason I would be against gay marriage is because I'm against all forms of marriage. That is, I'm against any government having anything to do with it as an institution. Marriage is an abstract thing in people's minds. No one should have any special rights nor any penalties for being in love with another person. If two people consent to each other and want to be married, why do they, or anyone else need them to be legally bound to each other? I don't see why having a piece of paper makes it any more real.
I understand that in this world people need more than just a verbal contract to feel like a union has any real meaning. I'm not naive about that. I only am saying I think it's sad that people feel they need it and that governments also feel it is necessary.
And these people in love want to have a legally binding bond. Let them. Who cares if they're rooting for what you consider the wrong team, it feels right to them.
Exactly, so let them have ANOTHER legally binding bond, other than marriage. That's my point.
I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong cuz is quite tempting middle ground option... But IMO I think it's not good enough because
a)If this other legal bond recognizes less rights than the regular marriage then it's discriminatory and all that jazz... it would be just crumbs and it won't represent real equality...
b)If it grants the exact same rights but it has only a different name then it's redundant, two identical legal institutes different only by name... and law should not be redundant it's one of the basic principles of good legislation science (or technique if you don't consider Law to be a science)
The only reason I would be against gay marriage is because I'm against all forms of marriage. That is, I'm against any government having anything to do with it as an institution. Marriage is an abstract thing in people's minds. No one should have any special rights nor any penalties for being in love with another person. If two people consent to each other and want to be married, why do they, or anyone else need them to be legally bound to each other? I don't see why having a piece of paper makes it any more real.
I understand that in this world people need more than just a verbal contract to feel like a union has any real meaning. I'm not naive about that. I only am saying I think it's sad that people feel they need it and that governments also feel it is necessary.
The main reason government takes care of marriage as an institution is because it recognize rights for married people, social security, heritage, personal obligations, divorce, contracts regulations between spouses, you name it...
is not that the piece of paper makes is any more real, it prevents many possible unjust situations, a spouse with no heritage that falls into poverty, medical care, fraud, different forms of right abuse and a long etcetera...
Let gay people get married why the fuck would i care goddamn it.
Do you ever feel like your posts are maybe like...not so great?
Anyway, it's kind of an issue I think that fifty years from now, we'll all be looking back and saying things like, "Remember when gays couldn't legally marry each other? How strange was that?"
That's ... a very excellent point. Although I'm not sure where you got the religious bit from.
I don't quite agree with that. Say we have said morals, since you're already arguing that parents would. If said parents believed stealing was wrong, wouldn't it be the best expression of their love to not approve of a child stealing things? Exactly the same concept. Assuming a parent believes something isn't right, it would be the best expression of his or her love to enforce the same morals on the children. Not to do so could be viewed as not loving the child. You only think differently because you have different morals.
edit: btw, I just wanted to say that you guys made me very proud of being part of this community... I love the fact that this debate is being taken seriously and so maturely... it's normal (yeah I use that word in this thread :P) for opinions on this subject to clash... what is rare is that this didn't turned into a flame war in 3 pages
You do realize your avatar is green, right?
Oh, and in the United States, when you get married, you get 1,049 rights right off the bat. And the mere fact that you have to carry papers to the hospital if your in a "civil union" to see your love vs simply being able to say "she's my wife".
Well actually seeing shades of color is very difficult. Lets say your wearing a red shirt. The shadow of it will most likely be a shade of purple as opposed to a shade of red.
And now you know!
Don, your out of your mind if you think I'm reading all of that.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Didn't know how marriage started off though, that was quite interesting.
It is not remotely the same concept Seth. Obviously your arguments originate from the belief that a person chooses to be homosexual. For all the support I show them, I simply cannot be attracted to another man. It's not I prefer women- am just not attracted at all to men.
This gives me an indication along with scientific research done on the matter, that homosexuality is much more a state than a choice.
My morals continuously grow and evolve for it is my personal belief that I what embrace of the world will teach me more than a couple of people. I do not expect the same of every person but instead of trying to rationalize (you've jumped everywhere from anatomy, psychology, love to moral) a standpoint, question it and seek deeper.
@Nacho- heterosexuality is not a value.
@Don- great post(first one. lol. :xD:)
But in the same rite, anything could be a value. If you were to take everyone's moral system, and follow all of it, women wouldn't be able to vote, African Americans would be slaves, anyone of Native decent would be murdered, Mexico and Canada would both be part of America, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
When you are talking about people, you cannot say that person A has a right, or doesn't have a right, because person B's moral values dictates as such.
no, no ... you're taking it out of context, let me clarify:
I said that is a prerogative of parents to teach their children their own moral values (if they understand that heterosexuality is a value then is up to them to teach it to their children, etc, etc...). But along with this is also important to teach them tolerance and that not everyone share the same moral convictions
I wasn't trying to say that we should follow all of moral values of every single person, obviously this is impossible...
Now it is true that almost everything could be value, that's what freedom is all about, for everyone to be able to choose and decide what they think it's good and bad (moral judgement), but as we live in a society there are some ground rules, if you want to be free, let the other to be free also, this means that nobody can impose their own moral to others...
you may say that parents do that to children, but that's the idea of education, to teach kids social values and stuff like that... maybe some parents aren't very good at it and end up raising bigots and criminals, but that's part of life I suppose...
Ahh, I see where you are coming from now. But if it is up to the parent to decide what is good and what is bad, wouldn't it be their place to decide if tolerance is a good thing or a bad thing?
But then, I think that may be one of the big problems that is causing the issues that are going on today, no? The idea that your value system is the right value system and anyone who has a different value system is wrong and should not be tolerated, don't you think?
So therefor, I am 100% for gay marriage and that it should be called "marriage" because like Magistrate said, Christianity did not invent marriage. Get over it. They're not.
And can someone really explain why Christians believe that gay people CHOOSE to be gay? Is it just me, or is that the most desperate act of trying to blame people for their "disabilities" that has ever come up in the 21st century.
But then who is able to say what's good and what's bad? We have the freedom to make good and bad choices, as do parents. I think it makes the people who make the right choice better by contrast than if they were just forced to teach and act and think the right way. Of course, I'm not saying what is right and wrong here, and what is right and wrong is entirely dependent on personal opinion and is relative to...everything.
It's always going to come down to what is right and what is wrong, though. That's just how our brains work in the end: true and false, black and white, zero and one on the most base level. Even if someone says that we should tolerate all walks of life, they would have to agree that they think intolerance of every walk of life is wrong.
And these people in love want to have a legally binding bond. Let them. Who cares if they're rooting for what you consider the wrong team, it feels right to them.
THANK YOU! The Bible is so cultural and opinionated. Almost everything is so unclear and some people will literally go crazy over it. I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the Bible.
I understand that in this world people need more than just a verbal contract to feel like a union has any real meaning. I'm not naive about that. I only am saying I think it's sad that people feel they need it and that governments also feel it is necessary.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong cuz is quite tempting middle ground option... But IMO I think it's not good enough because
a)If this other legal bond recognizes less rights than the regular marriage then it's discriminatory and all that jazz... it would be just crumbs and it won't represent real equality...
b)If it grants the exact same rights but it has only a different name then it's redundant, two identical legal institutes different only by name... and law should not be redundant it's one of the basic principles of good legislation science (or technique if you don't consider Law to be a science)
The main reason government takes care of marriage as an institution is because it recognize rights for married people, social security, heritage, personal obligations, divorce, contracts regulations between spouses, you name it...
is not that the piece of paper makes is any more real, it prevents many possible unjust situations, a spouse with no heritage that falls into poverty, medical care, fraud, different forms of right abuse and a long etcetera...
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Anyway, it's kind of an issue I think that fifty years from now, we'll all be looking back and saying things like, "Remember when gays couldn't legally marry each other? How strange was that?"
Siaynoq's Playthroughs