# Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage



## Guest

[MODERATOR'S DISCLOSURE - Member Dr. Mike did not start a thread with this title. He was responding to a post and when he evoked abortion and gay marriage as points that help demonstrate some issues regarding the separation between church and state, others joined in and started to debate these social issues, veering the original threadd off-topic. The moderator then carved out these posts and moved them to a new thread with a title provided by him, so that the original thread could continue with the original topic. Since the software takes the oldest post in a thread and lists as thread starter the author of that post, Dr.Mike's name came to figure as thread starter]



Hilltroll72 said:


> All of those things you mention are _religious_ issues, not _governing_ issues. Separation of Church and State never even got off the starting line, did it?


Well, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution, but was formulated sometime later. Technically, the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any laws respecting religion.

I agree that most people who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do so out of religious beliefs. That does not mean that passing such a law prohibiting them is establishing any religion. It is also a moral issue. My opposition to them is not imposing my religion on anybody. But there are any number of laws that are established based on issues of morality. Abortion involves the extinguishing of a human life - now, we may argue over how much rights a woman should have to control that life while in her womb, but the inescapable fact is that, really, once you have the fertilization of the egg by a sperm, what you have is a human life. Opposition to the elimination of that life may be particularly strong amongst religionists, but that is not specifically a religious issue. As to same-sex marriage, such legislation seeks to redefine an institution that has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for the entire history of our nation, and by the very fact that it has to be termed "same-sex" marriage already suggests that it is assumed the term implies heterosexual.

Getting back to the point - there are any number of reasons to legislate on an issue. What, if not moralistic reasons, underlies the reasoning behind welfare programs? How often do we hear politicians make religious arguments supporting welfare? Would you oppose such legislation because it is not strictly "governing," whatever that might be?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I agree that most people who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do so out of religious beliefs. That does not mean that passing such a law prohibiting them is establishing any religion. It is also a moral issue. My opposition to them is not imposing my religion on anybody. But there are any number of laws that are established based on issues of morality. Abortion involves the extinguishing of a human life - now, we may argue over how much rights a woman should have to control that life while in her womb, but the inescapable fact is that, really, once you have the fertilization of the egg by a sperm, what you have is a human life. Opposition to the elimination of that life may be particularly strong amongst religionists, but that is not specifically a religious issue.


Some of those 'facts' I would not deem inescapable, but I recognise it as a contentious issue with people on both sides regardless of religion. The following is a different matter though:



DrMike said:


> As to same-sex marriage, such legislation seeks to redefine an institution that has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for the entire history of our nation, and by the very fact that it has to be termed "same-sex" marriage already suggests that it is assumed the term implies heterosexual.


This is why people begin to ask: conservatism for the sake of what? The US is a very, very young nation, so citing its history is pretty worthless. But more importantly, since when has "it's tradition" ever really been a valid argument? If an action, a change in attitude, or a law will make more people happier without negatively affecting others, then surely it is right, and proper, and _humane_ to set it into action regardless of what 'tradition' is. Heterosexual marriage isn't even a 'tradition' - we do ourselves a disservice to give it that label, as it gives it too much respectability. You're right, the heterosexuality of marriage is an _assumption_, and it is one that is ingrained in our history, but it is not a 'tradition' in the sense of a national anthem, the British monarchy, or other national identifiers that have little use but for celebration and uniqueness. It is an assumption, and nothing more, but it is a damaging, selfish assumption.

Anyway!



DrMike said:


> Getting back to the point - there are any number of reasons to legislate on an issue. What, if not moralistic reasons, underlies the reasoning behind welfare programs? How often do we hear politicians make religious arguments supporting welfare? Would you oppose such legislation because it is not strictly "governing," whatever that might be?


Again, I think welfare programs diverge from the above issue because that is, again, about the use of the country's tax income. Government has a right to debate and legislate the distribution of that money in different ways, and it can be convincingly argued either way. It does indeed overlap with other moral issues, but some issues are _purely_ moral in that different people have different ideas about life, and they can't be 'proven' in an empirical sense. In that case, we ought to have legislation that allows people freedom from others' morals, as well as their religion.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Well, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution, but was formulated sometime later. Technically, the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any laws respecting religion.
> 
> I agree that most people who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do so out of religious beliefs. That does not mean that passing such a law prohibiting them is establishing any religion. It is also a moral issue. My opposition to them is not imposing my religion on anybody. But there are any number of laws that are established based on issues of morality. Abortion involves the extinguishing of a human life - now, we may argue over how much rights a woman should have to control that life while in her womb, but the inescapable fact is that, really, once you have the fertilization of the egg by a sperm, what you have is a human life. Opposition to the elimination of that life may be particularly strong amongst religionists, but that is not specifically a religious issue. As to same-sex marriage, such legislation seeks to redefine an institution that has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for the entire history of our nation, and by the very fact that it has to be termed "same-sex" marriage already suggests that it is assumed the term implies heterosexual.
> 
> Getting back to the point - there are any number of reasons to legislate on an issue. What, if not moralistic reasons, underlies the reasoning behind welfare programs? How often do we hear politicians make religious arguments supporting welfare? Would you oppose such legislation because it is not strictly "governing," whatever that might be?


Charity, compassion, etc. are not (religious) morality, however much you wish to claim them for the church. Ethical behavior is a secular concept too. All that is good is not the property of organized religion.

My understanding of _marriage_ is that it is a religion-based arrangement, between two people and their God. Government is only legitimately concerned with the civil contract of partnership, and should limit itself to that concern. The 'marriage' license should be renamed the civil union license, reflecting the government's legitimate interest in the matter. If every church in the world bans same-sex marriage, that is a church matter and no concern of mine.

I am somewhat surprised that your abortion speech didn't take up the soul argument.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I agree that most people who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do so out of religious beliefs. That does not mean that passing such a law prohibiting them is establishing any religion. It is also a moral issue. My opposition to them is not imposing my religion on anybody. But there are any number of laws that are established based on issues of morality. Abortion involves the extinguishing of a human life - now, we may argue over how much rights a woman should have to control that life while in her womb, but the inescapable fact is that, really, once you have the fertilization of the egg by a sperm, what you have is a human life. *Opposition to the elimination of that life* may be particularly strong amongst religionists, but that is not specifically a religious issue. As to same-sex marriage, *such legislation seeks to redefine an institution that has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for the entire history of our nation*, and by the very fact that it has to be termed "same-sex" marriage already suggests that it is assumed the term implies heterosexual.
> 
> Getting back to the point - there are any number of reasons to legislate on an issue. What, if not moralistic reasons, underlies the reasoning behind welfare programs? How often do we hear politicians make religious arguments supporting welfare? Would you oppose such legislation because it is not strictly "governing," whatever that might be?


I can only take "pro-life" people seriously if they are coherent in their defense of human life. Against abortion? Fine. But then these folks should also be against the death penalty, against futile wars with "collateral damage," against pets gobbling up resources that could be used to help starving human children, and for a *right* to health care for all. I find it precious that people get so angry at any attempt to eliminate a cluster of 16 cells but once those cells grow into a baby and fully-formed human being, oops, "you're on your own, if you get seriously sick, don't ask for any assistance with *my* tax money!"

Regarding the redefinition of a historical institution, so what? Historical institutions get redefined all the time (e.g., slavery). Since when the fact that something has existed for a while is a valid argument to prevent changes that go along with societal evolution?

Why do these people think that marriage needs some sort of defense act?

Look at me. I'm happily married to a member of the opposite sex, for 27 years (still in love with that wonderful woman!). My marriage to her is not under any attack if the front door neighbors happen to be gay and want to get married. It's not like I suddenly wake up in the morning, and say, "Oh wow, gay marriage has been approved, oh boy, now I can marry a guy, let me rush and dump my wife and get married to a guy!" Sorry, not happening. Zero odds. So, thanks, politicians and fundamentalists, but no thanks, my marriage doesn't need any defense act.

OK, this said, let me tell you guys about what are my *personal* choices (and I'm happy that I live in a free country that lets me have these personal choices).

I'm profoundly against abortion except for saving the life of the mother, or in cases of rape, incest, and horrible birth defects. If my wife got pregnant in a phase of life during which this would be very undesirable, and wanted to abort, I'd be profoundly shocked, and would say, "sorry honey, I think you got married to the wrong guy on this, I will never be at peace with this." (Thankfully she is even more against abortion than I am, so no risk of getting such an issue to disturb our marital bliss). What would we do? We'd say, "oh well, tough luck, we'll just have to cut some expenses" and we'd have the baby, love and cherish and support the baby with all our hearts - and now she's not even fertile any longer so one less preoccupation to have.

Why is this so? Is this out of some religious sentiment? No, I'm an atheist. It's thanks to a profound respect for human life. I made of my life and career and mission the fight for the preservation of human life. To be coherent with this, I've always made sure that no girlfriend of mine would get unexpectedly pregnant, because I wouldn't want to abort the child. I've been extremely responsible about it.

What about gay marriage? To tell you the truth and pardon me if I offend somebody here, I just can't comprehend what in the hell a gay man sees in another gay man. I mean, he doesn't have boobs! I love boobs! They're squeezable! Unless he's got man boobs, but I don't like those. So, gay relationships, not for me!

This said, who am I to impose these *personal* views on others? If a couple or a woman want to abort, it's their problem, and none of my business. I'll feel sad for the fetus, but I have no authority to impose my *personal* views on them. They are called personal for a reason. They don't apply to others. Those others have their *own* personal views, obviously.

Gays want to get married? More power to them, if it makes them happy. I think that as fellow human beings they're equally entitled to get from their relationship all the perks and joys I get from my marriage with my lovely wife. Who am I to impose on them my love for boobs?

End of rant, but my point is: even more than any thought I'd give to these social issues (I don't think much about them; funny enough, it's the people who claim they're so above these issues that keep obsessing about them), what amazes me is how this world is so f*****d up and there are so many issues to be corrected, and the American people and our politicians keep trying to decide elections on whether or not Mary Smith will be able to legally get an abortion and whether or not Peter and John f******g each other between four walls is anybody's business (pardon my French, these issues drive me mad).

I think we should all leave these social issues alone. We should allow people to personally deal with them based on their beliefs, inclinations, spirituality, whatever, and get to work to solve the real problems.

I thought conservatives were for small government. Why in the hell do they want government to regulate what a woman makes of a cluster of 16 cells in her womb and what two men or two women do between four walls and how they call it (e.g., marriage)???? It beats me. It profoundly beats me. What a waste of time and energy!!

And for what? Society always evolves. Sooner or latter these things will be routine and widely accepted anyway.


----------



## Guest

Like I said - I'm not going any further on these topics. I believe what I believe, and will vote how I want to vote, and neither of us is likely to change each other's minds on these topics. In my experience, these two topics will descend into unpleasant territory quicker than any others. So we'll leave it at I do not support legalized abortion or same-sex marriage, and I am assuming you do.


----------



## Jupiter

(Not trying to stir up your hornet's nest.) I wonder why the abortion debate is such a BIG DEAL in the US. The rest of the Western world has better things to worry about. I find it all a bit strange.


----------



## Guest

Jupiter said:


> (Not trying to stir up your hornet's nest.) I wonder why the abortion debate is such a BIG DEAL in the US. The rest of the Western world has better things to worry about. I find it all a bit strange.


The U.S. tends to be more "conservative" than the rest of the world. Religion is still a relatively big deal compared to most other nations in the western world.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> I can only take "pro-life" people seriously if they are coherent in their defense of human life. Against abortion? Fine. But then these folks should also be against death penalty...


Well... I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well.


Almaviva said:


> ...and for a *right* to health care for all.


And here, we simply have a difference in political philosophy- and it can't be resolved through logic, as we do not share relevant premises. I believe in a non-impositive view of rights- that is to say, the granting thereof does not impose a burden upon another. A simple example is free speech. I need not contribute any personal resources to insure another's free speech right. Health-care, on the other hand, is different. A person who doesn't have the resources to arrange for his own health care, and who also feels as though heath care is a "right" has no problem calling for the redistribution of resources from others, for his own personal benefit.

I've been accused of engaging in the "slippery-slope-fallacy" by saying that the arguments rallied in support of the health-care "right" can also be used to assert a "right" to food and to lodging. ["Everyone deserves a nice home" was spoken by Barbara Mandrell in a particularly mindless moment.] Slippery-slope or not, claimants of a "right" to health care ought to either explain why it's a right- and food and lodging isn't, or be open with us and let us know what other aspects of life that involve impositive redistributions are also "rights," in their mind.


----------



## Ukko

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well... I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well.
> 
> I've been accused of engaging in the "slippery-slope-fallacy" by saying that the arguments rallied in support of the health-care "right" can also be used to assert a "right" to food and to lodging. ["Everyone deserves a nice home" was spoken by Barbara Mandrell in a particularly mindless moment.] Slippery-slope or not, claimants of a "right" to health care ought to either explain why it's a right- and food and lodging isn't, or be open with us and let us know what other aspects of life that involve impositive redistributions are also "rights," in their mind.[/COLOR]


 "I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well."

Speaking as one of your countrymen, I don't make that distinction in the sense of capital punishment, and neither does the state of Vermont, nor do several other states that do not impose the death penalty.

Health care, food and lodging are not 'rights'. The question is whether providing any or all of those things are state obligations. I'll just point out that it is possible _procedurally_ for _the people_ to shoulder an obligation to provide food and lodging. Any practical procedure for providing health care must be designed by either healthcare providers or the state, preferably by both in tandem.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> "I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well."
> 
> Speaking as one of your countrymen, I don't make that distinction in the sense of capital punishment, and neither does the state of Vermont, nor do several other states that do not impose the death penalty.
> 
> Health care, food and lodging are not 'rights'. The question is whether providing any or all of those things are state obligations. I'll just point out that it is possible _procedurally_ for _the people_ to shoulder an obligation to provide food and lodging. Any practical procedure for providing health care must be designed by either healthcare providers or the state, preferably by both in tandem.


Your jib has a good cut.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Your jib has a good cut.


Thanks. Your opinion is bound to change. Centrists/moderates tend to be viewed as lily-livered cowards by the socially polarized.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well... I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well.And here, we simply have a difference in political philosophy- and it can't be resolved through logic, as we do not share relevant premises. I believe in a non-impositive view of rights- that is to say, the granting thereof does not impose a burden upon another. A simple example is free speech. I need not contribute any personal resources to insure another's free speech right. Health-care, on the other hand, is different. A person who doesn't have the resources to arrange for his own health care, and who also feels as though heath care is a "right" has no problem calling for the redistribution of resources from others, for his own personal benefit.
> 
> I've been accused of engaging in the "slippery-slope-fallacy" by saying that the arguments rallied in support of the health-care "right" can also be used to assert a "right" to food and to lodging. ["Everyone deserves a nice home" was spoken by Barbara Mandrell in a particularly mindless moment.] Slippery-slope or not, claimants of a "right" to health care ought to either explain why it's a right- and food and lodging isn't, or be open with us and let us know what other aspects of life that involve impositive redistributions are also "rights," in their mind.


Yeah, most of our countrymen make the distinction, I don't doubt it. Most of the rest of the civilized world doesn't.

While I agree that your points are valid and need to be considered, my rant was against *incoherence.* If someone thinks that human life is so sacred that 2, 4, 8, or 16 cells can't be stopped from developing into a fully formed human being, but a fully formed human being can be killed because of villainous acts, I'm not sure if this holds water in terms of coherence. Well, there are other ways to punish the villainous acts and to prevent them from repeating other than the death penalty. After all, is human life sacred or not?

Similarly, if a non-insured person is left without help and dies of a treatable disease such as leukemia, shouldn't the sacred human life concept stomp on any other consideration? Wouldn't the Christian thing be that society should help this person even if it would mean some monetary constraints on some members of society? After all, what is more sacred, human life, or a chunk of dollars?

And what about the foreign wars? OK, enemy combatants are one thing, but what about some drone attacks conducted with shaky intelligence resulting in the death of innocent children, women, the elderly, etc? Isn't this something that also hits the innocent, which is the word you've used for the abortion argument?

Like I said, I can respect a *coherent* argument in favor of the sacradness of human life, but then, the proponent of this argument shouldn't pick and choose. Funny enough, a large number of the very people who want to impose their beliefs about abortion on others are also for the death penalty, for the foreign wars, and against any right to health care. Not to say, against helping immigrants. Interestingly enough, the Southern Baptist church one of these days released a statement saying that illegal immigrants are also God's creatures and good Christians should not be so vitriolic against them. I think many Southern Baptists may have been very upset at their church leaders, and in deep trouble, especially in states like South Carolina in which the Southern Baptist church is so prominent, and the citizenry is so against the immigrants. What now, are these illegal aliens creatures of God who enjoy the sacradness of human life and therefore harbor legitimate aspirations of providing food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their children, or are they criminals who need to be kicked out of the country and sent back to the dire conditions they came from?

What I'm saying is, if Christ came back, he might be a bit upset with his followers. He'd probably be against abortion, but I'm betting that he'd also be against the death penalty and the foreign wars, and for helping the uninsured and the immigrants. So those who evoke religion to be against abortion may be in more trouble than they think when they espouse these other social beliefs.

Mind you, I'm *not* disputing any of your points, not even the slippery-slope that you've mentioned yourself. I think there are valid points to be made for *and* against those "rights."

What I'm disputing is the incoherence.

There isn't anything else to be said about abortion other than the sacradness of these innocent lives, from either a moral or religious standpoint. If this is not the argument for being against abortion, what is it? But if someone is willing to invoke this so strongly as applied to 2, 4, 6, 8, 16 cells, if it is important and prominent to that degree (that of applying to a microscopic chunk of cells), well, then it should tramp any other consideration when other forms of supressing human life are considered.

Like I said, I'm personally against abortion (but I feel I have no right to impose this feeling onto others), but I'll only agree with a person who - out of his/her religious beliefs - invokes the sacradness of human life to defend abortion *if and only if* that person is willing to invoke the same sacradness for other situations in which human lives are at risk. Otherwise it's a double standard.

For the record, I *am* against the death penalty, reckless collateral damage inflicted upon innocent non-combatants in wars, and for trampling over other rights when a treatable disease threatens the life of a human being who can't afford its treatment. I'm for the application of immigration laws but against harsh treatment of illegal immigrants, and for careful screening of their situation case by case, for other ways to curb illegal immigration rather than rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country. I'm also personally against abortion. I'm coherent. And I'm not even Christian. Can all the opponents of abortion say the same? It's a honest question. Sometimes I feel I'm more Christian than the Christians.


----------



## Ukko

It ain't easy being a moderate, Alma.


----------



## Guest

@Alma
There definitely is a difference in the life that is being taken, and there is coherence in opposing one form of taking a life vs. another. 
Ask yourself this - given your opposition to the war in Iraq, don't you accept that there are certain justifications for going to war (i.e. taking of human life on a large scale)? As a comparison - the Iraq War vs. WWII? Surely, although you are opposed to the Iraq War, I am assuming you (had you been alive then - I don't know how old you are, but assuming you are not old enough to have been of a voting age during WWII) would have supported WWII?

I would argue there is a coherence in opposing abortion while supporting the death penalty. Both are an opposition to the destruction of innocent human life. Murder is, essentially, the worst crime a person could commit - regardless of whether you view life from a religious or a purely naturalist perspective. A life has ended. The punishment should therefore match the crime, to show that we, as a society, will not stand for such crimes. Whether or not it deters, I couldn't say. But at the bare minimum, it prevents that single individual from taking any more innocent lives.

As to this notion that there is incoherence in opposing abortion and then opposing welfare programs, that is hard to argue. I believe we are all accountable for ourselves. I believe we should help others where we can. But just because I believe a person has the right to life doesn't demand that I then be the one that provides for that life. I believe that everybody should eat to sustain life - does it follow, then, that I must provide that food, or else I clearly don't believe people should eat? I believe that all people should have protected their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How they use those rights is then a matter of their own accountability. Believing that we have rights does not necessitate the notion that I should then see to all of those rights, at least on the individual level. Now, if it gets to a bigger issue - resisting those who would deprive us of our rights - that is a societal necessity, to protect those, because it is necessary to perpetuate the society. But saying, "No, you can't kill that unborn child" does not mean that I must then provide for that child from cradle to grave. That is the responsibility of the parents of that child. I am sorry if having that child is inconvenient to them (remember, I grudgingly acknowledge that there are times when it can be justified, such as in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother), but life is about accepting the responsibilities of our actions. And I don't have a worldview that is consistent with the notion that it is okay to force another to bear the burden of my wrong choices.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> ... And I don't have a worldview that is consistent with the notion that it is okay to force another to bear the burden of my wrong choices.


Neat.

You could add an adjective to the word burden for added realism: _financial_ burden. _Carte blanche_ often get masked by the words "... we have _right_ to XYZ". It gives new meaning to these words I think when downgrades are now applied to benchmarks.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And I don't have a worldview that is consistent with the notion that it is okay to force another to bear the burden of my wrong choices.


Sure, Dr.Mike, like I said, there are valid points to be made for and against those rights or lack thereof. But what I have a much harder time to understand, is what you've just said. So it is not okay to force you to take the burden of providing for a child of a woman who made a bad decision and doesn't have the means to support the child - but it *is* OK to *force* her to refrain from aborting that child and *force* *her* to take on that burden (and to bring to this world another unlucky child who will be struggling with all sorts of issues with deficient parenting, deficient healthcare, and deficient education). My question is, why should anybody, especially the government, be in this business of forcing people one way or the other? If you think she needs to face her own errors, then she may need to face her own sins as well (from your perspective).


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> It ain't easy being a moderate, Alma.


Being a moderat*or *is worse.


----------



## Amfibius

You know Almaviva ... if you migrated to Australia, your views would be considered mainstream over here - except that our politicians are too lily-livered to legalize gay marriage even though a clear majority of the population wants them to do so.


----------



## Curiosity




----------



## Yoshi

I don't understand the big deal about it in some countries. Both are legal where I live and life still goes on.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sure, Dr.Mike, like I said, there are valid points to be made for and against those rights or lack thereof. But what I have a much harder time to understand, is what you've just said. So it is not okay to force you to take the burden of providing for a child of a woman who made a bad decision and doesn't have the means to support the child - but it *is* OK to *force* her to refrain from aborting that child and *force* *her* to take on that burden (and to bring to this world another unlucky child who will be struggling with all sorts of issues with deficient parenting, deficient healthcare, and deficient education). My question is, why should anybody, especially the government, be in this business of forcing people one way or the other? If you think she needs to face her own errors, then she may need to face her own sins as well (from your perspective).


You know, Alma, there are options for those parents other than the simplistic dichotomy you present of either abort the child or condemn it to a life of misery. For one, there are quite a few parents that initially thought to abort a child, but decided to keep it, despite the poor circumstances at the time, and the child ends up living a wonderful life with a loving family. Do you have any statistics to back up your assertions that unwanted pregnancies that do not end in abortion result in burdenous children that are born unlucky and struggle with issues of deficient parenting, deficient healthcare, and deficient education? How many abortions are among the lower class, who presumable wouldn't be able to afford proper healthcare and education?

I have friends that, due to uncontrollable circumstances, are forced to deal with that most frustrating of things - adoption. It is ridiculously difficult and expensive to adopt. And the system is ridiculous - it makes it more difficult to keep siblings together than to separate them and send them to different families. There are numerous parents out there who would love to adopt children.

But preventing abortion is not about forcing people to face their own sins - this isn't akin to rubbing your dog's nose in his crap when he takes a dump in the house. This is about preventing another life from having to face the consequences of one's actions. In this day and age, we are all about the simple fix to all of our problems - there is no such thing. Somebody always pays. Our current financial situation is elegant proof of that.

I don't like government forcing people to do anything - but sometimes it is necessary when people are doing the wrong thing, and when it is hurting others. We think of government in terms like "majority rule," but I believe that government, at least as established in this country, is about majority rule, so long as the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority. I believe a government that doesn't acknowledge and protect the rights of the weakest of the weak has no moral legitimacy. It was a stain on this country that for so long we subscribed to the notion that we, as humans, should be allowed to own another human and deal with them as we will, with no respect whatsoever for their natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Abortion is a case where we callously destroy nascent human life. Call it whatever you will - a glob of cells, a zygote, an embryo - it is human life at its most perfect and most fragile. From the moment that sperm and that egg fuse, the combined genetic information has greater potential than anything else alive on this planet. Yes, that life is dependent on the womb of the mother in which it resides, and yes, it is a huge drain on that mother for the 9 months of gestation, not to mention the time post-partum. That so many people treat this amazing gift as a trivial thing to be played with for mere amusement is astonishing to me. That so many people are perfectly fine with the notion of providing simple and cheap means by which such life can be snuffed out is abhorent to me. That we as a society have descended to a level that we can so callously dismiss the extinguishing of new life with such infinite potential is beyond all that - it says something fundamental about that society, and it isn't pretty.

Sigh. I really don't want to continue this topic anymore. It only depresses me. I doubt I will ever see a society where abortion is illegal. At best, all I can hope for is that no further broadening of abortion "rights" occurs, and maybe we can do away with such barbaric practices as partial-birth abortion - to partially give birth to a child, only to insert an instrument into that child's head and then suction out its brains, because if it were fully delivered before having its brains removed that would be murder, not abortion. Hell, we have to fight tooth and nail just to get laws on the books that say that parents of minors should be informed should their daughter seek out such a procedure. I can't think of any other medical procedure that an under-aged girl can have performed without parental consent - but abortion should be the exception?

I'm out of this thread - kind of wishing it didn't bear my name as the one who started it, because technically I was responding to another's post.


----------



## Yoshi

It's very easy to say those things when you'll never be in that situation anyway.

Women have the right to choose between carrying a baby or not. Get over it already.

Oh and remember that no contraception's sucess rate is 100% so it doesn't matter if you're careful or not it still happens! Unless you want women to stop having sex except for having babies.


----------



## Polednice

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I just need to do this:



DrMike said:


> Murder is, essentially, the worst crime a person could commit - regardless of whether you view life from a religious or a purely naturalist perspective. A life has ended. The punishment should therefore match the crime, to show that we, as a society, will not stand for such crimes.


Prison does that.



DrMike said:


> Whether or not it deters, I couldn't say.


Prison deters at least as much.



DrMike said:


> But at the bare minimum, it prevents that single individual from taking any more innocent lives.


Prison does that too.

As I understand the religious worldview, _all_ life - every single ounce of it, no matter whose it is or what is done with it - is sacred, and nobody has any right to take anyone's life whatsoever. This is precisely why suicide was a crime for so long, because the essence of human life itself was held to be sacred, independent of whether or not the person was a criminal. As such, it is surely (once again) incoherent, and actually rather saddeningly ironic, for a society to condemn murder by committing institutionalised, vengeful murder.


----------



## Yoshi

Polednice said:


> As such, it is surely (once again) incoherent, and actually rather saddeningly ironic, for a society to condemn murder by committing institutionalised, vengeful murder.


That's why im against death penalty aswell. I also find it more important to keep the dangerous person out of the streets than punish them, althought prison is already a punishment itself.
Now for the suicide being a crime I don't really agree with it... I think that if you have the right to live you should also have the right to die.


----------



## Guest

Jan said:


> It's very easy to say those things when you'll never be in that situation anyway.
> 
> Women have the right to choose between carrying a baby or not. Get over it already.
> 
> Oh and remember that no contraception's sucess rate is 100% so it doesn't matter if you're careful or not it still happens! Unless you want women to stop having sex except for having babies.


Yes, and it is very easy for my endocrinologist to tell me to not eat sugary candy when he is not a diabetic himself. Does that somehow negate the wisdom of what he is telling me?

Thank you for setting me straight and telling me to "Get over it already." Clearly this is all about my own petty likes and dislikes.

Proper condom use has a 2% failure rate. Various female contraceptives, including the pill or other injected medications, have a failure rate of 1% or less. So if you were to combine the two, I think you could get that failure rate pretty low. 100%? Can anything be 100%?

Can I count on your future comments to me being along the lines of "get over it already?"


----------



## Polednice

A pragmatic point to anti-abortionists: given that, whether it is legal or not, abortions _will_ happen because women _need_ that choice, is it not better to keep it legal so that it is visible, safe, and regulated? If not, not only will the unborn children die anyway, but the mothers will be at a very severe health disadvantage too, many of them dying as well.


----------



## kv466

'Going through a world of sad debris...regard quixotic reveries of ownership...the blossoming disease of man called tenure and accretion...the ancient western treadmill of deception and derision but I want something more...Racing through a life of tragic wastage...I experience the loss of trust and innocence...the billowing cyclone of time has blown away all reason as we trudge like blind men forward trying to avoid collision but I want something...more' -graffin


----------



## Yoshi

DrMike said:


> Yes, and it is very easy for my endocrinologist to tell me to not eat sugary candy when he is not a diabetic himself. Does that somehow negate the wisdom of what he is telling me?
> 
> Thank you for setting me straight and telling me to "Get over it already." Clearly this is all about my own petty likes and dislikes.
> 
> Proper condom use has a 2% failure rate. Various female contraceptives, including the pill or other injected medications, have a failure rate of 1% or less. So if you were to combine the two, I think you could get that failure rate pretty low. 100%? Can anything be 100%?
> 
> Can I count on your future comments to me being along the lines of "get over it already?"


Sorry if it sounded rude but it wasn't really directed at you or else I would have quoted you. I was speaking about it generaly but now that I see your previous post it does seem like I'm replying to you.

I just don't like people making abortion sound like it's a huge crime/sin when most people have their own reasons to do it. I just think it's none of my business to judge those people and I think it's ridiculous that some govermnents have a law against it.

Sure it's practicaly 100% but what I'm saying is that it's possible to have exceptions. There are also cases like rape, incest, etc. That's why I don't understand why people want to make it illegal to everyone.


----------



## Kopachris

My two cents:

*Abortion.* The fetus is not conscious in the womb, therefore I don't really care. Once the baby is conscious, there is some right to life, as the baby is completely innocent at that point in time. Then there's the argument of "who knows what the baby would grow up to be--maybe he'd be the next Mozart or Einstein!" Yeah, no. If the mother is considering abortion, chances are its because she wouldn't be able to raise the child into a Mozart or Einstein anyway.

*Death penalty.* This is a tricky one. I am 100% _against_ life in prison. A life prisoner is only draining resources that could go elsewhere. If you don't want to execute a murderer/rapist/traitor/jaywalker/whatever because of a chance of rehabilitation, give him a shorter sentence so that the rehabilitation can be put to use. Repeat offenders for such a crime have already used their chance for rehab, and I have no problems with their execution. Do try and make sure you execute the right person, though, even if it takes a couple years sitting on death row. It's always a shame when someone who was innocent gets hanged.

*Marriage.* A marriage is between two people and their deity, so I wish governments would stop using that terminology. "Civil union" is a much better legal term, and could apply to any two people. While we're at it, we might as well allow more than two people to engage in a civil union together. After all, starting a business with someone is already a lot like marriage. I do wish people had to take some sort of test before being able to reproduce, but that'd be impossible to implement correctly.

*Welfare and universal healthcare.* In a perfect world, it would be the duty of the people to help those who can't help themselves (but not those who simply _won't_ help themselves) and the government would stay out of it. But this isn't a perfect world, so I guess having the government do it is the next best thing. They could do it better than they already do, but it sounds like they're a lot more successful with it in Europe than they ever could be in America.

*Minimum age laws.* Ok, so no one's talking about these. I'd prefer it if people were licensed to drink, gamble, smoke, etc. and the minimum age for attaining one of those licenses were dropped to (say) 16. Not all under-21s are too immature to gamble their own money, and not all over-21s are mature enough. Besides, how much sense does it make that a person can gamble with their life by joining the military before they're old enough to gamble with their money? Are we Americans really that money-centered? Of course, no one of serious influence will listen to me on this one because I'm only 18.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I just need to do this:
> 
> Prison does that.
> 
> Prison deters at least as much.
> 
> Prison does that too.
> 
> As I understand the religious worldview, _all_ life - every single ounce of it, no matter whose it is or what is done with it - is sacred, and nobody has any right to take anyone's life whatsoever. This is precisely why suicide was a crime for so long, because the essence of human life itself was held to be sacred, independent of whether or not the person was a criminal. As such, it is surely (once again) incoherent, and actually rather saddeningly ironic, for a society to condemn murder by committing institutionalised, vengeful murder.


Murder is a term that refers specifically to the taking of innocent life. Capital punishment does not constitute murder.

As to your other statment, I would suggest you look at more religious worldviews than the one that you chose that suggests that capital punishment is equal to murder. By your reasoning, war would also be on par. So soldiers would be murderers. By your statement, they have no right to take anyone's life whatsoever.

And your statement - that all life is sacred, and nobody has any right to take anyone's life whatsoever - what does that say about killing in self defense? If someone is coming at me to kill me, based on your interpretation of the "religious worldview," would God condemn me were I to kill that person in self defense? You claim that the religious worldview is that nobody has a right to take another's life whatsoever - that is a pretty absolute statement that allows for not even the slightest exception.

I would think, though, that you merely didn't take into consideration such exceptions. While I am sure there are exceptions, I am going to go out on a limb and say that a significant number of religions would not condemn killing in self defense if your life is threatened, or perhaps your family. So that establishes that there are times when taking someone's life is acceptable. And it allows for the concept of taking a life where that life threatens the safety of others.

So getting to your prison idea - prison prevents the taking of any more innocent lives. What if a person, falsely imprisoned, is killed in prison by a murderer. Did prison prevent the taking of any more innocent lives? What if, rather than the incarcerated murderer killing a falsely imprisoned innocent man, he killed another person who actually was guilty - but of a non-capital crime, say, bank robbery. Certainly he hasn't taken an innocent life, but that individual did nothing worthy of death. Was innocent blood shed? Not technically, but all the same, a person is now dead for a crime that shouldn't have warranted death - consider further if that individual were one day away from completing their sentence and having paid their debt back to society. Prison can certainly go a long way towards preventing such crimes, but it is not absolute. And as we have seen, murderers can get parole and go out and murder again. A dead murderer has no such potential. So I think it is hard to say that prison deters at least as much as the death penalty.


----------



## Yoshi

Thank you for the like Polednice, I hope that Dr Mike can forgive me . I admit sometimes I can be a bit agressive with these sort of topics but I swear I didn't mean to attack him.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Do try and make sure you execute the right person, though, even if it takes a couple years sitting on death row. It's always a shame when someone who was innocent gets hanged.


Deliberate understatement I hope? I think f*****g unforgivable, despicable, reprehensible, disgusting, unconscionable travesty would be a more appropriate description wouldn't it? Regardless of the burden of life-imprisoned convicts beyond redemption, this is why I am wholly against the death penalty - just _one_ mistake like that is enough for an entire nation to be thoroughly ashamed of itself, and there should be no space for it to happen at all.



DrMike said:


> I would think, though, that you merely didn't take into consideration such exceptions.


Yes, you're right about that, my argument was unfair.

With regards to your point about prisons, what is your reaction to my above paragraph for Kopachris?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> A pragmatic point to anti-abortionists: given that, whether it is legal or not, abortions _will_ happen because women _need_ that choice, is it not better to keep it legal so that it is visible, safe, and regulated? If not, not only will the unborn children die anyway, but the mothers will be at a very severe health disadvantage too, many of them dying as well.


I don't buy into the "well, they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well help them do it safely" line. Why do women "need" that choice? I have stated before that in rare instances, it might be necessary - rape, incest, mother's life threatened. But otherwise, is it not more of a want than a need? If a person does something that could potentially harm them, is it my fault that the unintended consequences occurred because?

Take a completely unrelated but tangentially applicable example (this is how I avoid the endless protests that they are unrelated, while ignoring the point I am trying to make) - teenagers want to drink. They are more than likely going to drink, if they are intent enough, even though it is illegal (we are talking the U.S. here, I don't know what laws are in other countries). Doing it without permission and in violation of the law will likely lead to them putting themselves in dangerous situations - drunk driving, etc. It is not better to just have the parents allow their children to get drunk at home, where they can protect them from the unintended consequences of binge drinking? Or do they enforce the no drinking rule? If a parent tells their child to not drink, and that child still goes to a party, gets drunk, then dies in an accident due to drunk-driving, do you think the parents are sitting at home, crying, "if only we had let him get drunk at home with us, he'd still be with us!"

Abortions are currently legal, so this is a pointless exercise. Were they to be illegal, then I would expect people to obey that law just as I would expect them to obey the other laws. I don't buy the notion that society shares the blame when a person faces the consequences of choosing to do something that was illegal.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> 'Going through a world of sad debris...regard quixotic reveries of ownership...the blossoming disease of man called tenure and accretion...the ancient western treadmill of deception and derision but I want something more...Racing through a life of tragic wastage...I experience the loss of trust and innocence...the billowing cyclone of time has blown away all reason as we trudge like blind men forward trying to avoid collision but I want something...more' -graffin


The problem with quoting Graffin is that he, himself, tells you to not come to him for direction.


> I don't believe in self important folks who preach
> no Bad Religion song can make your life complete
> prepare for rejection you'll get no direction from me
> you'll get no direction from me
> you'll get no direction from me


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well... I distinguish between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a villainous one-- and I daresay most of my countrymen make that distinction, as well.


This post assumes a lot of things...

* That there's no such thing as false prosecutions.
* That an effective way to teach that doing immoral things is wrong is by doing an immoral thing (killing).
* That if they should be deemed good countrymen, citizens should hate the people who need help.
* That the state unquestionably deserves the right to take life.
* That institutionalized revenge somehow makes things even out morally.
* That America's prisons are not horrible, broken, for-profit, medieval rape dungeons with no rehabilitative properties.

Need I go on?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I don't buy into the "well, they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well help them do it safely" line. Why do women "need" that choice? I have stated before that in rare instances, it might be necessary - rape, incest, mother's life threatened. But otherwise, is it not more of a want than a need? If a person does something that could potentially harm them, is it my fault that the unintended consequences occurred because?


You may not buy into the 'need' as opposed to a 'want', but you can't avoid the fact that, a few decades ago, when abortion was illegal, women _did_ do it illegally, and many of them _did_ die when they wouldn't have had to otherwise.



DrMike said:


> Take a completely unrelated but tangentially applicable example (this is how I avoid the endless protests that they are unrelated, while ignoring the point I am trying to make) - teenagers want to drink. They are more than likely going to drink, if they are intent enough, even though it is illegal (we are talking the U.S. here, I don't know what laws are in other countries). Doing it without permission and in violation of the law will likely lead to them putting themselves in dangerous situations - drunk driving, etc. It is not better to just have the parents allow their children to get drunk at home, where they can protect them from the unintended consequences of binge drinking? Or do they enforce the no drinking rule? If a parent tells their child to not drink, and that child still goes to a party, gets drunk, then dies in an accident due to drunk-driving, do you think the parents are sitting at home, crying, "if only we had let him get drunk at home with us, he'd still be with us!"


For me, this is yet another example of why it is wrong to legislate behaviour. This is not an argument in favour of more laws prohibiting people from certain acts; this is an argument in favour of reducing laws to open up more choice - lower the drinking age considerably and then binge drinking loses its 'path-to-manhood' appeal. Adopt the European culture of kids drinking alcohol at home and it inoculates them against the desire to drink in dangerous situations. Again, _choice_ wins where prohibition of behaviours fails.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

More on topic, as time goes on I'm more and more convinced that the core of the pro-life movement is the puritan urge to see women punished for their sexuality. If you (generally speaking) care so much about children, adopt one that needs a home.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> You may not buy into the 'need' as opposed to a 'want', but you can't avoid the fact that, a few decades ago, when abortion was illegal, women _did_ do it illegally, and many of them _did_ die when they wouldn't have had to otherwise.


This is a false argument that gets repeated because nobody every challenges it. The fact is that we don't know the rate of deaths due to illegal abortions in the U.S. prior to its legalization because we don't know how many illegal abortions total were performed - people don't tend to report their illegal activity. But we do have information regarding the number of deaths from illegal abortions. Between 1940 and 1950, the number of deaths from abortion dropped from around 1300/year to just over 200/year. Most likely cause? Certainly not the legalization of abortion. Most likely it was the introduction of sulfa drugs and penicillin that could treat infections - the most likely cause of abortion-related deaths. From 1956 until 1966, just prior to the first state legalizing abortion, the rate went from 250/year to 120/year. Keep in mind, that is for the entire United States. Between 1967 and 1970, 16 states had legalized abortion, but most of them were only for rape, incest, and severe handicaps. California and New York, though, had legalized abortion on demand. By 1972, the year before the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states, there were 39 deaths due to illegal abortions. In that same year, in the states where abortion was legal, there were 25 deaths. I'm not sure whether that difference is statistically significant, but that is less than a 2-fold difference. So what the evidence shows is that deaths from abortion were only marginally decreased due to legalization - improved antibiotics are the more likely cause of decreased deaths.



> For me, this is yet another example of why it is wrong to legislate behaviour. This is not an argument in favour of more laws prohibiting people from certain acts; this is an argument in favour of reducing laws to open up more choice - lower the drinking age considerably and then binge drinking loses its 'path-to-manhood' appeal. Adopt the European culture of kids drinking alcohol at home and it inoculates them against the desire to drink in dangerous situations. Again, _choice_ wins where prohibition of behaviours fails.


But as I said, the example of underage drinking is simply what I pulled out of the air to illustrate the larger issue - if a person chooses to engage in illegal behavior and suffers the unintended consequences of it, the onus is on them to abide by the law and avoid the consequences, as opposed to being on me to remove the law so they don't have the consequences.


----------



## Guest

regressivetransphobe said:


> More on topic, as time goes on I'm more and more convinced that the core of the pro-life movement is the puritan urge to see women punished for their sexuality. If you (generally speaking) care so much about children, adopt one that needs a home.


I have some friends who are dying to - if you know anybody who is wanting to put a child up for adoption, they would love to take them.

What a rather biased and laughable opinion of pro-life supporters. Talk with a lot of us, do you? Puritan urges? See women punished for their sexuality? Procreation is not a punishment.

Why, I could just as easily say that the core of the pro-choice movement is a group of narcissistic, misogynistic "Jersey Shore" males who want to exploit women purely for their own pleasure and for the purpose of racking up an impressive list of how many girls they've "banged" without having to fear the repercussions of paternity suits and child support down the road.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Deliberate understatement I hope? I think f*****g unforgivable, despicable, reprehensible, disgusting, unconscionable travesty would be a more appropriate description wouldn't it? Regardless of the burden of life-imprisoned convicts beyond redemption, this is why I am wholly against the death penalty - just _one_ mistake like that is enough for an entire nation to be thoroughly ashamed of itself, and there should be no space for it to happen at all.


Yes, "shame" was a deliberate understatement. However, to say that _a single_ instance should make an entire nation so thoroughly ashamed of itself that there can be no space for it to happen at all (implying the abolishment of the death penalty) is somewhat of an exaggeration. Forgive me for saying so (or don't), but _one_ human life is not that valuable, considering the vast supply. In my opinion, a much greater travesty is letting the populace support someone who will never be a productive human being while they fail to support those who will become productive. Harsh, heartless, and cruel words? Yes. I am a horrible person.

Now, if we found out that this sort of thing happens quite frequently (the definition of frequently is up to you, but a single instance is not frequent), then that indicates the system needs to be reworked, but not necessarily abolished. I think our legal system which is too easily swayed by money and emotion is already overdue for an overhaul, anyway.


----------



## Guest

regressivetransphobe said:


> This post assumes a lot of things...
> 
> * That there's no such thing as false prosecutions.
> * That an effective way to teach that doing immoral things is wrong is by doing an immoral thing (killing).
> * That if they should be deemed good countrymen, citizens should hate the people who need help.
> * That the state unquestionably deserves the right to take life.
> * That institutionalized revenge somehow makes things even out morally.
> * That America's prisons are not horrible, broken, for-profit, medieval rape dungeons with no rehabilitative properties.
> 
> Need I go on?


No, in reality those assumptions are all your own. CTP's post says nothing to those points, nor does it even imply any of them.

This post of yours merely raises a number of straw men.


----------



## Yoshi

I don't understand why they have to make it so difficult to adopt a child. I know a couple that tried to adopt a baby here and it was taking so many years that they had to give up and fly to the other side of the world. When they got to that other country it took only a few days.
It's terrible to think about how many kids that could have families but are forced to stay at the adoption centre because of some papers.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> With regards to your point about prisons, what is your reaction to my above paragraph for Kopachris?


My reaction is similar to Kopachris'. There is no instance of the absolute sure thing in this world. We send thousands of planes in the sky every day, and I think the risk of dying in a plane crash is probably a bit higher than the risk of being wrongfully executed for murder. We don't revise policy based on incredibly small risks. Is the wrongful execution of an innocent person a tragedy? Absolutely - and in such instances, everybody responsible should be investigated. But how often does it happen? I know we get a lot of speculation after the fact, and new "witnesses" showing up 20 years later who remember that day crystal clear, but what is the actual incidence of wrongful executions? Verified wrongful executions? If you can show me that it is a statistically significant occurrence, then I will stand by you and call for a halt in the death penatly while we sort out the causes of these errors.


----------



## Guest

Jan said:


> I don't understand why they have to make it so difficult to adopt a child. I know a couple that tried to adopt a baby here and it was taking so many years that they had to give up and fly to the other side of the world. When they got to that other country it took only a few days.
> It's terrible to think about how many kids that could have families but are forced to stay at the adoption centre because of some papers.


I know that the lure is there to adopt out of country, but while the adoption may go quicker, there are still numerous hurdles getting the child/children into the country.

I think it is ridiculous. I am all for properly and thoroughly vetting the people applying to adopt - you don't want to adopt out kids to pedophiles are people unfit. But once they are cleared, make it as simple (and cheap) as possible. I think my friends said that you can expect to spend up to 10% of your annual income to adopt. And that is per child. Say a couple wants to adopt, and they find two siblings. Ideally, you would think it would be best to keep the kids together. And if the parents are willing - even better. So if the couple has a combined income of $100,000 (a number I just picked to make the math easier), that means spending $20,000 to adopt 
the two, as opposed to just $10,000. No discount for keeping siblings together.

That is how I understand it goes. If I am wrong, please somebody correct me.


----------



## Lenfer

I'm not going to say anything other than people should stop forcefully embossing their values on other people we would then all be much better off. Any true moral society would educate it's people so they know what the choices are and then give them complete and total freedom in which that individual can make up their own mind, society should then have to accept those choices.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> kind of wishing it didn't bear my name as the one who started it, because technically I was responding to another's post.


Fixed, see original post


----------



## Yoshi

DrMike said:


> I know that the lure is there to adopt out of country, but while the adoption may go quicker, there are still numerous hurdles getting the child/children into the country.
> 
> I think it is ridiculous. I am all for properly and thoroughly vetting the people applying to adopt - you don't want to adopt out kids to pedophiles are people unfit. But once they are cleared, make it as simple (and cheap) as possible. I think my friends said that you can expect to spend up to 10% of your annual income to adopt. And that is per child. Say a couple wants to adopt, and they find two siblings. Ideally, you would think it would be best to keep the kids together. And if the parents are willing - even better. So if the couple has a combined income of $100,000 (a number I just picked to make the math easier), that means spending $20,000 to adopt
> the two, as opposed to just $10,000. No discount for keeping siblings together.
> 
> That is how I understand it goes. If I am wrong, please somebody correct me.


Yes I just can't believe the amount of time that took them and what they had to do to finaly be able to adopt a child. I agree with you that it should be made easy not difficult. The fact that it's so difficult is making people give up from doing it which is pretty bad.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I don't get why you all even want to argue about this. Do any of you from either side think you're gonna convince the other? What's the point?

To Dr.Mike, I _would _side with you in your argument because I'm of the same beliefs. But I'm saddened at_ everyone's_ debate, so I will not support you, or anyone. I don't want to be identified by my politics.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Will be joining the debate... later.

And by the way, I disagree... with all of you!


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I don't get why you all even want to argue about this. Do any of you from either side think you're gonna convince the other? What's the point?
> 
> To Dr.Mike, I _would _side with you in your argument because I'm of the same beliefs. But I'm saddened at_ everyone's_ debate, so I will not support you, or anyone. I don't want to be identified by my politics.


I believe in another thread we gave a pretty exhaustive answer to your question, "What's the point."

Short answer - because we are lucky to live in a society where we can debate without fearing for our lives, because we sharpen our own thinking by being forced to defend our ideas, because it is good to expose ourselves to the opinions of others, regardless of whether we agree with them, and because . . . we are pretty much argumentative in nature .

Don't want to be identified by your politics? I'm not identifying my politics here. I'm identifying my personal values and beliefs on topics that are very much under discussion. My politics at times mirror those beliefs. I want to be identified by my actions and my opinions. And I believe that it is important to continue discussions in general. Individual topics may from time to time upset me, but you have to keep the dialog going. Nobody should every get complacent.


----------



## Guest

Klavierspieler said:


> Will be joining the debate... later.
> 
> And by the way, I disagree... with all of you!


Jump on in - the water is warm (and getting warmer with each post:devil.


----------



## Ravellian

I'm not religious, but I think it's obvious that abortion is simply the immoral practice of taking another human being's life. The purpose of sex is for procreation first and foremost, and if you intend to do it for recreational purposes, USE PROTECTION.

As for gay people, I'm fine with them as long as they don't hit on me.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I don't get why you all even want to argue about this. Do any of you from either side think you're gonna convince the other? What's the point?
> 
> To Dr.Mike, I _would _side with you in your argument because I'm of the same beliefs. But I'm saddened at_ everyone's_ debate, so I will not support you, or anyone. I don't want to be identified by my politics.


Not really - I have very little hope of persuading people who oppose my views, but I feel utterly compelled to argue about them every time because when I want to get married to my boyfriend, I don't see how on earth our love for each other could ever have a negative effect on other people's lives. I find that assumption offensive, oppressive, and upsetting.



Kopachris said:


> However, to say that a single instance should make an entire nation so thoroughly ashamed of itself that there can be no space for it to happen at all (implying the abolishment of the death penalty) is somewhat of an exaggeration. Forgive me for saying so (or don't), but one human life is not that valuable, considering the vast supply.


I don't think it is an exaggeration and so I can't forgive you.  From the cosy perspective of someone who will live their lives obeying the law, in the comfort of the Western world, consuming at will and carrying on with the 'usual' life, human life _does_ seem a little expendable. That's why, when we look back at travesties such as the two World Wars, the repeated statements of the millions of people who lost their lives loses its impact very quickly.

But pick just _one_ soldier or civilian. That one person will have died in tragic circumstances. They will have had hopes, they will have had dreams. They'll have had flaws, friends, and love in their life. They'd have been as human as you, and the way that they had to die was despicable. That travesty multiplied by millions is a staggering injustice to human life, but the point is that it doesn't matter if it is millions or just one.

Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive, but I could imagine myself in the despair of being wrongfully accused, up for execution, and I would be in immense, unbelievable pain. I would be whole-heartedly damning my nation as a proponent of barbaric practices, and, while I'm one of the first to see that, in the expanse of our cosmos, human life is essentially meaningless, _the point is that we only get one life and then we turn to dust._ One small life, all of its experiences being unjustly cut short. I just cannot, *cannot* see how any society can allow that to happen even once when we have other methods to manage our criminals. Honestly, I find it extremely nauseating. Perhaps I am just overly sensitive after all, I don't know...


----------



## Yoshi

Polednice said:


> Not really - I have very little hope of persuading people who oppose my views, but I feel utterly compelled to argue about them every time because when I want to get married to my boyfriend, I don't see how on earth our love for each other could ever have a negative effect on other people's lives. I find that assumption offensive, oppressive, and upsetting.
> 
> I don't think it is an exaggeration and so I can't forgive you.  From the cosy perspective of someone who will live their lives obeying the law, in the comfort of the Western world, consuming at will and carrying on with the 'usual' life, human life _does_ seem a little expendable. That's why, when we look back at travesties such as the two World Wars, the repeated statements of the millions of people who lost their lives loses its impact very quickly.
> 
> But pick just _one_ soldier or civilian. That one person will have died in tragic circumstances. They will have had hopes, they will have had dreams. They'll have had flaws, friends, and love in their life. They'd have been as human as you, and the way that they had to die was despicable. That travesty multiplied by millions is a staggering injustice to human life, but the point is that it doesn't matter if it is millions or just one.
> 
> *Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive, but I could imagine myself in the despair of being wrongfully accused, up for execution, and I would be in immense, unbelievable pain.* I would be whole-heartedly damning my nation as a proponent of barbaric practices, and, while I'm one of the first to see that, in the expanse of our cosmos, human life is essentially meaningless, _the point is that we only get one life and then we turn to dust._ One small life, all of its experiences being unjustly cut short. I just cannot, cannot see how any society can allow that to happen even once when we have other methods to manage our criminals. Honestly, I find it extremely nauseating. Perhaps I am just overly sensitive after all, I don't know...


I know what you mean. I get a bit over sensitive with these issues because I'm always putting myself in other people's shoes. At some point I might get very defensive, even if it has nothing to do with me or if it's pratically impossible for me to be in that situation one day.
For example: Even if it's very unlikely that I'll want to marry someone of the same gender, I still feel offended/upset when people condemn those who do. I just can't help it because I find it unfair and I can almost feel their pain.


----------



## TresPicos

> As to same-sex marriage, such legislation seeks to redefine an institution...


Of course the institution of marriage is being redefined. It needs to be, since it is based on discrimination. Allowing same-sex marriage is just removal of that discrimation. It's finally letting in people from the cold who should never have been forced out there in the first place.



> ...that has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for the entire history of our nation,...


Wow, it took the entire history of your nation to finally reach this level of enlightenment.

Impressive... 



> ...and by the very fact that it has to be termed "same-sex" marriage already suggests that it is assumed the term implies heterosexual.


You're absolutely correct. The term "same-sex" marriage does indeed suggest that it is assumed that the term "marriage" implies "heterosexual marriage". And that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. That's just a consequence of the discrimination, not a reason to prolong it.

I fail to see how this battle is any different from, say, the battle for women's suffrage 100 years ago. That was a redefinition of the institution of democracy, despite the fact that the old order had been around throughout the entire history of the nation, and despite the fact that the term "women's suffrage" already suggested that it was assumed that the term "suffrage" implied men's right to vote only.


----------



## Polednice

Jan said:


> I know what you mean. I get a bit over sensitive with these issues because I'm always putting myself in other people's shoes. At some point I might get very defensive, even if it has nothing to do with me or if it's pratically impossible for me to be in that situation one day.
> For example: Even if it's very unlikely that I'll want to marry someone of the same gender, I still feel offended/upset when people condemn those who do. I just can't help it because I find it unfair and I can almost feel their pain.


Sometimes this strength of feeling can even put me off watching the news because it makes me feel sad in a personal way, but I'm glad you share the same kind of empathy. 

This reminds me of an incident that I have a vague recollection of - fairly recently, there was some heterosexist marriage organisation going round the USA campaigning against same-sex unions, and, after one of their chief organisers _actually interacted_ with same-sex couples who wanted that kind of partnership, he realised that they were just normal people with normal aspirations and dreams like anyone else, and so made a splash by abandoning the organisation.

He maintained that his religious views told him that homosexuality was 'sinful' but that this was in no way a reason for people to legislate against these people getting their own little slice of happiness in the way that they want when it harms no one else. I think so much of the problem - though I know it isn't true for everyone - is that people are armchair-politicians. They theorise about groups of people that they see as 'others' - amorphous groups of gays without the same hopes and dreams; sometimes even characterising them as having an agenda. And yet the people they misrepresent just have the same domestic thoughts and desires as anyone else.

When it comes down to it, if I just want to get married to someone I love, what's it got to do with anyone else? Someone who is against it please tell me, personally, Polednice, Callum, how my union with someone I love, who is also male, will affect them or society in any way. I'm pretty sure that my love doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> When it comes down to it, if I just want to get married to someone I love, what's it got to do with anyone else? Someone who is against it please tell me, personally, Polednice, Callum, how my union with someone I love, who is also male, will affect them or society in any way. I'm pretty sure that my love doesn't hurt anyone.


I doesn't - plain and simple.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> [snip]
> I don't think it is an exaggeration and so I can't forgive you.  From the cosy perspective of someone who will live their lives obeying the law, in the comfort of the Western world, consuming at will and carrying on with the 'usual' life, human life _does_ seem a little expendable. That's why, when we look back at travesties such as the two World Wars, the repeated statements of the millions of people who lost their lives loses its impact very quickly.
> 
> But pick just _one_ soldier or civilian. That one person will have died in tragic circumstances. They will have had hopes, they will have had dreams. They'll have had flaws, friends, and love in their life. They'd have been as human as you, and the way that they had to die was despicable. That travesty multiplied by millions is a staggering injustice to human life, but the point is that it doesn't matter if it is millions or just one.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive, but I could imagine myself in the despair of being wrongfully accused, up for execution, and I would be in immense, unbelievable pain. I would be whole-heartedly damning my nation as a proponent of barbaric practices, and, while I'm one of the first to see that, in the expanse of our cosmos, human life is essentially meaningless, _the point is that we only get one life and then we turn to dust._ One small life, all of its experiences being unjustly cut short. I just cannot, *cannot* see how any society can allow that to happen even once when we have other methods to manage our criminals. Honestly, I find it extremely nauseating. Perhaps I am just overly sensitive after all, I don't know...


It's perfectly alright to be sensitive about human life. Without people like you valuing human life so highly, human life wouldn't be valued enough. 

The only difference is that I have also put myself in the shoes of the unfortunate innocent, and I accepted society's decision. Oh, I'd fight for my innocence alright, but if I can't defend myself properly, that's my own failing. Now, if I'm wrongly convicted because of circumstantial evidence, or a lack of evidence, or because I'm otherwise not given a chance to properly defend myself, then the system needs to be fixed. A temporary abolition of the death penalty is acceptable until a better system for determining guilt is in place. Fortunately, cases where the accused doesn't have a chance to defend himself in life-or-death cases are very rare nowadays. Copyright suits, on the other hand, need some changes.

BTW, I like how instead of simply saying that I'm wrong, you explained personal reasons for your position and accepted responsibility for it. Very tactful. 



Lenfer said:


> I'm not going to say anything other than people should stop forcefully embossing their values on other people we would then all be much better off. Any true moral society would educate it's people so they know what the choices are and then give them complete and total freedom in which that individual can make up their own mind, society should then have to accept those choices.


Spoken like a true libertarian (in a good way)! I sympathize and wish that vision could come true, but human nature seems to generally prevent utopias from existing.


----------



## Yoshi

Polednice said:


> Sometimes this strength of feeling can even put me off watching the news because it makes me feel sad in a personal way, but I'm glad you share the same kind of empathy.
> 
> This reminds me of an incident that I have a vague recollection of - fairly recently, there was some heterosexist marriage organisation going round the USA campaigning against same-sex unions, and, after one of their chief organisers _actually interacted_ with same-sex couples who wanted that kind of partnership, he realised that they were just normal people with normal aspirations and dreams like anyone else, and so made a splash by abandoning the organisation.
> 
> He maintained that his religious views told him that homosexuality was 'sinful' but that this was in no way a reason for people to legislate against these people getting their own little slice of happiness in the way that they want when it harms no one else. I think so much of the problem - though I know it isn't true for everyone - is that people are armchair-politicians. They theorise about groups of people that they see as 'others' - amorphous groups of gays without the same hopes and dreams; sometimes even characterising them as having an agenda. And yet the people they misrepresent just have the same domestic thoughts and desires as anyone else.
> 
> When it comes down to it, if I just want to get married to someone I love, what's it got to do with anyone else? Someone who is against it please tell me, personally, Polednice, Callum, how my union with someone I love, who is also male, will affect them or society in any way. I'm pretty sure that my love doesn't hurt anyone.


I don't watch the news either. Everytime I did I would get upset and end up complaining about it to whoever was watching too :lol:.

See I don't get it, why do they waste so much time and energy with those campaigns? The fact of same-sex unions being legal won't affect their lives in any way, it will just give more rights/freedom to someone else. Why being against that?

That's true. It might be his religious views, but he cannot force everyone to follow them. People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone, that's my point of view. I mean... why should I care? If it won't hurt me or change my life for worse?

There's nothing wrong with it and it won't affect anyone. For me, love exists between individuals and it doesn't matter if they are female or male.


----------



## Almaviva

Lenfer said:


> I'm not going to say anything other than people should stop forcefully embossing their values on other people we would then all be much better off. Any true moral society would educate it's people so they know what the choices are and then give them complete and total freedom in which that individual can make up their own mind, society should then have to accept those choices.


 Well, I "like" this post but didn't click on the Like button because I can't agree with this part of it: "complete and total freedom." There's no such thing.


----------



## Almaviva

By the way, I'd like to congratulate every participant here for being absolutely civilized. This is one of the hottest issues in any forum, and the fact that two pages of discussions haven't generated a single personal attack or violation of terms of service (well, on occasion, people were getting close to it but spontaneously retracted) is an elegant demonstration of how polite and mature our members are.


----------



## violadude

I didn't read this whole thread or anything but I just wanted to get my opinion out there for one reason or another...

I'm a little iffy on abortion. Personally, I do feel like it is killing a human life and that it's wrong. I have argued with a lot of people about this though that say that abortion, when early enough is just like killing a skin cell. So I don't know, God know's I'm not too smart when it comes to science. I think a woman should have the option of abortion if she knows that somehow the child will kill her or perhaps in situations where rape was involved in conception. That's all. But I don't think it should just be done willy-nilly in situations like "oh, I slept with every hunky black man in the neighborhood and now I'm pregnant, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!??"

As for gay marriage, marriage is a personal thing that doesn't effect anyone except the people involved, so I say the government shouldn't have made it legal or illegal, they should have just kept their mouths shut about it. I think it's up to everyone involved, and that includes the person that is marrying the couple. For example, I think that if a gay couple want's to get married in a church, but the church is against that for religious reasons, I think they should be able to hold the right to not let them get married in their church. I think most homosexual people would understand that and be sensitive to that. But if the establishment is in agreement, the priest or whoever is in agreement, the couple is in agreement, then I see absolutely they should be able to get married. And think the whole thing about not wanting to redefine marriage is bullsh*t. Words and terms get redefined and evolve all the time. Terms like sonata form evolve to change their meaning.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> But I don't think it should just be done willy-nilly in situations like "oh, I slept with every hunky black man in the neighborhood and now I'm pregnant, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!??"


That's certainly not a sympathetic scenario, but if the character of the person determines who should be able to get an abortion, that sets a bad very precedent. I'm gonna wager she wouldn't make a very good mother anyway, and do we honestly need more people?

To clarify, I see the unborn as a blank slate rather than (meaningful) life.

Agreed about gay marriage, anyway. If marriage retained its original meaning, women would still be property.


----------



## Sid James

Amfibius said:


> You know Almaviva ... if you migrated to Australia, your views would be considered mainstream over here - except that our politicians are too lily-livered to legalize gay marriage even though a clear majority of the population wants them to do so.


Yes, I haven't yet come across anyone here who is against gay marriage. Not in the circles I revolve around, anyway. & they're not "pinko" communists or anything, just "ordinary" people. I think this is a kind of political "hot potato" because of a minority of "hard" conseratives here dominating the political discourse, as is sadly usually the case...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> Yes, I haven't yet come across anyone here who is against gay marriage. Not in the circles I revolve around, anyway. & they're not "pinko" communists or anything, just "ordinary" people. I think this is a kind of political "hot potato" because of a minority of "hard" conseratives here dominating the political discourse, as is sadly usually the case...


What will likely happen in time is the legal recognition of "civil unions" between same sex couples, which will give them equal rights as hetrosexual couples who "got married". The usage of the word "marriage" will for a host of reasons, not least politically of course, likely continue to be defined as man & woman. Given the reality of our complex and modern society today, it sounds like a sensible and practical solution to me if this gets through.


----------



## Sid James

Agreed, civil unions have already happened overseas (in New York city state, I believe?) & are likely to make their way here. It must be said that this is a good political "compromise" between those few at both extremes who are totally against or only for "full" marriage. In any case, Aussie pollies will have to pitch for the "middle ground" here, there is clearly a groundswell here for civil unions (& it may well be un-Constitutional to deny homosexual couples similar rights to hetero couples, just as it was in the past to deny rights to Aboriginal people)...


----------



## Bix

Civil Partnerships have been in existence in the UK since 2004.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> When it comes down to it, if I just want to get married to someone I love, what's it got to do with anyone else? Someone who is against it please tell me, personally, Polednice, Callum, how my union with someone I love, who is also male, will affect them or society in any way. I'm pretty sure that my love doesn't hurt anyone.


How would your parents answer this question? Do they sanction your gay propensity to the extent that they would happily endorse your getting married to another homosexual?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

It doesn't matter what an adult's parent thinks.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

regressivetransphobe said:


> It doesn't matter what an adult's parent thinks.


He has asked this community to tell him what we think about his homosexual inclinations and why he shouldn't get married to another homosexual. I'm entitled to ask him what his parents think about it, aren't I?


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> How would your parents answer this question? Do they sanction your gay propensity to the extent that they would happily endorse your getting married to another homosexual?


I think truly loving parents would want their kid to be happy and love them no matter who they married.


----------



## TresPicos

.....................


----------



## violadude

TresPicos said:


> .....................


Hey, no need to edit! haha I think you said it better than me anyway. >.< Now the record will show that I "liked" a series of dots.


----------



## Bix

Andy Loochazee said:


> He has asked this community to tell him what we think about his homosexual inclinations and why he shouldn't get married to another homosexual. I'm entitled to ask him what his parents think about it, aren't I?


Of course you can ask the question, but 'sanctioned' is a strange term to use. Parents have no rights to sanction innate feelings, or matters of love of any kind for that matter. Parents are there to support and guide surely?

In the field of healthcare it is commonly accepted that there are activities of daily living, of which sex and sexuality are included - there is also breathing, Walking, feeding, communicating, etc; so imagine this: 'Mom! Can you sanction my poop, I need to make'.

I await Polednice's response, because it will be intersting to find out why the parents have a bearing either way.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

violadude said:


> I think truly loving parents would want their kid to be happy and love them no matter who they married.


Interesting. You'll notice that I'm not expressing an opinion, but merely asking a question.

I'll add another question in the light of your comment. On the assumption that Polednice's parents would not approve of him getting married to another homosexual, would he agree that his parents are not "truly loving parents"? By "getting married" I don't mean just living together but actually, formally getting married assuming the Law allowed it.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> Interesting. You'll notice that I'm not expressing an opinion, but merely asking a question.
> 
> I'll add another question in the light of your comment. On the assumption that Polednice's parents would not approve of him getting married to another homosexual, would he agree that his parents are not "truly loving parents"? By "getting married" I don't mean just living together but actually, formally getting married assuming the Law allowed it.


We'll I can't speak for Polednice. If I was gay and my parents didn't accept it I might feel like they love me less. I'm sure we would come to some sort of closure sometime in our lives though.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> How would your parents answer this question? Do they sanction your gay propensity to the extent that they would happily endorse your getting married to another homosexual?


Certainly an interesting question (though I disapprove of your use of 'propensity', and wonder would the question still stand if the 'other homosexual' was a woman? I always imagined it being a man.  )! And, like everyone else, I'm curious about how the answer would affect someone's right or decision to marry someone of the same-sex. I'll be honest though:

My parents would be happy for me. They have no problem at all with my sexuality. Although I had some difficult teenage years because of a plethora of ignorant, homophobic comments on the part of my older brother and father (before they knew about me - they were directed at other people); and though things still remain awkward at times purely because of a generational gap (this is to the same extent that my parents talk about foreigners in an old-fashioned, slightly jarring way), they are both happy with who I am and what I want to do with my life.

But yes, why ask that question? Was it because I asked who my love hurts, and you were seeing if the answer was my parents? If so, I would return to my slightly earlier question: "what's it got to do with them?"



Andy Loochazee said:


> On the assumption that Polednice's parents would not approve of him getting married to another homosexual, would he agree that his parents are not "truly loving parents"? By "getting married" I don't mean just living together but actually, formally getting married assuming the Law allowed it.


I believe they would still be truly loving, just as most average parents are to their own children, but they would be severely misguided, and would be putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of that love. I certainly wouldn't feel _loved_, though I know that their intentions are always well-meant.


----------



## Guest

This thread has veered into a minefield for me where I know that anything I say on the topic is going to incur the wrath of I don't know how many people, as it has now entered the realm of the personal. We are no longer talking about the topic in the abstract, rather framing it in terms of one member's personal experience. 

So I'll forego any further comments on this particular subject, as you have all already read my position on this issue. But suffice it to say that my position on this issue is independent of how I feel about gay people in general, of which I count several my friends.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Just remember marriage has changed to suit the demands of the people before. And for the better.


----------



## Aksel

Damn. Late to the party. Again. Oh well.

Also, yay for gay marriage!



Almaviva said:


> What about gay marriage? To tell you the truth and pardon me if I offend somebody here, I just can't comprehend what in the hell a gay man sees in another gay man. I mean, he doesn't have boobs! I love boobs! They're squeezable! Unless he's got man boobs, but I don't like those. So, gay relationships, not for me!
> 
> Gays want to get married? More power to them, if it makes them happy. I think that as fellow human beings they're equally entitled to get from their relationship all the perks and joys I get from my marriage with my lovely wife. Who am I to impose on them my love for boobs?


We have other things we find attractive, Alma, strange as it may seem.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> This thread has veered into a minefield for me where I know that anything I say on the topic is going to incur the wrath of I don't know how many people, as it has now entered the realm of the personal. We are no longer talking about the topic in the abstract, rather framing it in terms of one member's personal experience.
> 
> So I'll forego any further comments on this particular subject, as you have all already read my position on this issue. But suffice it to say that my position on this issue is independent of how I feel about gay people in general, of which I count several my friends.


That's a bit of a pity, because I was going to ask you how you would react if you found out that one of your children (assuming you have any) was a homosexual and wanted a same sex marriage.

I would also be interested to hear your view on how you might feel if you had new neighbours move into an adjoining property where you live and they were a married same sex couple. Imagine that they are married men and one of them behaves in a very effeminate way with no effort effort made to conceal their relationship. Would you feel embarrassed or annoyed, or would you act normally and not even bother to worry about it should any young children of yours, or those of any visitors, chance upon seeing this behaviour close up?

I ask because you generally have so much to say on religious and social issues that you are bound to have an opinion.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> That's a bit of a pity, because I was going to ask you how you would react if you found out that one of your children (assuming you have any) was a homosexual and wanted a same sex marriage. If you don't have any children, perhaps you could assume that you do.
> 
> I would also be interested to hear your view on how you might feel if you had new neighbours move into an adjoining property where you live and they were a married same sex couple. Imagine that they are married men and one of them behaves in a very effeminate way with no effort effort made to conceal their relationship. Would you feel embarrassed or annoyed, or would you act normally and not even bother to worry about it should any young children of yours, or those of any visitors, chance upon seeing this behaviour close up?
> 
> I ask because you generally have so much to say on religious and social issues that you are bound to have an opinion.


The "more feminine" gay guys always put me in a good mood lol. They just seem so dang happy!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> This thread has veered into a minefield for me where I know that anything I say on the topic is going to incur the wrath of I don't know how many people, as it has now entered the realm of the personal. We are no longer talking about the topic in the abstract, rather framing it in terms of one member's personal experience.
> 
> So I'll forego any further comments on this particular subject, as you have all already read my position on this issue. But suffice it to say that my position on this issue is independent of how I feel about gay people in general, of which I count several my friends.


I think that's a great shame as I think it is so, so important on issues like these to make _extra effort_ to make them personal. It's not fair to the real people that these ideas affect to talk about it in the abstract - that seems a little defensive as well. I made my own situation personal precisely because I can handle it, and because I think it's important to get responses from people who oppose gay marriage. My question to declared opponents still stands: tell me, personally, why my particular marriage would be a bad thing.


----------



## Aksel

Polednice said:


> I think that's a great shame as I think it is so, so important on issues like these to make _extra effort_ to make them personal. It's not fair to the real people that these ideas affect to talk about it in the abstract - that seems a little defensive as well. I made my own situation personal precisely because I can handle it, and because I think it's important to get responses from people who oppose gay marriage. *My question to declared opponents still stands: tell me, personally, why my particular marriage would be a bad thing*.


+1

Also, how does mine and Polednice's type of marriage in any way hurt you or even the so-called institution of marriage? The more the merrier?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Aksel said:


> +1
> 
> Also, how does mine and Polednice's type of marriage in any way hurt you or even the so-called institution of marriage? The more the merrier?


What's your view about bringing up children in a same sex marriage?

Even when one of the marriage partners is the natural parent, isn't there a risk that children brought up in such situations are much more likely to be abused sexually than if both parents are the natural parents?

Even if children of same sex marriages are not abused, what kind of impact do you think it might on the young child growing up to find out that his "mother" is a homosexual, and that one of his natural parents is some unknown person, and by consequence that he/she is the product of a very unusual situation compared with the normal form of procreation that has stood the test of aeons of human evolution?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Aksel said:


> We have other things we find attractive, Alma, strange as it may seem.


I daresay, but what do think about the fact that male homosexuals are much more prone to cancer, especially **** cancer, and various sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and such like. Isn't this due in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. Doesn't it strike you as obvious that the anus is not designed for sex, that in fact it is very fragile, and this increases the tendency for it to bleed which is major factor making it a means of transmitting these various sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids. Don't any of these implications worry you.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> What's your view about bringing up children in a same sex marriage?
> 
> Even when one of the marriage partners is the natural parent, isn't there a risk that children brought up in such situations are much more likely to be abused sexually than if both parents are the natural parents?
> 
> Even if children of same sex marriages are not abused, what kind of impact do you think it might on the young child growing up to find out that his "mother" is a homosexual, and that one of his natural parents is some unknown person, and by consequence that he/she is the product of a very unusual situation compared with the normal form of procreation that has stood the test of aeons of human evolution?


How is a child raised in a homosexual relationship more likely to be sexually abused?

And I think a kid raised with homosexual parents then by the time they are old enough to learn about sex, homosexuality would already be established as normal in their minds. So I don't think there would be much of an issue.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> I daresay, but what do think about the fact that male homosexuals are much more prone to cancer, especially **** cancer, and various sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and such like. Isn't this due in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. Doesn't it strike you as obvious that the anus is not designed for sex, that in fact it is very fragile, and this increases the tendency for it to bleed which is major factor making it a means of transmitting these various sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids. Don't any of these implications worry you.


Ok, there are plenty of heterosexuals that are very promiscuous. Also plenty that have cancer and STDs, also plenty that partake in **** sex as well. I think you're starting to be quite stereotypical.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

violadude said:


> How is a child raised in a homosexual relationship more likely to be sexually abused?
> 
> And I think a kid raised with homosexual parents then by the time they are old enough to learn about sex, homosexuality would already be established as normal in their minds. So I don't think there would be much of an issue.


I appear to be having a mini-debate with a small group of members who are homosexual. I do trust that you realise that you are a tiny minority of the population, and that your behaviour is no way considered "normal" by the majority, and never will be.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I think that's a great shame as I think it is so, so important on issues like these to make _extra effort_ to make them personal. It's not fair to the real people that these ideas affect to talk about it in the abstract - that seems a little defensive as well. I made my own situation personal precisely because I can handle it, and because I think it's important to get responses from people who oppose gay marriage. My question to declared opponents still stands: tell me, personally, why my particular marriage would be a bad thing.


And that is your right to think that this should be brought down to the personal level. But after witnessing the level of hate that my family and friends in California experienced by openly expressing their opposition to gay marriage, I think I'll just leave these questions of yours and leave it at this: I don't support the legalization of gay marriage.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> I appear to be having a mini-debate with a small group of members who are homosexual. I do trust that you realise that you are a tiny minority of the population, and that your behaviour is no way considered "normal" by the majority, and never will be.


Sorry guy, I'm a straight dude. And even if Homosexuals are a minority, I'd say those who support homosexual marriage, gay or straight, are swiftly becoming the majority in most civilized nations.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I think that's a great shame as I think it is so, so important on issues like these to make _extra effort_ to make them personal. It's not fair to the real people that these ideas affect to talk about it in the abstract - that seems a little defensive as well. I made my own situation personal precisely because I can handle it, and because I think it's important to get responses from people who oppose gay marriage. My question to declared opponents still stands: tell me, personally, why my particular marriage would be a bad thing.


I suspect that 'getting personal' about homosexuality makes _DrMike_ uncomfortable. Considering his church's stance, and his strong acceptance of it, how could it be otherwise?

You have by your revelation modified the mental image that your correspondents and observers here have of you. For some you have become _Polednice the gay guy, [other attributes here, in some sort of order]_. For others you are _Polednice, [attributes 1, 2, 3, ...x(gay)_.

Hmm. That isn't so very clear. Hope you can catch my drift.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

violadude said:


> Ok, there are plenty of heterosexuals that are very promiscuous. Also plenty that have cancer and STDs, also plenty that partake in **** sex as well. I think you're starting to be quite stereotypical.


I think that the basic position I would take is that homosexuality is intrinsically a disordered state. It's an aberration from the norm. Marriage is designed to enable proper sexual relationships to survive and to be productive in regard to children, and bringing them up in a proper environment. Hence we shouldn't recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate, because of the harm it would do to the proper institution of marriage. I also believe that there is a big risk of piling up social harm, especially to children resulting from any such relationship.


----------



## Aksel

Andy Loochazee said:


> What's your view about bringing up children in a same sex marriage?


I don't see anything wrong with it. Just because people are gay, doesn't mean that we're automatically bad parents.



> Even when one of the marriage partners is the natural parent, isn't there a risk that children brought up in such situations are much more likely to be abused sexually than if both parents are the natural parents?


Excuse me, but WHAT? Gay does not equal paedophile, mysteriously enough. And if so, would not this apply to any step-parent, regardless of sexual persuasion?



> Even if children of same sex marriages are not abused, what kind of impact do you think it might on the young child growing up to find out that his "mother" is a homosexual, and *that one of his natural parents is some unknown person*, and by consequence that he/she is the product of a very unusual situation compared with the normal form of procreation that has stood the test of aeons of human evolution?


That has been going on ever since sperm donors. Nothing new there. Children are quite capable of dealing with the fact that one of their parents are gay, and I see no reason why adults shouldn't be able to explain to their children why they have two mothers or why Peter next door has two fathers.

And the situation is far from unusual. The Western world today is rife with single parents.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> I think that the basic position I would take is that homosexuality is intrinsically a disordered state. It's an aberration from the norm. Marriage is designed to enable proper sexual relationships to survive and to be productive in regard to children, and bringing them up in a proper environment. Hence we shouldn't recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate, because of the harm it would do to the proper institution of marriage. I also believe that there is a big risk of piling up social harm, especially to children resulting from any such relationship.


Andy, do you *know* anybody that was raised by homosexuals?


----------



## violadude

Aksel said:


> I don't see anything wrong with it. Just because people are gay, doesn't mean that we're automatically bad parents.
> 
> Excuse me, but WHAT? Gay does not equal paedophile, mysteriously enough. *And if so, would not this apply to any step-parent, regardless of sexual persuasion?
> *
> 
> That has been going on ever since sperm donors. Nothing new there. Children are quite capable of dealing with the fact that one of their parents are gay, and I see no reason why adults shouldn't be able to explain to their children why they have two mothers or why Peter next door has two fathers.
> 
> And the situation is far from unusual. The Western world today is rife with single parents.


Not only would it also apply to any step parent, but, sadly enough, being a natural parent doesn't necessarily mean you won't sexually abuse your child anyway.


----------



## Aksel

Andy Loochazee said:


> I daresay, but what do think about the fact that male homosexuals are much more prone to cancer, especially **** cancer, and various sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and such like. Isn't this due in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. Doesn't it strike you as obvious that the anus is not designed for sex, that in fact it is very fragile, and this increases the tendency for it to bleed which is major factor making it a means of transmitting these various sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids. Don't any of these implications worry you.


And yet many straight people partake in these kinds of activities. And what's this nonsense about gay people being especially promiscuous? There are a lot of straight people who have a tendency of sleeping around as well, you know.

And yes, I know the anus is very fragile. I believe that is why one uses lubrication when dealing with that sort of activity.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> I think that the basic position I would take is that homosexuality is intrinsically a disordered state. It's an aberration from the norm. Marriage is designed to enable proper sexual relationships to survive and to be productive in regard to children, and bringing them up in a proper environment. Hence we shouldn't recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate, because of the harm it would do to the proper institution of marriage. I also believe that there is a big risk of piling up social harm, especially to children resulting from any such relationship.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


----------



## Ukko

Andy Loochazee said:


> I appear to be having a mini-debate with a small group of members who are homosexual. I do trust that you realise that you are a tiny minority of the population, and that your behaviour is no way considered "normal" by the majority, and never will be.


Hey, I'm straight. *I'm not gay!* [had to get that panicked protest into the thread some way.] 

The long held standard estimate, percentage of the general population that is homosexual, has been 10%. That is not a _tiny_ minority. I think that number is low, because the closet + self-denial element was under estimated. If my friend's 'sliding scale of sexuality' (mentioned in another, old thread) is valid, which seems to require a significant number of 'AC/DC' people, do those individuals get counted as gay?

Yeah, I get a kick out of these conversations.

:devil:


----------



## TresPicos

Andy Loochazee said:


> I appear to be having a mini-debate with a small group of members who are homosexual.


Not so, man. I'm all for gay's rights, although I'm straight.

I'm against discrimination because I'm a humane person. I would have been against segregation back in the day, although I'm not black. I'm all for women's rights, although I'm a man. An injustice is an injustice even though you happen to belong to the "fortunate" group.



> I do trust that you realise that you are a tiny minority of the population, and that your behaviour is no way considered "normal" by the majority, and never will be.


The same goes for homophobes.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


 At the top of the Fishes list: "Amazon molly".

Is it just my twisted mind, or is that inadvertently amusing?


----------



## TresPicos

DrMike said:


> But after witnessing the level of hate that my family and friends in California experienced by openly expressing their opposition to gay marriage...


Yeah, it's all fun and games to harass minorities until you suddenly find yourself in one. :lol:


----------



## violadude

I have a theory to purpose about the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Some mammals that have been tested have shown to have homosexual behavior when a lot of them were forced into a small container. This applies to humans as well, as a large part of the homosexual community comes from more populated regions (although this could be from the mere fact that there are more people, thus more of a chance of someone being gay).

However, this gives me reason to believe that homosexuality is an evolutionary survival trait for overpopulation just as procreation would be an evolutionary survival trait in the case of underpopulation.

I'm not a big science person though so someone might want to fact check my theory.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Andy Loochazee said:


> I think that the basic position I would take is that homosexuality is intrinsically a disordered state. It's an aberration from the norm. Marriage is designed to enable *proper* sexual relationships to survive and to be productive in regard to children, and bringing them up in a *proper* environment. Hence we shouldn't recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate, because of the harm it would do to the *proper* institution of marriage. I also believe that there is a big risk of piling up social harm, especially to children resulting from any such relationship.


Homosexuality is not, in evolutionary terms, a "disordered" state--or to use a more precise term than that of Pope Benedict, a maladaptive state. If it were, it would have been eliminated through natural selection long ago, but on the contrary, homosexual behaviour is common among many animal species. We don't know yet why this occurs. It is an interesting question, and it's the subject of ongoing studies.

(I would add here that the idea that heterosexual animals recognize and kill the "disordered" homosexual ones is a myth, except, of course, when it comes to humans).

Marriage was not "designed" by anybody--throughout human history, there have been many different kinds of marriage, and there still are in parts of the world. Who's to say, for example, that polygamy is inferior to monogamy. And in the animal kingdom, almost every type of mating strategy imaginable occurs (including homosexual mating). Some of them would make your granny blush. That's not to mention what the plants get up to.

When you introduce the word proper--what constitutes "proper" sexual relationships, the "proper" way to bring up children, the "proper" institution of marriage--you are bringing your *personal* idea of sexual morality into the argument, and that results in circular reasoning of the "I am right because I am right" kind. That may be good enough for religion, but it won't do for science.

The biology of sex is a messy, complicated subject. There are no certainties, there is no such thing as one size fits all--not for humans, nor for anything else. Everything evolves and changes.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> And that is your right to think that this should be brought down to the personal level. But after witnessing the level of hate that my family and friends in California experienced by openly expressing their opposition to gay marriage, I think I'll just leave these questions of yours and leave it at this: I don't support the legalization of gay marriage.


Once again, I'll just call that a shame. I would have hoped that the nature of my responses so far would show that I, at least, would not respond with hate. But I accept that you don't want to engage with me on a personal level.

Now to Andy. You have some very unfortunate misconceptions which many people would find offensive, but thankfully responses to you so far have been civil, which is good. I may repeat a few of the others here, but I'll take each of your points in turn.



Andy Loochazee said:


> Even when one of the marriage partners is the natural parent, isn't there a risk that children brought up in such situations are much more likely to be abused sexually than if both parents are the natural parents?


No, there is no extra risk at all. There is no basis on which to say that LGBTQ people abuse children any more than others. In fact, if we look at the statistics, you're more likely to think that a sexually repressed religious figure is a danger to your kids, but I still wouldn't use that to tarnish the reputation of all vicars and priests. The simple fact is that there is no greater risk, and you should consider how you would feel if someone suggested you and/or people like you are more likely to abuse children because of a certain, actually irrelevant characteristic.



Andy Loochazee said:


> Even if children of same sex marriages are not abused, what kind of impact do you think it might on the young child growing up to find out that his "mother" is a homosexual, and that one of his natural parents is some unknown person, and by consequence that he/she is the product of a very unusual situation compared with the normal form of procreation that has stood the test of aeons of human evolution?


There are two points here. The first is that actual testimonials from today's adults brought up by homosexual parents show that they were raised in very loving, very safe, very happy families. If anything, these children are likely to have better childhoods and be better cared for because a gay couple necessarily has to put concerted effort into adoption or surrogacy. As others have the said, the fact of a 'stray' parent would be an issue no different to heterosexual couples where the parents separate, which is widespread in our society.

The second point is that human evolution may have favoured heterosexual procreation, but there is no evolutionary basis for a heterosexually-parented nuclear family. That is a societal construct for which the nature argument cannot be used. On top of that, of course, the nature argument is invalid anyway. Natural ≠ right. In the 21st century, mankind engages on a daily basis in thousands of 'unnatural' acts - technology is unnatural; contraception is unnatural; a society of nuclear families is, indeed, unnatural for our social species, formed originally through much larger clans and tribes.



Andy Loochazee said:


> I daresay, but what do think about the fact that male homosexuals are much more prone to cancer, especially **** cancer, and various sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and such like.


I will start by saying that, no, these things do not worry me because I am in a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship, and neither me nor my partner have ever been nor wanted to be at all promiscuous. Yes, promiscuity exists in the gay male community; and, yes, given the simple fact that all these people are men, the desire for non-committal sex is probably higher, but that doesn't make it unique to the gay community. More importantly, this mischaracterisation fails to account for the large portion of gay men who are like me and want nothing at all dissimilar to your average heterosexual, quaintly domestic, two-people, life-long partnership.

Oh, and, of course, it is estimated that 20% of gay men do not have **** sex, and **** sex is also practised by many heterosexual couples. It is _not_ an intrinsically gay sex act.



Andy Loochazee said:


> I appear to be having a mini-debate with a small group of members who are homosexual. I do trust that you realise that you are a tiny minority of the population, and that your behaviour is no way considered "normal" by the majority, and never will be.


It's mildly amusing that you thought violadude was gay as well. There was nothing he said which implied he was, yet his open support of gay people made you think that he must be. Thankfully, a majority of straight people actually support gay rights nowadays.

Similar to the nature argument, what is 'normal'? Is 'normal' what most people do? Does a majority make it morally good? Does being a minority in something - in _anything_ - make you bad? Homosexuality needn't be widespread, but, yes, it _is_ normal, and, in fact, has an evolutionary basis, not to mention the fact that it is present across the animal kingdom.



Andy Loochazee said:


> I think that the basic position I would take is that homosexuality is intrinsically a disordered state. It's an aberration from the norm.


Again with the 'norm'. Why are you so desperate for people to conform for a socially constructed and sanctioned idea of heteronormative sexuality? Can't you see the superficiality of that position?



Andy Loochazee said:


> Marriage is designed to enable proper sexual relationships to survive and to be productive in regard to children, and bringing them up in a proper environment.


I'll ignore the usage of "proper sexual relationships" seeing as there is nothing improper about same-sex relationships, and will instead point out that marriage is not and was not designed for that purpose. Marriage, first and foremost - as is still obvious in the rather unsettling church texts used in ceremonies - is for the trade between two men of female property. Your idea that it is for a stable childhood environment is a 20th century notion, concocted precisely in reaction to same-sex couples as an excuse to continue discrimination.


----------



## Guest

TresPicos said:


> Yeah, it's all fun and games to harass minorities until you suddenly find yourself in one. :lol:


I believe that they were on the winning side of that debate, so not exactly the minority. And I don't believe they harassed anybody. The nasty commericals, publishing of names, and mailed envelopes of suspicious white powder, as well as vandalism, were all pretty one-sided.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Andy Loochazee, what are/were your parents' opinion on gay marriage? Are they rather conservative?

Just wondering if you came to these conclusions on your own. I'm guessing not...


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> *I suspect that 'getting personal' about homosexuality makes DrMike uncomfortable. Considering his church's stance, and his strong acceptance of it, how could it be otherwise?*


*

See, I haven't done anything other than state my position on the issue, and already we get people like Hilltroll psychoanalyzing me. Imagine what we would see were I to delve further in this topic.

In general, I don't discuss a person's sexuality in the open - period. That goes for my straight friends as well as my gay friends (gasp! yes, the freak religiously conservative Mormon actually associates with gay people, male and female!).

But clearly there is no point in my expressing the details of my opinions as Hilltroll already has me figured out. So it seems I am not needed to continue this debate. Hilltroll can provide you with all my opinions and feelings on the subject.*


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Once again, I'll just call that a shame. I would have hoped that the nature of my responses so far would show that I, at least, would not respond with hate. But I accept that you don't want to engage with me on a personal level.


I have already lost contact with a dear friend from high school because of this issue - she flat out told me that it was impossible to be her friend (she is gay) and be opposed to same-sex marriage. In general I like you, and you have helped me out here with some great Brahms recommendations. This is a divisive issue - even moreso if you want to bring it down to the personal level, which in every instance in the past where I have engaged in such discussions at the personal level has resulted in hurt feelings and damaged friendships. I'm not interested in testing whether this will be the exception to that. I doubt I will change your opinion, and you will not change mine, so lets just leave it at the fact that we are worlds apart on this issue and accept that we both like Brahms.


----------



## violadude

@Polednice I agree with you about getting personal with this issue being helpful. I actually used to be against gay marriage because I was raised in a Christian, conservative household. But once I went to college (an art college mind you) I made a lot of good friends who are gay. After I had ""members of my own team in the game" so to speak, it was a lot harder not to be sympathetic and supportive toward their situation. 

@Andy, I'm actually curious to know which you think is worse. A homosexual couple partaking in **** sex, or a heterosexual couple partaking in risky S&M practices.

On a side note, I don't wish to paint a picture of my parents as hateful 15th century bible thumpers or lunatic southern baptist types. They're really nice people.


----------



## Meaghan

I have so far refrained from lending my voice to this discussion because arguing with people who flaunt their ridiculous and hateful misconceptions about being gay (and I don't mean Dr. Mike, who has been civil) makes me incoherently angry, more so than any other contentious issue, and I usually just become very unpersuasive and make a fool of myself. Unfortunately, it's become hard for me to even have a discussion about marriage equality with more level-headed opponents because I've had too many encounters with the more venomous ones, and have come to expect them. But I feel it is important for straight allies to speak up when opportunities arise so folks* don't forget we're out there (and very numerous).

So, I'll be brief - *I fervently believe that (leaving churches alone) governments should give all the same rights to gay couples that they give to straight couples.*

That's all. Bye.

*By which I mean people who think only gay people support gay marriage, and also GLBTQ people who might feel unsupported.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> See, I haven't done anything other than state my position on the issue, and already we get people like Hilltroll psychoanalyzing me. Imagine what we would see were I to delve further in this topic.
> 
> In general, I don't discuss a person's sexuality in the open - period. That goes for my straight friends as well as my gay friends (gasp! yes, the freak religiously conservative Mormon actually associates with gay people, male and female!).
> 
> But clearly there is no point in my expressing the details of my opinions as Hilltroll already has me figured out. So it seems I am not needed to continue this debate. Hilltroll can provide you with all my opinions and feelings on the subject.


Yep, I am one clever dude!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

violadude said:


> I have a theory to purpose about the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Some mammals that have been tested have shown to have homosexual behavior when a lot of them were forced into a small container. This applies to humans as well, as a large part of the homosexual community comes from more populated regions (although this could be from the mere fact that there are more people, thus more of a chance of someone being gay).
> 
> However, this gives me reason to believe that homosexuality is an evolutionary survival trait for overpopulation just as procreation would be an evolutionary survival trait in the case of underpopulation.
> 
> I'm not a big science person though so someone might want to fact check my theory.


I think that has been hypothesized, though it's a long way from being proven. Here's an interesting article on the subject in general:

*http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/gay-born-this-way-2297039.html*


----------



## Kopachris

I'd like to see some statistics about how children who are raised by homosexual parents are treated by other children.

Also, about copyright suits, which I mentioned earlier: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-08-10/news/porn-piracy-bittorrent/
A blind man has been sued for illegally downloading movies.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> I'd like to see some statistics about how children who are raised by homosexual parents are treated by other children.


Any children being ostracized for having homosexual parents is reason to help break down the discriminatory attitudes causing that abuse, not to discourage homosexuals from raising children.


----------



## Yoshi

I don't understand the big deal about same-sex couples adopting kids. The lamest excuse I heard from someone who was against it was: "If a kid has homosexual parents it's more likely that he'll turn out to be homosexual too." Well even if that was a problem (which it isn't), how would they explain the tons of homosexuals who have heterosexual parents?
Not only that, but do they seriously prefer to let a kid spend his whole life without a family than giving one to him? What's so different about 2 men or 2 women raising a kid than one single man or a single woman?

I support their rights and I'm not homosexual. Actually gender doesn't seem relevant to me... or the actual physical appearance/look of human beings. Does that make me bisexual? asexual? I don't understand those labels very well.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> I'd like to see some statistics about how children who are raised by homosexual parents are treated by other children.
> [...]
> .


Rats. A google search on plugged brains does _not_ result in the query 'did you mean plugged drains?'. This wayward thought originated in thinking that the statistics would have to be at least as much about parents as children.


----------



## Polednice

Particularly to Andy, but also to anyone else this applies to, what is exactly meant when you say that homosexuality is a disorder? Does that imply it's an illness like clinical depression which can be treated? An illness of a similar sort but which can't be treated? Or I'm just being gay on purpose because I think it's cool?



Jan said:


> The lamest excuse I heard from someone who was against it was: "If a kid has homosexual parents it's more likely that he'll turn out to be homosexual too." Well even if that was a problem (which it isn't), how would they explain the tons of homosexuals who have heterosexual parents?


----------



## Ukko

Thanks for the sign link. I am passing it on.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> I am somewhat surprised that your abortion speech didn't take up the soul argument.:


I am going to address the soul argument using Fsharpmajor's Paradox of the Soul, which as far as I know is original to me. It consists of a thought experiment which demonstrates that the existence of the soul is logically absurd.

We take a fertilized egg. God has provided that fertilized egg, or zygote, with a soul, and if left to divide, it will develop into a human baby with a soul. We wait for the zygote to divide into two cells. They are stuck together, but we very gently tease them apart. *Now*, if left to divide, they each will develop into a human baby, and we will have identical twins.

The question is, where is the soul? Which twin has it?

Well, every human being has a soul, so God has no choice but to create an extra one, in order that each of those two cells has the soul it needs to be a person.

What we do next, though, is very gently press those two cells back together. *Now*, instead of developing into twins as they previously would have, they adhere and divide in concert, resulting in one baby only.

*So*, what happens to that extra soul?

This experiment has been done with animal zygotes, so it isn't impossible. It could be done with human zygotes, but of course there is no point, because the argument speaks for itself.


----------



## Kopachris

I don't care about how the kid turns out by being raised by gay parents--I understand that plenty of gay people would make great parents. It's just that when I was in school (which wasn't long ago), one person would say "your mom!" to which the other would reply "at least I have a mom; all you have is two dads and a chemistry set!" I wonder how that might play out if the kid actually had two dads--or two moms for that matter. Adolescents can be very cruel to each other, and having homosexual parents might be cause for being singled-out. On the other hand, several years have passed since then, and children might be more tolerant nowadays. That's why I call for some statistics--I'd like to find out if my hypothesis is correct.


----------



## Kopachris

Fsharpmajor said:


> I am going to address the soul argument using Fsharpmajor's Paradox of the Soul, which as far as I know is original to me. It consists of a thought experiment which demonstrates that the existence of the soul is logically absurd.
> 
> We take a fertilized egg. God has provided that fertilized egg, or zygote, with a soul, and if left to divide, it will develop into a human baby with a soul. We wait for the zygote to divide into two cells. They are stuck together, but we very gently tease them apart. *Now*, if left to divide, they each will develop into a human baby, and we will have identical twins.
> 
> The question is, where is the soul? Which twin has it?
> 
> Well, every human being has a soul, so God has no choice but to create an extra one, in order that each of those two cells has the soul it needs to be a person.
> 
> What we do next, though, is very gently press those two cells together. *Now*, instead of developing into twins as they previously would have, they adhere and divide in concert, resulting in one baby only.
> 
> So, what happens to that extra soul?
> 
> This experiment has been done with animal zygotes, so it isn't impossible. It could be done with human zygotes, but of course there is no point, because the argument speaks for itself.


I personally resolve this by believing that no one has a soul until they leave the womb.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> I am going to address the soul argument using Fsharpmajor's Paradox of the Soul, which as far as I know is original to me. It consists of a thought experiment which demonstrates that the existence of the soul is logically absurd.
> 
> We take a fertilized egg. God has provided that fertilized egg, or zygote, with a soul, and if left to divide, it will develop into a human baby with a soul. We wait for the zygote to divide into two cells. They are stuck together, but we very gently tease them apart. *Now*, if left to divide, they each will develop into a human baby, and we will have identical twins.
> 
> The question is, where is the soul? Which twin has it?
> 
> Well, every human being has a soul, so God has no choice but to create an extra one, in order that each of those two cells has the soul it needs to be a person.
> 
> What we do next, though, is very gently press those two cells together. *Now*, instead of developing into twins as they previously would have, they adhere and divide in concert, resulting in one baby only.
> 
> So, what happens to that extra soul?
> 
> This experiment has been done with animal zygotes, so it isn't impossible. It could be done with human zygotes, but of course there is no point, because the argument speaks for itself.


Not as clever, or as much of a paradox, as you might think. For those of us religiously minded, I don't believe that there is any information from God as to when exactly the soul enters the body. Referencing the book of Genesis, I believe it states that God created man, and then put the spirit into him, creating a living soul. So your "paradox" only works if the soul and body are joined at the exact point of conception - when the egg and sperm fuse.

Disclaimer: These are my interpretations, based on my religious background, and I don't claim to speak for all religious people.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> I don't care about how the kid turns out by being raised by gay parents--I understand that plenty of gay people would make great parents. It's just that when I was in school (which wasn't long ago), one person would say "your mom!" to which the other would reply "at least I have a mom; all you have is two dads and a chemistry set!" I wonder how that might play out if the kid actually had two dads--or two moms for that matter. Adolescents can be very cruel to each other, and having homosexual parents might be cause for being singled-out. On the other hand, several years have passed since then, and children might be more tolerant nowadays. That's why I call for some statistics--I'd like to find out if my hypothesis is correct.


Children and adolescents are going to be little brats towards each other no matter what. If a person who's a typical target for bullying has gay parents, then they'll get picked on for it. If they don't have gay parents, they'll get picked on for something else anyway. If a super-cool jock has gay parents, I'd imagine that everyone else would just find that rather cool too.


----------



## Aksel

Fsharpmajor said:


> I am going to address the soul argument using Fsharpmajor's Paradox of the Soul, which as far as I know is original to me. It consists of a thought experiment which demonstrates that the existence of the soul is logically absurd.
> 
> We take a fertilized egg. God has provided that fertilized egg, or zygote, with a soul, and if left to divide, it will develop into a human baby with a soul. We wait for the zygote to divide into two cells. They are stuck together, but we very gently tease them apart. *Now*, if left to divide, they each will develop into a human baby, and we will have identical twins.
> 
> The question is, where is the soul? Which twin has it?
> 
> Well, every human being has a soul, so God has no choice but to create an extra one, in order that each of those two cells has the soul it needs to be a person.
> 
> What we do next, though, is very gently press those two cells back together. *Now*, instead of developing into twins as they previously would have, they adhere and divide in concert, resulting in one baby only.
> 
> *So, what happens to that extra soul?*
> 
> This experiment has been done with animal zygotes, so it isn't impossible. It could be done with human zygotes, but of course there is no point, because the argument speaks for itself.


Multiple personality disorder.


----------



## Chris

Going back to a previous question; what would members think of their own children declaring themselves homosexual: for myself, I would find this devastating. Not so much that it showed their contempt for so much I had taught them. More, the spiritual state it would reveal they had sunk to.

The Bible portrays homosexuality (the practice of it, not the temptation towards it) as not merely a sin but a *judgment*. The relevant passage is The first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. This deals with the subject of the conscience; specifically, the sense that God is there, which the Bible insists we all have by nature. Godlessness is the internal rebellion against this knowledge. It is possible to continue this secret, internal suppression of conscience to such a degree that God withdraws what is called Common Grace. He loosens the ties that keep that person's behaviour within bounds and lets him sink in degradation. One of the indicators that this state has been reached is homsexuality.

Here is the (edited) passage:

'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...

....For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish hearts were darkened...

....Therefore God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another...

....Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> your "paradox" only works if the soul and body are joined at the exact point of conception - when the egg and sperm fuse.


That's true, of course. I don't know about all religions, including yours--my own disclaimer--but as I understand it, Roman Catholics, at least, are opposed to the destruction of single-celled embryos for this reason. Hence, their opposition to abortion, no matter how early (e.g. the "morning after" pill). I came up with the paradox while discussing abortion with a friend who is Roman Catholic.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Meaghan said:


> I have so far refrained from lending my voice to this discussion because arguing with people who flaunt their ridiculous and hateful misconceptions about being gay (and I don't mean Dr. Mike, who has been civil) makes me incoherently angry, more so than any other contentious issue, and I usually just become very unpersuasive and make a fool of myself. Unfortunately, it's become hard for me to even have a discussion about marriage equality with more level-headed opponents because I've had too many encounters with the more venomous ones, and have come to expect them. But I feel it is important for straight allies to speak up when opportunities arise so folks* don't forget we're out there (and very numerous).
> 
> So, I'll be brief - *I fervently believe that (leaving churches alone) governments should give all the same rights to gay couples that they give to straight couples.*
> 
> That's all. Bye.
> 
> *By which I mean people who think only gay people support gay marriage, and also GLBTQ people who might feel unsupported.


May I assume from this that you would be quite happy if any of your children (assuming you have any one day) grew up and one day came to you and said they want to have a gay marriage? Please tell. Would you honestly feel happy about it?

As for Dr Mike, who you say hasn't flaunted any "ridiculous and hateful misconceptions about being gay", that's probably because he has refused to be drawn into this discussion. I invited him to express an opinion on the same question as above, and also how he might react if a gay married couple moved in next door, but he hasn't answered.

Furthermore, none of my comments is ridiculous: they represent fairly standard religious teaching across many different faiths, Christian and other.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Chris said:


> Going back to a previous question; what would members think of their own children declaring themselves homosexual: for myself, I would find this devastating. Not so much that it showed their contempt for so much I had taught them. More, the spiritual state it would reveal they had sunk to.
> 
> The Bible portrays homosexuality (the practice of it, not the temptation towards it) as not merely a sin but a *judgment*. The relevant passage is The first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. This deals with the subject of the conscience; specifically, the sense that God is there, which the Bible insists we all have by nature. Godlessness is the internal rebellion against this knowledge. It is possible to continue this secret, internal suppression of conscience to such a degree that God withdraws what is called Common Grace. He loosens the ties that keep that person's behaviour within bounds and lets him sink in degradation. One of the indicators that this state has been reached is homsexuality.
> 
> Here is the (edited) passage:
> 
> 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
> 
> ....For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish hearts were darkened...
> 
> ....Therefore God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another...
> 
> ....Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'.


Yes, and HIV is God's "due penalty for their perversion." We've heard that one before.

The fact is, there is material in the Bible that can be used, and is used, to justify just about every form of hatred and discrimination.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Going back to a previous question; what would members think of their own children declaring themselves homosexual: for myself, I would find this devastating. Not so much that it showed their contempt for so much I had taught them. More, the spiritual state it would reveal they had sunk to.
> 
> etc.


Of course, I have a huge problem with everything you said, but owing to "Godlessness [being] the internal rebellion against this knowledge", I can't have a discussion with you. By your standards, if I were religious (which I'm not) and gay, then I would be morally depraved. If I were an atheist (which I am) and gay, then, tough luck for me, the universe still functions by God's law, so I'm still morally depraved, I just don't know it. Obviously, there's no way that I can engage with that thinking - it's convenient how everything automatically has to come out in favour of the religious worldview.


----------



## Almaviva

Aksel said:


> Damn. Late to the party. Again. Oh well.
> 
> Also, yay for gay marriage!
> 
> We have other things we find attractive, Alma, strange as it may seem.


My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, just another opportunity to praise boobs.


----------



## Chris

Fsharpmajor said:


> Yes, and HIV is God's "due penalty for their perversion." We've heard that one before.
> 
> The fact is, there is material in the Bible that can be used, and is used, to justify just about every form of hatred and discrimination.


Hatred? The book of Romans might label sin as sin, but only to introduce the great subject of forgiveness and redemption through Christ

'...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus' (3:23)


----------



## Aksel

Almaviva said:


> My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, just another opportunity to praise boobs.


As was mine.


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> As for Dr Mike, who you say hasn't flaunted any "ridiculous and hateful misconceptions about being gay", that's probably because he has refused to be drawn into this discussion. I invited him to express an opinion on the same question as above, *and also how he might react if a gay married couple moved in next door, but he hasn't answered*.
> 
> Furthermore, none of my comments is ridiculous: they represent fairly standard religious teaching across many different faiths, Christian and other.


I suspect I would ignore them just as much as I ignore any of my other neighbors.

I like to follow Mark Twain's philosophy: "I don't discriminate, I hate all people equally."


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Of course, I have a huge problem with everything you said, but owing to "Godlessness [being] the internal rebellion against this knowledge", I can't have a discussion with you. By your standards, if I were religious (which I'm not) and gay, then I would be morally depraved. If I were an atheist (which I am) and gay, then, tough luck for me, the universe still functions by God's law, so I'm still morally depraved, I just don't know it. Obviously, there's no way that I can engage with that thinking - it's convenient how everything automatically has to come out in favour of the religious worldview.


The weakness here is that you assume your (theoretical) homosexuality is a fixed state, like the colour of your eyes...I don't agree with this.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> I am going to address the soul argument using Fsharpmajor's Paradox of the Soul, which as far as I know is original to me. It consists of a thought experiment which demonstrates that the existence of the soul is logically absurd.
> [...]


Your argument doesn't 'demonstrate that the existence of the soul is logically absurd'. It merely confounds one 'understanding' of the nature of the soul and its creation.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> Of course, I have a huge problem with everything you said, but owing to "Godlessness [being] the internal rebellion against this knowledge", I can't have a discussion with you. By your standards, if I were religious (which I'm not) and gay, then I would be morally depraved. If I were an atheist (which I am) and gay, then, tough luck for me, the universe still functions by God's law, so I'm still morally depraved, I just don't know it. Obviously, there's no way that I can engage with that thinking - it's convenient how everything automatically has to come out in favour of the religious worldview.


I think it does all boil down to a matter of religion to a large extent. I'm not especially religious in the sense of actively practising any particular faith, although I was brought up as a Christian. I would never become an atheist as enough of my religious upbringing still lingers on as an influence on my social conscience and set of personal beliefs about redemption. What this means in practice is that I'm prepared to accept the moral position of mainstream Christianity that gay marriage is not acceptable in God's law. I can't say that I have studied all the theology behind it, but I don't have to because, as I said, I'm prepared to accept that others who have done so, and who have far better minds that mine, have reached that conclusion.


----------



## violadude

Fsharpmajor said:


> Yes, and HIV is God's "due penalty for their perversion." We've heard that one before.
> 
> The fact is, there is material in the Bible that can be used, and is used, to justify just about every form of hatred and discrimination.


I know you've probably had bad experience with Christians. But as a Christian that support legalization of gay marriage, I just want to say that from everything I have read about Jesus in the new testament, I honestly think he would be more angry at the people who use his word as a tool to put others down than he would be at homosexuals. My belief in legalization of gay marriage of course comes from the fact that not everyone is Christian. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, I'm not a homosexual, thats that then. Polednice is a homosexual, he's not a Christian, so it doesn't matter what he does. I'm going to live by my standards and he's going to live by his without any judgement from me.

Despite the haters, the Bible, in my opinion, really does have an overall loving message. Those who think the point of it is to condemn any group that God deems as sinners are missing the big picture.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> The weakness here is that you assume your (theoretical) homosexuality is a fixed state, like the colour of your eyes...I don't agree with this.


Well you're wrong. You're absolutely, unequivocally, completely and utterly wrong.

*BUT*, let's just for one moment assume that you're right. Assume that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state. That, though I feel as though it's all I could ever experience, it's in fact malleable and subject to change. My question is: _why bother to change it?!_ Funnily enough, I'm happy being gay. I love a very great man and have no desire to change that. There is nothing morally or ethically unsound about my affection for him, and I feel absolutely NO shame AT ALL for who I am. Call homosexuality an unfixed state all you like; I'm never changing for anybody or for any reason.

I'm sure _your_ reason to change would be the religious implications of sexuality, but then we're brought back to my earlier post - I'm irreligious and don't accept your fundamental premise, but you say that just makes me equally damned. Well the universe is against me then, isn't it?


----------



## Almaviva

Fascinating discussion, with courageous opinions and courageous challenges to those opinions. So far it's been relatively civil. Dr.Mike has been hesitant to engage, maybe with good reason, but has contributed anyway. Andy has asked pointy questions which I see as important and valid in terms of his right to ask them (although personally I don't agree with the content of some of his views, but this is not relevant to what I'm saying), and certainly challenging to reply to, but people have done well in terms of replying politely except in one occasion - I encourage Meaghan to refrain from personally attacking Andy who *can* be very provocative which is still no reason to fight back on the personal level. I trust Andy will refrain from being *overly* provocative and will continue to contribute productively to a very interesting debate.

As for content, I'd just like to add that research has not supported a higher incidence of sexual abuse - or even a higher incidence of homosexuality - in children of gay parents.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> As for content, I'd just like to add that research has not supported a higher incidence of sexual abuse - or even a higher incidence of homosexuality - in children of gay parents.


I'm not saying that research will support those notions - but I think it is important to not confuse lack of proof with proof of lack. The fact is that there are so few cases of gay parents with children that any studies at this point would be useless - not enough data to make conclusions. With as infrequent as this is, it is hard to draw any conclusions as of yet one way or the other.


----------



## Aksel

Chris said:


> The weakness here is that you assume your (theoretical) homosexuality is a fixed state, like the colour of your eyes...I don't agree with this.


But how on earth can you, a heterosexual, know with such certainty that homosexuality is not a fixed state (which it is, mind you), when you're not even gay?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I'm not saying that research will support those notions - but I think it is important to not confuse lack of proof with proof of lack. The fact is that there are so few cases of gay parents with children that any studies at this point would be useless - not enough data to make conclusions. With as infrequent as this is, it is hard to draw any conclusions as of yet one way or the other.


I'm not exactly sure on your position with regards to abuse, but do you not think it's also unfair, then, to come to a conclusion without evidence that there _is_ more abuse?

This reminds me of a funny thing I saw yesterday - I'll have to dig it up later, but, in brief, it was about a Republican senator being quizzed on the fact that the implementation of abstinence-only sex education in a certain region was followed by a surge in teenage pregnancies. He responded - after much stumbling - with: "well then they can't be doing it right. It worked for me." I hope people see that as laughable. I also hope that, whether its sex education or sexuality, people will be receptive to evidence when there is a sufficient body of it, rather than resting on preconceived ideas.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Well you're wrong. You're absolutely, unequivocally, completely and utterly wrong.
> 
> *BUT*, let's just for one moment assume that you're right. Assume that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state. That, though I feel as though it's all I could ever experience, it's in fact malleable and subject to change. *My question is: why bother to change it?! *Funnily enough, I'm happy being gay. I love a very great man and have no desire to change that. There is nothing morally or ethically unsound about my affection for him, and I feel absolutely NO shame AT ALL for who I am. Call homosexuality an unfixed state all you like; I'm never changing for anybody or for any reason.
> 
> I'm sure _your_ reason to change would be the religious implications of sexuality, but then we're brought back to my earlier post - I'm irreligious and don't accept your fundamental premise, but you say that just makes me equally damned. Well the universe is against me then, isn't it?


The only honest answer is '...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment' (Hebrews 9:27)


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> The only honest* answer is '...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment' (Hebrews 9:27)


The only conservative religious* answer...

FTFY


----------



## starthrower

I haven't read all of the posts, but does it make sense that pro-lifers shouldn't have a problem with gay marriage? I mean, gay couples most likely won't be having abortions. 

I fear it's probably not true because many pro life/ant-abortionists are religious. I'm not religious, but I'm pro-life. I don't want to make abortion illegal, but at the same time I feel sad when a potential life is snuffed out, the same way I grieve when my government drops bombs on people, or enforces the death penalty.


----------



## violadude

Well Polednice, if you're goin to hell in the next life, might as well spend time with yo' man while you still got this life.


----------



## Ukko

Many 'fundamentalists' have been told by leaders they respect that homosexuality is either voluntarily chosen or is a 'state of mind' that can be changed.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I haven't read all of the posts, but does it make sense that pro-lifers shouldn't have a problem with gay marriage? I mean, gay couples most likely won't be having abortions.


The problem they'd have is that, in order to deserve marriage, you have to at least be capable of having abortion.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Well Polednice, if you're goin to hell in the next life, might as well spend time with yo' man while you still got this life.


Hell yeah! 

I'm going to make it as debauched as possible too.


----------



## starthrower

Chris said:


> The only honest answer is '...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment' (Hebrews 9:27)


Oh, please!


----------



## Aksel

Chris said:


> The only honest answer is '...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment' (Hebrews 9:27)


I find it very difficult to take advice from a book that forbids the consumption of shellfish and pork seriously.


----------



## Kopachris

Let's see, how would I feel if I had a son and found out that he was gay? Shocked and uncomfortable, for the most part, but I wouldn't disown him, and I would accept his orientation. If that's the way things are with him, then that's the way things are, and there's no point in me trying to change it or to stop loving him because of it. *shrug*

I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't believe the Bible is the ultimate law and word of God, as it was written by man. Even if it was inspired by God, the books of the Bible were written by imperfect beings for a specific purpose and a specific audience. I believe that, for the most part, for most people, the Bible has outlived that purpose.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Shocked and uncomfortable, for the most part


Can I ask what particularly would make you _uncomfortable_?


----------



## Aksel

Polednice said:


> Can I ask what particularly would make you _uncomfortable_?


It's not like if you're gay, you start developing incestuous relations with all male members of your family. Promise.


----------



## starthrower

Kopachris said:


> Let's see, how would I feel if I had a son and found out that he was gay? Shocked and uncomfortable, for the most part, but I wouldn't disown him, and I would accept his orientation. If that's the way things are with him, then that's the way things are, and there's no point in me trying to change it or to stop loving him because of it. *shrug*
> 
> I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't believe the Bible is the ultimate law and word of God, as it was written by man. Even if it was inspired by God, the books of the Bible were written by imperfect beings for a specific purpose and a specific audience. I believe that, for the most part, for most people, the Bible has outlived that purpose.


Amen! But Christians like Chris insist on enforcing the law, supposedly handed down by the almighty tyrant.


----------



## Chris

Aksel said:


> I find it very difficult to take advice from a book that forbids the consumption of shellfish and pork seriously.


Read further, and you will discover that the civil laws pertaining to the Jewish theocracy, and its sacrificial system, are entirely superseded by Christ and his Kingdom.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I gotta say, I've argued about gay marriage a lot, but it never got into the territory of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, harmful to a gay couple's children, etc. It's not an uncivil thread but it's like nobody's really even near the same wavelength. Might have something to do with a forum devoted to century+ old music, haha.

For anyone with historical perspective, it should be obvious this is the next major civil rights struggle. Everyone has the right to go down on the wrong side of history if they like, but I feel that too many of them shape their worldview on their visceral moral reactions. It is, in fact, possible to find gay sex "icky" and still support their right to be treated like humans.


----------



## Aksel

regressivetransphobe said:


> It is, in fact, possible to find gay sex "icky" and still support their right to be treated like humans.


True. I feel exactly like this, only I find straight sex icky.


----------



## Guest

Hmmmm . . . now why is it that I opted to not discuss my thoughts and motivations regarding my position on gay marriage? Might be the fact that it would attract comments from no less than 5 other members, that would range from dismissive to downright condescending regarding my religious beliefs (all while maintaining a mostly civil tone).

@Polednice - you would be correct in thinking that I am currently agnostic regarding what affects child-rearing by gay "parents" (unless gay adoption is legal, technically, only one of them can actually be the parent) has on the children. Not only are there issues with how large of a population makes up this group, but there is also the issue of needing to study the effects longitudinally, which can take several years (at least until adulthood, I would think) before most effects could be analyzed.


----------



## Polednice

Aksel said:


> True. I feel exactly like this, only I find straight sex icky.


Indeed - I couldn't help but feel sorry for dear Alma when he raved (for the approximately millionth time) about boobs.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Aksel said:


> True. I feel exactly like this, only I find straight sex icky.


Let's face it, the body is a horrific thing in general. Sex isn't dirty or wrong but none of it is more "pure" or less animal than any other kind.


----------



## Lenfer

Ravellian said:


> I'm not religious, but I think it's obvious that abortion is simply the immoral practice of taking another human being's life. The purpose of sex is for procreation first and foremost, and if you intend to do it for recreational purposes, USE PROTECTION.
> 
> As for gay people, I'm fine with them as long as they don't hit on me.


How do you do *Ravellian*? What if seeing the pregnancy through to birth would cause the death of both the mother and the fetus? Would you still say it was an "immoral practice". I am not saying you are right or wrong I'd rather not get into that but nothing is ever black and white but rather shades of grey.


----------



## starthrower

regressivetransphobe said:


> Let's face it, the body is a horrific thing in general. Sex isn't dirty or wrong but none of it is more "pure" or less animal than any other kind.


Pity the intelligent animal.


----------



## tdc

regressivetransphobe said:


> Let's face it, the body is a horrific thing in general. Sex isn't dirty or wrong but none of it is more "pure" or less animal than any other kind.


I would respectfully disagree with this. For example a sexual encounter between two people who love each other could be looked at quite differently than rape, or somebody who is lying and using somebody else for sex only to dump them later.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> Yes, and HIV is God's "due penalty for their perversion." We've heard that one before.
> 
> The fact is, there is material in the Bible that can be used, and is used, to justify just about every form of hatred and discrimination.


I think you totally misconstrue Chris' meaning. The HIV comment is just an ad hominem attack, as he said no such thing.

Regarding what people have and have not used the Bible to justify, so? People have also used Darwin's Origin of the Species to justify some pretty nasty things. Can we dismiss it, then, out of turn because of how people will interpret it to fit their goals? People can misconstrue anything to suit their purposes - that does not prove the original content itself is to blame. For those truly familiar with the teachings of Christ and what is found in the Bible, the message of the gospel is this: to sin is wrong, and we are all guilty of sin at some point in our lives, but God will forgive us and redeem us. Now, there is certainly some disagreement over what we need to to do access that forgiveness among the various sects and denominations of Christianity - but the underlying message of the gospel is forgiveness. If any hatred is preached, it is hatred of sin, not of sinners. Christ himself exhibited this when the woman caught in adultery was brought to him. He showed her love, compassion, and forgiveness, but still counseled her to abandon her sinful ways.

A person who uses the Bible to justify hatred and discrimination against people is just as much in need of repentance as those at which he/she aims that hatred and dicrimination. In my own particular faith, there is a passage of scripture that is oft quoted: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> I think you totally misconstrue Chris' meaning. The HIV comment is just an ad hominem attack, as he said no such thing.


I think the phrase you're looking for is straw man. 

I have a lot of problems with the Bible, not so much that it preaches hatred (even if it never did, a lot of its followers have that base covered), but that its teachings are so based on fear and guilt. That's no way to live, IMO.


----------



## Guest

regressivetransphobe said:


> I think the phrase you're looking for is straw man.
> 
> I have a lot of problems with the Bible, not so much that it preaches hatred (even if it never did, a lot of its followers have that base covered), but that its teachings are so based on fear and guilt. That's no way to live, IMO.


I think ad hominem applies as well.

My take on the Bible is quite different from yours - where you see teachings based on fear and guilt, I see teachings founded in love and a desire to see people strive to do good. With my children, I establish rules with them, and let them know what good things will come to them should they follow them, as well as what the punishments will be for disobedience. Is that a relationship based on fear and guilt or one based on love and a desire to see my child choose the right actions?

But setting that aside, I think that fear and guilt get a bad rap. They are good things - warning systems to protect us from bad actions and choices. If we didn't know how to fear, how many more risks would we take with our lives? What are criminal justice systems based upon, if not establishing punishments for actions that will hopefully result in sufficient fear of consequences to discourage people from taking those actions? And guilt? Guilt can often be a good motivator to do what is right. What is guilt other than the feeling that you have done wrong? It is essentially a moral smoke detector. Is that a bad thing? If the house is burning, are you going to criticize the smoke detector for disturbing you?

Where would we be without guilt? If sufficient people did not finally feel guilt for allowing slavery in the United States for so long, would there have been any drive to abolish it? Do we complain of the criminal that finally feels guilt and confesses his crimes, vs. the one who persists in denying guilt?

Fear and guilt are put there to help us recognize that we are heading in the wrong direction, and we need to make a course correction in our lives. Whether or not you agree with the doctrine in the Bible is one thing, but it seems that fear and guilt aren't compelling arguments against it.


----------



## starthrower

I agree somewhat with the Dr. concerning fear and guilt, but there are so many variables that come in to play. Feeling guilty when you've wronged another human being is good. Feeling guilty about a lot of other things based on oppressive/puritanical religious doctrines, or a horrible upbringing is not exactly healthy.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Can I ask what particularly would make you _uncomfortable_?


It's just that it'd be kind of an awkward conversation, but I suppose no more so than "the talk." I'd feel uncomfortable in pretty much the same way if my son decided to join the military or a college sports team that I was against. I'd still accept his... well, I guess not "decision" in this case... and be happy that he's happy.


Aksel said:


> It's not like if you're gay, you start developing incestuous relations with all male members of your family. Promise.


I'll keep that in mind if it ever comes up. :lol:


starthrower said:


> Amen! But Christians like Chris insist on enforcing the law, supposedly handed down by the almighty tyrant.


What? Is there another Chris around here? (*checks another thread* I guess there is. Is that who you're talking about?)

I apply the same methods to the Bible that I apply to any other book. I'll analyze it to see what's still relevant, and keep any ideas I think are still good. It would be wrong to completely ignore the Bible, even if you're an atheist, just as it would be wrong to ignore the last 300 years of music history when writing a new composition.


----------



## starthrower

Kopachris said:


> I apply the same methods to the Bible that I apply to any other book. I'll analyze it to see what's still relevant, and keep any ideas I think are still good. It would be wrong to completely ignore the Bible, even if you're an atheist, just as it would be wrong to ignore the last 300 years of music history when writing a new composition.


No argument there. But like all other books, I believe the bible is man made. I can believe in God, but I don't have to accept a characterization of God invented by ancient Hebrew religious zealots.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> ... The first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans...


Reading into St. Paul's writings (not your quote but in general), it seems to me he was both homophobic and a misogynist.


----------



## kv466

Polednice, let's put an end to all this already and have a TC nuptial!! Will you be my pig?!


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Polednice, let's put an end to all this already and have a TC nuptial!! Will you be my pig?!


  Oh, kv466! That would make me the happiest pig on earth!


----------



## kv466

Lolololololololol! That's that then...a Pig and a Dragon...hope no one tries to stop us!


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> Oh, kv466! That would make me the happiest pig on earth!


I'll sing for you


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Lolololololololol! That's that then...a Pig and a Dragon...hope no one tries to stop us!


Well we've got Bix onside for the singing! Who's going to conduct the ceremony? I want it to be in a Church so we can cause the greatest controversy. No compromises - I wear the piggy trousers in this relationship!


----------



## kv466

I want Krummhorn to play "Here Comes The Pig"!


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> I want Krummhorn to play "Here Comes The Pig"!


I hope you're referencing my species and not my weight - you know I'm very sensitive about that.


----------



## Aksel

Bix said:


> I'll sing for you


We'll do a duet!






Annie, FragendeFrau and Nat can coreograph the ballet number.


----------



## kv466

Yeah...I was, uh...not talking about the weight


----------



## Bix

Aksel said:


> We'll do a duet!


Ooh I'll be hounoured.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Yeah...I was, uh...not talking about the weight


_The_ weight? What weight?! You think I'm fat?! *bursts into tears*


----------



## Aksel

Bix said:


> Ooh I'll be hounoured.


Great! I'll be the hunky tenor and you'll be the hunky baritone.


----------



## Bix

Aksel said:


> Great! I'll be the hunky tenor and you'll be the hunky baritone.


I'm a tenor darling, but I don't mind going down for you.


----------



## Bix

Bix said:


> I'm a tenor darling, but I don't mind going down for you.


Painkillers and wine, not a good combo.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> _The_ weight? What weight?! You think I'm fat?! *bursts into tears*


oh, i didn't mean it!!!


----------



## Aksel

Bix said:


> I'm a tenor darling, but I don't mind going down for you.


Oh dear. At least we have that sorted out, eh?


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> oh, i didn't mean it!!!


Oh, you're so charming. I can't help but forgive you!


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> Oh, you're so charming. I can't help but forgive you!


So it's back on?!?


----------



## kv466

Sure is!! With a vengeance it is and strong than ever!! Thanks so much for your participation, Barry!


----------



## Bix

kv466 said:


> Sure is!! With a vengeance it is and strong than ever!! Thanks so much for your participation, Barry!


Sir you are welcome


----------



## Kopachris

That was the most random and sudden change of topics and general atmosphere I have ever seen on an Internet argument.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> That was the most random and sudden change of topics and general atmosphere I have ever seen on an Internet argument.


Yeah, well, it doesn't matter 'cos you're not invited.


----------



## Aksel

Kopachris said:


> That was the most random and sudden change of topics and general atmosphere I have ever seen on an Internet argument.


See, this is what happens when everyone suddenly agrees. Someone decides to marry, and then things just pile on and on and on. Isn't it fabulous?


----------



## Aksel

Polednice said:


> Yeah, well, it doesn't matter 'cos you're not invited.


Oh Callum, be nice.


----------



## Polednice

Aksel said:


> Oh Callum, be nice.


Hmm.. well.. he can sit on my hubby's side of the pews..


----------



## Aksel

Polednice said:


> Hmm.. well.. he can sit on my hubby's side of the pews..


He, DrMike and Chris can all sit in the aisles.


----------



## Polednice

Aksel said:


> He, DrMike and Chris can all sit in the aisles.


Yeah!  And they don't get any cake either. Well, none of you get cake. The cake is MINE.


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> Yeah!  And they don't get any cake either. Well, none of you get cake. The cake is MINE.


Tis okay, Aksel and I will have porridge.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> Yeah!  And they don't get any cake either. Well, none of you get cake. The cake is MINE.


 you will, uh..share a piece with me, won't you...i won't have much, promise! :angel:


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> you will, uh..share a piece with me, won't you...i won't have much, promise! :angel:


Oh of course I will, you're the exception, my big fluffy dragon!


----------



## kv466

Ok, ok! Big news! I don't have a confirm yet, but Jan may be attending the wedding also! She's a dear freind of mine and would make a fine flower child!


----------



## Kopachris

I guess I'll have to have some canned tuna, then. :lol:

Maybe I'll make something fancy out of it, though. Cook _is_ my last name! (Actually, it's "Koch," which is German for, well, "Cook.")


----------



## Yoshi

I'm very happy about this wedding and honoured to be the flower girl .


----------



## Polednice

Hurrraaay! This is going so well!

And all of you - I'm writing up a wedding-gift list as we speak. I hope you've all got healthy savings!


----------



## kv466

Chris, you're coming!! Oh, what a joy...don't worry about the tuna, my friend...we've that best caterer, really...just darling...so you just keep that Penguin suit of yours on and come on down and hit the open bar hard! Thanks for the R.S.V.P.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> Hurrraaay! This is going so well!
> 
> And all of you - I'm writing up a wedding-gift list as we speak. I hope you've all got healthy savings!


oooooooh, gifts...well, Poli...where are you registering us at?...Crate and Barrel??...somewhere better??! oh, you're so thoughtful

Any word from the organ player?!


----------



## Yoshi

I like what this thread has become :lol:


----------



## Aksel

Jan said:


> I like what this thread has become :lol:


Me too. This is officially the gayest thread on TC. Ever.


----------



## Kopachris

Jan said:


> I like what this thread has become :lol:


Especially considering what it _was_. I lost sleep over what it was! :lol:


----------



## Bix

kv466 said:


> Any word from the organ player?!


............ no I just won't bite - I'm supposed to be asleep.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> oooooooh, gifts...well, Poli...where are you registering us at?...Crate and Barrel??...somewhere better??! oh, you're so thoughtful
> 
> Any word from the organ player?!


I thought Ikea might be nice actually. I need the exercise from putting together flat-pack furniture.

The organ player is ready and waiting! He said that, for the introduction, he wants to play the third movement from Chopin's Op. 35, whatever the hell that is.


----------



## Kopachris

He wants to play a funeral march from Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 2?


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> I thought Ikea might be nice actually. I need the exercise from putting together flat-pack furniture.
> 
> The organ player is ready and waiting! He said that, for the introduction, he wants to play the third movement from Chopin's Op. 35, whatever the hell that is.


what an awful choice (not Ikea, the excercise will sort out that problem), the Chopin, how awful, your organist needs a spanking


----------



## kv466

OH!!! Krummy agreed to play?? You don't know how happy that make me! This go'ne be da best weddin' eva!


----------



## kv466

Bix said:


> what an awful choice (not Ikea, the excercise will sort out that problem), the Chopin, how awful, your organist needs a spanking


I think Bix is right, Poli...I want Krummhorn to play a traditional wedding march! You get that Pig in order, Bix!!


----------



## Yoshi

This is ridiculous... enough of jokes guys let's get back to the real point of this thread...













...what is the cake made of? Because I don't like that traditional wedding cake, I prefer chocolate. And will it have a little pig and a dragon figures on top?


----------



## Polednice

Oh, my! I had no idea that he wanted to play something so morbid for my graceful saunter down the aisle! I will not have it!


----------



## Bix

Music for the wedding duets






thoughts - i thought the third one


----------



## kv466

Jan said:


> This is ridiculous... enough of jokes guys let's get back to the real point of this thread...
> 
> It is, my dear!! It TRULY is! But then, so is the point of the original thread which someone hadn't the spine to call his own after starting it...I though you were happy for us!!! You're supposed to be our flower girl!!!


----------



## Aksel

Jan said:


> ...what is the cake made of? Because I don't like that traditional wedding cake, I prefer chocolate. And will it have a little pig and a dragon figures on top?


I'm hoping for chocolate and vanilla, with alternating layers of salted butter caramel and chocolate mousse. With a pig and dragon on top, of course.


----------



## Bix

Aksel said:


> I'm hoping for chocolate and vanilla, with alternating layers of salted butter caramel and chocolate mousse. With a pig and dragon on top, of course.


 We might have to reinforce the cake - and the stage for our duet (on my account of course)


----------



## Yoshi

kv466 said:


> It is, my dear!! It TRULY is! But then, so is the point of the original thread which someone hadn't the spine to call his own after starting it...I though you were happy for us!!! You're supposed to be our flower girl!!!


Of course I'm happy to be the flower girl, but also very concerned about the cake . You did read the rest of my post right?


----------



## kv466

You can have any cake you want on the side...we can have ten cakes! It's all good...this is the happiest day of Poli and My's lives!


----------



## Polednice

OI! Stop talking about my cake! You're not gettin' any!


----------



## Bix

Polednice said:


> OI! Stop talking about my cake! You're not gettin' any!


Don't want any of your cake, just worrried about it becoming top heavy with a Dragon and Eine Swine Kuckendekoratem on top


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Not only are there issues with how large of a population makes up this group, but there is also the issue of needing to study the effects longitudinally, which can take several years (at least until adulthood, I would think) before most effects could be analyzed.


Sorry, Dr.Mike, you seem to be mistaken about the numbers. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, in the United States alone 8 to 10 million natural born children are being raised by gay parents. In other more progressive European countries these numbers are proportionally even bigger. According to the 2000 US Census, 65,000 adopted children were adopted by gay parents (4% of all adoptions), 16,000 of them in California. And this was 11 years ago.

Studies published by Stanford University were done with N in the thousands and thousands.

Sorry, but it's not by lack of statistical power that these studies can be dismissed.


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> But then, so is the point of the original thread which someone hadn't the spine to call his own after starting it...


Wow - any other nice things to say about me? For the record, it wasn't my thread. It was split off of another thread. In that thread, Polednice himself first brought up abortion and gay marriage, and I responded. Alma felt it was too much of a divergence from the original thread, so he took all the related posts and created a new one, which just happened to have my post as the first one.

So tell me more about how spineless I am?

I'm going to bite my tongue, like Alma has asked of me, and not respond further to this, despite what is really on my mind.


----------



## Almaviva

regressivetransphobe said:


> Let's face it, the body is a horrific thing in general.


 What? I find the female body wonderful!


----------



## Almaviva

violadude said:


> Isn't it funny how most things that we would normally find repulsive taken out of the context of sex we suddenly love when in that moment.
> 
> I mean big sacks of fat that hang from woman's chest? Pink squishy holes that expel god knows what? Big hairy, sweaty sticks that spit smelly crap in your face? And little stinky gray holes that shoot out poop?? My god people, what are we thinking?...
> 
> ok I'm done now, I hope I didn't violate any rules.


I'm sure there must be a rule somewhere against calling lovely boobs "big sacks of fat that hang from women's chest."


----------



## kv466

uh, oh...Alma's breaking up the party!...well...luckily, we're married now and off to the Honeymoon we go!!!!


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I think ad hominem applies as well.


 Come on, DrMIke. It doesn't. It's a straw man. The user did not attack Chris' person.


----------



## Yoshi

Where is the honeymoon then?


----------



## kv466

We haven't decided that yet!


----------



## kv466

Well, then...some kiddies are getting too overly touchy about this fun we've been having...let's take it someplace else like Vegas! where we can leave this thread as it was: somber, tasteless and offensive.


Thank you for being my Pig, Polednice! I've never forget it! Peace. out.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Wow - any other nice things to say about me? For the record, it wasn't my thread. It was split off of another thread. In that thread, Polednice himself first brought up abortion and gay marriage, and I responded. Alma felt it was too much of a divergence from the original thread, so he took all the related posts and created a new one, which just happened to have my post as the first one.
> 
> So tell me more about how spineless I am?
> 
> I'm going to bite my tongue, like Alma has asked of me, and not respond further to this, despite what is really on my mind.


This is correct, as per the information I have inserted into the first thread. 
@kv466 - this was really uncalled for.
That's the second personal attack DrMike suffers in this thread.
Again, even though I almost never agree with the content of his posts, his manners are civil (I mean, with a couple of exceptions a while back, LOL), and it is really unfair that people attack him like this.


----------



## kv466

I apologize in every sense...I didn't fully understand as when I first came in it said the thread had been indeed started by Dr. Mike
...either way, i apologize for having hurt anyone's feelings over a misunderstanding...I just wanted to see a little more talking about music than stuff that perhaps belongs in another forum altogether...just the same, I came in peace and leave in peace.

Thank you, TC, for having such great diversified memebers! Thank you, for being you!


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> We haven't decided that yet!


But you are off on it? there may some tacking and jibing then. (Are those things even related?)


----------



## Almaviva

kv466 said:


> I apologize in every sense...I didn't fully understand as when I first came in it said the thread had been indeed started by Dr. Mike
> ...either way, i apologize for having hurt anyone's feelings over a misunderstanding...I just wanted to see a little more talking about music than stuff that perhaps belongs in another forum altogether...just the same, I came in peace and leave in peace.
> 
> Thank you, TC, for having such great diversified memebers! Thank you, for being you!


Non-musical topics are the rule in the Community Forum area, not the exception.


----------



## Almaviva

kv466 said:


> Well, then...some kiddies are getting too overly touchy about this fun we've been having...let's take it someplace else like Vegas! where we can leave this thread as it was: somber, tasteless and offensive.
> 
> Thank you for being my Pig, Polednice! I've never forget it! Peace. out.


Nobody is touchy about the fun you're having. The only person who complained, did so tongue-in-cheek and as a joke, like the rest of her post revealed. As a matter of fact the only person who was overly offensive here was you, when you called another member spineless.


----------



## kv466

Like I said, Alma,...I didn't know that he hadn't started a thread...I mean, it said the thread name with o posts and it said started by him....then, he goes to ask you to no associate him with the thread...

if i misunderstood this then I greatly apologize and I was in complete err...I truly didn't mean to get anyone involved in this other than those participating in our wedding...that is why I am sorry and I have not much more to say about it other than that.



Mike


----------



## Almaviva

kv466 said:


> Like I said, Alma,...I didn't know that he hadn't started a thread...I mean, it said the thread name with o posts and it said started by him....then, he goes to ask you to no associate him with the thread...
> 
> if i misunderstood this then I greatly apologize and I was in complete err...I truly didn't mean to get anyone involved in this other than those participating in our wedding...that is why I am sorry and I have not much more to say about it other than that.
> 
> Mike


Misunderstanding or not, the Terms of Service are clear. Even if Dr.Mike *had* started the thread and had later recanted from it (which like I said wasn't the case, as per my insert) calling him spineless would *still* be a violation of Terms of Service.

Like you said, enough said about it. Let's move on.


----------



## Kopachris

I interrupt this misunderstanding to bring an important announcement Re: the wedding.


----------



## Polednice

Sorry I missed out on the last page or so! I've just been so enthralled in our _amazing_ honeymoon, that I haven't really bothered to make time for you lesser folks.

We are surely the happiest pig-dragon couple that has ever been wed! 

However, perhaps it's time to return to normality, not least so that you can all stop being so jealous of our fantastic life together. So, I hereby declare this thread reopened to prejudiced gay-bashing.


----------



## Sid James

Bix said:


> Civil Partnerships have been in existence in the UK since 2004.


I didn't know that. So we're kind of "behind the times" here Down Under. Lady Gaga talked about civil unions being allowed in NYC when she came here, I think what she said really showed up our politicians who are sitting on their hands with this matter. The "hot potato" is nowhere to be seen, tossed away somewhere, while these changes happen elsewhere, we here are left to the extremists dominating the political discourse on these matters. How sad is that???


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Well, then...some kiddies are getting too overly touchy about this fun we've been having...let's take it someplace else like Vegas! where we can leave this thread as it was: somber, tasteless and offensive.
> 
> Thank you for being my Pig, Polednice! I've never forget it! Peace. out.


For the record, I had no issue whatsoever with your little online wedding. In fact, most of it transpired while I was eating dinner and putting kids to be. I just happened to be skimming through it, looking to see whether there was anything relevant to discuss, when I happened upon your post. For once, I had actually been trying to keep a thread like this as within the rules as I could control (usually I'll get into shouting matches). I didn't want my name associated with it for a couple of reasons - first, I try not to actually start these threads (although I am not shy about participating); second, back in the original thread from which this was taken, I specifically made the point there that I didn't want to dive too deeply into personal motivations of mine for my stances on these issues, and explained that very politely to your "spouse." I didn't like where the thread was going at the time I made that statement, so I made the comment that I really wished the thread weren't attributed to me as its creator. If you'll peruse my history in these types of discussions, you'll find I have more than enough "spine" to own my statements.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Sid James said:


> I didn't know that. So we're kind of "behind the times" here Down Under. Lady Gaga talked about civil unions being allowed in NYC when she came here, I think what she said really showed up our politicians who are sitting on their hands with this matter.


I feel that sometimes in life you'll probably accidentally share a common sense opinion with Lady Gaga, and you'll feel stupider for it.


----------



## Sid James

regressivetransphobe said:


> I feel that sometimes in life you'll probably accidentally share a common sense opinion with Lady Gaga, and you'll feel stupider for it.


Should I laugh :lol: or should I cry  ???

When a foreign popstar says it like it is & makes more sense to us than our local politicians, then it's a sad state of affairs, imo. A bit like "Houston, we have a problem" - a big problem being that most of the pollies have basically shifted "right" & left the middle ground totally abandoned...


----------



## Tapkaara

I wonder if the people who are anti-abortion and anti gay would make an exception in their abortion stance if they knew they were having a gay baby...


----------



## Sid James

An interesting "hypothetical," Tapkaara - but the problem is that ideologues seem to have a single "solution" for every "problem," & in a way, that kind of "one size fits all" attitude, is THE problem!!!...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Tapkaara said:


> I wonder if the people who are anti-abortion and anti gay would make an exception in their abortion stance if they knew they were having a gay baby...


The religious ones would first pray to their God to seek their answer and or read the Bible, and then decide from there.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, the issue is the anti-gay people will always say that being gay is a choice. Therefore, no baby should be aborted for being gay because the fetus and young child will inherently be heterosexual...it is some time after birth that the young human will decide to be homosexual. So, that reasoning, I think, makes it easy for someone who is anti-gay to remain anti-abortion. 

But, if science could convince ant-gay/anti-abortion types that homosexuals ARE born that way, it would be interesting to see how steadfastly they would cling to their anti-abortion stance. I suppose "selective anti-abortionism" would be a new phrase to be coined.


----------



## Sid James

Interesting thoughts. I don't know much about the "gay gene," but it has come up in the media in recent years.



Tapkaara said:


> ...I suppose "selective anti-abortionism" would be a new phrase to be coined.


Hate those kinds of double-speak terms. Remember the term "collateral damage?" (real meaning - innocent lives lost in "targeted" bombings, etc.). Another one I hated was "ethnic cleansing" (a "nice" word for genocide, or more simply put, death).

These spin-doctors just give me the sh*ts, why can't they just "say it as it is?" (which speaks to what I was talking about re Lady Gaga's comments here on the gay marriage issue when she came Down Under recently)...


----------



## Ukko

I know of a local couple who produced a gay son, two lesbian daughters, and one each heterosexual son and daughter. The gay son (a genius-class intellect) has suggested that one determining factor involves the amount of testosterone in the uterus during gestation. I _think_ he told me that some studies found that high testosterone levels 'encourage' homosexuality - irregardless of the sex of the fetus.

I am not a genius-class intellect, and don't know where he got that stuff.


----------



## Tapkaara

Hilltroll72 said:


> I know of a local couple who produced a gay son, two lesbian daughters, and one each heterosexual son and daughter. The gay son (a genius-class intellect) has suggested that one determining factor involves the amount of testosterone in the uterus during gestation. I _think_ he told me that some studies found that high testosterone levels 'encourage' homosexuality - irregardless of the sex of the fetus.
> 
> I am not a genius-class intellect, and don't know where he got that stuff.


Just more homosexual propaganda, I am sure. Have you ever known a group to have a more aggressive agenda? Don't listen to it too much...they'll recruit ya!


----------



## science

Almaviva - I don't mind my name being put on the first page of this thread. If it's possible, select some post of mine over from some other thread, and move it to this thread, and then put this in the post: 

This thread is for discussing controversial social/moral issues.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Tapkaara said:


> Just more homosexual propaganda, I am sure. Have you ever known a group to have a more aggressive agenda? Don't listen to it too much...they'll recruit ya!


Nooo!!! MUST... resist... siren's call.. of the blue veined meat weapon! Marriage is between a man and a woman! _Gay agenda!_


----------



## mmsbls

I have two questions.

1) Has anyone here changed their mind on a specific social issue? Once you had a relatively strong belief on one side and felt you were knowledgeable enough to understand the issue, did further thinking or experiences cause you to change?

2) Are there major issues on which you haven't made up your mind or are not strongly convinced? 

My answers - 
1) I know of no issue where I've changed my mind.

2) For me, immigration is a difficult issue on which I have yet to decide. Partly the problem is that there are many possible solutions rather than just two. Another issue is gun control. I generally favor gun control laws, but if research points toward greater safety for the vast majority without those laws, I would likely change my mind. I know I'm much safer without a gun in my house. I just don't know whether I'm safer without guns in neighbor's houses.


----------



## Sid James

Well, to kind of answer your first question mmsbls, I was more conservative on many of these types of issues when I was younger. That's before I met more people from a variety of backgrounds, and this "life experience" kind of made me more of a "middle ground" person. Of course, it's much harder for politicians, because they have to make a "stance" on these issues, whether they're personally in the "middle ground" or not. To complicate this, ultimately they have to "tow the party line" otherwise they're quickly out in the cold on their own, no legs to stand on. There aren't many people in politics who are in the middle on these issues, it's a matter of those at either side. I myself have gradually developed a "live and let live" attitude...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> 1) Has anyone here changed their mind on a specific social issue?


Nah



> 2) Are there major issues on which you haven't made up your mind or are not strongly convinced?


I guess gun control also. I just don't really care. Part of me says let people have their guns; if they get taken away, then the violent ones will just find new ways to kill each other. Or still use guns anyway.


----------



## science

Me too, on #1. 

I grew up fundamentalist Christian, believing that we were living in the last days. I suspected that Arafat was the anti-Christ for a while in high school. I participated in an anti-abortion rally, read the AFA newsletter, listened to Dobson, read Rush Limbaugh's books (usually couldn't listen because I was in school). I wrote a paper in high school blaming the holocaust on Darwinism. Only music I listened to was Christian pop: Carmen, Petra, David Meece. Not Amy Grant or Michael W. Smith, whose secular success rendered them too suspect for our home. We could yell at each other and hit each other, but no cussing. 

From there I somehow found my way briefly to ordinary Evangelical Christianity, then for nearly a decade to Eastern Orthodoxy, then for a brief time to Traditionalism, and finally to agnostic atheism and/or pantheism. 

Losing my faith was hard in a lot of ways, but one way that it was good for me is that I became free to follow my own moral compass rather than my church's. I personally never had anything against homosexuals, for instance, but as a member of my churches I had been compelled to regard it officially as a sin. I also began to drink alcohol, listen to music, and date women without evaluating their commitment to the Lord. 

On the other hand, my churches had no actual concern for the widows or the orphans (we didn't read James - for all intents and purposes, Luther succeeded in getting it taken out of the Bible - or those passages of the Hebrew prophets). I think I've inherited that general apathy on an existential level, but as an intellectual principle it is now much stronger than it was when all things "liberal" were tainted with sin. 

On #2 - I'm far from firm in my opinions on gun control, minimum wage laws, or labor unions. I have no opinion on health insurance. The claims that I'm some kind of far-out liberal is obviously just an excuse to disregard the points I make by attacking the person rather than the ideas. The only ways in which I am especially liberal are my casual tolerance, my enjoyment of diversity and novelty, and my belief that the only ways to achieve social stability are either to oppress everyone completely (which is not really an option in a capitalist society, despite everyone's desire to build more prisons and give the cops more power to throw more people in them, in the end I believe that won't work because we need cheap labor but can't use slavery because the tools of modern industry are too expensive) or to have some strong safety net. The idea that we can have a peaceful society in which the majority are visibly deprived while a minority are hundred millionaires and multibillionaires strikes me as naive - unless the intention is actually to take away freedom from the masses. I think that for some people, that is in fact the goal. Power has a sweet, sweet thrill to it.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Almaviva - I don't mind my name being put on the first page of this thread. If it's possible, select some post of mine over from some other thread, and move it to this thread, and then put this in the post:
> 
> This thread is for discussing controversial social/moral issues.


 The only problem with this is that such threads always end up locked.
If we only could be assured that people would not engage in personal attacks in such threads...
There's been concern as well about some tasteless and graphic posts here.
On the other hand, regardless of what moderators do, such threads keep coming back over and over so we may as well just let them be.
Talk about changing one's mind about an issue: I've oscillated between a hands-off and a controlling stance in this type of thread. Sometimes I think it's best to just let people discuss the issue to their hearts' satisfaction. Sometimes I think - what in the hell is this kind of discussion doing in a Classical Music forum???
I don't know. At least, this thread has resumed a good tone, so for the moment, it's all OK, I *think* (I may be wrong about it, though).


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> I wonder if the people who are anti-abortion and anti gay would make an exception in their abortion stance if they knew they were having a gay baby...


What an absurd question. First of all - anti-gay? I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not anti-gay. Because I don't approve of a lifestyle (or however we are going to characterize homosexuality) or the legal recognition of "marriage" within that group does not mean that I in general don't want these people to exist.

Secondly, in my family, we do not believe in abortion as a valid option except in extreme circumstances (if my wife's life were on the line). There is absolutely nothing in my personal or religious philosophies that would support aborting a baby were I to somehow know it would be a "gay baby."


----------



## Polednice

This is just a quickie because I'm not at home at the moment but am addicted to TC (I'll respond to mmsbls later):

A question for people who believe that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state: do you think, therefore, that heterosexuality isn't either? Do you think that, somehow, someone would be able to persuade/tempt you to be gay? I don't mean whether you could physically kiss a person of the same sex; I mean whether or not you think it is possible for people like you to be 'turned' and actually _enjoy_ being with someone of the same sex.

A question for people who believe that homosexuality _is_ a fixed state, but who do not support same-sex marriage: do you not think that it is tremendously unfair, even cruel, to condemn the LGBTQ population from birth to be in a social class that is denied some of the rights of the majority of the population?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> "gay baby."


im a gay baby


----------



## Guest

I wonder whether those of you who are pro-abortion would abort a child if you knew it was going to grow up and be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist that opposes same-sex marriage? I can think of at least one example in recent memory where a prominent progressive cable opinion-maker said something to the effect that he wished a conservative commentator's parents had availed themselves of the services of Planned Parenthood when they were pregnant with her. Remember, it is the pro-abortion side that wants abortion-on-demand legal, for whatever reason, and would thus be more likely to abort a child for some ridiculous reason, including social engineering.

There are a number of actions of people that are not in line with my religious teachings and that I also personally don't approve of. Nevertheless, it does not follow that I wish such people had never been given the chance at life.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> I wonder whether those of you who are pro-abortion would abort a child if you knew it was going to grow up and be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist that opposes same-sex marriage?


First, I don't plan to breed.

Second, even if I did, I wouldn't abort it in that case--I'd have the expectation to be disappointed by my child.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> This is just a quickie because I'm not at home at the moment but am addicted to TC (I'll respond to mmsbls later):
> 
> A question for people who believe that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state: do you think, therefore, that heterosexuality isn't either? Do you think that, somehow, someone would be able to persuade/tempt you to be gay? I don't mean whether you could physically kiss a person of the same sex; I mean whether or not you think it is possible for people like you to be 'turned' and actually _enjoy_ being with someone of the same sex.
> 
> A question for people who believe that homosexuality _is_ a fixed state, but who do not support same-sex marriage: do you not think that it is tremendously unfair, even cruel, to condemn the LGBTQ population from birth to be in a social class that is denied some of the rights of the majority of the population?


I believe that our genders are a part of our eternal nature - that we did, in fact, exist before this life, and that we will exist after this life. I believe that our gender is a fundamental part of who we are, and the complimentarity of the sexes is a critical part of God's plan for us, and that we are meant to be joined together as husband and wife. I do believe that homosexual activity is contrary to God's will, just as I believe that all sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will.

I do believe, though, that some people do have impulses that lead them to an attraction to the same gender. The ultimate source of those, I don't know. But I believe that one of the purposes of this life is for us to come and learn what God expects of us, and then to make our own choices as to whether we will follow those commandments. How we choose will affect our standing in the next life. Each of us faces various challenges and temptations that make it difficult to follow God's commandments. That we face temptation is not the grounds on which we will be judged, rather how we respond to those temptations.

So I guess you could say that it is possible for someone who is heterosexual to be tempted into a relationship with someone of the same gender.

That is my explanation of what my faith believes regarding homosexuality. I put it out there, because you asked what I believe, knowing that it will likely be held up to ridicule by some. But let it not be said that I was afraid to say what I believe.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> A question for people who believe that homosexuality _is_ a fixed state, but who do not support same-sex marriage: do you not think that it is tremendously unfair, even cruel, to condemn the LGBTQ population from birth to be in a social class that is denied some of the rights of the majority of the population?


I don't know whether homosexuality is a fixed state for all individuals who find out at some stage in their lives that they have homosexual tendencies, either exclusively or selectively. Probably for some it may be a permanent state, but for others it may be be a passing interest which they eventually cast off at some stage, for whatever reason.

I don't mind in the slightest having social dialogue with male homosexuals who behave "normally" in public, and that is my most common experience. To be perfectly honest, however, I sometimes feel very uncomfortable in the company of openly gay men, who flaunt their sexuality in a very provocative way, and I tend to shy away from them if I have the chance to do so. I would not feel happy if a gay couple moved in next door to me, unless I could be reasonably sure that they would be considerate in their public behaviour having regard to the fact that the majority of their neighbours have heterosexual relationships.

As for same-sex marriage, I support the current UK law on this matter that it should not be allowed. Civil Union partnership should suffice, as marriage is an institution for the joining together of people of the opposite sex, in order primarily for the purpose of procreation. It has always been like that, and that is what "marriage" means". I still maintain that homosexuality is a disorderded state, practised by a minority, and laws should not be changed to endorse it or possibly encourage it any further.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> Interesting thoughts. I don't know much about the "gay gene," but it has come up in the media in recent years.
> 
> Hate those kinds of double-speak terms. Remember the term "collateral damage?" (real meaning - innocent lives lost in "targeted" bombings, etc.). Another one I hated was "ethnic cleansing" (a "nice" word for genocide, or more simply put, death).
> 
> These spin-doctors just give me the sh*ts, why can't they just "say it as it is?" (which speaks to what I was talking about re Lady Gaga's comments here on the gay marriage issue when she came Down Under recently)...


You do know that the phrase "selective anti-abortionism" was created by Tapkaara, and that I'm not aware of the phrase actually being used, let alone there being an actual phenomenon that fits this description.


----------



## violadude

mmsbls said:


> I have two questions.
> 
> 1) Has anyone here changed their mind on a specific social issue? Once you had a relatively strong belief on one side and felt you were knowledgeable enough to understand the issue, did further thinking or experiences cause you to change?
> 
> 2) Are there major issues on which you haven't made up your mind or are not strongly convinced?
> 
> My answers -
> 1) I know of no issue where I've changed my mind.
> 
> 2) For me, immigration is a difficult issue on which I have yet to decide. Partly the problem is that there are many possible solutions rather than just two. Another issue is gun control. I generally favor gun control laws, but if research points toward greater safety for the vast majority without those laws, I would likely change my mind. I know I'm much safer without a gun in my house. I just don't know whether I'm safer without guns in neighbor's houses.


#1 yes, I used to be a lot more conservative than I am now. I still lean to the right on most economic issues but I am pretty liberal now when it comes to social issues.

#2 of course, I have trouble with most issues because I'm paranoid that either side could be lying to me at any given time.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

That's why you should ignore "sides" and base your thinking on what you think is right and logical.


----------



## violadude

regressivetransphobe said:


> That's why you should ignore "sides" and base your thinking on what you think is right and logical.


Yes thats true to an extant, but some issues you just need the facts to make a decision and when there are 5 different sets of "facts" thrown at you it's kind of tough.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Andy Loochazee said:


> IAs for same-sex marriage, I support the current UK law on this matter that it should not be allowed. Civil Union partnership should suffice.


What's the difference? Calling it civil partnership was just a way of bringing it in while keeping the churches reasonably happy.

Really, marriage is a legal contract. *A church ceremony is not required to get married.* If it was, how could atheists marry? Civil partners consider themselves married, and they are just as much married as heterosexuals. (Some heterosexual couples have actually requested civil partnerships, but apparently it's against the rules as they were originally drawn up, because nobody had thought of it at the time).


----------



## science

regressivetransphobe said:


> That's why you should ignore "sides" and base your thinking on what you think is right and logical.





violadude said:


> Yes thats true to an extant, but some issues you just need the facts to make a decision and when there are 5 different sets of "facts" thrown at you it's kind of tough.


Yup, I think this is a big problem. The idea that every individual should make up her own mind about every issue in the world is just impractical. We have to trust somebody. The problem is figuring out who and under what circumstances.

There are a few people whom I trust as much or more than myself: for instance, Michael Shermer. When he says something that I disagree with, I immediately consider changing my mind, because I just respect him that much. Not that I change my mind every time, but I do occasionally. The thing is, his mind works startlingly like mine on anything that I do know about, so that leads me to trust him on things that I don't know about.

But there aren't very many of those folks about.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> A question for people who believe that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state: do you think, therefore, that heterosexuality isn't either? Do you think that, somehow, someone would be able to persuade/tempt you to be gay? I don't mean whether you could physically kiss a person of the same sex; I mean whether or not you think it is possible for people like you to be 'turned' and actually _enjoy_ being with someone of the same sex.


A distinction must be made between temptation and indulgence. It is no sin to be tempted. But if the temptation is not resisted and fought, that is sin. I have not heard of a Christian being tempted in the way you mention, other than one or two cases of former homosexuals who have become Christians and struggled for a while against their former lifestyle.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I believe that our genders are a part of our eternal nature - that we did, in fact, exist before this life, and that we will exist after this life. I believe that our gender is a fundamental part of who we are, and the complimentarity of the sexes is a critical part of God's plan for us, and that we are meant to be joined together as husband and wife. I do believe that homosexual activity is contrary to God's will, just as I believe that all sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will.


Eternal nature? That sounds like reincarnation? Isn't sex determined at conception?


----------



## Kopachris

DrMike said:


> I believe that our genders are a part of our eternal nature - that we did, in fact, exist before this life, and that we will exist after this life. I believe that our gender is a fundamental part of who we are, and the complimentarity of the sexes is a critical part of God's plan for us, and that we are meant to be joined together as husband and wife. I do believe that homosexual activity is contrary to God's will, just as I believe that all sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage is contrary to God's will.
> 
> I do believe, though, that some people do have impulses that lead them to an attraction to the same gender. The ultimate source of those, I don't know. But I believe that one of the purposes of this life is for us to come and learn what God expects of us, and then to make our own choices as to whether we will follow those commandments. How we choose will affect our standing in the next life. Each of us faces various challenges and temptations that make it difficult to follow God's commandments. That we face temptation is not the grounds on which we will be judged, rather how we respond to those temptations.
> 
> So I guess you could say that it is possible for someone who is heterosexual to be tempted into a relationship with someone of the same gender.
> 
> That is my explanation of what my faith believes regarding homosexuality. I put it out there, because you asked what I believe, knowing that it will likely be held up to ridicule by some. But let it not be said that I was afraid to say what I believe.


Well, no one asked me what I believe, but here I go anyway...

I believe that everything in this world has a purpose in God's plans. Oh, sure, He gives us free will, but He's subtle and clever enough to be able to point us in the right direction when he needs to. I think it's somewhat of an oversight to believe that one's talents came from God, but not one's sexual orientation, both of which many people believe are determined from birth. If He has a plan for our talents, why not our sexuality as well? I do have a question for you, though: just for clarification, do you believe that the sexuality is the part that's sinful or the entire relationship, even if the relationship isn't sexual at all?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not anti-gay. Because I don't approve of a lifestyle (or however we are going to characterize homosexuality) or the legal recognition of "marriage" within that group does not mean that I in general don't want these people to exist.


Well it' nice to know you're not in favor of extermination, DrMike! Is your opposition to gay marriage strictly in the abstract sense, or would you actually vote in favor of a referendum banning gay marriage if there was such a thing to be decided by the people?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Well it' nice to know you're not in favor of extermination, DrMike! Is your opposition to gay marriage strictly in the abstract sense, or would you actually vote in favor of a referendum banning gay marriage if there was such a thing to be decided by the people?


First of all, the sarcasm is kind of confusing, as I was responding to a question from Tapkaara whether an anti-abortion advocate would suddenly switch to pro-choice if they found out their child was going to be gay. I thought it was an absurd question, and stated that belief.

I am opposed to gay marriage. I would vote for a referendum banning gay marriage, such as that voted on by the citizens of California.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Eternal nature? That sounds like reincarnation? Isn't sex determined at conception?


Reincarnation? Nope. We're not coming back to this life. By eternal nature, I mean that we existed before this life as spirits, we came to this earth and received bodies, and we will live beyond this life, in whatever state our actions have warranted. I believe that a part of our eternal nature is our gender.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Eternal nature? That sounds like reincarnation? Isn't sex determined at conception?


Try not to ignore the phrase 'I believe'. It might be useful to remember also that the Church of Later Day Saints has, in addition to the Bible, another True Book and a living prophet. These things influence the 'I believe', so knowledge of the dogma of your church does not mean that you know what _DrMike_'s 'I believe' covers.

Incidentally, no church dogma would cover what I believe either - which is why I try to avoid the phrase in communications where context doesn't define it.

_*And*_, sorry if I am stepping on your toes, _DrMike_. I spoke here because of the (possibly wrong) assumption that you are tired of 'explaining' the LDS.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I am opposed to gay marriage. I would vote for a referendum banning gay marriage, such as that voted on by the citizens of California.


How can you say you're not anti-gay? Your actions would contribute to the disruption of other citizens' hopes, dreams, and pursuit of happiness.

Here's another question. What more damage could homosexual couples inflict on the institution of marriage that hasn't already been accomplished by heterosexuals?


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> Well, no one asked me what I believe, but here I go anyway...
> 
> I believe that everything in this world has a purpose in God's plans. Oh, sure, He gives us free will, but He's subtle and clever enough to be able to point us in the right direction when he needs to. I think it's somewhat of an oversight to believe that one's talents came from God, but not one's sexual orientation, both of which many people believe are determined from birth. If He has a plan for our talents, why not our sexuality as well? I do have a question for you, though: just for clarification, do you believe that the sexuality is the part that's sinful or the entire relationship, even if the relationship isn't sexual at all?


Like Chris, I believe that there is a distinction between feeling the urges and acting upon them. I believe that God's plan for us includes men and women joining in marriage for their own mutual support and for the bringing of children into this world. I don't understand what a non-sexual homosexual relationship is - aren't they then just roommates? For the record, I am not against same-sex roommates.

I believe He does have a plan for our sexuality, and I have explained that - for men and women to marry and to bring children into this world. There are many ways in which the sexuality expressed by humans deviates from what God has planned - the abundance of pornography, prostitution, sex outside of marriage, cheating on spouses, homosexual sex, rape. I don't think that is an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. And please, nobody jump on me claiming that I am equating homosexuals with rapists. There are different degrees of sins.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Try not to ignore the phrase 'I believe'. It might be useful to remember also that the Church of Later Day Saints has, in addition to the Bible, another True Book and a living prophet. These things influence the 'I believe', so knowledge of the dogma of your church does not mean that you know what _DrMike_'s 'I believe' covers.
> 
> Incidentally, no church dogma would cover what I believe either - which is why I try to avoid the phrase in communications where context doesn't define it.
> 
> _*And*_, sorry if I am stepping on your toes, _DrMike_. I spoke here because of the (possibly wrong) assumption that you are tired of 'explaining' the LDS.


No offense taken. I don't mind explaining the doctrines of my church, especially where I can clear up common misconceptions.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> How can you say you're not anti-gay? Your actions would contribute to the disruption of other citizens' hopes, dreams, and pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Here's another question. What more damage could homosexual couples inflict on the institution of marriage that hasn't already been accomplished by heterosexuals?


First of all, I have never made the argument that gay marriage should be banned because it would inflict damage on the institution of marriage. And I fully agree that there are heterosexual individuals that are going to be held just as responsible in God's judgment for how they violated his commandments regarding sexuality.

But I will never accept the "well they're just as bad" argument as a means of justifying anything. We don't revise down our laws based on the inability of people to follow them. Because there have been some bad apples that have really trashed what marriage should be doesn't mean we need to revise the whole institution.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> How can you say you're not anti-gay? Your actions would contribute to the disruption of other citizens' hopes, dreams, and pursuit of happiness.


I am opposed to the actions of gay people, not gay people themselves. I know most of you probably think that is a distinction without difference, but not in my eyes. It is basically the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." And that applies to everybody I meet. I don't despise anybody; there is no group that I indiscriminately dislike. I may disapprove of the actions of individuals, but unless they are actions that interfere with my being able to live how I choose, I don't shun them. I am a Mormon in a predominantly non-Mormon world - I have numerous friends outside of my faith, which means I have numerous friends that don't subscribe to all the same commandments that I do. And I still manage to lead great relationships with them.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

You've answered starthrower's second question, but not the first one.

It's been asked of you more than once, I think, without an answer.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andy Loochazee said:


> I don't know whether homosexuality is a fixed state for all individuals who find out at some stage in their lives that they have homosexual tendencies, either exclusively or selectively. Probably for some it may be a permanent state, but for others it may be be a passing interest which they eventually cast off at some stage, for whatever reason.
> 
> I don't mind in the slightest having social dialogue with male homosexuals who behave "normally" in public, and that is my most common experience. To be perfectly honest, however, I sometimes feel very uncomfortable in the company of openly gay men, who flaunt their sexuality in a very provocative way, and I tend to shy away from them if I have the chance to do so. I would not feel happy if a gay couple moved in next door to me, unless I could be reasonably sure that they would be considerate in their public behaviour having regard to the fact that the majority of their neighbours have heterosexual relationships.
> 
> As for same-sex marriage, I support the current UK law on this matter that it should not be allowed. Civil Union partnership should suffice, as marriage is an institution for the joining together of people of the opposite sex, in order primarily for the purpose of procreation. It has always been like that, and that is what "marriage" means". I still maintain that homosexuality is a disorderded state, practised by a minority, and laws should not be changed to endorse it or possibly encourage it any further.


What does it matter if "homosexuality is practiced by a minority?" It may be a minority, but the members of this minority are still human beings. And I disagree with the statement that opposite-sex marriage is "primarily for the purpose of procreation." First of all, people always have and always will procreate outside of marriage...probably even more so than married people! I do not think marriage is requisite to perpetuate the population.

Also, what if a man and woman get married and plan never to have children? Or what if a couple in their 80s get married? Obviously, in either case, the marriage has nothing to do with the need to procreate. They get married to have their love and partnership recognized by law, and to reap all of the benefits thereof.

Also, I could not imagine feeling "uncomfortable" in the close vicinity of gay people. I don't feel uncomfortble around anyone unless they are breaking into my personal space and purposefully annoying me. I would think the discomfort comes from the thought that gay people are automatically going to flirt with you and fondle you without your consent just because you are a member of their sex and in physical closeness to them. Unless that has actually happened to you, I see no reason to fear such a thing.

And finally, it seems to me the vast majority of people who are opposed to gay marriage express their opposition from RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. In other words, they claim their religiions precludes members of the sam sex to be married.

I think it is safe to say most fundamentalist Christians are of the mind that their religion forbids gay marriage. That is fine. But let's say I want to marry my partner. Let's also say I am not a fundamentalist Christian. Let's say I am not at all religious. In my personal life, and in the life of my partner, there are no spiritual or moral conflicts with my choice to marry someone of the same sex. If I am not opposed to it on any grounds, and neither is my partner, why should the religious or moral hang-ups of someone else...or a group (even if it's the majority) have ANY bearing on my choice, and a law abiding and tax-paying adult, to do this?

If the argument is that the majority cannot allow the minority to marry is because it will "damage the old tradition of opposite-sex marriage," what proof is there? Gay marriage is legal in several states here in the US, for example. As far as I know, opposite-sex marriage is still running strong and the fabric of civilized society has not yet been torn to shreds. Opposite-sex marriage contiues to flourish with absolutely no side effects from the fact that the two guys down the street also happen to be married. There are no REAL reasons, other than an "us and them" bias to reasonably deny marriage to two consenting same-sex adults.

But perhaps this could all be remedied as reserving the word "marriage" EXCLUSIVELY for unions sactified in the church. Anthing else, like "getting hitched" at city call, should perhaps be called a civil union across the board with all of the same rights of a church marriage, it just will not be called a marriage. Churches, being private organizations, should have the right, I think to deny anyone a marriage under their roof if they feel the "applicants" do not confrom to their way of thinking. By then we can do civil marriages at city hall, for example. That way, religious types get to keep their word marriage and their definiton of it and anyone else can still get all of the same rights and benefits of civil unions in non-church ceremonies. Win-win situation, if you ask me.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> You've answered starthrower's second question, but not the first one.
> 
> It's been asked of you more than once, I think, without an answer.


I believe I answered both, just in separate posts - #287 and #288.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I am opposed to the actions of gay people, not gay people themselves. I know most of you probably think that is a distinction without difference, but not in my eyes. It is basically the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." And that applies to everybody I meet. I don't despise anybody; there is no group that I indiscriminately dislike. I may disapprove of the actions of individuals, but unless they are actions that interfere with my being able to live how I choose, I don't shun them. I am a Mormon in a predominantly non-Mormon world - I have numerous friends outside of my faith, which means I have numerous friends that don't subscribe to all the same commandments that I do. And I still manage to lead great relationships with them.


Personal convictions are fine, but you want the right to vote in favor of legislating what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom. Don't you see where this can lead. Next thing you know, Mormons or other groups will want the right to tell people that they can't smoke or drink in their own homes, or watch what they deem to be "pornographic" or risque entertainment programs. Maybe others will want to ban people from watching football or war movies because it glorifies violence and aggression? It's a slippery slope.

And to believe that gay people should spend their entire lives in a repressive state resisting their sexual urges is cruel and preposterous.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike, a question.
Two presidential candidates.
#1 is pro-choice and for the legalization of gay marriage. He is also for fiscal conservatism and against raising taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and for reining in entitlements.
#2 is pro-life and for the banning of gay marriage. He is also a big spender, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and launch some more entitlement programs.

There aren't any other choices, and not voting is not an option for whatever reason.

Who do you vote for?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> I believe I answered both, just in separate posts - #287 and #288.


Sorry, #288 was not showing yet when I posted.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Almaviva said:


> DrMike, a question.
> Two presidential candidates.
> #1 is pro-choice and for the legalization of gay marriage. He is also for fiscal conservatism and against raising taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and for reining in entitlements.
> #2 is pro-life and for the banning of gay marriage. He is also a big spender, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and launch some more entitlement programs.
> 
> There aren't any other choices, and not voting is not an option for whatever reason.
> 
> Who do you vote for?


Now, that is cruel. :devil:


----------



## Kopachris

DrMike said:


> Like Chris, I believe that there is a distinction between feeling the urges and acting upon them. I believe that God's plan for us includes men and women joining in marriage for their own mutual support and for the bringing of children into this world. I don't understand what a non-sexual homosexual relationship is - aren't they then just roommates? For the record, I am not against same-sex roommates.
> 
> I believe He does have a plan for our sexuality, and I have explained that - for men and women to marry and to bring children into this world. There are many ways in which the sexuality expressed by humans deviates from what God has planned - the abundance of pornography, prostitution, sex outside of marriage, cheating on spouses, homosexual sex, rape. I don't think that is an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. And please, nobody jump on me claiming that I am equating homosexuals with rapists. There are different degrees of sins.


Okay, it's actually called a _homoromantic_ relationship; that is, an emotional, romantic relationship between two people of the same gender without actual sexuality. For example, I am asexual (referring to sexuality, not gender; I am male), but primarily heteroromantic. I could have a purely emotional relationship with a woman that goes beyond a simple platonic relationship, but sex is not even a factor in a relationship for me. While I'm heteroromantic, I don't entirely bar the possibility of having a homoromantic relationship, though I've found no one that I'd actually consider having such a relationship with, and I don't think I ever will.

I personally don't believe that homosexuality is simply a manifestation of sexuality in general. I think that, like asexuality and heterosexuality, it's a category all its own. Your statement that homosexuality is a deviation from God's plan for our sexuality assumes that homosexuals are capable of changing and becoming heterosexual. I'd like to argue against that, but I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other on that point.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Personal convictions are fine, but you want the right to vote in favor of legislating what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom. Don't you see where this can lead. Next thing you know, Mormons or other groups will want the right to tell people that they can't smoke or drink in their own homes, or watch what they deem to be "pornographic" or risque entertainment programs. Maybe others will want to ban people from watching football or war movies because it glorifies violence and aggression? It's a slippery slope.
> 
> And to believe that gay people should spend their entire lives in a repressive state resisting their sexual urges is cruel and preposterous.


I said nothing of banning those other things. I have merely said that I would oppose the redefining of marriage to accomodate the wishes of these groups. What they do behind closed doors is between them and God.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> DrMike, a question.
> Two presidential candidates.
> #1 is pro-choice and for the legalization of gay marriage. He is also for fiscal conservatism and against raising taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and for reining in entitlements.
> #2 is pro-life and for the banning of gay marriage. He is also a big spender, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and launch some more entitlement programs.
> 
> There aren't any other choices, and not voting is not an option for whatever reason.
> 
> Who do you vote for?


Wow - nice giving me the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario here, Alma. How exactly is this a test, giving me the improbable scenario.

Tell you what, you answer your question first, then I'll answer. And let's stipulate that candidate #1, as part of his reining in of entitlements, wants to abolish Obamacare.


----------



## starthrower

Almaviva said:


> #1 is pro-choice and for the legalization of gay marriage. He is also for fiscal conservatism and against raising taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and for reining in entitlements.


Sounds like a spineless democrat compromising with the far right! Fiscal conservatism notwithstanding either parties' reckless wastefulness.


----------



## Kopachris

Almaviva said:


> DrMike, a question.
> Two presidential candidates.
> #1 is pro-choice and for the legalization of gay marriage. He is also for fiscal conservatism and against raising taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and for reining in entitlements.
> #2 is pro-life and for the banning of gay marriage. He is also a big spender, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class, and launch some more entitlement programs.
> 
> There aren't any other choices, and not voting is not an option for whatever reason.
> 
> Who do you vote for?


I realize that this is purely hypothetical, but I'd still like to point out that not voting is _always_ an option. For one, the people's vote doesn't count for anything in the presidential election, and for another, members of the electoral college _can_ refuse to vote, though they might be punished in their home state for it.


----------



## Guest

@Alma -
Your situation is incredibly implausible. A pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate would not get through the primary process, where the base wouldn't support him/her. Your candidate number 2 is equally implausible, as ever since Reagan, nobody in the Republican party, at least openly, acknowledges being that fiscally liberal.

Why don't you simply ask the main question that you are trying to get at - in my political decisions, what weighs heavier: my social concerns or my fiscal concerns?

Here is my answer.
1. I would look at the make-up of Congress and the Supreme Court. If Democrats were in charge of Congress, and there were some potential retirements from the Supreme Court, I would vote for candidate #2. I would not want candidate #2 getting a chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.

2. If Republicans controlled the Congress, I would vote for candidate #1. Republicans in the Senate would block any appointment of judges that would skew the judiciary towards a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage agenda, and then the President and Congress would be able to get the economic situation back in order.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> I realize that this is purely hypothetical, but I'd still like to point out that not voting is _always_ an option. For one, the people's vote doesn't count for anything in the presidential election, and for another, members of the electoral college _can_ refuse to vote, though they might be punished in their home state for it.


Misstated. The _minority_ votes in _each state_ don't count. The electoral college is a vestige of the States Rights concept. States Rights have been taking a beating for several decades now; it's a wonder that the electoral college hasn't gone under. It may be that the less populated states fear that the Senate composition (2 Senators per state) would be in jeopardy.

(The only reason I can spell 'jeopardy' without assistance from my spellchecker is...)


----------



## science

Unless you live in a purple state, my opinion is that you should not vote for either of the major parties in a presidential election. Say you live in Connecticut - the Democrats are going to win, so why not vote for a 3rd party candidate to send a message that will actually be heard? If you're a Republican, vote Constitutional Party; if you're a Democrat, got Green Party. Or something. At least the vote will be counted in a meaningful way by somebody - the parties will want to know what they have to do to get your vote back.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> First of all, I have never made the argument that gay marriage should be banned because it would inflict damage on the institution of marriage.


I picked this up from post 287, and I'm surprised that no-one has questioned it.

Are you speaking personally contrary to the formal position of the Mormon Church, or are you saying that the Mormon Church itself is not opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would cause damage to the traditional institution of marriage?


----------



## Kopachris

Hilltroll72 said:


> Misstated. The _minority_ votes in _each state_ don't count. The electoral college is a vestige of the States Rights concept. States Rights have been taking a beating for several decades now; it's a wonder that the electoral college hasn't gone under. It may be that the less populated states fear that the Senate composition (2 Senators per state) would be in jeopardy.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The process for electing the President of the United States as outlined by the Constitution allows states to select their own electors in whatever manner they see fit, but the electors themselves, the members of the electoral college, are the only ones whose votes count in the presidential election. Electors usually pledge to vote for a certain candidate and vote as they pledged, but some (called "faithless electors") go against their pledge. This includes refusing to vote at all. The electoral college can only be abolished by an amendment to the Constitution, and that's unlikely to happen nowadays. I'm also confused as to what Senate composition has to do with this. That can also only be changed by an amendment to the Constitution.


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> I picked this up from post 287, and I'm surprised that no-one has questioned it.
> 
> Are you speaking personally contrary to the formal position of the Mormon Church, or are you saying that the Mormon Church itself is not opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would cause damage to the traditional institution of marriage?


No, I am saying that I never made that argument. I haven't actually spoken to this particular point. And it should be noted that when I speak, I am not an official spokesperson for the church.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Tapkaara said:


> What does it matter if "homosexuality is practiced by a minority?" It may be a minority, but the members of this minority are still human beings.


My point is that marriage means, and has always meant, marriage between members of the oppositie sex, not the same-sex. If a minority of the population want to cohabit then they can do so as far as I'm concerned, as there is nothing I can do or would want to do to stop them. Nor do I have any objections if a legal form of union is created to enable them to enjoy various tax advantages etc. Where I have a major problem is in condoning the attempt to extend such unions by way of a fundamental re-definition of marriage to embrace same-sex marriage.

As I have already acknowledged, the basis for this view is religious. I'm not speaking on behalf of any particular religion, or denomination within any of them, but in essence mainstream teaching of all Abrahamic rekgions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that sexual intercourse should occur only within marriage between a man and a woman. It is also a requirement in some of these religions that each act each act of intercourse must be open to the possible creation of a new human life, which of course is impossible in same-sex unions. Again, there may be some variation among the various religions but the majority viewpoint is that homogenital sexual behavior is immoral, whereas merely having homosexual orientation is not.

The argument, therefore, as I see it is very simple. Homosexual acts practised as a matter of course are immoral. I don't want to see that fundamental immorality weakened any further by changing the traditional, long-understood concept of marriage, in an attempt to normalise what I consider to be the disordered state of homosexuality.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> No, I am saying that I never made that argument. I haven't actually spoken to this particular point. And it should be noted that when I speak, I am not an official spokesperson for the church.


But it is the viewpoint of the Mormon Church, of which you are diligent and fully paid up member I assume, that it is opposed to same-sex marriage because it sees it as a threat to the proper concept of marriage as the union of male and female exclusively. Is that not correct?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> No, I am saying that I never made that argument. I haven't actually spoken to this particular point. And it should be noted that when I speak, I am not an official spokesperson for the church.


But it is the viewpoint of the Mormon Church, of which you are a diligent and fully paid up member I assume, that it is opposed to same-sex marriage because it sees it as a threat to the proper concept of marriage as the union of male and female exclusively. Is that not correct?


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> My point is that marriage means, and has always meant, marriage between members of the oppositie sex, not the same-sex. If a minority of the population want to cohabit then they can do so as far as I'm concerned, as there is nothing I can do or would want to do to stop them. Nor do I have any objections if a legal form of union is created to enable them to enjoy various tax advantages etc. Where I have a major problem is in condoning the attempt to extend such unions by way of a fundamental re-definition of marriage to embrace same-sex marriage.
> 
> As I have already acknowledged, the basis for this view is religious. I'm not speaking on behalf of any particular religion, or denomination within any of them, but in essence mainstream teaching of all Abrahamic rekgions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that sexual intercourse should occur only within marriage between a man and a woman. It is also a requirement in some of these religions that each act each act of intercourse must be open to the possible creation of a new human life, which of course is impossible in same-sex unions. Again, there may be some variation among the various religions but the majority viewpoint is that homogenital sexual behavior is immoral, whereas merely having homosexual orientation is not.
> 
> The argument, therefore, as I see it is very simple. Homosexual acts practised as a matter of course are immoral. I don't want to see that fundamental immorality weakened any further by changing the traditional, long-understood concept of marriage, in an attempt to normalise what I consider to be the disordered state of homosexuality.


Whats the difference between same-sex unions with government benefits and same-sex marriage?

Besides, marriage has already been redefined. In the USA at least, it use to mean a union between one white man and one white woman.


----------



## Polednice

Lots to catch up on! And thank you DrMike for answering my question a few pages ago frankly and openly.

I am, however, changing tact. I have noticed that, throughout this thread, we all naturally expound upon a few of the key points in our favour, but, _very_ frustratingly, this allows people to latch onto certain issues and avoid others. Because of this, I am just going to say one thing at a time, and, if anyone wants to answer, please try to meet it head on!

So, so far, although it has been quoted and responded to, the following question which I asked has not been sufficiently answered:



Polednice said:


> A question for people who believe that homosexuality is _not_ a fixed state: do you think, therefore, that heterosexuality isn't either? Do you think that, somehow, someone would be able to persuade/tempt you to be gay? I don't mean whether you could physically kiss a person of the same sex; I mean whether or not you think it is possible for people like you to be 'turned' and actually _enjoy_ being with someone of the same sex.


Heterosexuals of this position, I _don't_ want you to imagine some other heterosexual who may be tempted, I want you to imagine _yourself_. Do you acknowledge also that _your_ heterosexuality is unfixed? Although you may never encounter it, and although you may never _indulge_ in the possible temptation, are saying that there exists some method by which you could be tempted to be with a person of the same sex, _such that you would enjoy it_?

If you think that is impossible, then welcome to my world, and the world of fixed sexuality. There is no way on this earth that I could ever find a woman sexually attractive (sorry Alma!)! On the Kinsey Scale, I'm a solid six - and, if you want me to be brutally honest, I not only don't find women attractive, I find them positively _un_attractive. I find them boring clothed; their boobs look like congenital deformities; and don't even get me started on the 'downstairs' because that just grosses me out. If I was forced not to 'act' on my 'temptations', I would _have_ to be celibate. And, well, **** that!


----------



## Almaviva

Dr.Mike, you kind of dodged the question by first questioning the scenario, then trying to throw the question back at me, then introducing other considerations to complicate a scenario that was pretty simple. Some people picked on the "not voting is not an option" part which was obviously aimed at avoiding an easy dodge. And to you and others who complained that the scenario is implausible, it surely is, of course it is! Obviously what I am getting at is, the country is facing dire problems. Do religious conservatives like you would rather let the country go down the drain economically, as long as gays can't marry and anti-abortion laws are tightened up? Because if you would, then no wonder why politicians keep pitching this kind of issue since all they want is to get re-elected. In my opinion, abortion and gay marriage should be best left to private citizens to decide among their own consciousness, their God if they have one, their church if they have one, and their partners, especially in this country that espouses the separation between church and state. I'm not against people's individual beliefs and practices, what amazes me is how they tie the destiny of the country to these beliefs and practices. We have bigger fish to fry than abortion and gay marriage.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

violadude said:


> Whats the difference between same-sex unions with government benefits and same-sex marriage?
> 
> Besides, marriage has already been redefined. In the USA at least, it use to mean a union between one white man and one white woman.


As I understand the situation in the UK, the fundamental difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is that no religous aspects may feature in a civil partnership procedure. As well, only specified registrars (and not clergy) can perform a civil partnership ceremony. There are some other more minor differences like for example in a civil partnership the registration certificate doesn't have to be signed at the service but can be deferred until later.

I don't pretend to understand the situation across the USA except that, as usual, things appear to be in one hell of a mess with different laws in different States. How you put up with all that nonsense of different rules I don't know: "One Nation under God", ay?


----------



## violadude

Almaviva said:


> Dr.Mike, you kind of dodged the question by first questioning the scenario, then trying to throw the question back at me, then introducing other considerations to complicate a scenario that was pretty simple. Some people picked on the "not voting is not an option" part which was obviously aimed at avoiding an easy dodge. And to you and others who complained that the scenario is implausible, it surely is, of course it is! Obviously what I am getting at is, the country is facing dire problems. Do religious conservatives like you would rather let the country go down the drain economically, as long as gays can't marry and anti-abortion laws are tightened up? Because if you are, then no wonder why politicians keep pitching this kind of issue since all they want is to get re-elected. In my opinion, abortion and gay marriage should be best left to private citizens to decide among their own consciousness, their God if they have one, their church if they have one, and their partners, especially in this country that espouses the separation between church and state. I'm not against people's individual beliefs and practices, what amazes me is how they tie the destiny of the country to these beliefs and practices. We have bigger fish to fry than abortion and gay marriage.


Amen! Tons of debt, tons suffering unemployment, tons living paycheck by paycheck,but those damn gays wanna get married?? We gotta fix that first and foremost obviously!


----------



## Almaviva

Andy Loochazee said:


> As I understand the situation in the UK, the fundamental difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is that no religous aspects may feature in a civil partnership procedure. As well, only specified registrars (and not clergy) can perform a civil partnership ceremony. There are some other more minor differences like for example in a civil partnership the registration certificate doesn't have to be signed at the service but can be deferred until later.
> 
> I don't pretend to understand the situation across the USA except that, as usual, things appear to be in one hell of a mess with different laws in different States. How you put up with all that nonsense of different rules I don't know: "One Nation under God", ay?


Yes, the big problem here is that civil unions DO NOT acquire the exact same rights of married heterosexual couples. If they did, I might be a little bit less adamant about this issue. But since they don't, I don't see why my fellow citizens should enjoy less rights than me just because I'm heterosexual and they're homosexual.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> [...]
> If you think that is impossible, then welcome to my world, and the world of fixed sexuality. There is no way on this earth that I could ever find a woman sexually attractive (sorry Alma!)! On the Kinsey Scale, I'm a solid six - and, if you want me to be brutally honest, I not only don't find women attractive, I find them positively _un_attractive. I find them boring clothed; their boobs look like congenital deformities; and don't even get me started on the 'downstairs' because that just grosses me out. If I was forced not to 'act' on my 'temptations', I would _have_ to be celibate. And, well, **** that!


 And amen. Looks like on my friend's sliding scale you are positioned at 85% gay or farther. He figures that beyond 85% in either direction, one has no options.

Back when I still had _possible_ options, I was at least 85% hetero. Viewing the male form could cause envy... but not passion. Female forms in my age group mostly generate sympathy, hopefully reciprocated.

 []


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> Lots to catch up on! And thank you DrMike for answering my question a few pages ago frankly and openly.
> 
> I am, however, changing tact. I have noticed that, throughout this thread, we all naturally expound upon a few of the key points in our favour, but, _very_ frustratingly, this allows people to latch onto certain issues and avoid others. Because of this, I am just going to say one thing at a time, and, if anyone wants to answer, please try to meet it head on!
> 
> So, so far, although it has been quoted and responded to, the following question which I asked has not been sufficiently answered:
> 
> Heterosexuals of this position, I _don't_ want you to imagine some other heterosexual who may be tempted, I want you to imagine _yourself_. Do you acknowledge also that _your_ heterosexuality is unfixed? Although you may never encounter it, and although you may never _indulge_ in the possible temptation, are saying that there exists some method by which you could be tempted to be with a person of the same sex, _such that you would enjoy it_?
> 
> If you think that is impossible, then welcome to my world, and the world of fixed sexuality. There is no way on this earth that I could ever find a woman sexually attractive (sorry Alma!)! On the Kinsey Scale, I'm a solid six - and, if you want me to be brutally honest, I not only don't find women attractive, I find them positively _un_attractive. I find them boring clothed; their boobs look like congenital deformities; and don't even get me started on the 'downstairs' because that just grosses me out. If I was forced not to 'act' on my 'temptations', I would _have_ to be celibate. And, well, **** that!


Polednice, there's been concern in the Moderation team about this thread getting too graphic so let's all work together to keep it PG.

You're preaching to the choir here because I do believe sexual orientation is fixed. There is NO WAY IN HELL that another man would ever entice me to practice a sex act together. This is precisely why I think that this whole defense of marriage act thing is bull, because no man in the world will ever entice me away from my wife's lovely boobs - not to forget Anna Netrebko's, if I were ever lucky enough to have access to those beauties.

Uh.. wait... is boobs talk PG? Darn!


----------



## Tapkaara

I thnk the bottom line here is: don't abort males: they grow up to be hot guys and guys are hotter than girls. Let me marry the hot guys.


----------



## Kopachris

@Polednice: Whether or not it [temptation of a heterosexual person toward homosexuality] can happen in real life, it seems to happen in just about every single slash fiction story ever written, ever.


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> @Polednice: Whether or not it [temptation of a heterosexual person toward homosexuality] can happen in real life, it seems to happen in just about every single slash fiction story ever written, ever.


 The operational word here is "fiction."


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> But it is the viewpoint of the Mormon Church, of which you are diligent and fully paid up member I assume, that it is opposed to same-sex marriage because it sees it as a threat to the proper concept of marriage as the union of male and female exclusively. Is that not correct?


The principle position of the Mormon Church is that the traditional family - father, mother, and children - is the fundamental building block of society and the way that God has ordained things to work. Efforts to undermine that definition are in opposition to God's will.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Lots to catch up on! And thank you DrMike for answering my question a few pages ago frankly and openly.
> 
> I am, however, changing tact. I have noticed that, throughout this thread, we all naturally expound upon a few of the key points in our favour, but, _very_ frustratingly, this allows people to latch onto certain issues and avoid others. Because of this, I am just going to say one thing at a time, and, if anyone wants to answer, please try to meet it head on!
> 
> So, so far, although it has been quoted and responded to, the following question which I asked has not been sufficiently answered:
> 
> Heterosexuals of this position, I _don't_ want you to imagine some other heterosexual who may be tempted, I want you to imagine _yourself_. Do you acknowledge also that _your_ heterosexuality is unfixed? Although you may never encounter it, and although you may never _indulge_ in the possible temptation, are saying that there exists some method by which you could be tempted to be with a person of the same sex, _such that you would enjoy it_?
> 
> If you think that is impossible, then welcome to my world, and the world of fixed sexuality. There is no way on this earth that I could ever find a woman sexually attractive (sorry Alma!)! On the Kinsey Scale, I'm a solid six - and, if you want me to be brutally honest, I not only don't find women attractive, I find them positively _un_attractive. I find them boring clothed; their boobs look like congenital deformities; and don't even get me started on the 'downstairs' because that just grosses me out. If I was forced not to 'act' on my 'temptations', I would _have_ to be celibate. And, well, **** that!


I believe as I already stated, that we, as children of God, are meant to have relationships with the opposite sex. I acknowledge that some may have attractions to the same sex. Whether you choose to act on those attractions is the question. For the record, there are heterosexuals who quite successfully forego heterosexual sex throughout their lives - while their reputation has been tarnished as of late, I believe that a large number of Catholic priests throughout history have successfully kept their vows of celibacy.

As to the rest of your questions, you'll have to be content with my answer that I don't have all the answers. I have come to the belief that the religious doctrine I practice is true, and I accept the precepts taught on homosexuality.


----------



## Bix

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'm not speaking on behalf of any particular religion, or denomination within any of them, but in essence mainstream teaching of all Abrahamic rekgions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that sexual intercourse should occur only within marriage between a man and a woman.


Yes - the three mainstream monotheistic religions are Abrahmic, and they say many other things in the canon of rules and behaviours - I wonder how many people follow them all, or do they just pick and choose. Ooo dominance of man over women, i'll have one of those; urgh, same sex coupling, let stop that; break every piece of pottery that a menstruating woman touches - nah, what do you think I am, made of money; tithing, WHAT, no way, my money is my own, not even my wifes; my wife has cheated on me, STONE HER!!!; oh I have just 'issued seminal fluid' UNCLEAN!! UNCLEAN!!; if my wife has a boy she is unclean for a lesser time period than if she has a girl - well of course, women are just scank!!!

(I accept that some religions do tithe)

Pick and mix religion.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> For the record, there are heterosexuals who quite successfully forego heterosexual sex throughout their lives - while their reputation has been tarnished as of late, I believe that a large number of Catholic priests throughout history have successfully kept their vows of celibacy.


 Whoa! Is this really the example you pick????


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr.Mike, you kind of dodged the question by first questioning the scenario, then trying to throw the question back at me, then introducing other considerations to complicate a scenario that was pretty simple. Some people picked on the "not voting is not an option" part which was obviously aimed at avoiding an easy dodge. And to you and others who complained that the scenario is implausible, it surely is, of course it is! Obviously what I am getting at is, the country is facing dire problems. Do religious conservatives like you would rather let the country go down the drain economically, as long as gays can't marry and anti-abortion laws are tightened up? Because if you would, then no wonder why politicians keep pitching this kind of issue since all they want is to get re-elected. In my opinion, abortion and gay marriage should be best left to private citizens to decide among their own consciousness, their God if they have one, their church if they have one, and their partners, especially in this country that espouses the separation between church and state. I'm not against people's individual beliefs and practices, what amazes me is how they tie the destiny of the country to these beliefs and practices. We have bigger fish to fry than abortion and gay marriage.


Alma,
I answered your question completely. And I answered it honestly. Social issues are important to me, and if they were at risk - say, if the candidate were pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, Democrats controlled Congress, and Supreme Court justices were mulling retirement - then I would look to that issue. In your mind, though, I would then be picking the winning economic scenario, because my pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate would hike spending and entitlements, which you believe are the key to recovery. If Republicans controlled Congress, then I could rest assured that they would stand as a check against a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate, neutralizing those issues, and they could then work together helping the economy in a way that I believe will work.

So I answered your question. Are you saying that you think that the policies of increasing taxes and entitlements would run the country down the drain economically, cause that is sure how it comes across.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Amen! Tons of debt, tons suffering unemployment, tons living paycheck by paycheck,but those damn gays wanna get married?? We gotta fix that first and foremost obviously!


The problem here is that the candidate that would be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, in your eyes, would not fix the economy.

But you guys aren't answering your own question - I have given my answer - I think both issues are important. You both seem to think that the economy is paramount, and that these social issues should take a back seat. So how would you vote? If you only care about the economy, and here I am going to assume that you both are of the mindset that higher taxes and increased entitlement spending are the answers to fixing the economy, would you two vote for the candidate that is pro-life and opposed to gay marriage? Answer truthfully.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Whoa! Is this really the example you pick????


Are you going to tell me that there have been no celibate Catholic priests? I provide this example as it is the most easily recognized subset of religious individuals that profess celibacy, and assuming that frequency of homosexuals in the Catholic clergy mirrors that in the rest of society (I believe the estimate is somewhere in the range of 4-10%), then that means that there have been a lot of celibate heterosexual Catholic priests, and that doesn't even address the nuns.

Now, if you just want to get in a cheap shot about the scandals with Catholic priests, that still doesn't negate my point.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike, with regards to your most recent response to me, if your position is also that homosexuality is a fixed state (which I'm fairly sure is what you believe), then thanks. If not, then you still haven't answered my question.

I'd be particularly interested to hear Chris on my question...


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> The problem here is that the candidate that would be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, in your eyes, would not fix the economy.
> 
> But you guys aren't answering your own question - I have given my answer - I think both issues are important. You both seem to think that the economy is paramount, and that these social issues should take a back seat. So how would you vote? If you only care about the economy, and here I am going to assume that you both are of the mindset that higher taxes and increased entitlement spending are the answers to fixing the economy, would you two vote for the candidate that is pro-life and opposed to gay marriage? Answer truthfully.


My true answer: I wouldn't even consider the candidate's stance on gay marriage and abortion (one, because I don't think these are the priorities; like I said, you guys seem to obsess a lot more about it than I do; two, because most of what these candidates say about social issues is posturing with the goal of enticing their base - like we've seen countless times with candidates running on family values then cheating on their spouses - it's all a big hypocrisy).

I'd be for a candidate who:

1. Understands that spending for a few years is essential to getting the economy going.
2. Understands that balancing the budget is essential and measures to get it under long-term control should kick in after a few years of infrastructure, job-creating spending, once we get out of the incoming recession (if we do).
3. Understands that weak members of society need a safety net that charitable non-governmental organizations can't provide, and some well managed social programs are essential to a civilized society that takes care of the weak and the truly needy
4. Understands that reform of the tax code is essential to balancing the budget; cutting spending is only one arm of this two-armed monster.

My ideal candidate would add a #5: Doesn't give a rat's *** for re-election therefore doesn't posture to the masses about irrelevant issues such as gay marriage and abortion. I understand that politicians who uphold #5 are in short supply so I'd be content with #1 through 4.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> DrMike, with regards to your most recent response to me, if your position is also that homosexuality is a fixed state (which I'm fairly sure is what you believe), then thanks. If not, then you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> I'd be particularly interested to hear Chris on my question...


I think your either/or of fixed state vs. not fixed state doesn't encompass what I believe. My beliefs on this matter don't fit into your either/or options. As I said, I believe that our ideal state - i.e. the state that God wishes us to be in - is heterosexual, with no sexual relations outside of marriage, and total fidelity within marriage. I believe that we all have our particular crosses to bear in this life, and for some, that might be the temptation to have sexual relationships with those of the same sex. But I don't believe it is fixed in that I believe that you can choose to not act on those impulses.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> The principle position of the Mormon Church is that the traditional family - father, mother, and children - is the fundamental building block of society and the way that God has ordained things to work. Efforts to undermine that definition are in opposition to God's will.


What about incest? According to the bible, humanity started with Adam and Eve who bore Cain and Abel. Cain slew his brother which left Mom, Dad, and son, so where did the rest of us come from?

It's a tough one to answer, but if you're going to weigh every situation in accordance with God's will, and that will is expressed in the bible, then...

I just can't imagine an almighty deity being offended by humans copulating without a marriage license, or homosexual relationships.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> My true answer: I wouldn't even consider the candidate's stance on gay marriage and abortion (one, because I don't think these are the priorities; like I said, you guys seem to obsess a lot more about it than I do; two, because most of what these candidates say about social issues is posturing with the goal of enticing their base - like we've seen countless times with candidates running on family values then cheating on their spouses - it's all a big hypocrisy).
> 
> I'd be for a candidate who:
> 
> 1. Understands that spending for a few years is essential to getting the economy going.
> 2. Understands that balancing the budget is essential and measures to get it under long-term control should kick in after a few years of infrastructure, job-creating spending, once we get out of the incoming recession (if we do).
> 3. Understands that weak members of society need a safety net that charitable non-governmental organizations can't provide, and some well managed social programs are essential to a civilized society that takes care of the weak and the truly needy
> 4. Understands that reform of the tax code is essential to balancing the budget; cutting spending is only one arm of this two-armed monster.
> 
> My ideal candidate would add a #5: Doesn't give a rat's *** for re-election therefore doesn't posture to the masses about irrelevant issues such as gay marriage and abortion. I understand that politicians who uphold #5 are in short supply so I'd be content with #1 through 4.


See, now you are being cagey with your answer. You technically didn't answer the question. Which of the two candidates would you pick? Would you pick the candidate who raises taxes and increases entitlements, and completely ignore that he is pro-life and against gay marriage?

Come on now, don't describe your ideal candidate. Which of your two candidates would you vote for? I don't even care if you give a qualified answer, like I did. But you have to frame your answer in terms of the two candidates YOU created in this scenario.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Are you going to tell me that there have been no celibate Catholic priests? I provide this example as it is the most easily recognized subset of religious individuals that profess celibacy, and assuming that frequency of homosexuals in the Catholic clergy mirrors that in the rest of society (I believe the estimate is somewhere in the range of 4-10%), then that means that there have been a lot of celibate heterosexual Catholic priests, and that doesn't even address the nuns.
> 
> Now, if you just want to get in a cheap shot about the scandals with Catholic priests, that still doesn't negate my point.


Cheap shot? Go say it to the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by these celibate priests!
I was just surprised that you picked as example of restraint a group that has been so prominently involved with everything but restraint.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I think your either/or of fixed state vs. not fixed state doesn't encompass what I believe. My beliefs on this matter don't fit into your either/or options. As I said, I believe that our ideal state - i.e. the state that God wishes us to be in - is heterosexual, with no sexual relations outside of marriage, and total fidelity within marriage. I believe that we all have our particular crosses to bear in this life, and for some, that might be the temptation to have sexual relationships with those of the same sex. But I don't believe it is fixed in that I believe that you can choose to not act on those impulses.


I don't think that your beliefs mean that you can escape from declaring whether or not you believe homosexuality is a fixed state. Yes, I completely understand that you think everyone has their own burdens and temptations in life that we must forego in favour of God's will, but surely you must fall into one of the following two categories:

1) Homosexuality is not fixed and, therefore, people should resist the temptation and 'treat' themselves to become heterosexual.
2) Homosexuality is fixed but should not be acted upon, therefore, while a person may always be 'gay', they must not commit homosexual acts.

[There would then be a 2a and 2b for false heterosexuality and celibacy  ]

Which is it?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> What about incest? According to the bible, humanity started with Adam and Eve who bore Cain and Abel. Cain slew his brother which left Mom, Dad, and son, so where did the rest of us come from?
> 
> It's a tough one to answer, but if you're going to weigh every situation in accordance with God's will, and that will is expressed in the bible, then...
> 
> I just can't imagine an almighty deity being offended by humans copulating without a marriage license, or homosexual relationships.


I think most people who study the Bible understand that Adam and Eve likely had other children. In most cases in the Bible, when lineages are described, female offspring are not included. Or do we believe that the Jewish nation sprang from only males?

As to the question of incest - look, obviously there would have to be exceptions to the rule there. What if the entire population of the earth were to be destroyed, with the exception of two people - a brother and sister. I think we would all accept that in that situation, under extraordinary circumstances, exceptions could be made.

What I can see the Almighty Deity offended by is people toying with a powerful act like sexual intercourse that has the power to create new life and bring more of his children to this earth. I can see him being offended with people treating it so cavalierly that they are willing to destroy those lives when they aren't convenient. I can see him offended when the natural order of a father and mother with a stable home raising and educating their children together, is undermined. If copulation were to exist in a vacuum and no other factors were at play, then maybe he wouldn't pay as much mind to it. However, I don't believe it is such a trivial matter.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> See, now you are being cagey with your answer. You technically didn't answer the question. Which of the two candidates would you pick? Would you pick the candidate who raises taxes and increases entitlements, and completely ignore that he is pro-life and against gay marriage?
> 
> Come on now, don't describe your ideal candidate. Which of your two candidates would you vote for? I don't even care if you give a qualified answer, like I did. But you have to frame your answer in terms of the two candidates YOU created in this scenario.


OK, DrMike, given the really bad choice both for you and for me in my hypothetical scenario, I'd have voted for candidate #1. Happy? Not my ideal candidate, but the lesser evil. Now you can pounce. I deserve it.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Cheap shot? Go say it to the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by these celibate priests!
> I was just surprised that you picked as example of restraint a group that has been so prominently involved with everything but restraint.


It is a cheap shot because, while these actions have been horrible, it is nothing more than a minority of priests committing these acts. In reality, the statistics that I have seen suggest that sexual abuse occurs, at most, at the same frequency as in the general population. So they are no more predisposed to abuse children than the general population. True, they should be held to a higher standard, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss the entire group.

And I find it weird that I am defending Catholics, but there it is.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I don't think that your beliefs mean that you can escape from declaring whether or not you believe homosexuality is a fixed state. Yes, I completely understand that you think everyone has their own burdens and temptations in life that we must forego in favour of God's will, but surely you must fall into one of the following two categories:
> 
> 1) Homosexuality is not fixed and, therefore, people should resist the temptation and 'treat' themselves to become heterosexual.
> 2) Homosexuality is fixed but should not be acted upon, therefore, while a person may always be 'gay', they must not commit homosexual acts.
> 
> [There would then be a 2a and 2b for false heterosexuality and celibacy  ]
> 
> Which is it?


What does it matter? I don't know which of your two options it falls under, but clearly my contention has been that it is God's will that a person not engage in homosexual activities. That is where I stand on the issue. And that heterosexuals also need to keep it in their pants until married.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> It is a cheap shot because, while these actions have been horrible, it is nothing more than a minority of priests committing these acts. In reality, the statistics that I have seen suggest that sexual abuse occurs, at most, at the same frequency as in the general population. So they are no more predisposed to abuse children than the general population. True, they should be held to a higher standard, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss the entire group.
> 
> And I find it weird that I am defending Catholics, but there it is.


Oh. Are Catholics so horrible for you Mormons, as opposed to atheists like me?


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> DrMike, with regards to your most recent response to me, if your position is also that homosexuality is a fixed state (which I'm fairly sure is what you believe), then thanks. If not, then you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> I'd be particularly interested to hear Chris on my question...


I did see your post but did not respond because....let's call it queasiness.

On the first point (me personally); I think it is unwise to claim immunity from any temptation, because 'let him who stands firm take heed lest he fall'.

On the second (your last paragraph); what you say amounts to an admission that you are enslaved to a particular sin. It may seem impossible to you that there can be any other way, but 'what is impossible with man is possible with God'. In my own church is a man who became a Christian about two years ago. He is reticent about his past life but he has hinted that there was homosexuality in it. He had lived several years in Amsterdam, apparently because there is greater opportunity to satisfy lusts there. I hope I am not being unfair to Amsterdam. But this person has been delivered from his past...not without a struggle, but he considers himself free and does not want to return to what he was.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> What does it matter? I don't know which of your two options it falls under, but clearly my contention has been that it is God's will that a person not engage in homosexual activities. That is where I stand on the issue. And that heterosexuals also need to keep it in their pants until married.


It matters a great deal to me because people would have me believe that my sexuality is a problem. It matters a great deal to me because people would have me believe that I can be treated for this problem. It matters a great deal to me because people who are steadfast in their heterosexuality are hypocritical enough to think homosexuality is not just as fixed a state of being.

I know you don't want to engage me on a personal level, but I find it very hard not to take it personally when you say things like this:



DrMike said:


> What I can see the Almighty Deity offended by is people toying with a powerful act like sexual intercourse that has the power to create new life and bring more of his children to this earth. I can see him being offended with people treating it so cavalierly that they are willing to destroy those lives when they aren't convenient. I can see him offended when the natural order of a father and mother with a stable home raising and educating their children together, is undermined. If copulation were to exist in a vacuum and no other factors were at play, then maybe he wouldn't pay as much mind to it. However, I don't believe it is such a trivial matter.


By 'personally', I'm not in the least bit saying that I'm offended or would rather not read what you have to say. I _want_ to talk to you about these things. But at no point in my life - nowhere, no time, no place - have I ever felt 'cavalier' in my sexual choices, much less 'willing to destroy life' (I'm not sure if you were talking about abortion there, but this is implied in the doctrines of some sects against 'wasting' sperm anyway). I also wouldn't feel unnatural if I wanted to adopt children with my partner, and, even if I say so myself, I reckon I'd be a pretty damn good father - better than a whole lot of others.

I'm not a religious person, but for God's sake, _all_ I do with my life is love and be kind to others. I _cannot help_ but fall in love with a man instead of a woman, and our relationship harms no one so I see no reason to think of my love as a bad thing. Love is a beautiful thing, and the real world is not the same as this quaint black-and-white fantasy of pure heterosexuality and perfect nuclear families. So it is jarring to be told that my love, my kindness, my generosity towards my fellow humans, is a bad thing. Anyone who thinks _any_ kind of love is wrong is the one with the problem.

But obviously, because some people are talking from a religious or scriptural perspective, and I am talking from a position of no faith whatsoever, all I can do is implore people to see that ingrained in the democratic process is freedom _of and from_ religion and, as such, responsible citizens should _not_ wish to legislate in favour of any one religion or, indeed, in favour of any one branch of one religion. You should vote to maximise the freedoms and rights of everybody - even those whose actions you disapprove of - and let individuals struggle with their own morals and ethics without being condemned on the foundations of a dogma that they may not personally recognise as true.

I am reminded of that quotation: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well how about this instead: "I do not approve of your sexuality, but I'll defend to the death your right to practise it."


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> DrMike, with regards to your most recent response to me, if your position is also that homosexuality is a fixed state (which I'm fairly sure is what you believe), then thanks. If not, then you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> I'd be particularly interested to hear Chris on my question...


Having multiple people referred to by the name "Chris" is somewhat confusing. Which Chris did you want an answer from? Because I think I've already answered that I believe a person's sexuality (or in my case, lack thereof) to be a fixed state.  I would, however, like to clarify that I don't think it's fixed until adolescence.


----------



## Almaviva

Chris said:


> In my own church is a man who became a Christian about two years ago. He is reticent about his past life but he has hinted that there was homosexuality in it. He had lived several years in Amsterdam, apparently because there is greater opportunity to satisfy lusts there. I hope I am not being unfair to Amsterdam. But this person has been delivered from his past...not without a struggle, but he considers himself free and does not want to return to what he was.


Oh well, that's one case. Anecdotal evidence. There are exceptions to every rule. His current stance may not last, actually. Who knows if he's just in some guilt trip that will eventually end, and he'll go back to his prior lifestyle?


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> Having multiple people referred to by the name "Chris" is somewhat confusing. Which Chris did you want an answer from? Because I think I've already answered that I believe a person's sexuality (or in my case, lack thereof) to be a fixed state. I would, however, like to clarify that I don't think it's fixed until adolescence.


 I'd say that Chris is Chris, and Kopachris is Kopachris. I don't understand your confusion. It looks pretty clear to me.


----------



## Kopachris

Almaviva said:


> I'd say that Chris is Chris, and Kopachris is Kopachris. I don't understand your confusion. It looks pretty clear to me.


Well, I've been referred to as "Chris" several times by multiple people on these forums, as my first name _is_ "Christopher," and I go by "Chris" quite often.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Well, I've been referred to as "Chris" several times by multiple people on these forums, as my first name _is_ "Christopher," and I go by "Chris" quite often.


I know it's confusing, but my own rule is to refer to people by their full username.


----------



## Jobe

The only problem I have with abortion and gay marriage is the argument it causes. Debate is healthy in my eyes, but soon things disintegrate.

I haven't seen all of this thread, but it seems on the whole civilized. It's even better when I give each of you different accents - sometimes I forgot which accent was which, so you all end up sounding Irish.

Anywhom, my problem has indeed always been with lobbyists - the opinions that REALLY influence people. I am a proud Roman Catholic, but I care not for the imperatives branding all of "abortion" and "gay marriage" as innately evil. The individual cases are what matter most to me.

As wonderful as debate is, it's both the proverbial lady and the two men/women involved who should make their own decisions and demand their own destiny. Yes, they have a right to hear our own opinions, but my opinion is that I will never be able to abort a child... and for the foreseeable future, marry another male. Thus I am not a competent judge. Indeed, if we all took this attitude, there'd be some pretty helpless people, but I really despise the attitudes of oppression towards these groups, both historically and today.

Maybe I'm just a terrible Catholic.


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> I know it's confusing, but my own rule is to refer to people by their full username.


 Hey, Vampire Pig! You've referred to me multiple times as Alma rather than Almaviva!!!

Just kidding.


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> Hey, Vampire Pig! You've referred to me multiple times as Alma rather than Almaviva!!!
> 
> Just kidding.


Damn it!! When I posted that, I was thinking: "I know I've called Alma 'Alma', but that's just one exception, and I really can't be bothered to talk about how I have an exception for Alma. I hope Alma doesn't pick me up on it..."


----------



## Almaviva

Jobe said:


> Maybe I'm just a terrible Catholic.


 I think you're just fine.:cheers:


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> Damn it!! When I posted that, I was thinking: "I know I've called Alma 'Alma', but that's just one exception, and I really can't be bothered to talk about how I have an exception for Alma. I hope Alma doesn't pick me up on it..."


 Oh well, you just owe me one now, I'll collect the debt eventually. I may need your support in some sort of controversy, then I'll say, "hey Vampire Pig, remember how you mutilated my username causing me undue pain and suffering? Now it's time for you to pay me back!":devil:


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> Oh well, you just owe me one now, I'll collect the debt eventually. I may need your support in some sort of controversy, then I'll say, "hey Vampire Pig, remember how you mutilated my username causing me undue pain and suffering? Now it's time for you to pay me back!":devil:


Oh, fine... I'd prefer it though if, in your hour of need, you just looked to the heavens and shouted "Vampire Pig!" and nothing more, allowing me to fly in like a superhero.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> What I can see the Almighty Deity offended by is people toying with a powerful act like sexual intercourse that has the power to create new life and bring more of his children to this earth. I can see him being offended with people treating it so cavalierly that they are willing to destroy those lives when they aren't convenient. I can see him offended when the natural order of a father and mother with a stable home raising and educating their children together, is undermined. If copulation were to exist in a vacuum and no other factors were at play, then maybe he wouldn't pay as much mind to it. However, I don't believe it is such a trivial matter.


And the majority of this activity is being acted out by heterosexuals, including the undermining of the stable home life due to the extremely high divorce rate. And there are numerous politicians who claim to be God fearing, family values types who support economic and social policies that undermine family life.

Unmarried, responsible consenting adults enjoying sex outside of marriage aren't undermining anything, in my opinion.


----------



## Ukko

This thread has remained reasonably civil, but it has also ceased to produce new viewpoints. Hey, Alma...


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> This thread has remained reasonably civil, but it has also ceased to produce new viewpoints. Hey, Alma...


 Are you asking me to close it?
You may have a point.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Oh. Are Catholics so horrible for you Mormons, as opposed to atheists like me?


Sorry, I meant to put a  after that statement, to show that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> Are you asking me to close it?
> You may have a point.


Hah. Far be it from me to presume to guide the moderators. the ellipsis was intended to avoid the appearance of doing so.

[Wow. This post is the most PC thing I've done in many winters.]


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> And the majority of this activity is being acted out by heterosexuals, including the undermining of the stable home life due to the extremely high divorce rate. And there are numerous politicians who claim to be God fearing, family values types who support economic and social policies that undermine family life.
> 
> Unmarried, responsible consenting adults enjoying sex outside of marriage aren't undermining anything, in my opinion.


Yes, there are bad actors on the heterosexual side as well - as evidence, I offer up the entire cast of "Jersey Shore."

Is this undermining anything? You say no. My opinion is different. There are numerous studies, for example, that show that the high rate of illegitimacy has a huge impact on the outcome of child-rearing. Children raised in stable households score better in most metrics. Teenage girls who have children out of wedlock are much less likely to finish high school, and are more likely to be on welfare. You may not think that consenting adults enjoying sex outside of marriage is undermining anything, but there is hard data that suggests otherwise.


----------



## Polednice

I wouldn't mind it being closed just to stop me from being tempted to re-enter the fray when I really don't want to, or at least shouldn't! It's been interesting talking to you folks about this - and I really must say that I'm very, very pleased that most of the members here are open-minded and loving  - but we're just going round and round in circles, with lots of points either misunderstood or deliberately ignored, and those that are understood and responded to are just approached from such fundamentally opposing worldviews that it's all rather nonsensical to discuss.

So I'm going to do my best to stay away now. I'm just going to go and chat to my lovely boyfriend and continue building my life with him in the certain knowledge that we will always both be very happy together, and will always fight for what's right.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> It matters a great deal to me because people would have me believe that my sexuality is a problem. It matters a great deal to me because people would have me believe that I can be treated for this problem. It matters a great deal to me because people who are steadfast in their heterosexuality are hypocritical enough to think homosexuality is not just as fixed a state of being.
> 
> I know you don't want to engage me on a personal level, but I find it very hard not to take it personally when you say things like this:
> 
> By 'personally', I'm not in the least bit saying that I'm offended or would rather not read what you have to say. I _want_ to talk to you about these things. But at no point in my life - nowhere, no time, no place - have I ever felt 'cavalier' in my sexual choices, much less 'willing to destroy life' (I'm not sure if you were talking about abortion there, but this is implied in the doctrines of some sects against 'wasting' sperm anyway). I also wouldn't feel unnatural if I wanted to adopt children with my partner, and, even if I say so myself, I reckon I'd be a pretty damn good father - better than a whole lot of others.
> 
> I'm not a religious person, but for God's sake, _all_ I do with my life is love and be kind to others. I _cannot help_ but fall in love with a man instead of a woman, and our relationship harms no one so I see no reason to think of my love as a bad thing. Love is a beautiful thing, and the real world is not the same as this quaint black-and-white fantasy of pure heterosexuality and perfect nuclear families. So it is jarring to be told that my love, my kindness, my generosity towards my fellow humans, is a bad thing. Anyone who thinks _any_ kind of love is wrong is the one with the problem.
> 
> But obviously, because some people are talking from a religious or scriptural perspective, and I am talking from a position of no faith whatsoever, all I can do is implore people to see that ingrained in the democratic process is freedom _of and from_ religion and, as such, responsible citizens should _not_ wish to legislate in favour of any one religion or, indeed, in favour of any one branch of one religion. You should vote to maximise the freedoms and rights of everybody - even those whose actions you disapprove of - and let individuals struggle with their own morals and ethics without being condemned on the foundations of a dogma that they may not personally recognise as true.
> 
> I am reminded of that quotation: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well how about this instead: "I do not approve of your sexuality, but I'll defend to the death your right to practise it."


I don't want to "engage you on a personal level" because it quite honestly isn't my position to do so. I have been asked what I believe on this subject, and I have presented it. That is what I believe. You may not agree. I understand. But that is my religious belief. I don't know the things that go on in your mind or your heart. I don't know why it is you come to find yourself gay. I do know that I am not supposed to pass judgment, and that I am supposed to look past actions and love all people as we are all children of God. Judgment is for the Lord, not me. So all I can say is what God has told us on the subject. Not specifically what is going on with Polednice.

I will defend your right to free speech, but I will not defend particular speech, or consequences of speech. I will not defend sexual acts. I don't think that new laws should be created to regulate consensual sexual activity. But I also don't think laws regarding marriage should be changed. I can accept you without using my vote to endorse your actions.


----------



## Tapkaara

Why close it? No one is being uncivilized.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> But I also don't think laws regarding marriage should be changed. I can accept you without using my vote to endorse your actions.


I was also hoping you wouldn't vote to condemn my actions, but, hey, I can dream.


----------



## Yoshi

Can someone give me a logical explanation for why a male person being in love with another male person is a sin/bad thing, other than "God wouldn't like that"? Well none of you talked to God (I guess), so how can you even know what's on His mind? In your own opinion, without thinking about what your religion says for a moment, why do you find homosexuality a bad thing? Yes I understand you need a male and a female to procriate, but that's not the porpuse of marriage or relationships (it was, maybe on medieval times but not anymore). You can love someone and not want any kids for many reasons, so why does it still have to be a male and a female? Why? 
I'm pretty much gender blind so it's even more confusing to me.


----------



## Aksel

Jan said:


> Can someone give me a logical explanation for why a male person being in love with another male person is a sin/bad thing, other than "God wouldn't like that"? Well none of you talked to God (I guess), so how can you even know what's on His mind? In your own opinion, without thinking about what your religion says for a moment, why do you find homosexuality a bad thing? Yes I understand you need a male and a female to procriate, but that's not the porpuse of marriage or relationships (it was, maybe on medieval times but not anymore). You can love someone and not want any kids for many reasons, so why does it still have to be a male and a female? Why?
> I'm pretty much gender blind so it's even more confusing to me.


You know, Leviticus or something.


----------



## Yoshi

^I have no idea what that is...


----------



## Ravellian

Jan said:


> ^I have no idea what that is...


The most boring book in the Bible.


----------



## science

Let the question be, not how we know that God condemns homosexuality (as that is merely a matter of quoting scripture), but what God's reason is.


----------



## Guest

Ravellian said:


> The most boring book in the Bible.


Have you read Numbers?  Or the sections of Chronicles where it merely lists geneologies?


----------



## Kopachris

DrMike said:


> Have you read Numbers?  Or the sections of Chronicles where it merely lists geneologies?


Ugh. I read a random chapter out of the Bible each day, and I'm always extremely disappointed when I flip to those.


----------



## Philip

Almaviva said:


> Are you asking me to close it?
> You may have a point.


Gee I was really hoping for the gay marriage debate to be solved right here on TC...


----------



## Ukko

My impression is that material for private messages abounds, but utterances for public consumption have struck the repetition barrier.


----------



## Almaviva

Tapkaara said:


> Why close it? No one is being uncivilized.


 It's a question of the thread having overstayed its welcome. I also feel that now we've been going round and round around the same points. Since this a rather controversial topic, I need to read post by post and to be frank it's getting tiresome since it's been just more of the same. We might be content with what we have accomplished here - a mostly civil discussion, with interesting contributions, a couple of personal attacks (not too many for a thread of this nature), a couple of tasteless and graphic posts (this was a bit regrettable), and we may as well say, OK, folks, thank you all for participating, and let's move on to something else.

I probably wouldn't have spontaneously closed it, but after hearing a couple of members advocating for the same and one of the main participants (Polednice) saying that he's got his fill already and is checking out, I don't see much interest in going on and on.

If people truly have something new to say, they should feel free (as they always are) to start some sort of new thread with a truly different take on the subject, but this thread seems to have used up its life span.

So, farewell, folks.


----------

