Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Nor do any other Christians or conservatives that I am aware of. In fact, the state of Texas had a law against sodomy on its books for something like a hundred years, and never attempted to enforce it even one time.
What I want, and what most other Christians and conservatives would like is to not be forced to dwell on this offensive subject - neither us, nor our families, and especially not our children.
I'm sorry, but demanding that society protect your sensibilities is simply not a right that you have. Neither does anyone else. Personally, I find biblical literalism deeply offensive. I don't demand that anyone protect my delicate ears, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
In any case, the divide between the homosexual temptation, which is not a choice, and the homosexual conduct, which is a choice, is really a key part of this issue.
Maybe to you. The key issue for me, however, is what role we assign the government in regulating individual behavior.
Look up those wonderful 1049 Federal rights granted with a civil marriage, not one single one has anything to do with procreation or children, NOT ONE, that is why senior citizens and sterile people are not excluded from marriage, so why exclude gays since many gay people do have children either biological or adopted, just like straight people. Those rights that come with marriage deal with inheritance, taxes, benefits, social security and so on, we pay into those too, so we deserve the same back, otherwise we gays are subsidizing your straight and often failed marriages. OH, homosexuality is normal, it is not the majority, but it is normal.
you are entitled to an automatic annulment of marriage if one party is incapable of having a child.
Justice Alito asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry. “And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated,” he said, and then added, to laughter, “They’re all lawyers.” Ms. Bonauto responded that marriage is about the mutual commitment of two people.
Interesting...no reason given for it being just two.
It can`t be two because homosexuals want to make babies because homosexuals don`t make babies.
It can`t be two because homosexuals are using marriage as a way to pretend they are just like heterosexuals because they have said that isn`t the case.
I guess it will have to remain a mystery.
No mystery at all. The current legal definition of marriage is two people who are free to enter into the contract, which actually does have a broadly accepted form and outlines, although details differ from state to state. Alito is a smart man, I am sure he knows that the issue of poly marriage is not before the court. The issue is whether a same-sex couple, legally married in one state, is also legally married in another.
People who want poly marriage are free to pursue their own agenda. But this case isn't it.
If we're going to bring science into the debate here, let's be sure to listen to what biological science has to say about homosexuality.
Across the wide spectrum of life (with a couple of rare and unique exceptions) it is the male-female sexual connection that allows life to exist and propagate. Without that, extinction would be guaranteed. So the question of whether homosexuality is a conscious choice or a born trait is not relevant to the fact that biological life is designed "heterosexual". No bible necessary to reach that conclusion. Biology establishes heterosexuality as the normal condition, with homosexuality consequently being the reverse, or abnormal condition. And therefore, it is a fraud on the surface to promote homosexuality as "normal", such as the agenda of this segment of the population so strives to do, austensibly for the purpose of enjoying the privileges of heterosexual couples. But those privileges society agreed to allow heterosexual couples were never intended for the adults united, but were designed as security for the offspring of those unions, given the importance of those offspring for the survival of the species. And since homosexual activity does nothing to contribute to that important matter of insuring the continuation of the species, said privileges are NOT OWED them.
You actually don't know much about biology. Or you would know that homosexual behavior occurs "naturally" (whatever that means) in non-human mammals and birds. Including pair-bonding and parenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
That being said, all people should enjoy fair treatment, and allowed their place among society to seek their happiness and enjoyment of life, but there is a big difference between being treated fairly and being treated equally. Equal treatment demands equal contribution, and this is the central point. Nowhere is it expected norshould it be, that equality is a birthright.
Now, if you are of the mindset that believes the earth is overpopulated, and population reduction is an underlying agenda, then the promotion of homosexuality fits right in. It fits perfectly with the many other efforts to reduce population, such as the promotion of sterilizing through vaccination; reduction of fertility through chemical poisoning of the food and water .... etc.
So yay! Let's all be gay, and help the eugenists have their way. It's just the fair thing to do.
Hey, fine by me if you choose to be gay. Let me know how that works out. Personally, I can't imagine choosing to have sex with someone I'm not attracted to, so I have to rely on reports from people who are more experimental than I am.
Of course they do not choose the temptation to engage in homosexual conduct. But they do choose to act on those temptations and they do choose to engage in a full-blown lifestyle centered around their sexual activities.
As do you.
You were tempted to engage in heterosexual conduct, were you not? And you chose to act on those temptations, did you not? And then you chose to "engage in a full-blown lifestyle centered around (your) sexual activities" did you not?
It is sexual attraction, not an urge. Do you expect gay people to be celebate for the sake of you straight people and your religion?
Yes, that is exactly what they expect! They offer no real reason, however, why gay people should make such a heroic self sacrifice - except "my god thinks *you* should protect my sensibilities".
Why do people choose to be pedophiles?
Why do people choose to engage in bestiality, sadomasochism and sodomy?
Are you saying they too are born that way?
Well, I wouldn't simplify it to that point, but it's obviously not a choice. It's likely something that develops during puberty, which is when most people start getting sexual attractions. But if someone has an attraction to kids, they have an attraction to kids. It's a sexual orientation too, and I'd imagine the other things you listed are in a similar boat. They're developed traits that you don't get to choose; they just happen.
Some are bad when acted upon, like pedophilia, other are objectively not, like sodomy. There's nothing outwardly or measurably harmful about a man and a woman doing it in the bum. There's nothing measurably harmful about two men having consensual sex. There IS measurable harm to people who molest children. Having sex with someone against their will is always harmful thing. Children, as a rule (though it's a tricky thing what constitutes as a child; some would say 17 is a child, but I'm not sure how accurate that truly it), don't have sexual attractions, and therefore would reasonably not legitimately consent without coercion. After all, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, thus their 'target audience' would likely have no sexual interest back. Thus, that's a problem.
It seems as though it's based on Kantian moral theory. The outcome of an action is generally what designates it's morality. Having homosexual sex does not have a negative outcome for anyone (unless there's STDs, but that's not exclusive to gay people; funny how that's often ignored). Child rape does. Thus, while the attraction is involuntary in both, the acting upon the action has very different results. Being gay or being a pedophile isn't a problem, however, the pedophile acting on his impulses is wrong while the gay person doing it does not measurable harm.
Makes sense right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
I believe there are a lot of screwed-up people with raging hormones and desires who are too weak to control themselves.
Science can prove and disprove anything a scientist wishes to prove or disprove. Funny how anyone who questions science is vilified; the same as those who believed the earth was not flat and just as they have been over the last 2000 years. The irony is that most of that science has been disproved since, just as the pseudo-set-in stone-science of today will be disproved in the future.
Science doesn't deal with 'proof.' Proof is for trivial things. I can prove that I ate chicken for lunch, for example by showing you my lunch. Science isn't that simple. It used evidence. There's no proof that evolution is real. I can't show you something evolving. But I can show you moutons of evidence and observations that logically result in evolution being the best working theory. And that's all science can do. Bring about what makes the most sense.
So it actually can't prove whatever you want. I can't prove that unicorns are real or that broccoli is gross. And you can't disprove those things. Science doesn't care about proof.
Look up those wonderful 1049 Federal rights granted with a civil marriage, not one single one has anything to do with procreation or children, NOT ONE, that is why senior citizens and sterile people are not excluded from marriage, so why exclude gays since many gay people do have children either biological or adopted, just like straight people. Those rights that come with marriage deal with inheritance, taxes, benefits, social security and so on, we pay into those too, so we deserve the same back, otherwise we gays are subsidizing your straight and often failed marriages. OH, homosexuality is normal, it is not the majority, but it is normal.
No, basic biology disagrees ... if homosexuality was adopted universally, the human race would quickly become extinct.
Secondly, the perks of marriage were indeed put in place for the benefit and security of potential offspring, and not for the benefit of the adults. This is self evident in that married people read receive certain privileges that unmarried people do not receive. If it were to benefit the adults, EVERYONE WOULD GET THEM. There would be no special advantages for married couples.
When two homosexual men or two homosexual women can procreate,
I will believe its normal.
So heterosexual couples who can't (or won't) procreate are abnormal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
