Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Ion Kenshin]

Prop X is a fictional ban bullied through to ban a fictional group of mutated humans from breeding.

Prop 8 is a bill defining marriage for real humans as a man and a woman which was not bullied through at all. It was voted on by the populace and it passed.

Further, Prop X prohibits breeding. Prop 8 does no such thing since well...homosexuals can't breed even if they were allowed to marry.

The fictional plight of fictional mutants with superpowers does not give merit to a voter driven regulation of marriage in real life.
um dude.....it's just a story...you may wanna scale it back a bit.

[Ion Kenshin]

Prop X is a fictional ban bullied through to ban a fictional group of mutated humans from breeding.

Prop 8 is a bill defining marriage for real humans as a man and a woman which was not bullied through at all. It was voted on by the populace and it passed.

Further, Prop X prohibits breeding. Prop 8 does no such thing since well...homosexuals can't breed even if they were allowed to marry.

The fictional plight of fictional mutants with superpowers does not give merit to a voter driven regulation of marriage in real life.
um dude.....it's just a story...you may wanna scale it back a bit.

[Nitehawk013]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.

[Nitehawk013]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.

[Nitehawk013]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.

[wiegeabo]

It may be fictional, but it's being used as an allegory for what happened here in CA.

[wiegeabo]

It may be fictional, but it's being used as an allegory for what happened here in CA.

[wiegeabo]

It may be fictional, but it's being used as an allegory for what happened here in CA.

[Ion Kenshin]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.
Essentially it is. Both things represent the theme of banning what is the righ of every human being. What is being banned is different but the message and the concept is essentially the same.

[Ion Kenshin]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.
Essentially it is. Both things represent the theme of banning what is the righ of every human being. What is being banned is different but the message and the concept is essentially the same.

[Ion Kenshin]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.
Essentially it is. Both things represent the theme of banning what is the righ of every human being. What is being banned is different but the message and the concept is essentially the same.

[Nitehawk013]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

[Nitehawk013]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

[Nitehawk013]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

[Ion Kenshin]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.
First off that bolded part is wrong.

Secondly...The X-men being persecuted for who and what they are is an analogy for many themes of racism against any kind of minority group or people being given ill treatment. Everything from blacks to women to homosexuals and all in between.

[Ion Kenshin]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.
First off that bolded part is wrong.

Secondly...The X-men being persecuted for who and what they are is an analogy for many themes of racism against any kind of minority group or people being given ill treatment. Everything from blacks to women to homosexuals and all in between.

[Ion Kenshin]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.
First off that bolded part is wrong.

Secondly...The X-men being persecuted for who and what they are is an analogy for many themes of racism against any kind of minority group or people being given ill treatment. Everything from blacks to women to homosexuals and all in between.

[wiegeabo]

And many of us feel there is conclusive proof that homosexuality is something you are born being. As evidenced by things like the different way the brain is structured between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[wiegeabo]

And many of us feel there is conclusive proof that homosexuality is something you are born being. As evidenced by things like the different way the brain is structured between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[wiegeabo]

And many of us feel there is conclusive proof that homosexuality is something you are born being. As evidenced by things like the different way the brain is structured between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[Nitehawk013]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.

[Nitehawk013]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.

[Nitehawk013]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.

[Ion Kenshin]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.
Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.

[Ion Kenshin]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.
Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.

[Ion Kenshin]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.
Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.

[Nitehawk013]

That is also true.

[Nitehawk013]

That is also true.

[Nitehawk013]

That is also true.

[The Incredible Hulk]

Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.


yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,

[The Incredible Hulk]

Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.


yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,

[The Incredible Hulk]

Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.


yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,

[The Senator]

There's also no scientific proof that God exists, yet billions of people believe He does...

[The Senator]

There's also no scientific proof that God exists, yet billions of people believe He does...

[The Senator]

There's also no scientific proof that God exists, yet billions of people believe He does...

[Ion Kenshin]

yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,
Nor do I but I have always felt that saying there is no science proof for something hence it cant;r be tru or doesn't exist is also not a good argument for things. People believe in many things in which there is no scientific proof.

[Ion Kenshin]

yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,
Nor do I but I have always felt that saying there is no science proof for something hence it cant;r be tru or doesn't exist is also not a good argument for things. People believe in many things in which there is no scientific proof.

[Ion Kenshin]

yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,
Nor do I but I have always felt that saying there is no science proof for something hence it cant;r be tru or doesn't exist is also not a good argument for things. People believe in many things in which there is no scientific proof.

[Schlosser85]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

[Schlosser85]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

[Schlosser85]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

[Nitehawk013]

Personally I don't care if they found proof tomorrow of it being a genetic thing. It will not change my position that such activity is not godly. My stance would not change. People are born with a genetic leaning towards alcoholism, we preach salvation to the drunk. People are born with a leaning towards obesity and gluttony, we preach salvation to the glutton. Genetic leaning doesn't alter our mission to bring the gospel to sinners.

However, if it is determined to be genetic, there would be changes in the way social issues would have to be handled. Homosexuality likely would then have a clear reason for being linked with civil rights, EOE laws, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

Personally I don't care if they found proof tomorrow of it being a genetic thing. It will not change my position that such activity is not godly. My stance would not change. People are born with a genetic leaning towards alcoholism, we preach salvation to the drunk. People are born with a leaning towards obesity and gluttony, we preach salvation to the glutton. Genetic leaning doesn't alter our mission to bring the gospel to sinners.

However, if it is determined to be genetic, there would be changes in the way social issues would have to be handled. Homosexuality likely would then have a clear reason for being linked with civil rights, EOE laws, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

Personally I don't care if they found proof tomorrow of it being a genetic thing. It will not change my position that such activity is not godly. My stance would not change. People are born with a genetic leaning towards alcoholism, we preach salvation to the drunk. People are born with a leaning towards obesity and gluttony, we preach salvation to the glutton. Genetic leaning doesn't alter our mission to bring the gospel to sinners.

However, if it is determined to be genetic, there would be changes in the way social issues would have to be handled. Homosexuality likely would then have a clear reason for being linked with civil rights, EOE laws, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.

[Nitehawk013]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.

[Nitehawk013]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.

[Ion Kenshin]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
No where near close to the level of discrimination that gays have and still do receive

[Ion Kenshin]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
No where near close to the level of discrimination that gays have and still do receive

[Ion Kenshin]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
No where near close to the level of discrimination that gays have and still do receive

[Sarge 2.0]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
First of all, you're 31 years old and you can't spell discrimination. Sad.

Second, who exactly is giving these people "funny looks" and "ridicule"? You? Does that mean you support ridiculing people for looking the way they want to look? They don't "typically" bring funny looks and ridicule unless you live in a sheltered, Christian community and are not exposed to that kind of thing very often.

[Sarge 2.0]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
First of all, you're 31 years old and you can't spell discrimination. Sad.

Second, who exactly is giving these people "funny looks" and "ridicule"? You? Does that mean you support ridiculing people for looking the way they want to look? They don't "typically" bring funny looks and ridicule unless you live in a sheltered, Christian community and are not exposed to that kind of thing very often.

[Sarge 2.0]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
First of all, you're 31 years old and you can't spell discrimination. Sad.

Second, who exactly is giving these people "funny looks" and "ridicule"? You? Does that mean you support ridiculing people for looking the way they want to look? They don't "typically" bring funny looks and ridicule unless you live in a sheltered, Christian community and are not exposed to that kind of thing very often.

[Nitehawk013]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.

[Nitehawk013]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.

[Nitehawk013]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.

[Sarge 2.0]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.
No, I just think a 31 year old should know how to spell words like "discrimination" and "mutilate". I can't take you very seriously if you can't spell at an eighth grade level.

It just shows how close minded you are that you would choose to give people funny looks for doing what they want with their bodies. It's 2009, you should probably get past that.

[Sarge 2.0]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.
No, I just think a 31 year old should know how to spell words like "discrimination" and "mutilate". I can't take you very seriously if you can't spell at an eighth grade level.

It just shows how close minded you are that you would choose to give people funny looks for doing what they want with their bodies. It's 2009, you should probably get past that.

[Sarge 2.0]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.
No, I just think a 31 year old should know how to spell words like "discrimination" and "mutilate". I can't take you very seriously if you can't spell at an eighth grade level.

It just shows how close minded you are that you would choose to give people funny looks for doing what they want with their bodies. It's 2009, you should probably get past that.

[Marx]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

[Marx]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

[Marx]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

[Nitehawk013]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.

[Nitehawk013]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.

[Nitehawk013]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.

[Sarge 2.0]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.
Continue living like an ass backwards knuckle dragging caveman, then. As long as it works for you. :up:

[Sarge 2.0]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.
Continue living like an ass backwards knuckle dragging caveman, then. As long as it works for you. :up:

[Sarge 2.0]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.
Continue living like an ass backwards knuckle dragging caveman, then. As long as it works for you. :up:

[Nitehawk013]

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

[Nitehawk013]

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

[Nitehawk013]

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

[Ion Kenshin]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.
None of these things apply to me and I am gay and no I did not one day up and decide to be gay

[Ion Kenshin]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.
None of these things apply to me and I am gay and no I did not one day up and decide to be gay

[Ion Kenshin]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.
None of these things apply to me and I am gay and no I did not one day up and decide to be gay

[Marx]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

[Marx]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

[Marx]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

[Nitehawk013]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

[Nitehawk013]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

[Nitehawk013]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

[The Senator]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?

[The Senator]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?

[The Senator]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?

[Sarge 2.0]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?Bring up some statistics for that.

[Sarge 2.0]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?Bring up some statistics for that.

[Sarge 2.0]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?Bring up some statistics for that.

[The Senator]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

Please provide statistics to back up this claim, please.

[The Senator]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

Please provide statistics to back up this claim, please.

[The Senator]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

Please provide statistics to back up this claim, please.

[The Senator]

Wow... we both had the same response...

[The Senator]

Wow... we both had the same response...

[The Senator]

Wow... we both had the same response...

[Sarge 2.0]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?Better question: how does Nitehawk resist flipping the magical switch in his brain that will suddenly turn him gay?

[Sarge 2.0]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?Better question: how does Nitehawk resist flipping the magical switch in his brain that will suddenly turn him gay?

[Sarge 2.0]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?Better question: how does Nitehawk resist flipping the magical switch in his brain that will suddenly turn him gay?

[Marx]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.

[Marx]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.

[Marx]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.

[Sarge 2.0]

Wow... we both had the same response...Perhaps because you and I are both, y'know, smart? That's probably why. :o

[Sarge 2.0]

Wow... we both had the same response...Perhaps because you and I are both, y'know, smart? That's probably why. :o

[Sarge 2.0]

Wow... we both had the same response...Perhaps because you and I are both, y'know, smart? That's probably why. :o

[Sarge 2.0]

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.Nitehawk seems to enjoy saying ridiculous things. :up:

[Sarge 2.0]

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.Nitehawk seems to enjoy saying ridiculous things. :up:

[Sarge 2.0]

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.Nitehawk seems to enjoy saying ridiculous things. :up:

[Marx]

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

I would still like to hear your answer to this, Nitehawk. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

I would still like to hear your answer to this, Nitehawk. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

I would still like to hear your answer to this, Nitehawk. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Nitehawk013]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

[Nitehawk013]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

[Nitehawk013]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

[Ion Kenshin]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.
SO denying people the right to get married to who they love is not depriving someone of a right?

[Ion Kenshin]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.
SO denying people the right to get married to who they love is not depriving someone of a right?

[Ion Kenshin]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.
SO denying people the right to get married to who they love is not depriving someone of a right?

[The Senator]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"

[The Senator]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"

[The Senator]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"

[Marx]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

I'm not saying that your opinion isn't a valid one. No one here is saying that. But for you to use such a small number of people 'choosing to be gay because it's cool' as your basis to deny millions of others the same basic rights that you have as a heterosexual is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a small minority choose to be gay that that somehow negates the millions of others who do not choose to be gay.

[Marx]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

I'm not saying that your opinion isn't a valid one. No one here is saying that. But for you to use such a small number of people 'choosing to be gay because it's cool' as your basis to deny millions of others the same basic rights that you have as a heterosexual is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a small minority choose to be gay that that somehow negates the millions of others who do not choose to be gay.

[Marx]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

I'm not saying that your opinion isn't a valid one. No one here is saying that. But for you to use such a small number of people 'choosing to be gay because it's cool' as your basis to deny millions of others the same basic rights that you have as a heterosexual is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a small minority choose to be gay that that somehow negates the millions of others who do not choose to be gay.

[Ion Kenshin]

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"
hahaha that made me think of family guy "hey look..it's one of them queer - o - sexuals :hehe:

[Ion Kenshin]

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"
hahaha that made me think of family guy "hey look..it's one of them queer - o - sexuals :hehe:

[Ion Kenshin]

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"
hahaha that made me think of family guy "hey look..it's one of them queer - o - sexuals :hehe:

[The Senator]

Also, I was brought up in a very heterosexual environment... and I just one day chose to be gay, according to Nitehawk. Strange... considering I didn't really know what gay was, and gays were considered the scapegoats for all of society's problems where I grew up...

[The Senator]

Also, I was brought up in a very heterosexual environment... and I just one day chose to be gay, according to Nitehawk. Strange... considering I didn't really know what gay was, and gays were considered the scapegoats for all of society's problems where I grew up...

[The Senator]

Also, I was brought up in a very heterosexual environment... and I just one day chose to be gay, according to Nitehawk. Strange... considering I didn't really know what gay was, and gays were considered the scapegoats for all of society's problems where I grew up...

[Nitehawk013]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

[The Senator]

Again, there is no scientific proof that God exists... which means, you choose to believe that God exists... which means, God didn't create us, using your logic...

[The Senator]

Again, there is no scientific proof that God exists... which means, you choose to believe that God exists... which means, God didn't create us, using your logic...

[The Senator]

Again, there is no scientific proof that God exists... which means, you choose to believe that God exists... which means, God didn't create us, using your logic...

[Ion Kenshin]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

[Ion Kenshin]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

[Ion Kenshin]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

[The Senator]

That, my friend, will never happen.

[The Senator]

That, my friend, will never happen.

[The Senator]

That, my friend, will never happen.

[redfirebird2008]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

So you think people choose to be ridiculed and treated badly by society? What person in their right mind would choose to be a pariah in society?

[redfirebird2008]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

So you think people choose to be ridiculed and treated badly by society? What person in their right mind would choose to be a pariah in society?

[redfirebird2008]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

So you think people choose to be ridiculed and treated badly by society? What person in their right mind would choose to be a pariah in society?

[Marx]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

Considering that alot of people whose oposition to gays and gay rights stems from their religion, I wouldn't look for that to happen.

[Marx]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

Considering that alot of people whose oposition to gays and gay rights stems from their religion, I wouldn't look for that to happen.

[Marx]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

Considering that alot of people whose oposition to gays and gay rights stems from their religion, I wouldn't look for that to happen.

[wiegeabo]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.


Yes, it's 2009. And the idea that their is a standard for what's normal is now archaic. There's no such thing as an absolute for what's normal or decent. In fact, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. (Actually, it's the only absolute is there's one absolute, but that's a bit of circular reasoning I'm not going to get into.)

Everything is relative. Even the things God says are bad are relative because he picked what's good and bad. And even changed his mind. Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth used to be right. Now it's been changed to turn the other cheek.


Even within religions, there are difference between what's normal and decent. Not to mention the differences between religions.


And then we go ahead and pick and choose from things like the Bible what are good and bad. The Bible said slavery is fine, and gives guidelines about treating slaves. Now, religions that use the Bible say slavery is bad. Who knows what's going to be considered good and bad in over the next hundred years.

[wiegeabo]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.


Yes, it's 2009. And the idea that their is a standard for what's normal is now archaic. There's no such thing as an absolute for what's normal or decent. In fact, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. (Actually, it's the only absolute is there's one absolute, but that's a bit of circular reasoning I'm not going to get into.)

Everything is relative. Even the things God says are bad are relative because he picked what's good and bad. And even changed his mind. Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth used to be right. Now it's been changed to turn the other cheek.


Even within religions, there are difference between what's normal and decent. Not to mention the differences between religions.


And then we go ahead and pick and choose from things like the Bible what are good and bad. The Bible said slavery is fine, and gives guidelines about treating slaves. Now, religions that use the Bible say slavery is bad. Who knows what's going to be considered good and bad in over the next hundred years.

[wiegeabo]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.


Yes, it's 2009. And the idea that their is a standard for what's normal is now archaic. There's no such thing as an absolute for what's normal or decent. In fact, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. (Actually, it's the only absolute is there's one absolute, but that's a bit of circular reasoning I'm not going to get into.)

Everything is relative. Even the things God says are bad are relative because he picked what's good and bad. And even changed his mind. Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth used to be right. Now it's been changed to turn the other cheek.


Even within religions, there are difference between what's normal and decent. Not to mention the differences between religions.


And then we go ahead and pick and choose from things like the Bible what are good and bad. The Bible said slavery is fine, and gives guidelines about treating slaves. Now, religions that use the Bible say slavery is bad. Who knows what's going to be considered good and bad in over the next hundred years.

[Nitehawk013]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

[Nitehawk013]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

[Nitehawk013]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

[The Senator]

Evolution doesn't state that every single person on the planet has to be a heterosexual in order for these changes to occur over time. There is documented evidence of homosexual behavior existing at all stages of human development. Considering we managed to evolve as a whole over time in spite of ancient homosexuality, I would claim that your analysis is still flawed.

[The Senator]

Evolution doesn't state that every single person on the planet has to be a heterosexual in order for these changes to occur over time. There is documented evidence of homosexual behavior existing at all stages of human development. Considering we managed to evolve as a whole over time in spite of ancient homosexuality, I would claim that your analysis is still flawed.

[The Senator]

Evolution doesn't state that every single person on the planet has to be a heterosexual in order for these changes to occur over time. There is documented evidence of homosexual behavior existing at all stages of human development. Considering we managed to evolve as a whole over time in spite of ancient homosexuality, I would claim that your analysis is still flawed.

[redfirebird2008]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

[redfirebird2008]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

[redfirebird2008]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

[Marx]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

[Marx]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

[Marx]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

[redfirebird2008]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

Exactly. He's just trying to come up with more and more ludicrous excuses for bigotry.

[redfirebird2008]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

Exactly. He's just trying to come up with more and more ludicrous excuses for bigotry.

[redfirebird2008]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

Exactly. He's just trying to come up with more and more ludicrous excuses for bigotry.

[Marx]

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

Exactly, Firebird.

[Marx]

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

Exactly, Firebird.

[Marx]

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

Exactly, Firebird.

[The Senator]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

That everyone should be narrow-minded bigots? :huh:

[The Senator]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

That everyone should be narrow-minded bigots? :huh:

[The Senator]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

That everyone should be narrow-minded bigots? :huh:

[Nitehawk013]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

[Nitehawk013]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

[Nitehawk013]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

[wiegeabo]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.


There's the rub. If homosexuals are hardwired to be gay from birth, then by your very logic, they were designed by God to be that way. Just because we haven't found conclusive proof they are doesn't mean they aren't.

If we were designed by God to be a certain way, then he wouldn't have allowed genetic mutation to change the way we are. In the beginning, humans were not Caucasian or Asian. We were either African or Middle Eastern (both evolutionary scientists and the Judeo-Christian faith agree that humanity started in some region in those areas). Does that mean because I'm white, there's something wrong with me because that's not how God designed us?

[wiegeabo]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.


There's the rub. If homosexuals are hardwired to be gay from birth, then by your very logic, they were designed by God to be that way. Just because we haven't found conclusive proof they are doesn't mean they aren't.

If we were designed by God to be a certain way, then he wouldn't have allowed genetic mutation to change the way we are. In the beginning, humans were not Caucasian or Asian. We were either African or Middle Eastern (both evolutionary scientists and the Judeo-Christian faith agree that humanity started in some region in those areas). Does that mean because I'm white, there's something wrong with me because that's not how God designed us?

[wiegeabo]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.


There's the rub. If homosexuals are hardwired to be gay from birth, then by your very logic, they were designed by God to be that way. Just because we haven't found conclusive proof they are doesn't mean they aren't.

If we were designed by God to be a certain way, then he wouldn't have allowed genetic mutation to change the way we are. In the beginning, humans were not Caucasian or Asian. We were either African or Middle Eastern (both evolutionary scientists and the Judeo-Christian faith agree that humanity started in some region in those areas). Does that mean because I'm white, there's something wrong with me because that's not how God designed us?

[The Senator]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

You obviously don't pay attention to what anyone else writes. Humanity has managed to evolve over time even with homosexuals present in society. If it could happen before, then surely it will happen again, even with what appears to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the world today.

[The Senator]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

You obviously don't pay attention to what anyone else writes. Humanity has managed to evolve over time even with homosexuals present in society. If it could happen before, then surely it will happen again, even with what appears to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the world today.

[The Senator]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

You obviously don't pay attention to what anyone else writes. Humanity has managed to evolve over time even with homosexuals present in society. If it could happen before, then surely it will happen again, even with what appears to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the world today.

[Marx]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

The argument here is about gay rights as well Nitehawk. (Not just 'is homosexuality a choice' or not.) When you take God out of the equation, there is still the law to take into account. Under law, gays do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

[Marx]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

The argument here is about gay rights as well Nitehawk. (Not just 'is homosexuality a choice' or not.) When you take God out of the equation, there is still the law to take into account. Under law, gays do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

[Marx]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

The argument here is about gay rights as well Nitehawk. (Not just 'is homosexuality a choice' or not.) When you take God out of the equation, there is still the law to take into account. Under law, gays do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

[redfirebird2008]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

[redfirebird2008]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

[redfirebird2008]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

[The Senator]

Also, may I just mention that the demonization of evolutionists by religious people for various reasons always makes me shake my head. Evolutionists would not want to execute homosexuals because they do not contribute to the advancement of the human race. Evolutionists tend to be rational, fair-minded people who don't allow their personal convictions to control how they view others over their own lifestyles. They view humanity as a whole, and that's it.

There is no pretense to judge others on. Of course, religious people are often subtly taught to judge and demonize others in their various congregations, so it only makes sense that they would apply those teachings to those who do not share their views, even though that analysis is dead wrong.

[The Senator]

Also, may I just mention that the demonization of evolutionists by religious people for various reasons always makes me shake my head. Evolutionists would not want to execute homosexuals because they do not contribute to the advancement of the human race. Evolutionists tend to be rational, fair-minded people who don't allow their personal convictions to control how they view others over their own lifestyles. They view humanity as a whole, and that's it.

There is no pretense to judge others on. Of course, religious people are often subtly taught to judge and demonize others in their various congregations, so it only makes sense that they would apply those teachings to those who do not share their views, even though that analysis is dead wrong.

[The Senator]

Also, may I just mention that the demonization of evolutionists by religious people for various reasons always makes me shake my head. Evolutionists would not want to execute homosexuals because they do not contribute to the advancement of the human race. Evolutionists tend to be rational, fair-minded people who don't allow their personal convictions to control how they view others over their own lifestyles. They view humanity as a whole, and that's it.

There is no pretense to judge others on. Of course, religious people are often subtly taught to judge and demonize others in their various congregations, so it only makes sense that they would apply those teachings to those who do not share their views, even though that analysis is dead wrong.

[wiegeabo]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.


Priests and nuns don't have offspring. Therefore they shouldn't have equality because they cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?


Evolution considers a species as a whole. Yes, there can be 'dead-ends' with certain individuals within a species. Like offspring being born infertile. All it means is that those individuals will not pass their genes to the next generation. Should a man or woman who is born infertile not get equal rights?

Evolution may argue that homosexuality might eventually be bred out of the population because those genes can't easily be passed on. But it doesn't argue that homosexuals can't contribute to the species in other ways, nor that they should be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else.

[wiegeabo]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.


Priests and nuns don't have offspring. Therefore they shouldn't have equality because they cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?


Evolution considers a species as a whole. Yes, there can be 'dead-ends' with certain individuals within a species. Like offspring being born infertile. All it means is that those individuals will not pass their genes to the next generation. Should a man or woman who is born infertile not get equal rights?

Evolution may argue that homosexuality might eventually be bred out of the population because those genes can't easily be passed on. But it doesn't argue that homosexuals can't contribute to the species in other ways, nor that they should be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else.

[wiegeabo]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.


Priests and nuns don't have offspring. Therefore they shouldn't have equality because they cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?


Evolution considers a species as a whole. Yes, there can be 'dead-ends' with certain individuals within a species. Like offspring being born infertile. All it means is that those individuals will not pass their genes to the next generation. Should a man or woman who is born infertile not get equal rights?

Evolution may argue that homosexuality might eventually be bred out of the population because those genes can't easily be passed on. But it doesn't argue that homosexuals can't contribute to the species in other ways, nor that they should be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else.

[Marx]

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would be appalled by the twisting of his beliefs.

[Marx]

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would be appalled by the twisting of his beliefs.

[Marx]

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would be appalled by the twisting of his beliefs.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm out for the day. I'll look back in on this tomorrow.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm out for the day. I'll look back in on this tomorrow.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm out for the day. I'll look back in on this tomorrow.

[Marx]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.


I assume you mean the same way that marriage has been preserved throughout the course of history? I'm sure you are aware that it was once considered normal and acceptable for a man to have many wives. I'm sure that you are aware that mutli-racial marriage was once illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history Nitehawk.


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

No one is calling you a Nazi.

[Marx]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.


I assume you mean the same way that marriage has been preserved throughout the course of history? I'm sure you are aware that it was once considered normal and acceptable for a man to have many wives. I'm sure that you are aware that mutli-racial marriage was once illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history Nitehawk.


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

No one is calling you a Nazi.

[Marx]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.


I assume you mean the same way that marriage has been preserved throughout the course of history? I'm sure you are aware that it was once considered normal and acceptable for a man to have many wives. I'm sure that you are aware that mutli-racial marriage was once illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history Nitehawk.


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

No one is calling you a Nazi.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

50 years from now, your line of thinking will be a pariah in society just like racists are a pariah today. This is a matter of civil rights. There is no "gray" area on it. Either you support civil rights or you don't. Don't hide behind religion as an excuse to deny others their civil rights. Your argument sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" garbage from racists.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

50 years from now, your line of thinking will be a pariah in society just like racists are a pariah today. This is a matter of civil rights. There is no "gray" area on it. Either you support civil rights or you don't. Don't hide behind religion as an excuse to deny others their civil rights. Your argument sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" garbage from racists.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

50 years from now, your line of thinking will be a pariah in society just like racists are a pariah today. This is a matter of civil rights. There is no "gray" area on it. Either you support civil rights or you don't. Don't hide behind religion as an excuse to deny others their civil rights. Your argument sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" garbage from racists.

[The Senator]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

Except that evolutionists don't spend their time trying to demonize groups of people while trying to legislate morality. Basically, it becomes scary because you have concocted a backwards piece of fiction in your head which inadequately characterizes the evolutionist and humanist standpoint. In fact, you completely refute the humanist standpoint altogether with your above analysis, considering humanists believe that we are all equal and that there isn't grounds for societal injustice.

So... you don't really know what you're talking about... and should consider discussing something else before you dig yourself an even deeper hole...


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

[The Senator]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

Except that evolutionists don't spend their time trying to demonize groups of people while trying to legislate morality. Basically, it becomes scary because you have concocted a backwards piece of fiction in your head which inadequately characterizes the evolutionist and humanist standpoint. In fact, you completely refute the humanist standpoint altogether with your above analysis, considering humanists believe that we are all equal and that there isn't grounds for societal injustice.

So... you don't really know what you're talking about... and should consider discussing something else before you dig yourself an even deeper hole...


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

[The Senator]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

Except that evolutionists don't spend their time trying to demonize groups of people while trying to legislate morality. Basically, it becomes scary because you have concocted a backwards piece of fiction in your head which inadequately characterizes the evolutionist and humanist standpoint. In fact, you completely refute the humanist standpoint altogether with your above analysis, considering humanists believe that we are all equal and that there isn't grounds for societal injustice.

So... you don't really know what you're talking about... and should consider discussing something else before you dig yourself an even deeper hole...


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

[redfirebird2008]

No one is doing that.

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

No one is doing that.

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

No one is doing that.

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

[The Senator]

"I love gay people... I just don't think they're as worthy of God's love as straight people are."

How compassionate.

[The Senator]

"I love gay people... I just don't think they're as worthy of God's love as straight people are."

How compassionate.

[The Senator]

"I love gay people... I just don't think they're as worthy of God's love as straight people are."

How compassionate.

[Marx]

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

[Marx]

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

[Marx]

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

[Marx]

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

[Marx]

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

[Marx]

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

[The Senator]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

[The Senator]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

[The Senator]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

:hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

:hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

:hehe:

[Marx]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

Hello, Mr. Random.

I have no clue.

[Marx]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

Hello, Mr. Random.

I have no clue.

[Marx]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

Hello, Mr. Random.

I have no clue.

[The Senator]

Not on "probationary ban," either, but flat-out banned...

[The Senator]

Not on "probationary ban," either, but flat-out banned...

[The Senator]

Not on "probationary ban," either, but flat-out banned...

[Holiday]

I thought he was banned after the "I like calling our future president Barak Hussein, it's my own personal way of disrespecting him..." thing.

[Holiday]

I thought he was banned after the "I like calling our future president Barak Hussein, it's my own personal way of disrespecting him..." thing.

[Holiday]

I thought he was banned after the "I like calling our future president Barak Hussein, it's my own personal way of disrespecting him..." thing.

[wiegeabo]

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

[wiegeabo]

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

[wiegeabo]

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

[Marx]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that churches should be made to recognize gays and gay marriage. Churches should have the choice.

[Marx]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that churches should be made to recognize gays and gay marriage. Churches should have the choice.

[Marx]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that churches should be made to recognize gays and gay marriage. Churches should have the choice.

[redfirebird2008]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

[redfirebird2008]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

[redfirebird2008]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

[wiegeabo]

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?


Agreed. I live under the philosophy that, if you're not doing me harm, live however you want to live.

Basically, if it really is bad, let God sort it all out in the end. The last thing I want to do is tick off God fighting against something 'bad' when it turns out God's actually ok with it.


I also firmly believe in the idea, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Which is why I'm trying to be purely logical in my arguments and not attack.

[wiegeabo]

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?


Agreed. I live under the philosophy that, if you're not doing me harm, live however you want to live.

Basically, if it really is bad, let God sort it all out in the end. The last thing I want to do is tick off God fighting against something 'bad' when it turns out God's actually ok with it.


I also firmly believe in the idea, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Which is why I'm trying to be purely logical in my arguments and not attack.

[wiegeabo]

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?


Agreed. I live under the philosophy that, if you're not doing me harm, live however you want to live.

Basically, if it really is bad, let God sort it all out in the end. The last thing I want to do is tick off God fighting against something 'bad' when it turns out God's actually ok with it.


I also firmly believe in the idea, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Which is why I'm trying to be purely logical in my arguments and not attack.

[wiegeabo]

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

I was just making the logical argument about why the State should guarantee equal rights to marriage for homosexuals.

Freedom of religion says the States should treat all churches equally, which in this case is letting them decide who they want to marry. And equal protection under the law says the same thing about non-religious marriages.

Essentially, the State should recognize and treat all marriages equally. Religious beliefs should have no bearing on the State's view.

[wiegeabo]

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

I was just making the logical argument about why the State should guarantee equal rights to marriage for homosexuals.

Freedom of religion says the States should treat all churches equally, which in this case is letting them decide who they want to marry. And equal protection under the law says the same thing about non-religious marriages.

Essentially, the State should recognize and treat all marriages equally. Religious beliefs should have no bearing on the State's view.