Homosexuality: A Survey

[Tawi]

I took the time to study my own faith and I'm sure others did as well so don't go making that sweeping statement.

For having studied your own faith, you sure don't seem to be able to debate your own arguments with any level of logic or science.

Also, it'd be nice if you stopped lumping everyone who isn't catholic or has anything to say about the Bible that you don't agree with in as atheist.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a godless heathen.

Excuse me for being young and inexperienced but I don't think I did that bad of a job. Also just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my posts should be taken as something without any level of logic or science. Also, I never (offensively) lumped anyone who wasn't Catholic. If I did, quote it, i'll apologize if necessary. Oh, and I never spoke negatively about atheists on this thread, neither did I call you guys anything close to a godless heathen. As far as I'm concerned,  I've been civil in stating my agruments and beliefs on this board. I made errors but apologized. I don't see the logic behind that seemingly hostile response of yours.

[Tawi]

Here it is

As a Christian, I believe that gay marriage is wrong because it is unhealthy to its participants, unnatural, and is an attempt to break the definition of traditional marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It allows the couple to grow in unity and give birth to new life. Sex is both procreative and unitive, sex must be open to life. Homosexual sex on the other hand isn’t, for under no circumstance is it possible for two people of the same sex to bear a child.

I think every child should have the right to be brought up by both a father and a mother and I think it is wrong for homosexual people to adopt children. I personally can’t imagine myself as I am today had I been raised by two men or women. And I don’t think anyone would want their children to grow up in a homosexual environment either. When children are raised by homosexual couples, they are being deprived of certain privileges that only a father or a mother can provide. Since marriage and family are the foundations for a healthy society I think we should think more carefully about the agenda we are pushing. If gay marriage is legalized, it will bring about several problems with it.

A homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be unhealthy.  Homosexual lifestyles place its participants at a higher risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, homosexual relationships have also been known to be short-lived and are overall, a bad environment to raise children. Traditional Marriage improves the health of its participants while homosexual relationships do the opposite.

I agree that homosexuals should be treated with respect and compassion but to legalize marriage between the same sexes is wrong.

I believe traditional marriage should be defended.

---border----

This topic was made for people to discuss the topic and express their thoughts about it. Lets keep everything civil. Hopefully, this is something we can all come out of this without any ill feelings towards each other. This will probably be the my last main post on this thread, I just wanted to lay down my convictions on the topic and perhaps the feelings of others as well who have not posted. Of course, if you want to criticize it again, go ahead, this is just a recap of everything anyway. See you guys around in Detective Conan threads, we'll surely get along better over there.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but if gay marriage does pass as a national law it will force religious groups to perform it? If so, then include that as well.

[Tawi]

The difference, Tawi, between gay marriage and incest/suicide is that gay marriage DOES NOT HURT ANYONE.

Incest is frowned upon because it could cause trouble (in regards to health) for any offspring born of that union. Suicide is frowned upon because it takes a human life. Gay marriage is not comparable to either of those things.

Hey Phoenix

But Homosexual lifestyles have been proven to be unhealthy. But okay, assuming homosexual lifestyles weren't health, and going along the reasoning of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Then what about polygamy? It doesn't hurt anyone. It's the person's choice to have more than one wife. But of course, the idea is frowned upon in both of our cultures.

Here are a few sources supporting my stance that homosexual lifestyles are unhealthy.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu ... vmNutTrq5I
http://www.china.org.cn/english/health/232116.htm
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/

Alright, I got everything off my chest. I'll wait for your reply Phoenix since you are sleeping at the moment. After that, consider my time here done. Good Night.

[Kor]

I think every child should have the right to be brought up by both a father and a mother and I think it is wrong for homosexual people to adopt children. I personally can’t imagine myself as I am today had I been raised by two men or women.

Here's another thing, you also wouldn't be able to imagine yourself as you are today had you been raised in a jewish family. So your imagination has nothing to do with anything.

When children are raised by homosexual couples, they are being deprived of certain privileges that only a father or a mother can provide.

The same thing can be said about "normal" families in which the mother died at birth, or the father died. Or maybe one of the parents suddenly left at the early years. And you also have divorces and stuff like that - all of which bring to the same result that there might not be a mother or a father. What's the solution then? Make divorce illegal? Take away children from single mothers or single families and give them to families that both parents are there?

A homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be unhealthy.  Homosexual lifestyles place its participants at a higher risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, homosexual relationships have also been known to be short-lived and are overall, a bad environment to raise children. Traditional Marriage improves the health of its participants while homosexual relationships do the opposite.

....sources....?

[Kleene Onigiri]

Anyway, first I wanna know, if we also talk about church marriage to be allowed for gay couples, or just state marriage, or marriage in general O_o

In America, it's marriage in general.  The religious nuts lobby and bitch about it, regardless of whether it's done in a church or a statehouse.  They feel "their holy word" would be tarnished.  Because obviously it isn't tarnished by trashy celebrities getting married and then divorced less than a week later.

Ah, I see~
Sounds like Poland :x

All you did was completely avoid my arguemeant. I guess that is a overused Christian response? and i didn't list any contradictions, i listed beliefs that are no longer practiced. I would like to hear a actual argumeant against that, and not you just avoiding it.

The difference, Tawi, between gay marriage and incest/suicide is that gay marriage DOES NOT HURT ANYONE.

Incest is frowned upon because it could cause trouble (in regards to health) for any offspring born of that union. Suicide is frowned upon because it takes a human life. Gay marriage is not comparable to either of those things.

And I don't see how allowing homosexuals to get married will bring a rise in moral degradation, but that's pretty much the argument any religious conservative will use to ban gay marriage.

The real problem here is that religious people use that argument to blame homosexuals for things other people. That gay marriage will bring about a rise in moral degradation is absolutely false, and complete nonsense if you were to think about it with real logic rather than "morals" that have been pounded into your head by someone who thinks they have a higher morality than everyone around them.

@Tawi:
Religion is a touchy subject because those who practice it have been taught not to question things and to just accept the teachings as true, and are therefore not open to being told they may need to stop and consider what it actually is that they're being taught.

Christians of all denominations boast about their loving god...

You guys don't want that people generalize Homosexuals as "bad people" because they maybe had a bad experience with one. Since generalizing is almost always bad. So wanting that is good <3
But then, why are you generalizing people yourself? You generalize all religious people or Christians as "stubborn", "people that don't listen", "People that try to avoid arguments", "people that force their believe onto others", "Believers are illogical and can't argument", "they are naive" maybe even as much as thinking that all priests are child abusers...

"I guess that is a overused Christian response?" "argument any religious conservative will use"  "Religion is a touchy subject because those who practice it have been taught not to question things and to just accept the teachings as true, and are therefore not open to being told they may need to stop and consider what it actually is that they're being taught."
And other statements in this thread :/

Those are all statements that generalize religious or believing people in a bad way imo.
Maybe I'm stubborn, but I definitely listen to other peoples arguments and opinion. I don't think I try to force my own opinions on others, but try to explain them, like others too.
I try to give my arguments logical reason and explain things clearly too.
I also wasn't taught to not question things, no it's the opposite actually. So, yeah D:
So don't lump me and others together in a bad way D: You don't want that either.

I could feel offended now, lumping me together and generalizing me. But I know that the ones I quoted and others don't mean it like that. That's why I'm not offended. Cuz you guys are awesome <3
But still, you should also watch out if you end up generalizing people during an argument Because it's not a nice feeling reading that

If you want a debate, respond to every bit of my former post in detail, point by point, with no outside links. Quotes from links are fine, but linking to outside articles that retain only a cursory bearing on the subject at hand is not. I will not respond to any further post of yours, including one replying to what I've said above in this post, until my original post is addressed because it feels as if you are completely avoiding the issue throughout this topic. You aren't actually responding to anything and instead are just making excuses from start to finish. Actively avoiding every criticism and only "directly" responding to what you feel is something you can defend without relying on specifics makes your argument weaker, not stronger. I don't have time to run in circles with you--I leave the circular logic to the apologists, because they've made an art form out of avoiding reality.

You didn't respond to my post before either. If you want others to respond to every tiny bit you post, you should do that too imo :/

I took the time to study my own faith and I'm sure others did as well so don't go making that sweeping statement.

For having studied your own faith, you sure don't seem to be able to debate your own arguments with any level of logic or science.

Also, it'd be nice if you stopped lumping everyone who isn't catholic or has anything to say about the Bible that you don't agree with in as atheist.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a godless heathen.

That applies to you too. Just because they are some hardcore fanatic religious people don't think that every religious person is like that.

"bang young boys" isn't exactly a pleasant thing to hear, then again, there's no other way to say it right?

Pretty much.  What they did was despicable.

Just as religious clergy are painted for child molestation, a homosexual lifestyle is usually associated to something unhealthy. Why? Because there is truth behind it. If one would do a quick google search, he would find a lot of information backing my stance (that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy). The link I will post is a tad outdated, but it's comphrensive and well-researched, I believe it's a good read. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/

I'm sorry, but its first "fact" is that homosexual marriages are short-lived.  That's obvious bullshit.  Not only is the majority of their data 30+ years old (as their most recent data point is from "the 1980's"), but it has nothing to do with actual marriage.  I'm not even going to dignify it with any further reading, especially if they consider that to be "unhealthy".  What about all the celebrity marriages, or even just drunken Vegas marriages, that are undone within a week?
Could've fooled me.

GinRei, you yourself wanted some facts, and now, when Tawi posted a study, which isn't from the church, you don't want to even read it? That's not really showing respect to the other one you're debating with. Considering Tawi took the time to search and reply to all your post politely, even tho you tend to go to reply not so polite...

Saying that the study is "outdated" is a weak arguments, tho I expected that. 30 years isn't a long time where people would change dramatically.
It took ages for Nazi germany to abandon the thought that jews are bad. And there are still people that think like that today.

Now, if you believe that study or if you think that study was manipulated is a different thing. But you can do that with every and any study. "Don't believe a study you didn't manipulate yourself"

Since you didn't read the study, here a small summary:
It says marriage for gays is more unhealthy, because once they have a "monogamic" relationship, they stop using protection in order to show that they trust their partner. But according to numbers, they still have other partners too, and "married couples" seem to spread diseases more, because they don't use protections in marriages.
Thus, a gay marriage is "unhealthier" than having a lot of different partners. (because of using protection or not using it)
Another unhealthy aspect is, that a lot of homosexual people practice anal-oral-sex and even drink urine (which is unhealthy because it's unhygienic).
That is all according to studies they did.

Another aspect was, that the domestic violence is higher in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships also have higher domestic violence than married heterosexual couples. (prolly because you wouldn't marry a violent person XD)
Also, all according to studies.

They also compared step parents that are heterosexual to homosexual ones. And according to studies, homosexual stepparents abuse/molest  their children more than heterosexual stepparents.

They also compared the children. And children from Married heterosexual couples are better in school than children from unmarried heterosexual parents. And children from homosexuals couples are on the 3rd place.

Again, whether this study is true or not, I can't say. But if it's true, then saying that gay marriage is "dangerous" can be backed up by that study.
Don't take any offense please D: I find studies in general not to be a reliable source. And it was just a summary now, it's not my opinion or anything.

I'm a bit confused by your terminology. "Roman Pope Catholics" are the only kind of Catholics that exist. Anyway who does not accept the pope as the head of their church is not Catholic. Anglicanism and Catholicism are extremely similar doctrinally speaking, but they is still a strong division.

Why? O_o
You could also not accept the American president, but that doesn't mean you're not American anymore D:

I'd be willing to bet cold hard cash that in 75 years or less, the Catholic Church will accept homosexual marriage or be subject to a series of schisms that fracture a chunk of its base in Europe and North America.

That bet is mean XD If it's 75 years, then I'm dead before I can see it happening XD

Also *hugs sonoci* <3
There was also other stuff I wanted to say, but I'll leave it as it is for now XD

[Stopwatch]

Okay! Subject change all! What're your opinions on the representation of same-sex relationships in the media?

*hopes this doesn't turn violent*

*Torchwood fan btw*

(And, yes, this is my attempt to calm things down before the thread is locked )

[ProfParanoia]

But Homosexual lifestyles have been proven to be unhealthy. But okay, assuming homosexual lifestyles weren't health, and going along the reasoning of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Then what about polygamy? It doesn't hurt anyone. It's the person's choice to have more than one wife. But of course, the idea is frowned upon in both of our cultures.

Here are a few sources supporting my stance that homosexual lifestyles are unhealthy.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu ... vmNutTrq5I
http://www.china.org.cn/english/health/232116.htm
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/

Alright, I got everything off my chest. I'll wait for your reply Phoenix since you are sleeping at the moment. After that, consider my time here done. Good Night.

1. "Santorum production rising" and "unhealthy living" don't really fit the same category. Also, polygamy leads to a lot of people using it as a means of dodging payments and taxes. So while in concept it's usually not bad, it often leads to an economic abuse.

2. @ First Article: A lot of their articles are more opinion based then anything else, and their opinion is essentially deciding how every family should live or decided within faction that have no family tie. And in one article they state that doctors should have the right to not give health care to parents who used any form of safe sex. Plus, if something based around opinions on how families should be is probably pandering.
@ Second/Fourth Articles: http://oneutah.org/utah-politics/critiq ... n-at-risk/
@ Third Article: I don't think that something from the China Daily is the most accurate source.

3. I doubt that.

@Stopwatch: The more personal works like Angels in America and such are very effective, but overall there are still a lot of stereotypes being forced that I dont think people even realize. It's like a vampire, people just assume certain rules of their characters ahead of time.

@Prof The problem is how long do people have to wait to see the changes we already know are correct right now? Goodnight lady below

Yes, and while I feel like this should have been over a long time ago, sadly there's more support to be given.

[Edogawa4869]

Also correct me if I'm wrong but if gay marriage does pass as a national law it will force religious groups to perform it? If so, then include that as well.

As far as I understand it, this is incorrect.  When discussing "gay marriage," it's referring to the legal aspect of marriage; the actual marriage contract (do we still have these? ^^'') and license that get filed away in some drawer for government records, tax purposes, and things of that nature.  Religion is a completely different part of the debate. We still have the freedom to practice religion, (unfortunately) even if that means barring people of the same sex from marrying each other.

[Jd-]

You didn't respond to my post before either. If you want others to respond to every tiny bit you post, you should do that too imo :/

No, that's a GRAND misrepresentation of the issue. He "responded" to my post while completely avoiding the issue and without addressing anything I had said, instead linking me to an arbitrary article that bore little relevance to the discussion at hand and expected it to serve as a sufficient response (well-knowing that he didn't have a retort on-hand to what I had said). That was the problem and that was the reason I asked for a proper response if he wished to have further discussion. If someone speaks to me, you can tell from the length of my posts that I generally try to address every little thing they've said--look at our past discussions as an example. I make an active effort not to overlook a single line and try to offer retorts to everything. I do my best not to miss anything because I don't want to pick and choose which lines to make my defense against.

Also, I didn't think I needed to respond to your post because it didn't like... seem to be addressed to me. I read it and it seemed to be a comment on the topic at large and didn't seem to seem to be designed to solicit an opinion from me. Here's a response to the part that seems to be directed at me:

Yo yo yo, Jd- \o/ Let's get stoned *shares some drugs with Jd* XD
Wait... *plans a evil scheme so that Jd- visits her*

Somehow, the bible texts and stuff seem off-topic :V

I don't do drugs, but thanks for the offer~

And the Bible discussion is FAR from being off topic. There is no reason to legally prohibit gay marriage that isn't rooted in religion. Personal preference is not a valid reason and neither is religion, but since the religion one has taken hold in the mainstream religious community's consciousness, it must be discussed and it has been in this very topic. If people feel comfortable sharing their views that are specifically intended to keep good people from being equal to them, then they deserve to be challenged and they know it's going to happen. If your views are valid, you should be able to defend them with ease. If not, it may be time to question those views.

This issue has been polarized for far too long because of people's fear of discussing religion, and here, we're discussing why religion should stay away from the issue altogether. If religious fanatics will stop citing God as a reason that gay people can't be happy, then no one will bring religion up in this discussion ever again. That's just how it works.

before the thread is locked

I doooon't see that happening. This is an issue that has been held down for so long that it warrants discussion in the public arena, in every community around the world, whether it be digital or not. To hinder the discussion would be abetting those that have fought so long to keep it out of the spotlight, and I won't be a part of that anymore, personally. It may only be one very small part, but it's time for people to send a message and say that leveraging the law to keep people from being happy as a result of personal preference or ESPECIALLY religious reasons is not OK.

If someone gets offended at others just trying to ensure that every human being is afforded equal opportunity to live a happy life as they see fit and are offended at that being discussed in any form, I have only one word to offer in reply:

Spoiler:

GOOD.

[ProfParanoia]

Also correct me if I'm wrong but if gay marriage does pass as a national law it will force religious groups to perform it? If so, then include that as well.

As far as I understand it, this is incorrect.  When discussing "gay marriage," it's referring to the legal aspect of marriage; the actual marriage contract (do we still have these? ^^'') and license that get filed away in some drawer for government records, tax purposes, and things of that nature.  Religion is a completely different part of the debate. We still have the freedom to practice religion, (unfortunately) even if that means barring people of the same sex from marrying each other.

You're right, technically you could not allow people to get married because they're black or ugly. The thing is that since those have both been legal for a long time, refusing to do it would be looked at as particularly douchey (since it is). There is next to no real registration religious practices (even the one where kids wont get medical help because it's evil), it's mostly just indoctrination and severe abuse that are frowned upon legally.

[Kleene Onigiri]

I found it "off-topic" because the bible texts and rules you quoted back then was about rape, slavery and stuff. Which seemed a bit like comparing homosexuality with that O_o"
Maybe that was just my impression on it :V

Anyway, tawi provided some links to studies, which weren't even really mentioned by a lot of people here.
Those studies weren't church related (not all). Still, people just overlooked them mostly, saying the only reason given by tawi is the bible (which is not true anymore for tawis case)
And, like said before, if you accept those studies or not, is ironically, a matter of believing them or not :x lol


About equal opportunity. Sadly, you can't really make that possible for everyone. And even if you could, it'll be "too expensive" >:(
As a diabetic, I need to get checked every year when I wanna get/keep my driving license. If I happen to get into a accident, whether it was my fault or not, it's usually will be my fault because I have diabetes.
People that are over 80 years don't have to be checked at all, even tho the risk that they could get a heart attack while driving is high enough to make regular check ups for them too.
That's not equal.
It's even worse for people or children that are blind or deaf etc. Those children can't visit normal schools, but go to special schools, where their chances to get a good job sink drastically. Because no one cares about sick people anyway. Which is wrong.

[ProfParanoia]

I found it "off-topic" because the bible texts and rules you quoted back then was about rape, slavery and stuff. Which seemed a bit like comparing homosexuality with that O_o"
Maybe that was just my impression on it :V

Well, in doing that, it dis-values the anti-gay argument and shows how similar arguments have been used to defend other practices that today we would find disgusting. So I feel it's applicable.

[Edogawa4869]

[s]I found it "off-topic" because the bible texts and rules you quoted back then was about rape, slavery and stuff. Which seemed a bit like comparing homosexuality with that O_o"
Maybe that was just my impression on it :V[/s]

The only reason (I think, anyway) that those Biblical texts were included were to show other instances where the Bible has been influenced by what was deemed "right" during the time that it was written in.  And emphasize how wrong they are now.  Therefore, as the argument continues, why shouldn't the Bible be wrong on this issue too?

RM'ed :V

[Jd-]

I found it "off-topic" because the bible texts and rules you quoted back then was about rape, slavery and stuff. Which seemed a bit like comparing homosexuality with that O_o"
Maybe that was just my impression on it :V

Well, in doing that, it dis-values the anti-gay argument and shows how similar arguments have been used to defend other practices that today we would find disgusting. So I feel it's applicable.

I found it "off-topic" because the bible texts and rules you quoted back then was about rape, slavery and stuff. Which seemed a bit like comparing homosexuality with that O_o"
Maybe that was just my impression on it :V

The only reason (I think, anyway) that those Biblical texts were included were to show other instances where the Bible has been influenced by what was deemed "right" during the time that it was written in.  And emphasize how wrong they are now.  Therefore, as the argument continues, why shouldn't the Bible be wrong on this issue too?

You are both absolutely correct.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Maybe "off-topic" was the wrong word. Maybe "exaggerating the argument" would be a bit better?
But maybe Jd- wall-of-post are just scary XD

Tho you still avoid the studies :x