confusion on homosexuality debate

[SEXY-FETUS]

This debate has plauged me for a while and my stance is still unsure as an athiest conservative.
First I find it odd that when people try to talk me to the pro side of the debate I always hear "you have to be open minded about things" and then they tell me homosexuals are just born that way, thats confusing to be open minded about something and then to just blindly accept it.
Second I always hear "you shouldn't enforce your morals on someone else" when it comes to the decision of allowing homosexual marriage. Thats just a dumb argument. Isn't that the point of every law? Could I not just as easily argue that I should be able to murder because that is christian beliefs that have forced upon me? Then who is to decide what is "moral" and allowable? Should it be left to religion? no. How about our elected officials? Closer. It should be left to the people, but then you come to the conclusion that since we have mainly a christian population in the us that it is religion deciding our countries morality by proxy. and then if we dismis that then we are saying that a particular persons opinion is void due to there religious beliefs wich is every bit as wrong as denying someone freedom due to there sexual disposition.
Ok third. Homosexuality as a mental disease. If homosexuality is not a choice then it's easy to assume that an abnormal thought process in terms of atraction and affection, wich by definition would be assumed as a mental disease, but along those lines no mental health profesional (with a few exceptions) looks at homosexuality as a disease or abnormality. I find that very odd considering almost every other abnormal sexual disposition is placed under choice or disease. Now if it is to be presumed as any of the two then we can assume that neither is written in stone and could be changed thus assuming that we don't have to accept it as a difference, but as a challenge for one to overcome. The trouble I find with this is that if homosexuality is ever comepletly accepted then that would make any research towards a cure politicaly incorrect and would only be done by religious nuts with no funding. That would leave a major dis-service to those who are homosexual and do not wish to be. But then why do they wish not to be? If it is accepted would it not be just as easy to assume that nobody would feel wrong or doubt about what they are due to outside influences.
Fifth. The only arguments against homosexuality is lifestyle dangers and religion. I've already dropped religion as anything worth looking at in a debate among different beliefs. Lifestyle is what gets me, its obvious that homosexual males sex life entitles some bodily harm in return for pleasure. Does that mean that males should not be accepted, but females should? Also aren't people entitled to take risks for themselves? Then there is the high risk for HIV and other STDs. Is this due to lifestyle and ignorance of safety? I don't think so, I like to think of it as a sexual russian rullette. The gay community is alot smaller then the straight, meaning that risk goes up. So if me and a gay friend were lookin to get some and there was a group of 100 people then we could assume that 10% are gay for this example now lets cut out half and half for the straight males in my group and the gay females in his that leaves him with 5 different people to choose from and me 45 now lets assume out of each one person has HIV, while I only have about a 2% chance of picking the infected person he has a 20% chance. Should we judge someone because they got the crap end of the draw?

With all this I'm very confused I feel that morality should be left to the people, but with everybody having a tainted opinion wich side do I choose or do I just leave it to the people that are truly passionate on the subject?
This may be a runner for the longest second post ever.

[BAWLS]

Concerning the "they were born like that" argument:

It doesn't MATTER. Whether it's genetic inheritance, some sort of disorder or simply a choice, there's absolutly no harm in giving gay couples the same rights and privleges given to straight couples.

[capn-g]

You could always try not caring either way, I know it works wonders for me.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 6/1/05 11:10 PM, capn_g wrote: You could always try not caring either way, I know it works wonders for me.

Nope. No way. Then you wouldn't be a 'kind, caring, empathetic human being'. And you know, you have to be kind, caring, empathitic, and personally tolerant of everything. '
Not caring either way' shows that you're a racist homophobic, who hates woman and looks at child porn.
And Americans don't like someone who isn't all up in someone's business. And if you 'don't care either way', you won't be up in someone's business. God forbid that.
Right? Or no?

[FAtmat666]

At 6/1/05 11:16 PM, _FLAGG wrote:

At 6/1/05 11:10 PM, capn_g wrote: You could always try not caring either way, I know it works wonders for me.

Nope. No way. Then you wouldn't be a 'kind, caring, empathetic human being'. And you know, you have to be kind, caring, empathitic, and personally tolerant of everything. '
Not caring either way' shows that you're a racist homophobic, who hates woman and looks at child porn.
And Americans don't like someone who isn't all up in someone's business. And if you 'don't care either way', you won't be up in someone's business. God forbid that.
Right? Or no?

Amen. America, if not the world, has become a place where if you don't have an opinion on anything, you're against both sides. like bush said: "you're either with us, or against us."

[capn-g]

Good thing I'm not an American then.

[AwkwardSilence]

At 6/1/05 11:16 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Nope. No way. Then you wouldn't be a 'kind, caring, empathetic human being'. And you know, you have to be kind, caring, empathitic, and personally tolerant of everything. '
Not caring either way' shows that you're a racist homophobic, who hates woman and looks at child porn.
And Americans don't like someone who isn't all up in someone's business. And if you 'don't care either way', you won't be up in someone's business. God forbid that.
Right? Or no?

Actually no, I think it just proves you don't care about people. Which is you certainly have the right to do, but I mean, it kind of IS self-defined as fucked up if you don't care about what happens to people because they are different from you.
Anyways, it's a moot point. Because someone like you DOES care, you just care about shutting down the people who do give a damn. If you really didn't care you would let gay rights activists petition for gay marriage and adoption rights and all that or whatever other group you aren't caring about. But fact is you are at least pretty vocal about your views on this message board, which is fine more power to ya, but don't tell me you don't care when really you just don't like the idea that someone thinks you're on the wrong side of a battle.

[bumcheekcity]

I am also atheist, although liberal, so I can empathise with your viewpoint. I ask myself this question,m and find this answer when I am asked about homosexual marriage/in general.

"Do I find two men/two women living together in a sexual relationship morally wrong?"
"No, I don't think I do."

When a smartarse follows up with something along the lines of "Oh yeah? Why can't we marry our DOGS then?"

"Do I find a man and an animal living together in a sexual relationship morally wrong?"
"Yes, yes I do."

There. My morals, and I dont know where they come from, just tell me "This is right" or "This is wrong." It's the inbulit thing that stops me from stabbing people, and makes me help old ladies across the street. Just ask yourself weather you think it morally wrong. Do you?

[SeacrestOut]

I personally don't believe it is a chosen lifestyle (in most cases) and most certainly not a disease, I think they were born that way. But even if I'm wrong (which I very well could be) I wouldn't care anyway. All I see are people who are suffering because their loved ones or society or whatever can't accept them for who they are. It breaks my heart. I can't imagine what it would be like to be told I can't marry the person I love because "people think its weird" or "the bible says its wrong", especially if I wasn't Jewish/Christian. All they want to do is be happy with the person I love, I think they should be able to make the ultimate commitment if they choose to do so. If a specific church refuses to marry a gay couple, fine; that would be unconstitutional. But there are plenty of other religions or a JP could be used. They deserve our respect, anyway. I will always support them all the way.

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 6/1/05 11:10 PM, capn_g wrote: You could always try not caring either way, I know it works wonders for me.

I think that's the best way to go. I really don't give a shit why someone would want to have sex with someone of the same sex. Seriously... it's none of my business.

[drDAK]

At 6/1/05 10:09 PM, -BAWLS- wrote: Concerning the "they were born like that" argument:

Anything's possible. Hence, there are people born homosexual.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 6/2/05 12:50 AM, AwkwardSilence wrote:

At 6/1/05 11:16 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Nope. No way. Then you wouldn't be a 'kind, caring, empathetic human being'. And you know, you have to be kind, caring, empathitic, and personally tolerant of everything. '
Not caring either way' shows that you're a racist homophobic, who hates woman and looks at child porn.
And Americans don't like someone who isn't all up in someone's business. And if you 'don't care either way', you won't be up in someone's business. God forbid that.
Right? Or no?

Actually no, I think it just proves you don't care about people.

When you say 'you', in that sentance...are you speaking generally, as I was? Or are you refferring to me?

Because someone like you DOES care, you just care about shutting down the people who do give a damn. If you really didn't care you would let gay rights activists petition for gay marriage and adoption rights and all that or whatever other group you aren't caring about.

Do you even know anything about me? Or are you just speaking generally, again?

but don't tell me you don't care when really you just don't like the idea that someone thinks you're on the wrong side of a battle.

I never said I didn't care, did I? You misread my post.
I simply said that when someone excercises the right to not insert themselves into everyone else's business....America acts like they're a hatemonger.

Pay attention to what I say. Not every point I make in a post directly reflects my beliefs.
I wouldn't quite call it 'playing devil's advocate', mostly because I hate that term.
But it's something quite close.

[Pluto-from-Below]

At 6/1/05 09:55 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Second I always hear "you shouldn't enforce your morals on someone else" when it comes to the decision of allowing homosexual marriage. Thats just a dumb argument. Isn't that the point of every law?

You make a thinking mistake here: laws are about things that affects a number of people. While homosexual marriage just affect the two people who want it.

.... but along those lines no mental health profesional (with a few exceptions) looks at homosexuality as a disease or abnormality. I find that very odd considering almost every other abnormal sexual disposition is placed under choice or disease....

I don't think many sexual dispositions are seen as a disease, just childporn and very extreme others. (or am i wrong here)

Lifestyle is what gets me, its obvious that homosexual males sex life entitles some bodily harm in return for pleasure.

Is that obvious? Homosexual people can love the same as hetrosexual people, it is not only the leather suit dancing parade darkroom stuff.

I hope i did understand you right, i hope you will understand me right, i'm not really sure about the first thing, but i hope i did understand it.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 6/2/05 02:24 PM, Pluto_from_Below wrote:

At 6/1/05 09:55 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Second I always hear "you shouldn't enforce your morals on someone else" when it comes to the decision of allowing homosexual marriage. Thats just a dumb argument. Isn't that the point of every law?

You make a thinking mistake here: laws are about things that affects a number of people. While homosexual marriage just affect the two people who want it.

theres laws that effect a single individual as well ( ie suicide) also I do feel that acceptance of homosexuality would hinder alot of people religious beliefs by painting churches and organizations as "hate groups" for not accepting. The problem is the line you draw at what point whos freedom do you hinder.

.... but along those lines no mental health profesional (with a few exceptions) looks at homosexuality as a disease or abnormality. I find that very odd considering almost every other abnormal sexual disposition is placed under choice or disease....

I don't think many sexual dispositions are seen as a disease, just childporn and very extreme others. (or am i wrong here)

It varies like pedophilia like you mentioned would fall under disease but say necrophilia would fall under choice. I personally feel that sexuality is complex enough it warrents its own field outside of physical or mental health, maybe then we could be more certain of many things

Lifestyle is what gets me, its obvious that homosexual males sex life entitles some bodily harm in return for pleasure.

Is that obvious? Homosexual people can love the same as hetrosexual people, it is not only the leather suit dancing parade darkroom stuff.

I hope i did understand you right, i hope you will understand me right, i'm not really sure about the first thing, but i hope i did understand it.

refering to anal sex, your cornhole isn't made to be stretched for that long of a time and that causes stress on the body that can have lasting damage.

[MortifiedPenguins]

i am a christian but i getpissed off by the realigous zealots saying they can't have marriage because there gay and it goes against the bile. Like jesus said something like" give onto ceasar, all of ceasar's belongings, give onto me, all of my belongings" or something like that. The government should just let them marry. They will be married by the state and that's it because no church will marry them so leave it like that.

[Robbo-Nubbles]

Either way. ppl aren't born gay, they r raised in certain ways that make them gay. Like if u r the only male in ur home u would grow up with ur mom and hv 2 go places that are so called girlish. I'm not gay but when i said so called girlish i meant that some ppl think that some things are only for girls and some things are for boys.

[altanese-mistress]

To quote a very genious man:

"I think having children at older ages causes homosexuality; nothing turns a man to the Villiage People faster then suckling on a 95 year old wrinkled up teet"

[ge-dm5]

a little confusing but very good thought.
i think that homosexuality should be aloud.
it should not go into laws hands. should it?
does it harm anyone? no
so why should the government intervine? well they should not.
that is just what i think.
i dont like gays but i dont think that i should take away there right as a human.

[AwkwardSilence]

To FLAGG:

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I think it's a good stance to not want to get involved in people's personal choices like that if that's what your implying. But I don't think there's anything noble in taking the stance of "im not gonna take a stance" and i mean that about everybody not just specifically you.

[Smiggity]

Saying that someone shouldnt have rights because they are gay is the same as saying someone should not have rights because they are black or a women or whatever, its not their choice to be gay, im sure they would love to fit in and not be discriminated against, even if it was their choice to be gay they are still people, and all people should have rights.

[drDAK]

At 6/2/05 10:34 PM, Smiggity wrote: Saying that someone shouldnt have rights because they are gay is the same as saying someone should not have rights because they are black or a women or whatever.

Gender and color are two way different things. One is a difference in producing children and the other one that came from ages of exposure to the sun. Big difference.

[ScrunchMuppet]

At 6/2/05 05:09 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: i am a christian but i getpissed off by the realigous zealots saying they can't have marriage because there gay and it goes against the bile. Like jesus said something like" give onto ceasar, all of ceasar's belongings, give onto me, all of my belongings" or something like that. The government should just let them marry. They will be married by the state and that's it because no church will marry them so leave it like that.

You must be some new-age hippie christian speaking of Jesus while hitting the pipe or something because you fail to grasp the principles of traditional christianity with remarkable skill.

Marraige was a religious institution first BEFORE it also became a legal contract.
Marriage is a sacred and holy union to the "religious zealots" as you call them and people are steadfast in their religious beliefs (most people anyway and not just christianity)
Homosexuals want tolerance and equallity (which they have) but aren't satisfied with equal rights- equal pay - equal benefits and being "life partners" They want marraige.
They want the title, the holy grail. And in wanting this they themselves have become intolerant.
You think the solution is married by the state and not the churches but getting married by the churches is what they want. If they didn't - "life partners" with equal benefits would have been enough. The vast majority of marraiges are ceremonies conducted by churches. For the "religious zealots", for them to marry in their church, by their minister, at their pulpit, in front of their congregation and religious icons in the stained glass windows, when their scripture explicitly forbids it and the ones getting married openly denouce the religion of said church, is much like the story of the guard who pissed on the detainees Quran in Guantanamo (true or not) , it is not only disrespectful - its a slap in the face. Intolerant of the religions traditional boundaries.

[SilasDarko]

I think it's best to worry about what you are doing and not what someone else is doing. Do you really have such a lame life that you have to make someone else's life just as bad?

[ScrunchMuppet]

At 6/4/05 03:54 AM, spinners wrote: I think it's best to worry about what you are doing and not what someone else is doing. Do you really have such a lame life that you have to make someone else's life just as bad?

If you're talking to me , I really dont give a shit one way or the other.
I'm trying to point out what everyone seemingly fails to see.
The fact that there is intolerance on both sides of the issue and not just one-sided as homosexuals claim.
There is also something rather selfish about wanting to change/alter/ do away with beliefs & traditions thousands of years old just because of your "preference for dick".

[FAtmat666]

Even if homosexuality is a choice, is it a wrong one? when you see two gay people holding hands, do you feel physical pain, even anything more painful than being uncomfortable? who does it hurt? to those who are non-religious, why is it wrong? hte romans were openly homosexual, so when did it become taboo?

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/4/05 04:23 AM, FAtmat666 wrote: Even if homosexuality is a choice, is it a wrong one? when you see two gay people holding hands, do you feel physical pain, even anything more painful than being uncomfortable? who does it hurt? to those who are non-religious, why is it wrong? hte romans were openly homosexual, so when did it become taboo?

It became taboo a couple centuries AD (which is after all the books of the Bible were completed) The Pope at the time made homosexuality a sin to build up the population. ie: homosexual couples can't reproduce. Back then Chatholics and Protestants weren't enemies, so they picked it up as well, and who in the world knows why Judaism picked it up?

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 6/4/05 05:47 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: Back then Chatholics and Protestants weren't enemies, so they picked it up as well, and who in the world knows why Judaism picked it up?

Both biblical Testaments tell that homosexual relations are immoral. This is why Protestants, Catholics, AND Jews believe it's wrong. It wasn't some papal decree.

[SeacrestOut]

At 6/4/05 03:49 AM, ScrunchMuppet wrote:

You must be some new-age hippie christian speaking of Jesus while hitting the pipe or something because you fail to grasp the principles of traditional christianity with remarkable skill.

Marraige was a religious institution first BEFORE it also became a legal contract.
Marriage is a sacred and holy union to the "religious zealots" as you call them and people are steadfast in their religious beliefs (most people anyway and not just christianity)
Homosexuals want tolerance and equallity (which they have) but aren't satisfied with equal rights- equal pay - equal benefits and being "life partners" They want marraige.
They want the title, the holy grail. And in wanting this they themselves have become intolerant.
You think the solution is married by the state and not the churches but getting married by the churches is what they want. If they didn't - "life partners" with equal benefits would have been enough. The vast majority of marraiges are ceremonies conducted by churches. For the "religious zealots", for them to marry in their church, by their minister, at their pulpit, in front of their congregation and religious icons in the stained glass windows, when their scripture explicitly forbids it and the ones getting married openly denouce the religion of said church, is much like the story of the guard who pissed on the detainees Quran in Guantanamo (true or not) , it is not only disrespectful - its a slap in the face. Intolerant of the religions traditional boundaries.

Actually, you are wrong about a lot of things. Gay people want the right to be married because they want the same benefits as heterosexual marriages. "Life partners" is not good enough for them because, for example, if something should happen to one of them, the other would not be allowed in the hospital room with them when they are about to die. Also, there are insurance and tax benefits they are missing out on. Or, say one of them has a child through artificial insemination or a surrogate mother; if the biological parent died, their partner would have no rights or custody of their child. As for gays wanting to be married in any church they choose, I can garuantee you that is not what they expect. There is a separation of Church and State for a reason. Any church can refuse to perform any marriage ceremony for whatever reason they have. There are churches out there that still won't marry interacial couples and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. And it should be that way. However, there are other religions out there that would be happy to perform a gay wedding ceremony, or they could just get a Justice of the Peace. I fail to see how that would infringe on anybody's rights. And just because someone is Christian and supports gay marriage doesn't make them some new age hippie or whatever, because if you are protestant that means at some point in time your faith broke off from the original Christian church (Catholicism) and decided to change a few rules they didn't agree with. How is that grasping the principles of tradiional Christianity? By the way, a good friend of mine is a lesbian and she is very involved with her church and taking care of the children (she is Methodist, by the way) and plenty of people there know about it, and don't care.

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/4/05 06:16 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 6/4/05 05:47 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: Back then Chatholics and Protestants weren't enemies, so they picked it up as well, and who in the world knows why Judaism picked it up?

Both biblical Testaments tell that homosexual relations are immoral. This is why Protestants, Catholics, AND Jews believe it's wrong. It wasn't some papal decree.

Really? And do you have any proof? OTHER then propaganda spewed from the religious hierarchy?

[VerseChorusVerse]

At 6/4/05 07:01 AM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 6/4/05 06:16 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Both biblical Testaments tell that homosexual relations are immoral. This is why Protestants, Catholics, AND Jews believe it's wrong. It wasn't some papal decree.

Really? And do you have any proof? OTHER then propaganda spewed from the religious hierarchy?

You started with that papal stuff. Why don't YOU present some evidence that it was acceptable before Roman Catholics came along. And the Bible directly addresses the subject of homosexual relations in both the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament. If you want to know what it says, then look up it up yourself. And gah, I hate the fact that people act like people with religious views are incapable of being trusted, so keep your empty-headed comments to yourself. >_<