[Daradon]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 31 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 31 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Dec 31 2004, 01:07 AM
Skyceman - Your last quote says that the 'queer by choice' group comprises about 8% of the total. That's a pretty small amount. And I can't disagree that I don't know people that haven't experimented and ended up liking it, especially women. But that's only 8% give or take.

And doing my thinking out loud. Even if it was a choice for everyone (which I don't think anyone here will admit it is for 100%, but let's say what if) why would that matter? Who are they hurting? Why does it matter?

Can't pull the 'nature' card, that's how this thread was started, showing it's pretty normal in nature.

Don't agree with the 'slippery slope' card. The one that argues legalizing these unions and calling them marriage will open the door to beastiality and incest and pedeophelia. One huge difference between the two. Gay marige is between two consenting adults. Animals can't consent, and there are laws in place to protect children that will never be overturned because we know people can't make certain decisions at younger ages. Someone here keeps arguing the brother/sister (or two opposite sex partners closely related) of legal age scenario, but that's such an obsense small part of the equation, it's not right or fair to judge one groups right on the rights of another. And there are no statistics to show that this is a growing group either or that it has even been significantly large.

The 'family' card is a bunch of bunk. Divorce rate is over 50%. Fathers abuse, mothers abandon (or both vice versa). Drugs, Alcohol, Violence. The family was in bad shape long ago. This won't add to it's problems. In my view point it might actually help beacuse we got two people who actually care enough about each other to fight for it.

So really? What does it matter? Who really cares? Why is it a bad thing? It's not corroding our 'morals', just changing rules placed by man long ago. To me morals are such things as love, forgiveness, TOLERANCE. Morals are not rules one person or god (see person acting on 'god's' behalf) made up.

Where are you getting the statistics on gays from? Do you have any reason why the statistics on family violence and breakup are so high over the last twenty years compared to the generations before?

It's obvious you don't have a clue what morals are. Let me give you the dictionary meaning of Morals:"good in character or conduct; virtuous according to civilized standards of right and wrong; capable of understanding right and wrong; having to do with character or with the difference between right and wrong; based on principles of right conduct rather than on law or custom; teaching a good lesson; having a good influence. Ethical. In agreement with a standard of what is right and good in character or conduct. Right and good according to the customary rules and accepted standards of society. He leads a moral life. Agreement with principles of right conduct or good living expressed in a system or code, especially of the branch of philosophy dealing with moral conduct or of a profession or business."

While we're at it let's examine the dictionary meaning of the word, tolerate: "Allow, permit, bear, endure, put up with. Endure or resist the action of a drug or poison."

You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays. Look at all the different religious groups that have always been allowed to co-exist with Christians throughout the history of Canada, the United States, and Europe under Christian governments. Try practicing gay, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist lifestyles in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what happens. [/b][/quote]
Sammie,

The only percentage I used about 'gays' was from Skyceman's post. I got it from his argument and even mentioned so in mine. Please read more carefully in the future.

Secondly, I don't know why marriage and family has been doing more poorly in the last little while, all I was saying is it's probably a combination of factors and saying that the argument that 'homosexuals are ruining the family unit' is a baseless argument.

Third, it all depends on what is a family or your family. I came from a broken home and really only had one parent. Nowadays there are still broken homes, but lots more people who are willing to take care, help out, and nurture the kids. To me, it's all about love and respect and teaching.

Fourth, perhaps you don't know what morals are. You can define a word, or you can feel something in your heart. You can preach about rules and 'social behaviour' or you can turn the other cheek to your enemy, help out someone down on their luck, or even a screw-up who needs a second chance like an addict. You can cry from the rooftop about everything that is different and strange, or you can embrace these differences and enjoy the crazy tapestry of life. You can tell someone how to act, or you can touch their heart with kindness and hope they do the same to someone else.

My religion and philosophy doesn't preach morals, we just practice them.

Fifth, please don't tell me how tolerant Christians are in our western world. There are lots who aren't, and I'm pretty sure the story would be different if there were more Christians, or the right wing had their way. You can't compare it to other nations because they have different governments too, not just religions. You say 'yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays' This shouldn't be an issue or an argument. No one should persecute anyone. I don't go around saying. Hey look how good I'm doing, I didn't kick a homeless person in the face today! I didn't put a burning cross on someone's lawn today! I didn't laugh at the man with AIDS even though he got it from gay sex. I mean come on. Your supposed to be tolerant, even according to your own book, so don't look for a medal for it.

As for your comment about Christianity going hand in hand with common sense and science. Well, I will admit, there is lots of common sense in many religions. But Christianity is far from the top of the scale. Maybe you should research some Buddism or Taoism before making such a claim. And don't even get me started on Christianity going hand in hand with science. The church put Gallieo under house arrest, and have persecuted countless scientists, thinkiners, philosophers, artists and people who could have added so much to our society.

It's not the Christian way or teaching people have problems with. It's the attitude of some of the followers who say 'this is the only way' or 'this is the right way and you should change'. Laws shouldn't be based on religion period. And it's very easy to be moral, caring, sensitive, whatever, outsie of religion. We can still have caring laws, righteous laws, important laws, without them coming from a book that is from a society thousands of years old.