I wonder if people's problems with seeing homosexuals being affectionate with eachother is more due to discomfort with seeing something that you don't normally see or with being threatened by it in some way.
To me, the statement "they don't need to flaunt it" in reference to homosexuals could be just as equally applied to heterosexuals. When straight people hold hands or kiss in public, to me, that is just as much 'flaunting it'.
I am happy for people if they are happy. If that means loving (and yes, holding hands with or -gasp- even kissing) someone of the same sex as they are, more power to them.
We usually get the biological imperative argument from the religious.
I am going to assume that you are also against infertile people from getting married as well? An infertile man should not be getting married because he cannot procreate and should wild animals mate with others that are infertile, their species would go extinct....
As for the holding hands thing, consider yourself hit over the head with big gay sex toy. It's 2010... get over it....
Thor: They will call it a "theory" and continue believing whatever it is that they want to believe?
Not at all,Married, shacked up.whatever! If a couple want to be together go for it.
And if you look back and read what I said "I guess I'm old school" 2010 or not... sorry, I just can't get over it.
Because of some friends and a former girlfriend I've been to partys at gay bars and even a new years bash one time was 70% gay and while I had a good time I felt I needed a dizzy pill from shaking my head so much, I'm a fairly big fit man so you can imagine the Q-saucy types that "hit" on me. In a sic way it was a lot of fun letting them down.
I will never get used to a gay society and nobody will ever get me to agree with public displays of open gayness, but I wont throw stones at them either.
I wonder if people's problems with seeing homosexuals being affectionate with eachother is more due to discomfort with seeing something that you don't normally see or with being threatened by it in some way.
To me, the statement "they don't need to flaunt it" in reference to homosexuals could be just as equally applied to heterosexuals. When straight people hold hands or kiss in public, to me, that is just as much 'flaunting it'.
I am happy for people if they are happy. If that means loving (and yes, holding hands with or -gasp- even kissing) someone of the same sex as they are, more power to them.
I agree with 99% of this, but the 1% are people like me, I'm not threatened by it nor in any discomfort...it's just yuck. The kind of reaction one would get seeing an asian eating weird foods,a fish-head or eyeballs..etc. Nothing wrong with it but disgusting to some.
I used Atheists as an example because they have been very active in our life time at trying to restrict public expression of the Christian faith.
The activism I've seen has been atheists active to try and restrict illegal public expression of any religious faith and to try to get equal rights for atheists, but I'm sure you have examples of which you speak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
We are not talking about controlling what someone can and can't do as much as talking about what the government will and will not do for a certain group. We've been over this territory before. It isn't just homosexuals who are excluded. Polygamists and those who live together in nonsexual relationships are also excluded.
It's the same thing, if a law says "you cannot get married" then they are controlling what someone can and cannot do. Which is fine and necessary sometimes, sometimes freedoms need to be limited for the benefit of society as a whole, but there has to be a good reason to do so, or at least a better reason than "my particular religion happens to say it's bad so no one can do it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
If you took a survey of North America and asked everyone to respond to the following Statement with a "true" or a "false" what do you suppose you would get in response? --Every child deserves a Mom and a Dad
So? That and a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee anymore. Do that same survey in the past and people would say every child deserves a mom and a dad of the same race.
And they'd be hypocritical with that answer too, unless the same majority that answered true also never got divorced. Actions speak louder than words.
This is also the nirvana logical fallacy, as well as a red herring, we're talking about marriage, not having kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Now of course if the question wasn't required to be answered with a "true" or a "false" some might qualify there answer depending on the quality of the parent. But all other factors being equal the overwhelming consensus would be that ideally they do. History confirms this ideal in almost all cultures. It is a natural arrangement that involves both of the biological parents. Sure there are marriages that don't produce offspring but, they are in the minority.
Just because the consensus is that doesn't mean that's actually the reality.
And you didn't even answer the question:
According to you marriage is a privilege afforded to a distinct group.
Which group? Best equipped according to who? By who's standards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
The question is: Why should marriage be a right?
It's not marriage that's a right, it's equality that's a right. Marriage is a social contract and to deny someone equal access to it violates their rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
or Why should the government involve themselves in what is a private or religious choice?
Because marriage isn't a private choice, it's a compact between two people and society itself. A married couple is afforded different legal rights and a different status in society (meaning by entering into the contract society is obligated to provide those things). All of this is civil and social, and does not require any specific religion or religion in general. Some may choose to involve their religion because religion is important to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
No. There is no practical reason for the government to provide special benefits for any union other than a heterosexual union.
Sure there is, equality is the only reason necessary.
You claimed that marriage was a religious institution and that the government recognized this early on by telling them they could perform marriage ceremonies. Then you say governments shouldn't be able to tell churches what they can and cannot do. And now you say that the government should tell churches they can't perform homosexual marriages to give homosexual couples the same rights and obligations as heterosexual unions. This doesn't seem consistent, if marriage is a religious institution then it's up to the church to decide to marry gay couples and the government just grants the licenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
If a homosexual couple wants a ceremony and finds a church willing to provide one I say:Go for it! That shouldn't be any of the governments business.
It's the governments business because marriage is a contract that involves the government. Or go the other way and remove all legal rights and obligations for marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
God calls homosexually "vile affections".
Or rather that's what the author wrote.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Seriously?
Alrighty then, hit me in the head with a big gay sex toy and call me a racist
I don't know, I said I wasn't sure. I would be quite interested to know what a homosexual would make of your statement.
I don't see how being grossed out by homosexuals holding hands should be any different than being grossed out by an interracial couple holding hands.
EDIT: I understand what you mean then by just thinking "yuck" seeing it, but again I think that's something each of us has to deal with, not to limit someone else's right to hold hands or kiss. Just like eating eyeball soup makes me think "yuck", but I wouldn't want to tell them to stop either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
I get that, difference is humans aren't asexual or hermaphrodites (unless you count the freaks that want to be) we need the opposite sex for evolution..period.
That's not what you said before though, you said evolution needs male and female.
So yes human evolution needs male and female.. so? Homosexuals making up 5% of the population doesn't change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Maybe their missing something, because a baboon is sexually frustrated and takes on his male cousin doesn't make it right.
Lol what? Making up a fake example of what is homosexuality in wild animals is doesn't make a very good argument.
And again "make it right" doesn't make any sense at all in the context of evolution. Value judgments can be informed by science, but aren't made by science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
While not fully understood it's suspected that animal homosexuality in the wild kingdom has more to do with an animal not being able to find a mate then just being "gay"
I'd like to see some support for that bare assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
I would like to know the percentage of male to female homosexual activity in the wild. I suspect a very large percentage is male.
Let us know what you find out, it would likely vary wildly by species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
And the evolution would stall till death if an animal species turned gay.
And evolution would stall to death if a species evolved their mouth away. If you understand evolution then you understand that neither would happen.
But yet homosexuality still occurs, in humans and in other animals (and beyond the just limited partners, some species have extensive homosexuality including lifetime pair bonding by choice not lack of mates). What does that tell you from an evolutionary point of view?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I agree with 99% of this, but the 1% are people like me, I'm not threatened by it nor in any discomfort...it's just yuck. The kind of reaction one would get seeing an asian eating weird foods,a fish-head or eyeballs..etc. Nothing wrong with it but disgusting to some.
But isn't discomfort and yuck the same thing? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I mean, I just don't care that much, being neither gay nor big on PDAs in any way, but I just don't see the delineation between straight people being affectionate and gay people being affectionate. To be clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight, I used to think the same way, "ew, gross", and changed my mind about it.
interesting that there's a direct correlation between the lack of religion in a country and a high standard of living. seems that people can live better lives than ever without god
According to the Eurobarometer poll of 2008, less than 40% of citizens residing in the following nations maintain belief in any kind of god: United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Moreover, when citizens of these countries were asked the question “Does religion occupy an important place in your life?” (Gallup Poll 2007), the following answered “NO”:
-Sweden: 83%
-Denmark: 80%
-Norway: 78%
-France: 73%
-UK: 71%
-Finland: 69%
-Netherlands: 66%
As you can see, the Jesus farewell tour commenced long ago and now these nations enjoy the highest standard of living and the highest degree of societal health, as determined by the UN Human Development Report.
Not surprised by these stats at all, the inability of the churches to admit evolution when it was slapped in their faces sealed their fate. admitting it now makes them look stupid.
I give God and Religion about 50 years before it's a distant memory.
But isn't discomfort and yuck the same thing? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I mean, I just don't care that much, being neither gay nor big on PDAs in any way, but I just don't see the delineation between straight people being affectionate and gay people being affectionate. To be clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight, I used to think the same way, "ew, gross", and changed my mind about it.
Most likely your a lot younger than I am, I'm not affectionate towards men...I shake their hands.
And I have come a long way, 35 years ago as a teen where I grew up a homosexual didn't stand a chance walking the streets, now I play cards, have drinks and golf with some. maybe if I live another 35 years....
You do realize that God and Religion have gone through dark ages before?
Just because you want it gone doesn't mean it will be.
That would require billions of people to change their belief in 50 years.
In the past there was a lot less education on the subject, the churches owned a good portion of the lands and evolution wasn't even a thought let alone a fact.
50 years ago just about everyone was religious, with the amazing growth of technology and learning I don't think it's a far fetched idea that most of the world will move on. Those who don't will most likely be looked upon as uneducated or living in a country where it's forced upon them.
And just because you want it to stay doesn't mean it will.
In the past there was a lot less education on the subject, the churches owned a good portion of the lands and evolution wasn't even a thought let alone a fact.
50 years ago just about everyone was religious, with the amazing growth of technology and learning I don't think it's a far fetched idea that most of the world will move on. Those who don't will most likely be looked upon as uneducated or living in a country where it's forced upon them.
And just because you want it to stay doesn't mean it will.
What does technology have to do with people disbelieving in God?
Is it going to disprove his existence?
The reformation was probably a more educational enlightenment than the internet. People didn't exactly run away from the Catholic church and disbelieve in the existence of God either. Even with the purges and the millions that were killed.
Seems to me you just want it to happen so you make up a claim that has absolutely no backing to it. Look me up in 50 years and I'll pay you 10grand if God is just a distant memory for everyone.
What does technology have to do with people disbelieving in God?
Is it going to disprove his existence?
Technology has already disproved the bible threw proving evolution did happen. Because Christians like to twist the words of the bibles Genesis to fit in today's science is a joke and backtracking BS, will science prove that a God doesn't exist? I can't answer that yet but it should prove before long (it has already) that a religious god is nothing but imaginary.
Technology has already disproved the bible threw proving evolution did happen. Because Christians like to twist the words of the bibles Genesis to fit in today's science is a joke and backtracking BS, will science prove that a God doesn't exist? I can't answer that yet but it should prove before long (it has already) that a religious god is nothing but imaginary.
Proving evolution did happen disproves the existence of God?
