Question for anti gay marriage people.

[Super Dude]

Oh, I see.  No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general.  My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful.  Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak.  My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before.  If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you.  But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.

I acknowledge and accept your views, and I assure you I can handle differing opinions.

That said, I guess I'm not sure how Christians reconcile their condemnation of homosexuality with the worship of a divine being (Jesus) who was buddy-buddy with a prostitute.  Not to mention his preaching to love others as you love yourself, treat others as you want to be treated, forgive your enemy, etc.  Besides, what about gays and lesbians who are both openly gay and devoutly Christian?  I'm certain they exist, so what happens to them?  Are they ostracized by the religious community?  For all their loyalty to God and their adherence to the teachings of Jesus, save that one thing, are they shut out of Heaven just like that?

@ icy: I am humbled and altogether flattered.  Thanks man, I'm glad my thoughts resonate with someone with such weight.

[El Barto]

Oh, I see.  No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general.  My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful.  Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak.  My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before.  If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you.  But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.

Fair enough.  And thanks.   

I think the primary argument from a secular point of view is economically based.  Why should the state give gay couples all the financial benefits of marriage? What state interests do they serve?

While I think it's obvious that there will be inherent differences in a "family unit" with a man and a woman versus one with two dudes, I have no idea if or to what degree they're meaningful.  And frankly, since the field of psychology is such a mire of bullshit, unverifiable speculation, and God knows what else, I really have no desire to investigate it further.

Personally, I still lean toward taking marriage out of the hands of the government--at least for the most part--and making it a purely private contractual affair between two consenting parties.

-J

Why should the state be providing benefits to any married couple?  I've never understood this.  If this were 1679, and Uncle Charley needed the settlers to be fruitful, then I could understand it.  I don't think that anybody believes that what America needs now is more Americans. 

I do understand why people with kids get added benefits, though I think it's bullshit. 

[SovereignDream]

Oh, I see.  No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general.  My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe               is sinful.  Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak.  My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before.  If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you.  But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.

Come on bosk, I think there's a huge difference in what you've said and what SD has. I completely disagree on it being immoral, but I can understand why one's religious convictions can lead one to seeing it that way and I have no problem with that. My issue is some of the comments SD made regarding gays that is nothing more than an ad hominem and presenting it forth as a valid argument. Ehra's and number's comments were quite harsh yes, I'll concede that, but I really do doubt that the forum would act the same upon you as did SD.

And for the record, you seem like a really nice guy, and someone that would seem to be cool to have a classic coke with (Diet coke bosk? DIET COKE?! WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN?!).  

I might have articulated a post as elegant as bosk's, had I not a) been tired and bored b) felt as if I as arguing with people that were determined to condemn all opposing views; especially from a new user c) been a moderator / administrator who will receive compliments from forum users regardless of what is written down (no offense at all here, bosk. Please don't hurt me).

[Super Dude]

You switched from a) to 2) and then from there to 4).  WHAT IS POINT 3), hm??? TELL ME!

[SovereignDream]

You switched from a) to 2) and then from there to 4).  WHAT IS POINT 3), hm??? TELL ME!

Hahaha Damn it! That's the second time I've done that!

As mentioned, I'm pretty tired and pretty distracted...

[Seventh Son]

Oh, I see.  No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general.  My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe               is sinful.  Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak.  My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before.  If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you.  But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.

Come on bosk, I think there's a huge difference in what you've said and what SD has. I completely disagree on it being immoral, but I can understand why one's religious convictions can lead one to seeing it that way and I have no problem with that. My issue is some of the comments SD made regarding gays that is nothing more than an ad hominem and presenting it forth as a valid argument. Ehra's and number's comments were quite harsh yes, I'll concede that, but I really do doubt that the forum would act the same upon you as did SD.

And for the record, you seem like a really nice guy, and someone that would seem to be cool to have a classic coke with (Diet coke bosk? DIET COKE?! WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN?!).  

I might have articulated a post as elegant as bosk's, had I not a) been tired and bored 2) felt as if I as arguing with people that were determined to condemn all opposing views; especially from a new user 4) been a moderator / administrator who will receive compliments from forum users regardless of what is written down (no offense at all here, bosk. Please don't hurt me).

1. I'm sorry you were tired, but I don't think boredom is an excuse.
2. I think the condemnation you received is more of a result of how you presented yourself than a stubborn desire to suppress all dissenting views.
3/4. I have a degree of respect for bosk, but not because he's an admin, rather he's a really nice guy and although I disagree with him on most things political and religious, he presents his views forth in a respectful manner. That's probably why I like him.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

You can be gay but still be into women.

For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

You can be gay but still be into women.

For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.

Me too

I think MEN in general love boobs. Gay men or straight men.

But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'

[Adami]

You can be gay but still be into women.

For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.

Me too

I think HUMAN BEINGS in general love boobs. Gay men, straight men, straight women or lesbians.

But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'

Fix'd

[ehra]

2. I think the condemnation you received is more of a result of how you presented yourself than a stubborn desire to suppress all dissenting views.
3/4. I have a degree of respect for bosk, but not because he's an admin, rather he's a really nice guy and although I disagree with him on most things political and religious, he presents his views forth in a respectful manner. That's probably why I like him.

These. The reason Sovereign's opinions got the reactions they did is because he didn't "articulate it in a reasonable manner." Bosk wouldn't get the same reaction because he wouldn't do things like comparing homosexual sex to sex with animals (and it's unfortunate that he feels he would get the same reaction strongly enough that it's kept him from posting).

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

You can be gay but still be into women.

For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.

Me too

I think HUMAN BEINGS in general love boobs. Gay men, straight men, straight women or lesbians.

But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'

Fix'd

This.

[GuineaPig]

I'm glad this topic has finally been steered to an issue where we all have some common ground. 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Count on me to steer something to boobs.

[El Barto]

The fact that gay men are into a nice pair is damned fascinating.  This made me think back to a theory that I recall which suggested that men are attracted to tits because it reminds them of a woman's behind.  The attraction to the latter being a holdover from our pre-upright ancestry. 

I point this out only because it'd be damned funny if while you guys were using male attraction to tits as an example of gay men still appreciating women,  the attraction was actually to ass, instead. 

[hefdaddy42]

OK, so the moral of the story is

BOOBS

[Perpetual Change]

EDIT: reported.

Hey guys! Looks like icy knows how to use the report button! Thanks for letting us all know, icy!

[Sigz]

It's quite unfortunate that this is even an issue. I think almost everyone here would agree that marriage shouldn't even be under the pervue of the government, but there's almost no chance of that changing so we're stuck ion an unnecessary and intensely polarized debate.

[Durg]

I left yesterday and I see checking back that this thread has gone 4 more pages   

Anyway.  I have to rebut some of what is said here Super Dude.

I acknowledge and accept your views, and I assure you I can handle differing opinions.

That said, I guess I'm not sure how Christians reconcile their condemnation of homosexuality with the worship of a divine being (Jesus) who was buddy-buddy with a prostitute.  Not to mention his preaching to love others as you love yourself, treat others as you want to be treated, forgive your enemy, etc.

Christians have no right to condemn anyone.  It's simply not our place.  All we should be doing is communicating what God's word says.  God is the only judge in our religion and is the only one with the authority to condemn.  Jesus has plenty of nasty things to say about "religious" people doing the condemning. 

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Mathew 7:3-5

That's the most famous verse but there are many many others that prove that Christians are not the one to be condemning.  Also, you throw out that Jesus was buddy's with a prostitute and I assume your speaking of Mary Magdalene.  But it was Jesus love that Mary left that life style behind and Jesus love can also help gays turn from the homosexual lifestyle as well.  I have seen this many times.  The grace of Jesus can change lives.

Besides, what about gays and lesbians who are both openly gay and devoutly Christian?  I'm certain they exist, so what happens to them?  

Look, there are murderers, rapists, robbers, etc that are devoutly Christian.  Christians aren't perfect we sin just like non Christians.  We are born into a sinful desires and temptations and often give in to them.  I know gay Christians.  We can agree on how to go to heaven but we don't agree on other things.  Most gay Christians choose to be celibate.  If we were sinless then Jesus wouldn't have had to come to earth and die on the cross for us.

Are they ostracized by the religious community? 

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God).  The same thing happens with adulterers.  You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings.  Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites. 

For all their loyalty to God and their adherence to the teachings of Jesus, save that one thing, are they shut out of Heaven just like that?

Here's the most important part that gets lost in all the mud slinging.  Christians believe that you simply must believe that Jesus died on the cross an took our sins for us in order to go to heaven.  There's no sin scales at the gates of heaven.  They're not shut out.  The invitation is extended to anyone who will believe.  Wackos that get on TV and say that gays can't go to heaven are just flat out not reading the Bible.

[j]

Most gay Christians choose to be celibate.

You cannot honestly believe this.

Are they ostracized by the religious community? 

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God).  The same thing happens with adulterers.  You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings.  Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites. 

But everybody sins.  So who is fit to "lead the music on Sunday morning"?  Or are there certain sins that make you a hypocrite for preaching one thing and doing the other, and others that don't?  Why is homosexuality so often singled out as the one sin that disqualifies a person?

-J

[AcidLameLTE]

Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?

[Seventh Son]

Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?

Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......

[Durg]

Most gay Christians choose to be celibate.

You cannot honestly believe this.

Yes.  I know quite a few.

Are they ostracized by the religious community? 

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God).  The same thing happens with adulterers.  You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings.  Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites. 

But everybody sins.  So who is fit to "lead the music on Sunday morning"?  Or are there certain sins that make you a hypocrite for preaching one thing and doing the other, and others that don't?  Why is homosexuality so often singled out as the one sin that disqualifies a person?

-J

Valid point.  I guess you'd have to ask the people that so frequently call us Christians hypocrites. 

But I think I can address this issue somewhat.  We all sin yes.  But there is a difference between people that are trying to live a Godly life and follow Jesus teachings and someone who is publicly living an unGodly life.  It's a fine line to try and figure that out with people that are flawed (and we all are).  That's probably why so many churches have splits and fighting, because of sin.  We're always needing to repent because we're a bunch of screw ups.  Homosexuality is often singled out along with adultery and divorce.  Those are just the biggies.  The Bible also has some pretty strong words about homosexual sin (it also has alot of strong words about pride but many of us are too prideful to deal with that ).  Also, I think that homosexuality is often singled out the most because it is so difficult to repent and come out of that lifestyle.  There's probably a common lack of trust that someone is being genuine many times.

[Super Dude]

I was wondering that as well...

[Super Dude]

Ignore that post, I thought the page ended with Iain's post.

[skydivingninja]

Reading through this thread, especially Sovereign's posts, has been a bit of a headache.  I think gay marriage should be allowed.  There's no reason for it not to be allowed except for people who feel church and state shouldn't be completely separated. 

[AcidLameLTE]

Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?

Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......

What a load of bollocks. If anyone should have been knocked out of P&R, it should have been Sovereign. Most tactless person I've ever seen post here.

[Adami]

Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?

Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......

What a load of bollocks. If anyone should have been knocked out of P&R, it should have been Sovereign. Most tactless person I've ever seen post here.

Sovereign is great. He's like a mini, not quite as brilliant, version of Disappear.

[AcidLameLTE]

Nah. Disappear was funny.

[Adami]

Nah. Disappear was funny.

So is this guy. A gay planet? A computer that automatically blocks out the word homosexual? That's brilliant stuff right there.

[SovereignDream]

Nah. Disappear was funny.

So is this guy. A gay planet? A computer that automatically blocks out the word           ? That's brilliant stuff right there.

I've still yet to see a good argument against a Homoearth...

[bosk1]

Other than these?

1.  We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2.  Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive

[Adami]

Other than these?

1.  We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2.  Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive

I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive

So much for your banhammer, then.   

I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.

Shouldn't it be a pink rocket?  Or like a purple-headed rocket or something?

[Seventh Son]

Other than these?

1.  We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2.  Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive

I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.

Considering Earth has a limited capacity that is bound to reach its limit one day, wouldn't it be infinitely more wise to use a habitable planet for colonization instead of just throwing gay people there?

Edit: Double kilo post! Fuck yeah! 

[SovereignDream]

Other than these?

1.  We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2.  Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive

Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".