"Those same people determined what "rights" there are, right? Don't think about "rights" out of context. There's no tablet set down by nature or God or whatever not written by man that tells us what rights we have. Our rights are amended and changed every day." I guess I dont get what you are getting at. If people in a culture are going to promote/dissuade some acts by using law that is really forcing compliance.... it is a law, so they sho
JasonSerral
LULA - "More time than not, this "pleasure" that you say is associated with homosexuality actually causes a raft of problems both mentally and physically. In this sense, then, those who engage in homosexuality naturally become victims of the "pleasure"." Well, doing things for pleasure plagues both types of relationships.... maybe more with homosexual via testosterone, but every time you use birth control (whether it is knowing your cycle, or
"You ask, is homosexuality normal? I answered “no” it isn’t based on mankind’s inherent nature or the natural law." Actually you didn't exactly say that the first time.... You said we can "easily describe what is natural as in nature", that it was not natural, and "the body parts dont work as nature intended". You said just nature, which to me, includes animals and humans. Now what you are saying you meant is that homosexuality doesn
"On the other hand, we can easily describe what is natural as in nature though. In this realm, homosexuality is not natural or is unnatural. The body parts don't fit and they don't work as nature intended. Therefore, the sexual practice of homosexuality is an abomination against nature." We kinda already covered that.... procreation wise, yes f/f m/m doesn't "fit". However, that doesn't mean those couples cant have a full, pleasurable, sexual
Well, I wasn't saying 2,3,6 were irrelevant, those are the more noteable... but come on, healthcare costs again says nothing about the relationships, 5 is a pretty hefty blanket statement to make that includes all those divorced and those never married, not just samesex relationships, 1 and 4 may be true, but hinge on same sex marriage truly being bad for marriage... which 2,3,6 could help support... depending on the actual research. (6 I am starting
Eh, some of those reasons are irrelevant, but some such as 2, 3, 6 would be interesting to see the actual research and know where it came from. I guess the problem is finding unbiased research. Do the researchers have an agenda, how were the people chosen for the research, etc? I found a decent website you may want to check out... goes over many of the things we have already talked about. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint.htm
I realize why I/you were confused, you must have missed the part I said about "what non-religious reason do people have to vote against this?". Or you were simply trying to make the point that both are beliefs. However, how can you vote against something with no other reason then "god says"? There must be some logical bases for his reasons, if you cant find any... then I would start to doubt whether it should be voted against... i.e. Slavery. Also
Man, you guys still are failing to say why the relationships aren't equal.... there really hasn't been a debate over why it isn't equal, simply a debate about why it should/shouldn't be legislated on (fed vs state, etc). What is the other "side" to why they aren't equal? I may just "believe" this, but unless I missed it somewhere, you guys never said WHY you believe they aren't equal, just that they aren't, so shouldn't be legislated. Without hearin
You are still have been avoiding answering why the relationships aren't equal. I have already said why I think it is so.... I dont think it matters whether you love someone from the same gender or not, you are fully capable of the same type of relationship. Just because someone has the same sexual organs doesn't mean that your love has some imaginary limit to it. This may be what I "believe" but I don't see how someone could think otherwise.... why
Yes, I meant to say, "how can you say marriage is not a valid". "Because the government doesn't license sex. You don't go get a sex license from the government. When you go to get a license for marriage, you then are subject to people's democratically decided decisions about what the government will and will not license. The same could be said for prostitution." The government might not license sex, but homosexual relationships aren'
"And I back that up by saying we shouldn't legislate sin and allow this to become a marriage. " I understand why you would see it that way, however, there is suppose to be separation of church and state, so when you legislate laws, they should be based on more then "the bible says its sin". Of course people will still vote against it because they believe it is unacceptable because the religion they follow says so and may need no other reaso
"we've been over this before, about the people that have never heard the gospel. Let's just say, that all God wants to save, will be saved. He knows who his people are and who have the desire to follow him. Those he wants reached will be reached." Whoa, are you really saying that god knows they will not have the desire to follow him so does not spread the word to them? So he simply condemns them without even giving them a chance since he know
"Defining what is normal based on what's in the bible is like people defining what's normal based on what's in Lord of the Rings." Yes, there is no concise definition of normal, what one person or group of people think is normal can be different then another group. The bible is not the end all be all source for defining normal, sure some things make sense, but not all. The same with your personal views, they may be accurate 80% of the time,
I dunno baker, there are gays in every state, so people want it everywhere, maybe not the majority, but if you can adopt and be married in one state, what happens if you have to move? Why divide the country like that? Wouldn't it be better for the kids and gays if there were nationwide laws? This seems like to big of an issue to be divided by state.
By the last sentence Bakers, you simply mean you have a right to vote against it? Did I miss something?
Ha Sean, I dunno... that letter is much more sarcastic then my article, I am sure Laura got that she was being mocked... some people miss the sarcasm in my post. Is it because they support what I am saying, or because they think someone can be idiotic enough to actually believe the stuff I propose? So, some of you can accept homosexuality and dont mind if people practice it, but when it comes to marriage, it is unacceptable? Why is that?</
Ha, actually, I was hoping anyone confused on if the homosexual article was sarcastic or not would end up seeing this article and realize I was just mocking them
While reading an article on homosexuality, I noticed a lot of people would ask the same question, "what is normal". I don't see why people find it so confusing, it is simple. Normal, of course, is everything the bible says is right (if you aren't religious, it is what you don't find disgusting). Abnormal is everything the bible says is wrong (and what you find sic
This is partially written as a reply to Link and other similiar articles trying to bash zoophilia, but also simply me putting out thoughts on the issue. It seems the public has a big misunderstanding on what exactly zoophilia and bestiality are. The problem I have with most di
Ah, just found this website... seems like a good community. And for those of you wondering, my article on homosexuality was written in complete sarcasm. Link