The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 13

I think it's ridiculous to view homosexuality as an activity.  Then again, I feel the same way about heterosexuality.

I don't see hate in their posts, but I do see that they have been led astray by people who claim to know the will of their god.

IMUHO, of course. ;-)

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I meant insulting people, not making jokes.

"Then I demand my right to shot the one who is insulting me, because I took my honor."

(No I don't think killing someone is the correct answer to an insult, I just want to show that, what you demand, can, and will start some kind of chain reaction, ending in what I "demanded". Insult someone always has to face consequences, but it has not neccesary to be always some kind of lawyer needed consequences. If you insult someone in a bar, you mostly would only get a bloody nose.)

I don't even see it to be a right for me to insult someone, because an insult is an action directly AGAINST someone. It is a right to have a different opinion. Even to express the opinion, but I don't think it is a right to act against someone, because he doesn't match your opinion.

And here is the point:

Sure the anti-homosexual-marriage demonstrants have their right to say "In my opinion it is not right that homosexuals get married." But often it is more that they don't express their opinion, but try to act against the people trying to get equality rights. (And there are also exsamples the way around, not questioning that.)

In my opinion the anti-homosexual-marriage movement is very wrong, because they base (I would say "all") their arguments on hate and antique texts, which have nothing to do with a stat legislative.

You see the difference between the sentence: "homosexuals shall burn" and "I don't believe you are right with equal marriage rights."

With whom you would prefer to discuss the topic? :)

 I meant more that you shouldn't have to watch your back if you call someone a nasty name, hoping you wouldn't get sued or arrested or fined.

Mrebo said:

I grant you that it is problematic from a legal standpoint when people only refer to the bible to make their case. Yet for believers, the bible is not merely an antique text (and certainly not hateful). For them, it is the truth. Thus when a law is proposed that in their view sanctions something immoral, it is natural for them to oppose it.

except they don't always.  If they did,  we would have laws against being homosexual, not just against homosexuals marrying.   We would have laws against sex between people who are not married to each other,  masturbation,  lying(not just under oath), taking the Lord's name in vain, being disrespectful to your parents,  looking lustfully at a woman who is not your wife, having any un-Christian religious belief.   None of these things are illegal.   Yet those that say they must oppose gay being legal because of Bible do not say that they oppose the things I listed being legal.

Mrebo said:

There are alternative views for Christians to hold on marriage. For instance I know one evangelical who views homosexuality as immoral yet believes the government should have no role in marriage, which he sees as a religious sacrament quite different in nature from legal marriage, even as it exists for straight people. Sort of the difference between Christmas (Santa Version) and Christmas (Jesus Version).

I won't say government should have no role, but I do say that there is a difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. 

Mrebo said:

It should be respected when people sincerely advocate for positions based on their religious views, including advocating for laws.

So in your opinion it should be respected if a Muslim were to advocate for laws requiring women to completely cover themselves in public or if a Jewish person were advocate for laws banning the eating of pork products?   

Mrebo said:

 I see no hate in RO_2's or ender's posts but I think far too many people may take it that way.

 agree, and I think far too many don't understand that they really mean it when they say they love the sinner just not the sin.

TV's Frink said:

I think it's ridiculous to view homosexuality as an activity.  Then again, I feel the same way about heterosexuality.

but homosexual sex is an activity.

I don't mean homosexuality is an activity. That's ridiculous. I may as well call psychopathy an activity. Homosexual sex is an activity, just like heterosexual sex can be considered such. Homosexuality itself is not an activity though.

Homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are both activities, and there is nothing wrong with either of them.

You guys are so uptight. :p

Hey, by the way, can you define homosexual sex?

sexual relations between people of the same sex.

Define sexual relations.

To put it loosely and simply, sexual relations are an act between people which causes sexual pleasure/stimulation. A sex act is any act which stimulates the sexual organs/causes sexual pleasure.

So you're cool with homosexuals holding hands, right?

Depends why they're holding hands. :)

I am opposed to any sort of romantic relationship between homosexuals if that is what you mean, just as I would be against such relationships between siblings, regardless of whether or not sex acts were part of the relationship.

In both cases...why are you against romantic relationships?  Especially if sex is not involved?

Bump.  I'm surprised my (seemingly) support of incest failed to generate any comments.

I support incest in cases where both parties involved are in a mutually consentual relationship and there is no history of coercion or abuse between them.

There, I said it. May the mudslinging/accusations of closeted incestousness begin.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I support incest in cases where both parties involved are in a mutually consentual relationship and there is no history of coercion or abuse between them.

There, I said it. May the mudslinging/accusations of closeted incestousness begin.

I am not in to incest because it's nasty like anal sex so I don't have anything to contribute to the kind of responses you might be looking for with this statement.

:) 

I only brought it up because Ric did...and if you put the sex aside like he seemed to, I can't imagine why there would be a problem with any two adults in a romantic relationship.

TV's Frink said:

I only brought it up because Ric did...and if you put the sex aside like he seemed to, I can't imagine why there would be a problem with any two adults in a romantic relationship.

 I totally got your point. 

I haven't read the thread, but here's my take. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Honestly, I absolutely do not agree with homosexuality. I do not understand it and I do not condone it. Despite that, I do understand that a person can have a sexual motivation that they do not understand. For example, I am into slightly fluffy fully curved older women in lingerie, why? I dunno, I just am. Therefor, I sin regularly when I lust after these women even though I am married to a perfectly curved, but younger, woman. So, I arbor no hatred or contempt for those who are into homosexual acts as I feel my sin is as equal as theirs. I do not approve of their choice, but it is not of my concern for they will have to answer to GOD.

On the other hand, people chastise folks like me because I am certainly against gay marriage. How can a person who believes in "it is not his concern" have this view? Because marriage is a religious and societal concern. You are taking a personal act in the bedroom and trying to force it upon a society who may or may not be ready to accept it and it is, in my opinion, absolutely against our Constitution to force gay marriage upon people and states that have voted and/or passed laws and amendments forbidding such. Gay marriage and straight marriage are NOT Constitutional rights! I've read the Constitution, studied Madison's notes, and read the federalist and anti-federalist papers among other things; I do not recall any mention a right to marriage, either straight or gay.

Therefor, in accordance with our founding fathers wishes as per the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, this is simply a decision for the states and the people, respectively, to decide. Which is why is disconcerting to people like me when a single judge, or merely 5 justices, can overrule the decision of the people with one single swift motion, kind of like a tyranny. I am tolerant of homosexuality, but intolerant of the continued forceful effort to inject it into my everyday life, whether it be through a tv program, laws, culture, etc.

I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not support it, and I would move against it. However, should the people of my state vote for it, or my legislature approve it. I am left with no other option but to continue to fight it and urge against it, as those are my religious beliefs. I do not hate those who disagree with me, I merely disagree. Honestly, I do not care what they do in that other state, that is their Constitutional right to do and decide has they please.

Additionally, I certainly do think there is a slippery slope. This idea is mocked and downplayed, but it is reality. If "gay marriage" is permitted, why restrict polygamy, why restrict marriage between a man and animal, why restrict marriage between the living and the dead, why restrict marrying an inanimate object, so on and so forth. These are debates that are currently happening, and will continue should there be no single simple definition that is understood and agreed upon. Such as marriage is a legal, lawful, and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

Too many believe that disagreeing with homosexuality is hateful in and of itself, this is completely and utterly wrong. It is possible, and common I believe, to be tolerant, yet disagreeable. I love all of my gay brothers and sisters, I pray they can find salvation, but I feel they regularly perform sinful acts. I feel as equally about them as I do my brother and sisters who drink to excess, commit adultery, have lust in their hearts, or have sex prior to marriage. I myself am a sinner on the level of homosexuals as I did have sex prior to marriage, I regularly drink to excess, and I have a strong lust in my heart for other women. So why would I hate someone who, I believe, sins as much as I?

I have gay relatives, gay co-workers, and gay friends; all of whom I love. However, I simply do not condone their bedroom decisions anymore than I condone the bedroom decisions of the adulterer relatives, co-workers, and friends I have. Furthermore, as much I may love these folks, I just don't want their adulterer lifestyles flaunted and forced upon me and my family. I also know several relatives, co-workers, and friends who regularly lust after women who are not their wives or spouses. I do not want them flaunting, displaying, or having laws put in place to enforce or justify their sin of lust of which I'd have to explain to my 5 year old daughter sooner than I'd certainly intended.

But somehow, certain parts of society feel that I am wrong and that my 5 year old should be fully exposed to sexuality, homosexuality, adultery, and lust right now; not at my own or her own timeline. Some feel that if I should explain to her my belief these are sins, then I am a bigot. Some force upon us that if I do not capitulate, then I am an active bigot.

To these, I say damned you. Every person should keep their sexual desires and sins private and should allow me the right to teach my children how I please and when I please about those who have different beliefs than us, rather than some judge or five justices forcing me by fiat to have to explain these things sooner than I intended.

Additionally, I do not believe wholly in either idea that homosexuality is a choice or that it is from birth. Science, or religion, has thus far failed to make any conclusive theory and I doubt they ever will, the human being is far more complex than man can ever figure.

I believe in both ideas though, it just depends on the person, much like any other sexual desire. Some women are simply born to be nymphomaniacs, while others tend to choose to be through having been molested or conditioned to be so. Like me, why do I like curvy fluffy women? Who knows, but GOD says that I should only lust after and pay attention to only one fluffy curvy woman and I try, but very often fail.

Jetrell Fo said:

I am not in to incest because it's nasty like anal sex

 Of course, what constitutes "nasty" always varies from person to person.

MrBrown said:

ferris209 said:

...

I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not support it, and I would move against it. However, should the people of my state vote for it, or my legislature approve it. I am left with no other option but to continue to fight it and urge against it, as those are my religious beliefs. I do not hate those who disagree with me, I merely disagree. Honestly, I do not care what they do in that other state, that is their Constitutional right to do and decide has they please.

Additionally, I certainly do think there is a slippery slope. This idea is mocked and downplayed, but it is reality. If "gay marriage" is permitted, why restrict polygamy, why restrict marriage between a man and animal, why restrict marriage between the living and the dead, why restrict marrying an inanimate object, so on and so forth. These are debates that are currently happening, and will continue should there be no single simple definition that is understood and agreed upon. Such as marriage is a legal, lawful, and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

...

 So the easiest way to cut down any non-heterosexual-marriage discussions would be, if all additional rights, like visits in a hospital, or (I don't know if its as in USA as in Germany) the amount of taxes (in Germany marriaged couples have better tax rates then unmarriaged persons) and so on, also get deleted. So instead of giving different gender couples the rights of same gender couples, do it vice versa. This would kill all marriage discussions.

First, visitations within a hospital are not "rights", they are the decision of the hospital.

As a matter of FACT, the myth of partners being denied visits in the hospital is negligible, at least here in the United States. Seriously, it is a red herring argument, but nothing based on actual fact. There are extremely very few, denied access to their sexual partner.

Additionally, the fact of taxes. Under a truly good government nobody would be taxed over a rate of 15%, no matter their sexual preference, choice, marriage, or selection.

Isn't it funny how non-biased capitalism and conservatism can be?