The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 16

I'm gonna go Warb for this one...

ferris209 said:

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 currentlyhappening, 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.

Because two like-minded people marrying is the same thing as a person marrying a building or a pillow.

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?

Drinking to excess can harm others.  Adultery definitely hurts others.  Lust in your heart is a bit different if you don't act, so I'll set that one aside.

What harm does sex prior to marriage or gay marriage do to others?

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.

I wouldn't ask you to condone homosexual activity, you are welcome to your opinion.  But it is wrong to deny equality to others just because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't want to have to explain it to your daughter.

How does one flaunt an adulterer lifestyle, anyway?

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.

Certain parts of society want you to expose her to adultery and lust right now?  Explain how.

Homosexuality is part of sexuality, like it or not.  I fail to see how seeing two men or women getting married would scar her for life.  We're not asking you to show her gay porn.

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.

 I can't wrap my head around this.  You should be advocating for no marriage at all based on this.  Oh, and you believe apples have no special powers, right?  I believe if I put an apple on my head it brings me good luck.  But in your world, I can't put an apple on my head in public because it would be pushing my beliefs on you and your daughter rather than letting you choose when to teach her apples aren't like that.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

 Then why is it wrong to "practice homosexuality?"  What if your religion says you should?

If homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality then why does one need to practice being one or the other?

;)

 You used a winky, implying a joke, but of course one doesn't have to practice one or the other.  Read the thread title again.

TV's Frink said:

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

 RO_2, care to answer?  The cases were homosexuality and incest.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

^In addition to the above, I don't believe Jews sin when they celebrate Hanukkah, or Muslims sin when they observe the Ramadan fast and they might in fact sin by celebrating a Christian feast if their religion teaches it is wrong to do so.

 Then why is it wrong to "practice homosexuality?"  What if your religion says you should?

 I think it is wrong for a Muslim to kill a non-believer even though it is a religious requirement for them.

I'm not saying that the teachings of one's religion justify any action done in accordance with that religion, but that a person might in fact sin if they think they are doing something wrong (even though it isn't) and do it anyway. On the other hand, someone might do something they believe is right, even though it is wrong, and might therefore not sin. However, this depends on what the action is, and how serious it actually is. Murder is a mortal sin in my religion (with some exceptions in which it may not even be a sin at all), but it could be lessened to a venial sin if the murderer is convinced that it is right. Celebrating a religious festival is a minor form of disobedience to the first commandment for Christians and Jews, and as a more minor offense (it can be serious though as I discussed in a previous post) it can be considered a non-offense if the person is truly ignorant of the fact that it is wrong.

The same applies for homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex acts (and anyone who engages in a sex act outside of marriage). If they are really ignorant of the fact that what they are doing is wrong, then they will only be committing a minor sin, and possibly none at all.

Catholics believe they will be judged far more harshly than others because we believe we have the truth. An analogy of this is that a person who picks up a hundred dollar bill off the ground and pockets it, knowing that it just dropped out of the purse of a woman walking ahead of him is more guilty than a boy who, not having seen the bill fall or knowing any better, picks it up and pockets it.

To use a similar analogy to demonstrate the difference between degrees of seriousness, a man may murder someone, knowing full well how wrong it is and be sentenced to life imprisonment. Another man, hallucinating and insane, could also kill a man but receive a far milder punishment, since he would have more excuse than the first man.

Make sense?

RicOlie_2 said:

The same applies for homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex acts (and anyone who engages in a sex act outside of marriage). If they are really ignorant of the fact that what they are doing is wrong, then they will only be committing a minor sin, and possibly none at all.

 Do you really think homosexuals think they are doing something wrong?

What would be an example of a homosexual who is not ignorant of the wrongness of their actions?

And are you saying that homosexual acts might not be sins, if committed in ignorance?

By the way, it's so much nicer just being accepting of these kinds of things and not have to twist yourself into knots justifying your stance against. :p

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

 Then why is it wrong to "practice homosexuality?"  What if your religion says you should?

If homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality then why does one need to practice being one or the other?

;)

 You used a winky, implying a joke, but of course one doesn't have to practice one or the other.  Read the thread title again.

If both are natural functions ..... one need not practice or have a religion to tell them to ... because it comes naturally, but I think you already knew what I meant.

:)

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

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

 RO_2, care to answer?  The cases were homosexuality and incest.

 Ah, yes, I forgot to reply to this one earlier.

First of all...having that kind of relationship with a person related to you seems just plain weird, but I think it's more that there's no reason to believe that it would remain non-sexual romantic relationship.

Also, this heavily depends on your definition of romance. Can you define "romance" and "romantic relationship"?

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The same applies for homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex acts (and anyone who engages in a sex act outside of marriage). If they are really ignorant of the fact that what they are doing is wrong, then they will only be committing a minor sin, and possibly none at all.

 Do you really think homosexuals think they are doing something wrong?

What would be an example of a homosexual who is not ignorant of the wrongness of their actions?

And are you saying that homosexual acts might not be sins, if committed in ignorance?

 A lot, probably most, homosexuals would not think they were doing something wrong in today's society.

Their actions may not be sins (though as I mentioned they still might be minor sins), but they are still wrong. It doesn't seem like much of a distinction, but my analogies hopefully help clarify the difference. It is wrong to kill someone, but it may be pardonable in some circumstances--those circumstances don't change the fact that it is wrong.

TV's Frink said:

By the way, it's so much nicer just being accepting of these kinds of things and not have to twist yourself into knots justifying your stance against. :p

 The thing about that though, is that you end up sliding down a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you decide "That isn't acceptable, I'm not going to tolerate it"? It used to be completely unacceptable for two men to marry. In the future something else that you think is completely unacceptable might be viewed as entirely normal by society. Would you go on, accepting and tolerating everyone and everything that society accepts, or would you draw the line at some point and hold to your old views?

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

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

 RO_2, care to answer?  The cases were homosexuality and incest.

 Ah, yes, I forgot to reply to this one earlier.

First of all...having that kind of relationship with a person related to you seems just plain weird, but I think it's more that there's no reason to believe that it would remain non-sexual romantic relationship.

Also, this heavily depends on your definition of romance. Can you define "romance" and "romantic relationship"?

 I agree it seems weird, but weird does not equal wrong.

You were the one who said you were against homosexual relationships, even if non-sexual, so I'm not sure why you need me to define the terms for you.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The same applies for homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex acts (and anyone who engages in a sex act outside of marriage). If they are really ignorant of the fact that what they are doing is wrong, then they will only be committing a minor sin, and possibly none at all.

 Do you really think homosexuals think they are doing something wrong?

What would be an example of a homosexual who is not ignorant of the wrongness of their actions?

And are you saying that homosexual acts might not be sins, if committed in ignorance?

 A lot, probably most, homosexuals would not think they were doing something wrong in today's society.

Their actions may not be sins (though as I mentioned they still might be minor sins), but they are still wrong.

 Why are they wrong?

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

By the way, it's so much nicer just being accepting of these kinds of things and not have to twist yourself into knots justifying your stance against. :p

 The thing about that though, is that you end up sliding down a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you decide "That isn't acceptable, I'm not going to tolerate it"? It used to be completely unacceptable for two men to marry. In the future something else that you think is completely unacceptable might be viewed as entirely normal by society. Would you go on, accepting and tolerating everyone and everything that society accepts, or would you draw the line at some point and hold to your old views?

To go back to the examples of the woman marrying the Eiffel Tower and the man marrying the pillow - so what?  I think those two people are ridiculous, but if society decides it should be legally allowed, why should I care?

TV's Frink said:

I'm gonna go Warb for this one...

ferris209 said:

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 currentlyhappening, 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.

Because two like-minded people marrying is the same thing as a person marrying a building or a pillow.

The problem, though, is that the definition of marriage has been changed from "a permanent union of a man and a woman" to "a bond [notice the absence of "permanent"] between two people". So what's to prevent that to being changed to "a bond between two animate objects" or something similar? It may sound absurd, but look at how different the first two definitions of marriage are.

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?

Drinking to excess can harm others.  Adultery definitely hurts others.  Lust in your heart is a bit different if you don't act, so I'll set that one aside.

What harm does sex prior to marriage or gay marriage do to others?

Premarital sex does a lot of harm to the people involved. They are far more likely to divorce, plus there is a much greater chance of contracting STDs with multiple sex partners. If you make the claim that suppressing premarital sex results in more premarital sex and therefore more babies being born out of wedlock, take a look at the hundreds of years during which this kind of thing was heavily discouraged and compare out-of-wedlock pregnancies then with those now. Also, those who have sex before marriage are more likely to cheat, and less likely to enjoy sex as much once they are married than those who remain virgin until marriage. Additionally, people who have sex before marriage are more likely to link a good relationship with sex (even if just psychologically) which can lead to them viewing their partner in a completely different light than if they remained chaste until marriage and married the person for who they are. Not everyone is like that, I know, but the increase of infidelity among those who have more sexual partners and have sex before marriage is an indicator of that attitude. Also, a guy can far more easily dump a pregnant girlfriend than a pregnant wife, so in the former case the girl is more likely to be left in a far worse position than she would if she (a) had the baby within marriage or (b) hadn't had sex at all.

I would hunt down my sources, but I don't have the time right now and I have heard these things over and over again from various places, so I trust that information and my common sense enough to believe it.

Gay marriage is less harmful if no child is adopted (children adopted by homosexual parents tend to have a rough life, and I'm sure you're smart enough that you can think of reasons why, other than being bullied by people for it). Homosexual couples tend to also be less happy than heterosexual couples.

Read this article to get a more detailed answer to the gay marriage problem, though you may want to read only what interests you and skip the sections that you don't want the answers for, as it is a rather long article. Section IV is probably the most interesting, and the one most relevant to your question.

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.

I wouldn't ask you to condone homosexual activity, you are welcome to your opinion.  But it is wrong to deny equality to others just because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't want to have to explain it to your daughter.

Don't you think it would be confusing to a child who sees that his/her friends all have a mom and dad but has two dads or two moms of her own?

How does one flaunt an adulterer lifestyle, anyway?

Not sure...

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.

Certain parts of society want you to expose her to adultery and lust right now?  Explain how.

At school, it is generally acceptable for kids to talk about sex in all kinds of detail, so it is pretty darn hard to keep a child away from that. As a teenager, she will likely be pressured to have sex, or at least view pornography. In our society you aren't "cool" if you don't have sex, so don't claim that she can escape it. Perhaps society as a whole doesn't have a desire to expose her to it, but her peers sure will. And don't deny that either. Being a teenager myself, I know what teenagers are like in our society and most of them seem to want to flaunt their knowledge and experience of sex to all their peers.

Homosexuality is part of sexuality, like it or not.  I fail to see how seeing two men or women getting married would scar her for life.  We're not asking you to show her gay porn.

For a young child, it is confusing to see two people of the same gender marry when most married couples you know of are heterosexual. It is also highly debatable whether or not homosexuality is actually part of sexuality.

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.

 I can't wrap my head around this.  You should be advocating for no marriage at all based on this.  Oh, and you believe apples have no special powers, right?  I believe if I put an apple on my head it brings me good luck.  But in your world, I can't put an apple on my head in public because it would be pushing my beliefs on you and your daughter rather than letting you choose when to teach her apples aren't like that.

 I don't think the government should "marry" people at all. In my view, yes, I think there shouldn't be any civil unions. I think marriage should not be meddled with and defined by the government.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

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

 RO_2, care to answer?  The cases were homosexuality and incest.

 Ah, yes, I forgot to reply to this one earlier.

First of all...having that kind of relationship with a person related to you seems just plain weird, but I think it's more that there's no reason to believe that it would remain non-sexual romantic relationship.

Also, this heavily depends on your definition of romance. Can you define "romance" and "romantic relationship"?

 I agree it seems weird, but weird does not equal wrong.

You were the one who said you were against homosexual relationships, even if non-sexual, so I'm not sure why you need me to define the terms for you.

 If you don't think it's wrong, perhaps we have different things in mind when we use the word "romance." I just wanted to clear that up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with two homosexual guys or girls being friends whatsoever, but I don't think they should date or maintain a romantic relationship.

By romantic I mean they are in love, they feel sexually attracted to each other, they share kisses and hold hands*, etc.

*I don't think kissing and holding hands is a requirement for a romantic relationship, just that it is usually involved.

You haven't answered my core question - why shouldn't they be involved romantically?

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The same applies for homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex acts (and anyone who engages in a sex act outside of marriage). If they are really ignorant of the fact that what they are doing is wrong, then they will only be committing a minor sin, and possibly none at all.

 Do you really think homosexuals think they are doing something wrong?

What would be an example of a homosexual who is not ignorant of the wrongness of their actions?

And are you saying that homosexual acts might not be sins, if committed in ignorance?

 A lot, probably most, homosexuals would not think they were doing something wrong in today's society.

Their actions may not be sins (though as I mentioned they still might be minor sins), but they are still wrong.

 Why are they wrong?

 I believe they are wrong because it says so in the Bible.

I also believe homosexual sex is wrong because I think sex out of marriage is wrong. I believe marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman, characterized by fidelity and love between the man, woman, and their children, and that its primary purpose is to provide a balanced unit in which to raise children. This has proven beneficial to society and it is what is defined in the Bible. It also seems the most natural and problem-free (not problem-free, but the most problem-free) family structure.

TV's Frink said:

You haven't answered my core question - why shouldn't they be involved romantically?

 And you haven't answered my question, on which my answer of your question is dependent.

So once again, how do you define "romantic relationship"? I gave my rough definition, so please give yours. I already answered your question as best as I was able with what you gave me, but I can't be any more specific without your clarification.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm gonna go Warb for this one...

ferris209 said:

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 currentlyhappening, 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.

Because two like-minded people marrying is the same thing as a person marrying a building or a pillow.

The problem, though, is that the definition of marriage has been changed from "a permanent union of a man and a woman" to "a bond [notice the absence of "permanent"] between two people". So what's to prevent that to being changed to "a bond between two animate objects" or something similar? It may sound absurd, but look at how different the first two definitions of marriage are.

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?

Drinking to excess can harm others.  Adultery definitely hurts others.  Lust in your heart is a bit different if you don't act, so I'll set that one aside.

What harm does sex prior to marriage or gay marriage do to others?

Premarital sex does a lot of harm to the people involved. They are far more likely to divorce, plus there is a much greater chance of contracting STDs with multiple sex partners. If you make the claim that suppressing premarital sex results in more premarital sex and therefore more babies being born out of wedlock, take a look at the hundreds of years during which this kind of thing was heavily discouraged and compare out-of-wedlock pregnancies then with those now. Also, those who have sex before marriage are more likely to cheat, and less likely to enjoy sex as much once they are married than those who remain virgin until marriage. Additionally, people who have sex before marriage are more likely to link a good relationship with sex (even if just psychologically) which can lead to them viewing their partner in a completely different light than if they remained chaste until marriage and married the person for who they are. Not everyone is like that, I know, but the increase of infidelity among those who have more sexual partners and have sex before marriage is an indicator of that attitude. Also, a guy can far more easily dump a pregnant girlfriend than a pregnant wife, so in the former case the girl is more likely to be left in a far worse position than she would if she (a) had the baby within marriage or (b) hadn't had sex at all.

I would hunt down my sources, but I don't have the time right now and I have heard these things over and over again from various places, so I trust that information and my common sense enough to believe it.

Gay marriage is less harmful if no child is adopted (children adopted by homosexual parents tend to have a rough life, and I'm sure you're smart enough that you can think of reasons why, other than being bullied by people for it). Homosexual couples tend to also be less happy than heterosexual couples.

Read this article to get a more detailed answer to the gay marriage problem, though you may want to read only what interests you and skip the sections that you don't want the answers for, as it is a rather long article. Section IV is probably the most interesting, and the one most relevant to your question.

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.

I wouldn't ask you to condone homosexual activity, you are welcome to your opinion.  But it is wrong to deny equality to others just because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't want to have to explain it to your daughter.

Don't you think it would be confusing to a child who sees that his/her friends all have a mom and dad but has two dads or two moms of her own?

How does one flaunt an adulterer lifestyle, anyway?

Not sure...

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.

Certain parts of society want you to expose her to adultery and lust right now?  Explain how.

At school, it is generally acceptable for kids to talk about sex in all kinds of detail, so it is pretty darn hard to keep a child away from that. As a teenager, she will likely be pressured to have sex, or at least view pornography. In our society you aren't "cool" if you don't have sex, so don't claim that she can escape it. Perhaps society as a whole doesn't have a desire to expose her to it, but her peers sure will. And don't deny that either. Being a teenager myself, I know what teenagers are like in our society and most of them seem to want to flaunt their knowledge and experience of sex to all their peers.

Homosexuality is part of sexuality, like it or not.  I fail to see how seeing two men or women getting married would scar her for life.  We're not asking you to show her gay porn.

For a young child, it is confusing to see two people of the same gender marry when most married couples you know of are heterosexual. It is also highly debatable whether or not homosexuality is actually part of sexuality.

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.

 I can't wrap my head around this.  You should be advocating for no marriage at all based on this.  Oh, and you believe apples have no special powers, right?  I believe if I put an apple on my head it brings me good luck.  But in your world, I can't put an apple on my head in public because it would be pushing my beliefs on you and your daughter rather than letting you choose when to teach her apples aren't like that.

 I don't think the government should "marry" people at all. In my view, yes, I think there shouldn't be any civil unions. I think marriage should not be meddled with and defined by the government.

 The removal of "permanent" from the definition of marriage - is that where you live?  I'm not aware that in the US all definitions of marriage that include homosexual marriage have removed that word.  But again, so what?  Why is it a problem?

I want to know what harm sex before marriage or sex between homosexuals does to people outside of the people having the sex.  Adults making their own decisions can live with the consequences and don't need others living their lives for them.

Having kids be confused is a problem?  Kids are confused every day, and as parents our job is to explain things to them.  Should we not raise vegetarians because we'd have to explain why other kids eat meat?  Hell, should Jewish parents celebrate Christmas and not tell their kids the truth about Santa to protect them from confusion?

It's highly debatable that homosexuality is part of sexuality?  I'm sad that someone taught you this.

I don't have a problem with government and religion having separate terms for marriage, if that's how you want to put it.  If "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of religion and a "civil union" is a union between any two consenting adults in the eyes of government, that would be fine with me.

I'm getting tired due to so many late nights during the holidays, so I'm off to bed before I start sounding like a blathering idiot. I'll continue discussion tomorrow.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

You haven't answered my core question - why shouldn't they be involved romantically?

 And you haven't answered my question, on which my answer of your question is dependent.

So once again, how do you define "romantic relationship"? I gave my rough definition, so please give yours. I already answered your question as best as I was able with what you gave me, but I can't be any more specific without your clarification.

 I fail to see how my definition of romantic relationship is in any way relevant.  I define it essentially as you do, but I want to know why two consenting adults shouldn't hold hands, shouldn't kiss, shouldn't snuggle on the couch and watch their favorite show.

I seriously need to take a break from this thread.  It makes me super sad.

Mrebo said:

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?

It is a good question. I draw a distinction between laws that outlaw a personal activity (like women being uncovered/people eating pork/people 'practicing' homosexuality) and laws that operate through a government program (like marriage/health insurance contraception requirement/sex education in schools). The latter category requires value judgments.

I fail to understand this distinction you are making, and surely you can see the problems that can happen when you ask the government to make value judgments.

Mrebo said:

The first category seeks to oppress personal activity. I don't think oppression is respectable simply because it is religiously motivated.* Many people feel not including homosexual relationships under marriage is itself oppressive. This makes total sense if one sees no difference between gay and straight relationships. The issue is that for many religious people, there is a substantive difference, and at least in the context of the government program of marriage, they cannot in good conscience sanction the relationships as equals.

No one is asking them to sanction the relations, only government.   Did it ever occur to you that maybe the government shouldn't be taking a side in this debate?   Only way to for government to not a take a side is allow homosexuals to legally marry.  

Mrebo said:

Some Christians take the position that legal marriage doesn't mean that much and broadly permissive rules are not a sign of approval.

it isn't a sign of approval.   I agree that the Westboro baptists ought to be allowed to hold their views on homosexuality, but that isn't a sign of approval of those views is it? 

      The Westboro "Baptists" are a mainstream media creation gleefully promoted to generate maximum HATRED towards genuine Christians.