The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 17

RicOlie_2 said:

I never have, do not, and never will watch porn

I envy you. I think I'd have a little more inner peace had I never watched any videos of semen-drenched women degrading themselves to fill some holes (no pun intended) in their worthless, meaningless lives.

thejediknighthusezni said:

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

 Go away.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

...

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 meant that marriage can be ended very easily now, so instead of solving their problems and working out their differences, couples divorce. This is very traumatic for their children and it is emotionally painful for them too. The word "permanent" may still be their, but marriage is not actually permanent nowadays.

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.

In a lot of cases it isn't responsible adults making the choice to have sex before marriage that get them into trouble, but irresponsible teenagers. The harm done to them is largely spiritual harm, something I know isn't going to faze most of them, but as a Christian I value the spiritual side of life far more than the physical.

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?

I agree, that is a bit of a weak point.

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

I suppose you either didn't read Part IV of the article or you dismissed it as nonsense because you read it on a Catholic, anti-gay-marriage article. I think there is something to that data. Do you have the counter evidence? I currently don't have any reasons against believing that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind other than being told that it isn't. How do I know that it wasn't just declared a non-disorder due to political and social pressure and not conclusive evidence/lack of evidence?

I am also curious as to why you tell me how sad you are over my religion. Do you think your condescending tone will change my mind and make me realize the errors of my ways? Should I go mope in a corner and tell you how sad I am that you don't believe in God in almost all of my posts? Are you just trying to be expressive of your feelings--will you let me know when you're happy too? I don't think it's necessary to tell me how sad you are. If you continue I'll do the same thing and you can see how pointless it is.

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.

 What I mean is that the government should stay clear of all marriages and unions of any sort. People can form their own groups for marrying if they so wish and marry how they want. Then the government isn't infringing on my religious beliefs and other people don't feel unequal. I would much rather there was no such thing and gay marriage once again became an unheard of thing, but that isn't going to happen. The next best thing is for governments to take a step back, drop all laws on the subject, and permit organizations for the purpose of marrying people to spring up, much like funeral homes (meaning it would be the type of business a funeral home is, not a church or something like that).

TV's Frink said:

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.

 Alright, that's all I needed. Some people have a weaker definition of romantic. Perhaps my definition is still stronger than yours, but I am now able to explain.

I don't think it's really wrong on its own, but it's where it might lead. If these people have a strong sexual attraction to each other, why bother forming such a relationship knowing that they won't be able to marry or have sex? They are likely to step over the line at some point, as such a relationship cannot be maintained indefinitely. I say let them be friends, but leave it at friends because that leaves them two steps away from stepping over the line instead of one.

Some of what you're bringing up has nothing to do with homosexuality.

As for my sadness, I'm sorry it bothers you but I'm being honest.  I wish religions would be more open-minded.

I'm agnostic, by the way.

TV's Frink said:

Some of what you're bringing up has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I was answering your questions. Both of us were equally off topic. I think the issues are related however, even if not directly.

As for my sadness, I'm sorry it bothers you but I'm being honest.  I wish religions would be more open-minded.

I'm aware you're being honest, but why tell me? I am genuinely sad that you think abortion is okay and that you don't believe in God. I don't feel the need to tell you so every second post, because I know it wouldn't accomplish anything. Maybe I am taking it for more than what I should though.

Don't you realize that you aren't being open-minded about religion? Did you or did you not read the article I posted, and if so, what did you think about it? You seem to me to be just dismissing any evidence I present for my case due to your equally biased view. You can't tell me that you are being open-minded and yet not make concessions for my viewpoint as well.

I'm agnostic, by the way.

 I am aware of that. Do you believe in God/a god? I didn't think so. I didn't mean that you believe there isn't a god, I meant that you don't believe there is one.

twister111 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I meant that marriage can be ended very easily now, so instead of solving their problems and working out their differences, couples divorce. This is very traumatic for their children and it is emotionally painful for them too. The word "permanent" may still be their, but marriage is not actually permanent nowadays.

Um, I just have to say that sometimes a divorce is A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT, no really a lot better for the kids involved than the parents trying to work things out. Seriously in some cases it's such a superior awesomely fantastic option for the parents to take. Also in some cases any "emotional harm" may be entirely absent. It's also possible that it may even make the kids so much happier.... Just saying.

 That is only in a very few cases, and parents should work out most of their differences before marriage. Of course sometimes new problems come up, but the top 5 plus reasons for divorce show if people really got to know each other and work out their problems they wouldn't be as likely to divorce.

I believe couples should be allowed to live separately if there is a problem, but that they should remain married to only each other. Then if they have time to resolve their issues and cool off they can move together again.

Additionally, it is only in rare cases that divorce does not have a negative impact on both children and parents.

BTW, if you think I'm starting to look like I'm worked up, let me know so I can back off for a bit. I want my arguments and defenses to sound rational and calm, otherwise they won't be convincing in the slightest.

I'm not sure you understand what agnostic means...or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.

TV's Frink said:

I'm not sure you understand what agnostic means...or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.

 I think I'm just being unclear.

Being agnostic, I assume you don't believe in God. Being agnostic you also don't believe their is no God. So you neither believe there is or isn't a god out there, as your beliefs in that area are undefined...is that not correct? It would be true, would it not, to say that you don't believe in God, but it would also be true to say that you don't believe that God is a myth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and apologies if I'm still not clear, but that is how I understand it: you neither believe nor disbelieve.

MrBrown said:

I still think that forbiddance of gay marriage is against US constitutional law of equality of all people in front of the law.

Whats about the so called "Country of Freedom" if you use your "freedom" to limit the freedom of others? It is against what Amerca once stands for.

If you want it harsh: The rules of the catholic church are strictly against the constitutional rights in the USA.

I think you are forgetting that the US Constitution was based on Christian values. Saying that it contradicts Christian values must therefore be at least a partial fallacy.

That's, why it would be better to strictly seperate between church and law.

In some ways perhaps. I don't think the government should be allowed to mess around with things like marriage.

If you left out your catholic church beliefe against homosexual marriage, what is left against it? No valid argumentation.

Not so. I suggest you read the article I posted in post 389.

Maybe homosexual pairs can't "create" their own children. But there are enough children in the USA (and other countries in the world) who have no family at all. With forbiddance of the homosexual marriage, and the denying of the rights heterosexual peopel have, you TAKE possibilities away.

Children who grow up with only one gender of parent typically don't grow up properly and have problems as they grow older. If everyone lived by Christian values there wouldn't be any problem with unwanted, orphaned, or poor children and that would be a non-issue, so please don't use that argument.

Skip the discussion of "free choice of belief" because it shall not be a discussion of what people beliefe, but of facts.

The only problem with that is that those people believe they are facts...so that can not solve any problems.

And, yes, I even would say this to polygame marriage. If, say, two men are happy sharing one wife... it really can work.

I would definine marriage (in front of the law) as an engangement possible between consenting, living adults.

As stated before:

Neither buildings nor cussions are living, while neither animals nor children are consenting... or adults.

 You can define marriage that way, but it is not the way my religion defines marriage. We don't have a flimsy, changeable definition of marriage, because to us that would be like changing the definition of "female"--though that is something that society has changed with the whole trans-gender thing.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm not sure you understand what agnostic means...or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.

 I think I'm just being unclear.

Being agnostic, I assume you don't believe in God. Being agnostic you also don't believe their is no God. So you neither believe there is or isn't a god out there, as your beliefs in that area are undefined...is that not correct? It would be true, would it not, to say that you don't believe in God, but it would also be true to say that you don't believe that God is a myth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and apologies if I'm still not clear, but that is how I understand it: you neither believe nor disbelieve.

 Yes, although you make it sound like I'm both an atheist and a theist, rather than neither.

I don't mean it that way though. I do understand and recognize the distinction.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

TV's Frink said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

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

 Go away.

 I second that.

TV's Frink said:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

MrBrown said:

...

 As you said "if". Also the most problems homosexual parents and their adopted children are not from the fact that the parents are of the same gender, but the fact that outstanding people working, and acting against it.

I would think that the most natural family unit would be the healthiest and most balanced one. Such a family unit would obviously be able to have children (i.e. there would be a father and a mother).

Also the sentence "if everyone lived by christian values..." to negate my argumentation is indeed invalid, because the facts are that never eryone will live by those "values" and that is a good thing, because these values are, watched from the outside, illogical and dangerous.

Illogical and dangerous...watched from the outside, atheism is illogical and dangerous. What is your point? How is it illogical and dangerous? In principle it is a loving, tolerant religion. Ooh, love and tolerance! Danger, danger! Cannot coexist with logic!

You gave yourself enough reasons why tha catholic church cannot be right, and only your beliefe in it give it the power to control you.

I don't blindly accept the teachings of the Church, but try my best to think things through and find the logical reasons for the Church's teachings. Having said that, I do accept all the Church's teachings, even before I find the root reasons for them. I don't leave it at that though.

You define the morale sights of the catholic church as permanent. But History shows that it is indeed fluid. You said that past time things done and preached by the institutional catholic chruch were wrong and not in agreement with the principles of the catholic church. But just because these principles changed since that time. So, what today is told as "what was wrong in the past" was in what the catholic church sgreed back then.

You are completely misunderstanding how it all works. Not once, not once has the Catholic Church changed its doctrine. Popes and bishops have condoned bad things, but the doctrine of the Church and the Bible still taught that they were wrong. The saints of the time taught that they were wrong. I did say that such things were against the principles and doctrines of the Church, but they did not change over time but have remained constant from the first century.

Thus it is possible that in few hundret years the catholic church also has a complete other point of teaching regarding homosexual marriage. It would just need one pope changing catholic marriage teachings a bit.

No, that's not how it works. Popes cannot change existing doctrine because truth never changes. They can add to it, but they cannot, ever, change it. Different understandings of things may come about and some views on things may change, but never Church doctrine.

Homosexuality is never condemned explicitly in the new testament, only in the old testament. The point here is that different translation does different interpretations. With all its translating and interpretation errors, I can't accept the bible as a valid source for any law.

 That is why I think the Catholic Church is necessary. It is the original manuscripts from which our current Bible was copied that are infallible, and there are translational errors in current translations (there are at least thirty thousand in the KJV). The Catholic Church interprets Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just because homosexuality isn't explicitly condemned in the New Testament but only in the Old Testament doesn't mean that has become okay since the OT was written.

MrBrown said:

A page which write such sh*t http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk cannot be taken serious...

 First of all, that was written by a different author, secondly, what are your reasons against what that articles says (BTW, I don't have a position here as I don't know enough facts, but I would like to hear your reasons for condemning the article as [a four letter word])?

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

 http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/