The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

What's the point of sharing my opinion if all you are going to do is complain about it?

Gosh, just imagine if this was a forum, for discussion... There'd be opinions, discussion about opinions and counter-opinions everywhere!

The humanity!

 

[Encyclopedia]

What's the point of sharing my opinion if all you are going to do is complain about it? You already have your minds made up, as do I. Let's agree to disagree.

The point is to argue for your opinion, as well as try to defend it against the counterarguments you get from people with another opinion. If you can't then either try to think through your arguments more or consider if your opponents actually do have a point.

Or just leave if you're not interested.

 

[TB]

The point is to argue for your opinion, as well as try to defend it against the counterarguments you get form people with another opinion without resorting to telling people what to do with their rear ends or making childish remarks.

FTFY

 

[hogger129]

'Gay' is just a way to make a bad thing sound better.

 

[Encyclopedia]

'Gay' is just a way to make a bad thing sound better.

"Sin" is just a way to make a perfectly ok thing sound bad.

 

[Danny]

'Gay' is just a way to make a bad thing sound better.

Like the rest of your poorly constructed diatribes, you're lacking in any reasoning. It's fine to have opinions, but you just have no reasoning whatsoever. I dunno, maybe it's a childhood thing. Did a lesbian steal your christmas tree one year?

Normally I'd suspect trolling, but trolls are at least funny. You just sound uneducated.

 

[hogger129]

"Sin" is just a way to make a perfectly ok thing sound bad.

What makes it okay?

 

[Encyclopedia]

What makes it okay?

It's natural and doesn't hurt anybody. Simple as that.

 

[hogger129]

It's natural and doesn't hurt anybody. Simple as that.

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

So to say that it is natural and that it does not harm anybody is simply not true.

 

[Carbonox]

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

First of all you don't seem to have a source anywhere, secondly, I bet you skipped this one.

Here is the deal. My cousin has been in a lesbian marriage for ten years now. This year was their 10th anniversary and they celebrated by driving to Iowa to make it legal.

Their relationship has zero visible difference than the one I have with my wife. They are parents to two children via adoption. These two kids were taken from their genetic parents at birth because they had so many drugs in their system at birth that the first six weeks of their life were spent in detox as they suffered the torturous agony of withdrawal. The parents had an opportunity to get their kids back, but one never showed to any hearings and the other made it to the first hearing, where she announced that no "thespian" would raise her baby. The next hearing she skipped to go to Florida, which got her visitations changed to full supervision. She started missing visitations after that and just disappeared.

Those poor kids, denied drug addicted, neglectful, illiterate, and uneducated parents and now forced to live with two caring mothers, one with a PhD in marine biology.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

So to say that it is natural and that it does not harm anybody is simply not true.

What a load of nonsense. First of all, marriage is not natural, sexuality is. And it is sexuality I'm talking about seeing as this is a thread about homosexuality, not marriage.

I don't know what natural law you're talking about, and I don't know why you think a child must have a father and a mother in order to have a good upbringing. There's nothing that says that kids with same sex parents have it any worse than anyone else.

What a child needs is loving and supporting parents.

 

[Famine]

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Uh-huh. And in the 100,000 year history of humans, how long have they been marrying one another (and one at a time)?

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

My eldest is being raised by one party with no blood relationship to her. A very good friend of mine is raising a child to whom they have no blood relationship.

I wonder what your "natural law" says about that. And, for that matter, divorce, premature death or gamete donation - the commonest reasons for a child being raised by one party with no blood relationship to them.

 

[TB]

What a child needs is loving and supporting parents.

This.

As has been already pointed out, there are countless people that have no right* to raise a child and yet in your book that's alright. On the flip side, there are also countless people that are incapable of having a child, either due to fertility issues or because of a same sex marriage, which you've stated the former of which is an abomination.

If I've got that all straight, and I'm pretty sure I do, you then go on to say that

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother.

For the most part, I'd agree - if the parents are capable enough to raise the kids, and the vast majority are, let them be. However there are those children that would be better cared for in a same sex household for the aforementioned reasons. How can you not see that this is not a one-size-fits-all scenario? If the Pope is cool with it, what do you care?

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

And yes, I've pretty much just restated @FoolKiller's post without the personal bits.

*right as in they either can't afford them and they get pawned off onto the state or they're so drugged up that they aren't caring for them anyway

 

[DK]

Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

The Epistle to the Romans also teaches that gays are "worthy of death", and yet you have the sense to not lynch them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

So to say that it is natural and that it does not harm anybody is simply not true.

The old "Natures Law" argument. Taking a crap is natural. Would you like me to take one on your front porch? Burping and farting is natural, would you like me to do it at your Christmas dinner?

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

As far as I know, a child's best interests are to be raised in a safe, caring, loving, nuruturing environment, something many kids in heterosexual marriages do not experience.

By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him.

So then why can't homosexuals perceive what is morally good or bad for them? Or are they by definition insane and unable to see what is morally good or bad?

 

[Villain]

What's the point of sharing my opinion if all you are going to do is complain about it? You already have your minds made up, as do I. Let's agree to disagree.

They're not complaining about your opinions. They are effectively rebutting the points you've raised (every single one of them) and you're showing that you're too stubborn to entertain the remote possibility that you might be wrong. Every point you've raised has been addressed. That's what a debate does. If you want to be involved in a debate, then go piece by piece through the points that they've made and respectively argue why it is that they do not carry the validity necessary to sway your position.

Alternatively, you can choose to ignore the opposing points - and agree to disagree as you say - but then your presence in the debate becomes obsolete since you are no longer partaking in the general discussion. If that is the road you'd rather take, then maybe continuing to post in this thread would be unwise and detrimental to the discussion?

You seem to have your opinions based in faith, particularly Christianity. Well, I don't know if you realize this but the Bible is not cut and dry and not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way (hence, the umpteen variations of the Bible and Christian faith). If you want to entertain a Christian perspective on same-sex marriage that is different that the one you hold, I recommend this brief and easy-to-read book:

Here it is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307948099/?tag=gtplanet-20

Also, I'm sure you can find it at your local public library for free (that's what I did).

------------------------

I think you need to take a moment and reflect on your own opinions and evaluate whether a possibility exists in which your personal opinion could be wrong. If you can't allow that possibility then I don't think you belong in the setting of a debate.

 

[demonchilde]

I have been raised Catholic, studied Babtist, Methodist, and Judaism. I spent a long time searching for which "invisible man/woman in the sky" is the "right" one to follow. Without turning this into a different topic, I'll just say this;
Whomever is in charge up there, only cares if your a good, decent person. What does any of this matter in the end? Nothing. It's all going to come down to your final day as a physical human, and the only topic is going to be how much Love and Kindness did you contribute to this world, and how much Hate and anger did you spread. That's it.
What you have to understand is that, all this worrying about what's right and wrong for OTHER people, is just an avoidance of serious topics going on in your own being. That's what I believe. If anyone remembers my own views a few pages ago, you will remember I think just about anything is OK as long as you don't hurt others in the process.

I just had to say my peace on that.

 

[Sage Ages]

He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him.

And your point is?

He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

How so?

 

[TB]

I very much agree, @demonchilde.

Even if I did read your entire post in the voice of Chucky.

 

[zzz_pt]

In my humble opinion homossexuality isn't natural but counter-nature (yes I know that it happens with animals. But that doesn't mean it's normal).

My 2 cets. English is not my mother tongue so I can't explore the theme as I would if it was in portuguese.

ps: I have nothing aganist homossexuals. It's homossexuality I think isn't natural.

 

[Encyclopedia]

In my humble opinion homossexuality isn't natural but counter-nature (yes I know that it happens with animals. But that doesn't mean it's normal).

My 2 cets. English is not my mother tongue so I can't explore the theme as I would if it was in portuguese.

ps: I have nothing aganist homossexuals. It's homossexuality I think isn't natural.

Natural and normal is not the same thing though. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with not being normal.

 

[Villain]

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

So to say that it is natural and that it does not harm anybody is simply not true.

Most of that text seems incredibly familiar.... Oh, now I remember:

Here you go -

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

You asked me for my opinion. Here it is. Not my writings, but I agree with what is written in this article.

You literally copypasta'd straight from the webpage you linked earlier. The points you copied have also been addressed by several other posters. Maybe you should take the time to formulate counter-points to their rebuttals?

Here, I'll save you some time:

Original point:

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

2. Made up non sense. Though I do agree with the idea that we can see what's right and wrong. If something isn't going to cause anyone harm, it's not wrong. Gay marriage falls under this. Conversely denying someone's ability to marry harms them and is unjust.

Just complete and utter rubbish all around.

"2. It Violates Natural Law"
Not really understanding this one. What is Natural law? To them it is natural to be gay, like it is natural for you and me to like the opposite gender.

And here is the second point you copied from that webpage:

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

Continuing on with the rebuttals from others on GTP:

3. "It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother."

Especially if they're abusive. This is more senseless text that is practically designed to harm children for a twisted agenda.

They destroy their own argument in their reasoning. Kids need parents that are involved in their life. It makes little difference who those parents are, so long as the parents actually give a crap and are involved in their kid's live.

"3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother"
Yes and no. I'm not sure I support the fact homosexuals can adopt children, but I like the possibility they can. It's not proven their children won't function in society, therefore I'm not going to judge.

The main thing I have a problem with in this article is the part about children being denied their mother or father. This may just be me, but I've always been under the impression that what children need more than anything is a parent who loves them, cares for them, provides for them, teaches them as they grow and are involved in their lives as a both a guardian & an authority figure. The gender/orientation of the parents is relatively unimportant in that regard. Also, considering there are families out there where it's a man & woman together and the child's needs still aren't being met, that point become nullified almost immediately.

Otherwise, all other points in the article (which I found quite interesting) have been defeated in this thread already.

Here is the deal. My cousin has been in a lesbian marriage for ten years now. This year was their 10th anniversary and they celebrated by driving to Iowa to make it legal.

Their relationship has zero visible difference than the one I have with my wife. They are parents to two children via adoption. These two kids were taken from their genetic parents at birth because they had so many drugs in their system at birth that the first six weeks of their life were spent in detox as they suffered the torturous agony of withdrawal. The parents had an opportunity to get their kids back, but one never showed to any hearings and the other made it to the first hearing, where she announced that no "thespian" would raise her baby. The next hearing she skipped to go to Florida, which got her visitations changed to full supervision. She started missing visitations after that and just disappeared.

Those poor kids, denied drug addicted, neglectful, illiterate, and uneducated parents and now forced to live with two caring mothers, one with a PhD in marine biology.

Everything about my cousin and her family tells me the author of that article does not understand, and possibly refuses to, the things it talks about. All because he likely had some guy standing at a lectern with a seminary degree tell him it was that way on Sunday mornings.

These posters all showed you respect by taking the time to respond to the points you posted. Instead of posting them again, maybe you can show these posters some mutual respect by replying to their counter-points instead of repeating them later in the tread as if they are your own thoughts and not points that you are lifting verbatim from another webpage.

 

[demonchilde]

Nature doesn't have laws. SCIENCE has plenty, the laws of physics, ect., but nature is based in a land of 'anything can happen at any time'.
If it is possible, no matter how odd it is, if a living creature can physically do it, then it can happen. THAT is your 'law' of nature.
I believe your confusing that with 'Instinct' maybe?
And if that's the case, all instinct is, is learned behavior of survival that adapts every so many generations depending on the surroundings. Example;
A land creature that used to be an ocean creature. Over millions of years, as it changed from one environment to another, its 'instincts' of food-shelter-ect changed with it.as its body changed, any instincts dealing with it, changed with it.
Even instinct is changeable and there aren't nature-cops "governing" as you say, over it.

All there really is, is the ideas of our forefathers being handed down. Some of these ideas are 'a real good nail on the head' idea, and some others are old and outdated ideas that really don't apply with our current enviroment and technology. But ALL of them, are just that, ideas. Things and ways of life that worked for those that utilized them.

The simple idea of "the laws of nature" are laughable at best. Just some B/S given as a reason for things and ideas that are all opinions.

 

[hogger129]

Most of that text seems incredibly familiar.... Oh, now I remember:




You literally copypasta'd straight from the webpage you linked earlier. The points you copied have also been addressed by several other posters. Maybe you should take the time to formulate counter-points to their rebuttals?

Here, I'll save you some time:

Original point:










And here is the second point you copied from that webpage:



Continuing on with the rebuttals from others on GTP:












These posters all showed you respect by taking the time to respond to the points you posted. Instead of posting them again, maybe you can show these posters some mutual respect by replying to their counter-points instead of repeating them later in the tread as if they are your own thoughts and not points that you are lifting verbatim from another webpage.

...and I showed my respect by stating my opinion. Seems like this thread is just for people to hate on religious folks like me.

 

[Spurgy 777]

In my humble opinion homossexuality isn't natural but counter-nature (yes I know that it happens with animals. But that doesn't mean it's normal).

My 2 cets. English is not my mother tongue so I can't explore the theme as I would if it was in portuguese.

ps: I have nothing aganist homossexuals. It's homossexuality I think isn't natural.

Do you think you could explain what makes you think it's unnatural? Because it is most definitely natural in pretty much every way; sexuality is determined by genetics, so being homosexual is about as unnatural as having blue eyes, brown hair, two legs, etc, as you mentioned it's common in quite a few species, and having a few homosexual members in a species can even provide evolutionary benefits, and probably one of the simpler points, homosexual animals are part of nature, so are by definition natural.

 

[Famine]

...and I showed my respect by stating my opinion. Seems like this thread is just for people to hate on religious folks like me.

One of the guys you're disagreeing with is in that "religious folks" group.

And no, your "opinions" are being challenged because they are able to be challenged. Largely because they're without any meaningful foundation. You're being educated on this, but instead you're choosing to play the "persecuted for my religion" card - which would be tacky if it weren't ridiculous when someone who's doing the educating shares your religion.

Feel free to back your opinions up at any point.

 

[hogger129]

One of the guys you're disagreeing with is in that "religious folks" group.

And no, your "opinions" are being challenged because they are able to be challenged. Largely because they're without any meaningful foundation. You're being educated on this, but instead you're choosing to play the "persecuted for my religion" card - which would be tacky if it weren't ridiculous when someone who's doing the educating shares your religion.

Feel free to back your opinions up at any point.

Really? You do know that not all Christians are the same right? As a Catholic, I accept the sinner, not the sin. Homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Really? You do know that not all Christians are the same right? As a Catholic, I accept the sinner, not the sin. Homosexuality is a sin.

The pope seems to be a lot more positive about homosexual people than you. What's your thoughts on that?

 

[zzz_pt]

@Spurgy 777 , Then, everything is natural.

There are people who are born with other genetic characteristics and we (society) don't have any problems in saying they have X or Y problem that leads them to Z or W behavior.

The point arround homossexuality is that it doesn't bother that much and it doesn't hurt people. It doesn't put at risk anyone arround (at least in an obvious way).

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear but as I stated before, it's a difficult exercise for me to translate my thoughts from portuguese to english with the same eloquence.

PS: I didn't vote for any of the options...

 

[Danny]

The point arround homossexuality is that it doesn't bother that much. It doesn't put at risk anyone arround (at least in an obvious way).

Not true, it might make your girlfriend start describing things as fierce.

Really? You do know that not all Christians are the same right? As a Catholic, I accept the sinner, not the sin. Homosexuality is a sin.

And you're still not actually addressing any points. Which indicates that you have zero idea of what you're talking about. Again. Wow, shocker.