The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

No. It is only marriage if it's between one man and one woman, both above the age of 18.

Read again. "Marriage" comes from "Maritare" and means "to provide with a husband or wife".

It is moot on who is being provided with a husband or wife. It could be a man, a woman, transgender, a group... so long as a husband or wife is provided them (and they are provided as husband or wife in return), it is a marriage. This predates the USA (and just about any other sovereign state) and Christianity - the former by quite some margin.

If you have another angle to play than "the definition of marriage", now's a good time to move on.

 

[Agent_47]

Read again. "Marriage" comes from "Maritare" and means "to provide with a husband or wife".

It is moot on who is being provided with a husband or wife. It could be a man, a woman, transgender, a group... so long as a husband or wife is provided them (and they are provided as husband or wife in return), it is a marriage. This predates the USA (and just about any other sovereign state) and Christianity - the former by quite some margin.

If you have another angle to play than "the definition of marriage", now's a good time to move on.

This is what will happen - http://www.rense.com/general71/legal.htm

Next we'll be called intolerant for not supporting NAMBLA.

 

[Famine]

This is what will happen - http://www.rense.com/general71/legal.htm

Why will that happen? What does a Dutch political party supporting paedophilia in 2006 have to do with you not getting to redefine the word "marriage" to suit your own ends?

Next we'll be called intolerant for not supporting NAMBLA.

Draw me the line from being condemned for wanting government to discriminate against consenting adults who prefer people of their own gender and being called intolerant for not supporting adults who want to rape children of any gender*.

* Or maybe a group of Marlon Brando lookalikes. It makes just as much sense.

 

[Agent_47]

Why will that happen? What does a Dutch political party supporting paedophilia in 2006 have to do with you not getting to redefine the word "marriage" to suit your own ends?Draw me the line from being condemned for wanting government to discriminate against consenting adults who prefer people of their own gender and being called intolerant for not supporting adults who want to rape children of any gender*.

* Or maybe a group of Marlon Brando lookalikes. It makes just as much sense.

It blurs the lines between right and wrong. And for the record, I'm not redefining marriage. I want to stay with the definition that has been around for a long time (that marriage is one man + one woman).

 

[Famine]

It blurs the lines between right and wrong.

How?

And for the record, I'm not redefining marriage. I want to stay with the definition that has been around for a long time (that marriage is one man + one woman).

Why not the one that's been around longer? Oh right, because it doesn't suit your ends, so you want to redefine it to one that does.

You don't get to do that.

 

[FoolKiller]

Jason Collins is the perfect example of the media pushing the LBGT (gay part) agenda. He shouldn't be considered a hero for coming out. Ben Sharpio makes some good points.

I have said it before and I will say it again: the quicker you shut up about it the quicker they will.

By posting that video you gave more hits to CNN, who sees that this story creates controversy, which equals ratings, and they talk about it and similar stories non-stop.

If you, and those like you, had just ignored the Jason Collins story and no one got caught up in the good vs bad debate it would have had a swift death and no one would have cared about Michael Sam. Instead you link videos, get in debates, and drive up interest.

You want them to stop having protest marches? Give them equal rights across the board. You don't care, right? Then stop talking about it. As long as people like you make it a big deal when media brings it up the media will continue to bring it up.


And before you ask; my degree is in telecommunications with a specialty in media research, and I have eight years of experience working for a media and public relations research company.


EDIT: Can someone explain to me how saying that supporting gay marriage is a slippery slope to beastiality and pedophilia is any different than me saying that accepting your intolerance is a slippery slope toward a new form of a Jim Crowe-like era?

 

[Agent_47]

How?Why not the one that's been around longer? Oh right, because it doesn't suit your ends, so you want to redefine it to one that does.

You don't get to do that.

Because gay is against nature and I am not redefining it. The Catholic Church has defined it for a long time and that's the definition that is seen as normal.

 

[TheCracker]

Because gay is against nature and I am not redefining it. The Catholic Church has defined it for a long time and that's the definition that is seen as normal.

Normal within the catholic church maybe. (who actively sweep under the carpet pedos within their own organization, mentioned just to add credence to their level of moral compass)

But the catholic church didn't invent marriage so have no right to define it either.

 

[Exorcet]

It blurs the lines between right and wrong.

Right and wrong at the basic level is pretty clear cut.

Are you harming someone else?

If Yes, it's wrong

If no, it's not wrong

Are gays getting married harming someone else? No, no wrong.

Is child abuse harming someone else? Yes, it is wrong.

Now we have clear boundaries and no slippery slope.

Because gay is against nature and I am not redefining it. The Catholic Church has defined it for a long time and that's the definition that is seen as normal.

You'll have a hard time finding things that are against nature in nature, and it all happens that we are in nature. Along with all the other species that practice homosexuality.

Also if we're against nature, I guess the next time anyone in your familiy contracts an illness that can only be cured with man made medicine/technology you'll be taking them to pick out a coffin instead of going to the hospital correct? Terrible thing it is not intervening against nature.

 

[Famine]

Because gay is against nature

Homosexuality exists in thousands of species, as does hermaphroditism.

and I am not redefining it. The Catholic Church has defined it for a long time and that's the definition that is seen as normal.

The Roman Empire defined it much earlier and the Latin meaning of the word predates the Catholic Church.

It doesn't matter what you see as normal, if you're defining it is anything other than "to provide with a husband or wife", you're redefining the word. Neither you nor the Catholic Church gets to do that.


You haven't answered how your decision that consenting adults must be treated differently by their state for their sexual gender preferences leads to derision for your lack of support for paedophilia (or Marlon Brando impersonators) or how it "blurs the line between right and wrong" to have the state treat consenting adults equally.

 

[SteveEnforcer]

im straight myself and I don't have a problem with people being gay its who they are and if he/she are happy with their lives then who are we to judge

 

[Danny]

Because gay is against nature

Please be aware that you're writing this on a computer.

 

[Agent_47]

im straight myself and I don't have a problem with people being gay its who they are and if he/she are happy with their lives then who are we to judge

I have a problem when I'm forced to view that as normal.

 

[SteveEnforcer]

I have a problem when I'm forced to view that as normal.

then I say get over it there are gay/lesbians out there in the public as we all know we all just have to deal with it we cant tell them to stop being who they are as its just like them telling us stop being straight

 

[Exorcet]

I have a problem when I'm forced to view that as normal.

It is normal.

Something that's not normal is seeking a partner of the opposite sex if you're gay.

 

[Famine]

I have a problem when I'm forced to view that as normal.

You can view it however you want. How you view it doesn't change the reality - you can view evolutionary theory as false if you wish too.

You'll be wrong on both counts, but if you want to keep believing you're not, feel free. No-one's forcing you to stop being wrong.

 

[Agent_47]

You can view it however you want. How you view it doesn't change the reality - you can view evolutionary theory as false if you wish too.

You'll be wrong on both counts, but if you want to keep believing you're not, feel free. No-one's forcing you to stop being wrong.

I won't be wrong at all. People ARE forcing me to view this as marriage and it's not. I can and do view it the way I want to and my view is the right one.

 

[Famine]

I won't be wrong at all.

If you believe evolutionary theory is false and homosexuality is "against nature", you're wrong.

That's fine. You can be as wrong as you want to be - no-one's going to stop you.

People ARE forcing me to view this as marriage and it's not.

No-one's forcing you - you can view it as not marriage if you want. You're wrong, but you're completely free to be.

I can and do view it the way I want to and my view is the right one.

If you want to use a definition that means what you want it to mean you are entirely free to do so if you wish, but you must be aware that this definition is a redefinition. The original meaning has no such singular overtones but you are completely free to believe otherwise.

Of course, you say that the original meaning would lead to the acceptance of child abuse for some reason. I'm sure that the irony of the fact that the Catholic Church has a history (and recent history) that is literally rich with paedophilia and child abuse - including hundreds of years of the mass castrations of young boys to provide soprano voices because women were not clean enough to sing in church choirs - won't interfere with your supporting of their definition so that we don't descend into acceptance of child abuse.


No-one's going to force you to stop being wrong and looking a mite foolish. Only you can do that. You're completely free to choose not to do so.

 

[FoolKiller]

People ARE forcing me to view this as marriage

How?

 

[Agent_47]

How?

See the above post. If you don't agree, then you are automatically labeled a bigot, intolerant, etc.

 

[FoolKiller]

See the above post. If you don't agree, then you are automatically labeled a bigot, intolerant, etc.

You and I must have different definitions of force. To me force is using the government, or other means of power, to make others act according to your views and definitions.

What I see you dealing with is people questioning your views. You have free speech. So do they.


And since I edited this into a previous post, and I believe you missed it, I will quote my earlier question here.

EDIT: Can someone explain to me how saying that supporting gay marriage is a slippery slope to beastiality and pedophilia is any different than me saying that accepting your intolerance is a slippery slope toward a new form of a Jim Crowe-like era?

 

[Famine]

See the above post. If you don't agree, then you are automatically labeled a bigot, intolerant, etc.

I didn't make any such comment in my post. Re-read and recant.


So I'll assume that you can't draw the line I asked for, from "government treating the relationships of consenting adults equally" to "support for paedophilia".

Only the line for the Catholic Church from "marriage is one man and one woman" to "rampant paedophilia" is a very short one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Only the line for the Catholic Church from "marriage is one man and one woman" to "rampant paedophilia" is a very short one.

To be more accurate, the line to pedophilia in the Catholic Church does not connect to marriage, but rather the prevention of it among their priests.

Which could create an argument that not allowing people to marry correlates to pedophilia.

 

[Carbonox]

To be more accurate, the line to pedophilia in the Catholic Church does not connect to marriage, but rather the prevention of it among their priests.

Which could create an argument that not allowing people to marry correlates to pedophilia.

I'd say it's not specifically about marriage, but rather intercourse. (Although with the Catholics having banned it altogether before marriage, it's probably effectively the same thing)

 

[Famine]

To be more accurate, the line to pedophilia in the Catholic Church does not connect to marriage, but rather the prevention of it among their priests.

Which could create an argument that not allowing people to marry correlates to pedophilia.

I recall that the preferential victim for Catholic priests is an underaged male (by an overwhelming proportion to females) - so that in fact creates the argument that not allowing people to marry correlates to homosexual paedophilia...

 

[Scaff]

Because gay is against nature and I am not redefining it. The Catholic Church has defined it for a long time and that's the definition that is seen as normal.

What gives the Catholic church the mandate to define (and redefine) marriage?

I mention redefine as they have done so countless times, for example the Council of Elvira (305) banned the clergy from marriage (which is a redefinition and certainly limits the man to a woman claim you have made) and also bans Christians from marrying Jews or Pagans (again a redefinition and imposes limits over man to woman). Oddly the same council was perfectly happy with slavery as long as you don't allow them to have idols.

Lately we have the entire reason why the Church of England exists, a later re-definition of marriage. As such not only does the church (including the Catholic) not have a lock-out on marriage, as it existed as was defined prior to its existence, but its been perfectly happy to redefine marriage for its own political ends.

Hence my question, what gives an organization which not only didn't 'invent' marriage but has redefined it for its own political motives such a mandate?

 

[Denur]

Which could create an argument that not allowing people to marry correlates to pedophilia.

Maybe there is a correlation, but to be sure, I doubt that one leads to the other. I think that institutions like the Catholic Church merely offer a convenient playground for pedophiles: They don't have to get married and there is an abundant supply of boys.

 

[Agent_47]

What gives the Catholic church the mandate to define (and redefine) marriage?

God.

 

[Famine]

Apparently the dude can't make his mind up, since they keep changing the rules.

 

[FoolKiller]

God.

Other denominations that claim to worship the same God define it differently. What gives the Catholic Church dominion over all religions and governments?