I want to know what the good people of interordi think about this, should homosexuals have the right to be married like any other loving adult couple? I've been in a heated argument with a total bigot, and I just wanted wanted to see how you guys saw it. if you disagree that is one thing but please for the love of my sanity have a reason that is not gays = pedophiles


I for one believe that gay people should have ever right in the world to be married, marriage is at it's core a contract of law that give you certain rights that a couple would not other wise have. This is not a debate about if god thinks it's right, because you don't have to be christian to be married.

Yes and no. I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't have the same rights and security that marriage gives heterosexual couples.

I don't believe that The Church should be forced to carry out gay marriages because I think that it should also have rights.

Well, from a religious standpoint I don't believe it to be morally right to practice homosexuality, and for that matter to be married to someone of the same sex. However, while I don't think it's really right, I think that for the United States that restricting a homosexual person from marrying another won't necessarily rid them of those feelings. As a whole in the nation, best to keep the general population happy I think as opposed to traversing onto shaky grounds and using the Bible as your only support when so few people believe it nowadays. I don't like the fact, but I feel it's steadily becoming more true.

So to answer your question in all simplicity, I feel that not allowing them to marry won't solve any problems, but I dislike that that's true.

I basically agree with Ribitta, and have one point to add. It isn't a Federal power to restrict marriage. In fact, the Federal government is not allowed any powers that are not outlined in the constitution (despite the fact that they bend that often).

By the constitution, it would be completely a state issue, and even then I feel that they should butt out. The government as a whole shouldn't mess with personal details that don't actually harm anyone.

So, I don't particularly care for the practice, but I completely defend their rights.

This is why I love you guys at interordi so much. Even if you don't agree with the lifestyle you DO agree that they should be allowed to have a secure life no matter what they chose.

And I fully agree with you Samsara the church should not be forced to do the wedding if they are strongly against it, but a marriage is not a church event...it can be done by a judge or a justice of the peace.

At Rabitta and MaceMan, I respect the fact you don't think homosexual life styles are morally correct life choice, but I respect you FAR more knowing that you understand some people have different views on what is moral, and to them that life style is perfectly "normal", it's not the choice you would have made but can stand up and say they have rights just like anyone else.

I don't really know what to say about this. Samsara pretty much summed up my thoughts about it. It's not really an issue for me, though, considering gay marriage is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. I've even had a gay teacher who was married.

Using religion as reason for any law is bullshit, because using religion to make a law is illegal. I have NEVER heard ANY defense about why gay people *shouldn't* be allowed to marry that did not involve religion. This is not true of any other issue, and therefore the issue should already be long-dead.

In the novel Holy Bible, the author(s) do(es) not state that it is wrong for gay people to get married, though no gay couples are married in that particular story. He also does not state that it is wrong for one to be homosexual. He does however state that it is wrong for two men to have sex. Therefore, according to this novel, if you are a married gay virgin, you have not done anything wrong (unless there is something else you have done wrong). He also makes no mention of lesbians, and it therefore cannot be assumed that the author believes lesbianism, or lesbian sexual activities, are wrong.

If priests are allowed to reject and refuse to perform the marriage of a straight couple, then they should also be allowed to refuse to perform the marriage of a gay couple. However, if a straight couple is allowed to sue a Priest for not marrying them (and I really have no idea whether or not this is alllowed or whether or not such a case has both happened and been won), then a gay couple should be allowed to do the same.

It actually *IS* against the Christian and Jewish religions for two men to have sex however, and those who say it is not are wrong. So if it is legal for a priest to refuse to marry any couple for any reason he wants, such as the fact that the bride has red hair or earrings, and he wants to make some sort of contract stating that a gay couple will not have sex if he marries them, he can do that (and then they can go and choose another person to marry them instead). I do know at least one person who would actually attempt to honor such a contract, and allowed themself to be physically abused for four years as the result of a similar contract.

Edited by God on August 13, 2008 at 23:22:50.

I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to get married.
I do believe they should be allowed to adopt children.

The government should have NO SAY on this. As stated above, the government is not allowed to take religious views into account when passing a law.
Churches should not have to be forced into matrimony of two gay people, because homosexuality is simply against the Christian religion. That'd be like making someone who's Jewish or Buddhist to do something against their religion. It's just not right.
But marriage is not necessarily a church thing, as Hibiki sed.
Marriage has become a traditional thing in the US, kinda like Christmas and Easter.

Also, I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about homosexual marriage. Literally, it's none of their business what others do. God never sed to harass gays. Sure, it's against the Christian religion. But you know, the USA is a mixed basket of religion/culture/nationalities, and people need to get over that. A lot of people have different beliefs, and people need to be tolerant.
I'm sure the majority of the population is Christian, but the minority still gets a stay. Isn't the USA all about freedom?

I can see why people wouldn't want homosexuals to adopt kids. BUT, I am pretty sure anyone is allowed to adopt. They are prolly against it because they think the homosexual couple will force that way of living onto the child.
But I'm sure a gay person understands better than anyone that you cannot change someone's belief/opinion.
So I doubt they would do that to a child they adopted. They prolly just wanna settle down like a tradition family, but they just don't like the opposite sex. And there's nothing wrong with that.


There is nothing wrong with homosexuality in general. They love who they love. That's no one else's business but between you and that person.

Alright, now that would severly piss me off. There are so many heterosexual pedophiles. I know a lot of gay people, and they are all rad.



That wouldn't necessarily be the case. Homosexual marriage is strictly against the Christian religion, but heterosexual marriage is not.

Kagome_Sakura Thank you for that very well thought out well articulated reply. Youa re absolutely right no religious organization should have any say in who is allowed to be married as long as they are two consenting adults. I REALLY have to thank all of you for not compaing gay marrage to pedophilia or bestiality I have counterd that argument till I was blue in the face (figuratively speaking) but some people don't understand that two consenting adults is not the same as an adult and a child or an adult and his/her dog.

Funny you should say this yet you're the one grave-digging the dead topic on a should be "long-dead" issue.



'kay, I'd like to make it clear before I begin that I do still stand by what I said before, but, "god", you're in dangerous waters in this area.

Let's get to some Scripture.



This one does put a bit of a hamper on your "nothing wrong with lesbians according to the Bible" as it states that just as man has given up a natural love life in God's eyes, so also women have given up what is natural in God's eyes. This would also go against what you've said about "only sex is wrong" which sort of shatters alot more of the things you've said. At any rate, "shameful lusts" would imply both actions, thoughts, and wishes of homosexuality being sinful.



This one amplifies my aforementioned comment on both things. "Homosexual" infers both male and female, as in our current English language the two can now be broken down into Gay or Lesbian, but the term Homosexual still applies to both sexes. This also once more goes forward in the point that sex is not the only thing wrong here. As it is mentioned before that lusting for the same sex is considered a sin, it reminds you here that homosexual offenders in any area are sinners and not to be considered Christian. This will also shoot down those nice little whining arguements of "I have a gay Christian friend!" It's not true, according to the Bible. A Christian is one who will "Inherit the Kingdom of God" and clearly stated here, a homosexual would not recieve such privileges. I'm aware though that this has little to nothing to do with the topic, I just thought I'd throw it in.



This one just rounds off once again what the others have pointed out in different ways. For those who don't know the full list, sexual immorality is considered to be containing the acts of: sexual fantasy, homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage, furthermore adultry or sex with one other than your spouse, and finally lust toward a person.

Now, I won't be surprised if I get someone telling me now that there isn't enough Biblical evidence to draw all those together. However, the ones that do apply here are lust and homosexuality. Seperate or apart, you still get a sin. So lusting for a person of the same sex would include both, and as that verse states, it is punished by eternal fire.

So all this should give me enough support to say that if a Priest has any right to call himself a Priest, and if he believes what he's sworn himself to believe, then he should have every right to not marry a gay couple. If he believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he would not be forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple because it would conflict with his own beliefs. Constitution says we have a right to our own religions, and if the Priest believes it violates his religion to marry a homosexual couple, then they would just have to get married in court or find another priest or minister.

I do firmly believe that this is one area the government should leave alone as there would be a plethora of other ministers, or one could just get married in court if it's legal in that state. To force someone to do something against their belief is counted as persecution, and that's one thing the government tends to stay away from.

So, I close my case with this. What I said before still stands, however, do not try to trace this case of homosexuality back and into the Bible, trying to argue that it "Doesn't actually say it's bad" Because you're not gunna find much to support your case.

All Biblical quotes above are from the New International Version of the Bible and were taken from biblegateway.com.





Edited by Ribitta on July 30, 2008 at 2:52:57.

Shut up.

This doesn't apply to just Ribitta but to anyone who wants to try to debate what the morality of sexual prefences according to the Christian religion. I'm not a Christian myself but it's easy to see just by plainly looking at the religion that there are several interpretations for it. The various different denominations are the very evidence of this. Religion isn't a topic based in fact; it deals with faith. Anyone can interpret any religion any way they want because it will mean what it means to them. It isn't anyone's place to try and tell someone else that their version is wrong because you're dealing with a subject where there are no facts.

Though, it is a fact that a significant amount of christians do not approve of homosexuality and think homosexual people shouldn't be offered rights that heterosexuals have. It isn't for me to claim that this is every Christian, so please if you are one please don't think I'm branding you as such. It'd be virtually impossible to tell without any sort of grand census whether it is the grand majority or just a very vocal minority. (Location probably plays a considerable factor in this too.) Just like any group of people there are good Christians and bad Christians.

Additionally, the question at hand isn't really whether you or your religion or even how you interpret it find homosexual practices to be morally acceptable. What is being asked is if the right to marry another should be extended to the homosexual community or if they should be excluded. Normally some degree of going off topic would be tolerated but people have a tendency to be really disrespectful towards each other, even if unintentionally when talking about their own religious beliefs. Keep it to yourselves.

That much such, it isn't suprising that people who do support the idea of gay marriage are critical of the Christian religion. It'd be an understatement to say Christians haven't historically been the most friendly people towards homosexuals. There are varying degrees of Christians from people who accept homosexual people and follow the idea of hate the sin not the sinner, and to outright homophobes who hate homosexuals. It is important to note that discrimination against homosexuals isn't a practice exclusive to those within the Christian community and it'd be unfair to demonize an entire religion for something that they don't have a monopoly on.

However, I don't feel that the critical attitude towards Christians is baseless. There are Christians who oppose gay marriage whom have posed a debate as to what the definition of marriage is. These critics of gay marriage cite the definition loosely as the holy(?) union between a man and woman under God. I've witnessed in my own experience these vary same people have no problem with the idea of homosexual people being given the right to civil unions but oppose the idea of the very same people being allowed to marry because it conflicts with what their belief of what marriage is.

And I think this leads into the root of this conflict; some people view marriage as more of a goverment regulated contract and others view it as a union intrinsic to their religion. There is even segregation within the Christian community concerning these perspectives of the definition of marriage; the members of this board who are Christian and supported the idea of gays being allowed to marry is proof of this.

I see further complications that can blossom from this division upon more thorough examination. If marriage is to truly be treated as a union belonging to Christianity should non-Christians heterosexual couples have to marry to receive the benefits a married couple would*? And even if a non-Christian couple could receive these benefits from a civil union* would they even want to settle for this or would they opt for marriage? As previously stated by myself and others in this topic, marriage isn't a religious union to everyone. That the homosexual community is not satisfied with civil unions and want to be granted the right to marry further supports this. It is a practice that has long been a part of our culture that has become a way of life even to those people outside of the Christian community.

This all poses some very interesting cultural questions I think everyone needs to be asking themselves. It shouldn't be a secret to anyone that this western world that most if not all of this boards members reside in has for centuries been influenced by the Christian religion. Practices commonly accepted as cultural norms like marriage** are in essence practices established as a part of Christian culture. Expansion and globalization have changed the western world in our modern era from being one predominantly of European descent and Christian to one giant melting pot. Although the western world has welcomed a large number of people from outside it's traditional barriers, does this mean it should sacrifice its very identity to accomodate these outside influences? Should we, as a culture be progressing beyond the restrictions placed upon our cultures from our origins or should we be trying to preserve the way our culture has been for centuries? Marriage is only one aspect of the shift in our culture; the controversy surrounding Christmas and political correctness the last several years is another.

Furthermore, if a significant percentage of a population supports and believes an idea, should they not be allowed to perserve it as a way of their culture? If a large body of people predominantly Christian desire to live in a society where their interpretation of marriage being a union between man and woman protected, should they be denied this? Would there be any harm if they wanted to govern themselves so that they could restrict marriage to those confines in their society? Or should everyone be forced to be live in a society that may be progressively changing?

This is all really just food for thought though. If you've actually managed to read my musings up until this point congratulations! Hahaha. Seriously though, at this point I'd like to share my own personal thoughts on the matter of gay marriage.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of gay marriage. As long as a union is between two consenting adults it is something I can support. If nobody is being abused what is the problem?

However, in closing I'd also like to note that I have a cynical outlook on marriage in general. In some senses I am a nihilist and I don't really see the value the practice has in our culture anymore. In my eyes it has become nothing more than a silly, outdated tradition during the last generation. Two people can still spend their lives together without getting married and two people can still break up even after they get married. The rising rate of divorce in our society is evidence in my eyes that culturally, we're progressing passed the idea of devotion because a promise or celebration event. This isn't really a good or bad thing; it's just a change and in many ways, our world is changing. It may take 50 years, 100 years, 500 years.. who knows. But things are definitely changing.

Yeah, I think that about covers my entire thoughts on this subject.

*I'm basing this off of secondhand knowledge of the social benefits of marriage granted by the government. It isn't something I actually researched myself and if there is an error in my statement by all means correct me.

**It isn't my intention to suggest that the practice or idea of marriage is exclusive to cultures rooted in Christianity or that Christianity created the concept of marriage. It is however, true that our general perception of marriage has been derived by the Christian version of this practice because it has been predominant in our culture for centuries because of the influence Christianity consistently had on our culture.

Believe me, Necro, I am aware that it is taboo to state the Bible means one thing and not another to a large group of people. However, my whole thing was sort of forwarded to what "god" said at the end of her post about priests and marriage. The interpretations I gave are merely what I have gathered growing up living around and with Christians. Homosexuality as far as my knowledge extends is something most people who would considering themselves Christian to be in agreement with. There are a few divisions and segregations that do not agree, or simply people in other divisions or segregations that would not agree homosexuality is wrong, but for a good portion (once again, as far as my knowledge reaches) That is the general interpretation of what the Bible says on gays and lesbians.

That all being said, as aforementioned, it is not the governments right to persecute and force someone to do something against their faith. I am aware people interpret different things different ways, and that is why I said that a person should just find another priest or minister who is fine with it or be married in court.

I just believe anyone against homosexuality to an extreme degree should be disallowed to use or enjoy anything a gay (or bisexual) man or woman has given to the world whatever it may be

And well Necro, really..it's a debate on homosexuality, what did you expect my main man

A lot of things are against the Christian religion, jealousy, murder, etc., but priests are not allowed to discriminate based on those things. "All sins are equal," in the Christian religion, so why are killers, murders, rapists, child molestors, people who have cheated on their husbands, people who eat a lot, etc., all able to be accepted as "legitimate Christians" yet gay people are not? In a Christian-related marriage you are asking for the blessing of Yahweh, not the for Yahweh to join you, not the priest himself. If you ask for his blessing he has a right as a human being not to give it to you, but for the marriage itself what you are asking for is "God"... if that god exists and s/he wants to enter into your marriage, s/he will do it regardless of which particular priest you are using to contact him/her, and is s/he doesn't want to, s/he won't, again regardless of which particular priest. For similar reasons, (I think we can all agree that) it is wrong for a church that has a homeless help program to not help someone because they are Black... even if the church is a Muslim church, or to not help someone because they are not the same religion that the church is there for. I think telling a gay couple they cannot have a complaint if a priest does not want to marry them is taking away their rights as gay citizens same as it would be if they had red hair or whatever... unless of course the priest is also allowed to reject any couple for any reason, including straight couples.



Wow, the definitions of words must change so quickly! I wasn't aware that "grave digging" now also refers to a topic that is the 4th topic on the front page, can be applied to a forum where no one cares how old a topic is or isn't when you reply to it, and I also wasn't aware that message boards can make United States laws now!



Let's first translate that passage into English: "Irrelevant sentence #1. Women performed unnatural sexual acts. Men started to have sex with each other instead of with women. Repeat of the last sentence and they were punished because of it. Then they decided to stop "following" Yahweh, and he therefore rendered them insane."

This passage says nothing about:
-marriage
-lesbian sex
-homosexual love

It says "Women exchanged their natural lusts for unnatural ones"... maybe they became dendrophiliacs.



Another quote which says nothing about anything you're trying to talk about; it says "homosexual offenders," not "homosexuals," therefore it is referring to those people who are both homosexual and have offended. In the context of Holy Bible, since we know it has not previously referred to women but occasionally to men having sex with each other, it would logically go to say that in this case "homosexual" refers only to men... at the time this book was written things like that are frequently seen in languages. And again says absolutely nothing in any way about marriage, love, or Love.

So far as I know I do not have any gay Christian friends, I do however have a bisexual Christian friend. She is one of the people who apparently does not understand what Christian religion's rules are and says she thinks Yahweh thinks it is okay to be gay. She is wrong. However, she is still Christian. If being gay makes you "not a Christian", then no one on the entire planet is a Christian because the laws and rules of the religion are so entirely ridiculous that not a single person has not broken at least 40 of them.

Are you a virgin? If not, you're probably not Christian according to your own apparent ridiculous "logic"... most people who have had sex have not done so without some sexual-related feelings involved. Have you ever been divorced from someone who had not cheated on you? If so, then you're not a Christian (according to your own ridiculous "logic" and ad this parenthetical comment to every second sentence in this paragraph). Have you ever been jealous? You're not Christian. Have you ever eaten a brownie? You're not Christian. Have you ever hit someone for any reason whatsoever including a spanking? You're not Christian. Have you ever menustrated? You're not Christian... at least not unless you've asked to be "cleansed" and performed some sort of ritual to get it done every single time you've had your period. Of course that last one would not apply specifically to Ribitta.

IN Christianity, ANY person can do ANY thing and still be admitted to heaven, as long as they say they are sorry... yes you are supposed to actually mean it and try not to do it and blah blah blah, but what that means is that no person will or will not get into heaven based on actual deeds done, and only one person knows if they have performed the correct things in the Christian religion, and that is the individual person who has done them. Gay sex does NOT make you go to hell, nor does murder, nor does jealousy. This may not be true of a particular individual's beliefs, but it is true of the book which was written to show what the "laws" of the religion are. Another thing I think everyone at this message board can agree on is that the vast majority of those who refer to themselves as 'Christian' (whether they really are a Christian, or just call themselves that), do not actually know what the "rules" and/or history of the religion is/are (such as Autumn, my previously-mentioned bisexual friend). So just because your individual beliefs so not agree with something, or even those of many Christians you know do not agree, does not necessarily mean it is true according to Holy Bible (why in the hell doesn't that book have a name?!), and you cannot put down the "rules of Christianity" based on "what XXXX person said".... you can only say that you personally believe it to be that way or to mean that. In general most atheists know a lot more about the rules, history, and book of the Christian religion then those who call themselves Christian usually do.



This most definitely says nothing at all about the topic... it doesn't even mention homosexuality at all! How irrelevant can you get? (P.S. My mom told me not to "do bad things"... so when you ask me to pick up that garbage wrapper I can't.)



Again you have posted nothing that can even come close to having the possibility of being interpreted as related to loving or marrying to the same sex, but as I said earlier this should be true only if it is true also for heterosexual couples. If a priest is allowed to not marry a couple because, for example, they are not of the same "race", or because one member has told him specifically she is marrying to become rich, then neither should there be a problem if he refuses to marry a gay couple. The money example obviously should go against his beliefs if he is a Christian.... or a human for that matter. But if he is required to marry those couples anyway then he also should be required to marry a gay couple. A judge should not be allowed to refuse any marriages as long as both partners are consenting.


It is legal in almost no states, it should not be required for the government to specifically make a rule which states that gay couples can get married, but apparently, it is necessary. This means that a judge, who is doing nothing related to religion, would be required to marry a gay couple , and that any priest, rabbi, pastor, etc., who marries a gay couple would have that marriage required to be legally recognized by all states once it is performed.


Funny you say thta because I don't need to find evidence myself, it is a negative, you if arguing are the one who needs to find evidence, and so far you haven't done so.

It is entirely possible that there is a notice somewhere involving lesbians that I am not aware of, but if there is it is not generally mentioned in any debates, and it wouldn't make much sense for it not to be.

However there is no place that states anything about marriage or Love being a sin, and even if there was, no other sin is persecuted against other then "devil magic", which for one thing is inaccurate and for another thing is more commonly believed by modern Christians to be nonexistent then harmful. (It actually is nonexistent since those who practice magick don't believe in "the devil", or if they do believe in him, they are Christian themselves.) Even murders and rapists are "allowed" to be Christian by society - that's why they have programs for prisons.











I agree that each person's beliefs is his or her own, and in general people will state themselves as a member of a certain religion while disagreeing with other members of their same religion - this is true even of atheism. However there are facts to most religons (Paganism excepted), and there is also a history. The history of a religion is also important as it is a basis to the beliefs. The various denominations of Christianity, from what I have seen, are about things that usually have nothing to do with Holy Bible - for example, Catholics like to pray in a certain position, and often think it is required to go to church as well as Lutherans do. Other sects, or nondenominationals, know that going to a church or not going doesn't make you any "more or less" Christian. Why? Because Holy Bible says things you do and don't have to do if you want to follow it, and going to church is not mentioned. I think not working on Sundays is mentioned, however, but you will VERY rarely find anyone who believes they should do this or actually does it. (To me it would make more sense *to* work on Sundays, "giving God a chance" to rest, but whatever... ). An individual can believe whatever they want to believe, however, that does not mean that the religion itself holds the same belief. Many people who go to church three times a week and say they are Christian, even those who really are Christian, have never looked at Holy Bible at all, and have no idea what the "rules" even are... it doesn't mean they are not Christian, but it does mean they don't know what "Christian rules" are. Satanism in particular has an application process that you are supposed to fill out and be "accepted" to the Church of Satan in order to make sure you truly understand what the beliefs actually are... but I recently found a Satanist "friend" of mine who said "Christians are nessecary to my beliefs because without them we wouldn't have our own religion!" This is entirely inaccurate to the beliefs of Satanism itself, a religion which is much more "rigorous" with it's "rules" that you are supposed to be aware of if you want to be a member... yet here is someone who is entirely aware of the fundamentals and base beliefs of the religion, yet still believes in the Christian devil which is expressly stated not to be a belief of the religion! There are a few different possible interpretations of what "Satan" could mean to a Satanist, but none of them refer in any way to Christianity, Judaism, or their meanings for the same word. In other words individuals can have any beliefs they want, and can attach themselves as part of a religion if they "mostly" agree with it... but the religion itself usually does have it's own beliefs as well. This is why some people may leave a religion after becoming aware of certain beliefs... so those ARE, in fact, the facts,


Necro as I have often stated I have no problem with a person for being Christian, my boyfriend and the guy who brings me the most peace is Christian (as well as Wind is all of a sudden again), and I was not discussing my own relgious beliefs or there would have been a lot of discussion about "pheonoma" and symbolism and energies invovled though you were probabaly refering to Ribitta with that statement. My post was based on this: The ONLY argument I have EVER seen against homosexuality or homosexual marriage is religion. Some state instead that it is "immoral", and if asked why its "immoral", "My God doesn't like it" is the answer. I have NEVER seen an atheist, non-Christian Pagan, etc., say they believe it is wrong to be gay or to have gay sex. The United States does not allow laws to be made based on religion, whether at state of federal or local level, and therefore there should be no laws at any level which in any way prevent gay people from having rights or having sex or marrying each other, and there should be no debate on the subject at all as far as laws go. The fact that Holy Bible never says that a man loving a man or marrying a man is wrong was just a side note, because it is really annoying how all of these horrible things can be done that are also against Holy Bible yet if you're gay, it's all of a sudden some big thing and you can't be Christian and you should be killed, even though no sin is worse then another and even though people do far more heinous things then that yet are not persecuted so badly for what they do, even though those things are written in Holy Bible not to do them.


Discrimination is not necessarily exclusive to Christians, but it almost is. Other religions that don't find it
"acceptable" tend to ignore them rather then persecute, at least in America in modern day. Discrimination can happen from anyone, but if it is not religious it is more along the lines of "iew that's gross stay away from me" then it of
you should all be killed and you cant marry each other". Non-religious people who think "it's gross" still don't believe there needs to be a law against the marriage or that they should "sit on the back of the bus," so to speak. Christianity is also not the only religion that nessecerily states such a belief, but the only people who believe there should be a forbidding law are of SOME religion and that is their only reason for it. They might possibly add "it's unnatural," but they only say that if they have a religion to "back it up with" in the first place. The "it's unnatural" debate holds no water anyway considering how many wild animals are bisexual... including *all* domestic dogs. Not that the domestic dog itself is a "natural" creature, but there are plenty of other bisexual animals.


It's just yet another baseless religious argument, if "marriage" requires "God" then why don't these people oppose atheists getting married, anyone getting married by a judge or Wiccan priestess, all divorces that don't involve adultry, and all marriages that were done before Christianity existed? Which, according to that argument, is impossible, yet happened. In addition their idea of "civil union" does not grant the rights. It would be far more accurate if reversed - "marriage" being anyone vs. "holy union" being Christian, if married by a Christian/Jewish/Muslim priest, and not having anything to do with the legal system. Of course "holy" refers to any religion I think, not just monotheistic ones.


Highly untrue, they may believe YVWH thinks gay marriage and/or gay sex is perfectly fine, they may believe in the idea of separation of church and state, they may believe "God thinks gay marriage is wrong but I personally don't see a problem with it," or they may be pseudo-Christians.


The "Western World" is not "historically Christian," United States itself which I believe is the topic of this debate since 1) OP is American and 2) I am not aware of this particular debate being of legal significance in other English-speaking countries, U.S. itself has specific laws about religion not being allowed to be involved in laws. Much of Europe is historically PAGAN, as can be seen still today in countries such as Ireland where many of it's Christian practitioners still practice Paganism to a much higher degree then stolen holidays (as an example it was cited in a book where the authors found a "prayer to the virgin Mary" hanging on a string tied to a tree and other magickal elements were present as well). The land on which the United States rests is historically of unnamed religion related to great animal spirits, which may not be the same culture who came and slaughtered those religion's practitioners however it was specifically stated to not be a legal issue. Christianity itself was created as a political tool, which is something that even studied Christians are aware of "the modern form" of Christianity being used for this purpose. Why else would Jesus' birthday be celebrated so far away from his "actual" birthday, for example? For those who are Christian this knowledge doesn't take anything away from the religion, because originally Christians lived in harmony with the Pagans of the land.


Religion is not allowed to be used for law in the United States, period, and everyone is allowed to practice their own religion. A "way of culture" has nothing to do with your next-door neighbor... if your next-door neighbor believes he is a werewolf and comes outside naked at night and hunts small animals in his backyard, it doesn't affect the apple pie you baked at 3 p.m. while your happy smiling children talked about what they learned in school today in the least bit. Nobody is being forced into anything, except for the gay people, and previously gay people *have* always been allowed to marry... if it had not been happening, states would not have made it illegal in the first place.

I'm sorry Necro I wasn't aware of any heterosexual marriages becoming "unprotected" or any heterosexual couples that had lost their rights to marry, inherit, etc., based on a gay couple being present somewhere.


Being cynical about this would be natural, but marriage has value for those who believe it has value. If you are monotheistic you believe God is invited to make your live with your spouse more pleasant. If you are Wiccan or Pagan, the marriage is to some degree a ritual or spell like any other which is all the influx of energy that binds you together (willingly) as well as ensuring you will find each other and be able to Love each other in subsequent lives, if you choose to include that. If you are an athiest it could be the symbology of the ring in the shape of a circle, or a declaration to your family that HEY I LOVE THIS GUY!!. I used to believe (as an atheist at the time) that marriage had basically no meaning, was stupid and just a piece of paper, yet Wind (also an atheist) thought of it as having importance, maybe a promise, just some feeling that gives you all of that Love. My boyfriend sees marriage as a "promise to God," and for some reason he sees marriage as changing just about everything about the way you treat somebody even if you are already engaged or know there could never be anyone else you'd want. For example when I wanted help with legal problems surrounding my 1 year old son, though he agreed I should be the one winning the battle, he would not help because he "did not want to get involved." If we'd been married, that would have been different, even though we already know we want to be married a.s.a.p. To some people, regardless of religion, marriage means pretty much nothing personally, but that doesn't change what it does mean for those who involve energies or gods or personal importances into their Union. Same way as whores existing does not change the incredible, Loving, joining, meaning that sex has for me and anyone I've done it with, though I believe they should be dissected for corrupting that meaning, people in general do not approve of marriages for money etc., then again people in general do not know what Love is anyway and are incapable of it, think it is a bad thing, or have not experienced it, but that doesn't mean that those who do have Love with someone do not feel the meaning of it.

Whee, let's talk about this!

As a whole, Christianity is a patchwork religion that has evolved from being a mystery cult (See any history book for this information). They have adopted many practices and other ideas from a variety of religions, and thusly are not original or unique. If you'd like to practice a religion of your own, then for the love of [Insert favorite omnipotent being here], have some originality. I've lost a lot of faith in Christianity anyway, after the whole priest debacle. Vatican involvement in covering up homosexual child molestation? For shame, Pope. For shame.

Whilst on the topic, religion has no say in what is in fact a life choice. Being gay is not a sin; it is not something that people willingly choose to do. You're born that way. It is what it is. As a slightly different example, transsexuals' feelings and emotions are not planned out or masterly crafted- they have the brain of a man or a woman. A theory behind this states that it is possible that the estrogen that is introduced in one of the trimesters to make the child male or female is either in abundance in males or strikingly absent in females of this persuasion. Their brains are wired that way, and thusly are the way that [insert favorite omnipotent being] has designed and made them.

So why not homosexuality? A lot of it has to do with upbringing, but I wouldn't be surprised that something genetic is at work.

tl;dr: Sinners they are not. Made that way. Should be married.

Also:

Tax cuts, Necro. Tax cuts.

I don't agree with this at all. A transsexual who is changed because "they feel like a man/woman" rather then because "they want to experience having a penis/vagina/uterus", or "they want to be able to get pregnant" ot "they like women's clothes/underwear", simply does not make any sense at all, because you can't "feel" like a woman or a man (outside of your genital parts). It is true that males and females have different traits and tendencies, just like they do in any species, but the very base level at which this happens, such as a male having a possibile tendency to be more agressive when angry, and as a baby who has not learned or experienced anything yet, or a male or female thinking in a certian way at the very base level of their brain, is not something most people even notice. If you asked any random Joe on the street, "How do male humans differ from female humans?," he might say something like, "Girls like Barbies, and boys don't," or, "Men are more submissive," or "Women are more submissive," or "Men like to fight more," none of which actually has anything to with being male or being female. For example, most boys ages 2 - 5 DO like to play with Barbies, but boys aged 7 don't, because they are told, "Boys don't play with Barbies." Someone who was born with a vagina and gets a sex change due to "feeling like a male" doesn't do it because, "The way in which my brain circuits process logic is more similar to the average shown in human males then it is to the average shown in human females." They do it because, "I like wrestling and cars, and people who have vaginas aren't supposed to like wrestling or cars, so I'll remove the vagina." And of course this is not true in the slightest bit; there are plenty of females, who have no interest in being transsexuals, who like wrestling and cars, and motorcycles. Such as, you know, female wrestlers, for example. There is NOTHING that you can actually describe in everyday terms that makes a person male or female without looking at physiology. Sex drive? Nope, both males and females have a variety of levels of sex drives. Tendency to gossip? Nope, not at all; if you notice most of the n00bs who come in here and flame some chick at their school because they told some dude that their favorite band sucks or whatever are actually male. Uh... enjoying physical fights? Well I think we've already proved that one wrong. The only thing I could say I've ever seen that is something a "male is likely to do, think, or believe" when you are actually referring to every single male on the entire planet rather then a small, select group of them (such as those who think men are agressive, have a high sex drive, talk to girls solely on the basis of hoping for sex, or are more likely to cheat you out of money then females are, are talking abuot small, select groups), is that (for example) a male at the age of 36 is more likely to want to play with the toy cars, Barbies, and plastic swords that he did when he was 7, then a female age 36 is likely to want to actively play with the hot wheels, Barbies, and plastic swords that she played with when she was 7. That is the only outside, visible, everyday-words describable trait that is generally different in females then in males, and I don't think someone who is having a severe identity crisis becaus society has tried to tell 'her' that 'she' isn't allowed to play football or whatever is going to worry about playing with toys from when she/he/it was 6, or wanting to do so.

If on the other hand they just want a penis, well, it is indeed a choice, but I'm pretty sure there is no old Christian religious texts indicating that that's a problem - after all it was impossible to actually do at the time the novel was written.

Edited by God on August 30, 2008 at 15:06:28.

Edited by God on August 30, 2008 at 15:07:15.

Holy crap I sorta agree with "God" for once.

Trannies are a clusterfuck of problems. Okay sure, they may be "born with a different functioning brain" or whatever. But what if homosexuals are too?

What is the damn difference -- why can't women who "feel like they should be a man" just date OTHER WOMEN? Why do they "need" a penis, and to chop off their breasts?

Because they aren't happy with themselves. It's just like furries. They detest humans and being a human, so they're going to dress up as a fox. Whee, different now, don't have to deal with the trials and tribulations of being a person!

Trannies have a myriad of mental problems for a reason, and I don't think it's because they were "born in the wrong body". I just think they're naturally mentally fucked up and want to be something else.

Umm no I don't think I quite agree with you, furries are just enough to be "no comment," here, IMO, but I don't think a transsexual person *nessercerily* has mental disorders, and yes I do think that if they do it is largely due to their treatment by others. As I said there are people who want a penis or boobs just because "it would be fun," or something, there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. It would defintely make for a different sexual experience. I think the ones who say they are "a girl in a man's body" and whatnot are stupid for doing so, but, if it weren't for society's idocy about what "makes or doesn't make" you male/female, they probably woudln't ahve that problem. If they do have that problem in a society where nothing is considered "male" or "female"... then yeah, they might be crazy. But again that's due to the fact that gender really doesn't do anything, besides the base-levels I've already mentioned.

I don't know if homosexual have a different-functioning brain, because to everyone, *anything* sexual feels good (exception blah blah blah don't get technical on that statement please). For instance, if your girlfriend put a blinfold on you (one that worked well), projected her voice somehow, and then sent a man in to do to you whatever she was supposed to be doing, your body wouldn't recognize the difference unless it's because you already know her hands aren't that big/rough/hairy/etc. Maybe a better example is if you went to a whore you'd never used before and she did the same thing.

Of course sexual orientation isn't just defined by sex. But that doesn't nesecerily mean your brain is different - is that *is* the reason, I think it depends on each person. For instance, a straight girl who met another girl who was really friggin' nice to her, and dated/married/whatever, broke up with her eventually, and still consideres herselkf straight, might not for that. But someone who when they are 12 and single decides they like guys and is male, maybe they do. Corey and I for example have both wondered if we would have fallenin love with each other if one of us was of the opposite gender, but had acted exactly the same way - in his case he said definitely, in my case, I'm not sure.

Now the people who think being gay means they have to act completely strange and dress up and whatever - yeah, those people are fkng crazy. There are gay amles who naturally "are effeminate," but there are many others who act that way becayse they think "gay guys are supposed to act that way". These are the cross-dressers who specifically faulnt the fact that they are wearing women's clothing, and it usualy looks absolutely disgusting on them as well. Those are the people who might get a sex change, and for those people, I do agree with Hollow on them. But not everyone who wants or gets a sex change fits that category or similar.

You're missing the point. Transsexuality is a mental disorder, accompanied by Gender Dysphoria and/or Gender Identity Disorder. They don't act 'male' or 'female' because they want to, or believe they have to, they just are that way. It is proven, it is documented, and it is what it is. A five year old boy who insists that he is a girl cannot just be saying that for shits and giggles, because children have the air of innocence about them. There are numerous studies done on this. If you need more proof, then you should know that the transgender surgery is done out of necessity rather than for cosmetic purposes; some people feel so out of place with their bodies that they would rather kill themselves than go on living like that.

Most transgenders do not appreciate the sexual organs they have been given, and some are disgusted by them to the point of revulsion. However, if they are 'straight' compared to their mindset (A male wishing to be female liking males, and vice-versa), they appreciate the male form, but not their own.

You are aware that the male and female brains are wired differently, correct? Males can only use one half of their brain at any given time, whereas females can use both simultaneously. Also, hormones play a large factor in determining the gender (Notice I said gender, not sex; they are two different things) of a child.

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

Good day.

I recently watched a show on trannies. There were numerous people on there that got sexual reassignment. One unfortunate fellow got changed into a female and after 2 years, felt even more "wrong" as a female.

So now he's a man without a penis.

There was another turned back with religion, which is always iffy for me..and yet even more who were just not happy and regretting their surgery.

Which makes me think yet again, that yes it is a disorder (as you said) and mayyyybe just maybe, there should be other treatments than hacking off ones sexual parts. Because you can't just reverse that.

He was probably incorrectly diagnosed. Trannies have to go through a LOT of testing and years of counseling before they're even considered for surgery.

Most if not all of them sort of see the male organ as a symbol of a life they don't want, this is true. However, very few regret the decision. Those that do were probably plainly depressed (which could force someone's hand), or were misdiagnosed. People can still have Gender Dysphoria and Gender Identity Disorder and not be a trannie.

And yeah, there are other treatments, but the male organ is usually rendered useless after all the hormones they take. They become sterile and soft, with little to no sensation. So to them it really doesn't matter, or at least it shouldn't.

Lots and lots of counseling is needed to truly determine that these people are what they say they are and don't just have some underlying problems that they need to be resolved.

Howdy, peeps. Seems like I missed a good conversation. I didn't think we got this kinda stuff here on IO. Glad to see I was wrong. Now I'm sorry about bumping this, but I just can't contain myself. just got to participate.

So I've only really got a single point to make, and then a single post to respond to specifically. Here we go:

To touch on what Necro said earlier, there truly is more than one school of thought on the morality of Homosexuality, as far as Christianity is concerned, at any rate.

Unfortunately, I'm pressed for time, so I can't throw all of my statement out at the moment. Suffice it to say that there are some who believe that, like the verses on slavery and the inferiority of women, the verses were colored by context and bias and do not truly represent the Word of God. Also, there are some who believe homosexual relationships occurred in the Old Testamanet: Ruth/Naomi, Daniel/Ashpenaz and of course, David/Jonathon.

Kinky.

I wanted to address this point specifically. You have the right idea, but in the wrong proportions. You think it's mostly upbringing but genetics may play a role. That's the thing. Genetics play the role. They're the lead. It would be more accurate to say that it's mostly genetics but upbringing may play a role.

It's a nitpick, but a fairly major one in terms of the arguments against homosexual rights that it discredits.


Edited by Mega X.exe on October 15, 2008 at 18:18:38.

The male species is not ment to be penetrated, Female, I believe is more reasonable.

The thought of Gays in general, sickens me. In professional terms, I believe, I suffer from 'Mental Scars' from a few experiences in my past.

Such as, a gay man saying, "If I can't have you, nobody will," as he pulls out a knife. The next thing I know, I'm walking out of a dark alley with a little blood on my knuckles, and a sinister grin, knowing he's still alive.

I still have some respect for the gay community though, as long as they know certain bounderies not to cross. I usually get along with gay people, that's the way I'd rather keep it.

Gay Marriage, thier lives, thier business. Besides, isn't that what Las Vegas is for!?

Throwing religion into the subject. In my honest opinion, God created gay people, for one or two reasons. A sick sense of humor and/or to slow down human population. Besides, it sounds like churches are demanding a little harshly. Wow, such loving people.

Edited by Yllisos Zanon on October 23, 2008 at 17:00:14.

While I personally agree with you, certainly that is a matter that every one should be allowed to decide for himself?



That's not a characteristic of a homosexual though, that's a characteristic of a rapist. Though you may certainly find a homosexual sexual predator, that is no different than finding a heterosexual sexual predator.



Live and let live, eh?

I'd guess if upbringing plays a role at all it would be in whether or not it's considered "acceptable". For example, no one on this board would probably consider putting a giant flat plate in their lower lip to extended it to 2 or 3 feet long, simply because they have never heard of it, but this is common practice in Africa.


That comment sickens me. I have been individually disgusted by many men of Indian and Mexican ethnicities, and I usually find both of then disgusting. But with Mexicans, the thing that is "disgusting" is the way they act, and with Indians, it does indeed sexually repulse me... except for the men I have met of Indian ethnicity who do not "look" like they will act that way (and yes, they usually are American, but that's besides the point). But I have still met "regular" people, of both ethnicities, and the fact that I don't have any friends of either ethnicity (as far as I know) is due only to circumstance and not a prejudice. I would never say, "The thought of a Mexican sickens me," because I don't know anything about that Mexican until I meet him.

And saying a lesbian is "more right" then a gay male is also very wrong. I know some males say that because lesbians are sued for pornographic reasons on them; does that pply to you? If so, put your so-called morals where your mouth is and put everyone on the same scale regardless of whether they make you horny or not. (Of course that applies to anyone who would say such a thing for that reason.) / Just because you love a man doesn't mean you will have sex with him, and if you do do things penetration is not required. If it were, it would not be possible to BE a lesbian. Not to mention, ever heard of anal sex? Most guys enjoy doing that to their female partner... and the ones who can put science over bias enjoy the reverse as well. The sex of the person who's putting something there isn't really relevant...

Wow, beating the shit out of each others' opinions. Seriously, Yillos is just talking about his past experiences; he is entitled to his own opinion, not the one you force on him, his own.

Yes, I understand, it is a prejudiced viewpoint from most perspectives, but honestly, I use discretion with all people I don't know either. Is that discrimination too? Or is that just looking out for yourself? There is little point in bickering about whether or not one should look after oneself right? Then why are you saying it's wrong for him to feel a little nervous about it when he's had some bad experiences. People need to learn from their mistakes and others' mistakes in the past; it's called history.

I'm sorry, but you pretty much sicken me, with all your constant bitching about how people don't agree with you viewpoints. This is the internet; if you want to find people who agree with you, find somewhere else to bitch or stop complaining about why people's opinions are wrong.

Edited by Black Dranzer.exe on October 24, 2008 at 17:59:11.

And this is why most forums ban discussions about sex. :V

I'm calling for a removal of this topic, because seriously, when has this issue EVER been discussed civilly?

Sometimes the best lesson, is a harsh one, even if it's upon someones own behalf. I did live in a ugly area of Colorado Springs during the time. I am willing to bet, that the guy that made that threat to me, made a drastic life style after word.

I used to work with a homosexual, from time to time. We both got along, no problems. Talking with the guy, did restore a good amount of respect to the gay community.

Helldragon, no disrespect, but I think this topic should remain open. Sure, the topic does have kinks to being civil. But instead of shrugging off the issue, like most sites, lets actually discuss this thing through. Perhaps work out some of those 'kinks'.

Heck, they don't have to read or get involved on the subject if they don't want to.

In my experience, it just never goes well. Still, I'll let Doc judge its worth.