Son of Krypton
SoundDoctrine
Son of Krypton
SoundDoctrine
Son of Krypton
I may not agree with the issue of gay marriage, but I see the issue of divorce to be a far more pressing concern to me.
Well, since divorce isn't the issue at hand, could you expand on why you do not agree with the issue of gay marriage?
Ok, I'll see what I can do, though I haven't heard exactly what it would entail in great detail.
I believe that the actual act of homosexuality is wrong, because it takes place outside of the current boundaries of marriage.
What are the current boundaries of marriage and why do these boundaries exist?
Can you prove that these boundaries are necessary?
I've been of the understanding that marriage was to take one wife or husband and love, care for, and honor them until one of you dies.
But why can't it be to take one wife or husband and love, care for, and honor them until one of you dies, for both homosexual and hetrosexual couples.
Quote:
In primitive cultures it was probably like finding a companion to raise offspring and then simply staying with them.
But why?
Quote:
I think the boundaries are necessary because is same-sex marriage is allowed, who's to say what next type of relationship could fall under the umbrella. There could be people that want to marry farm animals, appliances, and a while host of other things, and if these were to all be allowed, society as we know it could collapse. I'm not saying it will, just that it's a possibility.
It's quite an annoying possibility that people always unfairly bring up.
People are not animals, appliances, or a whole host of other things, people are people. That's why the next rype of relationship couldn't fall under the umbrella.
Farm animals cannot speak to wanting to be married like people can, farm animals cannot do the things that people can and I don't believe that they can appreciate the rights a person gets with marriage.
Same thing with appliances.
It's not right to even suggest such a ridiculous possibility. People are recognizably different from other people.
On a side note, to use the quoting system, type [*quote] before each new quoted paragraph, and then to see if your quotes are in line, preview your post and check if everything is organized right. (and take out the little * I added)
Quote:
Quote:
I refuse to get into the discussion of whether God doesn't like homosexuals or not, becauswe I believe he loves everyone, and Fred Phelps out at that psycho church in Kansas is probably headed to hell faster than the gays he hates. But I digress.
I agree.
Quote:
The institution of marriage has been around longer than any other institution in history, before religion, and certainly before any type of government. The anthropological record has many examples of male-female pairing for life for protection, companionship, and the good old roll in the hay every once and again. I don't know if they found any evidence of same-sex pairings, but if they did, they didn't last more than one generation, simply because of the biological implications of being unable to reproduce.
But in today's day and age, why does any of that even matter? Why can't a homosexual person marry the person they love? With our current population, is reproduction even a big deal?
Good question, why does it matter? I don't understand why people get divorced and then claim something like "Irreconcilable differences" or some other lame excuse.
Why couldn't I be free to marry two women if I wanted to?
If the two women were fine with you being married to both of them, and you didn't force them both to be unfairly married to you, then there's no problem.
The thing is that most people naturally want to be the only lover and companion. People don't want to share their lovers. People always want to be first, not second or equal, in the eyes of the one they love.
Finding two women who would agree to be equal or second in your eyes to the other woman I think would be impossible.
This relationship cannot be compared to a homosexual couple with only two people.
Quote:
The definition of love has been so skewered, especially over the last century, that it more means lust than anything else. Sure, there are many examples of the old kind, but those are slowly going out of the picture. Love has so many meanings that people forget what kind they are actually feeling. For instance, the term "Puppy love" is also infatuation, namely, attraction on a mostly physical scale. Most young couples that have sex before marriage fall into this category, because the saying once went, "Puppy love feels real to the puppy," andf they either lack the self-control, or simply don'tcare about anything but satisfying the beast they just let themselves go.
But puppy love isn't the same as love, so you haven't proven that the definition of love has been skewered or that the "old kind" of love has gotten out of the picture.
Are you implying by this paragraph that homosexuals only feel lust and not love?
Quote:
And as for reproduction, yes our population is growing almost exponentially, but there is an imbalance in gender in many places, often through government programs (See: China's One child rule), which will lead to problems, especially if many men compete for the affections of few women.
I understand the problems, but I would still like a link to your sources if you can provide one.
Also, again, why does this affect your view of homosexual marriage?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't understand the mentality if a homosexual individual, simply because I'm not one, and I can't understand what I'm not very well. But I do know they want companionship, and either a biological function, or maybe some kind of psychological episode occurred at a young age, and now they find the same sex attractive for some reason.
Think of it this way, could you just turn gay?
Have you always been hetrosexual?
Why do you feel attracted to the opposite sex?
I am also hetrosexual, and I understand homosexuality to be what I feel, only towards the same sex. I've liked guys ever since I can remember, and I've never been attracted to girls like I'm attracted to guys. So if I take my feelings for guys, and then think that a lesbian has these feelings for girls, then I have a better understanding of it, even though I am personally not a lesbian.
Also, just because you don't understand them why should you deny them their rights based on that?
I don't see myself as gay, but I don't think I've always been heterosexual, aside from a time when I was young and thought girls had cooties.
I feel attracted to the opposite sex because I can see a girl and think to myself, "Wow, she's very pretty," Or "Wow, she would make a great girlfriend to some lucky guy." I look at my girlfriend, and I can see someone I can grow old with, and someone whom I can protect, love and care for.
To understand homosexuals, just think of that feeling but not towards a girl. They're people like hetrosexuals are, they just have a different sexual orientation.
Quote:
The last question is a very good one, and as of now, I don't have any true answer for you, but I'll be sure to let you know when I do get one.
'kay. I shall wait.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I feel same-sex marriage could be very damaging to the family because it affects so many different things in culture.
But if we as a whole were more accepting to homosexuals, wouldn't any negatives you would find that they bring about in our culture dissipate?
Like, right now there's a lot of intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and one would obviously find this a negative. But I personally do not find it a negative towards the homosexual, but towards the society.
Homosexuals need to be granted their rights and society needs to be more accpeting.
Perhaps when they are accepted, the bad things society puts on them will go away.
Perhaps, but there's also a lot of intolerance towards Christians, with the negatives coming down somewhere in the middle. Christians have done a mediocre to awful job of showing the love of Christ to people, with many not showing any love at all. But society hasn't been very forgiving, particularly with the advent of political correctness, and the removal of God from the public square. But I digress.
Personally, speaking as a human, I'd be more than willing to give them all the rights they want, but as a servant of something greater than myself and that says the act of homosexuality is wrong, I can't, but I can show them the love of God as well as I can, by listening to them and granting them a voice to hear their opinions on things.
This is what the thread really comes down to.
The something greater than yourself, which I take to be God since you're a Christian, does not say the act of homosexuality is wrong. This is covered in the second post.
Quote:
Quote:
It could teach that the traditional gender roles of a father and mother are unnecessary, forone.
Why is this a negative?
Single parent homes and broken homes have directly led to increases in crime, poverty, and many other things, through no fault of their own. Thes children simply have no way to learn any better, and the cultural revolutionm back in the 60s started it all, by appealing to humankind's base instincts, that of satisfying one's own desires first.
Okay, I suppose I agree with that.
But who are you to say that a homosexual relationship is like a single parent home or a broken home? If both parents are capable of being good parents, should they not be able to marry and adopt children?
Quote:
Quote:
I've also heard people compare it to interracial marriages and things of that nature. However, racism is about keeping races apart, whereas marriage is about bringing people together.
So why should homosexuals be denied their right to bring people together?
By denying them the right together, aren't you just separating people unfairly?
Quote:
I don't have an honest answer here either, but as is evidenced in culture, people can be in relationships together for a long time and never have to get married. It's usually only when some kind of rights are involved somewhere, that it becomes an issue.
Right.
Homosexuals are being unfairly denied the rights that come with marriage.
It's not fair to deny them their rights based on their sexual orientation.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In addition, they've done studies of interracial children and single-sex household children, and while interracial children have little problems adjusting to "normal" life, children raised with two mothers or fathers have a considerable harder time about it.
Please post your sources for these studies.
I have no sources, other than a Focus on the Family Video I saw the other day. Still you'd be better off finding a slightly more "Neutral" source.
Yeah, I definitly need a more neutral source. The complete bigotry of Focus on the Family disgusts me. They are automatically biased.
