Religion and homosexuality

[MSizer]

Who instituted marriage? Who invented it, as it were?

I actually don't know the answer to this question, but even if the answer is some religious institution, how does that matter? Why should an unethical practice perpetuate just because it was the norm of the past?

By your logic, we should never seek to improve any institution which we did not enstate. That's utterly absurd.

 

[LittleNipper]

I agree.
Whatever claims on the word marriage that religion MAY have had in the ancient past, they gave up in the ancient past and it is a bit late now to want it back.

Marriage is between most men and women for the main purpose of beginning a family. If it wasn't for the sake of the children, I suspect most men would not even bother to get married. Clearly, men who visit whores, do not consider themselves married to such. So, if sex is the only consideration, there is little physical need for men to marry women.

When a man cares enough for a woman to want to both support her in begetting children and stay with her to raise those children, then that is when a marriage committment becomes very important. In the case of homosexuality, there are no children to be had. The only reason for marriage becomes physological and material.

A government, has little to gain from promotting sexuality; however, there is plenty to be gained from promoting constant relationships that foster parenthood. Homosexuality doesn't foster parenthood. The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage, but confound and confuse it. In the end, it are the children who will suffer and society will unravel faster and further.

 

[McBell]

Marriage is between most men and women for the main purpose of beginning a family. If it wasn't for the sake of the children, I suspect most men would not even bother to get married. Clearly, men who visit whores, do not consider themselves married to such. So, if sex is the only consideration, there is little physical need for men to marry women.

When a man cares enough for a woman to want to both support her in begetting children and stay with her to raise those children, then that is when a marriage committment becomes very important. In the case of homosexuality, there are no children to be had. The only reason for marriage becomes physological and material.

A government, has little to gain from promotting sexuality; however, there is plenty to be gained from promoting constant relationships that foster parenthood. Homosexuality doesn't foster parenthood. The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage, but confound and confuse it. In the end, it are the children who will suffer and society will unravel faster and further.

Interesting how you continue to dish out this vile steaming pile of bull **** yet have not been able to post in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...049-littlenipper-sex-without-procreation.html
​

 

[McBell]

In the case of homosexuality, there are no children to be had. The only reason for marriage becomes physological and material.

Yes, because it can not have anything to do with love....

Homosexuality doesn't foster parenthood.

Really?
So you think that no homosexuals have children?

The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Now you are just flat out wrong and either to stupid or blind to see that it is not the same sex couples who have destroyed your imaginary sanctity of marriage.

Based on your claims thus far, we know that same sex couples are not having children.
So they are not the ones having children out of wedlock.
And since same sex couples cannot get married, they are not the ones who are divorcing.
Nor can they be committing adultery.

So how can you with a straight face claim that same sex couples are messing with marriage?

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage,

Says who?
you?
I doubt that you came up with this on your own, so I will flat out ask: whose opinion are parroting?

In the end, it are the children who will suffer and society will unravel faster and further.

Again, Whose opinion are you parroting?
What is your source?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Marriage is between most men and women for the main purpose of beginning a family. If it wasn't for the sake of the children, I suspect most men would not even bother to get married.

Speak for yourself. First and foremost, I married my wife because I love her. If we have kids, great, but if we don't, this won't undermine the purpose of my marriage one iota.

The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

I think a statement like this needs something pretty substantial to back it up.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Why do most heterosexual couples marry? In Germany because of:

Tax reliefs
To become more favorable apartments
To have legally sex (if one is in a church)
To be able to swindle the state
So that children have legal parents
Love

In the USA quite similar reasons will be.
As a German judge said once: "The engagements often end happily. Sometimes also with a marriage". With thus he wanted to say that a marriage makes people unhappy. Hey, your heterosexual, want you to have alone pains of a marriage? Aren't so selfish!

 

[Sunstone]

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage, but confound and confuse it.

If you did not lust after the homosexual couple down the street, the homosexual couple down the street would have no power over your marriage.

 

[gnomon]

Marriage is between most men and women for the main purpose of beginning a family. If it wasn't for the sake of the children, I suspect most men would not even bother to get married. Clearly, men who visit whores, do not consider themselves married to such. So, if sex is the only consideration, there is little physical need for men to marry women.

When a man cares enough for a woman to want to both support her in begetting children and stay with her to raise those children, then that is when a marriage committment becomes very important. In the case of homosexuality, there are no children to be had. The only reason for marriage becomes physological and material.

A government, has little to gain from promotting sexuality; however, there is plenty to be gained from promoting constant relationships that foster parenthood. Homosexuality doesn't foster parenthood. The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage, but confound and confuse it. In the end, it are the children who will suffer and society will unravel faster and further.

Are you married?

 

[Autodidact]

I have a couple thoughts about LDS opposition to gay marriage. One is psychological. They're jealous and they feel gypped. When mainstream America objected to their form of marriage--polygamy--they caved. Instead of fighting it, they changed their religion to accomodate the mainstream view. Now they're having second thoughts, and it's too late. And now those darned homosexuals are going to get the rights they gave up!

The other is that LDS theology is very, very, strange, and places a huge importance on reproduction. It's all about having babies. They cannot grasp any other vision or concept of marriage or sex. So homosexuality really really bugs them.

So, to put them together, the combination of someone who is misusing God's holy bond getting rights that they, the people following God's commandment, are not getting, just really makes them angry.

That's my hypothesis.

 

[Autodidact]

Marriage is between most men and women for the main purpose of beginning a family. If it wasn't for the sake of the children, I suspect most men would not even bother to get married. Clearly, men who visit whores, do not consider themselves married to such. So, if sex is the only consideration, there is little physical need for men to marry women.

When a man cares enough for a woman to want to both support her in begetting children and stay with her to raise those children, then that is when a marriage committment becomes very important. In the case of homosexuality, there are no children to be had. The only reason for marriage becomes physological and material.

A government, has little to gain from promotting sexuality; however, there is plenty to be gained from promoting constant relationships that foster parenthood. Homosexuality doesn't foster parenthood. The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Husband and wife relationships are far from perfect; however, the promotion of homosexual unions is not going to improve marriage, but confound and confuse it. In the end, it are the children who will suffer and society will unravel faster and further.

I think people who live without love, like LIttleNipper, are so sad. Here he reveals his basic misogyny.

Exactly how will the children of lesbians suffer, LitlleNipper? Mine are doing spectacularly, especially the one I rescued from her irresponsible heterosexual parents.

 

[Sunstone]

I have a couple thoughts about LDS opposition to gay marriage. One is psychological. They're jealous and they feel gypped. When mainstream America objected to their form of marriage--polygamy--they caved. Instead of fighting it, they changed their religion to accomodate the mainstream view. Now they're having second thoughts, and it's too late. And now those darned homosexuals are going to get the rights they gave up!

The other is that LDS theology is very, very, strange, and places a huge importance on reproduction. It's all about having babies. They cannot grasp any other vision or concept of marriage or sex. So homosexuality really really bugs them.

So, to put them together, the combination of someone who is misusing God's holy bond getting rights that they, the people following God's commandment, are not getting, just really makes them angry.

That's my hypothesis.

I think your second hypothesis rings truer to me than your first. But I can see both are well thought out.

 

[Archer]

Why do most heterosexual couples marry? In Germany because of:

Tax reliefs
To become more favorable apartments
To have legally sex (if one is in a church)
To be able to swindle the state
So that children have legal parents
Love

In the USA quite similar reasons will be.
As a German judge said once: "The engagements often end happily. Sometimes also with a marriage". With thus he wanted to say that a marriage makes people unhappy. Hey, your heterosexual, want you to have alone pains of a marriage? Aren't so selfish!

That is the one thing marriage in the US does not give you.

 

[Smoke]

I was told by EEOC that I did not have a case and confidentially that a non protected individual has a higher burden of proof that need be presented to get the ball rolling than a protected individual.

The person you spoke to was wrong. Any race is protected, not just black people.

Noe let us put this in perspective. If I had been Gay and held protected status I would have had a case and justice would have been served!

Not in the United States. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal under federal law -- though some jurisdictions within the US have outlawed it on the state or local level.

 

[MSizer]

Why is it some mormons "won't stand by while immoral acts (homosexuality) are taking place"? For those of you like that, do you think god will punish you for the (supposed) immoral acts of other people? Do you think you have a duty to save them from their own "failure to take the right path"? I don't get it.

I know Nipper put in his little claim that society will unravel, but he has no evidence to show it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

When in California the marriage was cancelled for homosexual people again (because of Prop 8), and the LDS "church" was involved in it, I put to myself some questions. A question was, why the religions fight so much against the marriage of homosexual people. Why they spend so much money to keep the civil rights from American citizens. Because to marry is a civil right. A religion has nothing to do with it.

An other question which I put to myself was, why just the LDS was so crazily to prevent gay rights? Is the LDS homophobic, although in their own church history many famous homosexual appeared? Or did they have fear that would be taken away a little bit of their rights, and they could be made accept such marriages ecclesiastically? ​

Does a connection exist at all between the attacks (verbally, physically, institutionally) on homosexual people, with (Christian) religions?

What do you mean?​

LDS is homophobic because it is rooted in 19th century morality
Not all mormons are homophobic, but as a whole their church by and large is.
But then again they were rascist too once (black people bore the cursed mark of cain)...still are to some extent (no church leaders are black).... but things can change.

One day, 50 yrs or so from now, LDS will not be afraid of homosexuals...

 

[Archer]

Not in the United States. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal under federal law -- though some jurisdictions within the US have outlawed it on the state or local level.

I was speaking in reference to future actions I was not clear, excuse me.

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.

Quota: Fixed hiring and promotion rates based on race, sex, or other protected class standards which must be met at all costs. In extreme cases, the courts have assigned quotas to some employers who have continued to practice illegal discrimination. The agency or any other employer cannot use quotas to meet their affirmative action goals unless a court orders it. Quotas are considered discriminatory against males and other non minority people.

And it plays along with this. You can say all you want to say I was there it was me and I was screwed because I don't claim to be Native American. I know what you are saying but that is not the way it really works, epically when the investigator is black.

 

[Witch of Hope]

One day, 50 yrs or so from now, LDS will not be afraid of homosexuals...

Did you know that they are a lot of famous homosexuals in LDS History? For example, a councelor ot Joseph Smith (John C. Bennett, he was bisexual), Louise felt & May anderson (Primary leaders and a couple for more than 40 years, lesbians), Evan Stephans (Director of the Tabernacle Choir, gay), Patriarch Joseph F. Smith (in 1950's he was cast out of his service because he has several relationships to men as a married man).
Brigham Morris Young, Grandson of Brigham Young, gay and he like it to dressed himself as Madam Pattirini.
And this are only a view I mentioned here.
Do you know that guy who play uncle Arthur in "bewitched"? He was LDS and gay, and was cast out at the Donny & marie Osmond Show cause he was gay.
So many gay,lesbian and transgendered Mormons attempted suicides because this church hade them. This violence against queer folks from the LDS side has to be stopped (ans also from all other sides)!!!

 

[Autodidact]

No, I am saying that to do this opens up too many holes and unless we guarantee that those holes will not open all of the way up gay marriage rights will be hard to come by.

Some think I cant be terminated because I am a heterosexual Christian white male, I can be turned down because of it if things pass. Think about it, if certain things are done I may be passed up for employment because of a quota.

Let me get this. You're worried that if gay people are allowed to marry each other this will somehow lead to you being discriminated against? Is that really and truly your concern? Cuz, y'know, we're being discriminated against right now, but I guess that doesn't bother you.

In general, equality benefits everyone. Ending discrimination is good for everyone, because then we can all benefit from the contributions of everyone. vz. our current President.

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong, oh so wrong. You know nothing about me from where I come or what I have been through, I have been discriminated against and took it as far as the EEOC and I was told NOTHING COULD BE DONE! I could be called ******, I had to put up with so much crap it ain't funny. So don't presume anything!

So you don't think you've benefited from the privilege of belonging to the least discriminated against segment of our society, white, heterosexual, Christian, male?

 

[Autodidact]

The truth be told is that homosexuality has likely done more to destroy marriages then it has to make a comfortable atmosphere to nurture children.

Really? What?

Did you know that thousands of homosexuals, like myself, are taking care of children who were abused, neglected and abandoned by their careless heterosexual parents?