Religion and homosexuality

[McBell]

You are the one that is scared of opinion.

I know you will not understand this, but merely wishing something to be true, does not make that something true.

I simply take everything you have to say with a grain of salt.

fair enough.

You consistently shovel so much bull **** that you sooner or later have to block out reality in order to accept the bull **** you shovel.

Is that why you are scared of that thread?
You have been shovelling the BS for so long that reality scares you?

 

[LittleNipper]

Even the ones that come about through rape?

The babies that come as the result of a rape, at least bring their need of love. I might add that unless the rapes are repeated, 99.9 % do not bring about a prenancy.

 

[Smoke]

You have been shovelling the BS for so long that reality scares you?

I think that's pretty obvious.

 

[LittleNipper]

I know you will not understand this, but merely wishing something to be true, does not make that something true.quote]

So comes from a person who believes marriage is whatever consenting individuals want it to represent... I'm sure GOD would disagree with you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The babies that come as the result of a rape, at least bring their need of love. I might add that unless the rapes are repeated, 99.9 % do not bring about a prenancy.

Which has nothing to do with my response, or your post I was responding to.

 

[Tristesse]

The babies that come as the result of a rape, at least bring their need of love. I might add that unless the rapes are repeated, 99.9 % do not bring about a prenancy.

Are you saying that marriage is only about having children? So, I take it that you think a straight couple who is infertile should not be allowed to marry?

 

[averageJOE]

The babies that come as the result of a rape, at least bring their need of love. I might add that unless the rapes are repeated, 99.9 % do not bring about a prenancy.

Do you have evidence of that statistic?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you have evidence of that statistic?

I think he got his statistics from the Pull Numbers Out of Your Butt Research Institute.

 

[averageJOE]

I think he got his statistics from the Pull Numbers Out of Your Butt Research Institute.

Crap! There is no arguing it then!

 

[McBell]

So comes from a person who believes marriage is whatever consenting individuals want it to represent... I'm sure GOD would disagree with you.

First, you have no idea what my beliefs are concerning marriage.
Second, you assume I actually care what your god thinks. let alone thinks about marriage.
Third, no, I will stop with two. don't want to confuse you.

 

[McBell]

99.9 % do not bring about a prenancy.

Source please.

 

[Smoke]

So comes from a person who believes marriage is whatever consenting individuals want it to represent... I'm sure GOD would disagree with you.

Of course you are. When you create a god in your own image, you can always be sure that he sees things just the way you do.

 

[Zadok]

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?​

The main problem I have with this issue is the efforts by one side to “demonize” the opposition rather than to discuss the important elements of the issue. For example the word homophobe adds nothing to the discussion and is more likely to create an atmosphere of hate in discussion that an attitude of resolution.

First off – I am not really against homosexual marriage – I am for marriage between a loving father and mother that are willing to make personal sacrifices for the raising of children to propitiate human society and species. Because of the “investment” necessary in rearing children, I believe society has an obligation to invest in families that provide the atmosphere and setting conducive to children. I think of marriage and the sponsorship of marriage as an investment in the future of humanity - not and excuse for pleasure for now.

I am sorry but I see no benefit in an investment in homosexual marriage that cannot provide necessary elements for future generations. I realize that we can pretend that homosexual marriage can be happy and therefore better than unhappy or destructive relationships (of which there are many varieties) but if the truth be known the best possible in homosexual marriages cannot be self sustaining beyond a single generation.

Perhaps if marriage was a more stable institution we could “tolerate” some deviation but to demand deviation as a right of law looks very ridiculous, highly biased and very give me what I want and to heck with the impact attitude. Since we have become a very self indulgent and self centered society I see marriage based on any kind of love very appealing to the delusional masses bent on pleasuring self at any cost and justifying it by any means.

Zadok

 

[Tristesse]

The main problem I have with this issue is the efforts by one side to “demonize” the opposition rather than to discuss the important elements of the issue. For example the word homophobe adds nothing to the discussion and is more likely to create an atmosphere of hate in discussion that an attitude of resolution.

First off – I am not really against homosexual marriage – I am for marriage between a loving father and mother that are willing to make personal sacrifices for the raising of children to propitiate human society and species. Because of the “investment” necessary in rearing children, I believe society has an obligation to invest in families that provide the atmosphere and setting conducive to children. I think of marriage and the sponsorship of marriage as an investment in the future of humanity.

I am sorry but I see no benefit in an investment in homosexual marriage that cannot provide necessary elements for future generations. I realize that we can pretend that homosexual marriage can be happy and therefore better than unhappy or destructive relationships (of which there are many varieties) but if the truth be known the best possible in homosexual marriages cannot be self sustaining beyond a single generation.

Perhaps if marriage was a more stable institution we could “tolerate” some deviation but to demand deviation as a right of law looks very ridiculous, highly biased and very give me what I want and to heck with the impact attitude. Since we have become a very self indulgent and self centered society I see marriage based on any kind of love very appealing to the delusional masses bent on pleasuring self at any cost and justifying it by any means.

Zadok

The problem with your reasoning, is you have the assumption that marriage is solely for procreation, when thats not the case at all. There are straight couples who are married and have no desire to have children, should they too not have the right to be married? Not to mention men and women who are infertile, I guess there should be a law prohibiting those marriages as well.

Deviation as a right of law? The only way we make progress in society is by changing laws, I mean there was a time when it was against the law for a women to vote. Thats no longer the case. It is sometimes necessary to change the laws for the betterment of society to give everyone regardless of race or sexual orientation the same rights that everyone else has. And to marginalize a particular group, just because they're different from you is wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You want to be a "friend" and not a parent.

Don't presume to tell me what I want.

To be a parent takes love and some hard work. It isn't like buying a pet dog...

What on Earth would make you think that I don't realize this?

 

[Zadok]

The problem with your reasoning, is you have the assumption that marriage is solely for procreation, when thats not the case at all. There are straight couples who are married and have no desire to have children, should they too not have the right to be married? Not to mention men and women who are infertile, I guess there should be a law prohibiting those marriages as well.

Deviation as a right of law? The only way we make progress in society is by changing laws, I mean there was a time when it was against the law for a women to vote. Thats no longer the case. It is sometimes necessary to change the laws for the betterment of society to give everyone regardless of race or sexual orientation the same rights that everyone else has. And to marginalize a particular group, just because they're different from you is wrong.

You have misunderstood my post. I did not say marriage was for the sole purpose of procreation. What I said is that society has an obligation to support marriage that provides an atmosphere for future generations. I also stated that there is substantial investment necessary for children and that an enlightened society will support and encourage such an investment.

Your view of law is most strange. You imply that changing a law is always good. My point here is that the good in changing a law can only occur when there is a greater benefit to society through the change? How does society benefit by investing in families that put their personal orientation, pleasures, desires and thinking above the needs of society to have children that understanding the importance of growing up with the understanding that often individual pleasures must be sacrificed in order to propagate the species and perpair a next generation to continue it?

Zadok

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You want to be a "friend" and not a parent. To be a parent takes love and some hard work. It isn't like buying a pet dog...

Actually, being a good pet owner takes love and some hard work also. I hope you avoid getting any pets, for their sake.

 

[sojourner]

I think he got his statistics from the Pull Numbers Out of Your Butt Research Institute.

that would be Believers' Union for True Tallying, or B.U.T.T.

 

[sojourner]

How does society benefit by investing in families that put their personal orientation, pleasures, desires and thinking above the needs of society to have children that understanding the importance of growing up with the understanding that often individual pleasures must be sacrificed in order to propagate the species and perpair a next generation to continue it?

In a society that is alarmingly overpopulated and sadly underinvested in meaningful relationships, I'd say that society stands to gain a lot by allowing homosexual marriage.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You have misunderstood my post. I did not say marriage was for the sole purpose of procreation. What I said is that society has an obligation to support marriage that provides an atmosphere for future generations. I also stated that there is substantial investment necessary for children and that an enlightened society will support and encourage such an investment.

Your view of law is most strange. You imply that changing a law is always good. My point here is that the good in changing a law can only occur when there is a greater benefit to society through the change? How does society benefit by investing in families that put their personal orientation, pleasures, desires and thinking above the needs of society to have children that understanding the importance of growing up with the understanding that often individual pleasures must be sacrificed in order to propagate the species and perpair a next generation to continue it?

Zadok

How does your ideas fit in with the current problems in China....where there are too many men.... as this situation was based on the ideas of propogation...???