The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken, not that homosexuals face ill effects due to the fact that the behavior is often connected to a subculture or drugs and other high risk behavior, even if it is a factor in the discussion. I don't see people arguing that there is something inherently broken in the makeup of blacks and latinos

Here is a statement by the EPA that children who grow up in "black and African American" homes were drastically more likely to suffer from ill effects of second hand smoke.

According to your "reasoning" re: homosexual marriage and adoption, if we want to be consistent, we should ban adoption of children into African American/black homes.

Do you agree?

Here is some information on the demographics of children faring relatively poorly in black, latino, and other minority households -- by a large ratio.

According to your "reasoning," if we want to be consistent on protecting the children based on the indications of studies, we should ban adoption into any minority home.

Do you agree?

----------------------------

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. Do you understand why it's a mistake to try to make a sweeping ban on a group over a statistic when there are completely functional people in the group with the negative stereotype?

 

[Drolefille]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken, not that homosexuals face ill effects due to the fact that the behavior is often connected to a subculture or drugs and other high risk behavior, even if it is a factor in the discussion. I don't see people arguing that there is something inherently broken in the makeup of blacks and latinos

Not often anymore. The only ones who still do are denizens of websites like Stormfront. You're showing a lack of historical knowledge here. But yes, people did indeed once argue that racial/ethnic minorities were inherently lesser and "broken" to the point of making them equivalent with animals. That has changed. So too has science seeing non-hetero behavior and inclinations as 'broken'.

Your argument is based on it it being inherently broken, but you can't seem to decide if it is an immoral state or a disability. If it's the former, then it's not relevant to allowing same sex marriages, if it's the latter, then prohibiting marriage on those grounds is as discriminatory as prohibiting infertile people, people with MS or CP, people in wheelchairs or people who are D/deaf from marrying.

I'll address your other post later.

 

[Agnostic75]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken.......

Please explain what you mean, and what solutions you offer.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken, not that homosexuals face ill effects due to the fact that the behavior is often connected to a subculture or drugs and other high risk behavior, even if it is a factor in the discussion. I don't see people arguing that there is something inherently broken in the makeup of blacks and latinos

I think you're missing the point. That's exactly what people have used studies like I cited to do.

What makes what you're doing different?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever faced the punishment that your sins deserved at the hands of God? Or has he patiently bore with you even when you didn't deserve it?

In the context of your faith, which is the greater sin in the eyes of God: homosexual acts, or acting uncharitably toward another person?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are the ones trying to force your agenda onto the mainstream though.

You are the ones trying to denigrate the sanctity of marriage to fit your agenda.

Since when was marriage created for man to marry man?

If anything denigrates the sanctity of marriage, it's the banning of same-sex marriage. Marriage is - at least in its ideal - an expression of love and commitment. The things that make marriage sacred are just as available to same-sex couples as opposite-sex ones.

When you reduce marriage to a breeding arrangement, you profane it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken, not that homosexuals face ill effects due to the fact that the behavior is often connected to a subculture or drugs and other high risk behavior, even if it is a factor in the discussion. I don't see people arguing that there is something inherently broken in the makeup of blacks and latinos

Oh, but in certain pockets of this country, you'll hear exactly that sentiment. Not too long ago, that was the prevailing attitude across the country.

There are still people that believe women are inherently the weaker sex, are too emotional to be in a leadership position.

There are people who believe that atheists are inherently immoral. And Jews. And Muslims. We can go on and on making all these assumptions about whole groups of people who are broken, lesser than, morally-depraved, ignorant, etc.

Tell me, where does that eventually take us?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In the context of your faith, which is the greater sin in the eyes of God: homosexual acts, or acting uncharitably toward another person?

They're both about the same. That's something that self-righteous people tend to forget

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They're both about the same. That's something that self-righteous people tend to forget

And there's the contradiction for me: IMO, the way that many Christian denominations reject homosexuality amounts to uncharitable treatment of homosexual people.

 

[waitasec]

They're both about the same. That's something that self-righteous people tend to forget

luke 6:30

30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

seems to me the christian denominations need to give the homosexual community equality since they're asking for it

everyone is an all inclusive word right...it doesn't say 'everyone except....'


the irony...

 

[Agnostic75]

I'm suggesting the possibility that homosexual behavior itself is inherently broken.......

Please explain what you mean, and what solutions you offer.

 

[Duck]

You are the ones trying to force your agenda onto the mainstream though.

You are the ones trying to denigrate the sanctity of marriage to fit your agenda.

Since when was marriage created for man to marry man?

I question how sacred the institution is when I would be just as legally married if I didn't come within 10 miles of a church, synagogue, mosque, imam, priest, nun or pastor as I would be if the Pope conducted the ceremony with the council of elders (that is the head group of the LDS, right?) and the entire southern baptist convention as witnesses. I also question the sacredness of the institution when I can get married to someone I just met at the casino in Vegas by a guy dressed as Elvis, and then divorce 3 days later. Or the sacredness of an institution that is the subject of reality tv game shows (the Bachelor, the Bachelorette).

Don't give me that 'sanctity of marriage' crap until I hear you arguing against these things with as much vigor as you do against same sex secular (aka civil) marriage. I wish the right to have a convenient, easy to do, ceremony celebrating (and legally binding) my love for my love (not your idea of who I should love, but my actual love) that is recognized by society, not unlike what heteros have based on the convenient fact that they fall in love with the opposite sex. Not to worry, I won't disgrace your religion, nor you, by having your religion anywhere near my relationship, marriage celebration or life (if I could help it, unfortunately your co-religionists won't let that happen).

 

[waitasec]

You are the ones trying to denigrate the sanctity of marriage to fit your agenda.

no divorce does...

 

[9Westy9]

no divorce does...

It's funny because the definition of marriage has been changing for years

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

A part of me finds it a little astounding that I live in a society that in microcosm can create a 90 page heated debate based on the weird premise that sexual preference is somehow meaningfully causally related to childrearing in any way besides the obvious biological implications.

I guess I would just add that this all seems an extension of the (broken) abrahamic concept of placing undue weight on the value of the 'nuclear family' as opposed to the tribe/extended family. There is a very old saying, 'it takes a village to raise a child'.