Again with the why question. I already explained it in the post. They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue. Not to mention, they can't bring kids to the Earth. Two men or two women can't have a baby, and that must mean sexual intercourse was meant for the opposite sex. If you don't agree, buy two magnets. Try to stick them together on the same side. They will push each other apart. The second you let go of one of them, the magnet will immediately twist around and connect with its opposite. Just goes to show you that two of the same sex, will only lead to being disliked. You see, as a metaphor, the magnet you don't let go is the world, the one that can't connect is a homosexual person. The world rejects this person for being abnormal, and will never connect if it stays the same. Sam sex marriages don't contribute to life. They can't make a baby, they can't teach a child good things, they don't deserve to be married. This is very mean, I know, but I just think it's immoral.
i believe people like that have the right to be married. but the metaphor that FLOOT mentioned, is a much better way of explaining things. i'm not going to post a huge comment like everybody else, but just to show my family believes that gay people have rights, my mom goes to a gay barber, and to be honest, he's actually kinda cool. he even knows how to make music remixes. and another example-
anyone here know the ELLEN DEGENRES show? she's gay. i just can't see why people hate them. they're people like us, and they love like us. if someone is telling them that they can't express those feelings, than that's just plain wrong. and anybody that just believes they don't deserve rights because of religion, get a life and open a history book.
Copyright © Driven by Boredom
Who appointed you the morality police? Furthermore, why should a government run by the people, for the people like the US have a morality police?They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue.
There are a lot of people who can't bring kids to the Earth. However, that isn't the point of a legal marriage. Otherwise, the elderly, disabled, and many more shouldn't be getting married.Not to mention, they can't bring kids to the Earth.
Artificial incemination.two women can't have a baby
By this logic, a sterile man and woman shouldn't be able to adopt. Because like a same sex couple, they can't have children either.
What does this have anything to do with same sex marriage or other homosexuality issues?and that must mean sexual intercourse was meant for the opposite sex. If you don't agree, buy two magnets. Try to stick them together on the same side. They will push each other apart. The second you let go of one of them, the magnet will immediately twist around and connect with its opposite.
Again, I don't think the government should be legislating morality.
It's okay if you believe in Big Government, but that's not how I was raised.
No it doesn't. Just because you don't like it doesn't exclude others from liking it.Just goes to show you that two of the same sex, will only lead to being disliked.
No. As a metaphor, it's pretty crappy and ignores everything that differentiates a human being from a magnet.You see, as a metaphor, the magnet you don't let go is the world, the one that can't connect is a homosexual person.
I think you're confusing "The world" with "you."The world rejects this person for being abnormal, and will never connect if it stays the same.
Neither can the elderly, disabled, sterile, and many more.Sam sex marriages don't contribute to life. They can't make a baby,
But fortunately, we don't live in a theorcracy. Maybe in your form of what I presume is Christianity, the purpose of marriage is making babies.
But your religion is not law. Marriage is a legal concept done so two people can share their lives together and get many legal benefits.
And denying two consenting adults the right to marry means denying them of tax benefits, power of attorney, and many, many others, for no other reason than "I don't like it."
Believe it or not, people can be good without going to Church every Sunday.they can't teach a child good things,
Why can't gay people "teach a child good things?"
Again, you called marriage a right. Who are you to deny someone a legal right? What backing besides "I/my religion don't like it" do you have?they don't deserve to be married.
Again with Big Government. Why should government be the morality police? And what makes your morals better than others?This is very mean, I know, but I just think it's immoral.
2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.
3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.
Last edited by randomspot555; Jun 17th, 2009 at 05:44 PM.
Gay couples creating gay kids? Just like how straight couples always make straight babies?They adopt, convert the kid, and the immorality will continue.
I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up this opinion.There is no "basic human decency" without God. Where does your decency come from, I wonder?
So you believe people should only marry if they intend to create more children? That that's the whole point of marriage? Deciding to make kids is something that comes with a deep and serious relationship that marriage isn't necessarily a part of. I can have a deep, serious, and loving relationship that is identical to a married couple's without actually being married.The point is that homosexuals, no matter what age or condition, will never be able to have children, much less raise them in a stable family environment.
They could, theoretically, teach a child good things, but one thing they would teach a child is that it's okay to be gay, which it is most certainly not.
And how will they not be able to raise them in a stable family environment? Besides being an example of gay being okay, what difference is there from straight couples? There can still be straight drunk fathers, spouse abuse, and other things that influence kids negatively from straight relationships. Only difference between these is that not everyone can agree that being gay is immoral (because this opinion stems from your religion, remove the religion, and there is no reason for it to be immoral), and that being a drunk, and abusing people are DEFINITELY negative things.
Again, you're assuming marriage was invented by your religion. It wasn't. Your religion should not hold the rules for legal marriages that take place, it's not the owner of marriage. It can have rules on their own ceremonies, but nothing that has to do with legal rights. If they want to religiously unite two people before God or not is their problem, but the Church has no place in law.Marriage is a union between one man and one woman designed to imitate the union between Christ and his church.
More like, religion should not have any part in marriage at all. (Your Religion did NOT create marriage. Legal marriages are NOT religious in any way. Therefor, your religion should NOT control legal marriages. Their ceremonies for their own version of marriage, uniting people before God, is their business.)1. You're right, government should not have any part of marriage at all. But as long as courts are marrying people, it's necessary.
2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.
3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.
2/3. Morals are NOT universal. They vary from person to person, as is obviously the case here. To MY morals, gay is fine, to YOURS, gay is sinful. Police are there to uphold the law and make sure no one gets hurt (getting people hurt goes against MOST people's morals), but as gays do not inherently hurt anyone more than anyone else, there should be nothing against them. Gays being bad is your opinion, and your morals, yet they are harmless. Police do not uphold or defend morals, they defend people.
Ĉu vi parolas ĝin?
Also, police defend people because it's their moral duty to do so.
And don't dodge the question. The only thing that keeps you from supporting murder and rape is your religion. That's what you said. But for some reason, I don't see a trend that those "without God" (whatever that means) are raping or killing more than those "with God."
You honestly believe those that don't follow Western religions are just godless heathens with no respect for human life?
Got it. So anyone who doesn't follow the Abrahamic religions can't have basic human decency.
Strange. I'm pretty sure there's been lots of decent, even great, human beings that weren't Christian, or even Jewish or Islamic. Like this guy or this unknown dude.
Neither are the aforementioned.The point is that homosexuals, no matter what age or condition, will never be able to have children,
What's a "stable family environment"? A mother and father?much less raise them in a stable family environment.
For every 2 marriages in the US, there is 1 divorce. source. So if you're worried about a "stable family environment", I'd say straight people are screwing it up just fine on their own. Why not let homosexuals do the same?
The purpose of marriage isn't children. That has no legal basis at all. And even in religions where the purpose is ultimately to have children, like Catholicism, I've never seen a priest or reverand not marry someone because they cna't have children.The difference being that a straight couple was meant to be able to have children.
That isn't the point of a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with God, your faith, my faith, etc...Marriage is a union between one man and one woman designed to imitate the union between Christ and his church.
You entirely missed the point. You've said people can't have basic human decency without God. And that the only reason you don't support rape and murder is because of your religion.Similarly, people can go to church every Sunday and still go to Hell. I'm not sure how church attendance plays into this issue.
Regardless of what my religious beliefs are, I can think of plenty of logical reasons that don't involve religion on why someone wouldn't go out and rape and murder.
Why isn't it?They could, theoretically, teach a child good things, but one thing they would teach a child is that it's okay to be gay, which it is most certainly not.
Haha, no, you grossly misinterperted what I said. A legal marriage and a religious marriage aren't the same. Religions can do whatever they want. But the only reasons you've bought up (and anyone else) against same sex marriage are all religious, something that doesn't belong in a democracy.1. You're right, government should not have any part of marriage at all. But as long as courts are marrying people, it's necessary.
No. Police are to uphold the law. Laws aren't based off of any type of religious beliefs or morals. They're based off the need to protect individuals and their liberty.2. Who else is going to be the "morality police"? That's what police forces are for: to uphold morality.
Yeah, they can. For example, I see same sex marriage as a legal issue. You see it as a religious issue, because you've only bought up religion in support of your views. But laws aren't meant to reflect religious belief. They're meant to protect everyone.3. "Your morals"? "Other" morals? Morals do not differ with the individual.
Again, it's fine that you and others are for Big Government that should tell you how to live and who to have sex with and all that stuff. But I'm for individual liberty. And I fail to see how giving homosexuals the same rights such as the right to not be discriminated against, the legal benefits of two consenting adults in a legal marriage, is harmful to anyone.
---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------
Legal marriage != religious marriage.Not the whole point of marriage, but a big part of it. As for having a relationship like that outside of marriage, without the intent to ever marry, that's a whole other issue.
There's lots of absent straight fathers too. But I don't see you campaigning against that.The difference is that there is no father in a homosexual relationship.
Prove it.I'm not assuming that it was invented by my religion, but it was invented by God.
What is His church?Refer to my last point; God created marriage, and therefore his church and only his church should have the authority to marry anyone.
Another gross misinterperation. They do so because they're enforcing the laws, regardless of their personal feelings on the law and/or those being hurt.Also, police defend people because it's their moral duty to do so.
You bring up some very good points Random, but here's what I say,
A couple that can't have kids have more of a right to adopt a child. Why? Because they won't confuse the child by converting them gay. Gay couples shouldn't even be allowed to adopt, this is strictly opinion, so don't take it personally anyone.
Who said I'm the morality police? If some gay kid came to my school last year, he got beat up very hard, physically and mentally bullied. When the teachers asked why they beat the guy up they simply said either "He's gay and that's wrong", "He's an abomination of God" and "He's gay...". Everyone else in other places have done it too. I've seen it. It's bad in almost everyone's eyes. What also bothers me is sex changes. My God, do you know how bad it sucks living in the constant fear that the beautiful girl you might be dating was a man before? They don't even have the decency to tell you, and that's even more immoral. The fact that they don't consider a sex changed man and a man gay is just incredibly stupid. Especially since they can't even have kids. Gays are just immoral in almost everyone's eyes. Marriage is made legal by a priest, and in the bible it says homosexuality is wrong, so I don't think a priest should have wed a gay couple. You understand my point of view, right? We're all entitled to our opinions.
I'm disgusted. Backing up violence by saying someone is an abomination in God's eyes? How can you people think yourselves better the muslim extremists? If there was an all gay community, I'm positive someone would bomb it.
Secondly. I'm actually offended by you saying gay couples "convert" their adopted child. First of all, about 75% of gay couples adopt GIRLS, so I don't exactly see how they could convert them away from being straight. And I actually know several men who were adopted by a gay couple, and all of them are straight. Also, quite honestly, most of them are more polite, more friendly, more generous, and more understanding and friendly towards other beliefs then most "pureborn" christians.
In any case, this discussion has gone on long enough. Its turned into a flame war. Randomspot, please lock it.
Edit: After quickly reviewing a few posts, there are a few misconceptions that I want to attempt (and fail) to clear up. Firstly, atheists (such as myself) are not works of the devil, we don't want the downfall of society as we know it, and we aren't completely retarded. Secondly, people who don't agree with Catholicism or Christianity aren't violent freaks who want to cause mass destruction.
And finally, most importantly, MARRIAGE is not something that was created by God. The sacrament of Matrimony was. You know how many faithful Christians don't go through the sacrament of Matrimony and get married at a small party, in their home, or somewhere else? The number is astounding. This discussion is not about matrimony, its about marriage. Quite honestly, I don't think gay people give a shit whether or not they go through matrimony, especially since any priest has the right to refuse any couple, straight or otherwise. This discussion was about the rights granted to people who are married under the law (which I did state) that are unavailable to homosexual couples.
If you use moral or religious views to justify posts in this forum, expect people to question them. And you can do the same to others who do so. But that doesn't mean I have to tell you anything about me personally that I haven't disclosed.
Anyways, I'll just toss up the bolded part to a poorly typed sentence.
There's lots of reasons to not violate someone's freedom and liberty to life.Not what I meant. What I meant was, those 'without God' have no logical reason not to rape or murder.
Of course, it speaks volumes of how much religion really keeps people in line when looking at prion stats:
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.htmlNational Census of the Jail Population, 1995
According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching). These figures are comparable to the national average as establish by the Gallup organization. [Source: Response to "Christians vs atheists in prison investigation".]
The Department of Justice also has tons of PDFs to look through on prisoner statistics. Though I didn't find anything particularly interesting, mainly because a vast majority of those incarcerated are probably in line with the religious demographics of this country. Which are Christian.
You said those without God don't have a reason to not murder and rape and steal. That's pretty much not true, since I've never noticed a trend in criminals and religious backgrounds.Godless? Yes. Heathen? Debatable. No respect for life? If they were consistent atheists, yes. But they're not (thank God!).
Why is it so hard to accept that people can live peacefully without God being the reason holding them back from murder?Again, I'm not insinuating that they're not decent; only that if they are consistent, they should see no reason for basic human decency.
But why shouldn't they? Sure, if you're in the custody of a state home and are one of dozens of children, I gues you should have the right to refuse adoptive parents. But I'd lead at the chance of someone adopting me, regardless of how much it matches the Dick and Jane family fantasy.Gay couples shouldn't even be allowed to adopt, this is strictly opinion, so don't take it personally anyone.
Well, this is about same sex marriage, which is a legal concept. And you are against it strictly for religious and moral reasons. That's forcing your morality onto others. Hence, morality police.Who said I'm the morality police?
So that justifies them torturing a kid? It's a-okay to torture someone as long as it's in the name of religion?If some gay kid came to my school last year, he got beat up very hard, physically and mentally bullied. When the teachers asked why they beat the guy up they simply said either "He's gay and that's wrong", "He's an abomination of God" and "He's gay...". Everyone else in other places have done it too. I've seen it. It's bad in almost everyone's eyes.
How do you even know he was gay? I wouldn't put it beyond bigots like that to just make it up or coerce him into saying it, just so they could have an excuse so they won't get punished.
There are people with hormone deficiences, or born with both sex organs and it's impossible to predict what they'll mature into. So one gets cut off and the other left. It's a 50/50 chance that it's the wrong choice.What also bothers me is sex changes. My God, do you know how bad it sucks living in the constant fear that the beautiful girl you might be dating was a man before?
But hey let's just ignore medicine and be against everything that isn't "normal."
Another unsourced factual statement? Why am I not surprised.Gays are just immoral in almost everyone's eyes.
Or a court judge. And there's no law that says the government has to recognize religious ceremonies. It just so happens that most do.Marriage is made legal by a priest,
Again, who cares? This is about legal marriage. The US isn't a theocracy, and laws shouldn't be passed because of what the Bible says is okay or not.and in the bible it says homosexuality is wrong,
Who said anything about that?so I don't think a priest should have wed a gay couple.
---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------
Locked on request of the OP
I recommend in general (to a few in here) that you know your sources, avoid flamming, and approach the debate in a mature manner. :/