The Gay Marriage debate!

America's also the only western country with a large voting block still living in isolated agrarian style communities. Not a coincidence that those are the last people in the west with the sort of value systems that prevailed when everyone lived that way. In the spirit of post 236, I hope they catch up with the 19th century soon.:scared2:

 

This is the root of our problem imo

 

Yeah, a God fearing nation that gives a Marine who led a massacre of 24 innocent civilians 3 months in jail and a demotion as punishment, his acts cheered on by the same Americans who talk about Christianity the most.

 

A God fearing nation that refuses to apologize for nuking two cities in the single biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen.

A God fearing nation that celebrates pornography and the exploitation of women, and seeks to force those twisted values onto Eastern countries, in the name of "liberation."

A God fearing nation that props up brutal dictators that rape, kill and starve their populations for their personal entertainment and the profit of their American masters.

A God fearing nation that can spend trillions of dollars on war, but can't spend a fraction of that taking care of the poor.


this could go on for pages, it might deserve its own thread

 

i like 1, 2, and 4 :)

and to be fair the supposed exploitation of women and celebration of pornography is far superior than the alternative in the middle east. (specifically countries like pakistan, iran, saudi arabia)

 

And in doing so, they show audacious hypocrisy

With the history of this nation, some of it wonderful, much of it shameful, the last thing we ought to be crowing about is "values".

 

Word.

 

Hence..."professes".

 

Be careful now. The resident Republicans on the board may label you "unpatriotic". :giggle:

 

Sly, if in 5 years time bum lust is categorically proven to be a born trait and not choice will your opinions on it change?

 

I was waiting for this question. I seem to be the only "anti-bum lust" person that seems to know how to answer it.

Before I do so let me STRESS that the issue of what my personal opinion on homosexuality is has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the issue of gay marriage. I could think that "bum lust" is a wonderful thing...and still recognize that Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Many of us love PORK...but we all know that pork cannot be Kosher.

So in conclusion (as I cannot stress it enough): whether Bum lust is good or bad is irrelevant to the issue of Gay Marriage.

Ok...so your issue, therefore, is regarding whether it is right or wrong, I assume. Or what my opinion of it would be as to whether or not it is right or wrong. I'll answer his now in relation to whether it is proven that it is a born trait or a choice.

Whether or not it is a born trait or a choice is IRRELEVANT to the issue of right or wrong. Completely, utterly and absolutely irrelevant.

To be clear...I don't say that the state of being homosexual is wrong...rather that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. That is...a person engaging in a sexual act with another person of the same sex. So the act is wrong, the state of being isn't the sin.

With this premise, let's continue....

I happen to already believe that in at least 50% of the cases it's a born trait. Doesn't make a difference at all. Most Christians and other anti-homo people let themselves fall for this question by the left wing nutcases. They get lead to think that the entire issue revolves around whether or not it is a choice. nonsense. The Sly One doesn't fall for that type of shit.

A person can be born with a trait, but they don't have to act out on it. Some people ar eborn with teh trait for violence. They must simply repress the urge to be violent for it's only when they act out that urge that they have sinned.

Same with bumlust. A man can be born with the trait...he's done no wrong until he's acted it out. What he needs to do is recognize that it is a BAD trait and seek help: psychological or psychiatric....counselling, God, whatever. So the issue of whether it is right or wrong is not tied to whether it is a choice or learned.

Homosexuality is a form of madness IMO. It's a psychological disorder. If people recognize it as such, steps would be made to "cure" it.

Now 50% of people involve din it are choosing to be involved in it. many men, for example, realize that it's MUCH EASIER to get laid if they target other men that if they target women...who by nature need emotional comfort/ties before having sex. men are nasty sexual dogs who would fuck anything anytme and anywhere if given the chance and so i suspect that this is why many would choose this lifestyle after gettting frustrated chasing women who don't want them. So lonliness and deviant nature drives alot of men to it IMO. The other 50% could have had it inherent...this I don't doubt.

But who cares...if the acting out of it is wrong then it is wrong...whether inherent or otherwise.

 

Why's it wrong?

 

Sorry, but have to answer a question with a question:

Why is sex between two brothers wrong?

 

Because church decided so since they weren't able to control homosexual people. Church wanted to have full control over sex since they realized people would do anything or pay anything to earn the right to have sex. The religious people of the later decades are parroting the same thought without being able to look at it critically

 

Would having sex with a tree be considered wrong? A tree can't feel and has no mind to know that it was violated. Would having sex with that tree and or marrying that tree be normal...if it feels good?

 

Homosexuals want to believe this.

It is wrong because sex if ultimately for teh continuation of the species. We enjoy it and have tremendous fun with it, but the reason why we love it so much and have those urges is ultimately to ensure that the human race continues. Of course people will chime in with "do you only have sex to have children? What if you don't want kids does this mean you shouldn't have sex? blah blah blah".

These are of course clever questions...but really juveniile to the point that I'm making which is about the objective purpose of sex. Given the reason for it...same sex is a devitaion...a distortion....a perversion. It's possible but it goes against the very nature of the intended purpose of it. Besides....the vast majority defines the rule: men are sexually attracted to women and women to men. The paultry few that have a different attraction are merely a perversion.

 

Having sex with a tree is perfectly fine. Shit, people masturbate in several ways already and I could bet on that somebody living in a forest likes to pork a tree. Let him.

Marriage as of now includes juridical things, which is why it is limited only to adult people. If somebody wants to take a tree to his household and live with it happily ever after without harming himself or anyone other in the progress, I don't see why not. Even Bible isn't against that

 

Yes, but since these "perversions" exist among ALL animals, they have existed at ALL times, people commit the perversion of masturbation ALL the time already and by doing this they harm no one, your 'argument' is futile.

Yes, sex exists to produce successors, but sex is also a strong force for a human or any animal (much stronger than a word from a nutjob priest for example). Also, it has a secondary meaning of feeling good and giving you energy to do other things (such as getting food). Shutting it down is perverse, having sex for other reasons than having children is not

 

:giggle:

See, this is the problem with extreme liberal thinking...

 

Ok, so show me the law or whatever that says having sex with a tree is forbidden. Or better yet, show me the part from Bible. To me it seems nobody (but you) has a problem with it.

After that, maybe you could come up with a list of ways how people are allowed to masturbate. Which equipment is allowed, what kind of position you must have? After all, this is also sex that doesn't produce anything, thus it is a perversion, thus it must be stopped or at least we need strict rules for it, right?

 

I'm speaking objectively:

There are two sexes. They have the urge to have sex with one another. Sex produces offspring.

If homosexuality was as "normal" as heterosexuality then Homosexuals would be able to produce children and most importantly....there wouldn't be two sexes.

Objectively...homosexuality is a perversion. Perversions are inherently wrong, by nature.

Subjectively..a person can say that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality in the same way they can think nothing wrong of two brothers fucking each other and getting married.

By the way UGO...anyting wrong with two brothers fucking each other daily?

 

I can confidently say that the bible never adresses this issue. Neither does any law in any country! ::

The Bible doesn't address the issue of Bombing Hironshima or Nagasaki either. No where have I read "Thou shalt not bomb any Japanese city".

The Bible doesn't adress necrophilia either

I didn't read in Deuteronomy or Numbers: "Thou shalt not have sexual relations with a corpse".

These things aren't mentioned because they should be a given....given other things mentioned and general principles. The Bible cannot list any and every possible deviant practice ever to come in the lifetime of the human race.

Same with laws. They don't manage to mention every single nasty practice in the laws of the land.

But my point is...even though no where is having sex with a tree forbidden...this doesn't make it an acceptable practice. Common sense should suggest that it isn't. Of course common sense is usually wasted on the Liberal mind which is inherently "if it feels good, do it"

 

I know what you're thinking.....

You're thinking: "now...THAT is one sexy tree!"

 

At a purely ethical level I'm not sure it is. It would almost certainly be indicative of a serious pathology though since nobody wants to shag their brother unless they're exceptionally disturbed. There's no numerically stable segment of the population who are 'brother-sexual' (or tree-sexual) so when it happens it genuinely justifies intervention.

 

I agree about this brother thing. I wouldn't forbid it because it feels wrong or whatever, but such person might harm himself (or people around him) in other ways simply because it seems that there is something wrong with him on emotional level. If it could be proven that they are sane (as in they can live fulfilling life and harm nobody, same as with homosexuals) then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Same thing about the tree thing: if the person actually feels lust for trees, then checking his other well-being could be a good idea (not that church would be interested in that, they just want to judge him to hell). If someone uses a tree for masturbation, I don't see how it differs from a pillow or whatever people usually use

 

Ah, so you're saying that "numerically stable segment" defines right or wrong?

 

Now THAT is being judgmental. You have no basis for this statement other than a feeling.

I can relate though...I think homosexuals are partly insane.

At least you've admitted that you wouldn't have a problem with it if proven that the people were sane. You are consistent at least.

But this is the problem with liberal thinking: it forces a person to even accept brother-brother sex.

 

No, causing harm to others without very justifiable cause defines wrong. Pathology without harm to others only suggests a need for help (Deviance from the majority doesn't inhere either.)

 

I think the same of a man that wants to shag another man.

 

What about a white man who's primarily attracted to black girls or vice versa?