I know we've got about three of these threads on the go, now, but I haven't see one that objects to it.
So, here are the "moral" arguments I can think of, and my responses to it.
These arguments have been applied to everything from "Why we should recriminalise homosexuality" to "Vote against gay marriage!".

• Homosexuality is unnatural - Well, it's not; it's well documented in the animal kingdom. And if you insist on saying that the homosexuality doesn't count (it does, but that's besides the point) and it is unnatural - well, so? Humans do plenty of "unnatural" things. I don't see a Coalition against vehicular transport.
• Homosexuality is natural, but we should raise ourselves above animalistic savagery - That's maybe a more defensible stance than the former. But you do need to explain why homosexuality is savage or animalistic; the people who often adopt the stance that "sex that isn't for procreation is wrong" are here. Well, physical intimacy is a very human need (see Lady Chatterly's Lover) and if I happen to be attracted to those of the same sex then why shouldn't I go for it? Because if your argument is just on the whole sex thing, then you should be condemning every drunken fratboy "playa" just as much.
• Homosexuals want to corrupt our children - No, we don't. The gay agenda is "Please don't hate gay people!". Although there are associations like NAMBLA, they don't speak for gay people at all and paedophilia is completely unrelated to homosexuality (many paedophiles do it for power rather than sexual attraction). As for the "recruiting"? Well, I've never seen one of these recruitment centres. Are you sure you're not trying to explain away your child's homosexuality as something that's resulted from being preyed upon.
• Homosexuality is a choice - Well it wasn't for me. Anyway, even if you're determined to go against a general scientific consensus then so what? Is this supposed choice harming you? I don't see how.
• Homosexuality destroys traditional family values - I wouldn't say destroys, merely alters. Instead of insisting that boys kiss girls and girls kiss boys, you may just have to mention to your child that "Mr. Jonson and Mr. Smith kiss and hold hands because they love each other. Some men do" or "Helen has two mummies because sometimes two women love each other". It's not saying "Timmy, your mother and I are abnormal because we're an opposite sex couple. I know you're only 10, but you need to start hustling pronto or else you'll be publicly derided as a non-gay!".
• The Bible/Qur'an/Scientologist's manifesto says homosexuality is bad - Quibbles about what these books actually say and whether a God exists or not aside, why should you inflict your religion on others? It's not impeding you from living your life, so why should you imepde us?
• Eew! It's icky! So are placentas.

Please, feel free to add in other arguments or responses.

pretty much...all the comedians i endorse, have said what i think about homosexuality in terms of moral standing. but, since i dont have the patience to dredge ALL of them up...heres one for ya.

lewis black - " you can go ahead and think it, thats fine. but you dont say aloud that homosexuality is a threat to the american family. because, thats prejudice. thats complete and utter prejudice, and ignorance on a level that is staggering at this point in time. its very similar to the prejudice that the jews faced, when it was thought that during the first night of passover, that we would go over to the christians community to kidnap the first born of christian families and KILL IT. "
[ more here: Lewis Black - " Gay Banditos " ]

[ in short--i dont see a morally wrong aspect about homosexuality. ]

• Homosexuality is unnatural - Well, it's not
• Homosexuality is natural, but we should raise ourselves above animalistic savagery Someone who compares homosexuals to animals should be arrested, like PETA should for comparing jews to farm animals in the "holocaust in your plate" campaign
• Homosexuals want to corrupt our children - No, they don't (in most times).
• Homosexuality is a choice - It's not. It's just like being left-handed
• Homosexuality destroys traditional family values - It depends on your definition of "family".
• The Bible/Qur'an/Scientologist's manifesto says homosexuality is bad - Well, i am a christian, but I understand if other people do not follow my religion

Still I think gay marriage should NOT be legalised, because marriage is an union between a man and a woman.

But that wasn't always the case(nor is it really the case now either). Marriage was traditionally used for wealth, power or property, love had nothing to do with it, God had nothing to do with it. Marriage in the secular world is a union between two people not a man and a woman.

OT: stuff like that leads me to believe that religion is just another tool to excuse intolerance/judgment.

besides, i dont even see where religion belongs in the homosexuality equation.

I'm glad you changed your opinion about homosexuality being a choice. However, I have to ask:
WHO says marriage is a union between a man and a woman?
If you tell me that the Church says so... the Church also says a marriage is a sacred union before God, yet atheists can marry, therefore the point is moot (not to mention that the Church didn't invent marriage...)

marriage was originally a christian sacrament, putting together a man and a woman, and it still is. civil union is something completely different to marriage.

i always said it was genetic.



atheists can get a civil union through law, but not really get married, since its a sacrament from the Christian Church



yes it did. it didn't invent monogamy, but it invented marriage.

It's still called marriage on all of the legal documents, sacrament or not. There's absolutely no reason for gay couples not to get the same documents.

Also, on another, somewhat nitpicky point, there's no single "Christian Church", just an insane number of mutually-exclusive denominations. I would go as far to say that Christianity isn't a single religion, but a group of religions.

Um...no recheck your history please, Marriage was around long before Christianity, so therefore it isn't christian.

Point 1: You also said there were ex-gays... and you can't will your genes to change (with an actual result), now can you?

Point 2: I don't know how it is in the US, but in France, the eligibility for getting married doesn't depend on your faith. If it does over in the USA like you assert it does, I'll go ahead and call that country backwards in terms of civil rights. However, I'll first call bullshit on that. I'm pretty sure atheists can marry in the US. While you prepare an answer, I'll search for sources.

Point 3: You're so wrong it hurts. As I said in another thread, "marriage" comes from French, which in turn comes from Latin "maritare", which means "marry". Juno frowns upon your ignorance! (do you seriously believe people didn't get married before Christianity?)

This is somewhat off-topic, but here's a passage I bet nobody will be hearing in churches anytime soon. Not even the Bible supports the definition of marriage as "a man and a woman". More like "a man and however many women he needs to create lots of babies".

As an American, I can confirm that the US doesn't suck that much.

I think it's rude to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman only. That's extending your religious beliefs were it's not necessary. People of other religions and atheists can marry. Christianity seem to try to meddle into affairs they shouldn't be in (no offense to Christians).

The point is, religion should have NOTHING to do with laws and legal rights.

Point 1: Ex-gay is a word to describe someone who stopped having same-sex relationships

Point 2: I don't live in America, and you don't seem to understand de difference between marriage and civil union.

Point 3: In ancient Greece people had same-sex relationships while being married to the opposite sex. It was when men went to war, and women stayed in the cities.

True. And it's not that OT, either. I believe in God, but it is embarrassing to realize how many times and ways religion is interpreted in order to justify prejudices. With all the things proscripted here and there in the bible, in the last few years, some people in this country have gone totally ballistic over the idea that some people diddle some other people. I think that at bottom it has nothing to do with God and more to do with how icky they feel over gay people.

You know, I don't think most religious bigots actually do believe that homosexuality is a choice, even though they are well-prepared to give lip service to that idea. A pecking order is established early on in childhood with the sissies being beaten up by the bullies. That ingrained childhood pecking order is what is threatened, not anybody's marriage. And so it becomes a religious issue, when it's really just a bigotry issue.

1: It's a very incorrect and silly term then, if those ex-gays are still gay. It'd be kind of like saying someone I'm going out with is my ex-girlfriend.

2: I'm curious about what country you live in then, and you appear not to get that marriage is NOT necessarily religious, at least not in countries with separation of the Church and the State like, say, France. What are all the differences between marriages and civil unions, while you're at it?

3: Congratulations, you mistook ancient Rome and ancient Greece. What's your point, are you still going to tell me Christians invented marriage? Are you going to tell me Roman marriage wasn't marriage?

There. That's a lot of questions, and I hope to be able to see all you have to say in response when I wake up tomorrow morning. I dare say I expect some extreme point-dodging, though.

You really can't complain about someone guessing your country wrong when you don't specify it in your profile. And yes, like The_French_Sim, I do wonder what country you live in, because in most Western countries, there's no difference.

You just contradicted yourself there. Also, what's your response to that passage I mentioned in my last post? In that passage, Jacob has a family with two wives and two sex slaves.

In the United States, there is no "religious marriage" as a matter of law.

Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licences to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage licence being previously obtained.

The requirements for obtaining a marriage licence vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the licence is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's licence, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).

Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass, between the granting of the licence and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage licence (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage licence and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority. Some states also have a requirement that a licence be filed within a certain time after its issuance, typically 30 or 60 days, following which a new licence must be obtained.

As a point of interest, there are penalties provided by statute against the officer who issues a marriage license unlawfully or against a person who performs a ceremony when he is without authority to do so.

Religion indeed shouldn't be in the law because religions too often mean pushing lifestyles onto others. Some christians say gay people push their lifestyle on them because they want equality in marriage in the law. No we don't push our lifestyle on you. Noone pushes YOU into having sex with a guy or marry a guy. Religious people often do try to push and mingle in gay relationships. Thats rude.

How would straight men feel if the gay movement would start a religion and would try to force them into having sex and marrying men? And forbid straight marriage. Thats would be the same shit. NO MORE STRAIGHT SEX FOR YOU. NONE.

Imagine that situation and then realise how weird it is that people defend the other way around and feel good about themselves. USA religious people even managed to change the "no discrimination based on gender" in the ground law. What is a ground law worth that can be changed like? Not much because if public opinion would change, tomorrow equal rights for women or blacks could be erased just as well.

It's an example. Not everyone is right-handed. Not everyone is gay. But they are both natural in the scheme of things.
And we really don't need more people in the world, do we?


I think it all boils down to MALE homosexuality. If people were SOOO turned off and felt icky about gays, we would NOT see over 90% of pornography portraying FEMALE homosexuality. Guys LOVE that idea but men and women both say two guys together is gross. Yet later that night those two opposite gendered people might have anal sex.

As a yaoi fangirl, I'm going to say speak for yourself.

Not everything in nature has to be about making babies. In wolf packs, only the alpha pair gets to mate. Not to mention the bonobos, who use sex for plenty of other purposes than reproduction. That, and they're largely bisexual. Evolution has to do with survival of the species, not the individual.

Edit:

If you're going to use that for an argument, then check out some of the other commandments:







And that's just what I've gotten from speed-reading.

Homosexuality is one of the many ways nature controls population. It is perfectly natural, if it weren't natural it wouldn't happen in the natural world.

I feel a bit stupid saying this because of what I've already said.

It just seems unnatural to me. I am not a mad-arse religous douchebag but I still nelieve it's wrong. And I hate to say it. I do not look down upon homosexuals.
Men and women are supposed to love each other and have children. Those of same sex are not. If they were, there would be a way for same-sex couples to reproduce.