If men are supposed to love women and have children with women, and vice versa for women, doesn't that mean that anyone who is celibate or chooses not to have children is acting immorally?

Though I can't see how choosing not to have children is immoral, it's still a better reason than most raised against homosexuality.

Love =/= children

Just because homosexuals can't naturally have children doesn't mean their love is any different from heterosexual love.

And we shouldn't forget those unlucky couples who are sterile. Should they stop making love because clearly, they'll never have kids anyway?

There are many other reason why people need someone to love, they need to feel safe, to be loved, to have someone who understands or to feel warm arms wrapped around their body. Love and making love is not just about reproduction, in fact it shouldn't be, that would turn love into a duty.

Reproduction of the species is a biological function.

Animals reproduce, but no one knows if they have the emotional capacity to love one another.

Humans invented love-we are the only species to have done so, and it appears that we are the only species to have the capacity for emotional attachment to our partner.

Just because gays do not reproduce naturally within their orientation does not mean they do not have the urge to reproduce. Some gay couples have gone through artificial insemination in order to satisfy their biological urge to reproduce, and have raised children successfully in a partnership.

Many gay couples have adopted children, and have successfully raised them. This must mean that they're just as fit for parenting as heterosexuals and are as emotionally invested in the parenting process as any heterosexual would be.

Morality is a human concept, and we're constantly changing the rules to fit the occasion, just as religion is a human construct and always changing as well.

I think modern religion, or at least Christianity, sees sex and procreation as linked because they consider sex purely for pleasure sinful (again, as opposed to ancient civilisations like the ancient Greeks. Aph' ftw), especially if it doesn't cause the strain of having to raise more babies every time you feel the urge to sex up your significant other.

To Franh: I'm not quite sure of it, but I think there are other species where a specimen can show high affectionate attachment to another in something similar to love. I need to do my research on that.

I think it would be fine if this debate could just create some tolerance and respect for other people, even if nobody's opinion is changed. A lot of people who mind their own business are being hurt right now.



Yeah, 613 laws, depending on how you count them. Very few Jews actually try to follow all 613 of them. It's generally understood that there is a certain amount of priority to some laws and that not all of them are necessarily laws ordained by God but rather just part of the early laws of the culture.

The largest Jewish denomination in the US is Reform Judaism, and the policy of Reform Judaism (for the most part -- there are probably some differences) is that homosexuals can't help being the way they are and so it would be cruel and senseless to condemn them for just being who they are. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it does mean that homosexuals are to be tolerated and loved just the way they are. Other groups like Orthodox Jewry tend to be rather rigid in their literal interpretation of the law, but even they recognize some priority. For instance, the Torah says that Jews should not work on the Sabbath, yet we need doctors to work in the ERs on weekends, regardless.

I'm not a strict or literalist Jew at all. I revere the Bible, but not as a literal text. And some parts of it actually revolt me. So I reserve the right to take what I want from it and reject the parts that are just plain wrong. I can only claim to represent me.

Likewise, there are many Christian denominations that respect and accept homosexuals and many that even perform church weddings. That gets totally lost in a lot of these church vs. gays arguments, as if the only Christian POV is the one of the Southern Baptist Convention. The largest (physically, at least) and oldest Christian church in my hometown, Long Beach, is a UCC church, which is open to gays and performs weddings and HAS FOR MANY YEARS, even way before all the recent gay wedding hoopla. So when I hear people tell me they know what all Christians think about homosexuals, I think, I know you don't.

Having read the New Testament, as well as Old, I think even Jesus would have been disheartened by the way homosexuals are treated by some who call themselves Christian. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," I am told, but ya know, I just see an awful lot of politically motivated and culturally motivated hate, with the Bible used as the cover story for it. If they didn't have the Bible passages to use for cover, they'd use something else.

I said it before. The playground pecking order is bullies beat up sissies. People grow up with that as part of their culture and can't let go of it. You must admit that the revulsion that some people feel for homosexuals goes way beyond just scriptural interpretation and reaches down to something visceral inside people.

I commend reformists for using their own sense of morals and, basically, thinking a bit before accepting an ancient text as the absolute truth, even though societry has changed a lot in those few millenia. I deeply respect and salute religious people who manage to keep a critical eye (regardless of my tendancy to poke fun at religion... but moderate believers tend not to mind religious satire anyway).

(also, even though it's sort of off topic, I'd love to see people who grew up in the "bullies beat up sissies" mentality running into a "Bear", if only for the sake of schadenfreude. Those guys look like they would cave the face of any homophobe calling them "faggots" in...)

Originally a sacrament from Catholicism, the first church, and then from the others, at first Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism, and then to other churches

1: Well, that's the therm used anyway, just like "Coca-Cola" doesn't have any more coca in its composition

2:I live somewhere people don't say je me rends (just kidding, I live in Brazil) . And the difference between marriage and civil union is that civil union is made through law and marriage through religion

3: These were another fertility rites, marriage as we know it (with the groom wearing a suit and the bride wearing a white dress) appeared in Christianity

Sooo what would happen if gay marriage was allowed everywhere? Would religion crumble to pieces? People'll lose their sanity? The world's economy would fall into shambles? The apocolypse would come among us? And how can your definition of natural bar the rights of others?

Some people see homosexuality as unacceptable... Well, I find ignorance, hatred and intolerance unacceptable, aswell, as do many others, but no one complains about that...

Sometimes the cutest couples are gay couples. :3 Not every single person on this earth needs to have a million kids, anyway. Just think of all the times when Amy Winehouse has had sex, and how many kids *she* could have right now....

To be more serious, homosexuality is not a choice, and is perfectly acceptable as it is. Just as being black, Mexican or Asian isn't a choice, and perfectly fine, aswell. Religion, and to feel uncomfortable with the idea of two men together, IS a choice. Religion and, I believe the Bible, states that you should be good to thy neighbor, love thy brother, and not to be intolerant of God's creation. At least, I'm pretty sure that's how I read it in Bible class, that one time...

It's not homosexuality that sends one to hell, it's the intolerance of fellow humans for no good reason. Just thought I should point that out, since many other hugely religious people always conviniently forget that little detail.

Also, do some of you really believe this world needs more children? :/

Because many times it's backed up by religion, which in turn may taint people's views on religion.

Maybe in Brazil! In France, England and, I'm sure, many other countries (someone please give me confirmation), religion plays no role in marriage. You can have a religious marriage, or you can have a secular marriage. It's still a marriage. Please stop seeing the world and law through your own religion, there are other countries out there and you're coming across as horribly narrow-minded.

As for ancient Rome? As someone who studied Roman civilisation and is very interested in it, I can safely say you have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Please, please stop digging your own grave; I'm facepalming so hard everytime that my hand and forehead start to hurt, and although it's kind of funny, it's slowly making it harder and harder for me to keep answering your posts without blatantly making fun of you (I'm sorry, moderators, I'm trying hard! Please put yourself in my shoes.). There's an entire article on Wikipedia about marriage in ancient Rome. Grab a book about history, learn before saying such incorrect things. Marriage, back then, was much more than a simple "fertility ritual": it was a ceremony that granted a legal status to a couple and implied commitment. They were much less primitive than you appear to think.

Also: duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, suits didn't exist in Roman times. Are you telling me that marriage without a suit and a white dress is not marriage? Are you really that shallow? Are you implying people couldn't marry before such clothing was invented?

QFT
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thi...e=l&tid=4774675

While doing some research on another subject, I came across an old book via the Internet, that stated that everyone started out as bisexual and because of all the negative teaching about females, men would chose other men as their life long partners. It was so bad that the sociaty of the day felt the need via laws of men, to introduce the insitution of marriage. This was not done because it was seen as unnatural, but because there wasn't many babies being born, and those that were, were not being claimed by the men because no one knew who was the father.

The marriage experiment was not working so they introduce the dowry as an incentive so that the women came with benefits. This experiment had nothing to do with the church as there was no such thing.

Not all were persuaded, not all conformed and there has always been men that preferred men. Female relationships were never questioned as that was not threatening and in fact the prostitutes were more valued as marriage material.

I said all that to say this, to your own self be true and leave the confused to their own devices, as they never really outlawed relationships with other men, they encouraged it just so long as it was kept on the downlow.

Everything was cool until others wanted to come out of the closet! This is more about men not being able to keep their secrets because of other men who just wont let lying dogs lie. [no offense intended]

It depends on your views of marriage. If you see civil union as marriage, then you're right, religion plays no role on that. But,as I said before, I base my arguments on religion, and that seems to be nothing to you, since you're atheist (or at least I think so). Your arguments are law-based, and you see marriage in law as the only kind of marriage.

Make fun of me if you want. I don't care. I never said pre-christian marriage didn't imply commitment, you're taking that outta your own mind.

I just used the clothes as examples for you to see the difference between primitive marriage and modern marriage. You are too liberal-blind to see the difference, though.

And, renembering: i am not homophobical ! I just think that:

MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN

If you gays and pro-gay marriage people want to be respected just understand and respect other people's opinion then. I am sure respect will come very easily if you do what i tell you.

Marriage in law is the only kind of marriage in the US. You can have religious marriages all you want without a marriage license and the government WON'T recognize that ceremony as legally binding.




Respect our opinion and let us get married under the law. Are you really that self-righteous to believe that you're going to get respect if people do as you tell them to?

@strangeguy823:

My arguments are law-based, which makes them applicable to everybody in a given country. Yours are religion-based, making them only applicable to people following a certain religion in that country. In places with separation of the Church and the State, using religion-based arguments to deny people some options is basically a gross violation of civil rights as well as of the principles the government abides to.

You said pre-Christian marriage wasn't proper marriage but a fertility ritual, without even knowing anything about it; "a fertility ritual" doesn't imply commitment at all, all it implies is babies! I'll go ahead and make fun of your ignorance. Liberal-blind? That's a good one, and I'd like you to elaborate on it. To be honest, "liberal-blind" sounds unpleasantly like the terms fundies spout all the time without even knowing what it would mean. I don't say marriage hasn't changed since ancient times, I just said it's not and has never been a Christian invention like you insisted it was. As an analogy, how would you react if I took a radio, added just a few bells and whistles on it, then claimed I invented the radio? You'd call me a liar.

I would be open to understand the arguments against gay marriage if they didn't seem limited, so far, to "Marriage is a man and a woman!", which makes for a very poor argument, considering it's merely an assertion. Arguments that would apply to everybody, if possible.

I think that legally gay people should be able to get married. Because, hey? why do I care? I don't want other people telling me who I can and can't marry, so why should I be telling them?

However, as a fairly devout Catholic, I don't feel that they should be able to marry in the church. The Catholic Church, anyway. I can't speak for other churches. I know sometimes the Catholic church is a little...off or strict on things. One of the things they're awfully strict about is gay marriage.

I don't agree with people saying they're sinners, because the only commandment they're breaking is "no sex before marriage". Tons of people break that one. Do you think a girl/guy "that gets around" is less of a sinner than a devoted gay man/woman?
Psh. I don't.

In short, I think they should be able to be legally married. And that's what really matters when it comes to healthcare (and other such stuff) and children.

That is precisely why The_French_Sim's arguments are much stronger. Legal marriages are the only ones that are going to get you that tax break and let you see your spouse in the hospital.


"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert. Oh, and primitive is not the word I would use to describe ancient Rome.


I believe that I've already pointed out that definition wasn't even biblical.


Why, precisely, would I need to respect an uninformed opinion like yours? How about you respect my opinion that the Earth is flat?

Very interesting urisStar and LOL about the downlow part. Do you have the title of this book? I've never heard of that theory before. However, that book doesn't really apply in today's world. Centuries ago, people depended on children to help with the crops and animals. With the poor living conditions and lack of quality medicine, families would need to have 6, 7, 8, 9 kids because they'd be dropping from left to right from disease. Sure, the lack of babies during that time would be a dire emergency but because of drastically improved living standards, technology, medicine, and population, that's a thing of the past.

It'd be very unlikely that everyone in the world will discover they're gay. Even if a mass number of gays and lesbians were to be born, there'd be straights and bisexuals being born too to keep the human species going. Plus, gays and lesbians could use artificial insimenation if the world did fall under a gay spell.

Was only adding to the debate the history of marriage as was noted in that book. I don't remember the title as it has been some years ago that I ran into that little nugget.

Remember the farming thing was what women did and men only got into it when they discovered they could make money.

There aren’t any reasons to morally object to homosexuality or those couples having children.

I believe all people have the same rights. this includes marriage and children, whether via conception, sperm doners or adoption. Same right for all.
Hardly rocket science is it.

Some people say that it's immoral to bring up a child in a homosexual relationship because of the hatred and bigotry they will see in life.

But that would have applied to having children as a Jew in the second world war.

Just because there are haters doesn’t mean rights have to be hidden,
The more gay parents we have the more usual it will become and sooner or later completely socially acceptable.
There will always be haters who shout and bawl, you will never change that but they will find other targets.

P.S. Some will say that homosexual parents need to be held to a higher standard and scrutinized more than straight parents for various reasons, this is just pandering to bigotry.

This is one of the many things that doesn't make sence in the world (let alone the US).
Here, in the US, most of us don't like homosexuals. The homosexuals throw a fit (smash cars, paint on houses, paint on cars, destroy signs, block streets, etc.) just because, the vote didn't swing their way. What do those against homosexuals do? Sit at home and laugh.
There is no point to riot because, you lost...leave the country!
Yes, I said it. Leave the US. Go to Canada, they accept you. Isn't that what people do when their home country is unfair? (Yes, that was sarcasm. Like curiousity killed the cat, seriousness killed the human...essh)

In the US, you are walking dollars whether you get your way or not. Staying here and sobbing makes us happy. Money, that's all we want of yours. It doesn't matter if you're happy...we have your money the longer you stay here.

All the homosexuals can take over some island or land and live there...in peace, yes?
Or, you can stay here, keep to yourself, we will keep to ourselves, don't harass us, we wont harass you and life will be good again.

Excuse me, but... what the fuck are you on about?
If the homosexuals are unhappy, it's because they're constantly ostracised and denied rights by homophobes like you who dislike them for no reason (if I'm wrong? My bad. State those reasons). I doubt most homosexuals show their disapproval of policies by smashing cars, either.
Yes, you told them to leave the country they live in. It doesn't make you edgy, it only makes you... dear gods, I'm not going to do an ad hominem or even get Godwin'd here. That's not how you deal with a minority that's discriminated against by bigots. You (not you, PuX. A generic you) listen to what they have to say, consider compatibility with national policies, and judge whether or not it's constitutional or consistant with the well-being of the population, and whether it's feasible. What you do when your country is unfair and you have freedom is not flee, for this is what people living in dictatorships do: flee to a freer land. You demonstrate and attempt to raise the awareness of the population, to get equal rights.

I also doubt they harrass you. If they do, please tell me how.