Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

originally posted by: Annee
Ignore what obvious? We are mammals. I choose the society structure of elephants as an IDEAL.

You are also choosing what you've sekected as ideal. A man made society --- not natural behavior. If anything, the elephant society structure is more natural.

What makes man-made society unnatural and elephant-made society unnatural, and why is elephant societal structure more natural for *people* than man-made societal structure?

a reply to: Annee

I'm talking about the obvious differences between women and men, and the fact that children benefit from being influenced by both a male and female parent.

Elephants and perceived misogyny are irrelevant.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Seems pretty clear cut to me

Why does Alpha group insist on being able to use the word, when they don't really care and it will cause distress to Beta group?

Who said they didn't care? Some people don't. However - some people have been working very hard for this - this has been a long time coming

This fight is all about separate but equal. One group simply does not have the right to say yay or nay on this - they don't own the word, the meaning or the rights

Beta group's distress is kinda Beta Groups problem. They should really work on that

Edit to add: People have been working towards this - for a long time. You're so concerned about hurting someone's feelings? What kind of nonsense answer is that? Do you think telling one group of people that they are second class citizens might not hurt their feelings?

Honestly...

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I am slightly interested as to why Christians always get dragged over the coals when Muslims have the same beliefs, but it's probably just a Western-centric thing.

Right. If Muslims were to try to control gay people here then we would be talking about them. Christians are not unique.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Right. If Muslims were to try to control gay people here then we would be talking about them. Christians are not unique.

Nope, they sure aren't. Sadly, they ARE trying to control/kill gay people, in Africa.....
while Israelis are trying to control/kill Palestinians....
and so on and so forth.

The Abrahamic religions are ludicrous in this day and age. All of them, and all of their 'off-shoots'. Disgusting.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee

I'm talking about the obvious differences between women and men, and the fact that children benefit from being influenced by both a male and female parent.

Elephants and perceived misogyny are irrelevant.

I know you want to keep hanging on to that because you want to.

Did you know that lesbian brains are similar to hetero males?

www.theregister.co.uk...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

American Christian evangelists have intentionally gone to Russia, Africa, and other places to help stop gay rights.

a reply to: Annee

I know! It makes me sick.
"Missionaries".

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I'm *not* a student of Roman history, but it's my understanding that the Romans did, actually, care how people were screwing/loving each other. They were fine with homosexual love, as long as it didn't replace the marital structure. So, in short, the Romans (at least, the early ones) would be screaming pretty loudly at the idea of homosexual marrying. Same with the Greeks.

Lol well, i'm sure emperor Nero would be surprised to hear that....

But the Jewish law predates Jesus, it's far older than 2000 years, and it does not look kindly on homosexuality. The idea that there was a "sudden change in our morality" isn't accurate, since homosexuality was already considered wrong in at least one culture, and also since Rome was not the only culture around.

The Jews at the time were a warring collection of tribes, and had little influence unlike the Roman Empire....

As far as the evolutionary stuff goes, reproduction is foundational to evolution. Homosexual sex doesn't produce children, which might explain why some people might have an instinctual "squick" reaction to it–evolution has conditioned them to seek out mates that will produce children. That would also explain why the Romans and Greeks, for instance, placed a lot of emphasis on heterosexual sex (even when they were OK with homosexual sex in certain contexts) because they were driven by the desire to produce an heir, which fits nicely with evolutionary theory as I understand it.

The urge to reproduce has of course been fundamental for all species since life first formed. However we can assume that since our closest cousins also display the homosexual feature, we have always had the very same feature and yet it has never been selected for removal by evolution via natural selection.

And since evolution says nothing about morality, you're pretty much just peeing into the wind with this one.

In short, I think that's one possible explanation for homophobia. Not necessarily the correct one, but the idea that "religion made them do it" seems simplistic to me. If religion is man-made, why would man make those sorts of rules? Natural selection seems like a reasonable candidate. But perhaps you believe religion is divinely inspired?

The more numbers a religion has, the stronger it and it's leaders are. Why do you think Catholics consider contraception to be a sin?

I was interacting with Prezbo369, who believes that Jesus was against homosexuality (and also, apparently, that nobody was against homosexuality before that...) I don't think that Jesus was in *favor* of homosexuality, but he didn't speak much on it in the Gospels.

Untrue, I said it was since his apparent arrival.....and if you want to be absolutely accurate, sure a few tribes/peoples here and there throughout the world probably hated homosexuality, but seeing as the roman empire and its pagan roots had no problems with it and even went so far as to celebrate it (up until the arrival...), I stand by my statement.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
A MALE/FEMALE relationship has the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL".

Why do you think your "IDEAL" is everyone's "IDEAL"? People are different and we each have our own opinion of what constitutes an "IDEAL" marriage. There is no "IDEAL" that applies to everyone. That's where the hang up is. You think everyone should agree with you and they don't.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Lol well, i'm sure emperor Nero would be surprised to hear that....

That doesn't have much bearing on this discussion. For starters, he was a later Roman (remember how I specifically mentioned the *earlier* Romans?) and he wasn't considered a virtuous Roman.

The Jews at the time were a warring collection of tribes, and had little influence unlike the Roman Empire....

So...you think the Jewish culture couldn't influence civilization, but that one person within said Jewish culture could?

The urge to reproduce has of course been fundamental for all species since life first formed. However we can assume that since our closest cousins also display the homosexual feature, we have always had the very same feature and yet it has never been selected for removal by evolution via natural selection.

Why can we assume that? They are our cousins, not our direct ancestors, are they not?

And since evolution says nothing about morality, you're pretty much just peeing into the wind with this one.

I don't remember speaking of morality.

The more numbers a religion has, the stronger it and it's leaders are. Why do you think Catholics consider contraception to be a sin?

Catholics view sex as teleological, and they believe the end is thwarted if one uses contraception (at least, that's my understanding of it.)

Untrue, I said it was since his apparent arrival.....and if you want to be absolutely accurate, sure a few tribes/peoples here and there throughout the world probably hated homosexuality, but seeing as the roman empire and its pagan roots had no problems with it and even went so far as to celebrate it (up until the arrival...), I stand by my statement.

Accuracy is good
Again, though, the idea that they had "no problems with it" is vague. They had (or would have had, in their earlier forms) problems with the idea of equivalency; that is, they did not consider homosexual relationships interchangeable with heterosexual ones within marriage.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I am slightly interested as to why Christians always get dragged over the coals when Muslims have the same beliefs, but it's probably just a Western-centric thing.

No one cares how Christians or Muslims BELIEVE. But when was the last time a Muslim group appealed to the government specifically to deny gay people equal treatment under the law? Christian groups do it every day. They are doubling down and doing everything they can think of to treat gay people as unworthy of the legal union of marriage.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
No one cares how Christians or Muslims BELIEVE.

That's not true.

But when was the last time a Muslim group appealed to the government specifically to deny gay people equal treatment under the law? Christian groups do it every day. They are doubling down and doing everything they can think of to treat gay people as unworthy of the legal union of marriage.

In places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, homosexual acts are criminalized. Again, it's a Western-centric thing.
What does worth have to do with marriage anyway? Aren't there plenty of straight people unworthy of the legal union of marriage?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
In places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, homosexual acts are criminalized.

I'm talking about Christian groups in the US. You asked why Christians get dragged over the coals when Muslims have the same beliefs, and that's why. Muslims IN THE US aren't trying to deny marriage to gay people. If they were, they would be "dragged over the coals" too.

Marriage is a State-level contract between two people with associated benefits.

States cannot restrict or discriminate against citizens because of their sex under Amendment 14 (and other provisions in State Constitutions).

So long as there are no laws that are exclusively used to target certain citizens (sodomy laws) and there is equal protection under extant laws, indeed who cares about someone's sexuality?

WE didn't make it about sex or sexual partners in the first place ... society did.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: kaylaluv

Agree with your points but I think we should relable the different kinds of marriage just to make a point on how stupid the whole thing is.

It's a word, even though It belongs to no religion, let them have it but make it worthless in the process whereby it's not recognised by the state unless you have a "Civil Union Contract".

"If they can't play with it nicely, then no one gets to have it".

My point exactly. You take the power out of the word.

Equality under law is then achieved by default.

You can't force a religion to adopt something it deems against their values, without making them all mad, and fighting you. This is where the crux of the fight is. So, take it away. Give them the name, and then all religions can share in having their own marriage practices, but in the eyes of the state, it's all irrelevant, because EVERYONE has the right to join with whomever they choose (when of age of course) via Civil Union.

Where's the fight after that? If you would fight against that, then you are being petty enough to fight over a few letters, arranged a certain way, that happens to be sacred to religious folk.

Let THEM be the petty ones, and keep the name, and take the high road and move forward.

I am 100% FOR gay rights, but I also happen to be 100% for EVERYONE'S rights. Compromise must be had somehow, and that's how problems are solved.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
In places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, homosexual acts are criminalized.

I'm talking about Christian groups in the US. You asked why Christians get dragged over the coals when Muslims have the same beliefs, and that's why. Muslims IN THE US aren't trying to deny marriage to gay people. If they were, they would be "dragged over the coals" too.

Which is why I said it was probably a Western-centric thing

a reply to: poncho1982

I care not for any hoodoo that takes place in someone's cultic practices.

However, the contract that States offer for "civil union" is called Marriage. That's the word on the books and in the laws.

If anyone is concerned with preserving the sanctity of marriage, again, it seems they'd be fighting the 50% divorce rate in this country.

Again, what right or freedom is being taken away from anyone else if I marry my partner of 8 years? What right or what freedom?

How does my marriage affect their rights or their freedoms?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: poncho1982

It's not just about getting the Federal Benefits.

It's also about Equaliity in society and all things in life.

The U.S. does not have civil unions, they have Marriage.

Creating a special category, civil union, is discriminatory.

no, you missed the whole point.

Marriage would be REPLACED with Civil Unions for everyone. Not JUST gays, not JUST straights, not JUST purple people who live under bridges (LOL) but everyone.

Then The U.S. would have Civil Unions. Marriage is gone in the eyes of the law.

How is that not equal?

You're basically telling religious people, "Fine, you don't want gays to get married, then YOU loose marriage as a State sponsored union, you are now a Civil Union."

it takes the situation, and turn it around on them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: poncho1982

I care not for any hoodoo that takes place in someone's cultic practices.

However, the contract that States offer for "civil union" is called Marriage. That's the word on the books and in the laws.

If anyone is concerned with preserving the sanctity of marriage, again, it seems they'd be fighting the 50% divorce rate in this country.

Again, what right or freedom is being taken away from anyone else if I marry my partner of 8 years? What right or what freedom?

How does my marriage affect their rights or their freedoms?

You keep saying that. I get it.

But it needs changed to end the fight.

You can have you're opinion, I can have mine. But I suspect mine would be the best way to end it once and for all.