Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Yasu' timestamp='1310056971' post='5335292'] You don't have to be gay to understand. Being human is just enough. [/quote] Sometimes being different makes it hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Z Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [center][img]http://www.randomkick.com/comics/2011-02-01-Nature-vs-Nurture.jpg[/img][/center] [b]Now can i get an answer about the location of the proof of the whole genetic thing?[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yasu Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Nature versus nurture? There's supporting evidence for both and they aren't exactly conflicting ideas (genetic predisposition for example). But why even bother?, In the end all comes to: [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1309745974' post='5331844'] I don't give a damn if it has been "proven" (I use those quotes for a reason) that homosexual couples adopt babies that eventually turn into homosexuals. By you saying that as if it had any relevance, [b]you are just proving that you are inherently against homosexuality.[/b] [/quote] So why is homosexuality wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Some people are against homosexuality, some people aren't. Can't we all just get along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solemn Silver Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 On the whole topic of the Christain Bible saying "Thou shall [s]Not pass[/s] Not (mate?) with another of your gender? Anyway, from what I recall, I may be wrong, but I've never seen an indication of this in the Catholic Bible o_0 And My local church, and hell, even the preist is freindly with everyone. I have alto of gays in my family, and they visit the church, talk with the preist like anyone else.. ....People Seem to forget the fact that homosexuals are people too.. Anyway, Canada ftw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Miror B.' timestamp='1310023580' post='5334493'] God made man in his own image. [/quote] Actually the meaning of that phrase has been misconstrued.... The phrase actually means that how we see ourselves through our own image, we see ourselves through what is projected through our eyes and minds... Like how you look in a mirror and say your hair looks good or bad that is you making yourself in your own image... The saying means we are the gods and that we are how we see ourselves... The term should not be taken literally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Frost Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Miror B.' timestamp='1310014730' post='5334253'] My opinion is that sexuality is one of those life choices that isn't determined by genetics, but can be pretty damn hard to change. [/quote] [i]Really hard[/i]. *hint hint, nudge nudge! * [quote name='Miror B.' timestamp='1310023580' post='5334493'] God made man in his own image. [/quote] Wait...so God is...In the closet? [quote name='~N~' timestamp='1310050284' post='5335031'] Anyone who belives that Sexuality is a choice... is a f***ing retard. Ask any homosexual man! Ask Joey Miles, ask MKS, ask Cody Frost, ask any gay that you know IRL! I am a christian, but I don't let that make most of my decisions, and I belive that even an omnipotent devine being like God could still make mistakes, for all we know, [s]Amaterasu[/s] Buddah could be the true god, for all we know, there might not BE a god! I personally belive in God, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to assult other religions! And it certainly doesn't mean that I think gays are bad, which is why I'm moving to the sweet northern land of Canada. [/quote] CANADA FTW! *Thumbs up!* [quote name='Ctrl+Alt+Win' timestamp='1310083232' post='5336680'] On the whole topic of the Christain Bible saying "Thou shall [s]Not pass[/s] Not (mate?) with another of your gender? Anyway, from what I recall, I may be wrong, but I've never seen an indication of this in the Catholic Bible o_0 And My local church, and hell, even the preist is freindly with everyone. I have alto of gays in my family, and they visit the church, talk with the preist like anyone else.. ....People Seem to forget the fact that homosexuals are people too.. Anyway, Canada ftw. [/quote] That's Canada 2, USA 0. And now we move onto a commercial break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [i]I know I'm going to get flamed for disagreeing with the almighty scientists, but I would think your sexuality would have more to do with your psychological development than your genetics.[/i] I'm fairly certain that it has been proven (by proven I mean accepted by most of the scientific community, not absolute certainty) that homosexuality is a genetic "disorder" of sorts. You can ridicule me for not having proper citation, fine, but this isn't an idea that would just spark into someone's head. Somewhere along the line I've read a paper or watched a program that has sufficiently convinced me that homosexuality is determined genetically. Regardless of whether it is genetic or not, it's safe to say that I believe we should live in a world where society doesn't discriminate either way. If it's a choice, it's the same as choosing between going to college or not, or between finding a job or not. Not being genetically passed doesn't mean that gives you any more reason to discriminate against homosexuals. [i]First, that's what civil unions are for. If you don't care whether a religious figure marries you or not, then jsut get a civil union.[/i] I don't know all of the logistics surrounding a civil union, but as long as it fits two criteria: a.) The two involved in a civil union are able to receive any and all government benefits given to legally married couples. b.) The two involved in a civil union are given the title of "Married" or whatever other bullshit term you want to throw at me ("Civilly Unionized"). ...then it does not matter. I've been advocating in every thread about homosexuality that these two criteria need to be met, and I obviously did not know a civil union could provide these benefits. If these unions do, then the problem is solved, with minor exceptions. Many conservatives are still hell-bent on refusing homosexual couples to adopt. This needs to be dealt with. We need to conform society to be accepting of homosexual couples because society is retarded at the moment. But God knows the future, right? So he knew that I was going to become an atheist, and he allowed that to happen. Why would he allow his little children to go to hell? You are making terrible arguments for your deity. I understand the concept of free will; I've heard it in a ton of religious arguments. But how can one have free will when your god knows the future? Or does he not know the future, thus making him not omniscient? And if he isn't omniscient, how can we know he is omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent? And if he isn't those four, why call him a god? [i]Some people are against homosexuality, some people aren't. Can't we all just get along?[/i] Not when the people against homosexuality are so stubborn to try to suppress it because of their illogical beliefs. I stated tens and tens of time: as long as religion doesn't try to affect people that don't want to be affected, it's not a problem. Yet we have the Catholic Church trying to put down homosexuals when homosexuals don't want to be put down by the Catholic Church. When I put it that way, it seems that religion must always be wrong in trying to affect others. They have some real nerve to try and affect my life: if I want to be in a homosexual couple, some dumbass Pope in Rome shouldn't stop me; if I want to have an abortion, some retarded organization across the world shouldn't stop me. That's why we can't just "get along". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 If civil unions will solve the problem, why is it such a big deal if they call it "marriage" or not? I apologize if that seems a little neo-conservative, but as long as it gives them all the same legal benefits, I don't see why there is a problem or not. And dude, I don't discriminate against gays. There lives SHOULDN'T be affected by my political views. Some people think premarital sex is a sin, but no one seems to protest or rally against that. I still think coexistence is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1310091737' post='5336993'] If civil unions will solve the problem, why is it such a big deal if they call it "marriage" or not? I apologize if that seems a little neo-conservative, but as long as it gives them all the same legal benefits, I don't see why there is a problem or not. And dude, I don't discriminate against gays. There lives SHOULDN'T be affected by my political views. Some people think premarital sex is a sin, but no one seems to protest or rally against that. I still think coexistence is the way to go. [/quote] Couples should be entitled to their right to be officially recognized as a group unit. I don't care if you called them "married", although I see no reason why you can't call them married. Call them civilly unionized or some other bullshit term you come up with. As long as the two pieces of criteria are met, most homosexuals will be fine with the actions taken. And I didn't say you in particular discriminate against homosexuals. However, if there was a vote in your state to legalize homosexual marriage, how would you vote? Would you not vote at all? Would you vote in favor because you believe in liberalism? Or, most likely, would you vote against it because your beliefs tell you that homosexuaity is immoral or weird or whatever you think it is? You may think your beliefs don't affect anyone, but the second someone votes against legalizing homosexual marriage based on the logic that their religion doesn't approve of it, we have a problem. If all people would partition religion and government in their mind, we'd have legalized homosexual marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and our society would be farther ahead in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Here's a thought. "Marriage" is almost a pseudo-religious ceremony in the first place. Should it even have a place in the legal system at all? Maybe we should just stick to "Unions" for everyone and people can choose to have a "Marriage" ceremony if they want to. It would be pretty much the same thing as legalizing gay marriage but some of the more angry conservatives might not notice. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1310093245' post='5337046'] Here's a thought. "Marriage" is almost a pseudo-religious ceremony in the first place. Should it even have a place in the legal system at all? Maybe we should just stick to "Unions" for everyone and people can choose to have a "Marriage" ceremony if they want to. It would be pretty much the same thing as legalizing gay marriage but some of the more angry conservatives might not notice. >_> [/quote] Being counter-religion, I always thought "marriage" was signing a document stating that two people were a "married couple", not any religious ceremony. I can get a document and sign it with my wife saying that we're a "married couple" and get the legal benefits [b]without[/b] having a priest tell me that I [i]can[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Mikhail Nekem'evič Tal' timestamp='1308001572' post='5281167'] I personally think that Hell would be fabulous. [/quote] Is it hot in here or is it just Satan sodomizing me? :> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote] First, that's what civil unions are for. If you don't care whether a religious figure marries you or not, then jsut get a civil union. I don't know all of the logistics surrounding a civil union, but as long as it fits two criteria: a.) The two involved in a civil union are able to receive any and all government benefits given to legally married couples. b.) The two involved in a civil union are given the title of "Married" or whatever other bullshit term you want to throw at me ("Civilly Unionized"). ...then it does not matter. I've been advocating in every thread about homosexuality that these two criteria need to be met, and I obviously did not know a civil union could provide these benefits. If these unions do, then the problem is solved, with minor exceptions. Many conservatives are still hell-bent on refusing homosexual couples to adopt. This needs to be dealt with. We need to conform society to be accepting of homosexual couples because society is retarded at the moment. But God knows the future, right? So he knew that I was going to become an atheist, and he allowed that to happen. Why would he allow his little children to go to hell? You are making terrible arguments for your deity. I understand the concept of free will; I've heard it in a ton of religious arguments. But how can one have free will when your god knows the future? Or does he not know the future, thus making him not omniscient? And if he isn't omniscient, how can we know he is omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent? And if he isn't those four, why call him a god? [/quote] 1. You gain all the rights and benefits of a real marriage. 2. You can still call yourself "married"/unionized, whatever. Look at it this way: if you had created billions of people in your image (which you have misinterpretedl; if we were perfect, we would be like God. It may also mean that we look like God in our human form(s)) You loved every single one of those people, and of course you know everything about them. Would you rather: A. force them to worship you, like an unloving, uncaring dictator B. give them the choice to worship you, which would result in a more passionate, more true worship. We still have free will: it's difficult to explain. We have the "will" to make choices. We act upon ourselves, we, as a person, get to choose what we do. However, God knows what we are going to do, yet he still presents us with a choice, he has not forced the choice on us. This is possibly how he interracts in our lives. Another thing that is often overlooked is that God has a higher way of thought than us. Basicly, we're like first graders and God is a graduated doctor, per se. His way of thinking is higher than ours, and we cannot "know" God's thoughts nor will nor plan. Society is indeed retarded at the moment, however, that is not the sole issue with society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 The rest of your post was irrelevant; I'm just replying to one statement. Also, we are getting off-topic. I don't see why religious discussion is prohibited when most controversial threads devolve into some sort of religious debate anyways. [i]God knows what we are going to do, yet he still presents us with a choice, he has not forced the choice on us[/i] How do we have a choice? Let's say you have two marbles in front of you, one red and one blue. I, as an omniscient, omnipotent being, state that you will pick the red marble. But you don't know this. If you pick the blue marble, I am no longer an omniscient, omnipotent being. If you pick the red marble, you have done what I said you would, meaning you never had a choice in the first place. If we're "created" to be like this, I have no choice. Your god knows everything I'm going to do with my life. I have no free will to pick a religion because your god made it so that I would not follow Christianity, or maybe that I would. You can't tell me an omniscient being that created me knows my future without having any impact on it. If he knows what I'm going to do, it's already set in stone because he's an omniscient being. And because he created me, he chose that future for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1310099184' post='5337229'] The rest of your post was irrelevant; I'm just replying to one statement. Also, we are getting off-topic. I don't see why religious discussion is prohibited when most controversial threads devolve into some sort of religious debate anyways. [i]God knows what we are going to do, yet he still presents us with a choice, he has not forced the choice on us[/i] How do we have a choice? Let's say you have two marbles in front of you, one red and one blue. I, as an omniscient, omnipotent being, state that you will pick the red marble. But you don't know this. If you pick the blue marble, I am no longer an omniscient, omnipotent being. If you pick the red marble, you have done what I said you would, meaning you never had a choice in the first place. If we're "created" to be like this, I have no choice. Your god knows everything I'm going to do with my life. I have no free will to pick a religion because your god made it so that I would not follow Christianity, or maybe that I would. You can't tell me an omniscient being that created me knows my future without having any impact on it. If he knows what I'm going to do, it's already set in stone because he's an omniscient being. And because he created me, he chose that future for me. [/quote] Like I said, it's difficult to explain. It's also possible that I am misinterpreting it. However, I believe that God knows what the chosen choice will be. However, we can still choose differently, but God would still know it. Like I said, God has a higher level of thinking than us. God did not force Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree. However, He knew she would and He knew what would happen afterwards. However, God would know what would happen if they didn't eat the fruit. Have you ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? It relates to time travel. However, I believe it still applies. God knows the future, but the future is always changing. So if we used our free will to make a different choice, than God would still know the future. Does this make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Vough' timestamp='1310101281' post='5337273'] Like I said, it's difficult to explain. It's also possible that I am misinterpreting it. However, I believe that God knows what the chosen choice will be. However, we can still choose differently, but God would still know it. Like I said, God has a higher level of thinking than us. God did not force Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree. However, He knew she would and He knew what would happen afterwards. However, God would know what would happen if they didn't eat the fruit. Have you ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? It relates to time travel. However, I believe it still applies. God knows the future, but the future is always changing. So if we used our free will to make a different choice, than God would still know the future. Does this make any sense? [/quote] You aren't making sense. If your god knows everything, and I asked him when you are going to die, and he tells me December 22, 2134, and you commit suicide one week from today, what does that say? Or would god have said you would have committed suicide in one week, leaving you with no free will? Or are you saying that god doesn't know which future is going to happen, but he knows the result of each future (thus making him not omniscient)? God may have not forced Eve to be tricked by a serpent, but he knew it was going to happen, he know the reprimands of it happening, and yet he did nothing to stop it? Eve had no free will because God already knew that she was going to eat the fruit, so why couldn't God intervene? You are trying to explain your religion with faulty logic, so please excuse me for not "getting it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerlinX Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 If they are decent people then they do not bother me in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 This isn't a thread on religion guys. >_> You can't argue for or against the specifics of a faith like Christianity when one of the parties is an atheist and the other isn't. All arguments on the specifics will be made under the pretense that God either does exist or does not, therefore your discussion will go nowhere! OT: Congress needs to legalize civil unions NOW. At that point gay rights will have done it's job and there will be no reason to complain anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1310125818' post='5337653'] This isn't a thread on religion guys. >_> You can't argue for or against the specifics of a faith like Christianity when one of the parties is an atheist and the other isn't. All arguments on the specifics will be made under the pretense that God either does exist or does not, therefore your discussion will go nowhere! OT: Congress needs to legalize civil unions NOW. At that point gay rights will have done it's job and there will be no reason to complain anymore. [/quote] I am accepting the notion of his god existing, but I am failing to comprehend the arguments he is using to describe free will. Under the assumption that a god (his god) does exist, humans have no free will as our futures are mapped out. That means God had to consciously map out our futures, thus making me become an atheist. So he forced (or is going to force) me to go to hell. And that's simply not nice. Let's forget the fact that I'm an atheist for this "debate", because it hasn't come up yet. I might as well have been arguing as if I were a Muslim, or a Hindu, or anything outside of a Christian. Also, while civil unions will fix the problem for homosexuals, a lot of people will still see it as discrimination that homosexual couples do not get the same union as a heterosexual couple, even though it entails the same benefits. There are a few things we can do to allow equal treatment. First, have marriage be a completely religious institution that results in no government benefits whatsoever. In essence, it would be entirely pointless unless you are religious and believe you need your priest to do special things to you and your spouse. Then, legalize civil unions (which is really just the signing of a document) for the entire nation, regardless of sexuality. The government benefits previously awarded to married couples will now only be awarded to unionized couples. The last part of my argument, and this is arguably the least logical, is that we attribute the title of "married" to unionized couples, and state that having a marriage does not result in the title of "married". Society is bent on the word "married" meaning a couple, and unionized doesn't have the same effect when you say it. "Oh, me and my homosexual partner are getting unionized in March." No. Essentially, this gives marriage away to religion as an institution, but allows all couples to get unionized and call themselves married. At this point, the only "advantage" heterosexual couples have over homosexual couples is that heterosexual couples are allowed to stand in a chapel or church or whatever you want to call it and say "I do". Essentially, no advantage at all. No one is actually going to implement this, but it's possibly one of the only ways we can hammer society into being, in essence, not retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Like Dark said, being "Unionized" doesn't have the same effect as being "Married" You still have everything that a 'married' couple has, but it's not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Eh, people can call it whatever they want, but I actually think that would be the best course of action to take. Religion doesn't mess with the government, the government doesn't mess with religion. Everyone wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [quote name='~N~' timestamp='1310140985' post='5337921'] Like Dark said, being "Unionized" doesn't have the same effect as being "Married" You still have everything that a 'married' couple has, but it's not the same. [/quote] I would just assume if you said you were marrying the same gender, I would draw to the conclusion that it was a civil union. @DARK I'm awful at explaining difficult things like this. If you ask a pastor, I'm sure you'll get a better and far mroe complete answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not necessarily Vough. That would really depend on the pastor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yasu Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-pro-gay-marriage-arguments-fighting-with-crazy-people/ Related~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.