Why Homosexuality Should be Banned

[Shikua]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

I was being hopeful by making a made-up church in texas tolerant XD The thing is, you aren't gay, so you don't have someone saying that no matter what you believe, you can't be married. I think that all non-religeous marriages should be called Civil Unions. Then no one can *****, since it's up to individual churches to change them from Unions to marriages.

Totally. If non religeous marriages were called civil unionsm then almost all of these controversies would be null and void, I totally agree

Though I'm sure people would just find something ELSE to ***** about >.>

eh, everybody bitches. Whats new? besides. It'd at least help a little. to be honest I have no issues with it

True, true. And helping a little is better than not helping at all.

 

[cobra_ky]

i had this whole response typed out, then the site went down for 18 hours. well, better late than never:

Without appealing to biology, or social norms, or to a subjective moral authority, how can you say human sexuality has any meaning at all?

Why shouldn't I appeal to biology, as it is science and therefore objective. Anyway, take breathing as an example. You use your lungs to ensure you have oxygen to live on. This is natural. Therefore this organ and the process of breathing are meant to keep you alive. The same applies for sexuality. As you're able to argue on the Internet (what's not as usual as it should be), you should be able to understand that it's part of evolution. In layman's terms: You didn't grew a pair just for fun. For example, the same applies for thumbs.

I grew a pair of nipples for no reason. they serve absolutely no purpose in keeping me alive or preserving the human species. if you mean "natural" in the sense of directly benefiting survival, then i agree that homosexuality is every bit as unnatural as my nipples are.

i realize that may sound sarcastic, but it's not; if that's what you mean by "natural" then you're completely right. i just don't think that's a particularly intuitive definition.