<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 16 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 16 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion.
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.
Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell me, how does homosexuality degrade society? Why does it do so more than heterosexuality? Is it still bad if you're a homosexual and you wait until you're married to have sex? Why? How does it make it more difficult to raise your children?
I want you to answer these questions with this in mind: Homosexuality exists. It always has existed. It exists in non-human animals. It does not make you more promiscuous, it does not give you the urge to r*** everything in sight, it does not make you want to have sex with animals. It is simply an attraction to the same sex, rather than an attraction to the opposite sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is always going to exist, whether it's made illegal or not. Years ago, you could be put in prison for being a homosexual. There were still men like Oscar Wilde, though, who were homosexual. (Or at least bisexual.)
If you're going to say "Because the Bible says so", I want you to stop for a moment. Think about it. Why does the Bible say so? Does it still apply? <i>Should</i> it still apply? Why? Does the Bible even say so? Some translations think those passages may apply to witches, not homosexuals.
I'm not saying this with any malicious intent, I'm just curious about why you believe homosexuality to be wrong. I won't ridicule or insult you, no matter how you justify it. I'm merely interested.
Oh, one more thing. Why do we need to do something about it? Who is it hurting? It's definitely not hurting the parties involved, or you, or anyone you know.
[EDIT:] Oh, by the way. Talesin, I feel that your constant ridicule and dismissal of those who oppose your opinion is disruptive to discussion. I, and many others, hold you to a higher standard than most forumgoers. You're a forum admin. You're supposed to be mature and professional, but instead you ridicule. If anyone tries to even the ground and ridicule you in return, I'm sure that you would warn/suspend them or nuke their post. Please, do everyone trying to have a mature discussion a favour and be a bit more professional.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2005
To those who consider that a rejection of homosexuality is a compulsory component of biblical belief:
Personal experience has taught me that there is a statistically higher prevalence of paedophiles within the church than in everyday life. Given that the behaviour and actions of the church is being taken in this instance to be both infalible and the ultimate moral arbiter, it follows that homosexuality is wrong, but the sexual assault of children is fine.
Cool. When your kids grow up, can I take them down the park to lay with me in pastures green?
Seriously though, if you are really going to insist on believing that the Bible or the church, both constructs of man, are reliable sources of moral advice, then we should all follow its wisdom and:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Turn the other cheek</span>
If we take this moral loathing to its logical conclusion, then I presume that you'll be uninstalling NS as we speak. It is the product of least a couple of soddomites, so I'm hoping you'll have the courage of your convictions and choose to back up your moral outrage with something solid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To those who consider that a rejection of homosexuality is a compulsory component of biblical belief:
Personal experience has taught me that there is a statistically higher prevalence of paedophiles within the church than in everyday life. Given that the behaviour and actions of the church is being taken in this instance to be both infalible and the ultimate moral arbiter, it follows that homosexuality is wrong, but the sexual assault of children is fine.
Cool. When your kids grow up, can I take them down the park to lay with me in pastures green?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actions of the church are not judged by what "a lot of people are doing in the church." The church is not infallible, and it is definately not the ultimate moral arbiter. I do not know a single Christian that believes that, perhaps is a Catholic thing? You have to distance yourself from the idea that people like me go to church, and simply accept everything just cause the guy up the front says so.
The infallible moral arbiter by which we judge the Church is the Bible, and it condemns both homosexuality and paedophilia (paedophilia in a slightly more roundabout way - condemns sex outside of marriage, orders Christian's to adhere to the laws of the day, therefore you would have to legally marry an underage child to be allowed to have sex with her, which is impossible).
But lets extend your logic to the Muslim faith. My personal understanding is that there is a higher percentage of terrorists amongst the Muslim faith. Therefore, all Muslims think that terrorism is fine, which makes all Muslims my enemy. Stay tuned for Marine0I's Solution to The Muslim Question coming monday....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously though, if you are really going to insist on believing that the Bible or the church, both constructs of man, are reliable sources of moral advice, then we should all follow its wisdom and:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Turn the other cheek</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turn the other cheek refers to when you are under personal attack, to not retaliating. Some people may feel this legislation is a personal attack, but not many. These people are worried that this kind of legislation is the first step towards g4y adoption - how do you turn the other cheek when you believe you are attempting to save children from being exposed to something you believe to be completely evil?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we take this moral loathing to its logical conclusion, then I presume that you'll be uninstalling NS as we speak. It is the product of least a couple of soddomites, so I'm hoping you'll have the courage of your convictions and choose to back up your moral outrage with something solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rubbish. I have convictions and moral outrage (well not really, but I think its just as wrong as homosexuality) against people who have sex before marriage, against people who get drunk, against people who swear. If I went through life refusing to have anything to do with people who are sinning - its hermit time, and even then I cant get away from myself. Just because you think its wrong doesnt mean you should cut yourself off.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 16 2005, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 16 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The infallible moral arbiter by which we judge the Church is the Bible, and it condemns both homosexuality and paedophilia <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. And eating shellfish. And having contact with women while they're menstrating.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 16 2005, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 16 2005, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> These people are worried that this kind of legislation is the first step towards g4y adoption <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since homosexuals can ALREADY adopt as single parents. Theres no law against it that I know of.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- how do you turn the other cheek when you believe you are attempting to save children from being exposed to something you believe to be completely evil? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->how do you turn the other cheek when you believe you are attempting to save children from being exposed to something you believe to be completely evil?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And eating shellfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Deuteronomy 14:9-10 9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> God help you if you take your kids to Red Lobster.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 16 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 16 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God help you if you take your kids to Red Lobster. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 'Tis a house of SIN!
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
CForrester, there was no ridicule in my posts. They were quite serious. They would remain serious if I explained them with a handpuppet. What the biblical faiths (christians, mormons, jewish... but mostly christians) seem to be doing is laying claim to a given word, and demanding the right to impose their own definition of that word onto the rest of society. Including their social mores, taboos, and religious dogma. I take offense at the sheer amount of hubris that takes. Telling me how to live my life, when I don't believe in your god. Bah.
Oh, and let's not forget the bits of the bible permitting you to sell your daughters into slavery, or sleep with your sister if her husband dies with no heir. Or commands you to burn offerings. And damns you to hell for eating a cheeseburger, or wearing any kind of fiber blend shirt.
The short version is, the 'evil' bits have changed to be only the bits that make the congregation uncomfortable. The other ones... well, they don't apply. They're only for the jews. Nice justification, given that a number of the bits damning the other things you DON'T like, come out of the same book as the bits that only apply to the jews.
Mmmm. Mix and match your sins, decide what's evil at a whim! Yay for 'new' faith.
Wow this thread just suddenly had an explosion of pointlessness. It's almost as if, somehow, the fundamentalists forgot that we are all people despite our beliefs and ideologies.
A round of applause for intolerance based on a doctrine that was created for a people striving for tolerance.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Mar 17 2005, 01:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Mar 17 2005, 01:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CForrester, there was no ridicule in my posts. They were quite serious. They would remain serious if I explained them with a handpuppet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. I'm not just referring to this thread either. There have been other times in past threads, but I just tried to ignore it there. I'll give two examples from this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I find it funny how religious nutjobs from related sects are running around, essentially screaming 'OURS!!!!' about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I'm not going to derail this thread any further. I'm hoping that you'll think about it and tone your posts down a bit in the future.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 17 2005, 04:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 17 2005, 04:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even if you are religious, and hate homosexuals, who are you to tell someone else how to live their life?
edit: nevermind thats what you all do anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thing is, no one has to listen to what you or I say. If the government says it on the other hand... well good luck trying to "not listen".
**EDIT** Snidely are you really a trash can? It's been years since I've met one that could talk. But back then I used to be on the dope. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 17 2005, 04:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 17 2005, 04:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> **EDIT** Snidely are you really a trash can? It's been years since I've met one that could talk. But back then I used to be on the dope. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but my dear hubby Lolfighter sure treats me like one!
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Mar 17 2005, 04:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Mar 17 2005, 04:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 17 2005, 04:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 17 2005, 04:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> **EDIT** Snidely are you really a trash can? It's been years since I've met one that could talk. But back then I used to be on the dope. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but my dear hubby Lolfighter sure treats me like one! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn, my quest continues.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 17 2005, 01:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 17 2005, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 16 2005, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 16 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The infallible moral arbiter by which we judge the Church is the Bible, and it condemns both homosexuality and paedophilia <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. And eating shellfish. And having contact with women while they're menstrating.
What's your point? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a reason why, on this forum, I do not quote verses from the Koran and then critique Islam - its because I havent read the book, and its too easy for people with an agenda to present a selected quote demonstrating the primitive nature of their understanding. I've read to much biased garbage exploiting Biblical ignorance to fall for the same trap.
I assume you are talking about the condemnation of homosexual behaviour in the Old Testament book of Leviticus? The set of laws delivered to the Jews covered a wide range of issues, from sexual behaviour to religious custom, eating habits to farming. In the section pertaining to sexuality, alongside condemnations of incest and beastiality, is a denouncement of homosexuality as an "abomination". This is only one of the several condemnations of homosexuality.
But Christian's arent Jews, we arent held to all their laws. This was explained by the Jewish lawyer known in the Bible as Paul, who wrote Acts, Romans, Corinthians etc etc. Paul recounts an experience where God asked him to eat an animal forbidded by Jewish tradition. Paul initially refused, but God told him "What I have called clean, let no man call unclean". He decided that this meant that Christian's werent held to Jewish tradition, but that many of God's universal laws (eg The Ten Commandments) were contained in Jewish Law. He wrote several books of the Bible in the forms of letters explaining this, and outlined what was retained, and what was not. Laws on homosexuality were retained:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
<b>24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.</b>
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything that Christian's read in the Old Testament, they interpret through a New Testament framework. The New Testament explains why Jewish tradition doesnt apply, reaffirms the laws that do, and homosexuality is one activity that is condemned in both books.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since homosexuals can ALREADY adopt as single parents. Theres no law against it that I know of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was pretty sure that its illegal, definately in Australia, and I thought it was likewise in the US....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The short version is, the 'evil' bits have changed to be only the bits that make the congregation uncomfortable. The other ones... well, they don't apply. They're only for the jews. Nice justification, given that a number of the bits damning the other things you DON'T like, come out of the same book as the bits that only apply to the jews.
Mmmm. Mix and match your sins, decide what's evil at a whim! Yay for 'new' faith.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're going to have to try a little bit harder than that. When I was 5, my parents wouldnt let me drive. When I was 17, suddenly the rules about me driving the family car changed, so I could do the groceries, but the rules about me not talking back still remained. When the Jews rejected Christ, the offer of salvation was delivered to the Gentiles. That change involved a reinterpretation of laws. Just changed the bits the congregation didnt like? What? Much of Paul's writings are to developing churches castigating them for their relaxed attitude towards personal morality - populism for the congregation definately doesnt apply here. This was explained 2000 years ago, and you're accusing me of just picking the bits I like? This "picking" is written and explained in the New Testament, its actually part of the Bible, not me picking the parts of the Bible I want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even if you are religious, and hate homosexuals, who are you to tell someone else how to live their life?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I couldnt help but draw attention to the bitter irony of a die hard communist criticising someone for telling someone else how to live their life.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 17 2005, 06:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 17 2005, 06:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alcohol <i>is</i> a drug.
My point there was I think both alcohol, and the currently illegal drugs are bad things that the state should control. In the same way, I view homosexual adoption parenting and KKK, Nazi and Satanist parenting as wrong - but only homosexual adoption is illegal, and thus easier to argue against than the others. Skulkbait seems to know differently here though, so I could be completely off base.
My point there was I think both alcohol, and the currently illegal drugs are bad things that the state should control. In the same way, I view homosexual adoption parenting and KKK, Nazi and Satanist parenting as wrong - but only homosexual adoption is illegal, and thus easier to argue against than the others. Skulkbait seems to know differently here though, so I could be completely off base. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What's the concern here, that **** parents will teach their children how to be **** or to reject mindless bigotry based on a repeatedly revised and internally inconsistent text?
I think the concern is that the child doesn't grow up in a "healthy" environment.
Does anyone know what happened about **** adoption here in Blighty? <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,830135,00.html' target='_blank'>This</a> is the last I heard of it in the papers. I don't remember whether it got through or not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 18 2005, 12:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 18 2005, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's the concern here, that **** parents will teach their children how to be **** or to reject mindless bigotry based on a repeatedly revised and internally inconsistent text? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->My concern here is that people like you, with a degenerate and warped view of the world insist on indoctrinating children that morally repugnant acts such as homosexuality are fine, using a demonstrably dangerous "cause its more permissable, it must automatically be on a higher moral plane to arguments for regulating individuals".<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
By now you are probably unhappy. Perhaps you are thinking of a way to rebut the above code, but its difficult to know where to start. Why? Because what I just wrote was brainless rhetoric mirroring your quoted post, making broad statements about what you believe and the incorrectness of it, without attempting to engage you on any specific points. *EDIT I will not defend what is said in code, because its rubbish I wrote to demonstrate a point EDIT* Given your last topic was on how you laugh at the discussion forum and its problems, I find it strange you would post a textbook example of what actually lowers the standard of debate around - emotion based rhetoric.
Perhaps you were a little dismayed with my response to your last post here that actually contained legitimate (if flawed) reasoning. Your only response was to insinuate you were referring to peoples backsides in "turn the other cheek". No comment on what I had stated, neither accepting that you stood corrected, or even acknowledging you understood what I was trying to say. To quote you, and to sum up exactly what I think is going on here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Mar 18 2005, 12:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Mar 18 2005, 12:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why is homosexuality a "morally repugnant act"? Is it purely because your spiritual beliefs say so, or is there another reason? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Snidely, I'm talking trash - its mindless rhetoric that has no place in debate that I was attempting to parallel to Grendel's statement. Guess I'll put it in code to make that distinction clearer.
Actually, I suspected as much, but...you never know... ;P
Maybe I just miss AvengerX.
Does anyone have any studies comparing adopted child "growth" from traditional married families, **** couples, and those left in the orphanages? I was hoping that debate on **** adoption in the UK would lead to one, but it doesn't. It would be nice to move this thread away from Christianity. Of course, it might just be impossible to determine it in a study, I don't know.
**** civil unions I have no problem with, but it would be very akward and perhaps difficult for a straight child to grow up with homosexual parents. Aside from the obvious societal stigma (at least in the US), I wonder if it would effect their development sexually? I mean, responsible parents are responsible parents, and of course they can make good parents - but I just find it unsettling to think of what it would be like to have been adopted by a **** couple. I don't think it would be healthy for a heterosexual child.
In my <b>opinion</b> (I'm not even trying to back this up), I think that homosexual couples should only be able to have a child if they adopt another homosexual. Don't know too much about the science of it, but it would be interesting if they could combine the genes of a **** couple and get a surrogate mother (or just one of them, if they are lesbians)... Then the child would actually be THEIRS and there would be no reason to worry...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me, how does homosexuality degrade society? Why does it do so more than heterosexuality? Is it still bad if you're a homosexual and you wait until you're married to have sex? Why? How does it make it more difficult to raise your children?
I want you to answer these questions with this in mind: Homosexuality exists. It always has existed. It exists in non-human animals. It does not make you more promiscuous, it does not give you the urge to r*** everything in sight, it does not make you want to have sex with animals. It is simply an attraction to the same sex, rather than an attraction to the opposite sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is always going to exist, whether it's made illegal or not. Years ago, you could be put in prison for being a homosexual. There were still men like Oscar Wilde, though, who were homosexual. (Or at least bisexual.)
If you're going to say "Because the Bible says so", I want you to stop for a moment. Think about it. Why does the Bible say so? Does it still apply? Should it still apply? Why? Does the Bible even say so? Some translations think those passages may apply to witches, not homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CForrester brought up some questions on the last page - and I'm going to try to tackle a few of them (specifically the last paragraph quoted here).
MarineOI already pointed out where the Bible says so - both old and new testament. If you read the passages, they are quite clear - and have very little to do with witches. The main question here is "why" does God call it sin.
Well, apart from the obvous perversion of nature, there is a secondary reason. God is a relationship oriented being. He takes relationships very seriously, and he leaves a lot of messages in the Bible as to how we are to relate to him and to each other. The 10 commandments are a perfect example - telling us how we are to respect God first, and each other second. Along with that, God likes to "show" us how we are to behave.
For instance, the prophet Hosea was told to marry a prostitue, love her, have children with her, buy her back from the people she became indebted to - and when she ran away to be a prostitue again - rescue her. All that was a picture of Gods relationship to the people Israel. God used Hosea's situation to show Israel how God was relating to them - and how they were to live as a result.
The same thing happens in marriage - it is a picture of Gods relationship to the church. The relationship between Man and Woman - with the oaths involved and their respective roles in the relationship are a picture of how God loves / cares for the church. Jesus is often described as the "bridegroom" in a wedding where the "bride" is waiting for him to show up.
So there you have it - Homosexuality is a perversion of that picture. It goes against the order that God set out. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (I just love that line).
Now go back and re-read the scripture that MarineOI posted - that is my view on the matter.
Homosexuals can and have adopted children before. It is NOT against the law in the united states.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Today, however, in the area of child custody, courts have approached homosexuality from a more progressive standpoint, and as a result, have moved towards a more objective analysis of the parental fitness as it affects the child's well-being.122 For example, a parent's sexual preference was only to be a consideration in custody proceedings if it was shown to adversely affect the child's welfare.123 This standard, later adopted by the courts, is known as the "nexus" test, whereby a parent's homosexuality is not a consideration in granting or denying custody unless there is a proven connection between the parent's homosexuality and a detrimental effect on the children.124 This change in analysis requires each parent to be evaluated in terms of ability and willingness to care for the child rather than focusing on sexual preference.125 An examination of New York cases demonstrates that this new analysis has been strongly implemented.
In Smith v. Smith,126 the New York Family Court in Richmond County, required that a causal connection between lesbianism and its adverse affect upon the child should be shown. The following year in DiStefano v. DiStefano,127 the appellate division, in conditioning the visitation of a lesbian mother with her children, upon the total exclusion of the mother's lover from any contact with the mother and children during such visitation, noted that "the trial court found that homosexuality, per se, did not render (the mother) unfit as a parent."128
Six years later, the appellate division, adopted the language noted in DiStefano, in Guinan v. Guinan,129 a case applying the nexus test and one of the first to procure favorable results for *** and lesbians. In Guinan, the plaintiff-husband offered testimony that the defendant-mother had engaged in homosexual relations.130 As such, the court was required to examine the impact that any sexual activity by the mother had on the children.131 The court said, whether defendant had sexual relations with other women was not a determinative factor of this custody dispute. In the language adopted from DiStefano, the court stated: "Specifically, the mere fact that a parent is a homosexual does not alone render him or her unfit as a parent.132 A parent's sexual indiscretions should be a consideration in a custody dispute only if they are shown to adversely affect the child's welfare."133 Since the evidence revealed no adverse reaction arising from the mother's sexuality, and the court found her to be "a fit, competent and loving parent," she was permitted to retain custody of her children.134
The nexus test was further refined in the case of Gottlieb v. Gottlieb,135 which dealt with conditions placed on a homosexual parent's custody rights.136 In Gottlieb, the lower court awarded child custody to the mother, and awarded visitation privileges to the father subject to certain restrictive conditions. These conditions included the total exclusion of his lover or any other homosexual during such visitation periods in the father's home and totally excluded his lover or any other homosexuals from any contact with the father and child outside his home. In excising the lower court's restrictions, the appellate division said, "...the daughter must be fully conversant with the fact that the father has a live-in male lover, and that excluding the lover as a condition of visitation serves no real purpose other than as a punitive measure against the father."137 The crucial criterion to be applied according to the court, is not a critique of the morality of the defendant's lifestyle, but what is best for the child's welfare.138 Thus, the appellate division saw no adverse impact on a child when a homosexual father has his child visit and his lover or other homosexuals are present.139
Other courts can best effectuate the placement of children in a homosexual environment by stressing factors other than the sexual orientation of a parent. For example, in M.A.B. v. R.B.,140 after the parties' divorce in 1984 and a joint custody agreement, whereby the three children would reside with the plaintiff-mother permanently in the state of New York, plaintiff-mother sought the courts permission for her to move with her three children to Florida. The defendant-father, who was in a stable homosexual relationship for eight years, only sought custody of their 12-year-old son B., and opposed the removal of the remaining two younger children to Florida.141 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a5&id=30787&sv=z6f537209&uid=06EBCCA706CFDCD14&sid=1C4A140A1CCC89324&p=%2ftop&o=10234&u=http://www.sexuality.org/l/incoming/gladopt.html' target='_blank'>Adoption History of the US</a>
I am ashamed to call you an person Marine01, that you thought it was illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 17 2005, 06:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 17 2005, 06:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since homosexuals can ALREADY adopt as single parents. Theres no law against it that I know of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was pretty sure that its illegal, definately in Australia, and I thought it was likewise in the US.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. If it were, then Dan Savage and his partner would be in a whole heap of trouble.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, but the thing is that none of those have ever bothered these people, they never called for the outlawing of Atheist marriages, or Nazi's getting married, or KKK members getting married, or Satanists from getting married, at least not with the same level of outrage. Ever. Yet two men (who may be Christian mind you, but just don't believe the anti-homo crap) bother them so much that they want to amend the constitution. They want to change the fundamental legal document on which all law in this country is based because homosexuals scare them more then Nazis. Homosexul marriage was never illegal until recently (it wasn't legally addressed at all), just like atheist marriage isn't illegal, satanist marraige, ect. These crazy **** are so afraid of homosexuals that they have saught to keep them from doing something harmless, like getting married, while at the same time allowing KKK members to get married, burn crosses, raise children in their hate lifestyle, and do it with hardly any outrage at all. Hell, they didn't even show this much outrage when their children were being sodomized by preachers at church.
Besides which, people do lots of things that I think are "completely evil", but that doesn't give me the right to amend the constitution to make mayo illegal or stop people from concieving.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Does anyone have any studies comparing adopted child "growth" from traditional married families, **** couples, and those left in the orphanages?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats a topic for annother thread, because in the US Homosexual adoption is not illegal and homosexual marriage has no effect on that.
At any rate, you can't argue that all homosexual homes would be a worse environment then say, a KKK home, or a Nazi home, or even just an control freak's home. Think of all the f'd up people in this country raised by <i>straight</i> parents, and there is no outrage at all against that.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 17 2005, 01:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 17 2005, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 18 2005, 12:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 18 2005, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's the concern here, that **** parents will teach their children how to be **** or to reject mindless bigotry based on a repeatedly revised and internally inconsistent text? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->My concern here is that people like you, with a degenerate and warped view of the world insist on indoctrinating children that morally repugnant acts such as homosexuality are fine, using a demonstrably dangerous "cause its more permissable, it must automatically be on a higher moral plane to arguments for regulating individuals".<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
By now you are probably unhappy. Perhaps you are thinking of a way to rebut the above code, but its difficult to know where to start. Why? Because what I just wrote was brainless rhetoric mirroring your quoted post, making broad statements about what you believe and the incorrectness of it, without attempting to engage you on any specific points. *EDIT I will not defend what is said in code, because its rubbish I wrote to demonstrate a point EDIT* Given your last topic was on how you laugh at the discussion forum and its problems, I find it strange you would post a textbook example of what actually lowers the standard of debate around - emotion based rhetoric.
Perhaps you were a little dismayed with my response to your last post here that actually contained legitimate (if flawed) reasoning. Your only response was to insinuate you were referring to peoples backsides in "turn the other cheek". No comment on what I had stated, neither accepting that you stood corrected, or even acknowledging you understood what I was trying to say. To quote you, and to sum up exactly what I think is going on here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But surely you <b>are</b> suggesting that being homosexual is morally repugnant to you? If you aren't, then forgive me.
And for all the emotional colouring, my statement is demonstrably accurate when it suggests that:
a) The bible is internally inconsistent.
b) It has been repeatedly revised, translated, edited and is a result of the penmanship of several human authors who allegedly possess free will.
However, for me to ask a rhetorical question as part of my statement, was indeed, cheap and you are right to call me on it.
I am having difficulty seeing why a person would find homosexuality so "wrong". If you can come up with a response that isn't based on fear or adherence to religious doctrine, then please educate me.
Comments
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.
Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell me, how does homosexuality degrade society? Why does it do so more than heterosexuality? Is it still bad if you're a homosexual and you wait until you're married to have sex? Why? How does it make it more difficult to raise your children?
I want you to answer these questions with this in mind: Homosexuality exists. It always has existed. It exists in non-human animals. It does not make you more promiscuous, it does not give you the urge to r*** everything in sight, it does not make you want to have sex with animals. It is simply an attraction to the same sex, rather than an attraction to the opposite sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is always going to exist, whether it's made illegal or not. Years ago, you could be put in prison for being a homosexual. There were still men like Oscar Wilde, though, who were homosexual. (Or at least bisexual.)
If you're going to say "Because the Bible says so", I want you to stop for a moment. Think about it. Why does the Bible say so? Does it still apply? <i>Should</i> it still apply? Why? Does the Bible even say so? Some translations think those passages may apply to witches, not homosexuals.
I'm not saying this with any malicious intent, I'm just curious about why you believe homosexuality to be wrong. I won't ridicule or insult you, no matter how you justify it. I'm merely interested.
Oh, one more thing. Why do we need to do something about it? Who is it hurting? It's definitely not hurting the parties involved, or you, or anyone you know.
[EDIT:] Oh, by the way. Talesin, I feel that your constant ridicule and dismissal of those who oppose your opinion is disruptive to discussion. I, and many others, hold you to a higher standard than most forumgoers. You're a forum admin. You're supposed to be mature and professional, but instead you ridicule. If anyone tries to even the ground and ridicule you in return, I'm sure that you would warn/suspend them or nuke their post. Please, do everyone trying to have a mature discussion a favour and be a bit more professional.
Personal experience has taught me that there is a statistically higher prevalence of paedophiles within the church than in everyday life. Given that the behaviour and actions of the church is being taken in this instance to be both infalible and the ultimate moral arbiter, it follows that homosexuality is wrong, but the sexual assault of children is fine.
Cool. When your kids grow up, can I take them down the park to lay with me in pastures green?
Seriously though, if you are really going to insist on believing that the Bible or the church, both constructs of man, are reliable sources of moral advice, then we should all follow its wisdom and:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Turn the other cheek</span>
If we take this moral loathing to its logical conclusion, then I presume that you'll be uninstalling NS as we speak. It is the product of least a couple of soddomites, so I'm hoping you'll have the courage of your convictions and choose to back up your moral outrage with something solid.
[EDIT]Changed christian to biblical[/EDIT]
Personal experience has taught me that there is a statistically higher prevalence of paedophiles within the church than in everyday life. Given that the behaviour and actions of the church is being taken in this instance to be both infalible and the ultimate moral arbiter, it follows that homosexuality is wrong, but the sexual assault of children is fine.
Cool. When your kids grow up, can I take them down the park to lay with me in pastures green?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actions of the church are not judged by what "a lot of people are doing in the church." The church is not infallible, and it is definately not the ultimate moral arbiter. I do not know a single Christian that believes that, perhaps is a Catholic thing? You have to distance yourself from the idea that people like me go to church, and simply accept everything just cause the guy up the front says so.
The infallible moral arbiter by which we judge the Church is the Bible, and it condemns both homosexuality and paedophilia (paedophilia in a slightly more roundabout way - condemns sex outside of marriage, orders Christian's to adhere to the laws of the day, therefore you would have to legally marry an underage child to be allowed to have sex with her, which is impossible).
But lets extend your logic to the Muslim faith. My personal understanding is that there is a higher percentage of terrorists amongst the Muslim faith. Therefore, all Muslims think that terrorism is fine, which makes all Muslims my enemy. Stay tuned for Marine0I's Solution to The Muslim Question coming monday....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously though, if you are really going to insist on believing that the Bible or the church, both constructs of man, are reliable sources of moral advice, then we should all follow its wisdom and:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Turn the other cheek</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turn the other cheek refers to when you are under personal attack, to not retaliating. Some people may feel this legislation is a personal attack, but not many. These people are worried that this kind of legislation is the first step towards g4y adoption - how do you turn the other cheek when you believe you are attempting to save children from being exposed to something you believe to be completely evil?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If we take this moral loathing to its logical conclusion, then I presume that you'll be uninstalling NS as we speak. It is the product of least a couple of soddomites, so I'm hoping you'll have the courage of your convictions and choose to back up your moral outrage with something solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rubbish. I have convictions and moral outrage (well not really, but I think its just as wrong as homosexuality) against people who have sex before marriage, against people who get drunk, against people who swear. If I went through life refusing to have anything to do with people who are sinning - its hermit time, and even then I cant get away from myself. Just because you think its wrong doesnt mean you should cut yourself off.
And wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. And eating shellfish. And having contact with women while they're menstrating.
What's your point?
Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since homosexuals can ALREADY adopt as single parents. Theres no law against it that I know of.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- how do you turn the other cheek when you believe you are attempting to save children from being exposed to something you believe to be completely evil?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And eating shellfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Deuteronomy 14:9-10
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God help you if you take your kids to Red Lobster.
'Tis a house of SIN!
I take offense at the sheer amount of hubris that takes. Telling me how to live my life, when I don't believe in your god. Bah.
Oh, and let's not forget the bits of the bible permitting you to sell your daughters into slavery, or sleep with your sister if her husband dies with no heir. Or commands you to burn offerings. And damns you to hell for eating a cheeseburger, or wearing any kind of fiber blend shirt.
The short version is, the 'evil' bits have changed to be only the bits that make the congregation uncomfortable. The other ones... well, they don't apply. They're only for the jews. Nice justification, given that a number of the bits damning the other things you DON'T like, come out of the same book as the bits that only apply to the jews.
Mmmm. Mix and match your sins, decide what's evil at a whim! Yay for 'new' faith.
Cheeks aren't just on your face.
A round of applause for intolerance based on a doctrine that was created for a people striving for tolerance.
I disagree. I'm not just referring to this thread either. There have been other times in past threads, but I just tried to ignore it there. I'll give two examples from this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'd have any number of... ahem.. people (can't use any of the similes without getting in trouble) jumping up and down and screaming how the nation is being taken over by satanists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I find it funny how religious nutjobs from related sects are running around, essentially screaming 'OURS!!!!' about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I'm not going to derail this thread any further. I'm hoping that you'll think about it and tone your posts down a bit in the future.
edit: nevermind thats what you all do anyway.
edit: nevermind thats what you all do anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is, no one has to listen to what you or I say. If the government says it on the other hand... well good luck trying to "not listen".
**EDIT** Snidely are you really a trash can? It's been years since I've met one that could talk. But back then I used to be on the dope. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, but my dear hubby Lolfighter sure treats me like one!
No, but my dear hubby Lolfighter sure treats me like one! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, my quest continues.
And wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. And eating shellfish. And having contact with women while they're menstrating.
What's your point? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a reason why, on this forum, I do not quote verses from the Koran and then critique Islam - its because I havent read the book, and its too easy for people with an agenda to present a selected quote demonstrating the primitive nature of their understanding. I've read to much biased garbage exploiting Biblical ignorance to fall for the same trap.
I assume you are talking about the condemnation of homosexual behaviour in the Old Testament book of Leviticus? The set of laws delivered to the Jews covered a wide range of issues, from sexual behaviour to religious custom, eating habits to farming. In the section pertaining to sexuality, alongside condemnations of incest and beastiality, is a denouncement of homosexuality as an "abomination". This is only one of the several condemnations of homosexuality.
But Christian's arent Jews, we arent held to all their laws. This was explained by the Jewish lawyer known in the Bible as Paul, who wrote Acts, Romans, Corinthians etc etc. Paul recounts an experience where God asked him to eat an animal forbidded by Jewish tradition. Paul initially refused, but God told him "What I have called clean, let no man call unclean". He decided that this meant that Christian's werent held to Jewish tradition, but that many of God's universal laws (eg The Ten Commandments) were contained in Jewish Law. He wrote several books of the Bible in the forms of letters explaining this, and outlined what was retained, and what was not. Laws on homosexuality were retained:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
<b>24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.</b>
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything that Christian's read in the Old Testament, they interpret through a New Testament framework. The New Testament explains why Jewish tradition doesnt apply, reaffirms the laws that do, and homosexuality is one activity that is condemned in both books.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since homosexuals can ALREADY adopt as single parents. Theres no law against it that I know of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was pretty sure that its illegal, definately in Australia, and I thought it was likewise in the US....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The short version is, the 'evil' bits have changed to be only the bits that make the congregation uncomfortable. The other ones... well, they don't apply. They're only for the jews. Nice justification, given that a number of the bits damning the other things you DON'T like, come out of the same book as the bits that only apply to the jews.
Mmmm. Mix and match your sins, decide what's evil at a whim! Yay for 'new' faith.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're going to have to try a little bit harder than that. When I was 5, my parents wouldnt let me drive. When I was 17, suddenly the rules about me driving the family car changed, so I could do the groceries, but the rules about me not talking back still remained. When the Jews rejected Christ, the offer of salvation was delivered to the Gentiles. That change involved a reinterpretation of laws. Just changed the bits the congregation didnt like? What? Much of Paul's writings are to developing churches castigating them for their relaxed attitude towards personal morality - populism for the congregation definately doesnt apply here. This was explained 2000 years ago, and you're accusing me of just picking the bits I like? This "picking" is written and explained in the New Testament, its actually part of the Bible, not me picking the parts of the Bible I want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even if you are religious, and hate homosexuals, who are you to tell someone else how to live their life?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I couldnt help but draw attention to the bitter irony of a die hard communist criticising someone for telling someone else how to live their life.
The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alcohol <i>is</i> a drug.
I know <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My point there was I think both alcohol, and the currently illegal drugs are bad things that the state should control. In the same way, I view homosexual adoption parenting and KKK, Nazi and Satanist parenting as wrong - but only homosexual adoption is illegal, and thus easier to argue against than the others. Skulkbait seems to know differently here though, so I could be completely off base.
I know <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My point there was I think both alcohol, and the currently illegal drugs are bad things that the state should control. In the same way, I view homosexual adoption parenting and KKK, Nazi and Satanist parenting as wrong - but only homosexual adoption is illegal, and thus easier to argue against than the others. Skulkbait seems to know differently here though, so I could be completely off base. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the concern here, that **** parents will teach their children how to be **** or to reject mindless bigotry based on a repeatedly revised and internally inconsistent text?
Does anyone know what happened about **** adoption here in Blighty? <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,830135,00.html' target='_blank'>This</a> is the last I heard of it in the papers. I don't remember whether it got through or not.
EDIT: Ugh. Forget it. Final edit. ;P
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->My concern here is that people like you, with a degenerate and warped view of the world insist on indoctrinating children that morally repugnant acts such as homosexuality are fine, using a demonstrably dangerous "cause its more permissable, it must automatically be on a higher moral plane to arguments for regulating individuals".<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
By now you are probably unhappy. Perhaps you are thinking of a way to rebut the above code, but its difficult to know where to start. Why? Because what I just wrote was brainless rhetoric mirroring your quoted post, making broad statements about what you believe and the incorrectness of it, without attempting to engage you on any specific points. *EDIT I will not defend what is said in code, because its rubbish I wrote to demonstrate a point EDIT* Given your last topic was on how you laugh at the discussion forum and its problems, I find it strange you would post a textbook example of what actually lowers the standard of debate around - emotion based rhetoric.
Perhaps you were a little dismayed with my response to your last post here that actually contained legitimate (if flawed) reasoning. Your only response was to insinuate you were referring to peoples backsides in "turn the other cheek". No comment on what I had stated, neither accepting that you stood corrected, or even acknowledging you understood what I was trying to say. To quote you, and to sum up exactly what I think is going on here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Snidely, I'm talking trash - its mindless rhetoric that has no place in debate that I was attempting to parallel to Grendel's statement. Guess I'll put it in code to make that distinction clearer.
Maybe I just miss AvengerX.
Does anyone have any studies comparing adopted child "growth" from traditional married families, **** couples, and those left in the orphanages? I was hoping that debate on **** adoption in the UK would lead to one, but it doesn't. It would be nice to move this thread away from Christianity. Of course, it might just be impossible to determine it in a study, I don't know.
In my <b>opinion</b> (I'm not even trying to back this up), I think that homosexual couples should only be able to have a child if they adopt another homosexual. Don't know too much about the science of it, but it would be interesting if they could combine the genes of a **** couple and get a surrogate mother (or just one of them, if they are lesbians)... Then the child would actually be THEIRS and there would be no reason to worry...
I want you to answer these questions with this in mind: Homosexuality exists. It always has existed. It exists in non-human animals. It does not make you more promiscuous, it does not give you the urge to r*** everything in sight, it does not make you want to have sex with animals. It is simply an attraction to the same sex, rather than an attraction to the opposite sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuality is always going to exist, whether it's made illegal or not. Years ago, you could be put in prison for being a homosexual. There were still men like Oscar Wilde, though, who were homosexual. (Or at least bisexual.)
If you're going to say "Because the Bible says so", I want you to stop for a moment. Think about it. Why does the Bible say so? Does it still apply? Should it still apply? Why? Does the Bible even say so? Some translations think those passages may apply to witches, not homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CForrester brought up some questions on the last page - and I'm going to try to tackle a few of them (specifically the last paragraph quoted here).
MarineOI already pointed out where the Bible says so - both old and new testament. If you read the passages, they are quite clear - and have very little to do with witches. The main question here is "why" does God call it sin.
Well, apart from the obvous perversion of nature, there is a secondary reason. God is a relationship oriented being. He takes relationships very seriously, and he leaves a lot of messages in the Bible as to how we are to relate to him and to each other. The 10 commandments are a perfect example - telling us how we are to respect God first, and each other second. Along with that, God likes to "show" us how we are to behave.
For instance, the prophet Hosea was told to marry a prostitue, love her, have children with her, buy her back from the people she became indebted to - and when she ran away to be a prostitue again - rescue her. All that was a picture of Gods relationship to the people Israel. God used Hosea's situation to show Israel how God was relating to them - and how they were to live as a result.
The same thing happens in marriage - it is a picture of Gods relationship to the church. The relationship between Man and Woman - with the oaths involved and their respective roles in the relationship are a picture of how God loves / cares for the church. Jesus is often described as the "bridegroom" in a wedding where the "bride" is waiting for him to show up.
So there you have it - Homosexuality is a perversion of that picture. It goes against the order that God set out. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (I just love that line).
Now go back and re-read the scripture that MarineOI posted - that is my view on the matter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Today, however, in the area of child custody, courts have approached homosexuality from a more progressive standpoint, and as a result, have moved towards a more objective analysis of the parental fitness as it affects the child's well-being.122 For example, a parent's sexual preference was only to be a consideration in custody proceedings if it was shown to adversely affect the child's welfare.123 This standard, later adopted by the courts, is known as the "nexus" test, whereby a parent's homosexuality is not a consideration in granting or denying custody unless there is a proven connection between the parent's homosexuality and a detrimental effect on the children.124 This change in analysis requires each parent to be evaluated in terms of ability and willingness to care for the child rather than focusing on sexual preference.125 An examination of New York cases demonstrates that this new analysis has been strongly implemented.
In Smith v. Smith,126 the New York Family Court in Richmond County, required that a causal connection between lesbianism and its adverse affect upon the child should be shown. The following year in DiStefano v. DiStefano,127 the appellate division, in conditioning the visitation of a lesbian mother with her children, upon the total exclusion of the mother's lover from any contact with the mother and children during such visitation, noted that "the trial court found that homosexuality, per se, did not render (the mother) unfit as a parent."128
Six years later, the appellate division, adopted the language noted in DiStefano, in Guinan v. Guinan,129 a case applying the nexus test and one of the first to procure favorable results for *** and lesbians. In Guinan, the plaintiff-husband offered testimony that the defendant-mother had engaged in homosexual relations.130 As such, the court was required to examine the impact that any sexual activity by the mother had on the children.131 The court said, whether defendant had sexual relations with other women was not a determinative factor of this custody dispute. In the language adopted from DiStefano, the court stated: "Specifically, the mere fact that a parent is a homosexual does not alone render him or her unfit as a parent.132 A parent's sexual indiscretions should be a consideration in a custody dispute only if they are shown to adversely affect the child's welfare."133 Since the evidence revealed no adverse reaction arising from the mother's sexuality, and the court found her to be "a fit, competent and loving parent," she was permitted to retain custody of her children.134
The nexus test was further refined in the case of Gottlieb v. Gottlieb,135 which dealt with conditions placed on a homosexual parent's custody rights.136 In Gottlieb, the lower court awarded child custody to the mother, and awarded visitation privileges to the father subject to certain restrictive conditions. These conditions included the total exclusion of his lover or any other homosexual during such visitation periods in the father's home and totally excluded his lover or any other homosexuals from any contact with the father and child outside his home. In excising the lower court's restrictions, the appellate division said, "...the daughter must be fully conversant with the fact that the father has a live-in male lover, and that excluding the lover as a condition of visitation serves no real purpose other than as a punitive measure against the father."137 The crucial criterion to be applied according to the court, is not a critique of the morality of the defendant's lifestyle, but what is best for the child's welfare.138 Thus, the appellate division saw no adverse impact on a child when a homosexual father has his child visit and his lover or other homosexuals are present.139
Other courts can best effectuate the placement of children in a homosexual environment by stressing factors other than the sexual orientation of a parent. For example, in M.A.B. v. R.B.,140 after the parties' divorce in 1984 and a joint custody agreement, whereby the three children would reside with the plaintiff-mother permanently in the state of New York, plaintiff-mother sought the courts permission for her to move with her three children to Florida. The defendant-father, who was in a stable homosexual relationship for eight years, only sought custody of their 12-year-old son B., and opposed the removal of the remaining two younger children to Florida.141
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a5&id=30787&sv=z6f537209&uid=06EBCCA706CFDCD14&sid=1C4A140A1CCC89324&p=%2ftop&o=10234&u=http://www.sexuality.org/l/incoming/gladopt.html' target='_blank'>Adoption History of the US</a>
I am ashamed to call you an person Marine01, that you thought it was illegal.
*edited* He isn't an american, my apologies.
I was pretty sure that its illegal, definately in Australia, and I thought it was likewise in the US....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. If it were, then Dan Savage and his partner would be in a whole heap of trouble.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The same way they turn the other cheak when KKK members, Nazis, Atheists, and Satanists want to get married and raise children. Honestly, do they believe that homosexuals are actually more evil then the groups mentioned above?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I dont think they are any more evil than that group. I would advocate the protection of children in the houses of the first, second and fourth group, but only because I believe them to be proactively evil. Homsexual marriage is a wrong that has been outlawed - I view it like the drugs and alcohol affair, alcohol does more damage than drugs, but both are bad and I think should be controlled. However, alcohol has already made it to legitimate status, so arguing against it is always going to be harder than arguing the case against legalised drug usage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but the thing is that none of those have ever bothered these people, they never called for the outlawing of Atheist marriages, or Nazi's getting married, or KKK members getting married, or Satanists from getting married, at least not with the same level of outrage. Ever. Yet two men (who may be Christian mind you, but just don't believe the anti-homo crap) bother them so much that they want to amend the constitution. They want to change the fundamental legal document on which all law in this country is based because homosexuals scare them more then Nazis. Homosexul marriage was never illegal until recently (it wasn't legally addressed at all), just like atheist marriage isn't illegal, satanist marraige, ect. These crazy **** are so afraid of homosexuals that they have saught to keep them from doing something harmless, like getting married, while at the same time allowing KKK members to get married, burn crosses, raise children in their hate lifestyle, and do it with hardly any outrage at all. Hell, they didn't even show this much outrage when their children were being sodomized by preachers at church.
Besides which, people do lots of things that I think are "completely evil", but that doesn't give me the right to amend the constitution to make mayo illegal or stop people from concieving.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Does anyone have any studies comparing adopted child "growth" from traditional married families, **** couples, and those left in the orphanages?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a topic for annother thread, because in the US Homosexual adoption is not illegal and homosexual marriage has no effect on that.
At any rate, you can't argue that all homosexual homes would be a worse environment then say, a KKK home, or a Nazi home, or even just an control freak's home. Think of all the f'd up people in this country raised by <i>straight</i> parents, and there is no outrage at all against that.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->My concern here is that people like you, with a degenerate and warped view of the world insist on indoctrinating children that morally repugnant acts such as homosexuality are fine, using a demonstrably dangerous "cause its more permissable, it must automatically be on a higher moral plane to arguments for regulating individuals".<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
By now you are probably unhappy. Perhaps you are thinking of a way to rebut the above code, but its difficult to know where to start. Why? Because what I just wrote was brainless rhetoric mirroring your quoted post, making broad statements about what you believe and the incorrectness of it, without attempting to engage you on any specific points. *EDIT I will not defend what is said in code, because its rubbish I wrote to demonstrate a point EDIT* Given your last topic was on how you laugh at the discussion forum and its problems, I find it strange you would post a textbook example of what actually lowers the standard of debate around - emotion based rhetoric.
Perhaps you were a little dismayed with my response to your last post here that actually contained legitimate (if flawed) reasoning. Your only response was to insinuate you were referring to peoples backsides in "turn the other cheek". No comment on what I had stated, neither accepting that you stood corrected, or even acknowledging you understood what I was trying to say. To quote you, and to sum up exactly what I think is going on here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But surely you <b>are</b> suggesting that being homosexual is morally repugnant to you? If you aren't, then forgive me.
And for all the emotional colouring, my statement is demonstrably accurate when it suggests that:
a) The bible is internally inconsistent.
b) It has been repeatedly revised, translated, edited and is a result of the penmanship of several human authors who allegedly possess free will.
However, for me to ask a rhetorical question as part of my statement, was indeed, cheap and you are right to call me on it.
I am having difficulty seeing why a person would find homosexuality so "wrong". If you can come up with a response that isn't based on fear or adherence to religious doctrine, then please educate me.