Honorable Warriors

Honorable Warriors is one of the greatest factions of all time!!!
 
HomePortalCalendarGalleryFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Gay Rights

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Gay Rights   Fri May 28, 2010 7:47 pm

Let's start something dealing more with politics. This can be a general discussion of all gay rights, but I'll open with Gay Marriage.

I am in complete favor of equality of people, regardless of their sexual orientation. I put homophobia on the same level of ignorance and prejudice as racism and sexism. Statistics show them to be just as competent and no worse than straights, so why not let them marry and raise children? I actually don't have much of an opening argument, since it seems like such a no-brainer to me, so I'm hoping other people will fill in (both real and devil's advocate arguments would be appreciated).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
empowers

avatar

Posts : 31
Join date : 2010-05-26
Location : Australia

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Fri May 28, 2010 8:36 pm

I don't want to stop other people from doing what they want to do. If gay people want to get married, it is not my right to tell them whether they can or can't. Marriage IS a religious ceremony though, and I understand why people would not want gays getting married, but it really isn't so much anymore these days, and we have to accept the changes in modern society most of us are growing more tolerant, which to me is a sign of growth not of decay.

Children, however, does make me feel a bit uncomfortable. I think children should be raised with a female and a male influence, it just seems the right way to do things. I want to say that people are free to make their choices in life, and I don't slag off at gay people who have children, but secretly it erks me a little. I worry how the kid might get teased in the future. Logically speaking, two gay people can't have a child, and I think intervening that little natural law isn't a good idea. I have a cousin who is a lesbian, and her and her lover bought two beautiful dogs. I think that's the right way to go.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Fri May 28, 2010 10:33 pm

First, you need to get over the "erk" you feel toward homosexuality. These are real people, and if you let your prejudices influence the way you act toward them, you're doing a grave injustice.

As for what is best for a child, it really seems to only be that there are two parents, and the gender of those two does not seem to matter. You can read the abstract of an article here that supports my claim. And very few would use the same logic the other way around. If the body of scientific literature said that homosexuals are significantly better parents than heterosexuals, I doubt many would advocate for a ban on heterosexual adoption; however, people are more than willing to use this line of argument only if it supports their preconceived notions.

As for child harassment from intolerant children, I see not how that is an argument against social justice. The same could be said for interracial couples (both now and especially in the past). If we wanted to keep our kids from being harassed by their peers, we would not have legalized interracial marriage; if we want to move toward equality and social justice, we allow gay adoption.

There are countless infertile married couples in the world, and we do not hold any restriction on them from adopting. If the natural law should be used, then anyone who cannot demonstrate the ability to produce children should not be allowed to adopt. Clearly, this is silly, and it seems to be just another case of rationalization of one's intolerance. Furthermore, with certain scientific advancements, it's conceivable that two women would be able to produce children without a sperm donor, which would mean lesbians would be more capable of producing genetic offspring than a man without testes and his wife.

In summation, you don't want to continue in this line of argument, lest you find yourself chained to very silly notions of what it means to be able to adopt.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Sat May 29, 2010 2:02 am

ill have to say i agree with gay marriage, although empowers proves a good point that it is indeed a religous practice to get married and by gay people getting married it is violating the principles as to which marriage was founded on. The only reason a gay couple would want to get married is so they could fit into the "norm" of things. There really is no added benefit to getting married except tax purposes, which is as good a reason as any, along with other financial benefits. Me and my fiance are engaged, and getting married wont bring us any closer then we already are. Once the marriage is said and done all we will be left with is some great memories, and a piece of paper. So personally gay marriage, i dont have a problem with, but fundementally it is a contradiction to the foundations as to which marriage was founded.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Sat May 29, 2010 4:50 am

empowers
You did not even bother trying to respond. Please, either tell me where I'm wrong, or politely withdraw, but cut the ad hominems — you didn't even tell me where I was being a jerk...


mbacolas (congratulations)
I think a lot of the debate could be quelled by breaking our unions into two terms: civil union and marriage. A civil union would be a union sanctioned by the state. It would provide various benefits (and detriments) that would be standard across anyone who is civilly unionized, and would be non-discriminatory in who can apply. Marriage, on the other hand, would be done by the church, and would have no regulations by the state, because it wouldn't mean anything to the state. There would be no legal benefits (or detriments), and it would only be recognized in whichever institutions want to recognize it. They would also be able to discriminate as much as they please. This breaks the debate apart a bit, and gives the people who don't want churches to be forced to marry people no ground, as they would never be forced to do it.

I think the general "traditional marriage" idea falls apart when we look at the history of marriage. It's a fairly recent development that marriage is between two people who love each other. Before that, many marriages were arranged. And before that, polygamy reigned. Marriages around the world are more traditionally about economic benefit and quelling feuds between families, and some cultures (Hawaiian comes to mind) had such a loose definition of marriage, we may be unwilling to even include it. The idea that there is one "traditional marriage" is a gross oversimplification, and it has not yet been shown why any of these previous definitions of marriage are better than what we're striving for now.

I also think you struck on one of the key points of this issue: bonding. It would be absurd to ignore the emotional aspect of two people who get married. The physical things are simply a few gifts and a piece of paper, and it's possible that any number of other types of shindigs could bring as many happy memories as a wedding, but the emotional bond you make with someone is a very real effect, and it cannot be ignored in this debate. And I see no reason that the ability to create this bond should be barred from anyone.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Sat May 29, 2010 10:06 am

yea i agree for some it really helps to strengthen a bond, but maybe thats because of what a marriage represents. In all actuality though marriage doesnt in my opinion bring 2 ppl any closer then they already were. I know straight heterosexual couples who never get married and they have been together for years and years, were talking 20+ Shocked

But i do agree with the civil union idea, and i beleive that idea is already being put into affect in some places like in the chuck and larry movie Laughing
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KageShadowlance



Posts : 17
Join date : 2010-06-17

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:45 pm

I think that is wrong and that people partaking in gay actions are committing great evil, but that is because of my religious background and beliefs.

From my personal experience though, it is a choice, just like any other. I can say it is wrong, but who am I to judge someone, as it is not my place. I can let someone know my opinion, but I can not change their opinion.

It is something that is determined by a persons opinion and beliefs, which is why it is so debatable.

I do not think that it should be allowed, though it will take place, legal or not.

The best thing that can be done is to give our input, knowing it will take place wither we like it or not. We can not change the people decisions.

I would have to say though that children should be raised by men and women. Men are better than women at many things, and vice versa. If a young boy does not have a male influence, then they will be different from the rest of society. If a young girl does not have a woman to train her, then she will be an outcast. In a matter of raising a child, the child needs both a male and female role model, morales, and to feel accepted. Child rearing though is a different buck of fish though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:40 pm

I'm assuming you mean a Judeo-Christian religion, in which case the bible, Old and New Testament, is clear in its statement that homosexuals (Old Testament is more geared toward males, but lesbians were finally included by Paul) are to be killed for their crimes against the Lord. If you're going to going to follow the Bible, actually do it; otherwise, you're only picking and choosing the parts you want to follow (even if the followed and ignored parts are in the same sentence!).

Homosexuality (for the most part) isn't a choice. I'll admit that there are the teens who try to fit into a crowd by pretending to have a different sexual preference, but the vast majority of adults are of their physiological sexual preference. The greatest testament to this the the fact that the closer you are, genetically, to someone else, the more likely you'll be of the same sexual preference.

You obviously haven't read my previous posts, because I've already addressed the child rearing aspect of this. I welcome specific retorts to my claims, but we've since past the time for the blanket statement you made.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KageShadowlance



Posts : 17
Join date : 2010-06-17

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:49 pm

Well, I was adding my thoughts on child rearing because of that. And I am a Christian. I do not believe that they should be put to death for it, nor does the bible say it in the new testament. Most of the Old Testament teaching were canceled as being the law, which was signified by the breaking of the curtain in the temple when Jesus was crucified, though now religion is off topic. Would be happy to debate it in another thread though.

I realize that many people believe that homosexuality is not a choice, but is programed by genetics. So far I have not seen anything that proves this point as credible. If you could please explain how this works, I would be interested greatly and would have a response.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:08 am

I will have to disagree with you assessment of the New Testament: Romans 1:26–32. And I think religion, in regard to homosexuality, is on topic in this thread. If we went off and debated whether God exists, then it's time for another thread; however, we are discussion what a particular religion has to say about the topic of the thread. To move this would be like saying we need to move it to a science-based thread, because I brought in a peer reviewed article.

As for the mechanism by which homosexuality is not a choice, my understanding is that it's a combination of genetics and hormonal influence.
There is no "gay gene", but there is a genetic component. Our genes work in a co-operative fashion, and a bit of chaos theory comes into play at this point. When a number of individual genes work together in certain ways, they create a function; thus, it's possible to have a certain trait that is dependent on a combination of genes instead of a single one. This is where homosexuality may lay: it is a combination of various genes. And these genes have an evolutionary advantage (in a sense). The more people you have raising a single child, the more likely that child is to be well-fed and taken care of. Now, imagine in tribal times: your sibling is gay, and doesn't want to do the process of having a child themselves. This means they are likely to help care for your child. You did not inherit all the genes necessary for homosexuality to kick in, but you almost assuredly inherited some, and then passed those on to your child, who has a better chance of surviving and being healthy because of a large number of caregivers; thus, some parts of homosexuality combination are likely to be kept in the population as a whole.
The hormonal is simply the amount of different hormones you get — especially during development in the womb. An anecdotal instance where this can be seen is on a fashion show my sister watches. She said that there was a gay guy who had AIDS, and to make himself healthy enough to appear on the show, he was given a testosterone shot. In the very beginning of the show, he was a very macho man, but as time went on, and the shot wore off, he became more and more effeminate. This is the reason gay guys are typically more effeminate and lesbians are more butch: homosexual males have more estrogen than average; homosexual females have more testosterone than average.
There are, as with every generalization about people, going to be exceptions, but this is a very brief overview of what I know on the subject; though, I am, by no means, an authority on the matter.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KageShadowlance



Posts : 17
Join date : 2010-06-17

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:46 am

Well let me explain Romans 1 to you. It starts with greeting and then an encouragement to have faith, for that leads to righteousness. In 18 he goes and states, simply, God gave the sinful people of the world a second chance, but they turned their backs on god, so eventually it will get to the point where he does not bother telling them it is wrong, as they will continue doing it anyways. 28: "Furthermore, 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." this says that the people who sin did not care what God wanted and said was right. It also says that he allowed their minds to create justifications as for why what is wrong is wrong. 29-31 explains what types of people fit in the category of 28. 32 says that though they know it is wrong in the eyes of God, they continue to promote it and allow themselves to be blinded, and that they deserve death for their wrongdoings, and yet don't care.

This passage nearly predicts what has happened: that is chaos theory and evolution leading to it not being wrong, and that is an explanation and a promotion of it being alright, which is what is stated.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:22 am

Right... so... they deserve death. Not only that, it seems I would fit into the "have pleasure in them that do them" category, so deserve death by extension. I'm glad we both agree that it states "that they which commit such things are worthy of death".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
KageShadowlance



Posts : 17
Join date : 2010-06-17

PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:30 pm

Correct. People who don't find it wrong are worthy of death, not in a physical sense but death as in going to hell.

My religion believes that "the wages of sin is death" and people who believe in him "will not perish but have everlasting life."

Believing in God is a conscious choice that is for everyone to make. If they make what I believe to be the wrong choice, I can give them my views and beliefs and that is all I can do. Pressuring will not change it.

Yes, I believe that people who agree with a gay/lesbian/bisexual lifestyle are wrong and are sinning greatly, and that most of them will pay the ultimate price, but it is not my place to judge them.

I guess where I am trying to go is that the real Gay Rights debate is not so much on if it should be allowed or not, what it is about is that people without the religious perspective of Christianity, Judaism, and a few others, if they love each other they should be together.

If it were not in the bible that it is wrong, I would have no problem with it. The fact that it is in there, and that I believe the bible to be the ultimate truth, is what makes me believe it is wrong, and not want it to become a law and enable sin to spread.

If it does not become a law, then it will continue to happen. I will say this though, eventually it will prevail and I will not be able to stop it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gay Rights   

Back to top Go down
 
Gay Rights
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» RENTERS RIGHTS TO OWN THE HOUSE AFTER 5 YEARS
» Walls - the legalities of the wall being yours or theirs, and rights??

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Honorable Warriors :: Philosophy, Religion, and Politics-
Jump to: