Controversial Topics-Abortion

[Tonberry_Kid]

Ok, I would like to discuss certain topics each week. Each Sunday I will change the topic. Allowing that this stays open. Anyways, the topic of this week is, Gay Marriage.
Do you think it is alright to discriminate against them?
Do you agree with the law?
Do you disagree with the law?
Any comments are welcome and discussion is greatly wanted. But before I finish, I would greatly appreciate it if people laid off on the homophobe stuff please. Gays are people to and they shouldn't be made fun of.

[esupin]

RE: Controversial Topics

Did you know MTV is making a gay network called Logo(Rolling Stone)? Strange, huh? I don't know if this will take off like Spike TV and Oxygen did, though.
Also, did you know that many Japanese samurai were gay (I was watching a documentary on PBS) due to the fact that they were not allowed to be with women?

I personally think that marriage is between a man and a woman, so I am not in favor of the law. Don't get me wrong, though; I have no issues whatsoever with gay people, I just don't think they should be married.

I am annoyed by these inflexible religious folk who are vehemently opposed to gays in general. I respect their opinion, but they do not have the right to tell them to "burn in hell."

[The_Q]

RE: Controversial Topics

In 2001 I went to my church's "General Assembly" in Kansas City. Among the many things discussed was the ordination of gay ministers (which has yet to be decided on. Our current stance is "whatever"). Outside the convention center was a group of activists holding signs that read "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Burn In Hell." There were children my age in the mob. One was interviewed and got on the news later that night. She said, through her sweet smile and pretty dress, that they were obligated to "communicate God's perfect hatred." This disgusts me. Not only are they tainting the youth by teaching them to not think but they are inflexible and horrible enough to not think on their own themselves. It is these people that make me embarassed to be called a Christian.

I think gay marriage is great. There should be no law against it. There's no reason to have a law against it. The Bible may say something against gays but it also says something for them. It says they are forgiven of their sins. Just like I am. If there is a law passed against gay marriage, that is the blending of church and state. We'd run into problems there.

To get into a more political view of things, the government should not be allowed the ability to take away a person's right to liberty. If a gay wishes to marry, let him or her marry.

I apologize for bringing religion into this, but it was going to happen anyway. I might as well bring my religious views onto the table. Other Christians, please do not battle me for this. This is a discussion board, not a war board.

Q

[Tps222]

RE: Controversial Topics

It has no effect on my life, so I don't see why not. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and the government shouldn't have the power to tell you otherwise.

[AlbinoLime]

RE: Controversial Topics

I always see people on the news that are holding those signs that say marriage is between one man and one woman, but there are people who are married to more than one woman. I'm pretty sure there are people in the bible that had more than one wife. And besides, the Christian religion isn't the only religion that has marriage, so why should they be the main religion to say who marries who?

[jewpinthethird]

Re: RE: Controversial Topics

I am so burnt out on this topic. Actually, I am so burnt out over arguing over this topic. I cant believe there are people out there who believe God wants them to deny people happiness.

I am for Gay marriage. Why? Because I havent been given a reason as to why it is bad that makes logical sense.

Seriously, someone give me a reason why gays should not be allowed to marry that doesnt involve: Jesus, God, the "sanctity of marriage*" or any other bullshit reason that doesnt have any effect outside of it's own little fantasy world.

* Sanctity of marriage: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman." -George W. Bush (www.whitehouse.gov)

Sacred: Worthy of religious veneration

Seperation of Church and State "wall of separation" (First Amendment).

[User6773]

RE: Controversial Topics

1) Gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights or discrimination. It is an issue of a certain group of people wanting to redefine marriage because they do not care to participate in it under the current definition. The current marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation - they simply say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not between a straight man and a straight woman. Gay people are not denied the right to marry. Two gay people could even marry each other, as long as it's a gay man and a gay woman. Because of this, it is unfair to say that gay people are being denied rights in this country.

To support gay marriage, therefore, is to attest to the following:
--That all human adults have the right to marry.
--That a significant number of adults do not wish to marry.
--That the definition of marriage should be changed so that, under the new definition of marriage, those adults who formerly did not wish to marry will now want to do so.

Considering the above, read on:

2) The institution of marriage developed in society because humans are naturally monogamous creatures, and it was quickly realized that the best environment for raising children is a two-parent family - one man, one woman. It was simply a good idea in the natural course of societal evolution to create a social institution to recognize this and sanction the production of the family. Heterosexual intercourse is a naturally procreative act. Thus, the primary purpose of marriage is to establish a foundation upon which to build a family.

3) Gay people are fond of making the point that there are many married couples that are barren, infertile, or simply have no desire to have children. The existance of such couples does not change the nature of marriage, nor does it change the naturally procreative nature of the act these couples engage in.

4) The pleasurable nature of sexual intercourse is necessary for the survival of the species. It is the brain's way of rewarding you for attempting to create a child. This is simple animal instinct at work here. Because it is pleasurable to attempt to create a child, people will want to make such attempts as often as possible. Many will even want to fool the brain into thinking they are doing so when they in fact are not, simply to receive the "reward" stimulus. Because so many people do so, it is important to remove the pleasurable nature of intercourse from the act itself.

Heterosexual couples very frequently engage in a naturally procreative act. Even couples that are infertile or do not wish to have children still engage in this act. Homosexual couples not only do not, but cannot. The act they partake in is naturally barren, in stark contrast to the natural fecundity of the heterosexual act.

5) Marriage is built upon, and relies upon the fecundity of sexual intercourse. There are already social institutions for love, or even physical pleasure. This is why we have terms like "boyfriend", "girlfriend", "lover", "fiancee", "friend with benefits", etc. Even "life partner" - a term used by both heterosexuals and homosexuals who do not wish to marry. Simply because these institutions are not officially recognized by the government does not mean that they are not already respected social institutions.

6) Once again, the exceptions to the above rules do not change the nature of the rules themselves. Just because people can get pregnant outside of marriage does not change the fact that marriage was made for getting pregnant, or vice versa.

7) Given the above, I see it as extremely dangerous for a society that is quickly losing its values to suggest that marriage is not the supreme environment in which to create, bear, and raise children. To redefine marriage would be to say as a society that bearing children is not the ultimate reason for marriage. To make such a statement in any way is something I do not think we can or should do.

Aside: The tax break issue (which I know will be brought up eventually) is a poor argument. The reason the government gives a tax break to married couples is because they assume the couple will eventually bear children (most do), and they think it is important to create a stable financial base for those children.

Aside to Q: These people you refer to do not represent Christianity. They do not make me ashamed to be Christian. They make me angry that they are calling themselves Christian. I think my religious views on this subject would taint these otherwise secular arguments, so I'll leave them out of this. If you're really curious, I can go into them but it takes a much longer and more in-depth post than this.

But I can't help but say this: God hates nobody.

[Tonberry_Kid]

RE: Controversial Topics

But, still shouldn't people have the right to marry someone of the same sex? I mean, if they want children, they could always adopt. There are many children who need to be adopted. So if you allow gays to marry, there would be less children in orphanages because they want a child of their own. And the fact of physical pleasure. Not everyone gets married because the sex is good. hey marry because they love that person. I consider this act an act of discrimination, which by the way, the government is trying to abolish. But yet they are keeping it there. Seriously though, the religious part of this is, the people who were interpreting what God was saying about marriages and such, could have misunderstood Him and written that way. But that is just my opinion.

If you guys want, I could change the subject soon.

[FishFishRevolution]

RE: Controversial Topics

I've never seen citing the Bible as a sound arguement. It's been translated and translated so many times it's not what it used to say anymore. You ever try typing something in a BabelFish translator, reverse it a couple times and see what happens? Look at this.

"You and I should go to the park today."
Turned from English to Japanese less than ten times.
"When that parks, go to the presently in regard to me."

It loses its original meaning entirely.

Not to mention, that the modern day New Testament was compliled by a Pagan.

Also, no one has the right to do God's will. Thoughs of this nature often lead to extreme actions taken because the individual believes they are backed by a higher authority than anything on Earth. If God wants something done, I'm sure he's perfectly capable of coming here and doing it himself. Before that, mind your own business when it doesn't concern you. (I'm not sure who "you" is. Probably people who think they have the right to do God's will.)

[Cenright]

Re: RE: Controversial Topics

I've never seen citing the Bible as a sound arguement. It's been translated and translated so many times it's not what it used to say anymore. You ever try typing something in a BabelFish translator, reverse it a couple times and see what happens? Look at this.

"You and I should go to the park today."
Turned from English to Japanese less than ten times.
"When that parks, go to the presently in regard to me."

It loses its original meaning entirely.

Since there still is the Greek Septuigant from the original Hebrew, There is only really two translations to English. Besides. You are letting a computer translate for you. Someone who knows both of these languages is translating them, so the Idea the person is trying to get across is the same, so there won't be any loss of thought, like a computer would have it. This is also a reason why I don't use the King James Version.

You have to remember that to keep the peasanty from being able to read the bible, the kept it in Latin, so actually, that is only one more language of translation. If you look at the difference between the Greek and the Latin translations, there is actually pretty close translation.



Also, Japanese is on the opposite side of the Language tree than English. If you translated French, German, Dutch, Danish, Swiss, or any other european or middle-east language, you would get much less loss in translation.

[Linkisdoomed]

RE: Re: RE: Controversial Topics

First off, I don't support Gay marriage. It doesnt seem right for girls to be with other girls, and guys to be with other guys. I have guy friends, but I don't think about them in a sexual manor like I'd want to live with them. I really don't know what I should say for the girls, but Lesbians are not meant for me.

I go by a New International Version of the Bible, and I've started reading it from the beginning of Genisis. I haven't gotten far. I know the basic stuff in the bible though. I do ponder a lot about this topic though, and I've gotten some good answers from myself.

If you watch Blue Collar TV any, they talk a lot about their relationships with their family and their wifes. They say. I'll finish this later. I gotta shut down my computer because ligtning just struck.

-Mr. 1up-

[Tonberry_Kid]

RE: Re: RE: Controversial Topics

Well, think about this.

How would you feel, if by law, you were not allowed to marry the person you love?

I would be pissed off beyond all belief. Marriage is supposed to be the bondage between to people who love each other.

[esupin]

RE: Re: RE: Controversial Topics

Well, believe it or not arranged marriages is a commonplace in many parts of the world. One Indian kid I know has an arranged wife(oO), which he will meet once he graduates high school and goes back to India.

[Sera13]

RE: Re: RE: Controversial Topics

Theres actual clinical studies showing that gay mean and gay women cannot control being gay.For many years theres been the arguement of "well, they should just be normal and like the opposite sex." However being attracted to someone is not based on simple looks and charm. Scientists associate pheromone,odor produced by an animal that affects the behavior of other animals, with sexual attraction. The way pheromones work is analogous to the way hormones in the body send specific chemical signals from one set of cells to another, causing them to perform a certain action. This means that humans can affect each other's behavior (including sexual behavior) by secreting odors, pheromones. In one set of studies Gay men and woman who were exposed to pheromons of the same(but straight) sex, were turned on the most than the pheromons of other gays or the opposite sex. this study was done without the subjects knowing what pheromon was who'se. Concluding that Gays are not gay by choice but by nature.

I believe that taking somthing that is completely natural and saying "you cant do that." is Wrong. That would be like saying "your not allowed to eat, or drink, or sleep." you just cant help it. By condoning the marriage of the opposite sexes, is there by saying its ok to marry, and the gay community should have the same privalges. Love is not based around looks and material things and by saying to people of the same sex cant marry is simply degrading love between ANY two people.

Even more so, A law on gay marriage has nothing to do with "the bible said so" becuase there is what should be a clear and ovbious seperation between church and state, by saying you cant marry gays whether it be morals, religion or any such thing, they are blatently violating that law.

My last and final statement is as follows: If america is the free country in which it claims to be, it would not restrick love between any two people bnecuase of things like race, gender, or creed.

[Tonberry_Kid]

RE: Re: RE: Controversial Topics

That was just totally pwnd by Sera. Nice. Anyways, seeing is how I'm going to be leaving town for awhile in the next day or so, I'm going to change the topic. It'll be in the title so I don't have to repeat it.

We are going to now talk about abortion(being that the mods and admins close this topic )
Do you think it's right?
Do you think it should be used as a means of birth control?
What times do you think abortion COULD be considered OK?
Do you think it should be against the law?