What if Jesus was gay?

[N1ghtmare]

How is marriage about procreation? Nowhere when getting married do you promise to procreate. You promise to be with that person forever and to love them, whether you procreate or not.

I personally do not plan to get married for the purpose of procreating. If I get married, its because I love that person. If I have kids, kewl, if I do not, no biggie. To me children has nothing to do with the act of getting married. Do I think kids are better off with stable mother + father relationship? Of course. But society allows people to have kids without being married, and for kids to be raised by one parent. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't deny that. Some people are very prone to violence, murder, and any other number of anti-social behaviors. Shall we allow those too because it's 'how they were born'? Of course we don't. Every person has objective morality placed into them (we all would agree that murder is wrong, that hitting a baby is also bad no matter the culture). This helps provide the litmus test in our minds to decide what's good and what's not.

Now before you quote me again out of context let me clearly say I am not equating gay with murder, I'm just using a strong analogous argument. The same thing could be said of left-handed people or gingers but it doesn't carry a negative impact like extremely anti-social behavior does.

But in a way you are equating them, as if being Gay or having Gay marriage causes society some harm. Does it?

Economically, no. More people married = more couples compiling their wealth and buying **** to live better. In fact, it helps the economy. Why else would married couples get tax benefits? Because the state wants people to be married because it gets them to spend money and turn the economy.

What else does gay marriage do to hurt society? Does it somehow teach kids to become more/less gay? No, this is not even physically or biologically possible. You are born destined to become straight or not. Even studies on separated identical twins show that many of them ended up in the same occupation and married people with the same name. Guess what? You are hardwired from birth to love certain people, male or female. That cannot be changed, whether you learn that so called 'gay' people exist or not. Teaching your kids about gay people will not make them gay. So no, this does not 'harm' society either [this is assuming that being gay is a problem in the first place, which it is not].

Would kids raised under gays be worse off than kids raised by man+woman? Studies show no real difference by adopted children under gay parents, and we allow in society kids to be raised by single parents, so this cannot be a harm either.

So what are you getting at? How exactly does gay marriage itself, by itself, harm society? If you want to claim it is a slippery slope to other things, then there must be something wrong with the core principle of the issue (ex: being against wire tapping out of principle that it can lead to other forms of spying [not to spark a debate here but trying to clarify what I mean by principle]). So what do you feel is wrong with the principle of gay marriage?

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Originally Posted by gopostal

To no big surprise the endeavor is full of contradictions from the outset.

but it's not.

only in your eyes (and people like you) are there issues and contradictions.
to normal people, gay marriage is as simple as straight marriage.

'how they were born'

you're doing it again.
this false equivalency bull****. I don't know why you're so hung up on it.

homosexuality - as an anomaly of the brain - is not the least bit comparable to legitimate psychopathology. someone who is prone to murder or rape is seriously sick. yes, they might also have just been born that way, but their choice behavior actually causes others harm and injury.

homosexuals were born that way, but their behavior does not actually cause harm or injury to other people.

I am not equating gay with murder, I'm just using a strong analogous argument. The same thing could be said of left-handed people or gingers but it doesn't carry a negative impact like extremely anti-social behavior does.

you're digging yourself a hole out of which you won't be able to climb... at least not with any dignity left.

your "analogous argument" is not strong.
homosexuality does compare with murder on any level whatsoever. your argument is petty and weak.

homosexuality is not "extremely anti-social behavior."
that's just plain stupid. you're doubling-down on ignorance.

Do you have children? What if they were diagnosed with Asperger's? Would you not take them to a therapist to make them better? By your logic that would be wrong because they were 'born that way'.

you're doing it again.
false equivalency bull****.

the reason you take your developmentally challenged child to a doctor is because we already know that medicine and therapy can help improve the condition. we also know that it won't fundamentally destroy the person's self-esteem and cause them to live a life full of lies and confusion and agony.

there's nothing to "improve" in homosexuals.
it's not a "condition" that can be treated. we already know that when you force homosexuals into this type of therapy it virtually NEVER changes them and it definitely causes great mental anguish and confusion that can haunt them for their entire lives.

homosexuals who have been forced into these pseudo-scientific "turn straight" programs committ suicide at much, MUCH higher rates than anyone else who has ever had to undergo mental behavioral therapy.

We can debate without trying to paint the other in an unflattering light. I'm just asking questions and telling why I think like I do. I don't think any less of you as a person because you think differently than me.

that's fine and all, but I'm sorry; I do think less of people like you.
you're on the wrong side of reality. you're going to be on the wrong side of history. and I feel sorry that your children may have to grow up listening to your warped ideas and adopting your bigotry.

homosexuals are just people who deserve their pursuit of happiness.
their behavior causes no one any harm and doesn't threaten the fabric of society.

I suggest you listen to this.

[gopostal]

I watched that Jacks and it just made me...sad, I guess. This Zach kid obviously feels kinship with his sister because they are both "from the same anonymous donor". I'm to believe that he feels comfort to have true familial kinship with a sister, but he's perfectly fine with not knowing his (their) Father and having that same relationship? No way. Pick a better demonstration video because this one only confirms how I feel.

You said

you're doing it again.
false equivalency bull****.

the reason you take your developmentally challenged child to a doctor is because we already know that medicine and therapy can help improve the condition. we also know that it won't fundamentally destroy the person's self-esteem and cause them to live a life full of lies and confusion and agony.

Self-esteem has nothing to do with this. You said gays were born this way and I should respect that. If my child is born challenged then why is it different to change that? Oh, I get it. Because you WANT that, and so we circle back to that precept once again. Nature means for them to be one way but you elect to alter things to suit how you think they should be.

Now I do not disagree with trying to improve a challenged kid's situation but I think it's important to call it what it is. You have an idea how you want the child to be and you are moving it forward towards that ideal. If you didn't want that, it likely wouldn't happen and the child would suffer for it, though he would remain true to his natural state.

@N1ghtmare
I don't dislike someone for sexual preference and in fact I'm pretty liberally bent. I live on the west coast in a VERY liberal 'artsy' area with a lot of alternative lifestyle families. This isn't a personal axe I'm trying to grind, it's a defense of my feelings about the matter only. I didn't intend for this to become all versus me (what happened to TWD? I thought you guys liked apologetics?) but that's fine. I'm just sorry I can't respond to everyone. Any are free to email me and I'd even meet you on TS or land-line to discuss further one-on-one.

Let me put it like this N1ghtmare...I'm married. Got a great wife, she teaches school. For all intents it's a normal nuclear family. Now, does my biology tell me that other women are attractive? Sure does. But is it logical for me to run around on my wife? Never mind right vs. wrong, I'm just hitting on the logic of it. It would be a terribly illogical decision to get a girlfriend. I stand to lose too much. So it's correct to say that even with emotion and morality removed it's still not OK to cheat on my wife.

Now apply those same rules to same sex marriage. It's morally wrong, the vast majority of society past and present would attest to that. Only in the last generation has society begun to tolerate it and this is mostly due to vigorous pro-gay attacks like Chik Fil A is currently enduring.

Is it logical? No, it's not. It's not the natural order of things. It does happen in nature, sure, but is this considered deviation-from-a-norm or aberrant? I think that's pretty obvious. Nature demands a male and a female to create offspring. Tweak all you want with medical procedure but stripped to it's core it's still nature's way. That's because it's logical.

BTW, there is a growing backlash in the thought that kids of same-sex parents are as fine as everyone thought:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-from-experts/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/1...ly-fare-worse/
From the article:

Adult children of lesbian mothers were more likely than children of hetero parents to cheat on their own partners, smoke marijuana and get arrested. Grimly, an eye-opening 23% of respondents whose mother had had a lesbian relationship said they had been abused sexually by a parent or adult caregiver, as opposed to 2% of children of hetero couples. (The study stresses, however, that it would be wrong to conclude from its data that the abuser was necessarily the mother or her partner, or that the abuse had anything to do with the parent’s sexual orientation.)

This is two reviews of the same study (I'm currently reading the study in-depth now) and I have some concerns but I think it stands as a good first look.

[Vaskadar]

Originally Posted by gopostal

Nature demands a male and a female to create offspring.

The above statement is false. Whip-tail lizards are all female. There are hermaphroditic species too, such as the tripod fish. Let's not forget the asexual microorganisms and worms. Plants are self-reproducing. Hammerhead sharks and black-tip sharks also do not require a male to reproduce. Numerous species of insect can reproduce without fertilization, various reptiles, fish, and even a few species of bird reproduce via parthenogenesis. So no, nature does not demand a male and female as requisites to create offspring. Your wife is a biology teacher. You can ask her about this.

So what really irks you about homosexuality anyhow? I personally don't give a damn what they do, but I find it hard to grasp intolerance. Intolerance itself is a source of conflict.

[cryptophreak]

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

we can't guarantee that incestuous couples won't have children.

We also can't guarantee that homosexuals won't **** donkeys. Weak argument is weak. Which makes this all the more horrifying:

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not apply to incest.

I'm still pretty sure the real reason you want incest to remain banned is because you think it's gross. Which is healthy, but not conducive to the furtherance of tolerance.

Originally Posted by gopostal

Marriage has always and will always be about family and procreation. You cannot redefine it, you can only seek to create an alternative and that's what is happening.

You can redefine it and that has already happened. Read the bible and discover that marriage now is nothing like it used to be.

Bonus tip: Not all people with autism spectrum disorders need to be made 'better'.

[Bi()ha2arD]

Originally Posted by Vaskadar

The above statement is false. Whip-tail lizards are all female. There are hermaphroditic species too, such as the tripod fish. Let's not forget the asexual microorganisms and worms. Plants are self-reproducing. Hammerhead sharks and black-tip sharks also do not require a male to reproduce. Numerous species of insect can reproduce without fertilization, various reptiles, fish, and even a few species of bird reproduce via parthenogenesis. So no, nature does not demand a male and female as requisites to create offspring. Your wife is a biology teacher. You can ask her about this.

So what really irks you about homosexuality anyhow? I personally don't give a damn what they do, but I find it hard to grasp intolerance. Intolerance itself is a source of conflict.

On top of that, a whole bunch of animals are homosexual. Monkeys have gay sex all the time to relieve social tensions and stress.
Giraffes are gay. Lions are gay. Dolphins are gay. Tons more are gay. Nature is gay. Deal with it.

[gopostal]

Originally Posted by Vaskadar

So what really irks you about homosexuality anyhow? I personally don't give a damn what they do, but I find it hard to grasp intolerance. Intolerance itself is a source of conflict.

Irks is not the right word. It's like saying that whatever opposing view you have on capital punishment 'irks' you. It's more a defense of a position that you have and that's what I've been striving to do here. Someone's personal choice is not my business, I do respect your rights to live as you want but that does not preclude me from liking it or thinking it is immoral and illogical.

You guys think it's a path where I sit on the moral high ground and just denounce everyone else as 'lost'? Ask any true Christian what it's really like to accept the fact that the Law damns me every day and that no work I will ever do can change that. I see it as aside from Forgiveness there is no hope at all. It's easy to sit in your chair, dismiss Faith as silly, and move on with your life. I chose to deeply explore myself and my beliefs and came out the other side with answers I have looked for all my life. Take care before you dismiss my views that you understand the impact it has on my life and the profound weight you bear by accepting Christianity. It's certainly not easy, but it's not supposed to be.

Anyway, back to where we were.

Originally Posted by Bi()ha2arD

Nature is gay. Deal with it.

There's also lots of unneeded violence/killing, rape, and cannibalism. Lions eat their young, the list goes on and on. Shall we also apply those since they happen with equal frequency?
According to geneticist Simon Levay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay )

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

He's done years of research on this. And he's openly gay.

Now for a more personal turn.

Originally Posted by cryptophreak

Bonus tip: Not all people with autism spectrum disorders need to be made 'better'.

A few people who are long time members (and friends of mine) in the unreal community know this. I was diagnosed with Asperger's but it should come as no surprise to most. I've often been labeled the outcast and I've had many issues with multiple people in the community (see my sig). Most everything though has been my fault and I've quietly tried to make amends for the pain I caused. Getting the diagnosis was both devastating and freeing. It told me why I did things the way that I did but better yet how to improve myself socially. It's not easy but no way could I have dealt with this on my own and turning my life over has been the best decision I've ever made.
Anyway the point is I have reference in what has been discussed. I know first hand what it feels like to be 'broken'. It sucks dude, but you work with what you have.

Lastly

Originally Posted by Vaskadar

Intolerance itself is a source of conflict.

You are changing the nature of my argument for me. I never said I'm intolerant, nor did I assert that anything should happen to gays or that they be treated any differently than anyone else. They have no less rights because they live an alternative lifestyle. I only said I disagree with it and here are the reasons why. Pro gay seems to always try to paint Christians as intolerant because it's hard to defend. Show me where I've been intolerant.

Adjective: Not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

To the contrary, I WANT to hear your views and I WANT you to convince me I'm wrong.

[N1ghtmare]

Originally Posted by gopostal

@N1ghtmare


Let me put it like this N1ghtmare...I'm married. Got a great wife, she teaches school. For all intents it's a normal nuclear family. Now, does my biology tell me that other women are attractive? Sure does. But is it logical for me to run around on my wife? Never mind right vs. wrong, I'm just hitting on the logic of it. It would be a terribly illogical decision to get a girlfriend. I stand to lose too much. So it's correct to say that even with emotion and morality removed it's still not OK to cheat on my wife.

Now apply those same rules to same sex marriage. It's morally wrong, the vast majority of society past and present would attest to that. Only in the last generation has society begun to tolerate it and this is mostly due to vigorous pro-gay attacks like Chik Fil A is currently enduring.

Is it logical? No, it's not. It's not the natural order of things. It does happen in nature, sure, but is this considered deviation-from-a-norm or aberrant? I think that's pretty obvious. Nature demands a male and a female to create offspring. Tweak all you want with medical procedure but stripped to it's core it's still nature's way. That's because it's logical.

The moral issue you proposed is cheating on your wife, which is considered morally wrong. But this does not mean that being in a gay relationship is cheating. Two gay people may be perfectly loyal to each other. Two gay people may not be loyal, and sleep around and that is considered morally wrong. but whether you cheat on your partner has nothing to do with whether you are gay or not.

But again, what else do you propose if "it is not the natural order of things"? Should we not allow them to marry for this reason alone? What will they do with themselves? They are not attracted to the opposite sex, and if they do get themselves into a heterosexual relationship it will be based upon lies and ultimately not fair to either side, as true love will not exist. Do we let them hang around and not marry anyone, wallowing in their misery for having been born gay? Nature demands children being born in the sense that evolution demands that only the fit species will bear children for the continuation of the species. Yet there is no historical evidence that shows that this has been a problem in the past, nor is there any evidence that the continuation of the human race is in jeopardy if the 5-10% of people who are gay do not bother reproducing.

As for children on gay couples:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/amicus29.pdf
See section IV. This document is the amicus brief given to the California courts over the proposition 8 case a few years back.

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/...%20%281%29.pdf
The Canadian psychological association agrees as well.

[Firefly]

To be disloyal is to cheat.
It has nothing to do with sexuality.

[Capt.Toilet]

[gopostal]

Originally Posted by N1ghtmare

But this does not mean that being in a gay relationship is cheating.

I didn't say that. I asserted that cheating on my wife would be illogical, and here's why. Then I said that I felt homosexuality was illogical and here's why. They are independent of each other and only share being not logical (in my eyes). Although the facet of sexual practice in same-sex couples has some fascinating studies done I felt it would be too inflammatory to include into this discussion and I purposely avoided it.

Originally Posted by Firefly

To be disloyal is to cheat.
It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Couldn't have said it better. That's what I was getting at.

Originally Posted by N1ghtmare

But again, what else do you propose if "it is not the natural order of things"?

Nothing. I'm not the arbiter of right and wrong for you, only for me. Like I said I don't condemn anyone. This discussion was only whether someone was correct in the "pro" position. I will say though that many, many people live in bad marriages and cheat on their wives (between 25 and 72%, the figure varies wildly depending on the study). True love does not exist there but society tends to stay out of these too, leaving it to the couple to work out. Now the argument can be made that this has a downward effect on society with the high divorce rate and children with behavior problems but that's not really where we are plugging away. I think we would all agree that cheating on your spouse (gay or not) is immoral. That's the crux of the argument and nothing more: Is some behavior 'wrong', and if so then why?

BTW there has been some interesting data collected in the guessing of the number of LGBT population. Most people guess way too high, though your figure seems pretty close:
http://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2012/1...on-is-gay.html
It jumped from around 2% to around 8% in two studies separated by 16 years. Anyway my point is it's nice to see accurate figures posted by a proponent. Usually this requires a page or two to work out for people but you have your facts straight.

As for your studies, if I may I'd like to take a mulligan just for today. I promise you I'll open the links and read them by tonight and respond tomorrow. I've heard reports that the Japanese tsunami wreckage has started showing up so this afternoon we are going to hit the beach and see. There has already been a large dock show up:
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/t...5223e679c.html

[phil]

To no one in particular:

If you can't understand why marriage between two adults is different than marriage between adults and children, animals, and/or inanimate objects (I'm looking at you BBA with your wifu pillow), you are an idiot who is ignoring reality and you are not worth arguing with. You are a regressive douche who will constantly find your arguments on this subject a unending retreat and grasp at straws as society progresses forward leaving you in the bronze age with your "morality" which is really just a nice way of prejudices. People like you always lose in a free and democratic society in the long term because your argument is based in uneducated bull****, hate, and short sighted observation. I honestly don't understand why the rest of you pamper these people and entertain their thoughts that this is even a real debate and that they really have a chance to win. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

[Firefly]

Personal choice: as long as no one gets hurt then I can't see any problem.

[Zur]

You have it all wrong. Marriage is like the taxman. It's about introducing a third player into two-player relationship. Plus religion obviously doesn't like women being able to influence men, proof being how priests are almost all exclusively men. If women have it bad with islam it's for similar reasons.

[Hadmar]

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

incest is fundamentally against the laws of nature.

Seems like you don't know that Incest happens in nature. Now you do.

[Vaskadar]

From a genetic standpoint, incest is counter-productive to diversifying the gene-pool. That's my argument against allowing closely-related relatives to have kids. Same goes for parthenogenesis, though.

Fun fact: Worms in proximity of Chernobyl's radiation turned from asexual to sexual reproduction due to the necessities of genetic diversification in a hostile environment.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Originally Posted by Hadmar

Seems like you don't know that Incest happens in nature.

of course I know that incest occurs in nature.
so does homosexuality.

the difference is that homosexuality doesn't produce genetic corruption that leads to debilitating disorders.

Originally Posted by gopostal

I'm to believe that he feels comfort to have true familial kinship with a sister, but he's perfectly fine with not knowing his (their) Father and having that same relationship? No way. Pick a better demonstration video because this one only confirms how I feel.

what??

ok.
you're a ****ing idiot.
this conversation is over.

just remember where you were in 25 years.
the wrong side of history. the wrong side of reality. gays are going to get married and there's nothing your ignorance can do to stop it.

people like you just need to die off before this world and this species can move forward.

Originally Posted by cryptophreak

We also can't guarantee that homosexuals won't **** donkeys. Weak argument is weak.

you're acting like a moron now.
I'm not going to address this Strawman crap.

[Tooly]

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

people like you just need to die off before this world and this species can move forward.

AMEN!!!

[cryptophreak]

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

****ing idiot

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

people like you just need to die

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

moron

Holy **** dude. Drink some cognac and listen to Louis Armstrong. Look at this woman and touch yourself.

[Firefly]

Jacks, other people's ignorance isn't worth losing your rag over. Stupid, narrow minded people will always be stupid and narrow minded.

I work with a Muslim who hails from Kenya and they still believe that homosexuals choose to be gay. The same people also do not believe that evolution happens. For example the dinosaurs, "the scientists weren't there so how do they know?". Fossils apparently were planted by god.