Quoting:

On the same line of thinking, why is it okay for men to see 2 girls together, but 2 men is disgusting?  Neither one bothers me. ???
End Quote

Two of the same thing we like and the other are two of the same thing we don't. I would think that homosexual males like to see two other men together because that's what they like. It's a visual thing. Most males are triggered by the visual (both hetero and homo) and possess the same sexual drive, they just like different things, that's all.

I'm in favour of same-sex unions, so that they may get the same benefits as spouses and family members when it comes to life insurance, health, etc. I don't think there are that many churches out there that'll perform and sanction it, but then, religion is separate from government, right? So they can judge whatever they want as long as it doesn't disrupt anyone's harmless and consensual way of life.

Quoting:
Ok people, if you went to your Bible and read the book of Leviticus, you would see that God condemns homosexuality, just as he does murder, stealing, idolatry, etc.  And if you remember the story of Lot, God destroyed Sodom & Gomora because it was a homosexual community.  
End Quote

And if you would read your new testament, you would see that we are all sinners and we do not judge. That is for God to decide. "Jesus loves the lost lamb the most."

Quoting:
Ok people, if you went to your Bible and read the book of Leviticus, you would see that God condemns homosexuality, just as he does murder, stealing, idolatry, etc.  And if you remember the story of Lot, God destroyed Sodom & Gomora because it was a homosexual community.  
End Quote

And the rest of us don't care for Semitic myths and fictional characters passing judgment on others.

Quoting:


And the rest of us don't care for Semitic myths and fictional characters passing judgment on others.
End Quote

But we still respect your beliefs and your choice to believe in certain teachings.  Just don't force it upon us.

Quoting:
if you tell a gay or lesbian that they're behaviour is "ok" then you might as well tell a murderer to keep on killin.
End Quote

Look at this statement and tell me that it makes sense.  That monogomous homosexuality is equal to an ax murderer.  Let me ask you this, if you had to choose between living next door to a homosexual or ax murderer, which would you choose?

Quoting:
... some sins aren't as bad as others, but if you tell a gay or lesbian that they're behaviour is "ok" then you might as well tell a murderer to keep on killin.
End Quote

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies I've read in a while. I'd also like to point out that this statement reeks of contradiction. First, this poster goes on to write, "Some sins aren't as bad as others." Then goes on to compare homosexuals with murderers!

Quoting:
As a Christian I have been told by Jesus love everyone. So I do.

Two of my very good gal friends are in love....with each other. They know I love them. I don't judge them. I may not agree with what they do, but who am I? Just a sinner. Make sense?




End Quote

Same here.  While I don't agree with the lifestyle and would not choose it for myself, I won't judge.  My sister is in this position and I think it would be wrong to judge her for it.

Quoting:
Should same sex partners get the same benefits as traditionally married couples?
End Quote

What IS traditional anymore?

I guess a more conservative standpoint would be to say no.  I don't have a right answer, but I don't see a point in penalizing two people for loving each other.  I also don't see a justification for giving two people benefits if they're going to do it just for the novelty, which some people do when they "experiment".

UC Berkeley and other universities and colleges, being of the progressive mind, do give full benefits to both traditional couples and same-sex domestic partners.  So someone thinks it's justified.

Quoting:
If same-sex sexual partners are eligible, shouldn't two same-sex, heterosexual friends qualify?
End Quote

Here is my view: if a person can prove that another person is dependent upon them for most of their care, in other words, if their friend/partner/parent/child is dependent upon them, and can prove it by living situation, or other means, then that person should be able to claim that person under their coverage. How many of us would it help if we could insure our parent? Or our roommate of many years? It would take the marriage question, be it  same sex or other out of the equation. This will never happen, as insurance companies will simply counter by raising premiums....but in a perfect world  ;)

Quoting:
If same-sex sexual partners are eligible, shouldn't two same-sex, heterosexual friends qualify?
End Quote

Quoting:
I think that same sex couples should have the benefits if they are legally married.  I believe Hawaii and a New England (NH, or Vt?) state recognize same sex marriages now.  We were close to passing it and the city of Seattle has same sex benefits for gvmt. employees.  

End Quote

Quoting:
Marriage is not only a legal contract, it's also a religious and social institution.  
End Quote

Quoting:
Religion plays a big part in the reason why they will never be accepted by society in general, no matter how liberated we've become over the past decades.

It's actually written in the bible that the behaviour is a sin!

A problem not easily overcome.
End Quote

The Bible also says I'm supposed to be burning the fat of a calf in my backyard to give praise to the Lord.  But I don't think my neighbors would appreciate it if I did that.

I don't care what homosexuals do.  If they want to get married, more power to them.  And I don't have any kids, so I don't have the "What about the children!?  My God what about the children!!?" attitude.  

Quoting:
I would not agree with it being the norm that a growing child be suggested that he/she has a choice of gender to marry one day.

If they turn out homosexual, that's one thing.

However, I don't think they should be pre-disposed to it.
End Quote

Hi Hairspray :)

I don't think the homosexuals and bisexuals I know would force their children, should they have them naturally or by adoption, into becoming just like their parents in terms of sexuality.  A good parent would make sure that their kids studied well and had a good work ethic, but they certainly wouldn't (normally) tell their kids who they should love.

Just because Dad and Dad share intimate moments doesn't mean their son has to follow in the same path.  

This is, of course, from secondhand experience with homosexual acquaintances.

Quoting:
Hi Hairspray :)

I don't think the homosexuals and bisexuals I know would force their children, should they have them naturally or by adoption, into becoming just like their parents in terms of sexuality.End Quote

My quote:

Quoting:I would not agree with it being the norm that a growing child be suggested that he/she has a choice of gender to marry one day.

If they turn out homosexual, that's one thing.

However, I don't think they should be pre-disposed to it.End Quote

I didn't say anything about force.

Kids could be influenced simply by exposure, by their parent's example and especially if fully embraced by society.

Hypothetical:

The kids would see a commercial of two men engaging in a kiss to celebrate their anniverasry, buying a diamond ring, for example.

The kids see this commercial on a regular basis, for they wouldn't be able to help it no more than we can help seeing many of the stupid commercials we see.

In effect, commercials are a form of suggestion for advertising, but also suggest (perhaps unintentionally) many other messages about society and culture.

That's basically what I meant.

Quoting:
Ah, the "monkey see monkey do" theory.

That's an acceptable argument, I see where you're coming from.End Quote

8)

Quoting:
I'ts more of a born gay issue.End Quote

Unfortunately, that too is still being debated.  :-/

Quoting:
Are homosexuals denied christian religion because of how God created them?  I hope God wouldn't do this to play a cruel joke.  
End Quote

From a conservative Christian standpoint...no one is denied the Christian religion because of sexual orientation.  I believe that God loves everyone, it is the behavior He does not like. Yes even the murderers, pedophiles, etc.  IMO, we are all God's children and He loves us all.  Man is the one who choses to turn his back on God, God doesn't turn his back on man.

Quoting:


From a conservative Christian standpoint...no one is denied the Christian religion because of sexual orientation.  I believe that God loves everyone, it is the behavior He does not like. Yes even the murderers, pedophiles, etc.  IMO, we are all God's children and He loves us all.  Man is the one who choses to turn his back on God, God doesn't turn his back on man.
End Quote

Quoting:
A lot of people are saying that the reason that homosexual marriages should not be recongized is because of religious reasons only. But NOT all religions believe that homosexuality is a sin. But, if only certain religions believe that it is a sin, must the law abide by that? There is a thing called the seperation of Church and State.

BTW, there are other species (besides homosapians) that have homosexuality.



Cat
End Quote

Quoting:
Hi Dagwood, should same sex marriage be denied under religious beliefs as quoted by some?  


End Quote

If you were going strictly by my religious beliefs, yes.  In America in general, I don't think so.  If two people want to commit to each other they should receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.  Just because I don't think it is right doesn't mean that the next guy believes as I do.  

Quoting:
Ok people, if you went to your Bible and read the book of Leviticus, you would see that God condemns homosexuality, just as he does murder, stealing, idolatry, etc.  And if you remember the story of Lot, God destroyed Sodom & Gomora because it was a homosexual community.  
End Quote

The classic counter-argument there is to look at Leviticus and see what else he described as a sin. A bit of research turned up:

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

None of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No person who has any defect may come near: no one who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no one who has a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.

Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks on you.

Apparently women should make a physical sacrifice after they give birth, females cannot wear red, no one should eat shellfish, and people should be put to death for committing adultery. Those who have leprosy, eat animal fat, or are not virgins on the day of their marriage are also to be executed. Incest is also a sin, although father-daughter sex doesn't count as incest, it seems.

Put homosexual marriages on that list and Biblical homophobia starts to look a little ridiculous, I think. I don't think I've ever seen a Christian religious leader speaking out against women wearing red with quite the same vigour as those opposing homosexuality.

Quoting:


The classic counter-argument there is to look at Leviticus and see what else he described as a sin. A bit of research turned up:

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

None of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No person who has any defect may come near: no one who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no one who has a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.

Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks on you.

Apparently women should make a physical sacrifice after they give birth, females cannot wear red, no one should eat shellfish, and people should be put to death for committing adultery. Those who have leprosy, eat animal fat, or are not virgins on the day of their marriage are also to be executed. Incest is also a sin, although father-daughter sex doesn't count as incest, it seems.

Put homosexual marriages on that list and Biblical homophobia starts to look a little ridiculous, I think. I don't think I've ever seen a Christian religious leader speaking out against women wearing red with quite the same vigour as those opposing homosexuality.
End Quote

Bwahahaha! Your Kung Fu is good. Much better than shooting from the hip. You actually went to the source, which is so seldom done in any of these topics (I plead guilty on that one too). I can't help veering off topic, but I was going to mention about the fact that the big book also provides guidelines for how one should treat their slaves; how god himself has professed to be a "jealous" and "vengeful" being who inquires one's past generations for our current deeds... and the vast killings done by god (don't forget). God was the one who made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights (what of all the people that drowned? The women and children, the homeless and the sick, all the other animals); it's probably one of the biggest mass-murders of any mythological stories I've read! THIS is the god for which one must bow down to? The one whose unreasonable and idiotic rules one must adhere by? I think not. We have the separation of State and religion in this Republic. The State must sanction and protect the freedom of equality for its citizens or else we'll be living as they do in Theocracies (Iran, for example).

It's fine if people want to believe in whatever they want to believe, but to force others to do so as well is arrogant and confining. The way one can fling names like "sinner" and "evil" at others whom one knows not is blind hubris at its height. It's the narrow dogma that often leads to narrow thinking. Curb your dogma.

Quoting:



It's fine if people want to believe in whatever they want to believe, but to force others to do so as well is arrogant and confining. The way one can fling names like "sinner" and "evil" at others whom one knows not is blind hubris at its height. It's the narrow dogma that often leads to narrow thinking. Curb your dogma.
End Quote

Well said, my young Padawan...

Oh wait, that's Kung Fu Master...

Quoting:
Who cares anymore? The church lost this battle. Maybe if priests kept their hands off kids, we would take what they say more seriously.
End Quote

;D  

Quoting:
Who cares anymore? The church lost this battle. Maybe if priests kept their hands off kids, we would take what they say more seriously.
End Quote

Um...I hate to bring this up, but there is more than one church.  Just because one had a problem doesn't mean that they all look bad.  I also don't think any church should be fighting this battle....Like Cat said there is such a thing of separation of church and state.

Quoting:


{...}

Not being one of faith I've never read the bible, sounds like some good stuff going on there, maybe I should open it up some day a have some fun.  

{...}
End Quote

Heck, yeah.  If you want to just pick out the "naughy bits", check out The X-Rated Bible by Ben Edward Akerley.  He points out and explains most (if not all) of the Naughty Bits.  It's a great place to start.

There's a lot of contradictions in the Bible too.

Quoting:
Thank you for bringing up Leviticus and clarifying some issues for us.  There is going to be few people here needing to make some changes in clothing, footwear, and of course fill in those piercings. ::)
Not being one of faith I've never read the bible, sounds like some good stuff going on there, maybe I should open it up some day a have some fun.  

Please, anyone who wants to quote biblical text to support moral-based judgements, best to avoid old testement.
End Quote

You should read the bible. It's amazing the amount the faithful keep out their minds and how they selectively choose bits and pieces in order to prove their own distorted world view. The Old Testament is very good in pushing back their... best intentions, but the New Testament is okay in demonstrating its true colours too. Try reading the gospel of Matthew - make sure you get a copy that highlights what Jesus said unto his brethren. If I recall correctly, this fellow stated something to the extent of not bringing peace, but a sword to mankind. Oh, and you better watch out if you love your family more than you love him or his father - he'll not think twice about casting you into the eternal fire (like father, like son ::) ) because "man's foe will be those of his own household," remember? The infidels can also choose the bible as their weapon of choice once the biblical moralizing begins 8)

Don't believe everything you read is my advice. If "we're all sinners" as some claim, then the word has lost significance. I loathe language shift (especially when it is happening during my lifetime). "Sinner" is now synonymous with "human." When you hear or read someone stating such a thing, think of it this way: "We're all sinners" = "We're all human." Then you'll get someone stating, "It's not natural;" as if they're the authority on all things natural. What kind of scientific studies do they have to back their claim? None that I have witnessed really (at least from any official publications like JAMA, the Lancet, journals on Neuroscience, or even the Psychiatric journals). "It's not natural." What does that really mean? Love is not natural? Physical attraction is not natural? A sexual drive is not natural? What is a homosexual then? Homosexuality has been around for a very long time, crossing all boundaries and cultures, and their existence becomes null and void? Their wants and needs come in second because some other people decided they're not "natural," that they are "sinners," that they are "morally corrupt"? I would think xstians would be the last group of people who would choose to prejudge and persecute, knowing how their history is riddled with violent episodes of intolerance aimed at them, but instead of learning to co-habitate with their fellow man, some choose to make distinctions and separations and commit themselves to the same way of thinking that made them pariahs centuries ago. Now if it's from repulsion and disgust at the thought of two males having sex, then that's a different thing. I can be honest about that. I don't think of men in a sexual way. I am not attracted to them. I like females. Why can't it be as simple as that? Why do some feel like making excuses and rationalizing their dislikes? To be honest, I also don't like the idea of seeing overweight people having sex, nor would I like to have sex with an overweight person. Same goes for midgets and albinos. But it would be a leap of faith to call them "sinners" and "aberrations" and that god looks down on them and all that hocus pocus they spew out... and to not let them get married?! That's a stretch! But hey, couch potatoes aren't natural either. In their natural element, humans are waaaay more physically fit than 50% of our first-world populace. Their lifespan is also shorter. Which reminds me: old people... ew! They shouldn't be allowed to get married and have sex like the rest of us normal people. It's not natural.

Quoting:


That's a stretch! But hey, couch potatoes aren't natural either. In their natural element, humans are waaaay more physically fit than 50% of our first-world populace. Their lifespan is also shorter. Which reminds me: old people... ew! They shouldn't be allowed to get married and have sex like the rest of us normal people. It's not natural.
End Quote

Excellent points, young grasshoppa...but of course you must ask the question, "What IS natural?"  8)

Quoting:
.... It is the east, and Juliet is a smiley  :)
End Quote

;D ;) :) Arise, fair smiley, and kill the envious gif
Who is already less pixeled and filled with grief,
That thou her maid art far more animated than she.....

Quoting:

The bible is not to be taken literally. It is a work that has been diluted, rewritten, dissected, over many many centuries. It was written by more than one person, and contrary to what most non-scholars of the bible believe, it was not written by GOD himself.

End Quote

Exactly the point I was trying to make.  In the bible, you can find justification for just about anything.  There are so many contradictions, it would be impossible to live by it.  I do, however try to live by the quote I made.  I know I am not perfect, no one is.  As long as it doesn't affect or hurt me in any way, who am I to say what is right or wrong?

Quoting:
I live by one quote: "Do what you will, harm none."





Cat
End Quote

Good quote.  If only everyone could do that...

Quoting:


Good quote.  If only everyone could do that...
End Quote

It is actually a Wiccan quote.



Cat

Quoting:
To get back to the point I was trying to make:

I have good friends who are homosexual. Even if I had a problem with them being that way, which I don't, it is not my place to judge them. If they want to be married, let them. Why should I stop them? What harm is it doing me? None.

And, please remember, I have not slurred your belief system, if you have one, although you have certainly slurred mine, Ceyton, and etc and etc.

I would like to point out that at I am also posting under my registered name, not a guest name. I am not a coward, and I can stand up to the criticism. Say what you will, and I will believe what I like.

The bible is not to be taken literally. It is a work that has been diluted, rewritten, dissected, over many many centuries. It was written by more than one person, and contrary to what most non-scholars of the bible believe, it was not written by GOD himself.

I have said it before that I am not going to go into this as a petty argument. I certainly don't expect anyone on this board to change anything about themselves because of what I have said or did or believe. I just wanted to point out that it is really unnecessary to tear another person down for their belief system. Just as it is unecessary to tear someone down for their homo- or hetero- sexuality.


End Quote