Anyone want to talk about this?

[TomG]

Ok, when it says "thou shalt not kill", how do you interpret that any other way? . . . . . . Evidently people are too sensitive.

It has been honorably interpreted throughout the world and throughout history by religious, wise, and good people as:

- Kill no one even if it means losing one's own life
- Kill only to immediately protect one's self or family
- Kill only a murderer
- Kill only a raped girl, a homosexual, a dishonored member of one's family
- Participate in no war
- Participate in a war only as a noncombatant
- Kill only to protect against an invasion on one's own land
- Kill on foreign soil only to protect one's homeland
- Kill only under orders by one's government
- Kill only to enrich one's own country and people
- Kill only to rid the world of those who don't hold the same beliefs
- and on and on

Naw, I'm not sensitive. I'm just pointing out how little quoting your interpretation will mean to those who go by the same book but interpret it in their own way. It's just an observation - I have no dog in that fight.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by MAURER

there may not be religions specifically condoning homosexuality. but there are religions out there that don't mention it either. in other words, they don't say its bad. what is more important is that at the end of the day, i think it is wiser to look into your own soul or conscience to decide what is right and wrong, rather than to look at the teachings of another man to decide for you. when i think about the essence of what a homosexual is, i don't see anything inherently bad about it. they are not causing malice unto anyone else. they are just living the life that they were guided to take.

This is exactly my point, and often the most used religion (which is nothing more than "ORGANIZED" spirituality) is Christianity.

My point remains, regardless of religion (which is organized), or one's individual spiritual beliefs (which one can still practice without having to convene in any particular "house"),....and regardless of one's political affilitation,...we are human beings after all.

If they choose to consumate and celebrate their relationship, what possible impact does it make in anyone's life but primarily their own, and the expanse of their social circles, (which you're free to stay out of, no one is forcing you to partake).

That's all.

.

Originally Posted by Merrida

If they choose to consumate and celebrate their relationship, what possible impact does it make in anyone's life but primarily their own, and the expanse of their social circles, (which you're free to stay out of, no one is forcing you to partake).

I think there is nothing wrong with them establishing and celebrating a relationship, but it will fall short of marriage because marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Like TomG said, maybe you can call it garriage.

And just because a few animals engage in homosexual behavior doesn't tip the scale in making it normal for the rest of us.

[Merrida]

pierini, what does it matter to you?

Gay relationships have existed in the insect world, animal world (in fact there are some species of bugs where the females get it on together in such a frenzy that the male becomes so aroused, THAT is what causes him to go after the female to procreate. Without the female on female action, the male would not be inclined to procreate).

Gay relationships among human beings have existed for eons.

Normal? Who are you to define normal? Who is anyone to define it? All I am saying is that: It is not abnormal and it has existed since time began.

We're not talking about tipping the scale.

Again I ask: What should it matter to you if they call it marriage? Your definition (or those who agree with your phraseology),....is your opnion, one that is being challenged as we speak.

But I still inquire: Why do you care what it is called or if it even happens? I keep asking but you keep dodging.

It has NO bearing on what you call your marriage, on how you value your marriage, on what your marriage means to you in the eyes of God or church or state. It has no bearing on your personal life what so ever. If you wish to believe that it is unnatural despite anthropological evidence showing it is a behavior that existed, then that is your right, and you have the right to teach your children your value system, and hopefully they assimilate what values you instill in conjunction with forming their own opinions.

If you don't think marrying another man is "normal," then,....don't marry another man.

The term marriage: What do you care? What all important change in your life will it make? On your death bed will you feel you've lived a cheated life if gay people are permitted to marry and call it marriage? Will you feel you've lived a ruined and meaningless life and will your marriage, wife and kids now have less value in your heart and spirit? Will you treat them differently?

What difference does a label possibly make? I do not understand why you are so afraid of gay people having a marriage and calling it such? What are you afraid it will do to you personally, individually,...you, yourself. It's a genuine question, and I sincerely just do not understand.


EDIT: I am editing this merely to emphasize that I am asking this with the intention of understanding, discussion, and without judgment,....just a strong curiosity because I don't see it answered, and I sincerely, honestly am trying to understand a viewpoint,....regardless of whether I share it or not is irrelevent. I just would like the answers, and I ask without anger or condecension or any type of maliciousness. I should not have to qualify or justify my position on my queries but previous replies to my posts do make me feel that need,....even though then and now I ask from a state of pure interest.


.

[TomG]

I can't speak for the man, but I felt the answer was clear: it is based on a religious belief. That's a strong thing. Also, remember he said hate the sin but love the sinner. That's a pretty strong thing, too. Your question seems to be therefore, "Why do you have faith?" That's what faith is all about.

Well, that might be at least part of what's going on, but it is not for me to say.

But that's not what I wanted to write about: I just noticed that the advertising pop-ups above the forums seem to react to the content of the threads. There is one up there now about Gay Marriage (their capitals). Kinda creepy, like cyberspace is listening in on us.

[Maxgain]

Originally Posted by CF-OC_gal

Homosexuality is as natural as the birds and the bees but that is probably why it conflicts with organized religion. Marriage is a man made institution.

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

No it is not. Just because it occurs among animals does not mean it is natural it just means it is a disease that occurs most likely a genetic mutation we are unaware off.

It does not take religion to prove its unnatural it is the utmost inherent trait built into us from the lowest organism up through the echelons. Our survival depends on procreation. Without procreation as NATURE intended the earth will be extinct ong before we need to worry about the sun imploding or even ice caps melting.

One could thus describe homosexuality as the most selvish most deviant detour from how life is meant to be.

If one does not have religion and thus this life is all we have is it not then more important to ensure the survival of the species as it is all we have?

Please do not even think of coming on about artificial fertility etc. This is just excusing homosexuality as ok today but then it must of been wrong for last few thousand years when such technology did not exist.

[Maxgain]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

Max,

I don't fully understand God's decision and judgment, but I will say what I have to say anyways.

1. There's a quote in the bible about the rich man entering heaven, and it's likely the poor one will. Jesus was poor.

My point was more towards entering a life of predisposed sin in a criminal activities the the probablity is that this child will continue on the lines. Like the lineage of the mafia.

2. The bible says that all will have a chance to hear the word of God and make a decision.

This is true. What I do believe is that someone does turn to God/good life with the odds stacked against him for life as above the rewards and blessing he will get will be great. However in the chance that he does not go this way when he may of in a different upbringing. Is this fair?

3. We preach on this website about no excuses for exercise. We jump on people when they say "i don't have time to do an hour of cardio 3 times a week". What do we tell them? We say MAKE time. I think God expects nothing less.

True

4. When you are put in a tougher situation than others, it means all that much more when you overcome them.

True, I do believe the rewards will be greater as well as if someone who had the opportunities the influence etc turns bad will be judged more harshly

5. Remember the man on the cross next to Jesus? He was bad all his life, but he came to know Jesus and was saved.

This is the ideal

6. I think children are exempt from judgment until they are able to think for themselves.
When does childhood end in the spiritual sense. How many people act naiaive foolish and ignorant until even 40s or 50s or later. What if they do not get this chance. Is it fair. Is it just?

Answers in red

[Maxgain]

Originally Posted by Merrida

This is exactly my point, and often the most used religion (which is nothing more than "ORGANIZED" spirituality) is Christianity.

My point remains, regardless of religion (which is organized), or one's individual spiritual beliefs (which one can still practice without having to convene in any particular "house"),....and regardless of one's political affilitation,...we are human beings after all.

If they choose to consumate and celebrate their relationship, what possible impact does it make in anyone's life but primarily their own, and the expanse of their social circles, (which you're free to stay out of, no one is forcing you to partake).

That's all.

.

My point is as 2 posts above. Religion does not have to come into it. IT goes against the essence of nature. It is just endorsed and obviously so by religion

[Merrida]

Tom thanks for trying to explain. For the record I am a person of faith and I do believe in God. I was baptized, and was brought up strict Roman Catholic, and came -->*<-- this close to entering a convent. I still pray, (not just when I want things, but to give thanks for those things and people in my life every day. Not one day goes by in my life where I do not pray).

So to clear up matters for those (not you) who may think I'm coming from position of "anti faith," you're barking up the wrong tree.

If someone were to follow the Bible to the letter, they are called Fundamentalists. If someone were to believe the Bible is gospel to be adhered to and may be used to justify all behaviors, then things like beating your wife would be allowed. Do those who say "it's in the Bible so it must be true" also follow some of the other perversions (a word I use because the Bible is a series of interpretations) against human nature?

One must assume those who follow never lie (even a white lie?), while they may find a woman attractive they don't permit themselves to "look".... they believe in hearing voices from God telling them what to do,.... There are a lot of scary things in there IF you take it literally.

My opinion (it may be mine alone) is that it is a guideline and stories written by different people based on words handed down. The idea of the true word of God has been contended for thousands of years.

Even saying, "it's a sin" to let two women get married in Oshkosh, Wisconsin,....I am trying to understand what that has to do with what pierini or anyone else who is against gay marriages,....what the marriage of these women has to do with you? What impact will what they do have on your life. To suggest they shouldn't get married is no better than the Gay Pride parades that so many people take umbrage with because gay people are "forcing their being gay" down the throats of straight folks. Is it any different therefore to say, "I believe two women getting married is a sin" therefore I think worldwide no two women should ever get married, there, I put my foot down, because I said so?

What's the difference between any religion trying to force their belief system on others?

We stopped crucifying and stoning people in more evolved areas....does that mean we don't believe in God? WHile we can twist aspects into it's the Jews who did this, the Romans who did that,...it's in the Bible being followed.

Regardless,.....then to anyone unafraid to answer: I still ask you, what impact does those 2 women in Oshkosh have to do with you if you live in CA, or FL, or ME? Why are you that concerned about how others conduct their lives?

Please understand it is a genuine question.

And Max, study etymology. That is not an abberation (the homosexuality in bug life). Nor is it an abberation in animal life,....it exists all around us in many forms and has for as long since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.

So I have faith, yet I believe a person has the right to do with their body as they please as long as they harm no one. The answer isn't clear,...it remains unanswered: How does it personally affect you what those other people do?

To suggest the world follow your pattern of thinking -- what makes that different than Hitler thinking there should be only one way of being: His. Before I get nailed it was just a comparison of when people have only one view or at least can't expand on their answer. See I'd be affected by Hitler's rules because I'm not an Arian. So faith or no, I can explain why it personally would affect my life. The gay couple down the road? They don't affect me (except they offer to house sit the cat sometimes, which is nice).

.

[MAURER]

gays are not at all a risk to procreation. perhaps some people were "meant" to be gay. then, the vast majority of other people were meant to be heterosexual and reproduce. many heterosexuals also choose not to reproduce. by the logic you are using for homosexuals, two heterosexual adults who know they can't have children shouldn't marry either.

by the wya i'll get straight to the point. i feel as though people's views against gays are not based on logic but instead based on generation after generation of anti-homosexual sentiment. therefore, its more of a tradition, so to speak, passed down from parents. which is understandable, after all don't most of us get many values from our parents? i'm glad it is that way. all i'm saying is that i think if people were to spend more time with an open mind about it i think people would see they don't hurt society like people say they do.

[Firehawk]

Speaking as Devil's Advocate,

One could argue that people not caring about what others do is precisely the reason for the moral decay of society today.

[Dan C]

Merrida, I understand you are asking a question out of genuine curiosity, but asking it 10 times, in 10 different ways, in 10 different posts is not adding any more substance to you query. Besides, I gave you an answer, wasn't that good enough? Or are you looking for peirini to answer it specifically (which I think he may have done already)?

[Dan C]

Originally Posted by MAURER

gays are not at all a risk to procreation. perhaps some people were "meant" to be gay. then, the vast majority of other people were meant to be heterosexual and reproduce. many heterosexuals also choose not to reproduce. by the logic you are using for homosexuals, two heterosexual adults who know they can't have children shouldn't marry either.

Some people probably were "meant" to be gay. Just like some people were "meant" to be hermaphrodites and just like some people were "meant" to be Siamese Twins. These things have also been around since the beginning of time but I think we can agree that these situations are not part of everyones definition of "normal".

No one is saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to celebrate a recognized union. I think what many people object to is the semantics of it all.

How many times has peirini defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Obviously, this word has one specific meaning to him and its not up for interpretation in his mind. Why is that so wrong? How does his belief effect you or anyone else (Merrida?)?

by the wya i'll get straight to the point. i feel as though people's views against gays are not based on logic but instead based on generation after generation of anti-homosexual sentiment. therefore, its more of a tradition, so to speak, passed down from parents. which is understandable, after all don't most of us get many values from our parents? i'm glad it is that way. all i'm saying is that i think if people were to spend more time with an open mind about it i think people would see they don't hurt society like people say they do.

I'll agree with you about the anti-homosexual sentiment being passed down from generations. I think this generation is getting over that though. Collectively, we have become more open minded as a nation. I don't believe anyone views homosexuals and what they do behind closed doors as hurting society like you're making it seem.

However, I'll get strait to the point, when you consider what homosexual behavior really is, a man's penis going into another man's rectum, the place where he eliminates feces, you cannot argue that that is not sexually deviant behavior. You cannot tell me that the anus was intended to accept a penis.

Now, I don't have a problem with people who do this... as long as it's not my anus - I don't care. However, why does this deviant behavior have to be touted in the streets, recognized by the government and accepted as the norm?

The answer is, it doesn't and it shouldn't be.

And I don't want to hear any women on women comments, comparisons of male and female sexual deviances, insect relations and so on. Argue my points without drawing your own conclusions.

I'm going to a continuing education seminar today so I will not be able to participate in this lively discussion. Thanks to everyone for your good comments and keeping this civil.

I think we almost have Merrida convinced.

[Maxgain]

Originally Posted by Merrida

And Max, study etymology. That is not an abberation (the homosexuality in bug life). Nor is it an abberation in animal life,....it exists all around us in many forms and has for as long since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.

How does me learning about the history of words prove me wrong.
Your next point does not either.

Besides the fact you have no evidence that it has been around since 'primordial ooze' so you just made it up to add weight to a weak and heavily flawed argument.
The fact is that if it is true it proves me right in that homosexuality is transcripted in our genome most likely as unknown recessive gene.
Just like most common diseases!