ctogher Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Wrong. That's clear harm to an innocent child. The same can not be said about having homosexual parents. Fine, I may agree. But as you quite correctly pointed out, my opinion is exactly that. MY opinion. Nothing more... ^_^ This is as much a moral choice between two consenting parties as any other, surely? Legally defined as "statutory rape" but who am I do decide that this sort of relationship is wrong? My inbred/culturally biased opinion should not be permitted to pass judgement on this sort of behaviour.... As disgusting and twisted as either of us may find it, this is simply a life choice... is it not? Albeit between two parties of vastly differing age groups... Yes! Fine! One of them is perhaps a sexual deviant, preying on the naivite of a lesser developed intellect. Buty now I'm just being judgemental again. :blush: Let's face it, whether we agree with it, find it disgusting, or whatever else we might feel, what happens between two (or more) people is their own buisiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 This is as much a moral choice between two consenting parties as any other, surely? Legally defined as "statutory rape" but who am I do decide that this sort of relationship is wrong? My inbred/culturally biased opinion should not be permitted to pass judgement on this sort of behaviour.... Except that someone that young is not capable of giving consent. My rule only applies to consenting adults, in a situation where their actions do not harm anyone else. There's a clear difference: one is capable of deciding their actions with full knowledge of the situation and consequences, one is not. This is very different from homosexual parents having children. Unless they're involving the child in their relationship (which if they do, they deserve a painful death, just like any other person who would do that), or attempting to enforce their preferences on the child (also wrong), the only effect on the child is a bit more exposure to the fact that homosexuality exists. Even if you consider homosexuality absolutely wrong, its simple fact that it exists. Exposure to this fact is inevitable, so the issue is irrelevant. The end result is that the threat doesn't come from the marriage itself, but from the actions of the people involved. ALL forms of marriage can have that... evil people exist, and do evil things. But you can't deny innocent people equal rights because of the possible actions of a tiny minority. Punish the evil people harshly, yes. But nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 The question is not on whether or not public displays of intimate relationships are right or wrong. For my own part they make me uncomfortable whoever is doing them because I question why they are necessary. The same is true of marriage. Except where those marrying are doing it for religious reasons I am not greatly in favour. I have seen too many of my friends get married and almost immediately split up because 'the ownership syndrome' clicks in. Therefore I have a slight mistrust of the reasons behind gay marriages too. The public declaration of ownership is not necessary where true affection underpins a relationship. But I suppose, since my mistrust is of marriage in general, this may be off topic too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sa'Daesaru Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 i say yes - im an Episcopalian who is proud of ny church's decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldowan Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Curt Sibling, I beg your pardon, if you read the Bible then you will clearly see that the most of the authors of the Bible saw God. The Bible says that all scripture is God breathed. In other words, the scriptures were dictated by God and written by the authors. This does exclude the Gospels. They are accounts of the life of Jesus as SEEN by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Disciples of Jesus). Also, the Epistles are to be excluded, they are letters from the authors top certain churches and organizations. Read it, you will see it. hundinman I'm sorry, I must misunderstand something. I was underthe impression that your god's whole spiel was that freedom of choice was all important, thus explaining why people dont all believe in the religion. Your god showing itself means that the 'god given right' of choice in belief has been taken away from that person. Please shed some light on this if I misunderstood. ***edited*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust870 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I'm a little late on this... Ok, see, i think its alright if 2 members of the same sex want to get married...why would it hurt anyone? They already live together, show their affection publicly...but yet its a BIG deal for a peice of paper saying they are married.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Curt Sibling, I beg your pardon, if you read the Bible then you will clearly see that the most of the authors of the Bible saw God. The Bible says that all scripture is God breathed. In other words, the scriptures were dictated by God and written by the authors. This does exclude the Gospels. They are accounts of the life of Jesus as SEEN by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Disciples of Jesus). Also, the Epistles are to be excluded, they are letters from the authors top certain churches and organizations. Read it, you will see it. hundinman I'm sorry, I must misunderstand something. I was underthe impression that your god's whole spiel was that freedom of choice was all important, thus explaining why people dont all believe in the religion. Your god showing itself means that the 'god given right' of choice in belief has been taken away from that person. Please shed some light on this if I misunderstood. ***edited*** I do not understand the question. Are you asking that because god revealed himself that the choice of religion is taken away? This is the only interpretation that I can comprehend.I will shed light if you state the question more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 This thread is not about religion. Please if you want to continue the debate take it to one of the many threads that are about religion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohGr Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 @faust 87 the thing is, a normal hetrosexual being seeing two homosexual people together can be very uncomfortable, if a male were to see two married lesbians walking down the street holding hands, im sure one would have the urge to shout "BOO YAH!" but if a male were to see two homosexual males holding hands in public, the first thought would be "run motherf**ker...RUN" well, thats most likely my thought, i recall getting chased by a homosexual for laughing at a friends joke, when he thought it was me laughing about him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 i recall getting chased by a homosexual for laughing at a friends joke, when he thought it was me laughing about him... Then maybe he had issues. I remember knowing alot of homosexual people that wernt as uptight. They could laugh at a "gay joke" because they knew that you were laughing with them, not at them, and then come back with some of their own. They were a blast at parties. I dont see why they would have a want to get married, the way the tax system is working. we learned in civics one time where if two people are married that they are listed as having a double income houshold, even if one of them doesnt work. dad goes off to work, and leaves dad at home. and without any children they dont get some of it knocked down for monetary support. and about children taking after their parents, how a child raised in a homosexual's home becomes homosexual himself. that isnt much more than speculation. i know perfectly straight kids with 2 mothers or with 2 fathers. they arent in the least bit affected by their parents that way. i also know that most homosexual kids i know have straight parents, which flaws that argument more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.