"The NBA’s Jason Collins says he’s gay"

[CF DolFan]

Homosexuality has been found in recorded history going back beyond ancient Greece and you can find parallels in just about every vertebrate species. It's not a new or unnatural phenomenon.

I don't deny that.  What I am saying is that they didn't recognize hosexuals in marriage.

You can't be against something because of religion and then be upset when people criticize the root cause of your position.

If I'm arguing and my only position is "because the Bible tells me so" then it's ok to write me off as however you percive that. That's not a great place to start for me considering you do not have that same value so how could I ever expect you to understand.  What I'm saying is that people shouldn't attack me as a a hate mongering predjudice bigot or a horrible, horrible, person just becuause I don't support a "contract" that has quite frankly never been generally been allowed in the written history of time.



 

[Fau Teixeira]

I don't deny that.  What I am saying is that they didn't recognize hosexuals in marriage.
If I'm arguing and my only position is "because the Bible tells me so" then it's ok to write me off as however you percive that. That's not a great place to start for me considering you do not have that same value so how could I ever expect you to understand.  What I'm saying is that people shouldn't attack me as a a hate mongering predjudice bigot or a horrible, horrible, person just becuause I don't support a "contract" that has quite frankly never been generally been allowed in the written history of time.

This contract exists currently between heterosexuals ..male and female ..that sexual orientation is a inherent trait. It's not a choice. I referenced earlier the existence of homosexuality in nearly all veritibrated species. That on it's own is proof of the evolutionary origins of sexual orientation. That being the case, it becomes no different than skin color or eye color.

Restricting marriage benefits based on skin color is unthinkable today. It was the rule 50 years ago. Restricting marriage benefits based on sexual orientation is the rule today. It will be unthinkable 50 years from now because as we understand how it works it becomes increasingly immoral to deny people the same rights that others have.

IF and a big IF .. marriage was never a government function and was performed purely at churches as a matter of doctrine and faith and carried no government benefits. Then the freedom of religion trumps any calls for inclusion gay couples may have in that religion.  That isn't the case though, Government provides recognition, over 1000 specific benefits and privileges based on marriage. That is why a ban on gay marriage is wrong and immoral.

[Spider-Dan]

CF, are you making an argument against allowing homosexuality, or against the government to recognizing marriage between homosexuals?

Those are two very different things, and if you've consented to permitting the former, it seems silly and pointless to ban the latter.  When homosexuals can legally have sex, live together, and raise children (either through insemination or adoption), it is a rather transparent attack on their civil rights to prevent them from getting a marriage license.

The absurdity of claiming that such actions "protect marriage" (in a nation with a 50% divorce rate) is just icing on the cake.

[CF DolFan]

CF, are you making an argument against allowing homosexuality, or against the government to recognizing marriage between homosexuals?

Those are two very different things, and if you've consented to permitting the former, it seems silly and pointless to ban the latter.  When homosexuals can legally have sex, live together, and raise children (either through insemination or adoption), it is a rather transparent attack on their civil rights to prevent them from getting a marriage license.

The absurdity of claiming that such actions "protect marriage" (in a nation with a 50% divorce rate) is just icing on the cake.

Spider those are all separate issues. I don't have time to go in depth on each of these but I'll try to summarize.

1)  homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible so I will do everything in my power to refrain from condoning or participating. Not hard to do.
2) marriage is an agreement and later became an actual contract between a man and a woman. To want to protect that goes in agreement with tradition, history and the Church.
3) I love my homosexual friends just I love my friends who cheat on their wives/ girlfriends. I can never condone it but they are my friends.
4) Christian marriages are no better than non-christian marriages. Why? Because they do not follow Christian values and as such, divorce. Regardless of where you spend Sundays/holidays if you live by the world's standards you will suffer the world's consequences. It's unavoidable. 
Used to we as a society accepted Christian values. Today they are pushed into the corner because they are uncool prejudice, biggotted, or whatever label they come with. It's funny that people act like liberalism is a new "enlightened" "intelligent" concept when in fact it has destroyed many societies prior to us.

[Spider-Dan]

To respond:

1) homosexuality is constitutionally protected, and when the Constitution and the Bible disagree, the United States government is required to side with the Constitution
2) preventing homosexuals from marrying (but continuing to allow homosexual cohabitation and parenthood) does nothing to protect heterosexual marriages; in point of fact, the existence of no-fault divorce does immeasurably more to damage them
3) to say that you "love" someone at the same time you are negatively judging them is somewhat hollow; compare to "I love the sisters and daughters of America, even if they are mentally incapable of thinking logically like men"
4) This sentence doesn't seem to make sense.  Did you make a typo?
5) As a society, we "accepted Christian values"... except for the ones that we specifically rejected.  Ones like "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery," and "You shall have no other gods before me."  The Constitution seems to be at odds with at least two of the Ten Commandments, to say nothing of the Old Testament as a whole.

And before you say something like "Old Testament doesn't count, New Testament supercedes," please consider that the entirety of Biblical objection to homosexuality is based on the Old Testament.  So unless we're also going to outlaw shellfish and clothing with more than one type of fiber...

[masterfins]

From my Catholic upbringing I think homosexuality is wrong.  That said, I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry and/or benefit from the freedoms and priviledges that we all have.  I look at it from the perseprective that just as I wouldn't push my other religious beliefs on people of different religions, or lack of religion, nor would I make a big deal out of whether someone is gay.  Therefore, I don't think someone should call me a bigot because I don't believe in homosexuality.  Live and let live.

[Spider-Dan]

I look at it from the perseprective that just as I wouldn't push my other religious beliefs on people of different religions, or lack of religion, nor would I make a big deal out of whether someone is gay.  Therefore, I don't think someone should call me a bigot because I don't believe in homosexuality.  Live and let live.

No one is calling anyone a bigot because they disapprove of a lifestyle.

Disapprove of same-sex marriage all you like; it's when you try to force your beliefs on others (by outlawing same-sex marriage for others who do want them) that charges of bigotry are levied.

As the saying goes, if you don't approve of same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

[stinkyfish]

I couldn't agree more.

Really? Please elaborate.

[masterfins]

No one is calling anyone a bigot because they disapprove of a lifestyle.

Sure they are!  Look at Wallace being hammered by the media simply becasue he says he doesn't understand why a man would want to be with a man when there are so many beautiful women around.  He didn't even say he was against gay marriage, nor that he even disapproved of the lifesyle.  In this PC crazed world if you happen to disagree with whatever stance some loud minority crowd is trying to shove down your throat you are made out the bad guy.

[CF DolFan]

^^^^^ What he said!!!! 

[Fau Teixeira]

Sure they are!  Look at Wallace being hammered by the media simply becasue he says he doesn't understand why a man would want to be with a man when there are so many beautiful women around.  He didn't even say he was against gay marriage, nor that he even disapproved of the lifesyle.  In this PC crazed world if you happen to disagree with whatever stance some loud minority crowd is trying to shove down your throat you are made out the bad guy.

You should run a litmus test on the statement to see if it holds up as being inoffensive.. lets try an example:

he says (and i'm quoting you because for our purposes it works fine)

he says he doesn't understand why a man would want to be with a man when there are so many beautiful women around.

is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

replace man/woman with white/black and correcting for gender to remove homosexuality as a factor

he says he doesn't understand why a white man would want to be with a black woman when there are so many beautiful white women around.

is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

if your answers don't match in both cases yes/yes or no/no .. please explain why

[stinkyfish]

You should run a litmus test on the statement to see if it holds up as being inoffensive.. lets try an example:

he says (and i'm quoting you because for our purposes it works fine)
is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

replace man/woman with white/black and correcting for gender to remove homosexuality as a factor

is this bigoted ? (yes / no)

if your answers don't match in both cases yes/yes or no/no .. please explain why

How could it be bigoted if his preference is to be with someone of his own race or with the opposite sex? There is no way he could understand any different.

Is heterosexuality or homosexuality abnormal?

[Fau Teixeira]

Is heterosexuality or homosexuality abnormal?

Neither is abnormal from a biological or evolutionary standpoint.

Just a note, this is a fact. It's not an opinion.

[Phishfan]

I'm saying is that people shouldn't attack me as a a hate mongering predjudice bigot or a horrible, horrible, person just becuause I don't support a "contract" that has quite frankly never been generally been allowed in the written history of time.  

CF, I fall short of attacking you on these topics but you have to understand this defense is not excusable. For a written history of time blacks were not allowed to vote  or marry in the United States either. You have to come with something better i think if you want to get any respect toward your position.

[Phishfan]

When homosexuals can legally have sex,

In many areas they cannot so you really need to address that before discussing marriage.