Hence your problem here. To fully understand any issue you have to be able to understand both sides of the issue. By your own admission you can't do that.

From my own perspective, both sides of the debate have some good points, but in the end the laws of a democratic nation should reflect the views of the majority, within the confines of the constitution, of that nation. That really is the bottom line.

You don't understand because your BELIEF is otherwise. You have no objective reasoning for your belief, either. There's no universal standard there to impose, you just believe one thing, and they believe another. Such standards should be decided democratically in a democracy.

Man, you guys still are failing to say why the relationships aren't equal.... there really hasn't been a debate over why it isn't equal, simply a debate about why it should/shouldn't be legislated on (fed vs state, etc). What is the other "side" to why they aren't equal? I may just "believe" this, but unless I missed it somewhere, you guys never said WHY you believe they aren't equal, just that they aren't, so shouldn't be legislated. Without hearing that side, how am I suppose to fully understand it? You guys keep pushing it back to "majority rules", forget that for now, I am interested in why you/they feel the relationships aren't equal. No, im not angry, just trying to clarify my question.

Look at your previous post (#60). You say the relationships are equal because:

• You dont think it matters whether you love someone from the same gender or not
• Just because someone has the same sexual organs doesn't mean that your love has some imaginary limit to it.

You aren't explaining why you think they are equal, you're just saying you do, and then reiterating it in different wordings. You think it is equal... it doesn't matter about genitals, etc. Those aren't reasons, those are just further reworded declarations of THE SAME IDEA.

You, like many other people, simply believe what you find logical to be objective. Then you demand something more from the people who hold different subjective opinions. In reality, the only reason you find it logical is because your values and biases lead you in that direction.

So, don't be a hypocrite. Realize that you have offered nothing any more concrete in explanation of your beliefs than anyone else has.

Well Jason, let's not open the whole separation of church and state thing here but just to say, you won't find it anywhere in our consitution. I think the whole reason we use it today is so we can enact these laws we're discussing now. It's been beneficial to pave the way for sin to be voted on.



From my POV which is a Christian one, it's easy. God says so. From a physical point of view sans God, you can easily see this. Man was not built to be with man nor woman with woman. From a legal POV it makes a mess of family dynamics and the courts are starting to clog up with these issues. There's all sorts of issues now just starting to stem from this whole two of the same sex having children bit. It's starting to get really convoluted and very messy. Divorce is bad enough between conventional families but when you start having only one parent as biological then it's another whole ballgame. And it's the child that loses. Always.



When you read or quoted to me in the law regarding Homosexuality being an abomination to God in Lev, yes he was saying to the HEbrews...don't be like the other nations. You are called to be separate from them and to be a light. So at that time he was taking to them but the truths are not just for them they are timeless since he again repeats this in the NT. The union of two men coming together is still an abomination to God in the NT and the church is now instructed to not participate in what the culture was doing.

Some things in the OT were strictly for the Hebrews and is usually stated in the NT as being passed away. Circumcision and the OT Sacrifices would be two such laws no longer applicable to us today. But we can still see oodles of reasons why we should still read the OT and why it's still in our bibles. The OT is revealed in the NEW and the NT is concealed in the OT. That's what makes it very interesting.

I realize why I/you were confused, you must have missed the part I said about "what non-religious reason do people have to vote against this?". Or you were simply trying to make the point that both are beliefs. However, how can you vote against something with no other reason then "god says"? There must be some logical bases for his reasons, if you cant find any... then I would start to doubt whether it should be voted against... i.e. Slavery. Also, I dont see why you think that when I said, "Just because someone has the same sexual organs doesn't mean that your love has some imaginary limit to it.", that that is just a belief, why would gender all of a sudden cause someone's love to be limited?

"Man was not built to be with man nor woman with woman"

Well, this may sound solid, but it is still inching on being just a belief. Of course the anus isn't used for reproduction, but stimulating it can be pleasurable... is that a sign of it being biologically setup for two men to be able to take their relationship to a sexual level, or just a coincidence? However, is sterility between the couple even a good bases for marriage? Obviously there are plenty of hetero married couples that cant conceive. Perhaps biologically it is just a coincidence, however, that still says nothing about the relationship itself. Which should be what is at the heart of this issue.

"From a legal POV it makes a mess of family dynamics and the courts are starting to clog up with these issues. "

These make sense, but seem to be because of there not being any definite laws and that this is a newer, large issue... laziness is not a good reason to vote against this.

"Divorce is bad enough between conventional families but when you start having only one parent as biological then it's another whole ballgame."

Yes, divorce is a complicated issue and changes the lives of everyone involved, especially the children. However, hetero couples that have kids before marrying a non-biological spouse would have the same problem as same sex marriages.... custody battles, who is the better parent, etc, etc. In a same-sex marriage, kids conceived using the sperm/egg of just one of the parents should be considered the child of both parents, such as hetero couples where one of the parents are sterile. The same basic idea can be applied to kids that are adopted.

Thanks for the debate so far, it is helping me to findout exactly where I stand, where others stand, and perhaps where we should go... and forcing me to truly think about this.

And KFC is right about separation of church and state in the constitution, however, supreme courts have ruled to separate them various ways. You actually made a topic about this I saw earlier, and in one of the replies, separation was spelled out via the supreme court.. Quoted here:

""The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

No one would be imposing worship on gay Americans simply by saying the American government won't issue marriage licenses to them. There is no "right" to a license, and it isn't an "anyone can get one except..." proposition. In reality it is a "only the people who qualify can get one" situation, and always has been, just like drivers' licenses and pilots' licenses. You don't have the "right" to a pilot's license, either.

If we are going to purge society of any biblical parallel, then we'd better get rid of laws against murder, public intoxication, etc., because we can find parallels in this or that Bible. Such thinking robs people of their right to self rule. We'd not only be checked (justly) by the constitution, but we'd be shackled by having to worm our way around Hebrew law to avoid the semblance of religion.

That's been the way of thinking for 40 years or so, and it is now, finally, beginning to change. People are more aware now that we're being prevented from passing just laws simply because made-up "rights" are being imposed that were never intended or implied. Federalism has been a smear on self-rule, and the federal court system in particular.

Again, I'll say that you haven't really supplied logical reasons for the equality of gay marriage. You say that marriage is equal, and support it by saying that you don't see any difference, or that genitals don't have anything to do with it. That's just restating the same thing, not providing a logical argument. To someone else biology might have a lot to do with it. Neither of you have anything but belief, though.

I can think of lots of reasons for denying Homosexual marriage. Here's a few. We need to look at this logically not emotionally. But as always, emotionalism usually prevails over logic.

1. A wise society will protect marriage as it's always understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy and assures every child has a mother and a father.

2. Children NEED a loving mother and father. A huge amount of research has been done that shows this. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a boy how to become a man. The most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to become a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman nor can a lesbian teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter thru her first menstrual cycle or any other topic that is best for her to discuss with a mom? Children need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they were meant to be.

3. Tampering with the ancient plan for males and females spells doom for the family. We only need to look at the Netherlands and Belgium to see why we shouldn't go this route. Look at Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The consequences for traditional families have been devasting. The institution of marriage in those countries is rapidly dying. Most are choosing now to either live together or stay single. In some areas of Norway 80% of firstborn children are conceived out of wedlock as well as 60% of subsequent births. We're starting to see that here as well. I can look at any newspaper and see it's increasingly obvious many are living together giving their child either both surnames or one or the other's surname. Also we see many families who have children with diff last names.

4. The institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social stability. Institutions, governments, religion and welfare of children are all dependant on stability. When it's weakened or undermined the entire foundation becomes very shaky.

5. Females and males were made for each other. Research consistently shows that hetero married adults do better in virtually every measure of emotional and physical health than people who are divorced or never married or engaged in homo relationships.

6. Children need to be protected. Thousands of studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically even 30 years later than those not so blessed with traditional parents.

7. Healthcare costs. Think about this. Every HIV positive patient needs only to find a partner to marry to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. What about the cost to the Employer?

Eh, some of those reasons are irrelevant, but some such as 2, 3, 6 would be interesting to see the actual research and know where it came from. I guess the problem is finding unbiased research. Do the researchers have an agenda, how were the people chosen for the research, etc? I found a decent website you may want to check out... goes over many of the things we have already talked about.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint.htm

Out of curiosity, Jason, do you have unbiased research that backs up your claims? They seem esoteric to the point that it doesn't seem possible to even test them. Again, they seem a lot more like belief, like the "irrelevant" ones you refer to in KFC's post.

Well, I wasn't saying 2,3,6 were irrelevant, those are the more noteable... but come on, healthcare costs again says nothing about the relationships, 5 is a pretty hefty blanket statement to make that includes all those divorced and those never married, not just samesex relationships, 1 and 4 may be true, but hinge on same sex marriage truly being bad for marriage... which 2,3,6 could help support... depending on the actual research. (6 I am starting to doubt as it seems more focused on parents that didn't divorce, and if they did, were still supportive/involved with their children, not necessarily a result of m/f parents)

From my pov, if a gay person can feel the same love for their partner as a straight person theirs, then the rest of the relationship should be equal, or at least close to it. The only thing that really "proves" this is stable gay relationships that exist already. Yes, this could be seen as a hefty blanket statement as well, which is partially why I was asking for why people think the relationships aren't equal... to understand others perspectives more clearly. I realize it may seem like im saying "I've got this one blanket statement and my other beliefs, now prove why your beliefs are right". But really, I am searching for evidence that supports what I believe is right.... just like someone who has their religious beliefs should do... no one should blindly follow their beliefs, especially when it affects others.

The sad thing is, many research/studies could be tainted from both sides of the issue, since many people that don't feel strongly one way or the other don't bother to find out more information.

This is a problem. We all come in here or anywhere with bias. It can't be helped. I admit my bias is based on scripture that I take to be God's word to us. I try as hard as I can to be objective, but I still have bias.

We should be basing our beliefs on evidence presented not looking for evidence to base our beliefs on.

Yes, I would agree that it's hard to come up with a common definition of 'normal' especially in the case of behavior.
On the other hand, we can easily describe what is natural as in nature though. In this realm, homosexuality is not natural or is unnatural. The body parts don't fit and they don't work as nature intended. Therefore, the sexual practice of homosexuality is an abomination against nature.

As to how one thinks or feels about homosexuality, one then has to get into the moral dimension of it. Is homosexuality right or wrong, acceptable and respectable or not? And that indeed is when the Bible comes into play for it is the Bible from which the gold standard of judging all behavior, sexual or otherwise, is set. Judging behavior is what our laws are all about. We are to judge a person's behavior not their heart or soul. That's God's job.

I think that, in the long run, the practice of homosexuality is physically, mentally and spiritually harmful to the individuals involved, their families, friends and society.

"On the other hand, we can easily describe what is natural as in nature though. In this realm, homosexuality is not natural or is unnatural. The body parts don't fit and they don't work as nature intended. Therefore, the sexual practice of homosexuality is an abomination against nature."

We kinda already covered that.... procreation wise, yes f/f m/m doesn't "fit". However, that doesn't mean those couples cant have a full, pleasurable, sexual relationship (oral, anal, masturbation, etc). There are plenty of wild/domestic animals that have shown homosexual behavior, and they aren't subjected to society like humans... shouldn't this SUPPORT, that homosexual behavior is natural?

"it is the Bible from which the gold standard of judging all behavior, sexual or otherwise"

lol? It may be a good starting ground, but as I have said before, you should search for evidence supporting your beliefs whether the beliefs are from the bible, some other religious book, or just a personal belief. If you cant find anything substantial, then I would seriously start to question if you should really believe the way you do.

"I think that, in the long run, the practice of homosexuality is physically, mentally and spiritually harmful to the individuals involved, their families, friends and society."

I think what you are truly condemning is the one night stand, polygamy, and other similar things many people would consider immoral in a "normal" hetero relationship.

There is practically nothing that a modern human being does in the course of the average day that is natural.

From the moment we wake in the morning (after sleeping on beds made in labs or from genetically selected fibres harvested by machines that run on the corpses of millenia-dead animals and plants) to the moment to we turn out unnatural artificial lights at night we revel in our unnatural natures.

Can you think of a single thing you do every day that doesn't include a single unnatural act? Not even going for a walk is natural - we wear shoes/clothes and walk on tracks carved from the wilderness. We wear glasses to protect ourselves from natural inadequacies or natural light.

We read. We write. We type on computers.

In the face of all these things the simple act of sex pales in comparison. How can something that can be done with just two people (no additional parts required) be less natural than driving a car or reading?

Let's get things in perspective.

Be as anti-gays as you like, but don't try and argue it's wrong because it's unnatural, because nigh-on everything humans have done since we first used tools has been unnatural. There's far more you can do to end unnatural acts than complain about gays on the internet.