Pengiuns

[Faggot the Hutt]

Gay penguins...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/ar...rint&position=

I bet ya didn't know animals could be gay too, eh? Muh, ha ha ha ha haaaaa!

[Soldier]

Wow. That's funky.

[jBirch]

FTH,

I had heard about that in frogs but not in mammals. Kinda cool.

On a related note, I live up here in pretty much Texas North and I often get into conversations around same-sex marriage. I'm for it but not gay myself. Got a couple of questions about arguing pro-same sex marriage with a bunch of anal conservatives who believe that immigrants are the cause of all social ills in North America.

The first argument that invariably comes up is that gay sex is a prime disease vector (HIV/AIDS) and hence should be illegal based on what's best for society and combating the disease. The counter-argument, for those willing to listen, is usually based around similiar, socially acceptable disease vectors (aluminum pots -> Alzheimers, liquour, smoking, driving cars -> cancer, eating meat -> cancer/renal failure, etc...) and the fact that simple precautions prevent disease and so it is the manner with which the sex is carried out that should be illegal, not the sex itself.

When that fails, the biblical argument then comes up and it is argued that same-sex intercourse is a Christian sin and hence should be illegal. They then cite various bits of the bible. It starts in Genesis with the argument that Man and Woman where created from the same flesh, in God's image, and so the union of man and woman is the only possible way to be in God's image. By definition, Man and Man is but only the male half of God. The counter argument to this is the supposition that Homosexual people are more perfect then Man or Woman on it's own because they are both male and female *in the same body*. And so on and on with various other sections of the bible. The letters from Paul get a little trickier because he was personally against same-sex unions but you can usually counter those on the merits and with citations from other parts of the Book.

The argument then invariably turns to sexual orientation and the raising of kids. It is argued that kids raised by same-sex couples are, by definition, developmentally deprived and hence same-sex marriage should be illegal based on what's best for the family and/or kids. The counter-argument to that usually ends up being that if a child is loved and nurtured that it will develop into a healthy adult regardless of the gender of it's parents. Further, same-sex couples generally exhibit traits and tendencies of the opposite sex in complementary fashion and so a male child, for instance, gets the same male programming that it would under hetrosexual couples. This counter-argument is weak because the evidence isn't really there to support this last assertion in all it's dimensions.

The last question is that gay behaviour is detrimental to the species because it takes two fertile members of the population that could produce offspring out of the group. This, in turn, then "wastes two lives" because there is no long-term contribution to the culture/society in the form of offspring that can carry on the traditions and values of that society. Further, any third-party children raised by this couple will be more likely to be gay themselves and so further remove from the gene pool potential offspring.

It's the last question that I often get stymied with since I haven't heard any evidence to the contrary or found a counter-balancing positive sociological benenfit. The article you posted seems to imply that homosexual behaviour allows fertile couples to produce more offspring then they could handle on their own without sacrificing the development of these additional children. Any ideas on that?

Take it easy.

[Soldier]

I'm personally against same-sex marriage, but won't get into that right now. That last argument, however, annoys me from a logical perspective. If homosexual marriage is bad because children don't come out of it, then so is any marriage which does not produce children. And that's getting into Catholic realms, which I also disagree with. In any case, we could use some population trim. And that's another sticky situation, because I can't think of a single 'decent' way to cut down on the population.

[jBirch]

Soldier,

The supposition in the last argument is that these couples are physically able to produce children but choose not to. With Catholic beliefs (which I mostly subscribe to) the idea is that if you don't produce children it is because God chose for that not to happen and that, by definition in that case, you weren't subverting His will. He deemed for you not to have children and so you live with it. Homosexual unions though, are actively subverting His will, so the logic goes, since they have the capacity to choose to have children (God's will) and actively renounce that.

I belive that you are right about the Pop trim and equally right about the problems with achieving that. On the plus side, the indigent population growth-rate in most first world nations is negative when you remove immigration.

Take it easy.

[Soldier]

Which is actually worse, because it means the fastest-growing areas are the areas where it's least welcome.

I see what you're saying, but I'd just respond with the fact that either way it's potentially fertile people choosing not to be so, and that reproduction shouldn't be the only (or primary) purpose of marriage.

[jBirch]

Soldier,

Seen. I disagree with your first assertion but your counter-argument seems like it might work. I'll huck it out there when I next get a chance. *grin*

Take it easy.

[telkanuru]

Two things:

1) Church and State: Marrage as a legal concept should have nothing to do with any god or religious feeling, as such things have no place in the law. That is, marrage is a term used for people who have specific rights under the law, and is not being used in terms of religion. Therefore, any use of religion or god is irrelivant to the entire debate.

2) A pox upon the gay-equals-no-children-argument. Under this logic, not only should marrage that does not result in children be illigal, but every time an man and a woman are in the same place and do not copulate, they should be arrested.

[jBirch]

telkanuru,

1) Correct. However, the term marriage is both a religious and legal one and so the definition in one place affects it's usage in another. Further, religious marriage carries legal benefits that civil unions do not especially when it comes to federal level benefits and simple global portability. It's not like the terminological difference between crime and sin.

2) Not so since fornication outside of marriage is a sin. The argument does hold, though, between a man and a woman who are married and she is not at that "unclean time", engaged in prayer or working on the Sabbath.

*grin* Ain't this fun?

Take it easy.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally posted by Soldier
In any case, we could use some population trim. And that's another sticky situation, because I can't think of a single 'decent' way to cut down on the population.

jonathan swift already solved that problem....


we should just eat babies!

[Faggot the Hutt]

Yeah, but that was only Irish babies... Heh... MicDonald's Baby Back Ribs... Ha, ha, haaaaa!

[Ramrod]

On a recent late night show I saw a Scottish comedian, whose name I cannot recall, who had the perfect answer to the population problem.

His solution, "If everyone just ate one other person, we could cut the population in half!" "You eat someone I don't like, and I'll eat someone you don't like."

[thyme_daniels]

Originally posted by ****** the Hutt
Yeah, but that was only Irish babies... Heh... MicDonald's Baby Back Ribs... Ha, ha, haaaaa!

heh heh heh. pretty funny. horrible, but funny.

[Soldier]

What I didn't like in the article was how they were saying all sorts of gay-rights groups were using this as proof that homosexuality is a natural thing. Animals in the wild kill each other all the time over mates, territory, food, etc. But we don't say murder is natural, do we? Nope, you still (sometimes) go to jail for it...

[D'Artagnan1673]

...When that fails, the biblical argument then comes up and it is argued that same-sex intercourse is a Christian sin and hence should be illegal. They then cite various bits of the bible. It starts in Genesis with the argument that Man and Woman where created from the same flesh, in God's image, and so the union of man and woman is the only possible way to be in God's image. By definition, Man and Man is but only the male half of God. The counter argument to this is the supposition that Homosexual people are more perfect then Man or Woman on it's own because they are both male and female *in the same body*. And so on and on with various other sections of the bible. The letters from Paul get a little trickier because he was personally against same-sex unions but you can usually counter those on the merits and with citations from other parts of the Book...

jBirch,

As I read the beginning of the paragraph, I was unsure of your intent. You are stating an argument and a conter argument. However, towards the bottom when you bring up Paul and his writing, it seems clear to me that you are against the Biblical argument against homosexulaity as you state, "but that you can usually counter those (Pauls beliefs) on the merits and with citations from other parts of the book." Following this logic, I will therefore assume that you hold to the belief that a homosexual person is a 'more perfect' human since he or she embodies both genders. I am at a loss at how you can say that the Bible is unclear about whether or not homosexual relations are a sin. You claim that Paul, personally, was against homosexual behavior, but this can be countered by other 'merits and citations.'

Your argument against Biblical views is groups into two arguments.

1. God made man and Woman to a union with God. Homosexual people are more perfect because they embody both man and woman.

Where exactly did you come up with this? Is there any scripture that points to this? Please site in the scriptures where any of this is implied, or pointed out. I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to see where this is said. *** I edited part of this paragraph out this morning around 8:00 a.m. I slept on what I had written and when I woke up I felt that I had misinterpreted and expressed more than what was implied in jBirch's comments.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...

This seems to counter the argument that a homosexual person is better or more complete since the Mosiac law states that homosexual activitiy is an abomination.

2. Paul was personally against homosexuality, but other parts of the Bible counter his personal views.

Are Paul's views contrary to the Bible? 2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. According to this verse, anything in the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefore it is not Pauls opinions, but the inspired word of God speaking through the writings of Paul.

One of the harshests part of the New Testiment in regards to homosexuality can be found in Romans 1:18 - 28. Does Paul say, "I think homosexuality is wrong?" No, he is not giving his opinion, but rather explaining the ways of God.

Verse 26 - For this cause (their unbelief) God have them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another...

Please site scripture that counters this.

Finally, please note that I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I think I am better than them, or any person for that matter. That does not mean, however, that I will embrace their lifestyle or justify their lifestyle any more than I would justify an adulterer, to paraphrase a pastor friend of mine

[Soldier]

Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673
Finally, please note that I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I think I am better than them, or any person for that matter. That does not mean, however, that I will embrace their lifestyle or justify their lifestyle any more than I would justify an adulterer, to paraphrase a pastor friend of mine.

Well put.

[Corazo]

there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and people who choose it as a part of their life deserve the same legal rights as people who are heterosexual. If gay marraige isn't put on equal footing with straight marraige, then gays are being discriminated against for something that the government has no right to get involved in or pass judgement on.

[jeff]

Putting on argumentative hat: Well said, Corazo, with the exception that gays do not "choose it as a part of their life"; it apparently is innate behavior rather than a choice, just like being left handed vs. right handed. It has nothing to do with "free will". (You can force lefties to only use their right hand, as used to happen, but it doesn't make them right-handed. Follow the analogy...)

For the theologically inclined, one could say "all of God's works are perfect", so if a given individual is born to be gay, then it's because it fits in God's master plan.

On more pragmatic level: there is no reason that gay people should lose civil rights that are available only to straights: the right to visit next of kin in hospital and make medical decisions as medical proxy, property rights and probate avoidance after death, survivor rights to homes, employee and Social Security benefits, etc., etc. And - the right to pay higher taxes!

The "make babies" argument is irrelevant: my marriage has no children nor do I expect it, but it's just as valid as anyone elses. Ditto with Bob and Liddy Dole's marriage.

The "it's sinful" argument is irrelevant too: it a behavior is sinful in your religion, then don't do it, but don't curtail secular civil rights (see above) to others. Also, remember that the Episcopalians consecrated an openly gay Bishop, so it's not even as if there is exactly one policy on homosexuality that all Christians subscribe to (as if that was binding on people of other religions or on the government anyway)

The "it's unnatural" argument has been exploded, obviously, but it's also worth remembering that it used to be thought that inter-religion and inter-racial marriages were "unnatural", and the pulpits justified it in their weekly sermons. We've become more enlightened since then.

Frankly, two guys or two women getting married doesn't pose a threat to my marriage in the least. I think the antics of Michael Jackson or Britney Spears are more demeaning to the institution than letting long-time gay partners have the benefits of legal marriage.

[damion18d]

I'm not argueing a point, just asking for a clearification. I remember hearing about studies of whether being gay was genetic or not. I don't remember ever hearing the results. It seems as though many people are knowingly or unknowingly siting these works. Can anyone send me to a summary of the research? I would like to read the final findings.

[Strytllr]

For the theologically inclined, one could say "all of God's works are perfect", so if a given individual is born to be gay, then it's because it fits in God's master plan.

Wrong.

Actually, it says that all of God's creation is perfect. All creations can be defiled by free will. Therefore, even if you go the route that God's Master Plan is perfect, embracing both the virtuous and the desecrated, that does not mean that any one part is pure and unadulterated.

You also have to remember that for the majority of christian religous, the view is that homosexuality IS free will and not pre-ordained... thus not from God originally, but has been subverted along the way.

There is nothing christian that says not having a baby is a sin. So please stop spouting that argument.

On the episcopalian bishop thing... *sigh* There IS only one view that christians hold on homosexuality. The episcopalians have openly turned their back on it... which has led to more than a considerable argument with them on it. That is another issue entirely. unfortunately.

About Pauline literature. Please keep in mind that, even as Paul was writing for God, he was talking to greeks and romans. At the time, both greek and roman men were of the mind that a nice piece of boy flesh was a good and acceptable thing to have. Paul's term of homosexuality was explicitly about men having sex with young boys. Of course, he was still against all of it as a matter of scripture, because he was a master of the mosaic law... and mosaic law made no bones, nor gray area about it's view on homosexuality.

anyway... just wanted to shed some light on some slightly erroneous arguments.