A general thread on Homosexuality, if you will.

[Vashta Nerada]

Jumping into the thread here.

Let me give the Catholic Church's official view regarding the matter: Homosexual acts (e.g. "intercourse" between same-sex partners) are a sin for being a violation of the natural law. However a person is not sinful for having homosexual feelings, because it's not a choice. Prejudice against gays within the church is based on personal preference, and not supposed to be an encouraged viewpoint.

What is "natural law," and who gets to define it?

The Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn of course.

[Deus Malum]

Not necessarily. The angels could've been cool with it, and Lot could've just been an obstructive asshole.

Really? Even further back in the Bible, the concept of an angel having sex with humans was and still is considered unatrual.

Considered what?

[Unhealthy2]

Really? Even further back in the Bible, the concept of an angel having sex with humans was and still is considered unatrual.

Who cares? You using a computer is pretty goddamn "unnatural" too.

[Tokos]

What you mean like gay marriage laws, as I've just shown?

You haven't shown anything.

Given that the existence of gay marriage involves changing the entire paradigm in an unprecedented way, for the sake of something which can be accomplished quite easily otherwise, I think I've succeeded in showing it. It's very telling the lobbying is for "gay marriage", not "an arrangement whereby I can, for example, be allowed to visit the bedside of someone I am not married to, among other rights". It's all about sticking it to the squares. That's pretty vacuous.

[Vashta Nerada]

It's also not up to others to limit my rights for being black, but it still happens.

When?

Go into the wrong neighborhood in Chicago and you'll get beaten. Simple as that.[proposal=][/proposal]

[Deus Malum]

What is "natural law," and who gets to define it?

The Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn of course.

Considering the source is decidedly supernatural, that's a rather silly statement.

[Kobeanare]

When?

Go into the wrong neighborhood in Chicago and you'll get beaten. Simple as that.[proposal=][/proposal]

That's not people limiting your rights, for there is no law against it and they are not working on behalf of the government.

[Beenherebeforeia]

Wow, my first thread too.




Thanks guys.

[Vashta Nerada]

Really? Even further back in the Bible, the concept of an angel having sex with humans was and still is considered unatrual.

Who cares? You using a computer is pretty goddamn "unnatural" too.

And I should care why?

[Deus Malum]

You haven't shown anything.

Given that the existence of gay marriage involves changing the entire paradigm in an unprecedented way, for the sake of something which can be accomplished quite easily otherwise, I think I've succeeded in showing it. It's very telling the lobbying is for "gay marriage", not "an arrangement whereby I can, for example, be allowed to visit the bedside of someone I am not married to, among other rights". It's all about sticking it to the squares. That's pretty vacuous.

This argument isn't significantly different to the argument used against allowing miscegenation in the 60s, back when such a thing would've represented a rather significant paradigm shift from same-race to mixed-race marriages.

Are you now arguing that allowing mixed-race marriages was wrong due to it being an unprecedented paradigm shift? If not, wouldn't this very same unprecedented paradigm shift make allowing same-sex marriage a precedented paradigm shift?

[Juristonia]

When?

Go into the wrong neighborhood in Chicago and you'll get beaten. Simple as that.[proposal=][/proposal]

I still fail to even see the slightest argument against gays in this.

[Deus Malum]

Who cares? You using a computer is pretty goddamn "unnatural" too.

And I should care why?

Because without arguing that "unnatural" is bad, the argument that homosexuality is bad because it's "unnatural" is rather pointless and hollow. In other words, you fail.

[Juristonia]

Who cares? You using a computer is pretty goddamn "unnatural" too.

And I should care why?

Because you apparently don't agree with homosexuality because god says it's unnatural.
By that logic, you should log off right now before you get smitten or something.

[Bottle]

Given that the existence of gay marriage involves changing the entire paradigm in an unprecedented way, for the sake of something which can be accomplished quite easily otherwise, I think I've succeeded in showing it. It's very telling the lobbying is for "gay marriage", not "an arrangement whereby I can, for example, be allowed to visit the bedside of someone I am not married to, among other rights". It's all about sticking it to the squares. That's pretty vacuous.

This argument isn't significantly different to the argument used against allowing miscegenation in the 60s, back when such a thing would've represented a rather significant paradigm shift from same-race to mixed-race marriages.

Are you now arguing that allowing mixed-race marriages was wrong due to it being an unprecedented paradigm shift? If not, wouldn't this very same unprecedented paradigm shift make allowing same-sex marriage a precedented paradigm shift?

Also:

Gay marriage doesn't change a paradigm for me, or for my parents, or for my friends, or for my relatives. Gay marriage is only a 'paradigm shift' for people who think that traditionalist gender roles are an essential part of marriage. For those of us who have never held that opinion, there's no issue.

[Vashta Nerada]

Go into the wrong neighborhood in Chicago and you'll get beaten. Simple as that.[proposal=][/proposal]

That's not people limiting your rights, for there is no law against it and they are not working on behalf of the government.

It's called battery, and it's illegal. And I believe the point made earlier was that I shouldn't tell others how to live.

[Unhealthy2]

Given that the existence of gay marriage involves changing the entire paradigm in an unprecedented way, for the sake of something which can be accomplished quite easily otherwise, I think I've succeeded in showing it. It's very telling the lobbying is for "gay marriage", not "an arrangement whereby I can, for example, be allowed to visit the bedside of someone I am not married to, among other rights". It's all about sticking it to the squares. That's pretty vacuous.

It's really not an "OMG HOLY SHIT MASSIVE FUCKING CHANGE!!11!one!!1!(cos²x + sin²x)!!" like you portray it as. It's about as massive a change as generalizing gauge fields to include non-abelian transformation groups, i.e. pretty much hardly anything. It's unprecedented in the same way that a new episode of a television program is unprecedented. Sure, technically it is, but who cares?

[Tokos]

This argument isn't significantly different to the argument used against allowing miscegenation in the 60s, back when such a thing would've represented a rather significant paradigm shift from same-race to mixed-race marriages.

Are you now arguing that allowing mixed-race marriages was wrong due to it being an unprecedented paradigm shift? If not, wouldn't this very same unprecedented paradigm shift make allowing same-sex marriage a precedented paradigm shift?

Since when have the historical laws in America been the very definition of what marriage is since before history? Really, this is not hard to understand. There's more to the world than recent American history. If anything, marriage has tended towards the exogamous.

Marriage has always been between man and woman. There's no getting away from this. That's what marriage is. Were the Theban band "married"?

[Deus Malum]

This argument isn't significantly different to the argument used against allowing miscegenation in the 60s, back when such a thing would've represented a rather significant paradigm shift from same-race to mixed-race marriages.

Are you now arguing that allowing mixed-race marriages was wrong due to it being an unprecedented paradigm shift? If not, wouldn't this very same unprecedented paradigm shift make allowing same-sex marriage a precedented paradigm shift?

Also:

Gay marriage doesn't change a paradigm for me, or for my parents, or for my friends, or for my relatives. Gay marriage is only a 'paradigm shift' for people who think that traditionalist gender roles are an essential part of marriage. For those of us who have never held that opinion, there's no issue.

Not to mentioned that just about every major societal change that went contrary to majority opinion in favor of wider minority rights has represented a paradigm shift for SOME people.

That it is a shift in the paradigm does not inherently make it wrong.

[Vashta Nerada]

And I should care why?

Because you apparently don't agree with homosexuality because god says it's unnatural.
By that logic, you should log off right now before you get smitten or something.

For using a computer. And what law in the Bible says I'll be struck by lightning?

[Vashta Nerada]

Go into the wrong neighborhood in Chicago and you'll get beaten. Simple as that.[proposal=][/proposal]

I still fail to even see the slightest argument against gays in this.

Just small talk.

[Unhealthy2]

And I should care why?

Because you seem to think "unnatural" equals "bad and evil." Thus, to lack hypocrisy, you shouldn't wear clothes, use a computer, have a job, drive a car, or live in a house, either that or admit that "unnatural" is not equivalent to "evil."

[Kobeanare]

That's not people limiting your rights, for there is no law against it and they are not working on behalf of the government.

It's called battery, and it's illegal. And I believe the point made earlier was that I shouldn't tell others how to live.

Exactly. It's illegal. You want your suppression to be legal. That's an entirely different issue. The fact that others attempt to tell you how to live (though not through legislating their opinions) doesn't mean you should tell others how to live, much less by legislating your opinions.

[Bottle]

Also:

Gay marriage doesn't change a paradigm for me, or for my parents, or for my friends, or for my relatives. Gay marriage is only a 'paradigm shift' for people who think that traditionalist gender roles are an essential part of marriage. For those of us who have never held that opinion, there's no issue.

Not to mentioned that just about every major societal change that went contrary to majority opinion in favor of wider minority rights has represented a paradigm shift for SOME people.

That it is a shift in the paradigm does not inherently make it wrong.

Honestly, I think women's suffrage was a much much bigger paradigm shift for marriage. The very notion that marriage is a union between two legal equals was the real shift...for the majority of the history of marriage, it was a master-servant contract.

[Unhealthy2]

For using a computer. And what law in the Bible says I'll be struck by lightning?

You said that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural. Ergo, using electricity is bad because it is unnatural. This really isn't difficult when you're not being deliberately obtuse.

[St George of England]

This argument isn't significantly different to the argument used against allowing miscegenation in the 60s, back when such a thing would've represented a rather significant paradigm shift from same-race to mixed-race marriages.

Are you now arguing that allowing mixed-race marriages was wrong due to it being an unprecedented paradigm shift? If not, wouldn't this very same unprecedented paradigm shift make allowing same-sex marriage a precedented paradigm shift?

Since when have the historical laws in America been the very definition of what marriage is since before history? Really, this is not hard to understand. There's more to the world than recent American history. If anything, marriage has tended towards the exogamous.

Marriage has always been between man and woman. There's no getting away from this. That's what marriage is. Were the Theban band "married"?

Wrong actually, not only did Nero marry a man, but in several societies it was between a man and many women. There's a difference.