ZOMBIE FORUMS

Cenwood, I would first like to say that I agree with you to an extent.

*Dodges things thrown at him by Grey and others

That said, you discount "religious crap relating to 'The sanctity of marriage' " by saying that it doesn't count. Why? Because you don't agree with it? I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. You could have said it's because God doesn't exist (<a href="http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t=3412">which is another debate entirely</a>) and as such shouldn't have any say in how we lead our lives, but you didn't. You just said that religious reasons don't count. And, as such, I have to agree with Grey as well. Until you can back up your logical reasonings with, well, logic, I will continue to ignore your posts.

Jasper, do whatever the hell you like inside your religion, as long as it doesnt contravene the human rights of other people. (So, no virgin sacrifices, basicly.) I just dont see how your religious beliefs are in any way relevant to the legal freedoms that other people should enjoy. Whether your Church chooses to allow marriage to gay people is irrelevent, your church will be a private institution that can have its own rules. Exclude from the club who you will. You cant, however, force your moral code on other people. They are entitled to the same legal protections and rights as you are, and that means they should be able to marry according to the state law.

I just felt like showing people my dick, so I can feel important too.

8=====>

Cenwood, religion is something that applies to a person on an individual level. If you ask them why they, on an individual level, believe something, then religion is fair game. If you ask why aside from religion they believe what they believe citing that you already understand what the religious stance is or, as Jasper said, some other logical reason, that's a different story, but you didn't, instead opting to go without giving a reason. Unfourtunatly, in the written word where we can't truly tell voicing, what was written comes out to sound rather childish and to the effect of "you can't because it's out of bounds because I say so. Neener neener neener." This is easily remedied by widening the scope of the conversation outside of individual views or any of the above-mentioned concepts, or you could berate me with the same things you said to Jasper, that's cool too.

And Cenwood makes himself look like an ass again. You completely disregarded the fact that I said I agreed with you, and assumed that I have a religion which dictates that Homosexuality is a sin against god. I don't. In fact, I pretty much have no religion at all. I also have no problem with gay people at all.

To another point, this thread isn't about the legality of bans on same-sex marriages. It isn't about legality of anything at all. It's about Homophobia, which is a personal fear of a sort. As such, Religion is important in explaining a person's reaction to gay people, as it affects their thought processes.

I think we could teach British Parlaiment a thing or two about debating.

I like gay people. They're funny, tend to be more self-deprecating than most, and all in all, tend to take a joke better than someone who isn't gay but thinks they support gays.

That said, the current trend towards mutiple partners and unsafe sex is just as stupid for them as it is for us, and just because the Christian Conservatives have labeled them "deviant" doesn't mean homosexuals have to give them a reason to.

Oi.

Hehe, I had to laugh at how much I agree with this paragraph.

Grey: the only reason you ended that thread is because everyone is tired with dealing with you. At this point, it doesn't seem that you're capable of biting your tongue unless you're forcedly gagged and bound. And we can just call DavidoftheEast over for that, could we not? But why must we tattle on you everytime? You're a sad, pathetic little man who seems to always sidetrack the debate into personal battles.

And just for everyone's information - I get smartest once a month, because there's that week farthest away from the blood in which I can actually form thoughts. *gasp* What a wonder...

Now... back to topic. Let's start from here:



At least someone was smart enough to get relivant information from that article. Points.



Whether or not it is forced on others, it can be a prime factor of where homophobia originates. The issue with religion is learning to privately practice it instead of zealously striking those who choose not to.



It seems ignorance is more the problem than not. Gays who practice unsafe sex (in all aspects) are just as in risk as straight human beings. The only thing they don't have to worry about is pregnancy.
Anti-gays have chosen this flaw to focus upon and publisize. So the general public "knows that all gays practice dangerous sex." Which is also a form of ignorance...

Well as long as they don't force their views on this country and society as a whole. Or kill more people. Or hang people from barb wire fences after beating them to a bloody pulp to die.

Though what MOST people over look is that the CCR (Christian Conservative Right) labels LOTS of straight people as diviants too. Hell I might have been labeled as such for giving oral to my wife or liking it doggy style or something. And I'm sure they would call all the shit eating, S&M loving, pain causing people out there as deviants.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay. Hell if you love someone or are just attracted to them then I fail to see the problem assuming you're intelligent and safe about it...

It's not like we're running low on people in this world so if some of the breeding population wants to not procreate then I see no problem. Seeing as procreation in the long run is the only difference between straight and gay...

God fucking dammit. Just what we need. A left-wing equivalent of Kylaer. Cenwood, calm the fuck down. You're attacking people like Jasper who are on the same side as you, and you're taking this debate way too seriously.

Yayness :)



I can think of one wy they do off the top of my head and this is marraige: it is intrinsically a religious term thusly any kind of legal union for a same-sex relation ship cannot, IMO, be called a marriage although naturally it should have all the same laws applied...

PTLIS

Pedant time: this doesn't make them less of a person just because they live less time. Because if it did, you'd have to extend it to others- OMG!!! CANCER VICTIMS DIE AT A YOUNGER AGE!!! TEYH ARE EKLSS OF A PERZON TAHN NON-CANCER PPLZ@!!111.

Granted, this will mean that they die younger if they engage in behavior such as this- but the same could be said for any one of many risky activities. Having risky sex (whether gay or not) is, simply put, really dangerous.

So you're saying that all religions are inherently homophobic?

No, I am saying most of the larger ones are, and that because of this it is best to have different names. Just for the sake of making things easier for everyone.

PTLIS

mmm.... Risky sex...

what?

Firstly, I wasnt attacking you, Jasper. Or at least I want trying to. Sorry if it seemed I was. I DID assume you were of one of these religions you talked about, but still, take the "your religion" to mean any persons religion and your fine. You want me to edit it to make it clearer?

I have no doubt that religion is a great cause of hompohbia, and that it is important in finding out the "why" behind homopohiba. I have still yet to see how anyones personal belief on homosexuality should be any cause of impediment to homosexuals. Whatever a religion believes should NOT affect a countries laws, unless you dont believe in the seperation of church and state. That is why I believe religious reasons "Dont count" when discussing homosexuality. They are often a source of bigotry, but are in no way a justifiable reasons for making homosexuality illegal or restricted.

I would disagree that marriage is "inherently a religious term". I do think that its important that both gay and straight couples can attain a equal marriage in national terms. What the church decides to do and not do as regards marriage are no concern of mine. But the union between a man and a man SHOULD be called a marriage, not anything else. We do not want to start off the equal rights thing with segregation, even with something as minor as the name.

Something that just struck me now: If religious beliefs cannot inform governmental decisions, how can the government make any decision that can be perceived as "ethical" in any way? What principles would determine, for the government, what is ethical and what is not? Or is the role of the government simply to provide the greatest amount of people possible the greatest amount of happiness possible (that is, is governmental ethics utilitarian)?

Convenience..........?
Logic...?
The majority of the largely followed religions do share similarities after all...

Good questions. You've completely managed to intimidate me with your intellect. This is where I hide and closely observe the thread from afar.

What? You are totally at a loss as to what moral base a government should use to make lwas, OTHER then religion? Shit, I have a more stringent set of a morals then a lot of christians. Mainly they involve leaving people alone to do as they will as long as its not harming others...a lot of Secular Humanists and Unitarian Universalists dont even believe in god. Are you seriously saying that the best ethical natures spring from religious faith? Cause they often dont. Often the people that are 100% thinking for themselves construct the best moral compass.

And if your going to use religion as a moral base, how do you pick out the good moral lessons from such crap as Sodom and Gamorrah, the slavery laws, the "if a woman is raped, beat the shit out of her" laws, the way in which god often encouraged incest....and I dont want to start a debate on the pros and cons of Christanity, and Im not going to debate on the validity of the old testament to christanity. I just think using a holy text as moral groundwork is pretty damn risky ground.

Kali, you were talking to Zarathrustra, right? Just to clarify...I thought I was expressing my opinions fairly simply.

Icy, there's a whole thread devoted to this. Take your ethicality-pondering there.



Procreation and, oh, about thirty years of the respective person's life. The "long run" for most gay males isn't nearly as long as it is for heterosexuals.



They're at greater risk, due to the prevalence of AIDS being so much higher within the gay community than within the population as a whole (in the U.S., at least; Africa is a different story, but their big cause is reusing needles, not sex). Gays make up 2-3% of the population - and male-on-male sex brings about ~42% of new AIDS patients.

Now, for gay marriage. Marriage, in the traditional sense, is and should remain a religious event, to be performed or denied as each individual group/church sees fit. However, a religious marriage should not be a requirement in order to receive the "married" status, as provided by the government, and the governmental "marriage" should be available to any couple. So, if Steve and John want to get married, the local church doesn't have to perform the ceremony if its preacher/members disagree, but they can still be legally married in the eyes of the government and receive the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.