Robert: I still don't see it that way. If I won a Nobel prize for outstanding work, then year after year the standards dropped...well, it wouldn't mean MY Nobel was worthless. It would just mean the the criteria changed after I'd won mine.

It most certainly would mean that the institution of the Nobel Peace Prize has become less noble, and I would no longer wish to be associated with it. If you feel otherwise, that's your opinion, and I probably can't change that. As another example...if I say the word Cuba, what are first three words that pop into your head? ....possibly Castro, Communism, and Cigars. 50 years ago, people's impression of Cuba would have been totally different. Therefore, Fidel Castro and his opressive, harmful form of communism has caused harm to the entire "institution" of Cuba. Doesn't change the fact that it is still a beautiful country with wonderful people. But it most certainly effects how people think about Cuba, and it changes the issues one thinks about when considering whether or not to "go there."

Likewise, if homosexual marriage leads to further erosion of marriage as an institution which is enacted in order to bring new life into the world, people will not make the same considerations when thinking about whether to lead a married life, and people in general will not view marriage in the same way as before.

Divorce, especially no fault divorce, did the same thing to marriage. Widespread premarital sex did the same thing to marriage. Widespread extramarital affairs did the same thing to marriage. Where will it end? What's to stop anybody from calling anything a "marriage"? I love a 12-year old, why can't I marry her? I love my dog and no one else, why can't I marry it? I am bisexual, and I love both a man and a woman, why can't I marry them both?

People are mistaken when they think that marriage is just about love. Marriage is about more than sharing love. Marriage is even about more than living one's whole life with someone. Marriage is about uniting two distinct and different beings to create something greater than what is a man or that which is a woman. And this is the most ideal way to create new life.

It is certainly not the only way, as modern society has developed many other ways to bring children into the world (think: single mother with absent father, think Michael Jackson choosing women to inseminate and carry his children then the mother having nothing to do with the child, think of all the other excuses given for lack of responsibility taken for caring for what you bring into the world...) Nobody is saying we should make these otherways illegal. We're just saying (society already has said for hundreds of years), we want to encourage people to strive for that ideal. We're also saying that we are NOT going to reward people for choosing the less than ideal.

I tend to agree with R.G. on #99. I'm not all that interested in arguing it, but each time you change the definition of the institution, the institution itself changes. How people function within it also changes, as we have seen as divorce laws and their mechanics have been streamlined. No one really knows how gay marriage will change marriage, but it would be short-sighted to say that it won't. At best we don't know.

If nothing else, cultural traditions are being lost. Some applaud it and say that those traditions were meaningless anyway, but to others they had meaning. Some of the most social, liberal nations in the world have populations that oppose homosexual marriage, so we can't characterize it as a local problem with American conservatism.

If this many people around the world feel strongly about it, we need to at least take their concerns seriously, and show them the same respect that is being demanded of them.

Stating the fact that divorce and adultery is harmful to the family too doesn't do anything to negate the argument that heterosexual couples are harmful to the family

Nope, it sure doesn't....it actually SUPPORTS it, since that was our point all along!

and he struggles greatly to find romantic companionship, sincerely attempting to be "straight," but I fear that it may never happen

I don't understand how anyone could think this would ever be possible. There are an unlimited amount of analogies you could use to illustrated this. How do to 'change' what you prefer... what you're attracted to? Personally, I can't stand the taste or smell of onions. This hampers me a great deal when it comes to the food I choose, since most cooks use onions pretty regularly. I was in Korea for 2 weeks awhile ago, and I was going to take it as an opportunity to try and 'get over' my hatred for onions. I tried REALLY hard. I was at the point of throwing up many times... but was unable to even stomach the damn evil little things. Let's say I WAS able to overcome my hatred for onions. Do you think I would ever be able to turn that into a love for onions? Would onions ever be one of my favorite things? q

and he struggles greatly to find romantic companionship, sincerely attempting to be "straight," but I fear that it may never happen

I don't understand how anyone could think this would ever be possible. There are an unlimited amount of analogies you could use to illustrated this. How do to 'change' what you prefer... what you're attracted to? Personally, I can't stand the taste or smell of onions. This hampers me a great deal when it comes to the food I choose, since most cooks use onions pretty regularly. I was in Korea for 2 weeks awhile ago, and I was going to take it as an opportunity to try and 'get over' my hatred for onions. I tried REALLY hard. I was at the point of throwing up many times... but was unable to even stomach the damn evil little things. Let's say I WAS able to overcome my hatred for onions. Do you think I would ever be able to turn that into a love for onions? Would onions ever be one of my favorite things? I would have to believe they never would...

We're just talking about onions here, but I'm guess that in order to live a happy life with a 'partner of choice', that person would have to become your favorite thing. I know my wife is my favorite

...and let's say this was all revervsed, and that being straight was the situation that needed to be corrected. Do you think you could learn to sexually love people of the same sex?

Sorry about the double-post

..if the christian majority can accept that people are born with defects, conditions and differences...and that it's not their fault they were born that way....why is it that homosexuality is seen as a 'choice'? That, to me, is like saying that a person is schizophrenic by choice, or near sighted by choice.

So...you're equating homosexuality to mental illness? Actually, back in recent mental health history, it used to be that way. Homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. Of course, that has changed within the past few years.

As a Christian, I see homosexuality as sin, just as lying is sin, killing is sin, being greedy is sin. I see myself as just as much a sinner as a homosexual person. I think certain things happen in the life of someone who is homosexual to push them to be that way, and some people's chemical make-up just gives them a greater tendency to be homosexual. I DO NOT THINK IT IS RIGHT to treat homosexuals disrespectfully or hatefully. Everyone needs a little love...and it's Christians' jobs to love people so that they can see and experience the love of Christ.

So...you're equating homosexuality to mental illness?

Umm, no.  I also refer to near sightedness.  Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness.

 

Hmmmmm...and...my standard for the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality comes from the Bible. The old testment, as well as the new testament blatantly say that homosexuality is wrong. But scriptures also say that lots of other things are wrong and just as "bad."

I take the Bible literally. If God is omniscent and omnipresent (and He is!), He knows how stupid humans are, and how we try to take apart His word and take it out of context and make it say what we want it to say so that we don't have to change our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and ways of life.

But I believe that God has preserved His Word. I believe that what I read in English still has the same meanings it did in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. I don't think that an omniscent and omnipresent God would allow His Word to become mush for today's people, who He loves just as much as He loved His Israel. I think its real, true, and always applicable, unchanged, and a standard and a challenge for all people...myself included!.

But that's just me.

"Umm, no. I also refer to near sightedness. Last time I checked that wasn't a mental illness."

But it is still a "defect", which kind of goes against the spirit of your argument, I think. That was the whole reason I started talking about "cure", earlier, and got jabbed for it...

I think its real, true, and always applicable, unchanged, and a standard and a challenge for all people...myself included!

But I keep hearing how certain things Jesus said that are recorded in the New Testament invalidate what was written in the Old Testament. If that is so, wouldn't that mean that his word was changed and is not always applicable?

Jesus said:

"I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."

As far as what stays and what goes, it is pretty much dependant on your flavor of Christianity. I know people who are Christians and hold to a great deal of Jewish law; diet, sabbath, and such; and I know Christians that appear to come from a different planet in terms of "law".

No different than any other religion, I guess.

As far as what stays and what goes, it is pretty much dependant on your flavor of Christianity. I know people who are Christians and hold to a great deal of Jewish law; diet, sabbath, and such; and I know Christians that appear to come from a different planet in terms of "law". No different than any other religion, I guess.

That's what confuses me about Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally." Do they take every word and passage literally? Are there parts of it that override other parts? If you say that Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves overrides the rather horrific instructions in books like Leviticus, does it not follow that such precedence of Biblical entries would apply to condemnation of gays?

< did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

If you are asking my personal opinion, I think that Jesus changed the reaction to sin more than the definition of sin. That was my point previous. What homosexuals do sexually is between them, their partner and God. What they do politically is my business because it is my nation, too.

To me, Jesus removed that whole "priest class" hedge between God and the average person, which also removes the right to impose the "rather horrific instructions" you refer to. Like stoning the prostitute that people often refer to. No one is sinless, so no one really has the right to condemn people and enact bibilical law.

I don't see anything in Jesus' teachings, though, that would suggest we shouldn't express our values when taking part in the political process, though. People tend to confuse the condemnation of sin with the condemnation of the sinner. I can't be holier-than-thou to homosexuals, because I am no "cleaner", but I certainly can't acquiesce and say that what they do isn't sin. That would be denying MY religion to save their feelings.

This isn't an issue of Christians condemning fouls sinners, it is an issue of two groups in conflict over whether it IS sin or not. People just can't tell the difference between condemning someone, and condemning the acts the commit.

near sighted by choice

An interesting analogy... In fact, I am nearsighted by choice. It was not a conscious choice, made once and ready to be unmade at any time, but an unforeseen or underestimated consequence of a long series of choices.
I was not nearsighted when I was born. I had perfectly good eyesight as a young child. But after I learned to read, my viewing behavior changed. As a result, I needed glasses at the age of 8.
Over the course of time, my prescription got stronger and stronger. Now my eyeballs are pretty well set in their current shape, and I don't expect any more significant shifts in my prescription (barring illness or disease).

I actually view this as a very good analogy for homosexuality. I had certain genetic predispositions to various behaviors (quiet, able to focus on one thing for long periods, intelligent, etc.) which, combined with an environment that fostered and encouraged reading, brought out those behaviours (sitting and reading for hours at a time). I had no idea, or at least very little, that this would cause me to become nearsighted. (My parents did, I'm sure, but let's ignore that for now.) I see homosexuality as following essentially the same pattern; the difference is that while some genetic predispositions may be known in a general fashion (think of whatever stereotypical gay trait you want, it's stereotypical for a reason), the environmental factors that transform those predispositions into an outcome are unknown.

So there are choices to be made that will lead one toward homosexuality, but they are not conscious "I think today I'll become gay" choices. Homosexuality is an unintentional, unforeseen by-product of a long series of other choices made during one's early development, as influenced by one's genetic heritage. By the time you become sexually aware, your preferences have already been set. And since you don't understand how they have been set, there is no methodology for changing them.

So there are choices to be made that will lead one toward homosexuality, but they are not conscious "I think today I'll become gay" choices. Homosexuality is an unintentional, unforeseen by-product of a long series of other choices made during one's early development, as influenced by one's genetic heritage. By the time you become sexually aware, your preferences have already been set. And since you don't understand how they have been set, there is no methodology for changing them.

Very well put. There is a fine line between choice and genetic pulses, making it difficult to fathom either. I don't believe anyone would wilfully change his or her orientation just for the hell of it, though, I trust, those caught up in that kind of environment and on the fence could conceivably make a choice; still, it cannot rule out the deep-seated impulse telling them that they are different and thus constricted by the lonliness of the closet.

I don't understand how anyone could think this would ever be possible. There are an unlimited amount of analogies you could use to illustrated this. How do to 'change' what you prefer...

Read the book Beyond Gay by David Morrison, then you'll understand. I can't explain it, I can just offer examples of cases where it has happened.

Well if you care to read the entire thread you will see that I mentioned superannuation.

I think at this point, anyone has the right to skim through this thread and even skip some parts if they want to...

I don't see anything in Jesus' teachings, though, that would suggest we shouldn't express our values when taking part in the political process, though. People tend to confuse the condemnation of sin with the condemnation of the sinner. I can't be holier-than-thou to homosexuals, because I am no "cleaner", but I certainly can't acquiesce and say that what they do isn't sin. That would be denying MY religion to save their feelings.

But why should we care what YOUR religion is when making our laws?

did you read my post? What you are overlooking is saying "Christian" is like saying "Buddhist". It depends on what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.

Exactly. Thus my confusion. A Christian telling me, "I take the Bible literally," is meaningless to me because I have heard so many different interpretations on that statement.

Personally, I can't stand the taste or smell of onions. This hampers me a great deal when it comes to the food I choose, since most cooks use onions pretty regularly. I was in Korea for 2 weeks awhile ago, and I was going to take it as an opportunity to try and 'get over' my hatred for onions. I tried REALLY hard. I was at the point of throwing up many times... but was unable to even stomach the damn evil little things. Let's say I WAS able to overcome my hatred for onions. Do you think I would ever be able to turn that into a love for onions? Would onions ever be one of my favorite things?

You can do it! With hard work and perserverence you can make a friend of the onion. I used to hate tomatoes, and now I can't imagine living without them. Best of luck in your vegetative transformation...

That's what confuses me about Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally." Do they take every word and passage literally? Are there parts of it that override other parts? If you say that Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves overrides the rather horrific instructions in books like Leviticus, does it not follow that such precedence of Biblical entries would apply to condemnation of gays?

Yes, I take th Bible literally...as in Jesus 'literally" uses parables, analogies, and examples to make his points. The Old Testament does the same, but it's not as explicitly stated as such. The creation stories in the Old Testament are nice stories to show the point that God created the universe because He cares about us. Plus, remember He was talking to people in <2000 B.C., before anyone understood science. Do you think anyon would have understood His message if we was like, "Listen up, 4,000 years from now, you're going to invent this thing called radiochronometry. Then, you will see how I created your planet, starting with a molecular cloud, then setting off a nearby supernovae to create a shock wave strong enough to set off the gravitational collapse..."

In fact, back then there wasn't even a thing called "billion", so they wouldn't understand the true age of the universe. He chose instead to stick to just "In the beginning"."

But why should we care what YOUR religion is when making our laws?

You don't have to care about my religion (though I hope you will). You just have to respect my right to vote how I want.

You just have to respect my right to vote how I want.

I respect every person's right to vote, but I oppose every attempt to impose religious belief on our laws, and if the only opposition I can offer is with MY vote, then so be it.

Read the book Beyond Gay by David Morrison, then you'll understand. I can't explain it, I can just offer examples of cases where it has happened

Haha, I skimmed that guy's page; and I don't think that I'll donating any money to his cause by purchasing his book.

Let's say that it was reversed and as it turns out homosexuality was the way to go. Do you think you could be convince, and have "courage" enough to bump and grind with your neighbor Phil? I don't believe any amount of words would convince me to take a trip down that path. So, why do you think it's different for people who actually DO dig people of the same sex, for WHATEVER reasons?