Harm in Homosexuality?

I personally am disgusted by bananas. They smell foul and they taste foul. The worst thing is the sound they make when people eat them. That is hugely offensive. I don't agree with banana eaters, and I don't want to accept them in my society. I'm sure you'll stop eating bananas and make sure no one else eats them too, since it is clear from your above post that we all have to accept other peoples lifestyle choices for them to be permissable in society. I certainly don't accept banana eating.(btw, i'm actually not joking about my dislike of bananas, i genuinely cannot stand them )This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-15-2004 02:47 PM

I agree that there are probably plenty of laws that are stupid. It seems that you agree with me that the law above is absolutely stupid and unecessary. I'm sure that if someone blocked up the door that you were allowed through, that the law forbidding you through the first one would soon be repealed since the people inside would no doubt object to being forced to leave their room to speak with visitors.Anyway, as it is that law is actually a non-entity. You are not stopped from doing anything by the law, you can get in the room by a different door. You could say you were slightly inconvenienced, but so slightly it's barely worth mentioning. On the other hand any law against homosexuality does stop homosexuals from doing something they otherwise would be able to do (such as marry).If homosexualities wrongness is relegated all the way to a whim of god like a statement of fashion, that raises the issue of what right anyone has to want to disallow homosexual practices (such as gay marriage). Afterall, worshipping graven images is breaking the first commandment, but I'm sure there aren't too many people who would object to hindus worshipping at a statue of ganesh or kali (sp?). If homosexuality being wrong is simply a divine whim, you have no more right to discriminate against it in a multi-faith society than jewish people have to stop people eating non-kosher food Added in edit: Just to point out, my use of the word "you" in the above sentence is meant as a general "you". I wasn't meaning to accuse Holmes of discrimination etc This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-15-2004 03:06 PM

Just to add some more to the examples, is colouring my hair purple with green streaks bad, since it is just as unnatural as anal sex, and why single out homosexuality for anal sex when heterosexuals have anal sex too?A question, can a celibate person be homosexual in your opinion, and if not does that mean that a celibate person isn't heterosexual either? It seems that a person who willfully chooses not to have sex is misusing their body too, since they're not procreating?

I was just about to point out that very problem, but it seems you already thought of it. I agree that a discussion of wether secular governments should use the term is a seperate topic, but nevertheless it harms the precedent you were mentioning.Kosher food has a very strict definition (I honeslty have no idea what the defintion is, but I assume it's to do with perceived cleanliness of food??). So does the term vegetarion, and even moreso the term vegan. The term marriage has two definitions though. On the one hand it has the religious definition. In the case of christianity, marriage is inescapably to do with god. The second definition of marriage is a legal one, and this is to do with the respective rights of both parties, what benefits they are entitled due to the marriage etc. The two definitions are very different, and the second one clearly applies to gay couples (if they are indeed to have those rights). To call "gay marriages" something other than marriage is legally seperating them from other unions with no apparent reason to do so.So the precedent for marriage is clear, it is not and should not be confined to christianity (other than marriages in churches of course).

Well as far as incest goes I imagine there are genetic difficulties to consider for any children that inadvertantly resulted from it, but I agree with the overall sentiment that couples that consent to the relationship should not be ostracised (sp?). As for necrophilia, if people want to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs once they're dead they can if they want to as far as i'm concerned. I'm not sure how popular such a thing would be though! lolThis message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-16-2004 11:27 AM

Marriages being religiously between a man and a woman is only one part of it though, it is also between and blessed by god. By allowing say me to marry, you already alter the definition of marriage since it would not in any way include god (christian or other). Why allow one part to be altered but not the other? This goes along with what you mentioned before in the original post.

Well a lot has been said since my last post and I haven't had chance to read all the subsequent posts so feel free to ignore this if it is no longer relevant. All I would say is that if gay unions are to have the same rights as straight unions, then it makes legal sense for the union to have the same legal term. It really doesn't matter if this is "marriage" or not, but since that term is already in use to describe these rights then it makes sense to keep it.

The only reason I would ever want to get married is for the legal rights and legal securites it grants. If I was to die, i'd like to know that my partner has legal claim to my assets etc. If I could get this by simply filling out an application form I would much prefer it, although my partner would be just a little mad that i'd taken away her opportunity to be the centre of attention for the day!.That brings along the other reason why non-christians may want to get married. Humans are a sentimental lot and we seem to like ceremony (I hate it, but then i'm not representative of the whole).

Well i'm not american and I don't know how your legal system works really, but I imagine the fear is that if it ends up in the situation where civil unions are simply made synonymous with traditional marriage then this makes it a lot easier to attack it than if it is fully integrated with marriage. I'm sure it could be attacked even if it was fully integrated, but it would involve completely seperating the two again so that the rights of homosexual unions could be altered without affecting heterosexual ones. If they are only linked by defining them as synonymous, then all that has to be done is to remove that link. Again, i don't know much about law in america so I may be completely wrong.As for removing social stigma, you're right that certainly won't happen overnight. At least it lets homosexuals start to appear more socially normal. Years down the line a gay marriage might be as inoffensive as votes for women, which as far as I know has little opposition?And remember when women fought for the right to vote they didn't settle for having the same rights but let it be called a "democratic deciscion" or some other such name. I doubt gay people will settle for something like that either. Who knows though.