Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed

Riverrat, I'm just curious. You are officially pro-gay rights but you are personally against them, or so you've said. Now that you've supposedly changed from your previous skewed view, if one of your kids is gay are you going to accept him or are you still going to stigmatize him like before?

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

I don't see it (homosexual eroticism) as any more of a sin than lusting after a woman in your heart. Sin is not some grand evil aberration that sends people to Hell. Sin is simply part of human nature. It is our desire to be like Sinatra and do it our way!

Your response is just so filled with misconceptions and wrongs it's actually funny. Against them?
I am against no-one.
I am not in favor of the act of gay sex. It's not a skewed view, never was. You make me out to be a gay basher or something. I have never stigmatized anyone, in my entire life, why should I start now?Edited by riVeRraT, : ?

Yes, I have said it a thousand times, all sin is equal. And my sin is no better than the sins of a gay person. The jury remains out on that. Yes we are forgiven, but not if we know we are doing wrong, and keep doing it, without feeling sorry, or asking for forgiveness.If a gay person feels like they are not doing wrong, and God hasn't come to them and confirmed that they are doing wrong, then it is between them and God.The problem arises when we make our sins legal, then you cross a legal/moral/religious bridge.Gay marriage is a catch 22 for religious people, and they don't even know it. If they are against it, then they are against their own right to be religious. They are also condemning, and judging, turning our nation into one giant church or something.If we were truly a Christian nation, then we would be turning the other cheek, and loving our enemies. Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone.

quote:

---

Sin is not some grand evil aberration that sends people to Hell. Sin is simply part of human nature.

---

Sin is a part of human nature? Like, it is a normal thing for us to do?If God made us to sin as a natural part of ourselves, but then turned around and said ,"Hey, don't sin, even though I made you to sin, because I don't like it.", then that seems quite a bit more than unfair to me.Why would God stack the deck against us like that?

I already have. The point originally made was that: had someone a sexual attraction to x, (where attraction-to-x was peer-reprehensible) then they wouldn't be on here looking for impartial advice.That you have decided the one attraction is being rendered (by me)eqivilent to the the other is reading what was not written. I wouldn't mind but I started out the point by saying this about it ...in an effort (failed in your case) to head troll-ees off at the pass

quote:

---

I am not in favor of the act of gay sex.

---

Gay sex earns your disfavor. That means you disapprove. It does not have your approval.You are clearly not neutral wrt gay sex. You have not said that you don't care if people have gay sex. You go beyond being neutral about it and are clearly in the disapproval camp.That is the same as being against it, rat.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The point originally made was that: had someone a sexual attraction to x, (where attraction-to-x was peer-reprehensible) then they wouldn't be on here looking for impartial advice.

---

Yeah, right.You chose bestiality to compare with homosexuality purely by random, I'm sure.[/eyeroll]

I wasn't comparing. I was picking an example extreme enough to make the "peer-reprehensible" point. How could I make the point without using something considered peer-reprehensible?You have the wrong end of the stick Nator. The best thing to do is let it go. I repeat Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ok, fine, but I wasn't bringing that up on the premise of competition. I am just pointing out what the facts are, and what they could mean.

---

But if you didn't want to bring up competition, then why did you talk about the "unfair advantage" that gay couples would have?Why can't you simply admit that one of the reasons you feel uncomfortable with gay marriage is because they might show up the straights? I mean, clearly that's exactly a fear you have, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Again, are you talking about sex as the "obvious" difference?A marriage between a quadripalegic and someone with an uninjured spinal cord is not the "same thing" sexually as one between two people with uninjured spinal cords, either.Otherwise, there is no appreciable difference in marriages between straights and gays, other than, as you say, the possibility of a slightly easier time for same-sex couples.

quote:

---

Again, it is clear that you have no idea how hard it would be to give away that stuff to other nations, if you wanted to.

---

We don't need to give it away if we just use less of it in the first place. That's what having fewer kids is all about, with regards to making less of an impact on the planet.What, do you think that America just uses the resources that we find or grow here in the US? When was the last time you bought a pair of sneakers that were made in the US of materials produced entirely in the US? Look at the lavles on all of your clothing, all of the plastics you have in the house, your auto components, your electronics, etc. Yes, but that is a very self-centered and short-sighted way to look at the issue of population and the effect it has on the planet.More Americans = less for everybody else.

quote:

---

Because it is an unwarranted thing to request. Everything is fine.

---

Unwarranted? You think that the resources of the planet are limitless? That the oil will never run out?

quote:

---

It is the governments of the world, and the corrupt people of the world that are screwing things up. And that is a percentage thing, not a population thing.

---

The human population explosion does indeed have an enormous impact on the Earth, rat. How much rainforest has been cut down because people need places to live? How many lives have been lost in the Middle East because people need more and more oil to power their cities and cars?I will agree with you that governments have been too slow to pick up on the facts of overpopulation and the consequences it has for the planet and our very survival as a species.

quote:

---

You assuming that is unAmerican,

---

No, not really. I am saying that it sounds selfish to have kids because of your own needs and wants.

quote:

---

it is a free country, and your overpopulation worries, are just opinions. There is nothing that makes your opinion superceed mine.

---

My overpopulation "worries" are backed up by copious amounts of evidence. You have offered no evidence in support of your reassurances that "everything is fine".You have already said that you never even thought about overpopulation, let alone informed yourself about the issue, so how on earth would you know if things are "fine"?Opinions based upon data always supercede those that are pulled out of backsides.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I don't care if people have gay sex, I have expressed that in other words, give it up already.

Because it is, because it is not the same thing. It's not a fear, it's a fact.
Like I said, it is what it is, stop trying to tie emotions to a purely logical statement. Again....no.
Shit you are stubborn. So now it's you that has the fear? Other than oil, that is bullshit.
That statement makes no sense. I call that feeding the world. Thanks to US people around the globe have lobs and can feed their families. I say it sounds even more selfish to not wants kids, and have everything for yourself. Do you think before you talk? I've indicated that everything is fine here, in the US.Plus if you have the resources to provide for your children, what is the problem with having them?If I did not have those resources, then I would not have had them.. Of course I did, that is why I had a vasectomy after I had a few.
That's all I feel I can provide for, and that is all that is needed in the world. Why do we need 24 kids?
If I desire more kids, I will adopt, and that subject has been talked about here. pfffft, maybe you should really start living that way, if thats what you are going to preach.Put this to rest already, you are making no sense, and barking up the wrong tree to boot.

Look at it this way. If you had a kid and your kid had a natural inclination to be independent and run off exploring everything, you wouldn't tell the kid to quit having a free will. What you would say to the kid is "stay close to me"....You may add "You may not understand why its important to listen to me now, but someday you will".Your kid would still do his/her own thing quite often,because it is human nature. All that sin means is separation from Gods will.Edited by Phat, : clarificationEdited by Phat, : title

I do remember seeing you talk about how you would never approve it in your kids, that you'd teach them the best you can that it is not natural and is not acceptable in your household. God forbid if one of them is gay and has to listen to your rant about it, it's the same as stigmatizing them.So again, are you still going to stigmatize or openly disapprove if one of them is gay or are you going to accept him for who he is? Schraf already made the point. You are beyond neutral. You disapprove, and from what you've said in the past your kids were going to hear from you if one of them was gay. That's called being against it. By your own admission not too long ago, you had decided that you were for gay marriage in the state. Before this point, you were against gay marriage in the state even though it had absolutely nothing to do with your marriage. Sounds pretty skewed to me.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Lets leave God out of this equation.Lets assume that Sin=willfully and intentionally not doing our best.I maintain that humans not only have rights...we have responsibilities.Let take a hypothetical couple...and they can be of any gender.If this couple becomes so enamored of each other (call it lust, infatuation, or Eros) that they think only of themselves and their own wants and needs being satisfied, I would not be adverse in labeling their actions as sinful.I will say, however, that sin is human nature. I am just pointing out that people do not have to be sinful.