Immorality of Homosexuality

Jar has pointed out in chat that I didn't specify 'hate speech' and that it seems I am leaving this as 'hate thought', my fault for not doing that I guess. I still maintain that 'hate thought' is wrong, not suggesting any legislation though. Yes I understand that hate is protected from criminal prosecution, it is however still actionable in civil litigation. To create an atmosphere of hate, creates an atmosphere of fear. That fear is used to repress. That repression is the issue at hand. Your right to hate ends when you create hostility towards others.-x

To validate an abomination with the legal rights of "Marriage" ...is no different that putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a beauty queen!

I'm sorry but that is nothing more than nonsense rhetoric.Marriage is a social custom, a matter of rights unrelated to morality in all ways. Marriage is used as a defining term in thousands of laws and regulations. To deny the protections, benefits and restrictions of those laws and regulations solely on the basis of your perceived religious prejudices is to deny human rights to a segment of our population.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay. Thanks.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

There is a difference between lust and attraction.Most of us know where the line is drawn in our hearts, minds, and...errr...other appendages.

Care to have a stab at making this coherent? I was talking about holocaust denial, what does that have to do with the colour of ones skin? Maybe you meant to reply to the other poster who was talking about burning people?TTFN,WK

What "HUMAN RIGHTS" are being denied?... You are free to screw...or be screwed by whomsoever...are you not?... If a man screwing another man is a human right...then a man who loves to shag his sheep...can want the same human rights as the gay man...to screw what they want? W ho are you to say SHEEP-MAN doesn't have his rights?

Actually, many of us do believe people ought to have the right to bestiality. What's your point?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

That is the common tactic used when folk find they are wrong, they try to move the goalposts.The subject is homosexuality, morality and human rights.The rights being denied are many, the right of inheritance, the right of privacy, the right of equal access to health care, the right of protection from harassment, adoption rights; as I pointed out earlier, over 1000 Federal laws and regulations reference the term marriage.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

SHEEP-Man does have rights, but the law says that Animal abuse isn't one of those rights. It's illegal because its considered animal abuse in the legal realm.-x

You're right. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bestiality, bigamy, incest, fucking your stamp collection”nothing I can think of should be banned from marriage. But it's a moot point. Any two hermit crabs of either sex could get married on Animal Planet, if the producers decided to hold ceremonies. "Marriage" is an ambiguous term”you can have a marriage between two 2x4s. It's the "civil union" part that matters. If gays want to join in civil unions, let them. If they want to call themselves "married," let them. Let every one and every thing get married in whatever kind of place they choose. But let's not give civil-union rights to amorous pets and farm animals, or to other sexual persuasions that have no socially redeeming value.The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Just stick with civil-unions. I think the idea of civil-unions for gays has socially redeeming value. And I think that when gays demand that their civil unions be called "marriages" is clear evidence that they are more interested in coming out of the closet than in joining the ranks of reasonable people.”HM

What part of "two consenting adults" don't you understand?Oh, why, almighty god, must people like hoot always use the slippery slope argument everytime we bring this issue up? And as I have explained this many times before, simply getting the legal rights is only part of the human rights issue at hand.I'm an atheist. So is my wife. Neither of us really cared about the official ceremony thing when we got married. One might ask why didn't we just move in together and automatically be married after 5 or so years of living together by the common marriage law? The answer is simple. I wanted to proclaim my love for this woman, and she wanted to proclaim her love for me. Being socially recognized is a very important factor in this issue.What you are essentially proposing is gay people ought to be having all the rights and benefits as long as they do it in the back alley and out of society's view. Trust me, I would be pissed too if I was told that I was told to keep my relationship with my wife a quiet thing. I would be pissed even more if society refuses to recognize my relationship with my wife.So, I ask you again, what's wrong gay people getting married socially and legally? Why must they have to accept the bastardized version of marriage (aka civil union) and keep their ceremonies in the back alley while us straights can boast about our sex lives every chance we get?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

What's legal about "marriage"? The only truly legal part is the civil-union part”the license. Just take the word "marriage" off of it and the problem is solved. Let anybody or any thing get "married" if they want to. But the government should care only about civil unions.”HM

I don't think anybody's saying that at all, and I thought we had this conversation already.Nobody's saying that gay people, or any people, shouldn't be able to make the same public committment that straight people make. Or rather, nobody who's advancing HM's position says that. Conservatives, obviously, do say that. I guess I could have been clearer right there.Let me start over and simplify. The reason that we're suggesting that government civil unions and social marriage be considered two different things isn't to preserve the cachet of marriage from being "diluted" by extension to gay people; it's being proposed so that the government won't be forced to defer to religious bigotry in terms of who gets married.It takes the churches out of the issue altogether. Churches gain the freedom of congregational conscience in terms of which marriages they consider spiritually valid because there's no longer a need to force all the different religious postures on marriage into one legal mold. The government recognizes civil unions. If you want a marriage, since it's a legally-meaningless social construct (like "knitting circle"), you're married if you say you are. Since marriage no longer connotes any legal privileges, government no longer has an interest in validating marriages. They just don't care any more.And we can expand the qualifications for "civil unions" without church objections, because civil unions are legal constructs with no social meaning.It really is the best of both worlds. Instead of one church being unable to perform gay marriages simply because another church objects, and the government has to negotiate their disagreement; now everybody who wants the legal construct can get it, and everybody who wants the social contract can get it, too. Nothing. That's what this accomplishes, by removing the obstacle of government-church entanglements. It cuts the Gordian knot. Who on Earth is saying that gay people have to get married in back alleys? If the government no longer invalidates marriages, why wouldn't they get married where they chose, the way everybody else gets to?

Marriage has always been a social institution. For a time, churches co-opted the term for their own bigoted purposes. Now that governments are in the business of protecting human rights, it's the churches that should get out of the marriage business. Let them call it "spiritual union" or whatever.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC