Are Gay relationships morally acceptable?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

Unless you have a husband, you are married.

Maybe marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony and has been bastardized by the government, but most people still see it that way.  

All I am saying is if they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting over the word marriage, go ahead. If they just want the same rights as a marriage, it could probably be done, or already been done, in just a few years.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The nature versus nurture question of homosexuality is still very much up in the air.

I don't think so. How do you explain twins, one flaming and one not?

[Saulbadguy]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

Unless you have a husband, you are married.

Maybe marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony and has been bastardized by the government, but most people still see it that way. 

All I am saying is if they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting over the word marriage, go ahead. If they just want the same rights as a marriage, it could probably be done, or already been done, in just a few years.

It's been bastardized by the government, huh?  Seeing that nearly 40-50% of all of the end in divorce, I don't see how that is the governments fault, and I don't see that as "most people seeing it that way". 

I guess they are wrong for wanting to be treated as equals, huh?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

Unless you have a husband, you are married.

Maybe marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony and has been bastardized by the government, but most people still see it that way. 

All I am saying is if they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting over the word marriage, go ahead. If they just want the same rights as a marriage, it could probably be done, or already been done, in just a few years.

It's been bastardized by the government, huh?  Seeing that nearly 40-50% of all of the end in divorce, I don't see how that is the governments fault, and I don't see that as "most people seeing it that way". 

I guess they are wrong for wanting to be treated as equals, huh?

I guess I should point out that I am on their side. I really don't care whether they call it marriage or not, but if they ever want the same rights, they would be better off compromising on the word "marriage", then when they have the rights, fight for the name.

Nearly 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians, and I assume a large majority of them believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I am guessing that is a very large number. Maybe not most, but the majority. Why waste time fighting them when the desired result is easily within reach.

[Saulbadguy]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

Unless you have a husband, you are married.

Maybe marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony and has been bastardized by the government, but most people still see it that way. 

All I am saying is if they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting over the word marriage, go ahead. If they just want the same rights as a marriage, it could probably be done, or already been done, in just a few years.

It's been bastardized by the government, huh?  Seeing that nearly 40-50% of all of the end in divorce, I don't see how that is the governments fault, and I don't see that as "most people seeing it that way". 

I guess they are wrong for wanting to be treated as equals, huh?

I guess I should point out that I am on their side. I really don't care whether they call it marriage or not, but if they ever want the same rights, they would be better off compromising on the word "marriage", then when they have the rights, fight for the name.

Nearly 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians, and I assume a large majority of them believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I am guessing that is a very large number. Maybe not most, but the majority. Why waste time fighting them when the desired result is easily within reach.

Because that is not being treated equally.  It's being treated equally, "but...."

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

Unless you have a husband, you are married.

Maybe marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony and has been bastardized by the government, but most people still see it that way. 

All I am saying is if they want to spend the rest of their lives fighting over the word marriage, go ahead. If they just want the same rights as a marriage, it could probably be done, or already been done, in just a few years.

It's been bastardized by the government, huh?  Seeing that nearly 40-50% of all of the end in divorce, I don't see how that is the governments fault, and I don't see that as "most people seeing it that way". 

I guess they are wrong for wanting to be treated as equals, huh?

I guess I should point out that I am on their side. I really don't care whether they call it marriage or not, but if they ever want the same rights, they would be better off compromising on the word "marriage", then when they have the rights, fight for the name.

Nearly 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians, and I assume a large majority of them believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I am guessing that is a very large number. Maybe not most, but the majority. Why waste time fighting them when the desired result is easily within reach.

Because that is not being treated equally.  It's being treated equally, "but...."

I guess it is all about choosing your battle and the desired outcome.

[Sugar Dick]

Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

How old are you?  Pretty sad if you didn't know this and you are older than 12.

Didn't get the context of its use in these Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) threads, knew about the preamble for a long time, the connection finally clicked when watching the show.  Sorry to disappoint you.   

[Sugar Dick]

The reason "the gays" aren't getting their way is because they're trying to force everyone into saying that being "the gay" is totally okay(gay guy voice).  If they'd just take the equal legal rights and call it "civil union" they'd have the same rights as "the straights" today. 

IMO, this isn't what "the gays" really want.  What they really want is the government to say that being "the gay" is normal and the same as being "the straight".  In a bassackwards way what "the gays" are trying to do is legislate that their "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) is no different than anyone else's.  Obviously a lot of people have a problem with this as it is in complete contradiction to the majority of "the straights" religion, morals, and/or ability to stomach the thought of two dudes ass ramming each other.  What they're doing is dragging religion into the argument when they need it as far away as possible.

My take:  nobody likes being told what to do, and they certainly don't like being told what to believe.  Stop trying to force people to believe something they don't.  If equal rights is really what you want, take the equal rights.


Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of been extinct awhile ago.

Also, why do people drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Sincerely,

The Sweetest tasting Dick this side of the Miss'ippi

Being gay is 100% natural.  It IS ok to be gay.

Basically you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people because you find it icky?

Also, you don't understand evolution at all.

I'm trying to explain to you morons what other people think and how I think "the gays" can get their way.  This isn't what I actually believe or how I feel on the issue.

Of course everyone on this board is either too f*cking stupid to understand that, or flat out can't read.

Basically, I'm way smarter than everyone else here.   

P.S.
Gay guys are icky, hot lesbos are cool, ugly lesbos icky, bisexual is just downright degenerate (seriously, make up your f*cking mind)

[1/64th]

Yes, because straight parents only raise straight children.

What are you thoughts of the higher rate of being sexually abused among "the gays" as compared to "the straights"?   Any correlation there?

[1/64th]

The nature versus nurture question of homosexuality is still very much up in the air.

I don't think so. How do you explain twins, one flaming and one not?

You are clearly very simple minded.  1. Twins are not exact copies of each other.  2. They live separate lives and have separate experiences.  That was a horrible attempt at proving people are born gay.  Please try again.

[SkinnyBenny]

What are you thoughts of the higher rate of being sexually abused among "the gays" as compared to "the straights"?   Any correlation there?

Official study stats (that don't come from some blog), please.

You are clearly very simple minded.  1. Twins are not exact copies of each other.  2. They live separate lives and have separate experiences.  That was a horrible attempt at proving people are born gay.  Please try again.

Except that it wasn't a horrible attempt.  Twins are raised, i.e. nurtured, by the same parents in nearly every case.  If people turn out to be gay because of nurture, as I assume you're claiming, then it would stand to reason that both twins would be either gay or straight, not mixed and matched.  You can claim they're separate and have separate existences, which would technically be true, but any nurturing factor important enough to sway someone's sexuality one way or another is likely foisted on both twins.  Try again plz, tia. 
  

[KSU187]

Also in regards to the name of the thread regarding the morality of "gayness," the argument "it happens in nature" is worthless.

Since when does nature dictate morality... Is it okay to eat my children if they have birth defects like in nature?  It happens in NATURE!!! ITS NATURAL THEREFORE ITS OKAY!!!

[OK_Cat]

Also in regards to the name of the thread regarding the morality of "gayness," the argument "it happens in nature" is worthless.

Since when does nature dictate morality... Is it okay to eat my children if they have birth defects like in nature?  It happens in NATURE!!! ITS NATURAL THEREFORE ITS OKAY!!!

Why would your god create these things if they weren't ok?  seems like he screwed the pooch on that one.

[1/64th]

What are you thoughts of the higher rate of being sexually abused among "the gays" as compared to "the straights"?   Any correlation there?

Official study stats (that don't come from some blog), please.

You are clearly very simple minded.  1. Twins are not exact copies of each other.  2. They live separate lives and have separate experiences.  That was a horrible attempt at proving people are born gay.  Please try again.

Except that it wasn't a horrible attempt.  Twins are raised, i.e. nurtured, by the same parents in nearly every case.  If people turn out to be gay because of nurture, as I assume you're claiming, then it would stand to reason that both twins would be either gay or straight, not mixed and matched.  You can claim they're separate and have separate existences, which would technically be true, but any nurturing factor important enough to sway someone's sexuality one way or another is likely foisted on both twins.  Try again plz, tia. 
  

Almost every gay person has a sibling who is not gay...and this proves nothing.  And when I'm bored enough I'll find the study and post it.  But I'm not that bored right now. 

Now explain this: in nature the main goal of every species is to reproduce.  If "gayness" is hereditary and we have been evolving for millions of years, don't you think "gayness" would have been gone a long time ago?

[Rage Against the McKee]

What are you thoughts of the higher rate of being sexually abused among "the gays" as compared to "the straights"?   Any correlation there?

Official study stats (that don't come from some blog), please.

You are clearly very simple minded.  1. Twins are not exact copies of each other.  2. They live separate lives and have separate experiences.  That was a horrible attempt at proving people are born gay.  Please try again.

Except that it wasn't a horrible attempt.  Twins are raised, i.e. nurtured, by the same parents in nearly every case.  If people turn out to be gay because of nurture, as I assume you're claiming, then it would stand to reason that both twins would be either gay or straight, not mixed and matched.  You can claim they're separate and have separate existences, which would technically be true, but any nurturing factor important enough to sway someone's sexuality one way or another is likely foisted on both twins.  Try again plz, tia. 
  

Almost every gay person has a sibling who is not gay...and this proves nothing.  And when I'm bored enough I'll find the study and post it.  But I'm not that bored right now. 

Now explain this: in nature the main goal of every species is to reproduce.  If "gayness" is hereditary and we have been evolving for millions of years, don't you think "gayness" would have been gone a long time ago?

Not if you can carry the gene but not be gay yourself. Sometimes two people who are not ginger can have a ginger kid.

[1/64th]

What are you thoughts of the higher rate of being sexually abused among "the gays" as compared to "the straights"?   Any correlation there?

Official study stats (that don't come from some blog), please.

You are clearly very simple minded.  1. Twins are not exact copies of each other.  2. They live separate lives and have separate experiences.  That was a horrible attempt at proving people are born gay.  Please try again.

Except that it wasn't a horrible attempt.  Twins are raised, i.e. nurtured, by the same parents in nearly every case.  If people turn out to be gay because of nurture, as I assume you're claiming, then it would stand to reason that both twins would be either gay or straight, not mixed and matched.  You can claim they're separate and have separate existences, which would technically be true, but any nurturing factor important enough to sway someone's sexuality one way or another is likely foisted on both twins.  Try again plz, tia. 
  

Almost every gay person has a sibling who is not gay...and this proves nothing.  And when I'm bored enough I'll find the study and post it.  But I'm not that bored right now. 

Now explain this: in nature the main goal of every species is to reproduce.  If "gayness" is hereditary and we have been evolving for millions of years, don't you think "gayness" would have been gone a long time ago?

Not if you can carry the gene but not be gay yourself. Sometimes two people who are not ginger can have a ginger kid.

Very unlikely given that the gene would have to stay recessive for a very long time and is just now becoming dominant.  Scientifically impossible actually. 

[1/64th]

There are several studies but here's the first one I found.  I know, it's old but still holds true.

Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.


"Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality"

[Paul Moscow]

There are several studies but here's the first one I found.  I know, it's old but still holds true.

Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.


"Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality"

The shazbot! dude, no one will disagree with you on that. You seem to suggest that something beyond that, like if I spend all my time dragging (hehe) my kid to musicals and taking him shopping that he's going to become "the queers".

The studies that you should take time to look at were done by Bailey and Pillard. Which studied the gayness between Fraternal (two eggs fertilized hot shot) and Identical (one egg, split) as well as...and this is key, non-related adopted brothers.

They found that 52%, FIFTY TWO PERCENT of identical twins were both self-identified homosexuals (a number verified in another studies of identical twins separated at birth)

Fraternal twins (essentially just brother and brother) 22% chance.

Non-related adopted brothers: 5% chance.

The closer genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

[SkinnyBenny]

There are several studies but here's the first one I found.  I know, it's old but still holds true.

Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.


"Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality"

The shazbot! dude, no one will disagree with you on that. You seem to suggest that something beyond that, like if I spend all my time dragging (hehe) my kid to musicals and taking him shopping that he's going to become "the queers".

The studies that you should take time to look at were done by Bailey and Pillard. Which studied the gayness between Fraternal (two eggs fertilized hot shot) and Identical (one egg, split) as well as...and this is key, non-related adopted brothers.

They found that 52%, FIFTY TWO PERCENT of identical twins were both self-identified homosexuals (a number verified in another studies of identical twins separated at birth)

Fraternal twins (essentially just brother and brother) 22% chance.

Non-related adopted brothers: 5% chance.

The closer genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Pwnag3!

[1/64th]

There are several studies but here's the first one I found.  I know, it's old but still holds true.

Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.


"Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality"

The shazbot! dude, no one will disagree with you on that. You seem to suggest that something beyond that, like if I spend all my time dragging (hehe) my kid to musicals and taking him shopping that he's going to become "the queers".

The studies that you should take time to look at were done by Bailey and Pillard. Which studied the gayness between Fraternal (two eggs fertilized hot shot) and Identical (one egg, split) as well as...and this is key, non-related adopted brothers.

They found that 52%, FIFTY TWO PERCENT of identical twins were both self-identified homosexuals (a number verified in another studies of identical twins separated at birth)

Fraternal twins (essentially just brother and brother) 22% chance.

Non-related adopted brothers: 5% chance.

The closer genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Please note where I said anything about musicals or other "gay things."  All I said was that abused children end up being gay more than non-abused children.  But thanks for putting words in my mouth.  I'll tell you exactly what I believe.  Ready?  Some people are more predisposed to being gay than others.  This would explain why fraternal twins are less likely to both be gay as compared to identical twins.  Look up the same study in regards to alcoholism or profession.  Same results.  So are these people also born accountants or born alcoholics?  Of course not.  So there you have it, my belief about "the gays" wrapped up.  Now, I'm ready for someone to tell me how much I hate gay people and how gayist I am.  Ready, set, go!!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There are several studies but here's the first one I found.  I know, it's old but still holds true.

Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992). The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research. Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 33(10), 197-248.


"Sexually abused boys later have greater sexual identity confusion and increased likelihood of homosexuality"

The shazbot! dude, no one will disagree with you on that. You seem to suggest that something beyond that, like if I spend all my time dragging (hehe) my kid to musicals and taking him shopping that he's going to become "the queers".

The studies that you should take time to look at were done by Bailey and Pillard. Which studied the gayness between Fraternal (two eggs fertilized hot shot) and Identical (one egg, split) as well as...and this is key, non-related adopted brothers.

They found that 52%, FIFTY TWO PERCENT of identical twins were both self-identified homosexuals (a number verified in another studies of identical twins separated at birth)

Fraternal twins (essentially just brother and brother) 22% chance.

Non-related adopted brothers: 5% chance.

The closer genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Please note where I said anything about musicals or other "gay things."  All I said was that abused children end up being gay more than non-abused children.  But thanks for putting words in my mouth.  I'll tell you exactly what I believe.  Ready?  Some people are more predisposed to being gay than others.  This would explain why fraternal twins are less likely to both be gay as compared to identical twins.  Look up the same study in regards to alcoholism or profession.  Same results.  So are these people also born accountants or born alcoholics?  Of course not.  So there you have it, my belief about "the gays" wrapped up.  Now, I'm ready for someone to tell me how much I hate gay people and how gayist I am.  Ready, set, go!!

All of my gay friends come from good, loving, happy families.

[Sugar Dick]

This crappy thread has taken an ridiculous turn of a bunch of partisan d-bags puking partisan talking points on a page.  Apparently some people think that if someone is born a certain way it makes their behavior moral.  Some of those people and some others think that because animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior that makes being a homosexual human moral.

Let me start by saying, how someone is born and what occurs in the animal kingdom have absolutely nothing to do with whether a certain type of behavior is moral.

First of all, people are born with physical and mental defects.  If someone is born criminally insane that doesn't make rape, murder, and thievery moral for those people simply because that's how they're born.  If someone is born schizophrenic (not sure if you can be, but for example) we don't just let them going around acting schizo and saying it's morally acceptable, we give them lithium or something.

Second of all, if I was "the gay" I'm not sure I wouldn't be a little offended with animal comparison.  Animals eat their own hullabaloo, don't wear pants, get run over on the highway constantly, live in the weeds, and all in all don't possess morals.  Whatever it is some confused, curious, or otherwise intellectually inferior mammal does in nature has absolutely no bearing on whether or not being homosexual is morally acceptable.

Like I said before, I think the problem is "the gays" real aim isn't equal rights, otherwise they'd take a "civil union" with identical rights.  They want the government to tell religion (I'm lumping people that aren't religious but think its immoral to be "the gays" in here to save words) that being homosexual is a-okay and the same as being straight.  Religious people don't like that because it goes against their religion.  Religious groups currently have more power than "the gays". 

Now there are lots of things sexually related that the government allows that isn't moral by the large majority of the populatoin, for example abortion for the sake of not wanting a kid right now, a frat dudes propensity to sleep with as many women as possible, cheating on your wife, etc.  If government allows gays to get married (and call it marriage) the religious people are just going to have to deal with it (like they do abortion).

Perhaps the real questions should be:  How are morals established by society and what are they?  Does a homosexual relationship fit within those established morals?

While you ponder these thoughts and no doubt rev up your keyboards with some asinine and inapplicable rhetoric your 10th grade civics teacher threw at, ya'll can suck my sweet sugar dick!

[Paul Moscow]

This crappy thread has taken an ridiculous turn of a bunch of partisan d-bags puking partisan talking points on a page.  Apparently some people think that if someone is born a certain way it makes their behavior moral.  Some of those people and some others think that because animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior that makes being a homosexual human moral.

Let me start by saying, how someone is born and what occurs in the animal kingdom have absolutely nothing to do with whether a certain type of behavior is moral.

First of all, people are born with physical and mental defects.  If someone is born criminally insane that doesn't make rape, murder, and thievery moral for those people simply because that's how they're born.  If someone is born schizophrenic (not sure if you can be, but for example) we don't just let them going around acting schizo and saying it's morally acceptable, we give them lithium or something.

Second of all, if I was "the gay" I'm not sure I wouldn't be a little offended with animal comparison.  Animals eat their own hullabaloo, don't wear pants, get run over on the highway constantly, live in the weeds, and all in all don't possess morals.  Whatever it is some confused, curious, or otherwise intellectually inferior mammal does in nature has absolutely no bearing on whether or not being homosexual is morally acceptable.

Like I said before, I think the problem is "the gays" real aim isn't equal rights, otherwise they'd take a "civil union" with identical rights.  They want the government to tell religion (I'm lumping people that aren't religious but think its immoral to be "the gays" in here to save words) that being homosexual is a-okay and the same as being straight.  Religious people don't like that because it goes against their religion.  Religious groups currently have more power than "the gays". 

Now there are lots of things sexually related that the government allows that isn't moral by the large majority of the populatoin, for example abortion for the sake of not wanting a kid right now, a frat dudes propensity to sleep with as many women as possible, cheating on your wife, etc.  If government allows gays to get married (and call it marriage) the religious people are just going to have to deal with it (like they do abortion).

Perhaps the real questions should be:  How are morals established by society and what are they?  Does a homosexual relationship fit within those established morals?

While you ponder these thoughts and no doubt rev up your keyboards with some asinine and inapplicable rhetoric your 10th grade civics teacher threw at, ya'll can suck my sweet sugar dick!

In the immoral examples you cited you point to things in which there is a victim. In abortion the victim is the unborn child, a frat dude the victim is the consenting (in some cases inebriated) minor, in cheating the spouse is the victim.

Who is the victim in a homosexual relationship?

[SkinnyBenny]

Who is the victim in a homosexual relationship?

  THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE!!!   

[Dirty Sanchez]

Who is the victim in a homosexual relationship?

skinnybenny's sphincter