A question for those opposed to homosexuality

[Jerry]

If I get this right, Jerry, you are arguing your morality in regards to the gay marriage issue, not the evidenciary piece, and are debating the homosexuality vs. sexual acting out issue? You and I have debated this many times, but I think some of the newer players may not be as aware that your position is not as rigid as it seems. If I am incorrect about my assumption, please correct me.

Yes, this thread is about morality, not absolution.

Eh? Sexual immaturity? How so?

People who would otherwise feel an attraction to the opposite gender misplace their bonding needs onto a member of the same gender due to confusion during puberty or sexual abuse.

My knowledge in that regard is based on my personal experience so I have no empirical evidence to convince another. It non the less remains a truth in my mind, as it was demonstrated to me.

However...
If there are minor child involved, whether or not you still love your spouse is entirely relevant depending on the behavior of those parents. The degree that one dislikes ones spouse can create an adversarial situation with possible acting out that can damage the children far more that not remaining in an intact family. Plenty of kids I've seen that would have been far better off if their parents had divorced. Heck, I was far better off because my parents divorced and I didn't have to deal with my physically abusive father.

That's just the thing: behavior.

There is apparently this assumption that you will be abusive and negative to anyone you do not love. There has not been any allowance for any middle ground between love/infatuation and hostile negativity by my ideological opponents.

IMO, having fallen out of love with each other, spouses are still morally required to be civil to each other, to treat each other with common courtesy, respect and civility...at least no less then they would give to a stranger on the street, if not giving their children the illusion that they are happily married.

I do, however, take it further then that, religiously, in that divorce is only morally acceptable if there is abuse (drug, physical, etc.) or adultery. It is my personal religious opinion that once married, the couple should never divorce, with exception to the above.

Anyway, having shunned any middle ground and only considering the 2 polar opposite relations, my ideological opposition argues against me with general conditions where I already see divorce as acceptable, so, really, I haven’t been challenged with anything I directly oppose.

I already support the divorcing from an abusive spouse, so can we please stop jumping from one extreme to the other?

 

[Jerry]

If I were to show you data on the negative effect that living in a household in which the two parents despise each other has on children, you would concede that an unloving partnership is harmful and must be avoided?

Save your links, I already find that that is acceptable, and have never argued in support of a person remaining married to someone who abuses them.

What I would like, however, are your sources showing that a spouse will automatically begin abusing the other if they "grow apart".

Being in love is only one element, there is also civility, common courtesy and respect.

You only eliminate being in love, so the type of relationship you are advocating the allowance of whimsical divorce for is when the married couple are still civil to each other (this rules out all forms of abuse), are still courteous to each other and still have and show respect for each other.

***
The rest of your post quotes Stinger, so I'll leave that to him.

 

[Gunface]

Wherever did I mention abuse?

 

[Jerry]

Wherever did I mention abuse?

If I were to show you data on the negative effect that living in a household in which the two parents despise each other has on children, you would concede that an unloving partnership is harmful and must be avoided?

= emotional abuse, and you were about to source it.

 

[Gunface]

I never said there was any outright abuse. I was just saying that a child's life with parents who don't love each other won't be very good.

 

[1069]

I know plenty of adults who think their childhoods were screwed up because of their parents' divorces and remarriages, single parenting, stepfamilies/stepsiblings, etc.
But you know what?
I don't know a single adult who says, "You know, I wish my parents had just stayed together anyway, for my sake. My life really would've been better then."

 

[Morrow]

Anytime someone makes a thread about homosexuality, it gets about 300% the responses more than anything else.

Top 5 threads in Sex and Sexuality:

Question about homosexuality
alphamale
325

Dutch pedophiles to launch political party
Medussa
260

Why we shouldn't have gay marriage.
Andy
211

A question for those opposed to homosexuality
Red_Dave
205

Sex for fun
mikhail
146

That’s a lot of posts about gayness.

Top 5 threads in the polls section by responses

Poll: Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?
Topsez
609

Poll: Would You Refuse to Serve Because of Gay People?
RightatNYU
469

Poll: Teachers with Guns??
dsanthony
431

Poll: Liberty vs Security
Billo_Really
389

Poll: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?
Goobieman
329

Thats 2148 gay posts. Well, 2149.

Greatest T-Shirt I've ever seen:
"Homosexuals are Gay"

 

[rathi]

Anytime someone makes a thread about homosexuality, it gets about 300% the responses more than anything else.

Thats because homosexuality is big in the news and is a hot button political issue. The last sex related issue would be clinton's sex scandals.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yes, this thread is about morality, not absolution.

Thought I got it...have debated you often enough to understand your position...I think.:2wave:

That's just the thing: behavior.

Yup.

There is apparently this assumption that you will be abusive and negative to anyone you do not love. There has not been any allowance for any middle ground between love/infatuation and hostile negativity by my ideological opponents.

I agree. A couple who have fallen out of love, yet treat each other with respect, civility, and are not abusive can continue to rear children in a successful and happy way. It may be more challenging, if love is not there, but it is not impossible. As couples grow together, at times the passion in a relationship wanes, and what you have left is respect and companionship. Children can be brought up well in an environment such as this.

IMO, having fallen out of love with each other, spouses are still morally required to be civil to each other, to treat each other with common courtesy, respect and civility...at least no less then they would give to a stranger on the street, if not giving their children the illusion that they are happily married.

Perhaps morally required, in your opinion, but it doesn't happen, all the time, in reality. This is where my point around the children being better off if the parents divorce comes in.

I do, however, take it further then that, religiously, in that divorce is only morally acceptable if there is abuse (drug, physical, etc.) or adultery. It is my personal religious opinion that once married, the couple should never divorce, with exception to the above.

Don't agree. Emotional neglect can be devastating for a child to see between spouses and can filter to the children. Constant arguing can do the same.

Anyway, having shunned any middle ground and only considering the 2 polar opposite relations, my ideological opposition argues against me with general conditions where I already see divorce as acceptable, so, really, I haven’t been challenged with anything I directly oppose.

It's late, and maybe I'm more tired than I think. Not sure what you're saying here. Is it that you're agreeing with others because you agree with the argument against the extremes?

I already support the divorcing from an abusive spouse, so can we please stop jumping from one extreme to the other?

I'm always in favor of getting away from the extremes. :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

I never said there was any outright abuse. I was just saying that a child's life with parents who don't love each other won't be very good.

If the parents behave themselves by showing each other respect and common courtesy, perhaps even friend-level affection, then yes, a child's life would be fine.

 

[Jerry]

I agree. A couple who have fallen out of love, yet treat each other with respect, civility, and are not abusive can continue to rear children in a successful and happy way. It may be more challenging, if love is not there, but it is not impossible. As couples grow together, at times the passion in a relationship wanes, and what you have left is respect and companionship. Children can be brought up well in an environment such as this.

You got what I'm saying, I think we agree.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You got what I'm saying, I think we agree.

Yet another Kodak moment in DPland. Smile Jerrry. :mrgreen:

 

[The Wishmaster]

Can anyone prove, beyond a doubt, that homosexuality is unnatural? No? Didn't think so.

Who are you to say that anal sex is unnatural and perverted? Can you prove it is unnatural? Can you prove it is perverted? No? Didn't think so.

Is anal sex unnatural because it won't result in a baby?

Those people who believe anal sex to be unnatural must also believe the usage of dildos and diaphrams to be unnatural. How is it natural to insert a foreign object into ones vagina, hmm? Can you even prove it is natural for a penis to be inserted into the vagina?

I await your answers...

 

[Pragmatist]

what, exactly, is it about homosexuality that is immoral? Homosexuality is natural [there are examples of homosexuality in most animals] and doesnt harm anyone so why is it wrong?

What is or is not moral is totally up to the individual. What is moral to one person may not be for another so many may think homosexuality is moral while others may think not, neither will be wrong. As far as being “natural” or “normal”, that is another question. To answer this one you only have to google the definitions of each.

Normal - In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average.
Seeing as even the most liberal estimations say homosexuality is present in about 10% of the population, that means that 90% of the population is heterosexual. Homosexuality is obviously not the norm but a very small percent of the population. It is normal for the human to be heterosexual therefore homosexuality is not “normal”.

Natural - Functioning or occurring in a normal way.
Seeing as “natural” is defined as occurring in a normal way, and homosexuality is not the norm but only a small percent of the population, it also cannot be considered to be “natural”.

The statement: Heterosexuality is exhibited in approximately 90% of humans and therefore normally their sexual preference and as natural is defined as occurring in a normal way, heterosexuality is also a natural behaviour.

The way you phrase the question you are asking which is natural or normal, heterosexuality or homosexuality, they cannot be both. You can’t say that something that is practiced by only 10% of the population is normal, it is not normal, it is a very small minority. Although homosexuality is not the norm, that does not mean that it is wrong. Right and wrong do not correspond to normal and abnormal. Whether or not somebody found gay mice or references to the bible to answer the question are ludicrous.

This is not to say which is morally right or wrong, that is for you to decide. But whatever your decision, don’t tell me I am wrong if I don’t agree.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

If the parents behave themselves by showing each other respect and common courtesy, perhaps even friend-level affection, then yes, a child's life would be fine.

I totally agree. Kids do better with two parents, even when the parents don't love each other. Lots of marriages go through peaks and valleys. This is life. You fall out of love and back in again. It happens. But, if both parents love the children more then the idea of splitting up, it can work out.

 

[Gunface]

What is or is not moral is totally up to the individual. What is moral to one person may not be for another so many may think homosexuality is moral while others may think not, neither will be wrong. As far as being “natural” or “normal”, that is another question. To answer this one you only have to google the definitions of each.

Normal - In behavior, normal means not deviating very much from the average.
Seeing as even the most liberal estimations say homosexuality is present in about 10% of the population, that means that 90% of the population is heterosexual. Homosexuality is obviously not the norm but a very small percent of the population. It is normal for the human to be heterosexual therefore homosexuality is not “normal”.

Natural - Functioning or occurring in a normal way.
Seeing as “natural” is defined as occurring in a normal way, and homosexuality is not the norm but only a small percent of the population, it also cannot be considered to be “natural”.

The statement: Heterosexuality is exhibited in approximately 90% of humans and therefore normally their sexual preference and as natural is defined as occurring in a normal way, heterosexuality is also a natural behaviour.

The way you phrase the question you are asking which is natural or normal, heterosexuality or homosexuality, they cannot be both. You can’t say that something that is practiced by only 10% of the population is normal, it is not normal, it is a very small minority. Although homosexuality is not the norm, that does not mean that it is wrong. Right and wrong do not correspond to normal and abnormal. Whether or not somebody found gay mice or references to the bible to answer the question are ludicrous.

This is not to say which is morally right or wrong, that is for you to decide. But whatever your decision, don’t tell me I am wrong if I don’t agree.

I agree of course, but that's equal to saying that being left-handed is not normal, as by liberal estimates, 15% of ther population is left-handed, and therefore it isn't "natural" either.

Same with red hair and other natural variants.

 

[Pragmatist]

I agree of course, but that's equal to saying that being left-handed is not normal, as by liberal estimates, 15% of ther population is left-handed, and therefore it isn't "natural" either.

Same with red hair and other natural variants.

That is very true and if only 15% of the population is left-handed it is a trait that is not normally expected. Again, normal is not to say right, only what is normal. I think a better term in this instance is typical versus atypical. Neither is right or wrong, just different. Humans are typically not left-handed or homosexuals.

 

[Jerry]

Yet another Kodak moment in DPland. Smile Jerrry. :mrgreen:

It’s just the end of the world, no biggie.

Cheeeeeeeeeezzzz :mrgreen:

:twocents:
I believe that when conservatives hear, on one side, the argument "why should the gov. prevent 2 people who love each other from marrying", and on the other side hear the argument "it's okay for people to divorce when they have children when they don't love each other anymore", we ask ourselves: "Is it wise to allow emotion alone to govern societal structure; to dictate rather or not a child's home remains intact.....or is made intact in the first place?

Surly not.

IMO as long as there is only the 2 people involved, hay, they can marry and divorce to their hart's content....the only thing it will cost me is a dose of Aspirin the next time I come here and get the divorce rate quoted at me again.

However, unlike Pro-Choice abortion arguments stating that there is no one ells involved in the abortion but the mother and her physician, there clearly is more involved in a divorce as the children have, obviously, full "personhood".

The children have rights which need to be respected, and I do not assume for one moment that simply falling out of love with their other parent is sufficient reason to break that child's home and introduce chaos into their lives.

 

[Jerry]

I totally agree. Kids do better with two parents, even when the parents don't love each other. Lots of marriages go through peaks and valleys. This is life. You fall out of love and back in again. It happens. But, if both parents love the children more then the idea of splitting up, it can work out.

Were having a pit fire in my back yard tonight.....some smores...a little Koom by ya....byob.....togas....why don't you stop by.....

 

[Jerry]

I agree of course, but that's equal to saying that being left-handed is not normal, as by liberal estimates, 15% of ther population is left-handed, and therefore it isn't "natural" either.

Same with red hair and other natural variants.

I am left handed, that makes me abnormal.....and I think it relates to why I think in a different, often alien way then most right hander’s I've met.

Is it natural? Sure. Just like a born sexual orientation. Is it wrong? I haven’t found any objection to left handed writing in the moral authority I obligate myself to, so I would have to say no.

 

[The Wishmaster]

Are we now saying that homosexuality is abnormal because their are a fewer mumber of homosexuals in the world than heterosexuals?

As someone said, only around 10% of people are left handed, so is being left handed unnatural? Years ago it was considered so. Teachers would slap the knuckles of any student they caught writing with their left hand, as they considered it unnatural. Now no one gives a damn.

What about hair color? Say that only 20% of people have red hair - does this mean having red hair is abnormal? Of course not.


Just imagine what it would be like to be a left handed, red headed homosexual...

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Were having a pit fire in my back yard tonight.....some smores...a little Koom by ya....byob.....togas....why don't you stop by.....

Rather have a D-Jay who's heavy on R & B, but the rest sounds ok. We'll be there 'bout half past six. We're usually the first ones there and the last ones to go. Be prepared.:mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

Are we now saying that homosexuality is abnormal because their are a fewer mumber of homosexuals in the world than heterosexuals?

As someone said, only around 10% of people are left handed, so is being left handed unnatural? Years ago it was considered so. Teachers would slap the knuckles of any student they caught writing with their left hand, as they considered it unnatural. Now no one gives a damn.

What about hair color? Say that only 20% of people have red hair - does this mean having red hair is abnormal? Of course not.


Just imagine what it would be like to be a left handed, red headed homosexual...

Actually, yes. Having red hair is abnormal, abnormal being not the norm. That doesn't mean anything's wrong with it. Being left handed is also abnormal, but not unnatural. Continuing with this, homosexuality is abnormal, but it is not unnatural.

 

[The Wishmaster]

Actually, yes. Having red hair is abnormal, abnormal being not the norm. That doesn't mean anything's wrong with it. Being left handed is also abnormal, but not unnatural. Continuing with this, homosexuality is abnormal, but it is not unnatural.

I see where you are coming from.

 

[Kelzie]

I see where you are coming from.

But does that make you...wait for it....abnormal? :mrgreen: