Is it wrong to be gay?

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

You ignored my last answer.

I probably missed it. There were a large number of posts all at once that came in and I really do not have the time nor the will to argue them all again in this thread. It seems that there are no more arguments on either side and to keep repeating the same things is not necessary. If you want to PM me and just kind of explore the topic and each other's opinions further, I would be glad to do so.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Anyways, here's the fundamental issue as I see it:

It's been declared that the US is a Christian nation and that marriage is primarily a Christian function. However, many like to keep marriage as a "Christian function between man and woman" as denoted in the bible:

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
http://bible.org/article/homosexuali...an-perspective

And, so, many seem to believe that to change "marriage" as it is defined is to be ignorant of its origins and implications. Of course, if this were true, why didn't we see more uprisings against atheists marrying?

But, you know what -- if you want to keep "marriage" as defined as a man-woman pairing, and people absolutely don't want to extend that word to include other forms, then I think that's fine. Calling it something else is fine as long as the rights are equal to those of marriage. I think it's a reasonable compromise that still ensures equal rights.

I would agree with this.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

I probably missed it. There were a large number of posts all at once that came in and I really do not have the time nor the will to argue them all again in this thread. It seems that there are no more arguments on either side and to keep repeating the same things is not necessary. If you want to PM me and just kind of explore the topic and each other's opinions further, I would be glad to do so.

No, I want you to answer the question I made in the end of that post. It isn't too hard for you to go back some pages and read it, right?

[MrRubix]

I understand that trying to change a religious function to something that is inherently AGAINST that religion is quite the violation, and so I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to force a non-religious overlay onto a pre-established religious function, despite the fact that I myself am atheist (oh and first amendment lol) -- however, this issue, coupled with the ignorance of the masses regarding homosexuality, is probably why it's been such an arduous and ongoing issue. However, I do think that anyone should be allowed to marry -- whatever you want to call it -- with equal rights of that of anyone else.

The problem I have with "civil unions," besides the fact that the phrase doesn't sound nearly as romantic as "marriage" on a purely aesthetic/emotional level, is that they don't offer the same rights as marriage:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedd...nvmarriage.htm

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

No, I want you to answer the question I made in the end of that post. It isn't too hard for you to go back some pages and read it, right?

Don't be an ass. But yes, I will go back in due time. Just let me finish this paper that is due in 2 hours. I will PM you my answer. Also, can you be more specific as to which question. Assuming it isn't too hard for you to specify which question.

Also, the PM thing is because this thread is coming to a close in case you haven't noticed and once again, no exact right or wrong is going to be found on the subject as long as people are allowed to have their own opinions. I will gladly explore further each others opinions with you, but that is about the limit of how much farther I care to go with this.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Don't be an ass. But yes, I will go back in due time. Just let me finish this paper that is due in 2 hours. I will PM you my answer. Also, can you be more specific as to which question. Assuming it isn't too hard for you to specify which question.

Also, the PM thing is because this thread is coming to a close in case you haven't noticed and once again, no exact right or wrong is going to be found on the subject as long as people are allowed to have their own opinions. I will gladly explore further each others opinions with you, but that is about the limit of how much farther I care to go with this.

Sorry, I sometimes act like that when I get ignored.
This is the post: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...&postcount=118

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

This is the same sort of logic behind date rape -- "they didn't say no" when they were incapable of doing so. "Her body language was saying yes."

So, make restraining an animal so it can't effectively communicate discomfort or dislike illegal. Sure. But if the animal isn't stopped from resisting and doesn't resist, then I see no problem. Like I said, I want it to be strictly regulated.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

So, make restraining an animal so it can't effectively communicate discomfort or dislike illegal. Sure. But if the animal isn't stopped from resisting and doesn't resist, then I see no problem. Like I said, I want it to be strictly regulated.

Again though, not the point -- you can get hit with a rape charge even if the person you have sex with doesn't say yes/no and doesn't resist. Non-resistance is not enough to prove consent.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Again though, not the point -- you can get hit with a rape charge even if the person you have sex with doesn't say yes/no and doesn't resist. Non-resistance is not enough to prove consent.

Maybe it should be, in the case of animals.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

So, make restraining an animal so it can't effectively communicate discomfort or dislike illegal. Sure. But if the animal isn't stopped from resisting and doesn't resist, then I see no problem. Like I said, I want it to be strictly regulated.

I can't possibly imagine in what circumstances it would be allowed, assuming it would be "strictly regulated".

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I can't possibly imagine in what circumstances it would be allowed, assuming it would be "strictly regulated".

Okay, let's say NFD bends down in front of his uncle's husky and the husky gives it to him. The husky is obviously enjoying itself, as is NFD. I see no reason this should result in NFD being put in da slammer.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

Okay, let's say NFD bends down in front of his uncle's husky and the husky gives it to him. The husky is obviously enjoying itself, as is NFD. I see no reason this should result in NFD being put in da slammer.

Well, since I have no idea what the husky will think about NFD after this, I'm not so sure... I don't know if this sort of thing can have an impact on the animal's behavior, making it more "dominative", perhaps...
It's complicated, and I think it's completely unnecessary. People and animals can live without this.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

Maybe it should be, in the case of animals.

The problem is that, if you legalized it, you'd basically open the doors for people to abuse and rape animals. How is an animal going to be able to inform the authorities that they were raped? You're going to essentially trust the human to do that for himself? Animals can't give or withhold consent, and consent is the line between sex and rape.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by robertson3r

huh? isnt that the same as saying 'well gays dont NEED to be gay'

No. You can tell how a human feels after this, but not how an animal feels.

[MrRubix]

I need not also mention the numerous disease/health exposures.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I need not also mention the numerous disease/health exposures.

Yeah. Well, that happens between humans too, but on a smaller scale.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

The problem is that, if you legalized it, you'd basically open the doors for people to abuse and rape animals. How is an animal going to be able to inform the authorities that they were raped? You're going to essentially trust the human to do that for himself? Animals can't give or withhold consent, and consent is the line between sex and rape.

Well, to be honest there's not a lot stopping people from raping animals as it is. I think it would be possible, if difficult, to enact new laws that would permit genuine lovemaking between species while still not giving rapists an easy loophole in court.

Well, since I have no idea what the husky will think about NFD after this, I'm not so sure... I don't if this sort of thing can have an impact on the animal's behavior, making it more "dominative", perhaps...

Maybe. Worth looking into. It's entirely possible he shaved five years off of the husky's lifespan.

It's complicated, and I think it's completely unnecessary. People and animals can live without this.

Complicated, undoubtedly. But it must be frustrating to have your love be denounced by everyone and made illegal.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

Complicated, undoubtedly. But it must be frustrating to have your love be denounced by everyone and made illegal.

How do you know the animal loves you the same way?
If they create a machine that lets people read the minds of animals, it won't be such an issue, but, right now...

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Yeah. Well, that happens between humans too, but on a smaller scale.

Right, but why make the problem worse? This is my point.

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

Well, to be honest there's not a lot stopping people from raping animals as it is. I think it would be possible, if difficult, to enact new laws that would permit genuine lovemaking between species while still not giving rapists an easy loophole in court.Maybe. Worth looking into. It's entirely possible he shaved five years off of the husky's lifespan.
Complicated, undoubtedly. But it must be frustrating to have your love be denounced by everyone and made illegal.

There's nothing stopping people from raping animals now, but legalizing it is basically giving them a guilt-free legality card to keep abusing animals. Why not legalize human rape, while we're at it? The logic doesn't hold. There's absolutely no way such a law would ever be passed. There's really no argument that works -- an animal simply cannot give consent, and by that alone, it will forever be illegal. You also have no way of telling whether or not the animal loves you. There's no rule that says we can have sex with a human if we love them and they don't resist. That is what we would characterize as a rapist mentality.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

How do you know the animal loves you the same way?
If they create a machine that lets people read the minds of animals, it won't be such an issue, but, right now...

You don't. Maybe the animal dies a little inside each time, or maybe it's all it looks forward to each day upon waking up. I don't know if assuming the worst is the best way of thinking about it.

There's nothing stopping people from raping animals now, but legalizing it is basically giving them a guilt-free legality card to keep abusing animals. Why not legalize human rape, while we're at it? The logic doesn't hold. There's absolutely no way such a law would ever be passed. There's really no argument that works -- an animal simply cannot give consent, and by that alone, it will forever be illegal. You also have no way of telling whether or not the animal loves you. There's no rule that says we can have sex with a human if we love them and they don't resist. That is what we would characterize as a rapist mentality.

whaaaaaaaat

I just said it has to be possible to create a system of laws that allows interspecies love while keeping interspecies rape illegal. I refuse to believe it isn't possible, though I will readily admit the odds are astronomically against it ever happening. I don't actually care that much, not being into that sort of stuff. I just think it's a shame that the few people out there who are in love with another species have to put up with it.

I don't think applying the same mindset we use for human relations to human-animal relations makes sense. The inability to communicate thoughts between species requires thinking differently.

Diseaseses, I don't really know anything about. I haven't really done a ton of research on this, seeing as how I don't care a ton about it, so I'm probably gonna go google this up or something.

EDIT: Yeah there's a wikipedia article on zoophilia and health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

[Izzy]

I think you need to understand the reality of how the congressional system. There is absolutely no way that interspecies sex is going to become legal. You and rubix are pretty much arguing two different things.