Is it wrong to be gay?

[0MG]

This is why I don't proclaim to ever be religious. Aspects of religion like homosexuality sway one to believe that because of a higher power something else is wrong in it's entirety, and because that higher power "said so". Where hath morality gone? If one can't help nor change something about themselves, then live with it. Gay's aren't hurting anyone. For the record, I am straight but have many gay friends.

One thing I will point out though is that it is unfair to a minimal degree to a child in a gay marriage.

[MrRubix]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a child having two gay parents. As long as they are good parents, what's the concern? There is, perhaps, a legitimate concern in the social aspect of things, but it's really just another extension of social stigma no inherently different from, say, having a black mother and an Asian father, or a white mother and an Indian father, etc. It's just that homosexuality tends to be under heavier fire because it's a more fundamental difference (on a physical level). And yet, what most people fail to realize, is that it's a harmless difference with no harmful impacts on anything on the margin or residual.

[0MG]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a child having two gay parents. As long as they are good parents, what's the concern? There is, perhaps, a legitimate concern in the social aspect of things, but it's really just another extension of social stigma no inherently different from, say, having a black mother and an Asian father, or a white mother and an Indian father, etc. It's just that homosexuality tends to be under heavier fire because it's a more fundamental difference -- and yet, what most people fail to realize, is that it's a harmless difference with no harmful impacts on anything on the margin or residual.

It would impact the child's life. Kids who grow up with no father are missing a male father figure, and vice versa. Grouping two male father figures or two female figures only fills a void that is awkward if filled by a same counterpart. Also, a child's social life would be altered when all they see is moms and dads picking their kids up from school. Again, this is my only concern and it is a very minimal one.

[MrRubix]

Can you point me to any study that shows a significantly negative impact on a child's emotional development from not having dual-sex parents?

I'll save you some time: There aren't any. What matters more is that the parents are good parents. Having abusive parents, or poor parents, or neglectful parents, or lazy non-interactive parents will result in far worse outcomes than having gay parents.

Again, in terms of family, kids grow up just fine with two men/two women for parents. The only thing that "matters" is the "social perception," which is an irrational one in this case. Some social perceptions have a logical backing to them, but the social perception against homosexuality does not, and has its roots in ignorance and fear.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is truer than most people realize.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by 0MG

It would impact the child's life. Kids who grow up with no father are missing a male father figure, and vice versa. Grouping two male father figures or two female figures only fills a void that is awkward if filled by a same counterpart. Also, a child's social life would be altered when all they see is moms and dads picking their kids up from school. Again, this is my only concern and it is a very minimal one.

This isn't much of a concern because many children grow up in single-parent households (or in households where one parent is away most of the time), so unless that can be completely stopped this argument doesn't provide any reason to be against gay marriage. I think the thing that matters more than anything else (when it comes to the success of a nuclear family) is having two separate people who care for you and for each other.

[Mollocephalus]

what's the purpose of having parents of two different genders anyways? why is it considered as a must? many species have different family structures, i don't see why this should be the only valid one as we're more flexible than any other animal.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Honestly, you were totally crushed in that debate. Every argument you threw at me was completely torn apart, and you ignored half of the evidence/arguments that contradicted your claims. Your only retaliation was to spin it towards extraordinarily strange thought experiments, only to get dominated there as a result of a lack of understanding for how the human brain actually works. In the end, when the entire argument clearly destroyed your position, all you were able to say is "Well I don't care, I still believe in God."

That's how you felt? Well, I'm absolutely sure you (and most people) didn't understand a big part of what I was trying to say. I know it's my fault, though. I have lots of trouble explaining certain thoughts. And don't say "I did understand" because you never showed any sign of understanding it. Yes, I'm talking about that body-mind exchanging thing. I could tell from your answers that you just didn't understand what I was talking about, and I said it required a good abstraction capacity. But you insisted with the obvious, first impression you got from my argument, and that's why it didn't work. That's why I tried to use other arguments instead, but I was aware that they were weaker and non-conclusive.

What evidences did I ignore? The ones about evolution? Well, I always believed in evolution and stuff. I just started questioning it because I wasn't truly convinced by the evolutionary arguments. I have enough reasons to question certain things, I'm not some religious idiot who just ignores science and everything.

And "only to get dominated there as a result of a lack of understanding for how the human brain actually works": I wasn't even talking about how the human brain worked, and never claimed it worked in a certain way it didn't.

It really seems that you convince yourself that you're right and that all of the other person's arguments are wrong even before the discussion has started. Have you ever considered changing? What if you ARE wrong?

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by 0MG

It would impact the child's life. Kids who grow up with no father are missing a male father figure, and vice versa.

So what about single parents? Millions of children are being raised every year by single parents.

[devonin]

I think the thing that matters more than anything else (when it comes to the success of a nuclear family) is having two separate people who care for you and for each other.

I think this is the point that is worth getting at. It's mopre valuable for a very young child to see what mutual caring, understanding and love look like than it is to have both a male and female parental figure. Both my father and step-mother work for the canadian child services program (Children's Aid Society) so I'm relatively aware of a lot of the different kinds of things that go on.

Children in a two-parent both-sex household where the parents fight, or are abusive, or cheat, or abuse substances are -way- worse off than even a financially struggling single parent who sometimes has trouble getting enough food on the table. My parents divorced when I was 2, and I spent half my childhood living with my mom (who has stayed unmarried ever since) and my dad (WHo was also single for 3 more years before remarrying) and while I still had the benefit of having a male and female parental figure in my life, I was essentially raised by single parents and I think I turned out fine.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

That's how you felt? Well, I'm absolutely sure you (and most people) didn't understand a big part of what I was trying to say. I know it's my fault, though. I have lots of trouble explaining certain thoughts. And don't say "I did understand" because you never showed any sign of understanding it. Yes, I'm talking about that body-mind exchanging thing. I could tell from your answers that you just didn't understand what I was talking about, and I said it required a good abstraction capacity. But you insisted with the obvious, first impression you got from my argument, and that's why it didn't work. That's why I tried to use other arguments instead, but I was aware that they were weaker and non-conclusive.

What evidences did I ignore? The ones about evolution? Well, I always believed in evolution and stuff. I just started questioning it because I wasn't truly convinced by the evolutionary arguments. I have enough reasons to question certain things, I'm not some religious idiot who just ignores science and everything.

And "only to get dominated there as a result of a lack of understanding for how the human brain actually works": I wasn't even talking about how the human brain worked, and never claimed it worked in a certain way it didn't.

It really seems that you convince yourself that you're right and that all of the other person's arguments are wrong even before the discussion has started. Have you ever considered changing? What if you ARE wrong?

To address your last sentence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

And yes, regarding the body-mind exchanging thing, I did understand your argument. However, you didn't seem to understand the argument explaining why the brain was crucial here -- saying "I wasn't even talking about how the human brain worked" again shows the misunderstanding. The answer to such a thought experiment doesn't require an abstract, complex answer because the answer is simple.

I'd love to pick the debate up again if you'd like.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

To address your last sentence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

And yes, regarding the body-mind exchanging thing, I did understand your argument. However, you didn't seem to understand the argument explaining why the brain was crucial here -- saying "I wasn't even talking about how the human brain worked" again shows the misunderstanding. The answer to such a thought experiment doesn't require an abstract, complex answer because the answer is simple.

I'd love to pick the debate up again if you'd like.

I'll soon watch the video.

You know, the exchanging thing was actually a mental exercise I created to help explain my point. It didn't really depend on the actual workings of the brain, and that's why I seemed so oblivious to that, even though I wasn't. It was just an idea, a tool used by me to explain the concept.

You made me think that you didn't understand, because you kept repeating the wrong obvious first impression of that idea, the same impression several of the people I know had when I tried to explain it to them. And that probably happened because you were treating the exchange as an event I actually believe could happen, even though it was just an idea.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

To address your last sentence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Marcus, I am not a christian. I'm a deist. I've said this before, believing in God doesn't imply in being religious. I just believe in an intelligence, that's all. I'm not creating any dogmas nor anything.
When I asked why you were an atheist and not an agnostic, your answer was that "God isn't plausible", but you never actually explained why an intelligent origin wasn't plausible. It's really not a matter of probability.

And when I asked "what if you are wrong?" I wasn't referring only to this particular subject.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Marcus, I am not a christian. I'm a deist. I've said this before, believing in God doesn't imply in being religious. I just believe in an intelligence, that's all. I'm not creating any dogmas nor anything.
When I asked why you were an atheist and not an agnostic, your answer was that "God isn't plausible", but you never actually explained why an intelligent origin wasn't plausible. It's really not a matter of probability.

And when I asked "what if you are wrong?" I wasn't referring only to this particular subject.

I'm going to make another thread for this

[Devilsrejectedsoul]

There's nothing wrong about being gay. It's just something in your state of mind telling you what you believe is right. If something feels right them more then likely it completely is ok. I know some religions think it's wrong but really it's not. It's completely natural in life.

[Izzy]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but your reasoning is wrong.

Serial killers believe it is perfectly ok to kill the people they do because of whatever reason. They say something such as "God told me to do it" or whatever.

[Magic187]

It's wrong to be gay if you're pushing your propaganda through the streets of San Francisco while I'm trying to sit down and have a picnic at the park with my little siblings. People should follow their beliefs, and just like any lifestyle, radicals who take their ideals, views, or beliefs and blow them out of proportion are wrong.

If you're gay, please keep it to yourself and only tell those with inquiring minds that care. If you're christian, please keep it to yourself and only tell those with inquiring minds that care.

The point is, there is nothing wrong with being gay, but when you begin to march around in a speedo while walking next to men wearing nothing but a rainbow coating of paint, it's a little ostentatious.

On a personal note, I've noticed that gay people contribute to society, pay their taxes, and lead lives just like the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with gay people. But gay radicals get on a lot of people's nerves. Gay parades really aren't necessary.

[smartdude1212]

Originally Posted by Magic187

There is nothing wrong with gay people. But gay radicals get on a lot of people's nerves. Gay parades really aren't necessary.

It seems to me as if they've only reached this level of expressionism because of the oppression in past years. Straight people haven't been oppressed to that degree, so of course there aren't any "straight parades".

[One Winged Angel]

lol I've always thought black history month itself was racist

on topic though, no (haven't read the other 13 pages or so)

also, define wrong since that's pretty ambiguous here...I'm assuming we're arguing this on religious grounds or something of the like

then again, I could probably find that out by just reading the other posts so woop

[Paqrat]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but your reasoning is wrong.

Serial killers believe it is perfectly ok to kill the people they do because of whatever reason. They say something such as "God told me to do it" or whatever.

....Serial killers do not claim to gain magical insight by God to butcher children. Most if not all claim to have gained the power from demons or satanic rituals.
And the point on gay lifestyles IS wrong from Godly and Religious point of view. It says clearly in Romans 1:18--32
Verse 32 says: '"Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them."'

This is a scripture of the end times of this world. This clearly describes the time of the end, and before any of you refute me and say 'thats not in the Bible', read Romans 1:18--32.

And another thing, the thing about gays having no control over their sexuality is complete crock, its an excuse like everything else; one gay activist said plainly: "The choice to being gay or homosexual...is like that of buying a new car."
60% if not more homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay, it is not something forced upon them, even with inadequet hormones it is not a true scientific proof that it is the cause of homosexuality.

I don't hate gay people but I don't approve of their life style either.

[devonin]

So it sounds like what you're sayingis "60% choose it, but "I didn't choose it" is invalid in 100% of cases" Or in other words, what you're saying is "Contradictory"