(September 16, 2012 at 6:03 am)Stimbo Wrote: Not to mention that

Or your daughter is just damn ugly......

Whenever I have to do something like this, it always helps me to google some arguments that are in opposition of the argument I want to make.

Most of what you'll find on this subject, of course, will be based on cherry-picked bible verses. Easily refuted.

I think people are reading that leviticus nonsense all wrong.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

When I read it, I understand it as god hates MMW threesomes.

The one argument I think is stupid to use is that people are born with innate sexual desires that cannot be changed and only point to a singular sexuality. Homosexuality has been quite normal throughout human civilization not as something separate but as a sexuality in addition to what is considered normal sexual behavior.

The only reason you start to see homosexuality promoted as being something as black and white is due to people trying to argue against what the Christians in America have stated.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm)Polaris Wrote: The only reason you start to see homosexuality promoted as being something as black and white is due to people trying to argue against what the Christians in America have stated.

I would partly agree with you in that sexual orientation isn't black and white but shades of bisexual gray. Prior to the rise of Islamo-Christianity, ancient societies like Greece or Rome had no word for "gay" or "straight", though same-gender affections were documented even among their gods. I sometimes wonder if we should even have words like these when we don't have words to describe one's preference for hair-color, body-type, religious background, etc.

That said, shades of gray do become black and white at their extremes. Most people will have a preference and this preference seems to be innate. This being the case, society should allow for equal treatment under the law for those inclined to choose a partner of the same gender.

The question for Islamo-Christians who adhere to the taboo against same-gender affections is why love becomes evil when the body parts are similar.

Simple questions, simple answers DP.

Why?

Because something about two guys having a swordfight grosses out the designer and creator of said swords, and when it comes to the subject of good and evil...he kind of shoots from the hip.

(Anyone find the image of a deity tinkering with various penis designs until settling upon one that "he saw, and it was good" amusing....or maybe, wait, maybe god always knew what kind of penis he would like and so he got it right on the first go. Imagine, pondering penis for an eternity before creating one because it's form was pleasing to you. Food for thought. Whats the SOP on that, do you fondle it for a little bit, make sure it fits in the proposed mouth orifice properly, stare at it lovingly..etc etc etc?)

(September 10, 2012 at 2:54 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Everyone knows I'm a student, right? If you didn't know before, you know now.

Well, I'm taking a speech class and part of that is that I'm going to have to make a persuasive speech. So, I'm going to make a speech for something I already believe in: same sex marriage.

Thing is, from my perspective, same sex marriage is a no brainer. When you're queer, it's kinda hard to question your own rights. However, if I'm going to make an effective, persuasive speech, I would need to address the concerns of people who aren't already queer who are specifically homophobic.

Any suggestions on what those concerns are and how to address them?

Hi Tarajo,

I don't think it can be a marriage. The law calls it a "civil partnership". The word "marriage" has too much of the religious "holy matrimony" idea to it, I think. I'm all for civil partnership for gays and lesbians. It's only fair that they have full recognition of their relationship. Why should we prevent them from having a partnership? What blooming right have we got to do that?

(September 17, 2012 at 10:12 am)greneknight Wrote: Hi Tarajo,

I don't think it can be a marriage. The law calls it a "civil partnership". The word "marriage" has too much of the religious "holy matrimony" idea to it, I think. I'm all for civil partnership for gays and lesbians. It's only fair that they have full recognition of their relationship. Why should we prevent them from having a partnership? What blooming right have we got to do that?

Marriage has nothing to do with religion (religion may have claimed it in this country) . I'm not going to have a civil partnership just because im an atheist. So if gays want to get married , they get married.

(September 17, 2012 at 10:12 am)greneknight Wrote: Hi Tarajo,

I don't think it can be a marriage. The law calls it a "civil partnership". The word "marriage" has too much of the religious "holy matrimony" idea to it, I think. I'm all for civil partnership for gays and lesbians. It's only fair that they have full recognition of their relationship. Why should we prevent them from having a partnership? What blooming right have we got to do that?

If marriage, at heart, is a religious ceremony, why does the government perform marriages? There should be a separation between church and state and that separation can't exist if people are performing religious ceremonies to gain state rights.

(September 17, 2012 at 9:38 am)Rhythm Wrote: Anyone find the image of a deity tinkering with various penis designs until settling upon one that "he saw, and it was good" amusing....

And then there's the whole circumcision thing. I mean, the thing was intelligently designed and all but the priests decided a few alterations were needed? So apparently Yahweh had some second thoughts on the design but just left it to humans to manually correct with each generation rather than modify the DNA so it just comes out that way the first time?

Quote:or maybe, wait, maybe god always knew what kind of penis he would like and so he got it right on the first go. Imagine, pondering penis for an eternity before creating one because it's form was pleasing to you. Food for thought. Whats the SOP on that, do you fondle it for a little bit, make sure it fits in the proposed mouth orifice properly, stare at it lovingly..etc etc etc?)

I'm suddenly reminded of Ray Comfort's banana skit. "It's curved for an easy grip. It has outward indications of being ready for consumption. It fits perfectly into the human mouth..."

(September 17, 2012 at 10:23 am)TaraJo Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 10:12 am)greneknight Wrote: Hi Tarajo,

I don't think it can be a marriage. The law calls it a "civil partnership". The word "marriage" has too much of the religious "holy matrimony" idea to it, I think. I'm all for civil partnership for gays and lesbians. It's only fair that they have full recognition of their relationship. Why should we prevent them from having a partnership? What blooming right have we got to do that?

If marriage, at heart, is a religious ceremony, why does the government perform marriages? There should be a separation between church and state and that separation can't exist if people are performing religious ceremonies to gain state rights.

We are in different countries. There's no separation of State and Church in my country. My church is called the Established Church because it's the state church.