(June 30, 2015 at 9:57 am)Razzle Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Lek Wrote: For me I think it all comes from faith reasons.  One thing I might say is that it is an unnatural act, since the human body doesn't naturally accommodate a penis being inserted in its anus.  I don't know whether or not I could say that it was immoral for that reason, but it would seem to be unnatural.

1) Some religions have an official pro-gay stance, and their members have just as much faith as you do about this issue, but their faith tells them that same-sex relationships are moral. For example, the Unitarian Universalists have been petitioning for decades to be allowed to marry same-sex couples, because they believe it's immoral and against God's wishes to discriminate against them. Maybe you weren't aware of this. Now that you are aware of it, would you agree that just as those churches have no right to legally force your church to marry gay couples (which hasn't happened and was never on the table, of course), you equally have no right to legally force their church to refuse to marry couples that their conscience dictates they marry? Or do you think that your religious faith-based beliefs deserve to be forced on to everybody by law, and the religious faith-based beliefs of certain other religious people do not? The SCOTUS decision is the obvious solution to religious conflicts like this. Basically, the government is saying to all religious organisations: "solemnise same-sex unions if you want to, and don't solemnise them if you don't want to. As a religion, it's your business, not ours." This is a win for religious freedom.

2) A very large minority of young male-female couples frequently have anal sex in the USA, and around 1 in 5 male couples do not have anal sex. As for female couples, far fewer of them ever have anal sex than mixed-sex couples do. Would you therefore agree that the law ought to prevent any couple from getting married - whether a male, female or mixed-sex couple - if there is solid evidence that they have had anal sex, or have announced their intentions to do so after marriage? If your aim is to outlaw marriages between people who have anal sex, then surely banning all same-sex couples from getting married - despite female same-sex couples being the least likely of any group to do so - and not bothering to pass laws about anal-loving mixed-sex couples, is a highly hamfisted (hehe) way of doing so?

3) It's true that the rectum does not perfectly accommodate the penis if appropriate care is not taken. (Next time Lek, use lube, get a gentle lover, and relax your muscles. You're welcome.) However, the vagina does perfectly accommodate another woman's finger; even more safely and comfortably than it accommodates the penis or the average male finger, which will tend to be larger than a woman's. Is female homosexuality therefore "natural", and if not, what's your justification for wanting the law to prevent female couples getting married as well as male couples?

Rekt

I never thought the US would have nationwide marriage equaity before my own country. I feel kinda dirty.

(June 30, 2015 at 9:55 am)Tonus Wrote: Has Ray Comfort explained how the penis was designed to fit perfectly into the human hand?

I thought he said the penis was designed to fit perfectly within a banana skin. Or something like that.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:21 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I never thought the US would have nationwide marriage equaity before my own country. I feel kinda dirty.

I don't know why not. The US was one of the first countries to have gay marriage at all. So it's not really a surprise to me.

(July 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 11:21 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I never thought the US would have nationwide marriage equaity before my own country. I feel kinda dirty.

I don't know why not. The US was one of the first countries to have gay marriage at all. So it's not really a surprise to me.

That's true, but the US still has a reputation for being socially backwards, so nobody really saw this coming.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:21 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I never thought the US would have nationwide marriage equaity before my own country. I feel kinda dirty.

You should feel dirty.  But you can work on changing things in your country.  There are probably organizations in your country working on this issue, and they may be able to use volunteers, or monetary contributions.

Also, being behind on one issue does not make one behind on other issues.  So you need not feel totally dirty.  As long as you vote for and work for things improving.

(July 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 11:21 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I never thought the US would have nationwide marriage equaity before my own country. I feel kinda dirty.

You should feel dirty.  But you can work on changing things in your country.  There are probably organizations in your country working on this issue, and they may be able to use volunteers, or monetary contributions.

Also, being behind on one issue does not make one behind on other issues.  So you need not feel totally dirty.  As long as you vote for and work for things improving.

Totally Disagree about the guilt part.you dont need to apologize or feel any guilt over the stupid decisions that your lawmakers make.its not your fault in the least

(July 1, 2015 at 4:16 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I don't know why not. The US was one of the first countries to have gay marriage at all. So it's not really a surprise to me.

That's true, but the US still has a reputation for being socially backwards, so nobody really saw this coming.

Don't you know?  "Jesus" likes us that way.


Nice to have you back, Nora.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Mothonis Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: You should feel dirty.  But you can work on changing things in your country.  There are probably organizations in your country working on this issue, and they may be able to use volunteers, or monetary contributions.

Also, being behind on one issue does not make one behind on other issues.  So you need not feel totally dirty.  As long as you vote for and work for things improving.

Totally Disagree about the guilt part.you dont need to apologize or feel any guilt over the stupid decisions that your lawmakers make.its not your fault in the least

That depends on what one does and how one votes.  In the UK, a whole lot of people voted the winners into office.  One is responsible for how one votes, and one's part in such processes.

As a secondary point, if it is wrong to feel guilt for what one's society does, it is wrong to feel pride in it as well.  In my opinion, though, how one should feel about things is directly related to what one has done, and what one has not done, regarding the particular source of potential shame or pride.

(July 1, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Mothonis Wrote: Totally Disagree about the guilt part.you dont need to apologize or feel any guilt over the stupid decisions that your lawmakers make.its not your fault in the least

That depends on what one does and how one votes.  In the UK, a whole lot of people voted the winners into office.  One is responsible for how one votes, and one's part in such processes.

As a secondary point, if it is wrong to feel guilt for what one's society does, it is wrong to feel pride in it as well.  In my opinion, though, how one should feel about things is directly related to what one has done, and what one has not done, regarding the particular source of potential shame or pride.

I get where your coming from.but regarding voting,its impossible to tell how honest a person is unless you know them personaly.if you voted for a bigot you should feel guilty.but if you didn`t you should not feel bad.I do agree they shouldn't feel pride either.all one can do is hope for the best.