S/O, why is it unacceptable to be against homosexuality?

[Anonymous]

then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, how much do you know about Ancient Greek? And how many homosexuals there were or weren't? How widely it was practiced, or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, how much do you know about Ancient Greek? And how many homosexuals there were or weren't? How widely it was practiced, or not?

Agree, and what the ancients were doing is none of my concern, I am not saying that it was not rampant, but who knows? They were also having sex with boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, how much do you know about Ancient Greek? And how many homosexuals there were or weren't? How widely it was practiced, or not?

Agree, and what the ancients were doing is none of my concern, I am not saying that it was not rampant, but who knows? They were also having sex with boys.

Well, someone could look at our news 1000 years from now - Catholic church scandal, registered offenders lists - take it out of context and say that WE were having sex with boys too.

And again, unless you are a scholar of ancient Greek history I am not sure you are any kind of authority on the sexual practices of ancient Greeks, gay or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Actually...with women environment MIGHT play a role. When it comes to sex for money (or wealth) environment COULD be a factor.

And you base this on what? Just your beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is a religious concept, so it should also be up to the churches. Not the government.

There are some 300+ laws on the books in Maryland alone that disagree with your statement. Marriage has become both a religious and a civil concept. And civil unions are NOT civil marriages. In most states that have civil unions, the civil unions only have a subset of the rights that are granted to married couples. Even if you were to grant all existing rights to civil unions as are currently valid, this does not mandate legislators to authorize future laws affecting marriage to automatically likewise affect civil unions. Civil unions are definitely a separate but unequal legal concept. And this is flat out governmental discrimination. Churches may be allowed to discriminate, but the government should not be able to.

The only way to enforce what you are saying is to abolish ALL marriage from the laws and redraft ALL laws to use civil unions (or your term of choice) to affect all legal unions. But, as long as marriage is the term that is used for thousands of laws on the books in federal and state laws, civil marriage is what needs to be granted to all such unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is a religious concept, so it should also be up to the churches. Not the government.

There are some 300+ laws on the books in Maryland alone that disagree with your statement. Marriage has become both a religious and a civil concept. And civil unions are NOT civil marriages. In most states that have civil unions, the civil unions only have a subset of the rights that are granted to married couples. Even if you were to grant all existing rights to civil unions as are currently valid, this does not mandate legislators to authorize future laws affecting marriage to automatically likewise affect civil unions. Civil unions are definitely a separate but unequal legal concept. And this is flat out governmental discrimination. Churches may be allowed to discriminate, but the government should not be able to.

The only way to enforce what you are saying is to abolish ALL marriage from the laws and redraft ALL laws to use civil unions (or your term of choice) to affect all legal unions. But, as long as marriage is the term that is used for thousands of laws on the books in federal and state laws, civil marriage is what needs to be granted to all such unions.

I AGREE! This is what I have been saying . No one, gay or straight should be married by "the law". I am one of those nuts who tried to get rid of "one nation under GOD" out of the pledge. There are some very sneaky ways that religion has worked its way into our government. We need to be more proactive in getting it out. Civil unions for all, marriage only in private institutons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:my thoughts briefly:

#1, I don't think you are born predisposed to be gay or straight.

#2, I think a lot of it is choice/culture.

#3, If not for our judea-christian background, gays would be a lot higher than 5-10%.

#4, There are advantages to societies in keeping the gay population somewhat low (where they are now or lower).

#5, If we allow gay marriage, homosexuality will get more and more accepted, and I think the percentage of gays will go higher and higher.

#1 - disagree - and so what if it is?
#2 - I think it's not a choice sometimes and is a choice in others - but so what?
#3 - maybe, maybe not - again, do what? If anything I'd be happy for those people who could finally be themselves...
#4 - huh? What would be the advantages? I don't get this one at all. Advantages against discriminating against a sizeable minority of people for something that affects you not at all?
#5 - SO WHAT?

Ok so we disagree. But like PPs have said, no person should get to just decide they don't like something that does not affect anyone else and therefore take away rights. This is not an issue that can be compared to murder or pedophilia or anything like that that harms another person. This is a person choosing to love someone else. It really really doesn't get to be your choice to deny them basic rights that others are eligible for.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else seen/read that recent study that the young man did that basically refutes each and every case that people claim is the bible saying that homosexuality was wrong? I'm trying to find it.... It was fascinating.