Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[mattskramer]

Okay. Let me put it to you another way -

Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology. That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason. Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation. In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.

So what is your point? Even assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology or assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with human nature does not make homosexuality wrong or bad.

Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect. There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse. Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.

So what is your point? Homosexuality is more than anatomy. Even assuming that homosexuality is anatomically "incorrect" does not make homosexuality wrong or bad.

It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome. Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.

So what is your point? Even if homosexuality is not normal, it does not mean that homosexuality is wrong or bad.

Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong. With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.

Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior. Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public. That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.

So what is your point? Just because the majority believes that something is wrong does not make that thing wrong.

All that you are presenting are irrelevant tangents.

 

[Reneer]

Gays have gotten special rights. It may not be by law, but the gay rights movement has convinced many corporations and city governments to extend partner benefits to gay "couples". Single hetrosexuals not only do not have those same benefits, they can get fired for trying to get them. There have been several incidents in my company where hetrosexuals tried to get their partners on their benefits for things like cancer treatment and they been fired for it. But gays can get those same benefits by simply saying they're gay.

Then that is wrong, pure and simple. Cohabitation typically equals financial involvement, and if one member of the cohabitation is sick and cannot financially contribute, company benefits are designed somewhat to support a worker's partner if said partner can no longer contribute to the cohabitation, financially. And again, gays do not have 'special rights' - they cannot get married, so companies are trying to be fair (and, in your case, screwing it up.) If two people live together and financially support each other, they should be able to share the same benefits from a company that one of them works for, pure and simple.

The claim that gays don't want "special" rights is ludicrius. They want laws passed that tell the rest of us how we can react to their personal habit. If that's not a special right, I don't know what is.

Again, I'll reiterate: most gays do not want 'special rights' - they want equal treatment under the law if they cohabitate and have a commitment to support financially the person they are cohabitating with. The act of marriage can be thought of as two people making a public intent to financially and emotionally support each other - and the state has an interest in helping this union, for whatever reason. Simply because two people who want the state to recognize their union of financial and personal interests should not be denied that because they are both of the same gender.

 

[glockmail]

......Just because the majority believes that something is wrong does not make that thing wrong.

.....

Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.

 

[Kagom]

Walking is a chore?

No, it's apart of the reason I'm tired. Chores also contributed. Did it really read that way?

 

[Kagom]

I didnt say it was a requirement. You cant prove a couple is barren, now can you? Many supposed barren couples suddenly got pregnant.

There's tests that people can do to see if they're fertile or infertile. It's not 100% failproof, but it is somewhat accurate.

 

[Kagom]

Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.

If you're talking about the Abrahamic faiths, then several thousand years. Other cultures/majorities could've cared less.

 

[mattskramer]

Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.

No. Popular belief is no indication that what is believed is right or wrong. Most people used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people used to think that the earth was flat. Most people used to think that women should not be allowed to vote. Most people at one time thought that slavery was okay. (I am not comparing slavery to homosexuality. I am demonstrating the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority for more information.

 

[glockmail]

No, it's apart of the reason I'm tired. Chores also contributed. Did it really read that way?

Um jest messin' wit ja. (Its a Southern thang).

 

[glockmail]

If you're talking about the Abrahamic faiths, then several thousand years. Other cultures/majorities could've cared less.

Not quite. But you're not one to back up your assertions anyway.

 

[glockmail]

.....I am demonstrating the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.)

.....

You are demonstrating a bogus comparison between scientific facts and morality.

 

[Kagom]

Um jest messin' wit ja. (Its a Southern thang).

Y'all'd best lay off me then. I was brought up in the South, y'know.

 

[Kagom]

Not quite. But you're not one to back up your assertions anyway.

Not at all. Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires. Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes. THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.

 

[mattskramer]

You are demonstrating a bogus comparison between scientific facts and morality.

I used slavery and the right to vote as a couple of my examples. Slavery and the right to vote are moral questions. Even if I did not find a moral example, the fallacy would still apply. It carries over. The bottom line is that just because most people think that gay marriage should not be allowed does not, in and of itself, mean that gay marriage is wrong. The only thing that one can conclude from popular sentiment is popular sentiment.

 

[glockmail]

Y'all'd best lay off me then. I was brought up in the South, y'know.

But you're not a Southern boy.

 

[Kagom]

But you're not a Southern boy.

Considering I was raised there for the vast majority of my life so far, I believe that I am a Southern boy.

 

[Said1]

Not at all. Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires. Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes. THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.

Don't forget the Centours. Silly Newton!

Who thinks Herc should have stangled that buthead?

 

[Kagom]

Don't forget the Centours. Silly Newton!

Who thinks Herc should have stangled that buthead?

Now that we've all laughed at that since you just had to point out mythological beings

I was going on how they were accepting of it.

 

[glockmail]

Not at all. Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires. Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes. THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.

Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?

 

[Said1]

Now that we've all laughed at that since you just had to point out mythological beings

I was going on how they were accepting of it.

Yep. As annyoing as he was.

 

[glockmail]

Considering I was raised there for the vast majority of my life so far, I believe that I am a Southern boy.

Its the attitude not the lattitude. You don't got it. At least not from my perspective. Sorry.