"Daddy (1 or 2), where do babies come from?"

[Lamar Doom]

the decisions we make from a policy standpoint will result in unfavorable disappoint from our heavenly Father, and I'll leave it at that

just so we're clear, your two biggest issues (aside from it "just not seeming right") are that you're concerned gay marriage (or some sort of gay epidemic caused by gay marriage/leniency) may lead to human population problems generations down the road and second, that god might smite us. I can't be asked to engage in real debate with that.

PS- I promise god doesn't care who loves who

[Legend of Josh]

just so we're clear, your two biggest issues (aside from it "just not seeming right") are that you're concerned gay marriage (or some sort of gay epidemic caused by gay marriage/leniency) may lead to human population problems generations down the road and second, that god might smite us. I can't be asked to engage in real debate with that.

PS- I promise god doesn't care who loves who

I'm not sure if your final comment was said in jest. I can't say entirely sure what God cares about more or less. You can't either. I do know what the Bible speaks of in regards to homosexuality. You may have an entirely different definition of God, or no belief at all.

God is love. God wants us to "love" all his creation, friends, sun moon stars and all that... including homosexuals... but I can't say I'm convinced God wants us to be romantically involved with others of the same sex. There's a difference between love and lust... and while a gay man may genuinely love another gay man, "naturally" I believe it points more to lust and something eternal within them that pushes them to seek the choice of homosexuality (here comes the haha's I'm sure, but perhaps Satan?).

[Lamar Doom]

Prop. 8 TV ad...

holy shit that commercial is extra funny. the girl killed it. i thought "Thing" from fantastic 4 was a real straight shooter, now I see otherwise.

[kNIOKAS]

But what's wrong with two guys raising a baby? Raised by a two women the baby would become a bitch, yes, I agree... but two guys, maybe not bad? Remember this movie 3 men and a baby? Maybe baby would amount to something

[Rake2204]

... but honestly though, how would two men properly inform/educate/etc their child on said topic? How do they go about this without instilling deep down confusion and dumbfounding them?

[niko]

But what's wrong with two guys raising a baby? Raised by a two women the baby would become a bitch, yes, I agree... but two guys, maybe not bad? Remember this movie 3 men and a baby? Maybe baby would amount to something

That was THREE guys. This is only 2. Only 66%. Doesn't work.

Jeez...

[niko]

I didn't say it would completely derail reproduction entirely... but you can't possibly say you don't get the point?

If mother nature intended for us to engage in male + male partnership, then reproduction would somehow, someway be possible. It isn't. Yes, we live in 2012, and science has advanced in many different facets. We can artificially create life in a test-tube, but mother nature (some would argue God) did not intend for us to take the place of them (or Him).

That's all that I'm saying.

What's laughably observed is you continue to attempt lame humor without exactly contributing to the discussion. This is your calling card though... thinking you're witty and comical while adding your useless political, religious, tired and all-so common propaganda on the level of your average modern day mid-west hippy.

I used to think you had interesting and worthwhile things to say on many different various subjects, but lately you've evolved into an arrogant self overrated weak-sauce that not even medieval Europeans would put on their stale, molded beef steaks to mask the stank taste (see, I can crack unfunny jokes too, hehe, haha, LOL time, huh?)

Mother Nature doesn't intend a great deal of the shit we do. Do they all bother you? OR just this in particular?

[Nanners]

I didn't say it would completely derail reproduction entirely... but you can't possibly say you don't get the point?

If mother nature intended for us to engage in male + male partnership, then reproduction would somehow, someway be possible. It isn't. Yes, we live in 2012, and science has advanced in many different facets. We can artificially create life in a test-tube, but mother nature (some would argue God) did not intend for us to take the place of them (or Him).

That's all that I'm saying.

What's laughably observed is you continue to attempt lame humor without exactly contributing to the discussion. This is your calling card though... thinking you're witty and comical while adding your useless political, religious, tired and all-so common propaganda on the level of your average modern day mid-west hippy.

I used to think you had interesting and worthwhile things to say on many different various subjects, but lately you've evolved into an arrogant self overrated weak-sauce that not even medieval Europeans would put on their stale, molded beef steaks to mask the stank taste (see, I can crack unfunny jokes too, hehe, haha, LOL time, huh?)

what do you know about what mother nature intends? did mother nature intend for you to sit around in an office building selling insurance all day, and then go home to pop pills and masturbate furiously to asian porno all night?

[bluechox2]

Homosexuals need toget married because it gives them extra benefits from the government . They could care two shits about marriage, just need that paper from court

[Legend of Josh]

Homosexuals need toget married because it gives them extra benefits from the government . They could care two shits about marriage, just need that paper from court

They do care about the "marriage" part; that's the entire debate.

Nanners - I never claimed that I personally follow mother nature's intentions entirely - and neither do you. That isn't really a fair comparison. People, me, you, everyone - are obviously going to make wrong/incorrect decisions/actions in life - but we're speaking of such a fundamental aspect in nature (reproduction, life itself), so someone's occupation doesn't quite compare to sexual preference (choice).

Liberals and the like (such as yourself) are always using silly comparisons to argue such important issues and questions ... such as gay marriage (comparing interracial marriage) and God (comparing Santa Clause, Big Foot or the flying 'getti monster).

Really?

[Lamar Doom]

what do you know about what mother nature intends? did mother nature intend for you to sit around in an office building selling insurance all day, and then go home to pop pills and masturbate furiously to asian porno all night?

Nanners - I never claimed that I personally follow mother nature's intentions entirely - and neither do you. That isn't really a fair comparison.

It's actually super valid. Why do you get to define what variances from mother nature (which is a wholly speculative conversation to begin with) are important and which aren't? Because your church says so? Because you have ridiculous fears of a sci-fi world in which straights are the minority and reproduction is at risk? It's truly laughable man. Marriage and reproduction are not the same thing. If pairing them in your value system is important to you, go for it, but don't put that on everybody else. You want to pick and choose which parts of the bible to ignore to suit your lifestyle? Go for it. You're the one who's choosing to sin, they're just loving who they're attracted to. Seriously, it's embarassingly arrogant, presumptuous, and hypocritical to try to indict someone for crossing mother nature. You're some guy who was born in the USA in the 1980s, what do you really think you know about what's right in nature? My rebuttal to the same question thrown at me is simply that I'm not the one trying to take away someone's liberty by telling them their love isn't good enough for our legal union. (and also that I was born in the 70s)

People, me, you, everyone - are obviously going to make wrong/incorrect decisions/actions in life - but we're speaking of such a fundamental aspect in nature (reproduction, life itself), so someone's occupation doesn't quite compare to sexual preference (choice).

if you think homosexuality is a choice you can stop reading here because we have nothing else to talk about on the issue. why would anyone choose to be gay? there are many unclear things about the gay world to me but I am 100% certain they aren't choosing to be gay. 100%, no questions asked, anything you say to the contrary is pure ignorance.

Liberals and the like (such as yourself) are always using silly comparisons to argue such important issues and questions ... such as gay marriage (comparing interracial marriage) and God (comparing Santa Clause, Big Foot or the flying 'getti monster).

Let's be real here, we're talking about a 2000 year old text that was translated and re-translated (by politicians and other men with agendas) from dead languages. This is not the word of god, or at least, he didn't write the thing. There are many valuable lessons and fundamental truths (some of which go without saying or appear in other holy and secular texts) in the bible but you're trying to take a few passages from leviticus (etc) to judge a portion of the population that has always been there and will always be. Meanwhile you ignore this part and that part, take this part literally, that part figuratively... That's silly. That's where people start comparing christianity to people believing in Santa, when a complete lack of rational reasoning is only defended with arguments of faith or blatantly false and self-serving interpretation.

I'm sorry if gay marriage shatters your normal rockwell view of the family but you're wrong to try to make this a religious issue or claim god (your god by the way, this is supposed to be a free country, does your god not agree with that? or it's only free so long as it meets your understanding of the text representing him, or the convictions of your particular church?) has a stake in it. If the "right and wrong" detector in your heart tells you otherwise it's just homophobia talking. You're just wrong on this one Josh, and the ugly side of your argument is that you're shitting on people's liberties by trying to define what a family should be. Super obsolete thinking.






Here's the plan, you show up to the pearly gates and god is pissed "Josh, why didn't you fight harder to stop gay marriage?", all you have to say is "I'm sorry god, I wasn't sure what was right, I know there are some convoluted passages about laying with other men in the bible but I also thought the most important parts of the bible were the love, forgivness, and "judge not lest ye be judged" parts... I just didn't want to end up like the slave owner "christians" who also used your book to defend their actions". God'll be like "alright Josh, I'm pissed but you can come in because when in doubt you went with the more loving and progressive option... Lamar Doom is here, playing ping-pong with John Lennon..."



"I'm the f*cking Walrus now Johnny"

[Scholar]

The thing about gay marriage is that a lot of people cite what God may or may not want. As far as I understand, there's meant to be a separation in church & govt in the United States; therefore, the argument put up by some that gay marriage wouldn't appease God is moot. It holds no relevance in a country that is supposed to be void of religion in politics.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no quarrels with homosexuals. If they want to marry the individuals they love, go for it. Why stop them? Who says they can't be as miserable as the rest of us who actually got/get married?



Don't allow your religious view points cloud your judgments.

[RidonKs]

Yup. In Leviticus it also mentions that you must keep slaves, wear only polly cotton blends, and keep a huge beard. I assume LoJ does all of these things, or else he's just as much a sinner as a homo.

this seems relevant

[Legend of Josh]

It's actually super valid. Why do you get to define what variances from mother nature (which is a wholly speculative conversation to begin with) are important and which aren't? Because your church says so? Because you have ridiculous fears of a sci-fi world in which straights are the minority and reproduction is at risk? It's truly laughable man. Marriage and reproduction are not the same thing. If pairing them in your value system is important to you, go for it, but don't put that on everybody else. You want to pick and choose which parts of the bible to ignore to suit your lifestyle? Go for it. You're the one who's choosing to sin, they're just loving who they're attracted to. Seriously, it's embarassingly arrogant, presumptuous, and hypocritical to try to indict someone for crossing mother nature. You're some guy who was born in the USA in the 1980s, what do you really think you know about what's right in nature? My rebuttal to the same question thrown at me is simply that I'm not the one trying to take away someone's liberty by telling them their love isn't good enough for our legal union. (and also that I was born in the 70s)




if you think homosexuality is a choice you can stop reading here because we have nothing else to talk about on the issue. why would anyone choose to be gay? there are many unclear things about the gay world to me but I am 100% certain they aren't choosing to be gay. 100%, no questions asked, anything you say to the contrary is pure ignorance.




Let's be real here, we're talking about a 2000 year old text that was translated and re-translated (by politicians and other men with agendas) from dead languages. This is not the word of god, or at least, he didn't write the thing. There are many valuable lessons and fundamental truths (some of which go without saying or appear in other holy and secular texts) in the bible but you're trying to take a few passages from leviticus (etc) to judge a portion of the population that has always been there and will always be. Meanwhile you ignore this part and that part, take this part literally, that part figuratively... That's silly. That's where people start comparing christianity to people believing in Santa, when a complete lack of rational reasoning is only defended with arguments of faith or blatantly false and self-serving interpretation.

I'm sorry if gay marriage shatters your normal rockwell view of the family but you're wrong to try to make this a religious issue or claim god (your god by the way, this is supposed to be a free country, does your god not agree with that? or it's only free so long as it meets your understanding of the text representing him, or the convictions of your particular church?) has a stake in it. If the "right and wrong" detector in your heart tells you otherwise it's just homophobia talking. You're just wrong on this one Josh, and the ugly side of your argument is that you're shitting on people's liberties by trying to define what a family should be. Super obsolete thinking.






Here's the plan, you show up to the pearly gates and god is pissed "Josh, why didn't you fight harder to stop gay marriage?", all you have to say is "I'm sorry god, I wasn't sure what was right, I know there are some convoluted passages about laying with other men in the bible but I also thought the most important parts of the bible were the love, forgivness, and "judge not lest ye be judged" parts... I just didn't want to end up like the slave owner "christians" who also used your book to defend their actions". God'll be like "alright Josh, I'm pissed but you can come in because when in doubt you went with the more loving and progressive option... Lamar Doom is here, playing ping-pong with John Lennon..."



"I'm the f*cking Walrus now Johnny"

The argument I'm making in here is 95% from a mother nature perspective. I'm not creating paragraph after paragraph referencing God's reasoning for disapproving homosexuality, but here you are, using God/Christianity/religion as your basis to attack me.

I'm not trying to be arrogant in here... I just feel strongly about said issue. Homosexuals and supporters of homosexuality have every right to defend their stance and voice their opinions, and I'm simply on the other side of the equation doing my thing. One could easily point the finger in the other direction saying homosexuals and supporters are the one's being arrogant saying those who don't believe and feel as them are backwoods, narrow-minded, ignorant, etc. (just as you're doing calling me ignorant).

I'm not in here saying gays or lesbians are ignorant, dumb, etc. I am saying I feel what their lifestyle represents is something that goes against mother nature (IMO, which is obviously shared by more people worldwide than the other side) ... I'm not in here trying to "preach" and telling homosexuals they're going to hell and burn forever, etc.

I was simply trying to grasp an understanding and other's opinions on how two gay parents would explain to their very young children "where babies come from" or why they have two daddies, etc. I'm not in here bashing anyone. Nanners maybe b/c dude (as usual) just goes straight into attack mode.

There's no need for you to write titangraphs about me and my religious beliefs (much more than being focused on the actual subject) when we weren't even going down that road. We were on a mother nature debate... so can we just keep it at that?

Thanks. Why did you attack my religious views and beliefs? It came off more like a personal attack when I haven't been "gay bashing" or going at someone personally... I really didn't want this thread to go there.

Everything we discuss (especially on this particular subject) in here is opinion based first and foremost. We're nowhere near the actual "facts" yet ... science isn't there, and religion is based more on faith than facts, so religion will have to remain based on personal beliefs. That's one great thing about the human spirit, we're free and open to believe what we want.

I believe homosexuality is a choice more than an actual genetic trait. I'm open to admitting some of us are more susceptible to turning out gay than others, but that the vast overwhelming factor points to social environment. I'd even go as far as saying there could be say a homosexual male who is "born" as much as say 15% attracted to men naturally, but that they're a minimum of 85% genetically attracted to women, being nature's default male + female = life and all that blah blah blah

I believe the final product (whenever the individual comes to terms they're gay, straight or bi-sexual) is like I said, overwhelmingly a direct outcome of their upbringing, social environment, events and actions that happened in their life that ultimately resulted in where they land on sexual preference. It's just like your own example of a woman being abused, sexually as a child by her father or another male figure... or getting older and being in multiple physically abused relationships ... she just finally gives up, and can't trust a man, therefore only attracted to women from that point forward... but at birth, she wasn't that way, right?

I realize the statement "gay people choose to be gay" can be a bit rude (even though I never mean for it to be that way) ... so I will be more cautious in how I make my argument in respect for those who do not feel the same. We're all living in the same world, might as well learn to live together b/c neither side is going to completely convert to the other.

It's all about love. All people deserve love regardless of who they love (boy, girl, both) ... I have a female cousin who is very close to me ... she's a homosexual and lives with her life partner. I love her to death. She knows that, and she knows where I personally stand on the issue, but we're still family, and we're still caring people, so we still love each other no matter what and would do anything for one another.

[Legend of Josh]

Yup. In Leviticus it also mentions that you must keep slaves, wear only polly cotton blends, and keep a huge beard. I assume LoJ does all of these things, or else he's just as much a sinner as a homo.

See, more examples of something written in the Bible (we're talking about mother nature here) in comparison to simple life 101 (male + female = life) ... whether or not you shave your beard or eat pork has virtually nothing to do with how life is created.

I really don't get why you guys still continue to toss these silly comparisons out there. Comparing interracial marriage in the mix was apples and oranges enough; seems now we've graduated to grapes and pineapples.