I would say that Gay Marriage is fine and all as in myself personally have no problems with it. However I do believe that people should come to realize that everyone is their own individual and life is their own thoughts and their own actions. People need to accept the fact that while they're may be people out there willing to work with it, there some people just don't want to accept change. People out there will fight for what they believe in. If a Christian believes in the sanctity of his marriage in his religion; what right do you have to tell him that he is wrong and stop him; when in the end you are simply doing the same thing?

I am bisexual in a homosexual relationship that's been going on for almost 5 years - and we are engaged, waiting for the right time and place to make it official. We love each other very much, just as much as any straight couple would that wanted to get married. And we enjoy sex, just like any other straight couple. It's healthy. We don't have multiple partners, we are fully exclusive with each other. We don't commit any kind of adultery. We want to spend the rest of our lives together. We want to have a family one day.

I came from a conservative Christian household. If in fact it is a sin to be in a homosexual relationship, it is no more a sin than any other sin. People sin. All the time. Anyway, it's not like I believe that an all-loving God would really bring judgement upon two people whose worst crime was simply to love each other. God is Love, right? So God is with us, too. I trust God to be understanding and sympathetic, and to forgive me if what I'm doing is really wrong - but I can't believe that it is. To love someone can never be wrong. That is my opinion.

PhoenixPhyre : The problem that Christians have with homosexual actions isn't that the two people love each other, but that the love is expressed improperly. If I'm rich and I am great friends with a family who needs some money in order to continue getting by and supporting their children, I should not offer to have sex with them. Sex is not the proper expression of love in this circumstance. Lets say I'm a poor single man and a rich lady gives me enough for rent to help me get by, no strings attached. She properly expressed love to me by providing for important goods. I should not thank her by offering sex to her. My "thank you" to her is not proper for the circumstance. There are many expressions of love available, sex is not always proper.


In fact, as we go through circumstances, sex is not going to be a valid expression of love say but for one scenario: marriage. With love directed at making a permanent family (not necessarily kids, but where the two become one), sex is now an appropriate expression of love. Sex is the most intimate act with the utmost of vulnerability, so only the most intimate commitment and utmost love for the other merits the action.
Homosexual love can desire permanence, can be intimate, and certainly involves vulnerability, but only one of these three things can be at the same level as marriage. Good friends, best friends, but not married. Homosexual love can desire permanence equal to heterosexual love. No problems there. I deny equal intimacy and vulnerability, both due to the fact that same-gender interaction is different from different-gender interaction, regardless of sexual tendency.


Biology and psychology will both support that interaction changes, although slightly, based on genders. If one could theoretically completely change both their bodily chemicals to "change genders", the fact that the person has been built a male/female for the better part of their life would also demand an entire re-structure of the brain and, if they look to feminine/masculine, the rest of the body.
The fact that little kids more readily make friends of the same gender shows that relationships of the opposite gender are more difficult. Some kids get it fine, but it is the outlier.

Equally, these same differences between the genders compliment each other, so that if a society is entirely male or entirely female, the similarities rise too high and increase problems. Stick a bunch of Navy guys on a boat for 10 months without the military discipline and you can quickly watch the devolution of society to become another "Lord of the Flies". Stick a bunch of ladies in a boarding school together and watch them tear each others hair out.
The complimentary nature of the genders as well as fact that they are different gives strong implication to the greater possible intimacy and vulnerability.


Note: Homosexuality is not a sin, improper expression of love is.


Note2: You may claim "you don't know how I feel". Correct, I don't how you feel. What I do know is the manner in which you feel. The kind necessary is not present.

 Note3: The statement, " If in fact it is a sin to be in a homosexual relationship, it is no more a sin than any other sin. People sin. All the time." is true in that it is not the gravest sin or anything like that. However, it is ridiculous to embrace sin (offense against God) in the name of love (which is God). It would be a much better argument to say that it isn't a sin.

Txgangsta : The only reason I say "if" in the sin department is because.. Well, what do we know? But personally, I believe that it isn't. And I will disagree with you on two points: 1) that intimate relations between those of the same sex are, at their core, ANY different from heterosexual ones, and 2) that sex is an inappropriate expression of love. It isn't inappropriate for straight couples who are monogamous, and it isn't inappropriate for gay couples who are the same. There is absolutely no difference between straight and gay couples. They all desire the same thing. Trust me, the only reason that some gay couples don't get married is because it's still illegal in much of the world. In their hearts, they are married. Plus, marriage is not a Christian invention - it was around long before the advent of Christianty. Therefore, "legal" marriages need not apply. If a person pledges themselves to another person, in love, life, and loyalty, and in their hearts they are married, then they become as one, and I believe that God honors first and foremost what is in a person's heart, NOT what is on paper. And as you said, sex is an appropriate expression of love between those who are married, "as one".

Txgangsta : HUGE hole in your logic. How is a gay couple having sex ANY different than when a strait couple have sex? Lets break this down. You said
"Sex is the most intimate act with the utmost of vulnerability, so only the most intimate commitment and utmost love for the other merits the action."
So if a homosexual couple have the most intimate commitment and utmost love fore the other, then why does it not merit the act of sex for them? They fit your said criteria for what merits sex. Nothing improper. Basically, you are saying that if in the couple there are 2 men or 2 women, then they cannot have the most intimate commitment and utmost love for the other. 

So if that is not what you meant, please explain. More important, instead of coming up with all of these scenarios that sex is not the appropriate response, explain why sex between a homosexual couple is not the appropriate response when their love and commitment is identical to that of a heterosexual couple that you would deem appropriate to have sex. What is the difference? Right now, the only difference is that there are 2 men or 2 women, but that was NOT what you specified as to what appropriately merits sex. 

You already specified that sex does not have to be about having children, so I assume that the fact that a homosexual couple can't have kids by having sex with each other is not a reason you would be against it. From what I see, your whole reason against it has to do with sex only being appropriate when it is an expression of absolute commitment and vulnerability between 2 people. So why is it apparently impossible for a homosexual couple to have that, in your opinion? 

PhoenixPhyre : You're second objection I think was a misinterpretation of my post. I don't think sex is an inappropriate expression of love, but I think it is only appropriate within the context of marriage. The part I did not elaborate on, and perhaps I should, is that I do not believe simply monogamy to establish a marriage. Instead, marriage includes monogamy, but similarly a kind of love which is, " directed at making a permanent family (not necessarily kids, but where the two become one)" and ...the most intimate act with the utmost of vulnerability...".

The first objection is my argument. I argue the intimate relationship involved between a couple differs if it is heterosexual or homosexual. This is why I briefly speak of biology and psychology and then make the claim that the genders compliment each other while in homogender areas in life have compounded problems.


rcarter2 : You are correct, I do claim that a same-sex couple cannot have the same intimacy or vulnerability for each other. The commitment may be identical (permanent monogamy), but the gender affects the interaction. The sexual attraction is there, I do not deny that at all, but a marriage between two people of the same gender is metaphysically impossible due to the change in relation, and sex is only appropriate within two who are married. Ultimately, this means that a homosexual should not act upon his/her sexual desires because it is not appropriate.

I only touched on this briefly in that post (I try not to write a book on the subject within a forum) with these sentences: "Homosexual love can desire permanence equal to heterosexual love. No problems there. I deny equal intimacy and vulnerability, both due to the fact that same-gender interaction is different from different-gender interaction, regardless of sexual tendency."

Txgangsta : But still, your logic is severely flawed. There IS NO DIFFERENCE, biological, physiological, or otherwise, that would prevent homosexuals from having the exact same sort of relationships that heterosexuals do. End of point. Saying that homosexuals are incapable of having a marriage-quality relationship is plain ignorant, or perhaps it just makes you a bigot. Either way, this conversation is finished.

PhoenixPhyre : I don't demand you agree with me or debate with me. I don't even demand you tolerate me. Feel free to respond at will and feel free to not respond at all.

The fact is that there is a difference is discrete, but known through psychology. Human interaction has many variables, but gender is definitely one of them. Therefore, there is at least some sort of difference. My two objections to homosexual marriage is because I claim that man and woman are different, therefore openness toward the opposite is more vulnerable. However, the differences compliment the other so that a relationship can climb higher than otherwise possible, therefore the intimacy can be greater. These are my claims. It is not that homosexual couples do not have intimacy or are not open/vulnerable, but that it cannot innately be the same kind of intimacy or vulnerability.

Txgangsta : I would seriously like to see where you found this concept that is apparently known to psychology that homosexuals are incapable of having the same level of vulnerability or intimacy. What credibility do you have to say that? have you ever experienced intimate attraction to another man? No. So how can you compare what you are familiar with to something you are completely incapable of being familiar with? What qualification do you have to say that your feelings of intimacy for a woman is so far beyond what a homosexual couple can feel for each other? And don't say the Bible. I'm a Christian man myself, and I don't even think that is a valid source on the human psychology. Yes, the interaction is different. But love is love. The vulnerability is just as strong. The intimacy is just as strong. You don't require being a different gender to feel that level of vulnerability. If that is what you truly think, than the highest form of intimacy and vulnerability is narrowed down to the concept of "a penis is different from a vagina".

Txgangsta : I really need to interject here, because your evolutionary assumptions are too painfully misguided for me to let slide.

First, you assume that sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction, as though it were some sort of improvement. That is not how evolution works. Sexual reproduction evolved in some organisms as a way of ensuring greater genetic diversity in offspring. It is not as though evolution has some sort of direction and species are gradually improving with respect to some grand standard. Sexual reproduction simply works better in some circumstances. Some species, like plants, alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction regularly. Some animals, like rotifers, use asexual mass reproduction when circumstances are favourable, and sexual reproduction when they are not. Many organisms, like some fungi, have evolved away from sexual reproduction and rely almost exclusively on asexual reproduction. It's all about adapting to habitat.

The concept of a family is not very common, even among vertebrates. It can be useful in some situations, especially when young are difficult to raise, but it is by no means restricted to a male and female. Usually just one parent, usually the mother, cares for her young. In some cases both the male and female care for the young, and in some only one sex will (think of prairie dog families or lion prides where the females raise the young almost exclusively). Heck, even among humans, the concept of the nuclear family (a mother, a father, and the kids) is relatively new. For most of history, humans have been fairly polygamic: one man relying on his multiple wives to raise the children (polyandry is far less common).

Evolution of the family is far more complex than you make it out to be, and really has very little to do with homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality may even be a secondary benefit to family structure via kin selection. The notion that homosexuality is somehow an affront to or goes against evolution is clearly nonsense.

And just a final thought on your high school example. Where I went to high school, these "jock" and "nerd" stereostypes did not exist, so you'll have to excuse my scepticism. I, for example, played on several sports teams and was on good terms with most of the atheletes at the school. I also played on the chess club and ate lunch with people who would certainly qualify as "nerds". Simply put, people got along regardless of such artificial distinctions. You think that a man can only form a special and vulnerable bond with a woman? Nonsense, as evidenced by the same-sex relations all over the world. And it's not new. Just read Plato's Symposium. I always enjoy the discussion of love where one of the guests insists that there are two forms of love. Love between a man and a woman is considered shallow and childish. But love between two men (or possibly a man and a boy) is labeled as true, deep love far greater and more profound than anything a man could hope for from a woman. Your views are sadly near-sighted. It is certainly true one can know things without having experienced them, it is also true that a little worldly experience goes a very long way.

i do believe in everyone has a rights as my mum said don't go bashing someone in case it might be yours (meaning mock someone who is different and you will have a child just like how you mock the type of people) and this is come from someone who is gay  

What are my views on gay marriage?, well I find gay marriage simply disgusting, members of the opposite sex pairing up and trying to mate simply disgusting appalling and God didn't put male and female here to mate within the same sex, the whole purpose of opposite sex  and sex in general is to mate with the opposite gender  after all only male and female can make kids not male &male or female & female, but as individuals they have the right to the pursuit of happiness so  as far as homosexuals getting married goes I say let them I see no real harm with them getting married, if they want to pair up and not reproduce offspring fine let them go on and be happy and get married . As far as them adopting children I'd have to say I strongly disagree with that. 

My Uncle came out a few years ago and its completely fine. I've never had a problem with it nor should anyone one else and if anyone ever told my uncle he couldn't be happy, Id smash there skull in.


Divine Aurora : Why would them adopting children be a problem!? Would you rather those children grow up in an orphanage or on the streets. They would love them the same as a different sexed couple so why would it matter if there gay?
I don't know why people thinks its okay to hate on others because what it says in a book, Hitler did the same thing with mein kampf against the Jews and we know that was wrong!

I'm not religious in the slightest as a matter of fact I'm slightly against it only because stupid people use it as an excuse to hate monger when others are simply looking for something to put there faith in.
if that book tough anyone anything it was to be kind and forgiving not to punish and scorn

thedoctr : I think that his opposition is that if a gay couple adopt a kid, then it will affect whether they are gay or not. But by that logic, there would be no gay individuals raised from a heterosexual couple. It is either that or he thinks that because only heterosexual sex can lead to children, then homosexuals should not be able to have kids period, and adopting is like cheating nature or something. Not that I agree, but whatever.

The way I see it, and always have is if you love somebody it's just that simple. It doesn't matter what sex either of you are, what religion, what colour. None of it matters. Love is love.

rcarter2 : yeah but really what harm could it really do? The kids would have a loving family and whats wrong with that?
the only issue I could see is someone might argue it would make the child favor homosexuality. And my rebuttal to that is so what.
static show that it doesn't. If anything it would make them more tolerant of difference.
 

thedoctr : Haha. You are preaching to the choir here I agree 100%. Any kid I have met who have same sex parents ended up not being gay. But even if they did, it shouldn't matter. Fact of the matter is, the only LEGITIMATE argument against gay marriage is religious argument, which should NOT be a factor in they eyes of the law in the government. But when the majority of government officials are either Catholic or another branch of Christianity, it does. I'm a Christian, but hate the fact that any religion is forced upon an entire country when it claims it is a melting pot of races and cultures. If anything, it is more like pouring melted different metals and pours it all into a mold of a crucifix. 

rcarter2 : glad we agree buddy, Religion is the last thing that should be factor into law Especially with a mix population that has many different religions and customs.