• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: csf
You can't just flip flop the argument to say "why shouldn't they?" The status quo is that marriage is a union between a single man and a single woman (since this decision may inevitably slide the slippery slope down to polygamy, as anyone who knows basic American legal history will tell you) and homosexuality is still considered an abnormal societal trait that the public may not be willing to endorse (yes I've seen recent poll numbers so I know how it looks). The point is, the burden of proof is to ask why a major overhaul of law and society must be done so urgently to allow gay marriage, and so far there really is no argument out there than "why not?" or "YOU'RE A HOMOPHOBE WAH WAH WAH."

By the way, tolerating and endorsing are two different things. You can be tolerant of homosexuality and dislike it and be against gay marriage: in fact the very nature of the word "tolerate" implies this. So contrary to what a lot of the PC types would like to say, being against gay marriage is not intolerant at all.
See, that's exactly my point, most people who dislike the concept of gay-marriage do so because if allowed by the federal government they imply that as an endorsement of gay-marriage. They can tolerate a certain amount of "gayness" as long as it's not made official. So, if you remove the government (especially the federal gov't) from the situation and privatize marriage, you remove much of the basis for objection in the first place. I mean logically, if marriage is "between a man and a woman" based on religious (or cultural) reasons, let the churches (or states) decide who can marry or not marry. I still haven't seen any valid reason for the federal gov't to be deciding who should be eligible for marriage or not.

 

ClueLis

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2003
2,269
0
0
Here's the way I see it:

Outside of simple moral issues, there is a single defining difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage:

Same-sex partners are not able to have their own children, although one could simply argue that a gay couple that wants a child can simply adopt one. So what is left?

You can make all the religious arguements you want, but we are a secular state, and it is not our government's job to impose a Christian moral structure on others. From the goverment's point of view, the religious side should have no relavance.

Why shouldn't life partners recieve the same legal and financial benefits that married couples recieve? I don't what rationale there is left.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Last time I checked, this was a free country, so if it's not hurting someone else, it should not be forbidden.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,122
3,159
126
Though traditionally marriage was for the establishment of a Family Unit, with the modern advances and acceptance of birth control even Heterosexual marriages don't "fulfill", as it were, the duty of marriage. If birth control wasn't so successful, then those against Homosexual Marriage would have a much stronger case to keep marriage as a Heterosexual only institution.

The biggest problem I have with this issue is the government involvement. Now I'm certainly not a Libertarian or Government Minimalist, but other than preventing siblings(close relatives) from making mutant children, what business does government have in this issue?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Though traditionally marriage was for the establishment of a Family Unit, with the modern advances and acceptance of birth control even Heterosexual marriages don't "fulfill", as it were, the duty of marriage. If birth control wasn't so successful, then those against Homosexual Marriage would have a much stronger case to keep marriage as a Heterosexual only institution.

The biggest problem I have with this issue is the government involvement. Now I'm certainly not a Libertarian or Government Minimalist, but other than preventing siblings(close relatives) from making mutant children, what business does government have in this issue?
People want to use the government to force the cultural beliefs on to other people.
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders -1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Above is for the folks saying the bible doesn't mention homosexuality.....

I don't think it's moral. I think God doesn't want people doing it. I definitely don't believe that it's healthy. I don't think it's worse than lying or cheating or stealing. As far as taxes go, IIRC, married couples claiming two incomes actually get the shaft in taxes and pay more. My wife is staying at home these days caring for our two kids... 2 yrs and 7 months, so it doesn't apply to us....

-Tal
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Gays should be encouraged to make a commitment and get married, so they stop screwing around and spreading STD's.
Rather brusque, but he has a point. The urban gay population, especially in NY, SF, and Seattle, are notorious for promiscuity - "bath houses" and the like. Allowing and encouraging marriage for homosexuals (as well as for heteros) should be an integral part of limiting the spread of STD's.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
Originally posted by: Tal
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders -1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Above is for the folks saying the bible doesn't mention homosexuality.....

I don't think it's moral. I think God doesn't want people doing it. I definitely don't believe that it's healthy. I don't think it's worse than lying or cheating or stealing. As far as taxes go, IIRC, married couples claiming two incomes actually get the shaft in taxes and pay more. My wife is staying at home these days caring for our two kids... 2 yrs and 7 months, so it doesn't apply to us....

-Tal
I found all 5 instances and all are addressed:

1. The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense.

2. Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination". But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles

3. Romans 1:27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are "dishonorable" and "shameless". These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul's usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin ("unnatural") would best be translated "atypical" or "beyond the ordinary." So it bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus.

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated "homosexuals" but its exact meaning is debated. It certainly does not include women but only some kind of male sexual offenders. It must be interpreted in light of the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire.

5. Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.


-----------
here is the link to married discriminatory tax code, A single person or un-married gay partner can only make $27,950 before falling into the 30% bracket (28% now) while joint filers (married) can make up to $46,700 before doing so. The scale continues this pattern in every bracket. This is discriminatory to single filers as well as un-able to be married homosexuals. Of course there are some scenarios where both parties work were filing separate or single is advantagous.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Tal
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders -1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Above is for the folks saying the bible doesn't mention homosexuality.....

I don't think it's moral. I think God doesn't want people doing it. I definitely don't believe that it's healthy. I don't think it's worse than lying or cheating or stealing. As far as taxes go, IIRC, married couples claiming two incomes actually get the shaft in taxes and pay more. My wife is staying at home these days caring for our two kids... 2 yrs and 7 months, so it doesn't apply to us....

-Tal
It not only condemns homosexuality - it condems ALL sex outside marriage. So the gays are classed with the fornicators - according to the Bible it's ALL bad. :p

HOWEVER, since the US is NOT a Christian country and was never intended to be so, there should be no prohitition against GLBT marriages whatsoever.

 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, this was a free country, so if it's not hurting someone else, it should not be forbidden.
It goes much deeper than this. We are talking about health insurance and other benefits, wills, etc..
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
So the bible is silent on Lesbians... hmmm..
It desn't say anything about sex-change or discuss transgendered individuals either . . . however, it's principles re pretty clear . . . :p



And it has NOTHING to do with whether GLBT persons have the freedom to marry in this SECULAR country.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I have no problem with any two folks getting married. I just don't see the legal challenge to it.
Marriage is a religious status and in law a status with many rights etc... a spouse may not be compelled to testify against another spouse... it is interesting how the right may inure to whom... ? the charged ? or the spouse so requested to testify. Hmmm

I think a whole lot of codification will occur but.. the USSC has already started down the road of liberal interpretation with the Texas case.. Lawrence v ? whatever.. with which I agree... making it sufficient in law..:)

Fine with me who marries whom as long as all rights of marriage attach to the union.
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
first off, thanks for the reply!
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Tal
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders -1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Above is for the folks saying the bible doesn't mention homosexuality.....

I don't think it's moral. I think God doesn't want people doing it. I definitely don't believe that it's healthy. I don't think it's worse than lying or cheating or stealing. As far as taxes go, IIRC, married couples claiming two incomes actually get the shaft in taxes and pay more. My wife is staying at home these days caring for our two kids... 2 yrs and 7 months, so it doesn't apply to us....

-Tal
I found all 5 instances and all are addressed:

1. The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense.

What is Wisdom 9:13-14? None of my many translations of the Bible seem to have this book......I'm assuming that it's a book of the Apocrypha...

2. Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination". But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles

Not sure I agree with the interpretation of this. NIV says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." KJV says: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." These seem pretty clear on the DO NOT DO THIS part of the message. The adjective on the end doesn't seem to change that.

3. Romans 1:27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are "dishonorable" and "shameless". These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul's usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin ("unnatural") would best be translated "atypical" or "beyond the ordinary." So it bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus.

NIV reads: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." the KJV reads: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." I had to look up resompence and M-W had the definition as: "1 a : to give something to by way of compensation (as for a service rendered or damage incurred) b : to pay for. 2 : to return in kind." Now the difinition isn't really the point, both translations seem to refer to this act as an "error" which seems pretty straight forward. We all don't want to commit an error, so I guess this means we should have man-man sex.

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated "homosexuals" but its exact meaning is debated. It certainly does not include women but only some kind of male sexual offenders. It must be interpreted in light of the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire.

On the first (Corinthians) I found it funny that the KJV in referring to those who will not enter the Kingdom of God says "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." Effeminate? Young's Literal Translation refers to "sodomites." Do you have an online resource for the greek (I'm assuming arsenokoitai is Greeek...) I haven't even googled for one, but if you've got one I'd appreciate it!

5. Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.

You're right that this probably only loosely interpreted as a lesson on sexual orientation. I would assume that if God intended Adam (my namesake :) ) to have homosexual relations that he would have provided another man with whom to have these relations. As I said, loose at best.
-----------
here is the link to married discriminatory tax code, A single person or un-married gay partner can only make $27,950 before falling into the 30% bracket (28% now) while joint filers (married) can make up to $46,700 before doing so. The scale continues this pattern in every bracket. This is discriminatory to single filers as well as un-able to be married homosexuals. Of course there are some scenarios where both parties work were filing separate or single is advantagous.
I may have misspoke earlier... This is clipped from this article from FRC:
Because the standard deduction amount for joint filers is less than twice that for those claiming single or head of household status, a married couple can deduct less money from their income than can an unmarried couple with the same combined income. Similarly, the income thresholds that push taxpayers into higher brackets for joint filers are less than twice what they are for those claiming single or head of household status. This means that a married couple can be forced into a higher tax bracket than an unmarried couple earning the same combined income.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,909
1,057
126
2. Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination". But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles

Not sure I agree with the interpretation of this. NIV says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." KJV says: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." These seem pretty clear on the DO NOT DO THIS part of the message. The adjective on the end doesn't seem to change that.
Lev. 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"

Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

These ideas are obviously ridiculous today. Why is it we still try to say that that other stupid line from Leviticus is valid.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
Tal- Excellent reply...Had mine all typed out after painstakingly researching all your points... and all was lost when I hit reply... No response recieved from AT:( Anyway, I got into this repeating what I heard...:p
I barley take the church seriously and only because I'm forced to go by someone I love more than time itself. Oh well I'll try again on two points and finish tomorrow because I'm a little teed about loosing what I wrote and it's past my bed time.:) c-ya



1. The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense.

What is Wisdom 9:13-14? None of my many translations of the Bible seem to have this book......I'm assuming that it's a book of the Apocrypha...

It's one of the apocryphal books of the bible expurgated by the puritans a few hunderd years ago. Only the Catholics and Episcopailians still recognize these books. Sad really, since it talks about eagar pursuit of science, herbalism and medicine which of course was considered witchcraft at the time.

2. Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination". But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles

Not sure I agree with the interpretation of this. NIV says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." KJV says: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." These seem pretty clear on the DO NOT DO THIS part of the message. The adjective on the end doesn't seem to change that.

Fair enough and I can accept the conservative interpretation and your stance. However, I believe if the writer wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah" not "bdelygma" which meant ritual impurity. Here is another Liberal interpretation http://www.freejesus.net/comment_threads.php?postID=48&parentid=16 I think is worth considering. Also, keep in mind, Leviticus passages are part of the Jewish Holy Code which bans several things Christains today do with impunity because we are no longer bound by it, such as wearing mixed blend clothing, sowing fields with multiple grains, eating pigs etc...
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: thraashman
2. Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination". But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles

Not sure I agree with the interpretation of this. NIV says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." KJV says: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." These seem pretty clear on the DO NOT DO THIS part of the message. The adjective on the end doesn't seem to change that.
Lev. 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"

Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

These ideas are obviously ridiculous today. Why is it we still try to say that that other stupid line from Leviticus is valid.
Cross-Dressing is forbidden in the Bible - Leviticus 22:5 ("No garb od an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to the Lord.")

WHO CARES? Unless you are a JEW living under Moses' Law Covenant, it does not apply. And if you live in the USA, it shouldn't matter what the Bible says . . . not in LEGAL/SECULAR matters. :p


 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Why should they even be allowed to breathe?

As another user, banned thank God, has said they are dangerous and bad for evolution.

Why not organize a task force and go door to door asking the sexual preference of the owners? Then they can issue them rainbow flags that most be displayed prominently on their clothing. Then businesses can refuse to serve them and they can be ostracized by state mandate, refusal of which would make you a gay lover and it would be noted on your file.

We could then start little camps and gather up all the gays and gay lovers to remove them from society. Then we can gas them to death and bury them in mass graves. Sound like fun yet?

They are people too and need to have the same rights as non-gays
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,739
3,561
126
Well since the Bible was written by men you gotta figure it's gonna be full of bigotry. We all grow up around bigots and I'd wager it's neigh on impossible even for the enlightened to be absolutely free of all of it. To any straight person, homosexuality is gonna feel like an abomination because it's impossible to comprehend. That doesn't make it wrong if you are gay and do. It will take generations of understanding to fully evolve past this. But in the mean time, it's a fabulous issue for the right to hang their family values on. Vote for us because we're bigoted like you.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Should it be legal for sam-sex couples to get married? Simply put, no. Here is my rational:

Gays and lesbians have every right to live together and do whatever the heck they wish to do as a couple. Morally, I think it is disgusting and wrong, but I cannot subject my morals upon another person.

However, same sex couples cannot be married, since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. They can be "partners", a "couple", or whatever they want to call it, but not "married".

As a result, they can live together, but legally, they should not be considered "married" or a "family". Calling a gay or lesbian couple a "family", in my opinion, is the greatest perversion of the purest thing we know.

I know that it may seem unfair to not consider gay and lesbian couples a family, because that would remove their "spouses" form any work-related benefits and even limit adption to such couples. But as far as I am concerned, that is too bad. Benefits are for families and married couples, and they are a gift, not an entitlement. You earn them by working for a good company and having a spouse and family, not by perverting the world we live in.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
I forgot to mention this in regards to gay "rights". Gay and lesbian couples deserve every right that straight people deserve. So, as soon as the become a married couple (aka: becoming straight again and marrying the opposite sex), they can get their company benefits and adopt children. Choices have consequences, as many Americans seem to forget. If you choose to by gay, more power to you. But then you better accept the fact that you and your partner are not the same as a straight couple, just as there are distinct differences between men and women. This is a land of equal opportunity, not equality.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
Do you find it wrong and immoral because you think it's discusting. (I don't blame you, that's my first reaction too) Or discusting because it's wrong and immoral. Then I would ask specifically what is wrong and immoral and how do you come to your conclusions?

I think, using natural law as our standard, it's easy. 100% everywhere feel murder, stealing, lies are immoral or wrong (unless a chemical or psychological disorder is infecting ones brain)...How can we possibly think Homosexual behavior is immoral or wrong (violates natural law) when polls show 44% of americans feel they should have the right to marry and even more feel it's OK to cohabitate.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
40% or more of Americans also believe that it is legal to kill unborn babies, and this may or may not be murder. I don't want to open another can of worms, but I don't think you can base any moral debates on the "natural laws" of a population.

140 years ago, 60% of Americans believed salvery was moral. Of course now we know slavery is immoral, so how do we know that our population is right now?

However, to answer your questions, I think I find both statements to be true:

I find homosexuality wrong and immoral because I think it is disgusting AND I think it is disgusting because it is wrong and immoral.

And I think this for the reasons you would expect: Because of my religion, because the basic instinct of a population is to reproduce and homosexuality limits population growth, etc.

Humans are capable of many evils, why can't they be capable of choosing homosexuality?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,739
3,561
126
The right answer, of course, daniel, is that you think it's wrong because you are a bigot.

Edit: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.... Homosexuality is a part of human life. It's how we are. We are the Bonobo Chimp. Have a banana. Some of us have been gay for millions of years. You are too every time you've gotten a grip on yourself. :D Live and let live. Go swing in a tree. The infinite beauty of the world will make you feel better. Sorry you were spanked.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
40% or more of Americans also believe that it is legal to kill unborn babies, and this may or may not be murder. I don't want to open another can of worms, but I don't think you can base any moral debates on the "natural laws" of a population.

140 years ago, 60% of Americans believed salvery was moral. Of course now we know slavery is immoral, so how do we know that our population is right now?

However, to answer your questions, I think I find both statements to be true:

I find homosexuality wrong and immoral because I think it is disgusting AND I think it is disgusting because it is wrong and immoral.

And I think this for the reasons you would expect: Because of my religion, because the basic instinct of a population is to reproduce and homosexuality limits population growth, etc.

Humans are capable of many evils, why can't they be capable of choosing homosexuality?
I find you wrong and immoral because I think you are disgusting AND I think you are disgusting because you are wrong and immoral. Therefore I believe it my right to judge whether you may marry or not and it my right to judge whether you can enjoy company benefits or have children.


According to my morality bigots should not have company benefits, be able to marry, or raise children.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY