I said it is obviously, biologically speaking, not normal for same sex coupling. There is no denying that. Its obvious in the form and function of the body organs in question. The ways in which homosexuals attempt to use their bodily organs to simulate the normal natural uses also prove this . Square pegs in round holes, if you will. Sure you could probably do this with external manipulation, but succeeding to get the square peg into the round hole would not make it normal.

One could argue that man has transcended the confines of their biological limitations, and that their mind has allowed them to adapt to evolving types of relationships (Homo v Hetero sexuality). That would take the conversation outside of biology and into psycology.
Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obviously the norm, biolgically speaking, still stands.
AverageJoe on June 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM

It is only “obviously” not normal if they are together solely to make babies.
Otherwise, human beings can have intimate relationships regardless of said parts being there. If my husband were in a car accident and was suddenly put into a wheelchair and lost his ‘part’, would it be abnormal for me to stay in an intimate relationship with him because he is no longer your definition of a man?

I hear that you say hetero relations are the norm. Of course they are. That is why gay people are very much in the minority. So are people with autism. Are you suggesting that nobody should couple with someone with autism?
and NO, I am NOT equating homosexuality with autism. I am simply trying to make a point, so for the more sensitive readers, please do not fly off the handle on that one. I’m not taking hours to give answers here, I’m typing off the top of my head, so stay focused. LoL
:)

Let me start by saying that I am, in no way, being closed minded on this subject. I am here throwing out scenarios and asking questions because my mind is open. I’m not gay. I am a woman who happens to dig men. So, actually, this entire subject makes little to No difference in my life, personally.

Why would we need a biological bill of rights?
Let’s use your example of Melissa E. and LouDPhils as the example. How did this case play out? I imagine that the biological Father was not a part of this case at all.
Just like hetero couples that get married, woman has a biological child, the man adopts that child. Years later, they divorce and have child custody battles. The biological father, I presume, would not be involved in this.

Why would you bring the third party into it? This is about TWO people raising children.
Why is it that those children would be more ‘dysfunctional’ than hetero couples’ children going through the same dramas?

The court systems, I hope, are set up, to work in the best interest of the Children. Why would that change because the spouses are the same sex? The courts would weigh what is best, just like they do now, and in many cases Joint custody is given.
I see no difference if the couple is the same sex or if they are male and female.

My mind is open here. I’m just trying to wrap my mind around your argument. I never said I was right. I’m asking the questions.

Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife

Did the kids get to watch?

Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife were trumpeted as being the ideal lesbian parents, featured on network shows and major magazines. Yet within two years they broke up and fought over the kids.
miles on June 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Hollywood types don’t offer the best examples for relationships. Successful, long-term, straight marriages are the exception rather than the norm. One look at Britney Spears would show that being straight doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be a great mom.

Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obviously the norm, biolgically speaking, still stands.

One could argue that man has transcended the confines of their biological limitations, and that their mind has allowed them to adapt to evolving types of relationships (Homo v Hetero sexuality). That would take the conversation outside of biology and into psycology. Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obvious, biolgically speaking, still stands.

I do not see how anything changes with gay couples.

bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

You see no difference because you are close minded on this subject. Citing divorce custody disputes is apples and oranges. There is a family history for judges to base rulings on.

Gay marriage opens the door to a whole new family structure. Yes, there are some existing gay parents and examining those families should be part of this debate. Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife were trumpeted as being the ideal lesbian parents, featured on network shows and major magazines. Yet within two years they broke up and fought over the kids. Sure, these things happen. But if you’re going to be the spokeswomen selling this enlightened new lifestyle then the consequences of what you’ve done should be examined. Is breeding a bunch of dysfunctional kids really in society’s interest so their parents can feel better about their self image?

Gay marriage inherently implies that these families will have at least three parents involved — in ADVANCE of having children, not after a break-up. What is wrong with asking for that fact of nature to be acknowleged? Existing law was not written to deal with it. Are we going to need a “Biological Parents Bill of Rights” or what?

AverageJoe on May 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Average Joe, you said that it is biologically not normal for a person to be gay.
Where do you get this information?

And Jesus never mentioned it even once. btw, whatever Bible you’re reading, fornication and sodomy as you know it, isn’t taken from the direct translation.

If I may ask, which Bible do you read?

JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Jetboy…yes Jesus clearly condemned homosexuality(as I explained in earlier posts).

Tell me do you think that Jesus came to destroy the Law(which also clearly condemns both homosexuality and fornication)?

You clearly do not want to see the Truth.

Because you are darkness(due to your sin) you hate the light and have learned to love the darkness. The very same darkness that will lead you straight to death and Hell.

Do you really want to debate me about scripture?

You won’t believe me no matter what I say(because you hate the Truth) but who is someone to believe?

Do you really think anyone believes you, an apostate “catholic” homosexual who never quotes Scripture except one verse out of context?

I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly…you’re on a path to destruction jetboy.

We are in the endtimes and make no mistake..when the church is caught up before the day of wrath comes…you will not be among them.

If you are a practicing homosexual, you are not a Christian.

And like all non Christians, when you die you will go to Hell, unless you repent,turn from your sin and accept Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake about that.

And because you practice one of the most serious sins against God possible, you will suffer a far more extreme punishment in Hell.

Do me a favor and watch this video, which clearly explains how those who commit the more serious sins(like homosexuality) will suffer more intensely in Hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pez2nv2BUZA

I don’t want you to got to Hell Jetboy.

But I’m not going to lie to you and tell you something that will make you feel comfortable in your sin.

I sincerely hope you will repent,turn from your sin and put your trust in Jesus!

It’s not too late for you..

You can be cured of your homosexuality…you don’t have to die in your sins.

My two bits. How does gay marriage harm me or my own marriage? Actually it wouldn’t if I did not have to acknowledge it. But as it can clearly be seen here, anyone who will speak out saying that there’s something “un-natural” about same sex couples are called intolerant, bigoted, backward, and worst. As things are going, and the classification of gays as a protected class, any such talk will be criminalized as “hate speach”. I will be marginalized, possibly jailed, or at least sued for preaching what I believe. My kids will be indoctrinated in school, undermining my teachings and desire to continue my religious and cultural heritage.(I can see the day when teaching my religion to my kids will be classified as child abuse, and ‘child services’ will get the courts to take them away.) Its not just that those promoting, dare I say it, the Homosexual Agenda want “equal rights” (as they put it) but they want everyone forced to accept as normal what is obviously, biologically speaking, not normal. Any disenting viewpoints must be crushed.

Other than that, I guess gay marriages do not affect me at all, so let them get married.

(and homosexual sin is one of the most serious sins listed in the Bible).

SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 PM

And Jesus never mentioned it even once. btw, whatever Bible you’re reading, fornication and sodomy as you know it, isn’t taken from the direct translation.

If I may ask, which Bible do you read?

I have no problem with Christians. I am a practicing Catholic myself. However, I cannot abide bigots. By their own words, Right and Olaf have identified themselves as bigots. This thread would have had a much more rational debate had these two not showed up.

DCGamer on May 31, 2008 at 10:19 PM

I think that as we’re both Catholic, in that sense we don’t go around condemning anyone else. We’re taught to look within our own sins ant transgression, and do what we can to lead the best Christan lives we can. The Evangelical/Fundamentalist crowd see’s it their mission to condemn in God’s name.

Which is entirely anti-Biblical.

SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 PM

The great and all-knowing SaintOlaf has spoken! Bow down, ye heathens, and be struck on the back of ye head with SaintOlaf’s Bible Bat!

Gheesh…doing the great work of Christ by condemning in His name. If I recall, the Bible clearly states NOT to judge. For he who judges will be judged accordingly in his own time.

Splinters to logs, my friend. Splinters to logs.

(and homosexual sin is one of the most serious sins listed in the Bible).

SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Absolutely. After all, two men who love each other are much more dangerous than a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.

I sure wish that garlic or a crucifix would scare you away, Olaf. Your bigotry is unwelcome here.

SaintOlaf,

because I’d never heard of him, Michael Beckwith….
I looked him up, read as much as I could find about who this person was and what was being taught by him.

I didn’t find very much info, but what I Did see, I don’t see where it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Though I could be wrong, because there isn’t much out there.

bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 4:34 PM

You just flunked the spiritual discernment test bridgetown.

Beckwith and his “agape” cult are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

He is a part of “the secret” cult also which you probably love and think is Biblical.

You know the book “the secret” it’s the same thing the Oprahbama and her cult preach nonstop…”all roads lead to God…islam,buddhism,hinduism are all true religions”

Meanwhile…Jesus Christ teaches that the only way to the Father is through Him.

You are lacking in the gifts of the Spirit…most importantly spritual discernment which is vitally important in these end times.

What is it that makes you defend homosexuality and claim that it is acceptable to God?

I am assuming you are a woman..maybe you have had some lesbian experiences in the past and are trying to justify yourself? What is it?

If so.. what you need is not justification of sin..you need forgiveness for sin.

There were former homosexuals in the early corinthian church, just as there are former homosexuals in the church today. They were cured and cleansed by the Spirit because they repented,turned from their sin and accepted Jesus Christ.

They are not still practicing homosexuals, because you cannot be a Christian and continue in sin (and homosexual sin is one of the most serious sins listed in the Bible).

I pray that you will repent from leading people astray with satanic lies about God and sin and I pray that you will accept the Holy Spirit and receive insight and the gift of discernment.

I have no problem with Christians. I am a practicing Catholic myself. However, I cannot abide bigots. By their own words, Right and Olaf have identified themselves as bigots. This thread would have had a much more rational debate had these two not showed up.

DCGamer

bridgetown

Good to see rational discourse like yours, and others as well, around. But there will always be someone around the corner waiting to crack a Bible upside our heads.

right4life on May 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM

First of all, please tell me where, on any marriage license, does it say couples must have children. And leave the Bible out of it for now…as far as the laws of this country are concerned, marriage is a secular joining. Like I said, you can be married in a church if you like, but it’s not a requirement.

*we* are the ones that will have to pay for the societal breakdown that occurs from family breakdown…just like in the black community.

Yeah…let blacks get married, and all hell breaks loose. Is THAT what you’re saying?

well why don’t you high and mighty gays stop trying to silence, intimidate, and harass all who disagree with you? stop trying to force your lifestyle down our throats.

How is it “high and mighty” to defend one’s self? You’re the one throwing accusations around. Telling people “no!”.

When have I ever “silenced, intimidated, and/or harassed anyone around here because I disagreed with them?

Again, all this adds up to that broken record.

I know. I think you’re right. I guess I think that if I keep trying to shine the light in, I’ll hit upon a crack in their misguided minds.

Their profession to be Christians is the saddest part of it, don’t you think? ugh!

right4life on May 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM

First, let’s clear the air on a couple of things…

A) I’m most certainly not a “lib”

B) I’m not now, nor ever plan to be, a “gay imam”

C) I’m no “BS’er” nor am I a “liar”.

Name-calling and unsubstantiated labels are out of the liberal playbook. Are you a liberal? Ok, Ok…I know you’re not a liberal.

Now…let me reflect on you last post there, and show you that you’re wrong. Remember, I’m gay, but I’m no liberal. Politically I’m probably more conservative than most.

That doesn’t answer the question. Actually, what that says is that there is No evidence there to say that gay marriages have anything to do with the decline of hetero marriages. Where does it show that it harms You or your marriage.

I am not a “lib”, or a “liar”, nor am I a “gay”
And what in the world does the black community have to do with gay marriage? I’d blame that problem on Welfare….
Debating the breakdown of the ‘family’ is one thing, but to blame it on gay marraiges, which would be what, like 2 percent of the population? doesn’t add up.

Did you even READ what you posted a link to?
Try some honesty, eh?

do you ever have an independent thought?

just curious.

right4life on May 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Independent of what: political party, book learnin’, Madison Ave?

Anyway, that’s my best shot at it.

dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 6:46 PM

do you ever have an independent thought?

just curious.