UK Parliament votes in favor of Gay marriage!

[Markhor]

This has actually not been legalised yet so hold your horsemeat people, yesterday's vote was to pass the Second Reading - it has to go through Committee Stage - which is a complete waste of time as the government has an inbuilt majority on the committees, and through the House of Lords where there'll be a Tory rebellion but Labour and the Liberal Democrats will probably carry it through. Still a lot of amendments to be made with this bill.

David Cameron could not even persuade HALF of Conservative MPs to vote for his proposals, astonishing.

A number of MP's, from all the major political parties, are gays and in civil unions, including former Labor Cabinet Minister Ben Bradshaw, who is touted as a potential future leader of the Labor Party, and thus a potential future Prime Minister.

Ben Bradshaw is gay ?! Crikey never knew that. Stephen Twigg as well - the guy who humiliated Michael Portillo in 1997. Clare Balding has a civil partnership which she'll formalise into a marriage, Sandi Toksvig too. Some very major public figures who I'd never had guessed.

What if a Cabinet Minister (or a future Prime Minister) were to go on a State visit to, say Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan or even Malaysia or Indonesia, and wished to be accompanied by their gay marital partner on such a State visit, with all the arrangements normally afforded to heterosexual married couples, could this result in a diplomatic stand-off?

Haha now that WILL be interesting, let's see if a future gay PM has the nerve to stop selling arms to the Saudi monarchy on grounds of discrimination against LGBTs because if he doesn't then people from his community will, and quite rightly, label him/her as a sell-out.

Anyway regarding the idea that if you legalise same-sex marriage you put an end to the human race is rather bizarre. LGBTs are a minority community - so if a minority is not raising children (although they may indeed choose to adopt, and those children, who may be heterosexual may indeed raise children in the future) that doesn't quite mean humanity will die out. But don't let that stop you from regurgitating a Daily Express/The Sun headline.

It is NOT the role of the state to be interfering as to what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, between two consenting adults. Bestiality is animal abuse so that does not count before someone mentions it. Regarding incest, the offspring of consanguinous relationships are at greater risk of certain genetic disorders so that is a non-starter. It must also be made clear that religious institutions will not be forced to partake in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

However I do agree with shakyh1985, those who DO want same-sex marriage but try to find a religious justification for it - don't bother, why manipulate your belief ?

The amount of fuss the Conservative party have made is extraordinary, the UK heading for a triple-dip recession, youth unemployment around a million, energy prices rising and here are the Tories going on and on about Church of England exemptions and opt-ins and opt-outs. What a mess.

 

[Markhor]

Here's how the MPs voted - MP by MP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

Some big, heavyweight names in there that voted no. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Liam Fox, Owen Paterson the Environment Secretary, Cameron's own cabinet minister ! I know its a free vote but its extraordinary. The Tories are infighting again ! Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is a complete nutcase, John Redwood, Bill Cash, Adam Afriye, Kwasi Kwarteng, David Davis, Philip Davies, Sir Peter Tapsell, John Whittingdale - the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Iain Duncan Smith, a hardline right-winger actually voted FOR the bill, this is just too weird. Zac Goldsmith, Michael Gove voted for. Theresa May, Home Secretary voted for, George Galloway, Respect MP voted for, and it goes on and on. All 8 DUP members voted against, no surprises there.

How on earth is Cameron going to wriggle out of this one.

 

[Yossarian]

^^^
I don't think It will be an Islamic marriage or would it ?

I guess amongst themselves they can call it what they like.
It does'nt mean that the vast majority of Muslims (over 99.9 %) will still not accept it as being an 'Islamic marriage' or that Islamic rules and laws are suddenly going to change just because these individuals have decided to pick and choose the bits they like, and ignore the bits that specifically prohibit homosexuality.

 

[Indiafan]

- Firstly, to support this you have referred to the "animal societies" argument and relied on it heavily. It is absurd logic to justify homosexuality because it is common among animals etc.

There are many other acts which are common among animal societies, shall we adopt those as well and make them legal?

You must have missed the discussion in this and other threads but animal example was only brought in to counter those people who say its not natural. If even unthinking animal do it, then it is defnitely natural. That was the only reason the animal example is brought in, to prove it occurs in nature, not to justify the act itself

 

[shaykh1985]

You must have missed the discussion in this and other threads but animal example was only brought in to counter those people who say its not natural. If even unthinking animal do it, then it is defnitely natural. That was the only reason the animal example is brought in, to prove it occurs in nature, not to justify the act itself

It proves that homosexual acts are natural...it doesn't prove homosexuality as an orientation is natural...no animals are exclusively homosexual...

 

[Yossarian]

You must have missed the discussion in this and other threads but animal example was only brought in to counter those people who say its not natural. If even unthinking animal do it, then it is defnitely natural. That was the only reason the animal example is brought in, to prove it occurs in nature, not to justify the act itself

If animals can be brought into the discussion to justify homosexuality as being 'natural', then why complain when bestiality is also brought into the same discussion?

You cannot pick and choose when to include and when to exclude animals from discussions on homesexuality.

 

[IgnitedMind]

It proves that homosexual acts are natural...it doesn't prove homosexuality as an orientation is natural...no animals are exclusively homosexual...

well no trait is universal in any species...that does not mean the trait is unnatural.

 

[shaykh1985]

If animals can be brought into the discussion to justify homosexuality as being 'natural', then why complain when bestiality is also brought into the same discussion?

You cannot pick and choose when to include and when to exclude animals from discussions on homesexuality.

Cos the issue of bestiality is a consent issue...hence the difference...

 

[shaykh1985]

well no trait is universal in any species...that does not mean the trait is unnatural.

I didn't state that homosexual acts are unnatural...I stated that sexual orientation is...animals aren't hetero or homosexual...

 

[Yossarian]

Cos the issue of bestiality is a consent issue...hence the difference...

Does'nt seem to stop some US States and some European countries from making it legal.

 

[shaykh1985]

Throw in a line or two about slander/libel/incitement to violence and that is, more or less, the manifesto of JS Mill. A reasonable basis on which to build a society.

Arguments about whether people should or shouldn't define themselves as gay, or whether homosexuality is caused by pre-natal hormones, environment or both are beside the point. Arguments about incest, polygamy and bestiality are also separate debates.

As I see it, the issue is, do people who define themselves as gay, who take part in homosexual acts and who wish to marry same sex partners do any harm? As far as I can see, they do not, so society/government has no right to intervene and prevent/punish or prohibit such things.

The opponents of gay marriage, and of homosexuality in general, fall into two camps:

1. Those who find it distasteful.

2. Those who believe that it is wrong because God has said that it is wrong.

The first group can largely be ignored, since no-one is suggesting that they be compelled to join in. There are many things I find distasteful, but this is no basis for banning something. The second group are sincere, but no genuine debate is possible with them, in my experience, since who can argue with a divine proscription?

So the debate on homosexuality is a fruitless one. Peter Hitchens calls it an intellectual Stalingrad for social conservatives in the West.

Most on here will be from the 2nd group...and essentially there is no debate in that regard as you correctly bring up...

The issue of distaste is the interesting one...you mention that incest and polygamy are separate conversations but they fit into the definition you bring up hence their relevance...

The legalisation of homosexual marriage isn't any different from incest or polygamy really...all consenting adults but all which get different reactions...

Incest is often considered disgusting...

Polygamy is considered patriarchal even if women are consenting patricipants...

Yet homosexuality is absolutely fine...

They all represent the same value in secular societies yet get differing reactions...

 

[Vegitto1]

Throw in a line or two about slander/libel/incitement to violence and that is, more or less, the manifesto of JS Mill. A reasonable basis on which to build a society.

Arguments about whether people should or shouldn't define themselves as gay, or whether homosexuality is caused by pre-natal hormones, environment or both are beside the point. Arguments about incest, polygamy and bestiality are also separate debates.

As I see it, the issue is, do people who define themselves as gay, who take part in homosexual acts and who wish to marry same sex partners do any harm? As far as I can see, they do not, so society/government has no right to intervene and prevent/punish or prohibit such things.

The opponents of gay marriage, and of homosexuality in general, fall into two camps:

1. Those who find it distasteful.

2. Those who believe that it is wrong because God has said that it is wrong.

The first group can largely be ignored, since no-one is suggesting that they be compelled to join in. There are many things I find distasteful, but this is no basis for banning something. The second group are sincere, but no genuine debate is possible with them, in my experience, since who can argue with a divine proscription?

So the debate on homosexuality is a fruitless one. Peter Hitchens calls it an intellectual Stalingrad for social conservatives in the West.

Firstly, The bolded part should not be added to the rule. Because my inciting someone is not actually forcing them to do anything. If you are a highly persuasive person then you should not be punished for it. Also if I choose to call someone names then that person should ignore me or call me names back.

Also your two points apply equally to polygamy, beastiality, prostitution etc. In fact that logic can apply to anything and everything.

 

[shaykh1985]

Does'nt seem to stop some US States and some European countries from making it legal.

Actually looking at it...its quite interesting to see how many countries have legalised it...

It seems the issue in states that legalise it is to ensure no harm is caused to the animal...countries like Sweden have permitted it...its legal in Lebanon too...

 

[Yossarian]

Polygamy is considered patriarchal even if women are consenting patricipants...

Yet homosexuality is absolutely fine...

They all represent the same value in secular societies yet get differing reactions...

Interestingly, in the West, by and large, there are negative views about societies that still practice polygamy but there does not appear to be similar reactions when it's pointed out that polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) is still practiced in some societies, especially those regions bordering the Himalayas..

 

[LegendsXI]

We are not top of any food chain, we are merely a part of one. I'm interested as to why you think humans are not animals; most scientists agree that humans evolved from other primates.

I'm also interested as to why you decry the violent behaviours of other animals; human beings in fact have been by far the most violent and destructive species of animal. Other animals kill to eat and live, whereas humans do too, only we are the prime animal proven to have an ability to kill for sport, conquest and ideology, and also to torture and to construct suffering before we kill. Sounds quite animalistic to me.

I don't see where I made a generalisation particularly because I certainly don't think in those terms - unless I displayed a poor choice of words, in which case somebody can highlight that statement and tell me precisely why it was a generalisation of distaste or malice, and we can have a closer look at it from there.

Also I don't quite understand your refutation on the idea of science and love? Again, their connection has been proven - I can point you to numerous relevant sources. Although love, culturally, spiritually and philosophically may have deeper meanings to different individuals, there is an element of brain chemistry in at as well. Unless you're suggesting that gay people cannot love each other as straight people do, which I hope you're not, because you would be insulting many millions of people with such an opinion.

Love ultimately is a great emotion, and can thus arise in any moment in any space between any two people. Of any family or social background. And of any gender! Which is why the gay marriage bill can be very credibly supported.

From a religious perspective i dont believe in the evolution theory completely; but knowing that i have to be objective, i did not mention this view. So i dont know where you got that idea.

Now you seriously cannot be this thick. Read the comment again,and especially the text in the bracket. Yes we are animals, but i think we have evolved quite a bit. If we look to the un evolved species for an answer, than i wouldn't say that well stay at the top of the food chain for that long.

Seriously disappointing with your lack of understanding for the context of the situation. You seem to enjoy prolonging the debate into factors, that can be debated for ages without leading to any meaningful conclusion.

Love is a great emotion, but i would not consider it a scientific entity. If you want it to look at it that way, someone could say something like. Love is caused by the chemical reactions that occur in the human body, hence non productive abnormalities that exist in the human species can be corrected i.e cure for homosexuality. homosexuality doesnt fare too well with natural selection either.

P.s if you want to have a serious debate, learn to understand the context of the argument, and focus on the actual points. Dont really care for prolonging the discussion just for the sake of it.

 

[Yossarian]

Actually looking at it...its quite interesting to see how many countries have legalised it...

It seems the issue in states that legalise it is to ensure no harm is caused to the animal...countries like Sweden have permitted it...its legal in Lebanon too...

Without getting too technical, one can understand how it could be said that there is no 'consent' by the animal when it's male human/female animal. But can the same be said when the roles are reversed?

 

[LegendsXI]

There was a time when majority of human beings believed white skinned people were superior to dark skinned ones in all respect and that dark skinned people were dumb who only could be slaves. Didnt make that natural. Education and an open mind changed that

With all due respect Indian fan, you are mixing two completely different concepts. The fact of the matter is the most civilized form of society, is based on democratic principles. Yes a group of people can collectively wrong, but they all have the freedom to make their own decision.

People cannot force someone to be gay or straight, neither can they ask someone to have positive or negative views regarding the concept of homosexuality.

When the supporters have to rely on fallible statements such as; cats and dogs do it, so we can do it too. You know the debate is leading no where.

Why does one side have to be completely wrong and the other completely right. Apart from a few posts i have not witnessed an intellectual debate here; just the misconceptions and lack of understanding from a few. And than they call it the grown up way. LOL.

Even though i personally am apathetic regarding homosexuality, i can only think of one credible and objective argument in support for the concept. Which is; unlike animals, human beings are self aware. We don't live to survive, rather we are spiritually and intellectually superior than the animals (soul in the religious context). In this perspective, no one has the right to challenge or force anyone's consciously chosen lifestyle. Thats about it.

 

[shaykh1985]

Without getting too technical, one can understand how it could be said that there is no 'consent' by the animal when it's male human/female animal. But can the same be said when the roles are reversed?

Thats a very good point actually...

Lack of consent isn't a given...wonder if legislation addresses this difference...

 

[RexRex]

Actually looking at it...its quite interesting to see how many countries have legalised it...

It seems the issue in states that legalise it is to ensure no harm is caused to the animal...countries like Sweden have permitted it...its legal in Lebanon too...

I knew it was liberal compared to others in the Middle East but Lebanon is a suprise .I guess that's another reason why it's called paris of the east.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Vegitto1, if you read my post more carefully, you'll see that I was explaining how closely your quote conforms to the manifesto of JS Mill. Incitement to violence was something he felt the state had a right to intervene to prevent, but he defined it very carefully. By and large I agree with him, but that is to go off topic.

You state that the two groups I identified as being opposed to homosexuality could also be identified in opposition to bestiality, prostitution, incest. That is true. Opponents of those things would include those who find it merely distasteful and those who think it is wrong because God says it is wrong.

However, in the case of bestiality and prostitution there would also be those who think it violates the principle you so elegantly expounded, namely that it causes harm to others and so therefore should not be permitted.

In the case of homosexuality, I haven't yet come across anyone whose opposition is not based either on personal distaste or religious proscription.

If I may say, you are wrong to describe my two points as logic; they weren't premises in an argument, merely numerical indicators separating two distinct approaches to homosexuality.

Shaykh, I was not offering a definition. I was identifying the two main arguments advanced against homosexuality.

Bestiality/incest are different subjects, and the arguments that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. We can talk about possible areas of overlap, but to steer the conversation onto bestiality/incest and debate that, rather than the topic of homosexual marriage, is to commit the logical fallacy of arguing beside the point.

You make good points about potential hypocritical attitudes towards incest/polygamy on the part of unnamed individuals, but since I haven't given an opinion on these things, I presume you weren't addressing me.

 

[LegendsXI]

Well the discussion on incest is legitimate in that it is a form of consensual relationship that many feel is disgusting...

Providing that there is consistency from people there is no issue...if you support an individuals right to have consensual relations with another man then I presume you feel the same way about individuals marrying members of their immediate family?...

Thats the thing, id like to know the views that people have regarding the support for incest. If they dont support it, why not; and how is it different from homosexuality?

Its an unnatural act, however there is consent involved. Are we witnessing double standards from the society, or is the best answer going to be something like. "The westerners are too civilized for this activity, hence the argument is invalid' .

 

[aashiqmizaaj]

Without getting too technical, one can understand how it could be said that there is no 'consent' by the animal when it's male human/female animal. But can the same be said when the roles are reversed?

and I hear crickets chirping.

 

[LegendsXI]

Without getting too technical, one can understand how it could be said that there is no 'consent' by the animal when it's male human/female animal. But can the same be said when the roles are reversed?

Dont think youll get a response for this one. Good point though.

 

[endymion248]

How come there is a consent issue in zoophilia when a male animal can spontaneously have sex with a woman without being forced into it?

The issue is actually same for animal homosexuality, it is only based on the procreative instinct of the animal who is lacking distinction markers on whether the other animal is male/female.

The same way, what in our society prevents a 50 year old from having sex with a 13 year old consentant kid? If it is based on the fact that they do not know whats good for them, why can the same situation take place between two 13 years old? Most muslims see homosexuality as a travesty so what can you say back to a muslim parliament that votes that homosexuality is a disease and society is allowed to forbid gay people from mating the same way western society doesnt allow for some human beings/animals to make the choice for themselved due to lack of mental ability?

To end on it, I think that the debate on the legitimty of homosexuality pretty useless because gays have been mating for thousands of year in Europe with no major repression for the modt part, the opposition on mariage is not whether is a perversion of a saint institution by something unnatural, but because the gay mariage opens the door to gay adoption and, much more important, homoprocreation for which the technology will be disponiblr in the next half century.

 

[Vegitto1]

Vegitto1, if you read my post more carefully, you'll see that I was explaining how closely your quote conforms to the manifesto of JS Mill. Incitement to violence was something he felt the state had a right to intervene to prevent, but he defined it very carefully. By and large I agree with him, but that is to go off topic.

You state that the two groups I identified as being opposed to homosexuality could also be identified in opposition to bestiality, prostitution, incest. That is true. Opponents of those things would include those who find it merely distasteful and those who think it is wrong because God says it is wrong.

However, in the case of bestiality and prostitution there would also be those who think it violates the principle you so elegantly expounded, namely that it causes harm to others and so therefore should not be permitted.

In the case of homosexuality, I haven't yet come across anyone whose opposition is not based either on personal distaste or religious proscription.

If I may say, you are wrong to describe my two points as logic; they weren't premises in an argument, merely numerical indicators separating two distinct approaches to homosexuality.

Shaykh, I was not offering a definition. I was identifying the two main arguments advanced against homosexuality.

Bestiality/incest are different subjects, and the arguments that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. We can talk about possible areas of overlap, but to steer the conversation onto bestiality/incest and debate that, rather than the topic of homosexual marriage, is to commit the logical fallacy of arguing beside the point.

You make good points about potential hypocritical attitudes towards incest/polygamy on the part of unnamed individuals, but since I haven't given an opinion on these things, I presume you weren't addressing me.

How does prostitution, beastiality and incest cause harm to others?

 

[endymion248]

What I certainly don't get is when people say two humans having consensual sex is ever comparable to a human having non-consensual sex with another species of animal. For one that's insulting to all animals concerned, but more importantly it is an illogical position.

I don t know whether you ever have taken care of a farm for a long time but, if you did, you would know that most of your male animals should be in prison for rape and non consensual interspecies sex (how hard is it to replace a cow by a man).

Also, how can an animal not consent to something. We dont know how an animal mind works and, until proven otherwise, an animal consents to everything except what harms him or he considers something as potential harm for him or his pairs, in which case the said animal shows agressivity.

Im not in favour of zoophilia but the non-consent arguments are laughable.

Why is it that when people always want to make legislative universalities without admitting that they will always have grey areas both on moral and structural.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

How does prostitution, beastiality and incest cause harm to others?

Again, read more carefully. I stated, '....in the case of bestiality and prostitution (I made no mention of incest in this point) there would be those who think it violates the principle you so elegantly expounded, namely that it would cause harm to others...'

Some people argue that bestiality cannot involve consent, therefore it is effectively a form of rape. Some people argue that prostitution, or certain forms of prostitution, does not involve consent on the part of the prostitute, since they are forced into that role on pain of death or injury, and such consent is not really worthy of the name. These are a couple of arguments that can be advanced against bestiality or prostitution.

Again, I am not making these arguments, because they are beside the point of the discussion, merely illustrating that arguments as to the harmfulness of prostitution/bestiality could be made on terms other than religious proscription or personal distaste.

 

[vandokkum]

Funnily enough, the best countries in the world (by all objective measures) have by and large legalized same sex marriage or are in the process of doing so. The public opinion also shows that majority of their population approve of it. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

 

[shaykh1985]

Vegitto1, if you read my post more carefully, you'll see that I was explaining how closely your quote conforms to the manifesto of JS Mill. Incitement to violence was something he felt the state had a right to intervene to prevent, but he defined it very carefully. By and large I agree with him, but that is to go off topic.

You state that the two groups I identified as being opposed to homosexuality could also be identified in opposition to bestiality, prostitution, incest. That is true. Opponents of those things would include those who find it merely distasteful and those who think it is wrong because God says it is wrong.

However, in the case of bestiality and prostitution there would also be those who think it violates the principle you so elegantly expounded, namely that it causes harm to others and so therefore should not be permitted.

In the case of homosexuality, I haven't yet come across anyone whose opposition is not based either on personal distaste or religious proscription.

If I may say, you are wrong to describe my two points as logic; they weren't premises in an argument, merely numerical indicators separating two distinct approaches to homosexuality.

Shaykh, I was not offering a definition. I was identifying the two main arguments advanced against homosexuality.

Bestiality/incest are different subjects, and the arguments that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. We can talk about possible areas of overlap, but to steer the conversation onto bestiality/incest and debate that, rather than the topic of homosexual marriage, is to commit the logical fallacy of arguing beside the point.

You make good points about potential hypocritical attitudes towards incest/polygamy on the part of unnamed individuals, but since I haven't given an opinion on these things, I presume you weren't addressing me.

No the potential hypocritical attitudes comment wasn't aimed at yourself...

In terms of definition I was referring to Vegitto's definition which you likened to Mill's:

"You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically without their consent) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else (without their consent)"

Its not really about steering the argument towards bestiality of polygamy but rather encouraging discussion regarding this definition...because many things that people find distasteful can fall into this remit...

The above definition wont satisfy many people who deem legislation as needing to protect society as a whole and not necessary focusing on individual harm...

For instance prostitution is essentially a contract between two consenting adults...of course it doesn't always work that way with prostitutes not always consenting etc but many liberal people wouldn't want prostitution legalised because they view it as bad for society...this despite the fact that technically there is no problem with it..

 

[Andrew Hughes]

I agree, Shaykh, many people are reluctant to fully accept the implications of basing society on such a rule, and persist in clinging to rules that are based on little more than dislike of a particular activity (or in reality, in the UK, based on the lingering effects of centuries of Christianity)

That's why I feel they are on stronger ground if they say that their objections to homosexuality are based on direct instruction from God. I wouldn't agree, but the argument is at least clear and coherent and not dressed up in talk of what is or is not natural.

 

[Khaleefa]

Their country, their laws.
The democratically elected UK Parliament can vote and make homosexuality mandatory upon EVERY UK resident for all I care. It's democracy after all.

 

[Yossarian]

I agree, Shaykh, many people are reluctant to fully accept the implications of basing society on such a rule, and persist in clinging to rules that are based on little more than dislike of a particular activity (or in reality, in the UK, based on the lingering effects of centuries of Christianity)

That's why I feel they are on stronger ground if they say that their objections to homosexuality are based on direct instruction from God. I wouldn't agree, but the argument is at least clear and coherent and not dressed up in talk of what is or is not natural.

That's doing a disservice to all those atheists and non-believers who are also against homosexuality.

 

[vandokkum]

That's doing a disservice to all those atheists and non-believers who are also against homosexuality.

They are few and far between, over 80 percent of non religious (not just atheists) in the US approve of same sex marriage. It's a fact that the prejudice towards same sex couples originates from the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[endymion248]

Their country, their laws.
The democratically elected UK Parliament can vote and make homosexuality mandatory upon EVERY UK resident for all I care. It's democracy after all.

Democracy is not the boundless rule of the majority, or there is no moral high ground to condemn Shoah or Triangular commerce.

 

[vandokkum]

Their country, their laws.
The democratically elected UK Parliament can vote and make homosexuality mandatory upon EVERY UK resident for all I care. It's democracy after all.

Yes, that's exactly what will happen. How did you figure that out? It's part of the illuminati's plan to force people to become homosexuals.

 

[Yossarian]

Their country, their laws.
The democratically elected UK Parliament can vote and make homosexuality mandatory upon EVERY UK resident for all I care. It's democracy after all.

Don't know where you live, but have'nt you realised yet that the US/UK would like to spread 'democracy' (or their version of it) and their 'enlightened views' everywhere they can?
You can't escape that easily you know!

 

[Yossarian]

They are few and far between, over 80 percent of non religious (not just atheists) in the US approve of same sex marriage. It's a fact that the prejudice towards same sex couples originates from the Abrahamic faiths.

So the views of the remaining 20% don't count?

And what about the majority of (non-Muslim & non-Christian) Indians , Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans....? Where do you think they stand on same-sex marriage? After all, they are not of Abrahamic faiths.

 

[RexRex]

Some people argue that bestiality cannot involve consent, therefore it is effectively a form of rape. Some people argue that prostitution, or certain forms of prostitution, does not involve consent on the part of the prostitute, since they are forced into that role on pain of death or injury, and such consent is not really worthy of the name. These are a couple of arguments that can be advanced against bestiality or prostitution. .

This idea that people don't agree with bestiality due to lack of consent is frankly bull.They disguise their real reason which is the ick factor of bestiality and give it some legitimacy i.e a phony show of concern for animal rights.Like someone else said what if it's a woman and male dog having a party - where's the lack of consent in that ?

 

[vandokkum]

So the views of the remaining 20% don't count?

There are also a percentage of the population who want to outlaw abortion in case of rape, now do you want their views to be counted as well? They "count" if you are talking about the right to express their views, not sure what other ways they should be counted?

 

[Andrew Hughes]

That's doing a disservice to all those atheists and non-believers who are also against homosexuality.

By disservice, presumably, you mean misrepresenting their arguments? I hope I haven't done that. I'd be happy to revise my opinion if you could point me in the direction of a coherent/valid argument from an atheist/non-believer as to why homosexuality should not be permitted.

 

[LegendsXI]

By disservice, presumably, you mean misrepresenting their arguments? I hope I haven't done that. I'd be happy to revise my opinion if you could point me in the direction of a coherent/valid argument from an atheist/non-believer as to why homosexuality should not be permitted.

Why argument from a specific group. No one is relying on religious ideals to debate homosexuality, so why bring religion in to it. Seems like you guys cant discuss incest, bestiality and other unnatural behaviors, in the manner you do for homosexuality.

 

[vandokkum]

So the views of the remaining 20% don't count?

And what about the majority of (non-Muslim & non-Christian) Indians , Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans....? Where do you think they stand? After all, they are not of Abrahamic faiths.

I don't have any figures on that, and I don't think personal experience counts for anything. But I have rarely seen any vehement opposition to same sex marriage from any Hindus/ Buddhists. Not sure if any of their countries advocate killing/ lashing or imprisoning homosexuals either like Nigeria/ Iran/ Saudi Arabia/ Uganda and some others.

 

[LegendsXI]

I don't have any figures on that, and I don't think personal experience counts for anything. But I have rarely seen any vehement opposition to same sex marriage from any Hindus/ Buddhists.

Haha ok now the debate is actually going somewhere. First it was the western vs non western mentality, than the religious vs non religious, and now the superior and civilized religion. Goes to show the desperation of the liberal bunch, cant you discuss it purely on an objective basis?

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Why argument from a specific group.

Because Javelin said I was doing a disservice to a specific group, so I was responding.

No one is relying on religious ideals to debate homosexuality, so why bring religion in to it.

The reason I bring religion into it is that, as I said earlier in the thread, the religious objection to homosexuality appears the only coherent objection. Arguing that homosexuality is wrong because God said it was wrong is a stronger argument that saying it is wrong because an individual finds it distasteful.

Seems like you guys cant discuss incest, bestiality and other unnatural behaviors, in the manner you do for homosexuality.

I don't know what you mean by 'you guys' so I can't really respond to that part. I can debate incest and bestiality in precisely the same way as I can debate homosexuality, but I joined this thread because I wanted to say something about gay marriage. If someone starts a thread on bestiality or incest and it seems interesting, I might join in.

 

[vandokkum]

Haha ok now the debate is actually going somewhere. First it was the western vs non western mentality, than the religious vs non religious, and now the superior and civilized religion. Goes to show the desperation of the liberal bunch, cant you discuss it purely on an objective basis?

You want to discuss purely on objective basis? Same sex couples getting married does not affect my life in any way, and objectively there are no issue with it therefore it should be legal. I hope I have made myself clear. By comparing it to bestiality and incest, you only make yourself look foolish. Come back when there are millions of people who want to engage in bestiality and incest and want the legal right to get married.

 

[shaykh1985]

Why argument from a specific group. No one is relying on religious ideals to debate homosexuality, so why bring religion in to it. Seems like you guys cant discuss incest, bestiality and other unnatural behaviors, in the manner you do for homosexuality.

I agree with Andrew...

Essentially religious people make an argument against homosexuality that is straightforward 'God forbids it' hence it is wrong and deplorable...there is no rational answers behind such arguments...

The rest of the arguments come down to personal tastes that essentially are social constructions...I know people who think it is absolutely disgusting that people marry cousins as their society has told them that is incorrect...whilst other societies have no problem with it...

In Colombia in some rural areas bestiality is socially acceptable...

The natural/unnatural arguments don't really cut it for homosexuality...the stronger argument imo is that sexuality is constructed...if there were no societal norms or pressures men and women would probably be with both men and women...or if they chose one sex it would simply be a preference...

Other than religion which regulates natural impulses due to that sacrifice being a means to satisfy a higher power there are few other arguments...

 

[endymion248]

You want to discuss purely on objective basis? Same sex couples getting married does not affect my life in any way, and objectively there are no issue with it therefore it should be legal. I hope I have made myself clear. By comparing it to bestiality and incest, you only make yourself look foolish. Come back when there are millions of people who want to engage in bestiality and incest and want the legal right to get married.

Morality does not depend on the prevalence of what it is ruling about.

And even then, Fact is there is a european bestiality movement including thousands of people.

 

[LegendsXI]

I agree with Andrew...

Essentially religious people make an argument against homosexuality that is straightforward 'God forbids it' hence it is wrong and deplorable...there is no rational answers behind such arguments...

The rest of the arguments come down to personal tastes that essentially are social constructions...I know people who think it is absolutely disgusting that people marry cousins as their society has told them that is incorrect...whilst other societies have no problem with it...

In Colombia in some rural areas bestiality is socially acceptable...

The natural/unnatural arguments don't really cut it for homosexuality...the stronger argument imo is that sexuality is constructed...if there were no societal norms or pressures men and women would probably be with both men and women...or if they chose one sex it would simply be a preference...

Other than religion which regulates natural impulses due to that sacrifice being a means to satisfy a higher power there are few other arguments...

If you take religion and the societal/mainstream ideals out of the debate. Would you say that in a society where the consent from adults is the only factor, concepts such as bestiality and incest would also be justifiable (as in the case of homosexuality).

 

[LegendsXI]

You want to discuss purely on objective basis? Same sex couples getting married does not affect my life in any way, and objectively there are no issue with it therefore it should be legal. I hope I have made myself clear. By comparing it to bestiality and incest, you only make yourself look foolish. Come back when there are millions of people who want to engage in bestiality and incest and want the legal right to get married.

Why and how?

does the size of the group involved in the act matter? in that case, what are a few million homosexuals in front of billions of heterosexuals?

Please answer.

 

[Yossarian]

In the end, is it a case of searching for reasons and facts to support one's existing views, or one's views being determined by reasons and facts.

Whilst it should be the latter, the reality is that for the vast majority it is the former, on both sides of the divide.

This is compounded by the fact that, on both sides, a select few have enabled themselves to be in positions to influence the views of the masses via their means of communications.

On the one hand, the religious elite use their 'this is god's word' to get their message accross, whilst on the other side, certain groups are more active and thus more represented in the areas of politics and the media and therefore able to get their message accross and influence the views of the average Joe Bloggs.

Edit:
By more represented, I mean in comparison to their percentage of the population as a whole.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

All gay threads seem to turn into bestiality ones lol.

This debate has been going on for ages, this particular iteration of the debate centres around the choice of the word 'marriage'. Gays have been given the right to form a union for sometime now but wanted equality. Nothing really changes apart from what they want their union to be called.

What I find more interesting is that the ruling party of a civilized country in the world, the party holds the mandate of the people could not get a majority pro gay marriage verdict. I thought it was only backward uncivilised people who felt like this about gays.

 

[LegendsXI]

Because Javelin said I was doing a disservice to a specific group, so I was responding.



The reason I bring religion into it is that, as I said earlier in the thread, the religious objection to homosexuality appears the only coherent objection. Arguing that homosexuality is wrong because God said it was wrong is a stronger argument that saying it is wrong because an individual finds it distasteful.



I don't know what you mean by 'you guys' so I can't really respond to that part. I can debate incest and bestiality in precisely the same way as I can debate homosexuality, but I joined this thread because I wanted to say something about gay marriage. If someone starts a thread on bestiality or incest and it seems interesting, I might join in.

You guys is a poor choice of words, but the reference to the other concepts relating to abnormal sexual activities between consenting adults (or participants), is valid to the debate at hand. I sense a little hypocrisy, thats all.

In my view the most civilized society, would be the one where the consenting adults are given the choice to live their lives. For the religious groups, let God decide on the individuals, and for the liberals: Have consistency in your morals and ideals.

 

[James]

Ha so I leave this one for the afternoon and seem to have missed the bus with it, has really opened up...looks like both sides above are agreeing to disagree. Good debate though, I learned some things.

 

[endymion248]

I am sure that sometime in the last centuries, people mist have said "if we are to allow fornication between non married men and women, why not allow homosexuals under the daylight?".

Now, people are making a demonstration by the absurd to encourage the first and discourage the second while using zoophilia as an argument

 

[Warfare]

err, so if the institution of marriage has been redefined to include same sex marriages, why cant a man marry more than one woman?

Like Shaykh said arbitrary laws from the past which need to be scrapped/reformed.

You also forgot to mention a woman marrying more than one man, I'd support the legalisation of polygamy and polyandry.

 

[LegendsXI]

Congratulations to them, it's about time we start not giving a damn about people who think that same sex lovers marrying is somehow going to affect their lives. Funny how conservatives are always on the wrong side of history, same people here in the US that opposed abolition of slavery now want to ban same sex marriage.

Absolutely Wrong!

The conservative Republicans fought against slavery, eventually Lincoln abolished it. On other hand the democrats were pro slavery.

Where do you get your facts from?

 

[Vegitto1]

Again, read more carefully. I stated, '....in the case of bestiality and prostitution (I made no mention of incest in this point) there would be those who think it violates the principle you so elegantly expounded, namely that it would cause harm to others...'

Some people argue that bestiality cannot involve consent, therefore it is effectively a form of rape. Some people argue that prostitution, or certain forms of prostitution, does not involve consent on the part of the prostitute, since they are forced into that role on pain of death or injury, and such consent is not really worthy of the name. These are a couple of arguments that can be advanced against bestiality or prostitution.

Again, I am not making these arguments, because they are beside the point of the discussion, merely illustrating that arguments as to the harmfulness of prostitution/bestiality could be made on terms other than religious proscription or personal distaste.

In terms of beastiality, sure consent can be an issue if the male is a human, however when it is the other way around I seriously doubt consent is an issue.

Homosexuality is slowly being legalised in some countries, similarly in Bangladesh prostitution is classed as a profession. It can be counter-argued that the only reason women say that they are "forced to do it" is to blunt some of the negativity.

Now going back to your original suggestion that homosexuality can only be attacked on two fronts, 1 - people find it distasteful 2 - Against religious teachings.

I do think that the harmfulness argument can apply to homosexuality if you take into account the number of serious diseases associated with it.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

I sense a little hypocrisy, thats all.

In my view the most civilized society, would be the one where the consenting adults are given the choice to live their lives. For the religious groups, let God decide on the individuals, and for the liberals: Have consistency in your morals and ideals.

I agree. Hypocrisy should be pointed out. Often those who claim to espouse liberal values don't notice their own failings. We can all be guilty of that.

If mere distaste isn't an argument against legalising of homosexuality (and it isn't) then it shouldn't be an argument against, for example, polygamy. That isn't to say that there might not be other arguments against polygamy, but distaste shouldn't be one of them.

The danger in changing the subject to sniff out hypocrisy, is that you end up with a sterile, ever-shifting debate that never really gets to grips with the main topic, but skims across the surface of half a dozen different issues. In highlighting the similarities in certain cases, we can overlook the differences. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, prostitution may all have some similarities, but they are not precisely the same and each should be debated on its merits.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Now going back to your original suggestion that homosexuality can only be attacked on two fronts, 1 - people find it distasteful 2 - Against religious teachings.

I do think that the harmfulness argument can apply to homosexuality if you take into account the number of serious diseases associated with it.

That's an interesting angle. Which diseases did you have in mind?

 

[Warfare]

What is the outcome of Gay marriages?

Nothing terrible. Is there something you're afraid of?

Good to know that the steps are being made in order to legalise gay marriage in the UK

 

[Warfare]

That's an interesting angle. Which diseases did you have in mind?

I think he forgot that STDs can be passed on among heterosexual couples as well

 

[lilFlip]

Interesting discussion.

I grew up in one of countries where Gay marriage in allowed [OP]

There are 'gay' people around, should we hang'em and kill em mercilessly, Hitler style? Hell no. They are human beings too and deserve same amount of respect as anyone. Each to their own. Its a very personal thing. Heck I know some people who might be gay and honestly I don't care about it.

Now, would I like my next of kin (10~15) y/o to be exposed to homosexuality? NO. I try my best to keep my family's children away from Lady Gagas, Biebers and other pop culture scum.

Do I approve 'fa*gs' shown in TV and movies? No. They look stupid and the way they are shown is somewhat sad. (Same goes for desperate women and men wandering around...)

Most importantly as Muslims we should extract some serious lessons from story of 'Lot' people. They were damned in the end. Shamelessness which is spreading around our society is brutal. Although most people are too 'hip' to reflect upon it.

 

[LegCutter]

I think he forgot that STDs can be passed on among heterosexual couples as well

Woman-on-Woman has the least transmission rate of HIV.

 

[LegendsXI]

I agree. Hypocrisy should be pointed out. Often those who claim to espouse liberal values don't notice their own failings. We can all be guilty of that.

If mere distaste isn't an argument against legalising of homosexuality (and it isn't) then it shouldn't be an argument against, for example, polygamy. That isn't to say that there might not be other arguments against polygamy, but distaste shouldn't be one of them.

The danger in changing the subject to sniff out hypocrisy, is that you end up with a sterile, ever-shifting debate that never really gets to grips with the main topic, but skims across the surface of half a dozen different issues. In highlighting the similarities in certain cases, we can overlook the differences. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, prostitution may all have some similarities, but they are not precisely the same and each should be debated on its merits.

Alright i would have to agree to point of view. But dont you think that the highlighted part is the crux of the entire debate.

Its all nice to talk about the ideal or hypothetical scenario, but at the end of the day; who are we to question the morals or rightness of others' actions.

As far as i am concerned, i have no right to comment or try to influence the actions of a homosexual, polygamist, or even the other mentioned groups. Not saying that i approve their acts, just that i cannot force my opinion on the choice of consenting adults.

To be honest, i cant see past this perspective. Everything else seems rather fallacious.

 

[MattyB]

"You can do whatever you like as long as you are not hurting another individual (physically without their consent) or causing damage to property belonging to someone else (without their consent)"

There! fixed it for you TGK.

But large amounts of inbreeding can increase the chance of deformities in future generations which may cause severe pain to those future generations who have not given their consent.

Also there is no way that an animal can give their consent which also rules out Bestiality from becoming legal.

It's funny that many of the posters who complain that Muslims are not treated equally in the West are the same ones who don't want people in same sex relationships to have the right to marriage that heterosexual couples receive. Discriminating against people for their sexual preference is just as bad, if not worse than, discriminating against them based on their faith or place of birth.

 

[Vegitto1]

That's an interesting angle. Which diseases did you have in mind?

...With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, **** intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic...

**** Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the ****-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of **** cancer, reports that while the incidence of **** cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of **** cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]

Source: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#06

 

[Yossarian]

Also there is no way that an animal can give their consent which also rules out Bestiality from becoming legal.

You've missed out reading the posts which show that bestiality is legal in many US States as well as in some European countries.

As for animals giving consent, an interesting question has already been raised ie female human and male animal having a party.

Even as far as inbreeding (or incest) is concerned, again as has been pointed out already, incest is legal in many countries around the world, including some West European countries. Sweden has even gone further in allowing half-brother/sister to get married.

It might be a good idea to read some of the earlier posts to get an idea of the discussion so far.

 

[LegendsXI]

That's an interesting angle. Which diseases did you have in mind?

...With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, **** intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic...

**** Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the ****-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of **** cancer, reports that while the incidence of **** cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of **** cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]

Source: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#06

@ Andrew this is the kind of off topic debate i was referring to. An absolutely irrelevant stat.

Let me be clear, human beinsg have the right to choose how they live or die. We smoke ciggarettes, drink alcohol and etc. Life may not be as long, but its enjoyable (this is not directly in reference to the debate at hand )

 

[LegendsXI]

You've missed out reading the posts which show that bestiality is legal in many US States as well as in some European countries.

As for animals giving consent, an interesting question has already been raised ie female human and male animal having a party.

Even as far as inbreeding (or incest) is concerned, again as has been pointed out already, incest is legal in many countries around the world, including some West European countries. Sweden has even gone further in allowing half-brother/sister to get married.

It might be a good idea to read some of the earlier posts to get an idea of the discussion so far.

Top post. This is the kind of point which will differentiate the truly objective and liberal bunch from the rest. The kind of thing which will make liberal become conservatives. But as mentioned do not expect a response

 

[cricketworm]

Unless, one is not homosexual, you can't express your feeling that how hard is to have same sex with opposite sex, it's as hard as if someone ask you to have sex with same sex.

Unless we don't realize that then there is no point of discussion.

Btw. there are sculptures/pictures of homosexual sex found by archaeologist. LONG before Christ!

 

[Vegitto1]

@ Andrew this is the kind of off topic debate i was referring to. An absolutely irrelevant stat.

Let me be clear, human beinsg have the right to choose how they live or die. We smoke ciggarettes, drink alcohol and etc. Life may not be as long, but its enjoyable (this is not directly in reference to the debate at hand )

Only replying to his question in relation to diseases relating to homosexuality and mainly it being harmful like prostitution and beastiality

 

[Warfare]

You've missed out reading the posts which show that bestiality is legal in many US States as well as in some European countries.

As for animals giving consent, an interesting question has already been raised ie female human and male animal having a party.

Even as far as inbreeding (or incest) is concerned, again as has been pointed out already, incest is legal in many countries around the world, including some West European countries. Sweden has even gone further in allowing half-brother/sister to get married.

It might be a good idea to read some of the earlier posts to get an idea of the discussion so far.

As long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem with it. A consensual incestuous relationship is no one else's business.

As for bestiality, I'm not too sure. We kill and eat animals without their consent and why would a female human participating in bestiality be any different? Anyways these topics have nothing to do with gay marriage, so separate threads should be opened for them

 

[LegendsXI]

Only replying to his question in relation to diseases relating to homosexuality and mainly it being harmful like prostitution and beastiality

Dude my point is that you cannot base an anti gay argument, based on the medical factor. At the end the relevant point is personal choice and the right to live or die as you wish.

 

[Vegitto1]

As long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem with it. A consensual incestuous relationship is no one else's business.

As for bestiality, I'm not too sure. We kill and eat animals without their consent and why would a female human participating in bestiality be any different? Anyways these topics have nothing to do with gay marriage, so separate threads should be opened for them

I don't think separate threads are required. Gay marriages, beastiality, incest are all on the same footing.

 

[Warfare]

I don't think separate threads are required. Gay marriages, beastiality, incest are all on the same footing.

Actually you're wrong. They're vastly different.

 

[Vegitto1]

Actually you're wrong. They're vastly different.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

As far as i am concerned, i have no right to comment or try to influence the actions of a homosexual, polygamist, or even the other mentioned groups. Not saying that i approve their acts, just that i cannot force my opinion on the choice of consenting adults.

Agree 100%

Vegitto mentions a couple of medical conditions.

The first isn't a disease, it is an unfortunate consequence of certain activities (my use of euphemisms isn't to gloss over a weak argument, merely out of regard for politeness). There are conflicting views over whether such a condition is the inevitable result of said activities, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that all or even most homosexuals would experience this. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't constitute harm as defined, since it was a side-effect of a consensual act.

The second is an unpleasant cancer, caused as I understand it, by the HPV virus, that can be spread sexually. The spread of any sexual disease is due to a combination of promiscuity and failure to take precautions (again, apologies for the euphemism). If you engage in unprotected intercourse with multiple partners, you run the risk of contracting diseases, again, a side effect of a consensual act. Neither this particular cancer nor the HPV virus are caused by or exclusive to homosexuals.

Neither of these examples prove the case that homosexuality is harmful.

I could suggest that allowing men to enter into monogamous relationships reduces promiscuity and the spread of diseases, but that wouldn't be fair as the point Vegitto is addressing is homosexual acts, not gay marriage.

Gay marriages, beastiality, incest are all on the same footing.

Just saw this. Genuine question, can you say why you feel they are on the same footing?

 

[Yossarian]

As long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem with it. A consensual incestuous relationship is no one else's business.

As for bestiality, I'm not too sure. We kill and eat animals without their consent and why would a female human participating in bestiality be any different? Anyways these topics have nothing to do with gay marriage, so separate threads should be opened for them

Except that animals have already been brought into the discussion to justify homosexuality being natural on the basis that some animals also do it. If animals can be used as being relevant to support the pro-homosexuality lobby, why cannot they also be used in the counter argument?

Similarly, all the arguments in favour of homosexuality can be equally applied in favour of incest, and therefore the same goes for the opposite points of view.

Why is it that the pro-homosexuality side of the lobby become uncomfortable when their logic is then also apllied to areas such as incest and bestiality by those who claim that homosexuality is wrong in the same manner as bestiality and incest is wrong??

 

[LegendsXI]

Agree 100%

Vegitto mentions a couple of medical conditions.

The first isn't a disease, it is an unfortunate consequence of certain activities (my use of euphemisms isn't to gloss over a weak argument, merely out of regard for politeness). There are conflicting views over whether such a condition is the inevitable result of said activities, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that all or even most homosexuals would experience this. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't constitute harm as defined, since it was a side-effect of a consensual act.

The second is an unpleasant cancer, caused as I understand it, by the HPV virus, that can be spread sexually. The spread of any sexual disease is due to a combination of promiscuity and failure to take precautions (again, apologies for the euphemism). If you engage in unprotected intercourse with multiple partners, you run the risk of contracting diseases, again, a side effect of a consensual act. Neither this particular cancer nor the HPV virus are caused by or exclusive to homosexuals.

Neither of these examples prove the case that homosexuality is harmful.

I could suggest that allowing men to enter into monogamous relationships reduces promiscuity and the spread of diseases, but that wouldn't be fair as the point Vegitto is addressing is homosexual acts, not gay marriage.



Just saw this. Genuine question, can you say why you feel they are on the same footing?

I dont think thats my comment, because i really wouldn't attempt to go into too much details about the acts themselves. can you identify the number of the post please.

To be quite honest, i certainly wouldnt care too much what the person is doing on their own accord, not my business. In a way i can say that the following acts are similar; as in lifestyle choices adopted by individuals, and i should and can not have an influence over.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Actually you're wrong. They're vastly different.

All morally wrong.