Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law

[Vorsprung]

Come on Aussie!! Let gay people do what they wanna do!!
They don't hurt anybody with it do they? So gay sex may not be your favourite hobby, they're not asking you to join them!! Why should we ask them to join us???
Because it's not natural???? I don't want to go into that discussion, but all I can say is that flying an F15, a MiG, a Boeing 747 or driving your 4wd also aren't your typical natural things to do. Neither is riding a rollercoaster, but we also like to do that.
Why force your views and morals on other people who do no harm to you in any way!!!
I don't agree with the views of muslims, christians, conservatives, hippies, hindus or jews, but I do think they still have a right to live their lives.
And 90% of the world population being gay actually could be a really good thing. Because I think overpopulation is one of the worse problems we have on this planet. I also truly believe that educated people who see reproduction as one of their main goals, either really have unethical morals or are just really ignorant. (I mean people pursuing "bigger" families)

 

[bonosloveslave]

I know people get really worked up about this topic, but let's try to slow the downward spiral this thread is taking...

 

[namkcuR]

Aussie, you are full of it. And please, stop stating generalizations about people you don't know at all. There is nothing wrong with homosexualality. It's just that people naturally fear what they don't know or aren't familiar with, and some people just don't understand homosexualality. These homophobes that spew so much contempt for homosexuals, what it comes down to is that they fear it. And there is simply nothing to fear.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Aussie, you are full of it.

namkcuR, please refer to our FAQs, no personal attacks please.

 

[pax]

That "no personal attacks" thing is a good thing for EVERYONE here to keep in mind.

Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular.

 

[Anthony]

I truly find it hard, indeed - very hard, for anyone to think that people would 'turn gay' because of the supposed 'cool factor'. I've kept quiet in this debate because, well, if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all (and it would be cool if those with fiery tempers would observe such a maxim), but I'll phrase my astonishment in the form of a question;

How on Earth can anyone think that homosexuals, in an age where blatant descrimination still exists (and lets face it, if it isn't, then the news about Spain legalising gay marriage wouldn't even BE news) and is as rampant as the spread of AIDS (not saying that only homosexuals get it, because that is incorrect, but it is nevertheless a fear and problem many homosexuals do have to contend with) are profiting from a 'cool factor' based on their sexuality?

I can assure you, its not a picnic for any homosexual out there, and I marvel at how anyone can even think that.

Ant.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

somebody call me if i'm wrong on this, but i think that it is wrong to label someone finding the act of homosexual sex morally wrong to be discrimination. to me, discrimination is the unfair judgement of someone based on a fact of their nature that they have no control over (i.e. race or sex). when i disagree with homosexual sex, i am saying i don't condone a particular action that i believe is morally wrong.

as to the issue of being gay, i accept the fact that some people have an innate sexual attraction towards a person of the same sex. this is something about the person that they have no control over. this, in and of itself is not a problem for me. however, the act of having sex of any kind (heterosexual, homosexual, inside of marraige, or outside of marraige) is by its very nature (except in the case of a rape victim) an act that a person chooses to engage in.

indulge me, if you will, but i am willing to make the assumption that there are also people in the world that have an innate sexual attraction to children, animals, and various other things. i would also assume that most sensible people would agree that once these people act on their sexual desires, they have crossed over a line and committed an act that is "wrong" in it's very nature.

it would seem logical then, that a perfectly reasonable person would be able to come to the conclusion that just because a person desires to engage in sexual activities with someone/thing it doesn't necessarily hold true that said person should be allowed to make good on that desire. that is my position on homosexual sex, i believe that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, and therefore someone who commits this action has commited a wrong.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But any sexual act against a child is abuse, same goes for animal because it is non consenting. But if it is between two consenting adults then there should be no problem.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

But any sexual act against a child is abuse, same goes for animal because it is non consenting. But if it is between two consenting adults then there should be no problem.

there are those that would argue this point with you. the ancient greeks obviously believed otherwise (check out plato's "symposium" if anyone disagrees with this claim) and there are groups whose purpose is to legalize consentual sex between men and boys (nambla). i would also point to the case of mary kay latourno (sp?), the teacher who entered into a relationship with a 13 year-old student that was described by both parties as loving and fully consentual. was this relationship wrong? why or why not? it appears, as your response "ANY sexual act against a child" seems to imply, that this act would be abuse, even though it was entered into consentually, simply on the basis that it was a sexual act against a child. therefore, it seems that you would argue that there are times when a consentual relationship is wrong. correct me if i have misjudged your argument.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sex against a minor is wrong because it is injuring a child, plain and simple.

 

[indra]

But any sexual act against a child is abuse, same goes for animal because it is non consenting. But if it is between two consenting adults then there should be no problem.

Exactly! I fail to see what other people's sex life has to do with anyone else(given the usual consenting adults clause). If a person feels that homosexuality is immoral, that is that person's right. However, I wonder why people ever got the idea that just because they don't like something it should be prohibited for others. Where did that come from?

As for Aussie....homosexuality is not something you catch. Have you ever considered that your cousin says he was converted to avoid your obvious scorn? Perhaps to him it is better to be thought "converted" to homosexuality than to admit, especially in light of your attitude, that he actually is gay.

 

[indra]

it appears, as your response "ANY sexual act against a child" seems to imply, that this act would be abuse, even though it was entered into consentually, simply on the basis that it was a sexual act against a child. therefore, it seems that you would argue that there are times when a consentual relationship is wrong. correct me if i have misjudged your argument.

You missed the word adults in A_Wanderer's reply.

"two consenting ADULTS"

That is the difference.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

so, am i to take it, that you are able to say, that sex against a minor (even in a case where the minor fully entered into the relationship, and even took steps to pursue the relationship itself, and by both accounts, the law prevented them from having a loving relationship to the person to whom they were attracted to, and the young man flat out states that no injury was done to him) is wrong plain and simple, while people arguing against homosexual sex are not allowed to use the same justification.

it seems that if someone were to say, "homosexual sex is wrong, because it goes against the natural state of humanity" (a simple anatomy lesson shows that men and women were created/evolved in a way in which it was natural that a man should have sex with a woman), "plain and simple." then they should be able to do so without being labeled a homophobe, in the same manner that you should be allowed to say that sex against a minor is wrong, without being labeled a pedaphiliaphobe.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As I have said sex against a minor is wrong. One cannot expect a child to make such a decision and they can be manipulated. Now if you are talking about a 15 year old then there is a little bit of leeway but in general sexual relationships between adults and children = exploitation and abuse. Homosexuality (between two consenting individuals above the age of consent) is perfectly fine in my book because it does not hurt anybody. Now we can run around in circles all day, I think that this is an issue of individual liberty and sexual freedom and you think that this is an issue of morality. I think that we will have to respectfully disagree.

I am a pedaphilaphobe, I abhor child abusers and think that they deserve everything they get when they go to prison. Liberty does not encompass the right to hurt others.

 

[indra]

so, am i to take it, that you are able to say, that sex against a minor (even in a case where the minor fully entered into the relationship, and even took steps to pursue the relationship itself, and by both accounts, the law prevented them from having a loving relationship to the person to whom they were attracted to, and the young man flat out states that no injury was done to him) is wrong plain and simple, while people arguing against homosexual sex are not allowed to use the same justification.

it seems that if someone were to say, "homosexual sex is wrong, because it goes against the natural state of humanity" (a simple anatomy lesson shows that men and women were created/evolved in a way in which it was natural that a man should have sex with a woman), "plain and simple." then they should be able to do so without being labeled a homophobe, in the same manner that you should be allowed to say that sex against a minor is wrong, without being labeled a pedaphiliaphobe.

I don't mind being labeled a pedaphiliaphobe.

A child is unable to make an informed decision. An adult is able to make an informed decision. There is a big difference. It's not really a difficult concept to understand.

 

[pax]

One major difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that pedophilia is a mental illness. A pedophile is unable to control himself or herself sexually around children--hence, why the conditions of parole for many child molesters stipulate that they must not live or work around children, even if they have to an extent been rehabilitated.

By contrast, a gay man or woman does not instantly try to have sex when they are around an individual of the same sex. Unless there is some mitigating factor beyond simple homosexuality, an adult gay man or woman has control over his or her sexual actions.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

nor am i arguing for the rights of child abusers, only pointing out a flaw in your logic. you have a moral standard to which you hold things up to in order to decide if they are wrong or not (i.e. sex with a child is harmful to a child, therefore it is wrong). your moral code is extremely individualistic (in the sense that you put the good of the individual first). people with an opposite view to yours also have a moral code to which they hold these things up to (sex with a person of the opposite sex is sex outside of the purpose it was intended for, therefore it is wrong). other's moral codes (based on the responses by aussie and others) seem to be more humanistic (in the sense that their moral code is one that looks toward humanity as a whole instead of the individual).

therefore, it seems odd to me that you attack those who condemn the act of homosexuality as being moralistic. you are also being moralistic in your condemnation of pedaphilia, it just happens that your morality leads to a different conclusion than theirs.

to sum things up, no one here is arguing for absolute personal liberty. everyone has drawn their own line in the sand, where they have said "on this side, these things are okay, and on the other side, these things are wrong." it just so happens that everyone's line has been drawn in a different place. and going back to my original post, i believe that act of homosexuality is wrong (based on what morality i hold to) and therefore i believe that anyone who commits said action has also commited a wrong.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Even though I am an athiest and I disagree strongly on virtually all things the Church teaches.

Be careful, there. If you disagree with everything the church teaches then you disagree with obvious commandments like don't steal, don't kill.

You make blanket statements like that because you just want to go against the Christians that you probably have around you. I bet they annoy you and you somehow take some sort of pleasure in going against them.

Try researching a bit more and actually knowing something about the Christian religion.

Who were the people who enjoyed being with Jesus when he walked this earth? Was it the priests, the legalists, or the close - minded purists? Not at all. It was the sinners, the prostitutes, the tax collectors; those who were "bad" in those days.

One question I ask myself is: why is that "sinners" (for lack of a better term because, in reality, we're all sinners) no longer enjoy being with Christians?

Why? Because as human beings we pass judgements. "Sinners" in Jesus times enjoyed being with him because he loved them. Them. Not their "sin" but them. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. It's kind of a contradiction but it truly does make sense. Through his love we all gain redemption and all you have to do is Believe.

I read somewhere that the number one cause for atheism was Christians themselves/ourselves.

Perhaps we have forgotten the message of love that Jesus came to give and have watered it down to a set of a rules for everyone to follow like robots, when in reality Jesus told us to love our neighbor more than we love ourselves.

I know I keep rambling but it's just that I feel bad that so many people are missing out because of others contemptous attitudes towards them.

Peace, Love, Empathy.

 

[indra]

nor am i arguing for the rights of child abusers, only pointing out a flaw in your logic. you have a moral standard to which you hold things up to in order to decide if they are wrong or not (i.e. sex with a child is harmful to a child, therefore it is wrong). your moral code is extremely individualistic (in the sense that you put the good of the individual first). people with an opposite view to yours also have a moral code to which they hold these things up to (sex with a person of the opposite sex is sex outside of the purpose it was intended for, therefore it is wrong). other's moral codes (based on the responses by aussie and others) seem to be more humanistic (in the sense that their moral code is one that looks toward humanity as a whole instead of the individual).

therefore, it seems odd to me that you attack those who condemn the act of homosexuality as being moralistic. you are also being moralistic in your condemnation of pedaphilia, it just happens that your morality leads to a different conclusion than theirs.

to sum things up, no one here is arguing for absolute personal liberty. everyone has drawn their own line in the sand, where they have said "on this side, these things are okay, and on the other side, these things are wrong." it just so happens that everyone's line has been drawn in a different place. and going back to my original post, i believe that act of homosexuality is wrong (based on what morality i hold to) and therefore i believe that anyone who commits said action has also commited a wrong.

Do you also believe that a couple who have sexual intercourse yet know they are unable to have children is wrong (since the "purpose" of sex is to procreate? If not, then what really is the difference?

I have no problem with you feeling homosexuality is wrong, but I do have a problem if you feel that others should conform to your belief. If you do not wish to engage in homosexual activity, then don't. But if you want the freedom to do things others dislike (and I'm sure there are some), you must be willing to allow others to do as they see fit. The only caveat to this is, as A_Wanderer has repeatedly pointed out, if it injures someone else. I fail to see how someone else's sexual preference hurts you.

 

[A_Wanderer]

My morals are very simple

1) People deserve to live freely

2) Anything that hurts others or threatens their freedom is wrong.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

I have no problem with you feeling homosexuality is wrong, but I do have a problem if you feel that others should conform to your belief. If you do not wish to engage in homosexual activity, then don't. But if you want the freedom to do things others dislike (and I'm sure there are some), you must be willing to allow others to do as they see fit. The only caveat to this is, as A_Wanderer has repeatedly pointed out, if it injures someone else. I fail to see how someone else's sexual preference hurts you.

do you believe a person should stop for a red traffic light, even if there is no other traffic (vehicle or pedestrian) at all on the road? there is no one who would be hurt if they went, and in fact the person would probably get where they were going a little quicker, and be happier as a result. and certainly neither of our lives would be affected, nor would we ever even know that the event occured. but we don't want people running stoplights do we? there is a reason that the rule to stop for a red light was put in place. it is there, not primarily for the good of the individual waiting at the light, in fact, in runs counter to what the individual would like to do. it is a rule that was put into place for the good of society as a whole, and by the whole society benefiting, individuals would benefit as a result of that.

i for one believe that people should stop at that stoplight, regardless of whether or not running it would endanger myself or anyone else. but, i guess by your argument, i shouldn't care whether or not people stop at traffic lights, because it is only my belief that they should do so. and my trying to force this belief upon them would be wrong because i would be preventing them from arriving at their destination a little sooner, only because i believe that they should stop.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But society is not a traffic grid. It is not a homogenous set of rules and regulations governing ones behaviour. Part of said individuality is sexuality, which in any free society must be left up to the individual to act on as they choose. In the end homosexuality is an occurance in nature, you find it everywhere (lesbian seagulls for instance) and only a certain frequency of individuals within a population will ever act upon whatever urges they may have.

Traffic lights exist to regulate traffic, as do stop signs and speed limits, they ensure that crashes are minimized, it saves lives - even if there are situations when they seem unneccisary. If you were to believe that such things were unneccisary then you would be placing other peoples lives at risk - and that would be wrong. Sex between consenting adults is sex, doesn't hurt anybody so why must one impose their own morality onto others - answer is too often religious codes, which is part of the reason that I feel religion is mindless superstition that is used to exclude people and remove diversity.

 

[pax]

I think the red light argument is a bit weak. Surely, if you looked far enough, you might find a case or two wherein a person ran a red light, thinking that there was no harm in doing so, and missed something or someone and caused an accident. For that reason, we should continue to observe the red light, regardless of circumstance.

But there is nothing that conclusively argues that being gay somehow harms society--ever. Lying about being gay, to one's children or spouse? Surely. Promiscuous gay sex? Just like promiscuous straight sex, yes. But simply being gay and engaging in a gay relationship not only harms no one--it brings benefits of companionship and responsibility to the individuals in the relationship, and serves as an example of love and fidelity.

What you perhaps forget is that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, and human civilization has not crumbled. Far from it. In fact, far more damage has been done to marriage and the family by irresponsible, selfish straight people than by loving, responsible gay people. (Not all straight people are irresponsible and selfish, of course, just as there are some real bastard gay people out there--I'm just saying.)

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Be careful, there. If you disagree with everything the church teaches then you disagree with obvious commandments like don't steal, don't kill.

You make blanket statements like that because you just want to go against the Christians that you probably have around you. I bet they annoy you and you somehow take some sort of pleasure in going against them.

Try researching a bit more and actually knowing something about the Christian religion.

Who were the people who enjoyed being with Jesus when he walked this earth? Was it the priests, the legalists, or the close - minded purists? Not at all. It was the sinners, the prostitutes, the tax collectors; those who were "bad" in those days.

One question I ask myself is: why is that "sinners" (for lack of a better term because, in reality, we're all sinners) no longer enjoy being with Christians?

Why? Because as human beings we pass judgements. "Sinners" in Jesus times enjoyed being with him because he loved them. Them. Not their "sin" but them. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. It's kind of a contradiction but it truly does make sense. Through his love we all gain redemption and all you have to do is Believe.

I read somewhere that the number one cause for atheism was Christians themselves/ourselves.

Perhaps we have forgotten the message of love that Jesus came to give and have watered it down to a set of a rules for everyone to follow like robots, when in reality Jesus told us to love our neighbor more than we love ourselves.

I know I keep rambling but it's just that I feel bad that so many people are missing out because of others contemptous attitudes towards them.

Peace, Love, Empathy.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Biggest tangent ever.......
You are venturing into ground already covered vigourously in my last thread, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
And everything you said anyway was erroneous anyway. I take pleasure in going against Christians? They annoy me so I get kicks out of debating against them? NO!!!
And then you discuss the message of Jesus's love and how he came down to share the word etc. Let's not even go there!

 

[A_Wanderer]

We had life on this planet before there was sexes, the first organisms were gay

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Aussie, you are full of it. And please, stop stating generalizations about people you don't know at all. There is nothing wrong with homosexualality. It's just that people naturally fear what they don't know or aren't familiar with, and some people just don't understand homosexualality. These homophobes that spew so much contempt for homosexuals, what it comes down to is that they fear it. And there is simply nothing to fear.

It was a due generalization. I would imagine that an overwhelming majoirty of people here are in fact Christians? Might be a jew or two here, an Islamic person there. And Christian moral code teaches very firmly that homosexuality is wrong. It is made very clear. Just like I personally believe it's wrong. It's not fear out of misunderstanding or ignorance as you state, rather a personal belief. Someone can dissaprove of something without it necassarily fearing it or having a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. If you believe that homosexuality is fine, that it is perfectly natural, then that's fine. I however, beg to differ.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

I think the red light argument is a bit weak. Surely, if you looked far enough, you might find a case or two wherein a person ran a red light, thinking that there was no harm in doing so, and missed something or someone and caused an accident. For that reason, we should continue to observe the red light, regardless of circumstance.

But there is nothing that conclusively argues that being gay somehow harms society--ever. Lying about being gay, to one's children or spouse? Surely. Promiscuous gay sex? Just like promiscuous straight sex, yes. But simply being gay and engaging in a gay relationship not only harms no one--it brings benefits of companionship and responsibility to the individuals in the relationship, and serves as an example of love and fidelity.

What you perhaps forget is that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, and human civilization has not crumbled. Far from it. In fact, far more damage has been done to marriage and the family by irresponsible, selfish straight people than by loving, responsible gay people. (Not all straight people are irresponsible and selfish, of course, just as there are some real bastard gay people out there--I'm just saying.)

your argument seems to fall a little short. surely if you looked far enough, you might find an instance or two where someone engaged in homosexual sex thinking that there were no harm in doing so, and ended up hurting others. wait, you already did point some of those instances out. i guess that rules out the statement "nothing...argues that being gay somehow harms society--ever."

murder, rape, theft, burglary, extortion, forgery, prostitution, infedility and countless other acts that all here would consider wrong have existed for thousands of years. that, therefore, does not seem like a good basis to argue homosexuality's case from.

more damage is done to business in the us by corporate executives who cheat people and companies out of millions of dollars, yet, one does not find it akward to state that someone who shoplifts also damages business. just because one thing does more damage, it does not make the thing that does a smaller amount right.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

We had life on this planet before there was sexes, the first organisms were gay

no, if you subscribe to the belief in evolution, the first organisms were not gay. they were asexual. let's at least get our terminology right.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Evoltion is a fact, how it occurs is the theory - there is no blind faith in the matter. The confidence level in the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is very high as it has so much supporting experimental and observed evidence.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

Evoltion is a fact, how it occurs is the theory - there is no blind faith in the matter.

okay, i know this should be done in another thread but...

prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution actually took place. your suggesting a statistical confidence level obviously means that there is some doubt to the issue, otherwise there would be a confidence level of 1. and unless you can prove to me without any measure of doubt whatsoever, that it did in fact occur, then doubt remains. and, if said doubt remains, then there is a level of belief required to get you past that doubt (however small it may be).

i would also argue that from a Christian point of view, there is certainly not a totally "blind" faith involved either. a Christian "sees" something that leads him to believe what he does.

now back to the topic please