• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

What a load of BS. This would be the case of the pro-Gay marriage wanted to force churches/other religious institutions to marry gay couples. This isn't the case. They want marriage as a CIVIL and LEGAL right.
Are government and law separate from society and culture? Can they have no effect on them?
 
My religion tells me that living out homosexuality is wrong, but on the other side, it requires me not to judge people and not to fight with people, burdening their hearts. This condemnation of homosexual marriage is one of the few commandments of my religion I don't understand, but I have trust that there is some sense in it -- but it's easy for me anyway, I don't feel any homosexual urges I would want to live out.

Apart from that, I don't believe my religious convictions should be forced down anybody's throat. People who don't share my views and/or religion should not be required to abide to its rules. I don't want any government to legislate my morals. Just like I insist on the freedom to practize my religion, I believe atheists deserve the same freedom. It's just my responsibility to apply my morals to myself and my own lifestyle, not to lecture others. Just like it's the responsibility of other believers to manage their sexual urges first, instead of lecturing others. If you think acting gay is wrong, then simply don't do it.

Apart from that, one of my closest friends is homosexual and in a same-sex civil union. I trust him very much and would rather let him babysit my (future) children than anybody else. He and his husband would be great parents, I believe.
 
Are government and law separate from society and culture? Can they have no effect on them?

The answer is no, but to claim that the legitimization of gay marriage as a legal and civil institution as an infringement on religious rights is complete bull****.
 
The answer is no, but to claim that the legitimization of gay marriage as a legal and civil institution as an infringement on religious rights is complete bull****.
That is not the point.

Why do people get married? What does marriage mean? Does it not draw deeply on certain ideas and conceptions and, if you will, certain imaginative images ingrained in our society and culture? Such as two people coming together in romantic love, desiring to stay together and raise a family and expressing what this means in a set and customary ceremony?
 
From Reuters.com:

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope | Reuters

In other words, Pope Benedict is desperate because same-sex relationships and families are becoming more accepted. Such acceptance is based on people becoming more familiar with gay individuals through personal experience, the media and studies that disprove myths about them. Because those myths are easily disproved with tangible evidence, Benedict has realized that he must try to scare people into agreeing with him by appealing to more vague and subjective concepts like "dignity" and "promotion of family" and "social cohesion".

Frankly, Benedict is moving the church backwards as this ridiculousness undermines its increased embracing of scientific inquiry in modern history by basing arguments about measurable realities, like the effect of same-sex parenting on children, on nonsense rather than research. By making these comments, he's likely just going to alienate more Catholics, thereby continuing to make the Church its own worst enemy. One would think that after its child sex abuse scandal, it would take a dose of humility. Guess not.

The leader of a religion who religious scriptures say homosexuality is a sin is saying gay marriage is a threat to humanity.Oh the shock,the surprise oh the horror of it all. Its about as news worthy as reporting that really fat people don't like to exercise or that prostitutes accept money or drugs for sex.
 
And in Taiwan, you can add Buddhist opposition to it...
A very tiny minority of Buddhists would think about moralising on someone's private behaviour. Mind you, I'm sure there are a few Evangelicals in favour of SSM too. I know an awful lot of gay Buddhists of all traditions, even Tibetan.

The highly respected and influential Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh was asked...
Q. What is the Buddhist view of homosexuality?
A. The spirit of Buddhism is inclusiveness. Looking deeply into the nature of a cloud, we see the cosmos. A flower is a flower, but if we look deeply into it, we see the cosmos. Everything has a place. The base-the foundation of everything-is the same. When you look at the ocean, you see different kinds of waves, many sizes and shapes, but all the waves have water as their foundation and substance. If you are born gay or lesbian, your ground of being is the same as mine. We are different, but we share the same ground of being. The Protestant theologian Paul Tillich said that God is the ground of being. You should be yourself. If God has created me as a rose, then I should accept myself as a rose. If you are a lesbian, then be a lesbian. Looking deeply into your nature, you will see yourself as you truly are. You will be able to touch the ground of your being and find peace.

Thich Nhat Hanh: On Homosexuality « praktis isanghamahal

Even the Dalai Lama, known for his somewhat retrogressive views on homosexuality says he..."opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all."

Here is a terrific article on the Buddhist attitude to sexual ethics. It would be well worth reading it all, but one passage stood out in the context of this thread:
Buddhism is a pure case of universal religion, with no social engineering element. So much so that it does not even have a marriage service. Marriage is a civil matter in Buddhist countries, it has nothing to do with spiritual practice as such. Nor does the Buddhist canon contain a 'holy family' with prescribed sex roles that subordinate women.
 
That is not the point.

Yes it is, it was MY point in response to Jerry7's post.

Why do people get married? What does marriage mean? Does it not draw deeply on certain ideas and conceptions and, if you will, certain imaginative images ingrained in our society and culture? Such as two people coming together in romantic love, desiring to stay together and raise a family and expressing what this means in a set and customary ceremony?

Yes, but this isn't an argument against gay marriage, neither is it evidence that religious institutions would have their rights infringed upon if gays could indeed get married.
 
A very tiny minority of Buddhists would think about moralising on someone's private behaviour. Mind you, I'm sure there are a few Evangelicals in favour of SSM too. I know an awful lot of gay Buddhists of all traditions, even Tibetan.

The highly respected and influential Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh was asked...

Even the Dalai Lama, known for his somewhat retrogressive views on homosexuality says he..."opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all."

Here is a terrific article on the Buddhist attitude to sexual ethics. It would be well worth reading it all, but one passage stood out in the context of this thread:

Buddhists, from my personal experience, generally take a dim view of sexual pleasure and lust to begin with, not just homosexuality. I may be generalizing a bit though.
 
I don't need you to translate for me, I can think for myself, thank you.

What exactly did you expect someone like to the Pope (of all people) to say? Is this really any surprise? There's nothing in your article to debate, and so your thread is doomed to become another $2 whore everyone will ejaculate their emotions on.

Don't blame anyone but yourself when this thread get's closed and/or flushed.
Of course they knew all this, they just want to make hay out what the Pope said. My question is why do we need a 1000 threads on gay marriage? We just can't talk enough about this can we? The Sexuality Forum is solid gay marriage and gay-whatever.
 
Of course they knew all this, they just want to make hay out what the Pope said. My question is why do we need a 1000 threads on gay marriage? We just can't talk enough about this can we? The Sexuality Forum is solid gay marriage and gay-whatever.

Yeah, not until the injustice of gays not being able to marry the people they love goes away.
 
Buddhists, from my personal experience, generally take a dim view of sexual pleasure and lust to begin with, not just homosexuality. I may be generalizing a bit though.
Sexual pleasure? Not at all. Lust, depending on how you define that, perhaps. Sex of any description, provided it is consensual and grounded in loving kindness, is something natural to be enjoyed, just like every other aspect of nature. Please read the article, it will explain how Buddhists think about sex much better than I can.
 
Sexual pleasure? Not at all. Lust, depending on how you define that, perhaps. Sex of any description, provided it is consensual and grounded in loving kindness, is something natural to be enjoyed, just like every other aspect of nature. Please read the article, it will explain how Buddhists think about sex much better than I can.

This is wikipedia. Take from it what you will:

Religion and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most common formulation of Buddhist ethics are the Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path, one should neither be attached to nor crave sensual pleasure. These precepts take the form of voluntary, personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction. The third of the Five Precepts is "To refrain from committing sexual misconduct.[57] However, the "sexual misconduct" is such a broad term, and is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the followers. In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is concerned.[58]
Buddhism is often characterized as distrustful of sensual enjoyment and sexuality in general.[59] Traditionally, homosexual conduct and gender variance are seen as obstacles to spiritual progress in most schools of Buddhism; as such monks are expected to refrain from all sexual activity, and the Vinaya (the first book of the Tripitaka) specifically prohibits sexual intercourse, then further explain that both anal, oral as well as vaginal intercourse amount to sexual intercourse, which will result in permanent exclusion from Sangha.[60] A notable exception in the history of Buddhism occurred in Japan during the Edo period, in which male homosexuality, or more specifically, love between young novices and older monks, was celebrated.[61]
 
IIRC, I read somewhere that Buddhist teachings and practizes vary very much from region to region and school to school. In many traditionally Buddhist regions, Buddhism has become mixed with local traditions and spiritual practizes which aren't really Buddhist in origin. So it doesn't take me wonder when some local Buddhist traditions reject homosexuality (even when this may or may not be an originally Buddhist teaching).
 
Yeah, not until the injustice of gays not being able to marry the people they love goes away.

What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection? Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?
 
What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection? Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?
This is such a stupid ****ing post.
 
What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection? Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?

For the same reason you have to explain to the 5 year old why a guy and a gal are kissing in Walmart, maybe?

And maybe because individual freedom is worth more than avoiding the feeling of being esthetically offended? Maybe you have a big nose and ugly pockmarks. Yet I have no right to forbid you to exist, just because I feel offended seeing your face at Walmart. I just have to explain to my kid why such ugly people exist. ;)

Ignoring them wouldn't make ugly people go away anyway. So my kid deserves to know about them, no matter what I think of them.
 
What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection? Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?

I think you would have to explain to your 5 year old why you are in a place like Walmart to begin with. Next the more of a display you make of two people kissing the more the child the more of an impression it will make on that young mind.
 
I think people are missing the point, here.

What kind of self-respecting Gay man would do something so disgusting as frequenting a Walmart?
 
What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection?

This is a classic example of wanting to be offended. You have no right to not see other people's PDAs. It's about as ridiculous as limiting someone else's 1st amendment rights because you can't stand the sight of offensive T-Shirts. Why should gays be subject to watching straight people holding hands and kissing? Put yourself in their shoes.

Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?

The same reason you have to give them the sex talk...If you can't explain to a 5-year-old why two men are kissing (simple answer: two dudes like each other), then I worry about your ability to raise kids in general, cuz if you're gonna raise kids, there's a lot more complex things you're going to have to explain to them throughout their formative years.
 
Last edited:
This is a classic example of wanting to be offended. You have no right to not see other people's PDAs. It's about as ridiculous as limiting someone else's 1st amendment rights because you can't stand the sight of offensive T-Shirts. Why should gays be subject to watching straight people holding hands and kissing? Put yourself in their shoes.



The same reason you have to give them the sex talk...If you can't explain to a 5-year-old why two men are kissing (simple answer: two dudes like each other), then I worry about your ability to raise kids in general, cuz if you're gonna raise kids, there's a lot more complex things you're going to have to explain to them throughout their formative years.

Man and a woman kissing vs two men kissing


They are not the same, so the same answer will not work.
 
Man and a woman kissing vs two men kissing


They are not the same, so the same answer will not work.

The difference being the majority do the former while a small minority do the latter. Which has absolutely nothing to do with why gays should not be able to marry.

The bottom line is, you have no constitutional right to not be inconvenienced because you're scared of explaining to your kid how homosexuality works, nor do you have the right to only see in public things you deem pleasant.
 
Last edited:
A very tiny minority of Buddhists would think about moralising on someone's private behaviour. Mind you, I'm sure there are a few Evangelicals in favour of SSM too. I know an awful lot of gay Buddhists of all traditions, even Tibetan.
Are these actual Buddhist or Westerners calling themselves Buddhists? Much of the Western, hippie type people who embrace Buddhism are quite out of step with what the religion traditionally has been. If I won't authentic knowledge and practice of Buddhism, and Taoism, I'd avoid most Western practitioners and even overly Westernised Easterners like the plague.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but this isn't an argument against gay marriage, neither is it evidence that religious institutions would have their rights infringed upon if gays could indeed get married.
It certainly can be an argument against gay marriage. If wrenching apart marriage to include those of the same sex further upsets the imaginative and cultural meaning of this institution, then it certainly can be an argument against gay marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom