"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Because if it's not a choice, then for many the only other conclusion is "God made them that way", which implies a divine assent to the behavior.

krev82 wrote:
FiveIron wrote:

i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction.

Suppose we had a world in which everything was the same except homosexuality is a choice or a mental dysfunction (I do not agree that this is the case in our world):

How exactly would this matter given that the US is supposedly founded on various freedoms? "one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all except those whose personal relationships and bedroom activities I happen to find disagreeable"?

The question of whether sexual orientation is a choice should be irrelevant. We already have a life choice enshrined for protection in the U.S. Constitution, and that is the choice to follow a particular religion or no religion at all. However, if a high ranking member of the military suggested that, say, evangelical or fundamentalist Christians should not hold positions of leadership or serve in the military because of there choice, there would be Congressional investigations, press conferences by the President, and picket signs at the local military recruiting outpost.

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

a secular republic.

They're trying hard to fix that problem.

As to the natural vs unnatural thing;

What is the explanation for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior ? That's a pretty big list and as I understand it(which may be completely wrong) the biblical notion is that animals do not share our free will, consequently this behavior must be natural even though it is not baby producing.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes because he dared to present a different point of view.

And yet, still, why does it matter to Christians who loves who? Frankly, the US Constitution trumps that belief: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're gay, then you have the right to love who you love and try to be happy. That's it. Any argument to the contrary is a thin veil for bigotry and hatred.

krev82 wrote:

As to the natural vs unnatural thing;

What is the explanation for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior ? That's a pretty big list and as I understand it(which may be completely wrong) the biblical notion is that animals do not share our free will, consequently this behavior must be natural even though it is not baby producing.

...dunno Krev. I don't have an answer for you. My only mission was to...again...kill the "Crazy Christian" straw man that keeps popping up every once and a while.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

Except that 90% (or there-abouts) of all hetero sex doesn't end up creating a life either. So again, you're limiting rights of a few because of the edge case.

Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes because he dared to present a different point of view.

And yet, still, why does it matter to Christians who loves who? Frankly, the US Constitution trumps that belief: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're gay, then you have the right to love who you love and try to be happy. That's it. Any argument to the contrary is a thin veil for bigotry and hatred.

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Nevin73 wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

Except that 90% (or there-abouts) of all hetero sex doesn't end up creating a life either. So again, you're limiting rights of a few because of the edge case.

90%? I'm not sure where you're getting that number or how it supports your conclusion.

All heterosexual sex always has the potential to create life...however remote on some edge cases. Even with oral or anal sex, the husband can still "go in for the kill" (...hehe...) and produce a baby by finishing in his wife. Homosexual sex can never...ever...ever...ever...100% never...produce life.

...anyway. "Don't ask don't tell." Unconstitutional. YayyyyY!!

darrenl wrote:
Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes because he dared to present a different point of view.

And yet, still, why does it matter to Christians who loves who? Frankly, the US Constitution trumps that belief: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're gay, then you have the right to love who you love and try to be happy. That's it. Any argument to the contrary is a thin veil for bigotry and hatred.

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Then you can't call it unnatural. News flash, but people may find other people calling their chosen lifestyle "unnatural" offensive and deeply disturbing.

EDIT: Moreover, if we accept as true the premise that gay folks have been around just as long as straight folks (because it isn't choice) and it naturally occurs, then it isn't unnatural. Your God must have designed them that way.

DOUBLE EDIT: We'll let the matter rest, then.

Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes because he dared to present a different point of view.

And yet, still, why does it matter to Christians who loves who? Frankly, the US Constitution trumps that belief: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're gay, then you have the right to love who you love and try to be happy. That's it. Any argument to the contrary is a thin veil for bigotry and hatred.

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Then you can't call it unnatural. News flash, but people may find other people calling their chosen lifestyle "unnatural" offensive and deeply disturbing.

It is certainly within my right to do so...with the backup that it cannot produce life. 100%, can never, ever, ever produce life. That, is the core of the mainstream, "not crazy" Christian point of view....not the (1) and (2) points as stated above.

We can certainly discuss any "other unnatural offensive and deeply disturbing lifestyles" if you want...but that is not the point of the OP and I encourage you to start another thread if you wish.

DOUBLE EDIT RESPONSE: would love to...but it seems my point is not being understood.

darrenl wrote:
Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Xeknos wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes because he dared to present a different point of view.

And yet, still, why does it matter to Christians who loves who? Frankly, the US Constitution trumps that belief: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're gay, then you have the right to love who you love and try to be happy. That's it. Any argument to the contrary is a thin veil for bigotry and hatred.

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Then you can't call it unnatural. News flash, but people may find other people calling their chosen lifestyle "unnatural" offensive and deeply disturbing.

It is certainly within my right to do so...with the backup that it cannot produce life. 100%, can never, ever, ever produce life. That, is the core of the mainstream, "not crazy" Christian point of view....not the (1) and (2) points as stated above.

We can certainly discuss any "other unnatural offensive and deeply disturbing lifestyles" if you want...but that is not the point of the OP and I encourage you to start another thread if you wish.

DOUBLE EDIT RESPONSE: would love to...but it seems my point is not being understood.

No, your point is understood... It's just a flimsy one. If you want to call folks unnatural, go ahead, but don't be surprised if they start hating you for it.

darrenl wrote:

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

Darren, I really hope you don't feel that way. I think that the reason that people object to your posts is not that you disagree - but the way in which you disagree. I, for one, appreciate different viewpoints, and appreciate the fact that you partake in the debate. Just make sure and actually debate:) Don't hide behind the Socratic method is my advice to you. It works between a teacher and a student, but it is condescending when you use it against people in their thirties/forties with higher education:) Different viewpoints are a good thing! Case in point - Aetius is one of my favorite posters on this board, and we agree on very little! But the reason that I like him is that all of his posts are very well thought out, put together, and on topic. His posts give me something to thing about (even if I don't agree with them)!

To go back to the christian straw-man - I think that you have a point, but you can't deny that even if religious institutions are not in and of themselves homophobic - they certainly encourage homophobic beliefs, which in effect ends up to be the same thing. I think that most people on this board / in general don't so much object to people holding different beliefs than them, but object to having those different beliefs forced upon them.

I had a vasectomy when I was 25, and my wife was already infertile. We 100% can never, ever, ever produce life, even if we wanted to. How do they feel about our marriage?

SallyNasty wrote:
darrenl wrote:

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

Darren, I really hope you don't feel that way. I think that the reason that people object to your posts is not that you disagree - but the way in which you disagree. I, for one, appreciate different viewpoints, and appreciate the fact that you partake in the debate. Just make sure and actually debate:) Don't hide behind the Socratic method is my advice to you. It works between a teacher and a student, but it is condescending when you use it against people in their thirties/forties with higher education:) Different viewpoints are a good thing! Case in point - Aetius is one of my favorite posters on this board, and we agree on very little! But the reason that I like him is that all of his posts are very well thought out, put together, and on topic. His posts give me something to thing about (even if I don't agree with them)!

To go back to the christian straw-man - I think that you have a point, but you can't deny that even if religious institutions are not in and of themselves homophobic - they certainly encourage homophobic beliefs, which in effect ends up to be the same thing. I think that most people on this board / in general don't so much object to people holding different beliefs than them, but object to having those different beliefs forced upon them.

That's exactly the point. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the way you presented your argument, darrenl, was in a manner of "I am correct, you are wrong, and this is exactly why" and then quoted the Bible at us. I am not a Christian. The response that "because the bible said so" is NOT a valid argument - at least to me. And so when people say "we can't allow homosexual behavior because the bible says it is unnatural and wrong" it makes me angry, because honestly, who gives them the right?

The Constitution is a legal document that affects all of our lives regardless of our faith, unlike the Bible, which only affects your life is you follow Christanity. If the Constitution says that "all men" (by which people is implied) "are created equal," then, by golly, that includes gay people. They have to be allowed to marry each other.

Contraception is also unnatural by Darren's rules. But I believe that's mainstream Catholic dogma too.

darrenl wrote:

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Oh? Shouldn't, I'll give you, but Catholics regularly can and do show bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals. You know it, and I know it. I'm very happy to hear that you don't believe that should be the case. It doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has, is, and unless things change, will do everything in its power to ensure that gay folks like Phoenix Rev (which, by the way, is Phx Rev for short, or PR. Pho Rev sounds like "faux Rev" to me, and he's anything but faux) and me don't have access to the same civil rights that straight folks do. That's what we're fighting for when it comes down to it.

The religious gay folks have a fight on their hands convincing their respective denominations to allow them the religious rite of marriage, and that's not a fight I'm in as I'm not involved in organized religion. The vast majority of us (gay and straight) fighting for equal rights are referring to the civil act of marriage and the rights therein.

As I said previously to fiveiron, you can hold your beliefs, and it's no skin off my nose that you do. However, when you argue that I am not deserving of the same rights as anyone else because of some accident of my birth and life up to this point, I'm going to take offense. On top of that, when you use terminology that is offensive to me, and refuse to back down from it when I ask, I'm going to seriously take offense. Finally, when you presume things about me that you have no knowledge of, and then say those things on this board, I'm going to put up a fight against it with my knowledge, my logic, and my rhetorical abilities to show your fallacies. It's only tomato-throwing in the sense that I'm not letting you run roughshod over me and mine.

darrenl wrote:

All heterosexual sex always has the potential to create life...however remote on some edge cases. Even with oral or anal sex, the husband can still "go in for the kill" (...hehe...) and produce a baby by finishing in his wife. Homosexual sex can never...ever...ever...ever...100% never...produce life.

By the logic you've used, homosexual sex has the same potential, so long as a man finishes in a woman. If the man finishes in the woman, then it's vaginal sex. It may have started as oral or anal, but it ceased to be so once the vagina was entered.

darrenl wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Except that 90% (or there-abouts) of all hetero sex doesn't end up creating a life either. So again, you're limiting rights of a few because of the edge case.

90%? I'm not sure where you're getting that number or how it supports your conclusion.

All heterosexual sex always has the potential to create life...however remote on some edge cases. Even with oral or anal sex, the husband can still "go in for the kill" (...hehe...) and produce a baby by finishing in his wife. Homosexual sex can never...ever...ever...ever...100% never...produce life.

Alright, yeah, I pulled that number out of my ass. Let's just say that is based on personal experience. But I will say this, given your point that the reason for marriage is creation of life (which I will dispute later), then any other form of sex has no place in your definition of marriage.

But let's look at the real historical reason for marriage and monogamy...it's so a man can point to his children and claim that they are his, without doubt, because his woman only sleeps with him.

Rubb Ed wrote:

As I said previously to fiveiron, you can hold your beliefs, and it's no skin off my nose that you do. However, when you argue that I am not deserving of the same rights as anyone else because of some accident of my birth and life up to this point, I'm going to take offense.

Well, you can blame your parents for choosin' to birth you in Canadia. *spits chaw*

darrenl wrote:

/Darren waits for incoming rotten tomatoes and inevitable pile-on because he dared to present a different point of view.

As noted above, the argument you made isn't compelling.

darrenl wrote:

I'm sorry you think that way, but as Catholics, we cannot be bigoted or show hatred to homosexuals. Period.

Surely the verb you mean here is "should", and are not claiming that anyone who shows bigotry or hatred towards homosexuals is excommunicated by the church?

darrenl wrote:

All heterosexual sex always has the potential to create life...however remote on some edge cases. Even with oral or anal sex, the husband can still "go in for the kill" (...hehe...) and produce a baby by finishing in his wife. Homosexual sex can never...ever...ever...ever...100% never...produce life.

Neither can sex between infertile couples. I don't see how that's germane to whether gays are allowed to openly serve in our armed forces (unless you're arguing that infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to serve, in which case I should go make popcorn).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Neither can sex between infertile couples. I don't see how that's germane to whether gays are allowed to openly serve in our armed forces (unless you're arguing that infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to serve, in which case I should go make popcorn).

I can see it now. If you don't want the ship trip, go get the snip snip.

LouZiffer wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Neither can sex between infertile couples. I don't see how that's germane to whether gays are allowed to openly serve in our armed forces (unless you're arguing that infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to serve, in which case I should go make popcorn).

I can see it now. If you don't want the ship trip, go get the snip snip.

The line of argument basically boils down to infertile couples getting an A for Effort. It's pretty insulting, actually.

More insulting than the victim stance, even. People who don't want to be called out on their opinions are well within their rights to not share them. Trying to make people feel bad for have the audacity to react to a freely offered statement is sad.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being the case, once again, we boil down the argument against gay people to two reasons:

1. My God says homosexuality is sinful/evil/bad.
2. Gay sex is icky.

Both of those are horrible bases for public policy in a secular republic.

That's a misrepresentation of the majority Christian position...and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so. That may be the fundamentalist position...and you're right, it's ridiculous Pho Rev. I'm in your corner on that one. They are the loudest...but they do not represent the majority.

Perhaps you might wish to point out where in my statement I was considering only Christians. My two statements apply to more than just Christians.

The majority and sane position is this: that a homosexual relationship can never be life giving and is therefore not natural, i.e. the love that is felt between two homosexuals (...which is supported 100%, because it is a real love..) can never produce a baby.

CCC2357:

"....They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life....."

I know....I know. In comes the edge cases. What about old people or infertile couples? Well..."nature" finds a way in some of those cases...and it has...but they are still naturally possible (...however remote...) because it still involves a male and female pair.

Your statement suggests that people who engage in any sexual activity that doesn't lead to the possibility of procreation are taking an insane position on sex. I completely disagree and I am willing to bet the overwhelming number of people do engage in sexual activity for pleasure many times in their lives while completely preventing the possibility of procreation. Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not Gospel, nor has it been canonized by any universal Church Council that I am aware of, so I am uncertain as to why you would think that would sway non-Catholics. What you cite from the CCC is also a false dichotomy. It isn't a simple choice of choosing the sexual act or the gift of life. Sex incorporates a litany of meanings, emotions, feelings, etc. To reduce it to either the equivalent of a one night stand or the conception of a potential human being is an exceptionally limited view of sex.

As to nature finding a way of providing a way of procreation, please explain to me how a couple with a paraplegic husband who was permanently impotent could possibly "by nature" impregnate his wife. I know for a fact (because I performed the wedding of that couple) that there is a ZERO percent probability of conception because the husband was physically incapable of impregnating his wife.

Fine. "Don't ask Don't Tell" is unconstitutional. Good. I didn't like it either. Hated it actually. That being said, please at least try to represent the sane, Christian point of view accurately lest you become one of the crazies. Any rational, thinking person can kill points (1) and (2) as you've represented them without much thought.

Except the two statements I cited above are roundly used by those who would seek to keep people who are willing to died to protect their country from serving in the military. Even when I have explained why those two statements should have no clout and should not guide the conversation on gay marriage or DADT, it is as if I am talking to a wall, because they come up again in the next round of debate.

Let's leave aside the debate of whether or not sexual preference is a choice for now.

What we do know and know pretty emphatically is that religious affiliation and belief is a choice. Moreover, it is a choice few people actually exercise. Instead, most folks simply opt to allow the inertia of one's parent's religious bigotry determine their own inherited ignorance.

If we're going to talk about choices, that one really is the far more critical and meaningful one. Someone may or may not be able to choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. People absolutely CAN and SHOULD choose whether or not to be a medieval minded, genocidal bigot.

darrenl wrote:

and again, I'd love it if the "crazy christian" straw man would be put away on threads like this...but alas it is not to be so.

I think you should maybe start your quest to end the strawmen with the millions and millions of Christians who adamantly contradict the idea that it's a straw man.

FiveIron wrote:

Call me a redneck or a bigot, but i think homosexuality is either a choice or a mental dysfunction. With that belief, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be representing our country to the world.

As the mighty Dan Savage says, if homosexuality is a choice, then you, a straight man, ought to be able to choose to be sexually thrilled by giving another dude a superb hummer.

So, think about that. Picture yourself going down on a big, veiny c*** with gusto. Could you choose to find that arousing? Would you be sporting a glass-cutting boner as you chow down?

No?

Then your argument isn't exactly holding water, is it?

Jonman, what an outstanding post.