ideology & politics & religion

[natirips]

As an example the catholic church still opposes gay marriage as it is forbidden in the old testament if I am correct.

Some of us (including me) are against homosexual (I still use the word "gay" as a nice and fluffy word as in it's original meaning*) marriage because they don't need marriage as they cannot have
children by themselves, thus every child they would have would be either adopted or a bastard child. You can have/do both without the marriage. Marriage here would only complicate things.

_________________
*For example, I refer to myself as gay, but hot as a homosexual as I happen to be attracted towards opposite (or perhaps "complementary" would be a better word) sex.
_________________

Idea of marriage (as I see it) is to clearly allocate your mate, in order to respect the genetic pool.

Without that, (i.e. like cats reproduce with a different mate every time) it would increase the probability of inbreeding**, which in humans is not good.

Since members of a homosexual pair are clearly not going to have children with one another, they do not need to allocate themselves as a mating pair => they don't need marriage (it would be meaningless).

**What I mean is: you normally have a family tree, but if every child you make would be with a different person things would become messy. So when a person is looking for a mate, they usually make sure the two are not closely related. With a messy "family" tree it would be difficult (if not impossible) to tell how closely related you are to someone.

[wurst]

it wasnt intense because life and technologies wasnt that intense. it would have been quite more intense otherwise, oh it would have been if it could...

Dunno, for catholics it was always enough to terrorize.
They kinda love to do maximum brutality to a few victims (aka psychological warfare)
The cross bow (which was the most effective serial (heavy knight) kill machine in mid age) was for example banned by them.



@Marx prediction
Maybe he is seeing something coming up, maybe hes part of the cause. Dunno...

as an example that Nazi shit with the Autobahn was a good thing... even the US copied them.

Ah, the first Autobahn wasnt made in germany. Plus it wasnt done by hitler himself afaik.
All ideologies are "good" and make "better humans" btw.

Ah hating because of opinions suck, you should only hate on actions...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik (vs. Gessinnungs- oder Handlungsethik)

HATE IS STUPID

...but it makes 1 creative!

against homosexual

They are not only against homosexuality, its more a reduction of all sexual intercourse to the replication action.
Humans anyways had fun with their genitals over ages of time, even within the church, some times.
However, i dont think this topic isnt about religion and/or sexuality, ask Havoc...

[havoc]

well since religion is woven into today's society as much as the politics and other crap, its a legit target of discussion too i think. changed the topic name accordingly.

[natirips]

As though if staying on topic was so popular here.

(I will not be offended if someone deletes this very post as I do agree that it is of little to no use.)

[havoc]

so i was watching that talk show, and the dude says - if god created us, why did he put nipples on men?
after a short think, a woman answers - well, he put nipples on women too.

[natirips]

so i was watching that talk show, and the dude says - if god created us, why did he put nipples on men?

Actually, I wonder why we weren't given full breasts. I see no reason for a father not to feed his offspring.

[AimMe]

so i was watching that talk show, and the dude says - if god created us, why did he put nipples on men?

Actually, I wonder why we weren't given full breasts. I see no reason for a father not to feed his offspring.

Because he obliously didn't want male gay population having children.

[natirips]

@AimMe: It still wouldn't be possible for homosexual men to have children (breasts!=uterus).

And despite not having much personal experience on that matter, I do believe that a heterosexual relationship is far more exciting than a homosexual one.

[zietsh]

so i was watching that talk show, and the dude says - if god created us, why did he put nipples on men?

Actually, I wonder why we weren't given full breasts. I see no reason for a father not to feed his offspring.

I could believe that hunting back in the day was easier without breasts. To keep them nutritious I think the body would need a lot more energy, to keep muscles big and breast big at the same time.

[zietsh]

Some of us (including me) are against homosexual (I still use the word "gay" as a nice and fluffy word as in it's original meaning*) marriage because they don't need marriage as they cannot have
children by themselves, thus every child they would have would be either adopted or a bastard child. You can have/do both without the marriage. Marriage here would only complicate things.

Yes I could imagine that it would be wierd to grow up in a community where you are a child of a homosexual cuple, but since I believe science that homosexuality is given at birth I would not worry that the child is influenced in a "wrong" way. Well at least not worse than any other parents could.

_________________

*For example, I refer to myself as gay, but hot as a homosexual as I happen to be attracted towards opposite (or perhaps "complementary" would be a better word) sex.

I don't oppose that use of the word, and I think if not taken out of context the word can be understood correctly in any sentence.
Just like retarded, if not taken out of context one can clearly see if the word is used as a description or insult. I don't use it as a insult but only because I like other paraphrases.
_________________

Idea of marriage (as I see it) is to clearly allocate your mate, in order to respect the genetic pool.

Without that, (i.e. like cats reproduce with a different mate every time) it would increase the probability of inbreeding**, which in humans is not good.

Now days it also brings allot of different advantages, like less taxes, easier to enter country when one part of the couple is in there already etc.

Since members of a homosexual pair are clearly not going to have children with one another, they do not need to allocate themselves as a mating pair => they don't need marriage (it would be meaningless).

Well as I said it could come with other reasonable advantages.

**What I mean is: you normally have a family tree, but if every child you make would be with a different person things would become messy. So when a person is looking for a mate, they usually make sure the two are not closely related. With a messy "family" tree it would be difficult (if not impossible) to tell how closely related you are to someone.

Since "mating" with a cousin is legal in some country's there already is a problem here and there. But I fully agree with your reasons why homosexuals don't need to get married, I am just saying that there are other good reasons why the should be able to get married.

_____________________________________________________________________

And I also want to say that a bastard child is totally innocent just like any other child. And if more children get adopted it would certainly be a financial benefit for a country. Maybe homosexuals should be able to get married under the circumstance that they adopt a child.