Metal Reviews

Definitions of words change all the time. I don't see why anybody should care that when two men get married its called a "marriage" instead of a same "sex union." If you're going from a purely linguistic perspective, then by arguing this you should logically argue that words should only be used in their... what? 14th-15th century definitions?

There isn't really any firm evidence of it being a choice nor a biological thing (although there is evidence to suggest that it could be environmentally shaped before one begins puberty).



The dictionary definition of marriage was just me over-generalizing a little. My view of the matter goes a bit deeper. But, again, it's basically impossible for me to describe it without bringing religion into the discussion. Which, in turn, is also why the issue of whether or not homosexuality is "immoral" is so difficult.

I dunno why it would be considered immoral, besides the fact that our society was taught to think it's immoral. There's nothing immoral about being attracted to someone, gender aside.

TRULY HE TAUGHT US TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER
HIS LAW IS LOVE AND HIS GOSPEL IS PEACE
CHAINS SHALL HE BREAK FOR THE SLAVE IS OUR BROTHER
AND IN HIS NAME ALL OPPRESSION SHALL CEASE

Actually, there isn't a single shred of evidence that it's a choice, and enough that it's hardwired that any unbiased psychologist/sociologist acknowledges it as fact. Frankly, the fact that you used to get electroshock treatments for it is enough evidence that it's hardwired to convince me. And if you do choose to get electroshock...well, you're batshit insane, and any questions of sexuality can get put on the back burner because you're batshit insane.

Wrong-->there is no evidence that it is an environmental thing. On the other hand, there's limited evidence that it could be genetic. There is pretty much no conclusive evidence as to the cause of homosexuality. I think that it's a given i.e. not a choice.

I'm all for gay marriage, the only thing I would say is to point out the argument that the only difference between a gay couple and a married gay couple is the formalization of it all, as opposed to a man and a woman where marriage means to have kids.

I think the real question is why the fuck do they want to get married anyway? How is marrying going to change anything in a homosexual relationship?

it has legal benefits

what about adoption? where do you guys stand? if the "hardwire" thing is true, then in that sense it's indifferent for the child to be adopted by a straight or a gay couple. plus, foster parents are selected and i'd rather see a kid grow up with gay parents than in an orphanage or broken home or something.

the real problem is discrimination, the abuse kids with gay parents would get, and i rreally don't think it's time for that. at a time when even gay marriage is questioned, gay adoption can't even be considered.

How about we all vote to not care about the dickbutt and let it be and do what it does? Who cares. Dicks and vaginas, dicks and butts. It's pretty much the same. It's not hurting anybody, is it? Leave it be!

I do agree that in a society where gay marriage is met with such harsh criticism, being adopted by two gay men would be an awful young life. School is already horrifying and as close to hell as possible already. It would create some hardcore misanthropes.

You're gonna get abused no matter who you are, some have it worse than others but that's just the way it is. I also think gay parents are better prepared to handle their kids being bullied, because they've most likely been there. Most parents nowadays have no idea how to raise their kids, the parents, instead of spending time on raising their kids, lash out at everyone else for ruining their children. I don't think a straight couple is in any way better equipped to raise a child.

i didn't say anything about straight couples being more or less prepared than gay couples to raise kids, i said that growing up, kids adopted by gay couples will get an extra share of abuse.

Yeah, sorry I just kept on going.

There might be a bit of extra bullying, but I don't think it'll be as bad as you guys say. Here at least, not sure about other countries.

And if the only reason you can come up with for gays not to adopt is 'because the kid might get called nasty names at school'...

Believe it or not, I also think that, probably with most people, homosexuality is a biological thing that can't be helped. That's why I'm not totally anti-gay. Because I know that there's, at the very least, reasonable evidence (if not cold hard proof) that with many people it can't be helped. I think all too often Christians assume that, if people do something that goes against Biblical teachings, they're automatically trying to deliberately go against God. But they aren't.

Nevertheless, to clarify the whole Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral (without just quoting a bunch of Bible verses - which is one of the worst ways you can possibly debate), the main belief is that human beings were made to reproduce. Which you can't do with gay sex. Hence, homosexuality is considered a violation of both human nature and the way God made us. So I still have that natural skepticism about it, even though it probably can't be helped with some people. Certainly, when I have children, I'd much rather they grow up to be straight than grow up to be gay.

Here in the US, "gay" is probably he most common insult you'll hear on a grade school playground. You'll hear kids saying, "That cartoon character is gay!" or "That video game is gay!" In other words, the word "gay" is now used by kids as a synonymn for "lame/stupid." If a child himself reveals he's gay, particularly if he goes to some bottom-barrel school where most of the kids grow up to be shoe-shiners and drug-smugglers, he'll get more than just nasty words. He'll have to endure ass-whippings, pranks, etc. At least that's how it was back when I was growing up.

No offence or anything, but you're hardly the open-minded Christian that you purport to be if you believe that gay sex is immoral because it doesn't produce children. Do you also believe masturbation to be immoral? Oral sex? How about having sex with a person wearing a birth control device? Or with someone who is infertile?

If I ever have children, I hope not to care about something as private and personal as their sexuality, and I'm certainly not going to hope for one over the other. Sex is fraught with possibilities of social embarassment, and the fact that at the moment gays get more of it doesn't ultimately change much.

As for your school, that's sad. 'Gay' means pretty much the same here, although it's generally not refering to homosexuals when used in that context.

The child won't actually be gay just because he's adopted by two gay parents. Anyway, no one should have to change who they are because people have these insane prejudices. It's like the argument that nuclear powerplants shouldn't be built because terrorists might bomb them, or that women shouldn't dress slutty because they might get raped. I know these aren't perfect examples, but I hope the point is clear. There's no reason that anyone should be careful with who they are because these neanderthals don't like it.

I don't really think homosexuality is immoral, as long as it is natural to the gay (ie. he's not just doing it to be "different"). I didn't say that I myself thought it was immoral, I was just pointing out why other Christians often perceive it as immoral. I don't really consider oral sex immoral either. I don't want to get into my views of masturbation, since it's such a difficult issue - I've seen probably every opinion left and right of it, and I've seen some pretty horrible arguments both for and against it.

My particular school didn't have gays getting picked on or being beaten up, but I also went to a Catholic school which had very strict policies against bullying and teasing. However, I know plenty of people who went to schools where gays did have to endure daily beatings and teasing.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'immoral'. Being all krieg and STN!ist, I don't really see morals as applicable as much as ethics, which is of course totally different. Gay sex may or may not be a good idea, but that hardly makes it immoral. Ditto masturbation, self-mutilation, etc etc. I try not to cut myself with broken glass and randomly scream 'SLAYERRRRR!' at people in the streets because of my personal ethical code, which includes trying not to hurt myself and not looking like an idiot. Morals don't really come into the equation.

Call me a generalisationist, but I don't think that most Christians see homosexuality as immoral because of the spread of STDs or it can hurt if you're not relaxed or whatever. They don't like it because they've been told not to like it, that it's icky and wrong and God hates it.

Interesting that oral sex is less immoral than masturbation in your view.

Daily beatings?! Didn't those in charge - teachers - do anything? I hate to harp on, but a gay teen being beaten at a school would make national news here, whether he was beaten for being gay or because he owed someone money.