[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But I will say that I don't see the point in allowing a gay couple to enjoy the benefits of a "domestic partnership"/"marriage" but denying them to unmarried/live-in heterosexual couples. A man can't cover his live-in girlfriend of umpteen years on his "family plan" health insurance ... but he could if he "married" his boyfriend? WTF?

OAW

What's stopping the unmarried couple from getting married? Nothing. It's not like gays would get benefits just because they lived together. They'd have to get married, just as anyone else. Then again, in Canada common law couples do get the same benefits as married couples... So it should work the same for both gays and straights in that respect. No ones stopping 'just friends' from applying for common law status in Canada, it's a tricky loophole, cause our gov't doesn't pry into the personal lives of its citizens.


Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But I will say that I don't see the point in allowing a gay couple to enjoy the benefits of a "domestic partnership"/"marriage" but denying them to unmarried/live-in heterosexual couples. A man can't cover his live-in girlfriend of umpteen years on his "family plan" health insurance ... but he could if he "married" his boyfriend? WTF?

OAW

I agree with your points, regarding heterosexual unmarried couples who live together. Up until very recently, a marriage license was the determining factor in who was allowed to share benefits. Now that more nontraditional couples are cohabiting, and seeking equal benefits (rightfully so, IMO), we as a society have to come up with new paradigms as to how to address these issues. Do we leave it up to the employers (some of whom are reducing benefits in any event)? Do we change the term marriage to "civil union" for all and let the couples decide if they want to call it a marriage? Do we simply accept, at face value, an application for equal benefits because a couple claim to live together? Do we devise some method of proof that a couple has been together for some specified time? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

What's stopping the unmarried couple from getting married? Nothing. It's not like gays would get benefits just because they lived together. They'd have to get married, just as anyone else.

But that's just it. "Marriage" has thousands of years of precedent and tradition. Worldwide. Across many cultures. For a society to accept same-sex marriage would require a fundamental re-definition of the concept of marriage itself. Our society at large is overwhelmingly opposed to this, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that to change anytime soon. And if it were legalized, I certainly don't anticipate people in general seeing the "married" Jack and Joe as being more "legitimate" than the unmarried, yet committed John and Susan.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I agree with your points, regarding heterosexual unmarried couples who live together. Up until very recently, a marriage license was the determining factor in who was allowed to share benefits. Now that more nontraditional couples are cohabiting, and seeking equal benefits (rightfully so, IMO), we as a society have to come up with new paradigms as to how to address these issues. Do we leave it up to the employers (some of whom are reducing benefits in any event)? Do we change the term marriage to "civil union" for all and let the couples decide if they want to call it a marriage? Do we simply accept, at face value, an application for equal benefits because a couple claim to live together? Do we devise some method of proof that a couple has been together for some specified time? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Exactly. It's a very sticky issue. For instance, if a mother of a single man with children moved in with him, why couldn't he cover her on his "family plan"? But since she's not the "wife" ... no go. If a woman with children lived with her brother and his children, why couldn't she cover everyone under her "family plan"? It's not as if the premiums would change if the man was her "husband" and all the children hers. As "non-traditional families" grow in number, this will become an even bigger issue.

But then again, if we had universal health care it wouldn't be issue at all.

OAW

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But that's just it. "Marriage" has thousands of years of precedent and tradition. Worldwide. Across many cultures. For a society to accept same-sex marriage would require a fundamental re-definition of the concept of marriage itself. Our society at large is overwhelmingly opposed to this, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that to change anytime soon. And if it were legalized, I certainly don't anticipate people in general seeing the "married" Jack and Joe as being more "legitimate" than the unmarried, yet committed John and Susan.

OAW

Quite frankly I don't give a rats ass what 'your society' wants. It's already legalized fully in Canada, and many other countries. Like it or not, the US will follow suit. I'd wager in 20 years, there will be no more "OMG HE'S GAY!!!11!1" we'll all be equals, which mind you is the way it should have always been.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. It's a very sticky issue. For instance, if a mother of a single man with children moved in with him, why couldn't he cover her on his "family plan"? But since she's not the "wife" ... no go. If a woman with children lived with her brother and his children, why couldn't she cover everyone under her "family plan"? It's not as if the premiums would change if the man was her "husband" and all the children hers. As "non-traditional families" grow in number, this will become an even bigger issue.

But then again, if we had universal health care it wouldn't be issue at all.

OAW

Throughout your last few posts I don't understand where you are coming from? Are you trying to say gays don't have relationships equal to that of straight couples, but are merely 'just friends'/sibling like? It seems to be what you're poking at. Which is 100% not the case with monogamous gay couples.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Quite frankly I don't give a rats ass what 'your society' wants. It's already legalized fully in Canada, and many other countries. Like it or not, the US will follow suit. I'd wager in 20 years, there will be no more "OMG HE'S GAY!!!11!1" we'll all be equals, which mind you is the way it should have always been.

Jeez. Calm down! lol

Nothing you have said has refuted my point. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada less than 2 years ago. Presently, only the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, and Massachusetts allow this. So that's 5 (plus one US state) out of 193 internationally recognized sovereign states. I daresay that does not constitute "many other countries".

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Throughout your last few posts I don't understand where you are coming from? Are you trying to say gays don't have relationships equal to that of straight couples, but are merely 'just friends'/sibling like? It seems to be what you're poking at. Which is 100% not the case with monogamous gay couples.

Uh ... no. Clearly gay couples are not "just friends" or siblings. The post you are referring to doesn't deal with gay couples at all.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As it stands now, all you've done is make an assertion without any attempt whatsoever to back it up with evidence or even some semblance of a logical argument.

Homophobia is purely religious, as homosexuality is genetic and is found commonplace amongst animals other than humans. It is confusing, perhaps abnormal in some cultures, but there is no historical reference for the "vast majority of people" of the entire planet disapproving of homosexualtiy.

It wasn't until after the spread of Christianity did this become an issue. Even when Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity, homosexualtiy was still commonplace and expected of some people in the Roman empire.

Your "vast majority of people" probably didn't occur until after the 16th century, and then, only within Christendom. Of course, if your history starts at the 16th century and doesn't include the other 3/4 of the planet, then you might be right.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Jeez. Calm down! lol

Nothing you have said has refuted my point. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada less than 2 years ago. Presently, only the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, and Massachusetts allow this. So that's 5 (plus one US state) out of 193 internationally recognized sovereign states. I daresay that does not constitute "many other countries".

OAW

But same sex unions are recognized in many more countries. Which all in all is marriage.

Same-sex union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I counted 26 countries which currently allow same sex marriage/union. Most of them major players.

[OldManMac]

You are correct, olePigeon. In some ancient cultures, such as pre-Christian Greek culture, it was not an uncommon practice for older men (20s & 30s, which was older then) and teen boys to have relationships, although their sexual practices were somewhat different than today. Romans also practiced some homosexuality.

Hopefully, the day will come when same sex marriage is legalized in America. I've been blessed with being able to walk one daughter down the aisle; I hope to be able to do the same thing with the other before I leave this place.

[Miniryu]

Decades ago, the bible was used to defend slavery. According to these "moral" folks, since the bible said it was okay to have slaves, that the practice of slavery is therefore moral.

Fastforward into the 21st century, we now, for all intents and purposes, agree that slavery is immoral. Personal feelings and beliefs aside, I just have a hard time seeing the bible as justification for the oppression of homosexuals. Its a bad argument, no matter what your stance on the issue is.

[Monique]

This hatred against certain groups does not come from religion but from the practice of some obscure paragraph written from a very narrow minded guy. In the case of gays it would be Paul not God. Romans is not a compilation of Jesus's sayings it is a letter from Paul to the Romans and Paul is just a regular homophobic person.

Gays want to have their unions legalized for the same reasons than heterosexuals because if something happens to one member of that couple the other one has the legal right to have his or her say, also, it is easier when one spouse dies, etc. Procreation is no longer the sole reason to get married.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Homophobia is purely religious, as homosexuality is genetic and is found commonplace amongst animals other than humans. It is confusing, perhaps abnormal in some cultures, but there is no historical reference for the "vast majority of people" of the entire planet disapproving of homosexualtiy.

No it's not "purely religious". Clearly an atheist can disapprove of homosexuality. But let's just agree to disagree on that note. As for it being "genetic", in some cases that may be the case. In other cases, perhaps not. I know for fact of people in my own extended family who were molested as young boys and are gay and very effeminate (even to the point of cross-dressing) today. I have had conversations personally with a group of lesbians who essentially said that there are a lot (not all) of them who became lesbians after being molested by men when they were young. As for homosexuality among animals, the sexual practices of other species isn't really the topic here now is it? As for the the "vast majority of people disapproving of homosexuality", I stand by my point. Here's a reference for you ...



Source: The Pew Global Attitudes Project - "Should homosexuality be accepted by society? (See actual percentages by country here)

One has to extrapolate to come to reasoned conclusions here because worldwide surveys certainly weren't conducted thousands or even hundreds of years ago. And even this study didn't gather data on at least half of the world's population. But given the populations that were surveyed, most do not approve. Now when you factor all of Africa into the mix the overall disapproval level is going to go through the roof because the populations there have been intolerant of homosexuality for millennia ... even amongst those that have not adopted Christianity or Islam. Now that's approximately 1 out of 8 people on the planet right there. Factor in China where you have 1 out of 4 people on the planet. India which is the second most populous nation next to China. None of these are regions where homosexuality is generally accepted in the society. So a little math and common sense will make it clear that what I'm saying is right on. Even in the West where attitudes toward homosexuality are the most tolerant, this is a rather recent phenomenon. The attitudes of just 50 years ago were certainly not what they are today. And even today in the US "tolerance" or "acceptance" of homosexuality only goes so far. As the vast majority of the US population is opposed to same-sex marriage.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It wasn't until after the spread of Christianity did this become an issue. Even when Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity, homosexualtiy was still commonplace and expected of some people in the Roman empire.

1. Christianity is a religion. Not all religions.

2. One really ought not make global determinations based upon what was acceptable in ancient Rome (and Greece). The world is a much bigger place than these two lands. What other historical culture even remotely approached these two when it came to the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Your "vast majority of people" probably didn't occur until after the 16th century, and then, only within Christendom. Of course, if your history starts at the 16th century and doesn't include the other 3/4 of the planet, then you might be right.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world. All over the globe. And homosexuality is even less acceptable in the Islamic world than in Christendom. As I said earlier, in African culture it is highly frowned upon. Whether that culture is Christian, Islamic, or traditional African religion. I daresay you are being a tad bit uh, "optimistic" in your assessment of the situation.

OAW

[kmkkid]

Ok OAW. I don't believe 3rd world countries should even be factored into any estimates. They don't have stable gov't nor ideals. So obviously they do what they are told to do. There is basically no freedom of choice in 3rd world nations.

The fact is, like it or not, we are on the verge of a tolerant society, in all forms. To disapprove of this is to hold back the very ideals of religion, to be tolerant and loving of all peoples.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Quite frankly I don't give a rats ass what 'your society' wants.

Which is why this will likely be stuck as it is for quite some time. When you have no respect for the beliefs of your fellow man, you can't be expected to have your ideas and beliefts respected in return.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even in the West where attitudes toward homosexuality are the most tolerant, this is a rather recent phenomenon. The attitudes of just 50 years ago were certainly not what they are today. And even today in the US "tolerance" or "acceptance" of homosexuality only goes so far. As the vast majority of the US population is opposed to same-sex marriage.

It seems like your arguments are:

1) Lots of people don't accept homosexuality
2) Homosexuality-acceptance is a recent phenomenon

and then concluding that it's ok to not accept homosexuality?


Facts are, the world is evolving as we become more enlightened. This takes time, and the process is slower where the world is less developed. Is comparing yourself to developing countries really what you are after here?

The world is moving forward, not backwards. And sadly religion is doing all it can to hold progress back in that regard. The attitude of "everything was better before" is wrong, and the majority isn't always right. The majority just has some catching up to do.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is why this will likely be stuck as it is for quite some time. When you have no respect for the beliefs of your fellow man, you can't be expected to have your ideas and beliefts respected in return.

Hate and discriminations are not beliefs worthy of respect.

[Wiskedjak]

Without reading the whole thread, I would say homophobia doesn't stem from religion. It stem from fear of the different. Religion is only the excuse.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Homophobia is purely religious, as homosexuality is genetic and is found commonplace amongst animals other than humans. It is confusing, perhaps abnormal in some cultures, but there is no historical reference for the "vast majority of people" of the entire planet disapproving of homosexualtiy.

There is also no historical reference for a fear of homosexuals being based on religion. There's no reference to an irrational fear of homsexuals at all. It's not in the Bible or any other religious text I can find.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Without reading the whole thread, I would say homophobia doesn't stem from religion. It stem from fear of the different. Religion is only the excuse.

Bingo! We have a winner, folks!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Without reading the whole thread, I would say homophobia doesn't stem from religion. It stem from fear of the different. Religion is only the excuse.

That was sort of established already

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Miniryu 

[COLOR="Red"]Decades ago, the bible was used to defend slavery. According to these "moral" folks, since the bible said it was okay to have slaves, that the practice of slavery is therefore moral.

Modern times, "tolerance" has been used to defend stuff like pedophilia and other reprehensible actions. So..based on your logic, "tolerance" should have the same foul connotation as religion apparently does.

Does anyone know where the rapant theophobia shown on these boards stems from?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hate and discriminations are not beliefs worthy of respect.

No one said that "hate" was. I"ve already pointed out though how we discriminate on a daily basis, and as such there is good and bad discrimination.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Modern times, "tolerance" has been used to defend stuff like pedophilia and other reprehensible actions. So..based on your logic, "tolerance" should have the same foul connotation as religion apparently does.

Does anyone know where the rapant theophobia shown on these boards stems from?

No one here has defended things like pedophelia, but that won't stop you from stretching to make a connection, will it? Also, there is no rampant theophobia on these boards; you just need to make that connection because some beliefs here don't suit your views on "logic" and "morality."

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Ok OAW. I don't believe 3rd world countries should even be factored into any estimates. They don't have stable gov't nor ideals. So obviously they do what they are told to do. There is basically no freedom of choice in 3rd world nations.

That's an amazingly arrogant statement to make. Nearly two thirds of humanity live in so-called "3rd world countries" ... a term which in an of itself is rooted in colonialist and Cold War thinking. But apparently you feel that their views on the subject are not worthy of consideration. How uh ... revealing.

OAW

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one said that "hate" was. I"ve already pointed out though how we discriminate on a daily basis, and as such there is good and bad discrimination.

And are you next going to claim that discriminating against homosexuals is the good kind?

Otherwise I don't see the relevance.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It seems like your arguments are:

1) Lots of people don't accept homosexuality
2) Homosexuality-acceptance is a recent phenomenon

and then concluding that it's ok to not accept homosexuality?

I would direct you to my earlier reply to you, but you seem to be having some reading comprehension challenges. So again, I haven't said anything one way or the other about whether accepting homosexuality is "right" or "ok". My comments have simply stated what the prevailing viewpoint is on the topic.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Facts are, the world is evolving as we become more enlightened. This takes time, and the process is slower where the world is less developed.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Is comparing yourself to developing countries really what you are after here?

And where have I compared myself to a developing country?

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The world is moving forward, not backwards. And sadly religion is doing all it can to hold progress back in that regard. The attitude of "everything was better before" is wrong, and the majority isn't always right. The majority just has some catching up to do.

When it comes to some things this may be the case. Regarding the topic at hand, I would say that the jury is still out on that.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

No one here has defended things like pedophelia, but that won't stop you from stretching to make a connection, will it?

No one here has defended things like slavery either. I'm simply using the standard to make a connection that was already demonstrated.

Also, there is no rampant theophobia on these boards; you just need to make that connection because some beliefs here don't suit your views on "logic" and "morality."

Okay...maybe not "rampant". Just "blantantly obvious". Just as obvious as the "homophobia" mentioned in the thread title.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And are you next going to claim that discriminating against homosexuals is the good kind?

What kind of discrimination do you have in mind? I'd have no problem discriminating against a homosexual when trying to fix my straight single female friend up for a date. I'd say that was a good kind of discrimination against a homosexual.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And where have I compared myself to a developing country?

When implying that the majority of the world constitutes a validation of homosexuality being immoral.

Originally Posted by OAW 

When it comes to some things this may be the case. Regarding the topic at hand, I would say that the jury is still out on that.

Your intentional vagueness doesn't help the fact that you are indeed masking a negative view on homosexuality.

The fact that you are not saying "anything one way or the other about whether accepting homosexuality is "right" or "ok"" is just you being afraid to take a stand, cowardly hiding behind your "majority rules" stats.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What kind of discrimination do you have in mind? I'd have no problem discriminating against a homosexual when trying to fix my straight single female friend up for a date. I'd say that was a good kind of discrimination against a homosexual.

This comment does not even deserve a reply.

If you want to debate, please try and be mature. Else you'll just be smacking yourself down.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by marden 

Is Gen. Pace's attitude a result of religious belief or upbringing only?

You'll be hard pressed to separate the two, his religious beliefs were part of his upbringing. It's important to note, that this has nothing to do with religion per se, just certain religions that disapprove of homosexuality, such as Christianity. There are plenty of religions that don't care about it at all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

This comment does not even deserve a reply.

If you want to debate, please try and be mature. Else you'll just be smacking yourself down.

You made a comment that required an open ended reply given that for just about any class of people, there are reasonable justifications for discriminating against them depending on the circumstance. Your inability to grasp that, and instead your implication that ALL discrimination is bad is what caused the reply not to be what you hoped. Follow your own advice and I think you'll find you've got more to debate.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You'll be hard pressed to separate the two, his religious beliefs were part of his upbringing. It's important to note, that this has nothing to do with religion per se, just certain religions that disapprove of homosexuality, such as Christianity. There are plenty of religions that don't care about it at all.

Yes. Plenty. Namely Confucianism and Paganism.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You made a comment that required an open ended reply given that for just about any class of people, there are reasonable justifications for discriminating against them depending on the circumstance. Your inability to grasp that, and instead your implication that ALL discrimination is bad is what caused the reply not to be what you hoped. Follow your own advice and I think you'll find you've got more to debate.

No. It was implicitly stated that we were talking about discrimination of the bad kind. Now you going ahead and deliberately misinterpreting that with intention to derail the debate is maturity on the same level as pre-schoolers.

Come back another time when you've grown up.

Next.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No. It was implicitly stated that we were talking about discrimination of the bad kind.

...and you asked an open ended question. I pointed out that obviously there was a "good" and a "bad" kind. What you should logically be required to do is specifically state WHAT the discrimination was in order for me to answer in the manner you apparently want. You didn't. You asked an open ended question, wanting a blanket statement in response. it doesn't work that way.

Come back another time when you've grown up.

You can't fathom how to ask a reasonable, non-loaded question in order to get a "mature" response, and you resort to name calling, and this is your final response?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But that's just it. "Marriage" has thousands of years of precedent and tradition. Worldwide. Across many cultures. For a society to accept same-sex marriage would require a fundamental re-definition of the concept of marriage itself. Our society at large is overwhelmingly opposed to this, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that to change anytime soon. And if it were legalized, I certainly don't anticipate people in general seeing the "married" Jack and Joe as being more "legitimate" than the unmarried, yet committed John and Susan.

The Canadians deal with it fine. They didn't re-define marriage, they just stopped discriminating against gays.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I say that is 100% true so long as they don't move it out of the bedroom into the open and then claim that they are doing nothing wrong and that everyone's children should be taught that it is okay to do it also.

So being gay is 100% OK with you as long as nobody says it's OK?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah the old "You better not belittle or joke about homosexuality or we'll call you one!!"How futile is that really?BING! Making those that do such a thing, the very man they hate. Yet they don't see the irony.

Ever met my friend Salty. Yeah it makes no sense, but it's been seen time and time again. People who really ARE straight don't care too much about gays. The ones that post over and over on forums about how wrong it is are trying to convince themselves.

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

To most Christians it isn't a matter of being afraid ("Homophobia") of the people that are gay,..

No, actually it is a real fear. You fear that you may be gay and you fear that your kids may be gay. I can hear it in your voices. And you try to cover that fear by saying you just don't like it. I don't like fat bikers, but I don't go around saying it. And you wouldn't give gays a second thought if that's all it was.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

They should be more worried about the "immoral" divorces that 45% of said Christians have.

Seriously.... divorce is what's destoying marriage, not gay marriage.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes. Plenty. Namely Confucianism and Paganism.

Many sects of Hinduism make no stance on it (there's a ton, so I don't know the exact extent), and so do most (if not all) of Buddhist sects. Almost positive Shinto says nothing of it either. And those are just the popular religions we learn about.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

The Canadians deal with it fine. They didn't re-define marriage, they just stopped discriminating against gays.

So being gay is 100% OK with you as long as nobody says it's OK?

Ever met my friend Salty. Yeah it makes no sense, but it's been seen time and time again. People who really ARE straight don't care too much about gays. The ones that post over and over on forums about how wrong it is are trying to convince themselves.

No, actually it is a real fear. You fear that you may be gay and you fear that your kids may be gay. I can hear it in your voices. And you try to cover that fear by saying you just don't like it. I don't like fat bikers, but I don't go around saying it. And you wouldn't give gays a second thought if that's all it was.

Seriously.... divorce is what's destoying marriage, not gay marriage.

Fear of the different is a powerful motivator to the insecure.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That was sort of established already

I imagined as much. Just wanted to weigh in my opinion and didn't want to wade through the entire thread, most of which I've already read here over the last few years.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Many sects of Hinduism make no stance on it (there's a ton, so I don't know the exact extent), and so do most (if not all) of Buddhist sects. Almost positive Shinto says nothing of it either. And those are just the popular religions we learn about.

Hinduism:
"Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. Sexuality is rarely discussed openly in Hindu society today, and homosexuality is largely a taboo subject — especially among the strongly religious. Professor of women's studies and world religions Paola Bacchetta argues that "queerphobia is one of the pillars of Hindu nationalism".[9] In a 2004 survey, most — though not all — swamis said they opposed the concept of a Hindu-sanctified gay marriage.[10] Some of the law codes, such as that of Manu Smriti refer to both female and male homosexuality as a punishable crime.[11] Punishments include ritual baths, fines, public humiliation and having fingers cut off. "

Buddhism:
"The third of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct; this precept has sometimes been interpreted to include homosexuality. The Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism interprets sexual misconduct to include lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand."

So, while many sects may be neutral on the matter, the religious leaders are strongly against.

[- - e r i k - -]

As for Shintoism you are mostly correct:

"Homosexuality in Shinto has a varied past of periods of acceptance and rejection. Unlike other religions, Shintoism is very decentralised and non-dogmatic and thus there is no definitive religious ruling on homosexuality."

"In recent years, homosexuality has become more acceptable in Japanese society as many people believe that science has shown that it is completely natural for a minority of adults to be attracted solely to members of the same sex. Again, this social transition has manifested itself in the Shinto religion."

Got to commend a religion that adapts eagerly to society instead of the other way around.

But:
"Socially conservative and progressive Shintoists may both believe that their religion is a vindication for their beliefs on homosexuality."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hinduism:
"Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic.

Yeah that makes sense. Like I said, there are many "Hinduisms". It's therefore best to look at which Hindu books say what.

Sexuality is rarely discussed openly in Hindu society today, and homosexuality is largely a taboo subject — especially among the strongly religious. Professor of women's studies and world religions Paola Bacchetta argues that "queerphobia is one of the pillars of Hindu nationalism".[9]

Hindu society and Hindu nationalism are not the same thing as Hindu religion.

Some of the law codes, such as that of Manu Smriti refer to both female and male homosexuality as a punishable crime.[11] Punishments include ritual baths, fines, public humiliation and having fingers cut off. "

Yes, from my studies of Hinduism that book (also known as "The Laws of Manu") is one of the few Hindu texts that contains such doctrines (what you can and cannot do). It could be called Hindu's Leviticus. It's also not a major Hindu text, and many Hindu sects do not consider it to be one of the sacred texts.

Buddhism:
"The third of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct; this precept has sometimes been interpreted to include homosexuality.

That is a very poor and rare interpretation. Most understand it to mean things like adultery and rape.

The Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism interprets sexual misconduct to include lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand."

He has a right to his interpretation, but don't confuse the Dalai Lama with Buddhism itself.

So, while many sects may be neutral on the matter, the religious leaders are strongly against.

Right, but the point is that whereas the Christian and Jewish doctrines explicitly forbid homosexuality, the same cannot be said for Buddhism, Shinto, and (most of) Hinduism.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As for Shintoism you are mostly correct:

...

But:
"Socially conservative and progressive Shintoists may both believe that their religion is a vindication for their beliefs on homosexuality."

Again, there is a difference between a person's interpretation of a religion, and what it actually says.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Right, but the point is that whereas the Christian and Jewish doctrines explicitly forbid homosexuality, the same cannot be said for Buddhism, Shinto, and (most of) Hinduism.

Good point, but:

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Again, there is a difference between a person's interpretation of a religion, and what it actually says.

Is there really? Theory and practice doesn't always intersect.

For all intents and purposes, religion IS the interpretation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Seriously.... divorce is what's destoying marriage, not gay marriage.

"Gay marriage" isn't widely accepted, so no, it isn't yet really helping to destroy it. Divorce itself isn't really what's destroying it either. It's people who have little respect for the institution, tradition and meaning behind marriage who are helping to destroy it. Those people include those who want to reduce the institution down to simply a legal mechanism instead of the long-held societal man/woman/child building block that our species has had for pretty much all of our existence.

Institute for American Values

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Homophobia is purely religious

Wrong. Or there wouldn't be homophobic non-religious people. And there are.

BTW believing that homosexual sex is a sin isn't homophobia. No more than believing adultery is a sin makes one a heterophobe.

as homosexuality is genetic

As you believe it is. No one knows where it comes from. Not that it matters really.

and is found commonplace amongst animals other than humans.

When one has to compare their actions with those of wild animals to justify their own, one has already lost. There is A LOT of things wild animals do that we punish humans for doing. Lots of things they do that would seem cruel or mental if we did them. That is no justification. As it has been pointing out many times.

It wasn't until after the spread of Christianity did this become an issue.

I'd LOVE you to prove this. Nevermind. You can't. You just pulled it of your butt.

Even when Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity, homosexualtiy was still commonplace and expected of some people in the Roman empire.

Among the Roman Empire.

Your "vast majority of people" probably didn't occur until after the 16th century, and then, only within Christendom. Of course, if your history starts at the 16th century and doesn't include the other 3/4 of the planet, then you might be right.

You aren't right either. You are icing your arguments with baseless accusations.

It really has little to do with religion.And more with common sense.
Something that is lacking this day and age.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Miniryu 

Decades ago, the bible was used to defend slavery. According to these "moral" folks, since the bible said it was okay to have slaves, that the practice of slavery is therefore moral.

Fastforward into the 21st century, we now, for all intents and purposes, agree that slavery is immoral. Personal feelings and beliefs aside, I just have a hard time seeing the bible as justification for the oppression of homosexuals. Its a bad argument, no matter what your stance on the issue is.

What a horrible, horrible comparison. If I was a descendant of a slave I'd be offended by your comparison.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Fear of the different is a powerful motivator to the insecure.

Could say the same about the religious bashers in here.

Goes both ways.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

The Canadians deal with it fine. They didn't re-define marriage, they just stopped discriminating against gays.

Um, I am not gay, and I am also not allowed to marry a man.

Not that I am against gay couples having the same advantages/disadvantages as straight couples.