Thread: Gay Republicans Explain Why They Are Proudly Supporting Donald Trump

Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with biology and has its roots exclusively in the flexibility and adaptability of human behavior. Homosexuality is learned behavior, there is no scientific basis for a genetic determinant for homosexuality.

Marriage has a purpose, it provides a formal, legal environment for bringing children into the world and sustaining them to maturity. Parenthood and its basis in biology are the basis for the need for a formal, legal environment for marriage.

Homosexual marriages are a performance, an act that fleshes out the emotional needs of people who feel compelled beyond a sense of choice in homosexual behavior. Beyond that, anyone who wants to, for any reason they want, can engage in homosexuality. And if homosexuals can marry, then anyone can marry anyone else for any reason. There is no test for homosexuality and if a pair of men or women want to decide to marry for reasons having nothing to do with an attachment to each other, they can do so. Homosexual marriages are just another source of corruption in the legal and social institution of marriage, as if marriage didn't have enough problems already.

The homosexual civil rights front as it exists now is a political cult. It has cut itself off completely from its more natural roots in freeing sex from government supervision. Sexual liberation had its most important motivation in legalizing birth control. But beyond that it provided for change in laws pointlessly restricting heterosexual behavior. At one time it was against the law to engage in any sex beyond the missionary position.

If homosexuals really want to form the same legal attachments that marriage provide for, then some other arrangement should be made outside of the legal institution of marriage, something that anyone can engage in without involving children and child bearing.

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!!! Referring to a 2015 "resolution" on gay marriage is a little late in the game for those of us who were Southern Baptists long before that.

I'm a Southern Baptist because the individual church I was raised in was non-racist, accepted homosexuals in its membership, and never discussed sex, women's submission to men, or anti-abortion positions in its teachings, sermons or literature.

The Convention does not speak for individual members, it doesn't even speak for Congregations, it speaks for itself, the delegates to the Convention. They got it wrong. It's certainly not the first time. Hopefully it will be a mistake corrected in less time and with less harm than some of its prior mistakes.

Homosexuality and gay marriage didn't become an issue for Southern Baptist until the 1970's. Of course as a Southern Baptist, you knew that, right? Heck, during your youth homosexuality and gay marriage weren't even issues of national interest. So, it makes complete sense that these issues weren't discussed in your church. These are things nobody was talking about openly in those days. If you were a homosexual, you stayed in the closet. As for gay marriage, you certainly dared not even consider the possibility. Your argument is ignoring a lot of relevant facts and details that a true Southern Baptist should know.

There is no such thing as a "true" Southern Baptist. Each individual church is independent and governs itself. And each member of each church is free to live their lives however they see fit, believe whatever they want so long as they believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as their Savior, and have been baptized in the Church, vote however they see fit, and support whatever political issues they want as they see fit. Apparently you and your Congregation are a group think "freedom for me, but not for thee" highly judgmental group of Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists are human, they are sinners like everyone else, and apparently some even today, still feel the need to finger-point, condemn, judge and discriminate in one way or another against someone or some group to elevate themselves at someone else's expense to be "true" whatever they think they are or want to be.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with biology and has its roots exclusively in the flexibility and adaptability of human behavior. Homosexuality is learned behavior, there is no scientific basis for a genetic determinant for homosexuality.

Marriage has a purpose, it provides a formal, legal environment for bringing children into the world and sustaining them to maturity. Parenthood and its basis in biology are the basis for the need for a formal, legal environment for marriage.

Homosexual marriages are a performance, an act that fleshes out the emotional needs of people who feel compelled beyond a sense of choice in homosexual behavior. Beyond that, anyone who wants to, for any reason they want, can engage in homosexuality. And if homosexuals can marry, then anyone can marry anyone else for any reason. There is no test for homosexuality and if a pair of men or women want to decide to marry for reasons having nothing to do with an attachment to each other, they can do so. Homosexual marriages are just another source of corruption in the legal and social institution of marriage, as if marriage didn't have enough problems already.

The homosexual civil rights front as it exists now is a political cult. It has cut itself off completely from its more natural roots in freeing sex from government supervision. Sexual liberation had its most important motivation in legalizing birth control. But beyond that it provided for change in laws pointlessly restricting heterosexual behavior. At one time it was against the law to engage in any sex beyond the missionary position.

If homosexuals really want to form the same legal attachments that marriage provide for, then some other arrangement should be made outside of the legal institution of marriage, something that anyone can engage in without involving children and child bearing.

You know, marriage really doesn't mean that any more. There are way too many marriages of straight people who aren't having children either because they don't want them or can't have them and way too many children born out of wedlock for that to have any bearing on marriage law law any more.

Government recognized marriage has nothing to do with religion, it's about a contract between 2 people, consenting adults, to address legal and financial issues according to law.

Gay marriage licenses like anyone's marriage license doesn't force a church to marry them or perform the ceremony. The gay marriage ruling forces government to issue the licenses and courts to protect their legal and financial rights under those laws without discrimination. It also forces businesses to serve them without discrimination.

I don't believe most homosexuality is learned behavior, I believe it's a genetic characteristic, and therefore biological. There's a lot about it that we don't know, but I'm convinced it's a natural occurrence in our species, same as it is in others. It's a very small insignificant minor issue that in this day and age shouldn't be an issue at all. These are people, very good people, sweet people, hard-working people, with good souls and good works to their credit as a group of people. They should be welcome in any venue, any business, any church, any job, any organization. I've always thought that. I've never understood why anyone would want to pick on these people because they're gay.

Originally Posted by Judy

You know, marriage really doesn't mean that any more. There are way too many marriages of straight people who aren't having children either because they don't want them or can't have them and way too many children born out of wedlock for that to have any bearing on marriage law law any more.

Like I said, marriage is suffering enough as it is. Marriage is now and always has been about sex and children and the inevitable connection between the two. That is why sex exists, it is not an amusement park ride. Sex outside of marriage and reproduction is the norm and the problems of developing successful personal behaviors to meet the drive for the gratification that sex brings is an old problem.

Government recognized marriage has nothing to do with religion, it's about a contract between 2 people, consenting adults, to address legal and financial issues according to law.

Gay marriage licenses like anyone's marriage license doesn't force a church to marry them or perform the ceremony. The gay marriage ruling forces government to issue the licenses and courts to protect their legal and financial rights under those laws without discrimination. It also forces businesses to serve them without discrimination.

Religion need not have anything to do with religion, but marriage licenses can be dispensed by religious authorities and so the government does recognize religious authority as having something to do with marriage as a legal institution. Those who have no religious affiliation may be married in civil ceremonies. Furthermore, if government said that marriage was nothing more than a contract between any two people, then there would be no struggle to legitimize homosexual marriages.

I don't believe most homosexuality is learned behavior, I believe it's a genetic characteristic, and therefore biological. There's a lot about it that we don't know, but I'm convinced it's a natural occurrence in our species, same as it is in others. It's a very small insignificant minor issue that in this day and age shouldn't be an issue at all. These are people, very good people, sweet people, hard-working people, with good souls and good works to their credit as a group of people. They should be welcome in any venue, any business, any church, any job, any organization. I've always thought that. I've never understood why anyone would want to pick on these people because they're gay.

It is a biological absurdity to proclaim homosexuality as being genetic. Homosexuals do not reproduce, how could such an attribute establish itself if it is not passed down through sexual reproduction? Homosexuality is also not a genetic defect, which is the only other possible genetic explanation. The only sexual genetic defect that we know of is hermaphroditism where the sexual attributes are never developed properly during gestation. It is most common in higher vertebrates where there is "hard breeding", where siblings are forced to reproduce for several generations. It is a real plague in animal breeding where hard breeding is done to draw out certain desired genetic attributes.

Homosexual behavior is observed in the animal kingdom. But it is the exception rather than the rule, especially where sexual attributes are very pronounced and play a dominant role in sexual behavior. And again, the behavior does not yield offspring, the more involved the homosexual behavior, the less it results in offspring. It is more suggestive of the creative potential that exists according to the intelligence of the species involved.

Of course we need to leave homosexuals alone, but at one time it was against the law. It is no longer against the law, that's all homosexuals or anyone needs to know. We are not obliged to acknowledge anyone's sexuality at all and we are entitled to be offended if anyone insists on making a parade about their sexuality, either by themselves or as a group. Nobody should be obliged to harness their own creative labors to acknowledge or advance the sexual activities of anyone. If somebody doesn't want to make a cake with decorations that they object to, they shouldn't have to do that.

Pksk, what about barren women and sterile men? Do they not have the right to marry? The right to marry can not be based on reproduction. If it was, then a significant portion of our population would be discriminated against on this one genetic characteristic alone.

If you remember in the old days, there was a terrible stigma against "barren women". Kings would have them beheaded, men would divorce them, women would put them down. Our human society has always found ways to put someone different down, I think it's time we stop that. And today, our medical community, health insurance companies, and consumers spend billions of dollars trying to help barren women and sterile men have children in unnatural ways.

To me, there is just no threat at all to anyone about anything, for gay couples to get married. They love each other, want to have a home, a spouse, some want children so they adopt, or try other ways with a surrogate of some type, and they are lovely wonderful people who raise fantastic children. There is just no basis in my mind for them to not be allowed to be married if that's what they want to do.

I agree with you about the parades whether it's gays or wild-eyed feminists marching down the streets without their tops on. There's just some things I don't want to see on my way to the market.

Originally Posted by Judy

Pksk, what about barren women and sterile men? Do they not have the right to marry? The right to marry can not be based on reproduction. If it was, then a significant portion of our population would be discriminated against on this one genetic characteristic alone.

If you remember in the old days, there was a terrible stigma against "barren women". Kings would have them beheaded, men would divorce them, women would put them down. Our human society has always found ways to put someone different down, I think it's time we stop that. And today, our medical community, health insurance companies, and consumers spend billions of dollars trying to help barren women and sterile men have children in unnatural ways.

To me, there is just no threat at all to anyone about anything, for gay couples to get married. They love each other, want to have a home, a spouse, some want children so they adopt, or try other ways with a surrogate of some type, and they are lovely wonderful people who raise fantastic children. There is just no basis in my mind for them to not be allowed to be married if that's what they want to do.

I agree with you about the parades whether it's gays or wild-eyed feminists marching down the streets without their tops on.

Don't be silly. Homosexuals are not barren or sterile. The problems associated with sexual reproduction is a strictly heterosexual one. Why would heterosexuals complain about infertility in marriage if marriage had nothing to do with child bearing?

Homosexuals who want to have children, must either get them from heterosexuals who don't want them (Another huge problem) or engage in heterosexuality themselves, indirectly or otherwise.

The institution of marriage and families has been the target of all kinds of aggression and our future depends on a wholesome and focused attention on heterosexual relations outside and independent of religious belief and institutions. ​Religious belief surrounding sexual behavior is itself one of the most serious threats that the family has ever faced and it is not a new problem.

"Don't be silly"?!!! Barren women and sterile men can't reproduce at all with anyone. Homosexuals can reproduce, just not with each other. So under your theory, and using basic logic, they have more right to be married than a barren woman or a sterile man. So, dear Pksy, please don't be silly!!!!



I can see that is one issue that we should just agree to disagree about.

Over and out!!

TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!!

Originally Posted by Judy

"Don't be silly"?!!! Barren women and sterile men can't reproduce at all with anyone. Homosexuals can reproduce, just not with each other. So under your theory, and using basic logic, they have more right to be married than a barren woman or a sterile man. So, dear Pksy, please don't be silly!!!!

...

I am being generous. You are being somewhat less than silly. This is a serious subject and I am taking it seriously. You are deliberately twisting my arguments.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

... The problems associated with sexual reproduction is a strictly heterosexual one. Why would heterosexuals complain about infertility in marriage if marriage had nothing to do with child bearing?

Homosexuals who want to have children, must either get them from heterosexuals who don't want them (Another huge problem) or engage in heterosexuality themselves, indirectly or otherwise.

...

Heterosexuality is where you get children. Homosexuality is incapable of yielding children. Heterosexual unions deserve and need the legal institution of marriage. Homosexual unions do not. Some other kind of contractual arrangement between individuals of the same sex should be possible that does not infringe on marriage as a heterosexual institution. It might even offer something for individuals of the opposite sex who are not interested in marriage, but want some other kind of contract between them.

You are elevating "marriage" to something far beyond why we issue government marriage licenses. There is no condition of desire or ability to reproduce to obtain a marriage license. A marriage license is also not required to reproduce when you have the desire or ability. What you describe as a "contractual arrangement" for gays is all that heterosexuals have. The marriage license is state recognition of a couple's contractual arrangement under the law. Laws govern divorce, death, property, other assets, debt and children if you have them, whether they're yours or someone else's you obtained through adoption.

I would support getting rid of the "marriage" license altogether, and just having a License to Wed or Form a Union for everybody, because that's all it is. All the old myths have faded, children born out of wedlock are no longer called "bastards", barren women are no longer shunned and sterile men are no longer whispered about and treated as outcasts of some sort. Women who wait to marry are no longer treated as "old maids" and women who have children out of wedlock are no longer punished for adultery.

And while there may be some who would like to return to those days, I think that ship has already left the dock, and rightly so. The underlying problem with those ole days ways is that the rooster always came home to roost. Those who alienated, picked on, and punished others who were different eventually found out that there was something "wrong" with all the finger pointers, and the tables turned.

That's why Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."