Debating Christianity and Religion

Many anti-gay fundamentalist Christians oppose equal rights for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community on the basis that sexual acts between members of the same sex are immoral according to Christian scripture and teaching. These individuals often equate queer identities with those sexual acts, and use that connection to argue in favor of denying LGB people equal protection under the law.

While I dispute that the Bible condemns same-sex sex, for the sake of this discussion I will accept the premise that they is wrong under Christianity.

That aside, homosexuality, and, more broadly, gay life, is so much more than what we do in the bedroom. One's sexuality impacts her/his relationships (obviously), social activities, choice of friends, civil rights, (and often) appearance, voice, and other external characteristics. These have nothing to do with sexual acts, but are all part of gay (and straight!) experiences.

Debate question: Is gay life all about "homosexual" "acts?" Is there more to the LGB experience than sex? Should LGB people have fewer rights because some conservative Christians don't like gay sex?

[Replying to post 88 by steellord123]

My post was long already in the point I was making, so I did not see reason to go into more specifics. I assumed the specifics was known or had been debated.
I wished to make a broader point about the argument to marry, not the specific one made by few gays in the US. I know there are rights tied to marriage in the US, I pointed that out. I just didn't go into the specifics, for it is not what I was trying to debate, nor did the poster go into specifics.

About upsetting religions as a reason, you can not say it is way down the list for everyone. Everyone has their own reason to want to marry, or not and not everyone is honest about their motives either.
But I was not arguing what the most common reasons are, but rather that there really isn't moral reasons for wanting same-sex marriage under religions which condemn it.

Hayven wrote:That may very well be the case, as only about 8-10% of the global population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual. However, there have been studies that have indicated possible evolutionary benefits to homosexuality.

Eh, I think it is higher than that, especially when you take into account bisexuals...

This is true of gay men, but not of lesbians. [https://www.womenshealth.gov/publicatio ... lth.html#e]Lesbian women, in fact, are much less likely to get HIV than any other sexually active population (including heterosexuals). [/url]

That is interesting. Why do you think that is the case?

there is zero chance of HIV transmission within an exclusive monogamous relationship between two men.

Technically, that is not true. The probability is greater than zero, and I'd say less than one hundred. The probability may be significantly less with monogamous male partners than with non-monogamous male partners, but it is not zero. It is not even zero for heterosexual couples. The probability is always going to be a non-zero number because it's possible that one partner contracted it after the last time they had a disease screening or blood test. Unless you and your partner do a disease screening or blood test before every time you have sex, there is going to be *some* risk of you contracting HIV.

There is no "gay lifestyle"; that is simply a myth pushed by the most extreme sector of the religious right. The only thing all gay people have in common is being attracted to members of the same gender. That's it. Other than that, we're all different. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are promiscuous, some have been married for 30 years, some like to party, some stay in and spend time with their kids. Gay people lead different lifestyles.

I think there is a certain subculture, perhaps that was more prevalent back in the 70s and 80s, that people are referring to when they mention the "gay lifestyle." However, not all homosexual people are a member of this subculture, nor identify with it.