Man, Chuck Norris is a jerk!

[Drunken Monk]

Is homosexuality normal though? I don't think it is. Neither concept nor act bother me (why would they?) and I have no problem with anyone practicing any form of consensual adult sex. But pretending homosexuality to be normal is part of the problem. I don't believe most people are against gays - only a small minority of bigots - but the idea that homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality isn't biologically or societally sound. I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I would a heterosexual, but does that equate to homosexuals deserving the very same legal "rights" and status? To me it doesn't. Marriage is a religious concept; it decrees that a man and a woman be joined together in the eyes of God, etc... Should society (and more to the point religious institutions) give in to emotional blackmail simply because homosexuals want these same privileges? My first sentence alone would see me branded by some as a 'hater' which simply isn't true. I would defend the right of anyone to be gay and not suffer persecution or bullying. But that doesn't mean I support certain controversial political viewpoints, such as the teaching of homosexual rights and norms in school to children more interested in playing with dolls than each other.

Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. Why wouldn't it be? It's not a social concept, crafted by a rebellious group of people. It's a sexual preference. It isn't "societally sound" because we, as a society, have deemed it wrong. Believe if or not, we could deem it right (we're getting closer and closer) and everything would be fine and dandy.

Biologically? How is it not sound? Because babies aren't made? Nonsense. I have a girlfriend and neither of us wants to have kids. Does that mean we're rattling the biological balance of the world? Nope. Kids are still going to be born.

Homosexuality is a normalcy that's been historically condemned by Man and that's the sad truth. In fact, I'll get a little controversial and say that being gay is "more normal" than being religious. After all, there is proof that love between same sex couples exist. Jesus, however? Eh...shaky evidence.

I think kids should be introduced to the concept of homosexuality early on so that they learn it's normal. We're not teaching procreation, we're teaching love and acceptance. Why shouldn't that include two men/two women? We worry too much that our children, upon learning about homosexuality, will immediately want to indulge. How silly. If we address is correctly, we won't be seeing a generation of bigoted idiot or a generation of flamboyant boa wearing queens. We will, instead, see a generation of well adjusted, socially accepting boys and girls who will, in turn, eventually make the world a better place.

[Guest Markgway]

If marriage is religous, then why do athiests get married?

Convention. You don't have to be religious to get married. What I said is that it's a religious concept. Most laws and conventions are born out religious conviction. Same goes for all cultures.

EDIT: I'm talking about getting married under religious circumstance (ie. in a church) and not civil ceremonies. I just realised what I wrote might have been confusing... a bit.

[KyFi]

Chuck admitted in one of his autobiographies that he is an adulterer. He broke one of the Ten Commandments - laws most Christians agree on. So I think perhaps Chuck shouldn't make pronouncements about others' sexual behaviour.

As a Christian, I'd like to clarify this point. I don't believe Chuck was arguing that his adultery wasn't sinful. Christianity says that we're all sinners. Does that mean no one can make any moral pronouncements or judgements? Do you think lying and stealing is wrong? Have you ever lied or stolen anything in your life? If people want to argue that Christians are hypocrites for preaching values that they don't live up to, I don't have a problem with that, because it's true---however, it's not just true of Christians, it's true of everyone, as it's part of the human condition.

[Guest Yi-Long]

Convention. You don't have to be religious to get married. What I said is that it's a religious concept. Most laws and conventions are born out religious conviction. Same goes for all cultures.

EDIT: I'm talking about getting married under religious circumstance (ie. in a church) and not civil ceremonies. I just realised what I wrote might have been confusing... a bit.

I was gonna respond but you already placed the edit that you meant the current religious ceremonial stuff when talking about marriage.

'Marriage', or arrangements/agreements that could be labelled as such, pre-dates our 'modern' religions and thus ceremonies. It's just 2 people agreeing to be loyal to eachother and I think that comes from human nature, wanting to be safe with eachother and in the relationship. Not from religion.

In fact, I think the religious marriage is just a result of the normal natural desire to stick with the spouse you love, and letting others know about it.

It's not about being religious. It's about being human. It's just in our nature. And if that other person happens to be from the same sex or not shouldn't have anythung to do with it.

You love who you love. You shouldn't feel bad about that, and you shouldn't be MADE to feel bad about that by people who don't understand or agree with it.

Mark: you're talking about religious marriage. Many of us here are just talking about equal rights for everyone. Surely you agree that for the law gays deserve equal rights at least!?

[Killer Meteor]

I will say Chuck did have it right when he said "David Carradine is as good a martial artist as I am an actor."

[KyFi]

I will say Chuck did have it right when he said "David Carradine is as good a martial artist as I am an actor."

That is so true. On that front, Chuck did not seem to improve as an actor one iota throughout his whole career, IMO.

[Guest Markgway]

Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.

I think most people here are confusing the word normal with natural. I don't want to give the impression that I think homosexuals are freaks. Some of the responses to my post have been a bit knee jerk in a rush to disagree. If I've expressed myself in a way that offends that was not my intent but I don't believe we should be afraid to discuss.

Biologically? How is it not sound? Because babies aren't made? Nonsense. I have a girlfriend and neither of us wants to have kids. Does that mean we're rattling the biological balance of the world? Nope. Kids are still going to be born.

I don't think your lack of desire to produce children equates to the normalcy of homosexuality. All creatures - not just human - survive and thrive on reproduction between genders. That's the natural order. To not produce is a choice humans make - and a valid one which should be respected. Homosexuals CAN'T produce TOGETHER. That's the difference. It's not about the end result. Love, friendship, respect and acceptance can be taught without the recognition of sex (at least at a pre-teen age). If a teenager has questions they should not be afraid to ask.

In fact, I'll get a little controversial and say that being gay is "more normal" than being religious.

I'm not going near that one...

[Guest Yi-Long]

I think most people here are confusing the word normal with natural. I don't want to give the impression that I think homosexuals are freaks. Some of the responses to my post have been a bit knee jerk in a rush to disagree. If I've expressed myself in a way that offends that was not my intent but I don't believe we should be afraid to discuss.

I don't think your lack of desire to produce children equates to the normalcy of homosexuality. All creatures - not just human - survive and thrive on reproduction between genders. That's the natural order. To not produce is a choice humans make - and a valid one which should be respected. Homosexuals CAN'T produce. That's the difference. It's not about the end result. Love, friendship, respect and acceptance can be taught without the recognition of sex (at least at a pre-teen age). If a teenager has questions they should not be afraid to ask.

I'm not going near that one...

The problem with discussing 'sexuality' is mostly about people focussing completely on the SEX part.

Normal healthy relationships are much more than just SEX. It's about eachother's personality, being attracted to eachother not just in a physical way, but in all ways. You find someone you like, you love, you trust, you enjoy being with, etc etc.

Is it 'normal'/'natural' that we stick our bodyparts in someone's ass!? I'm guessing it's not, but that doesn't mean the whole relationship between those two people is unhealthy.

And if we're going to judge EVERY relationship solely on what happens in the bedroom and if that's 'natural'/'normal', then I'm guessing a lot of hetero-sexual relationships would be deemed 'unhealthy' as well...(!)

Let's judge relationships on how the persons involved FEEL about eachother. About how they care and love about eachother. And not on those 20 minutes a day they might spend sexually in the bedroom.

[Guest Markgway]

I was gonna respond but you already placed the edit that you meant the current religious ceremonial stuff when talking about marriage.

Yes, I was a bit vague in my assertions. Apologies for any confusion.

Yi-Long's post regarding the original origins of marriage are accurate... up to a point. In fact marriage was at one point an inter-family union in which whole families would join together and often involved the transfer of money and land ownership. A very businesslike affair. Love was considered secondary - if at all.

Mark: you're talking about religious marriage. Many of us here are just talking about equal rights for everyone. Surely you agree that for the law gays deserve equal rights at least!?

Yes, of course. I've never had a problem with civil ceremonies. What I'm saying is that I understand why Chuck and fellow Christians object to gays demanding religious marriage. It's not the place of government to interfere in faith unless persecution is taking place. No one has the right to demand a religious marriage. It's at the discression of the Church, surely?

Is it 'normal'/'natural' that we stick our bodyparts in someone's ass!? I'm guessing it's not, but that doesn't mean the whole relationship between those two people is unhealthy.

"In Africa, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Nigeria and Somalia."

Now that's persecution!

[KyFi]

My solution for the gay marriage issue in the US would be for the government to get out of the marriage business completely. There could be civil unions for anyone that wanted them, completely regardless of sexuality---could be any two people, friends, parent/child, brother/sister, whatever--that would give them the complete legal rights of a partner. Then, let the churches decide their own marriage standards, and if people want a church ceremony they can find one that caters to their values, or they could just forego a church ceremony altogether.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

I'm not sure about statistics concerning gays in America but aren't the crimes committed more by straight people??? Or is there such a thing that records this kind of stuff??

[waywardsage]

My solution for the gay marriage issue in the US would be for the government to get out of the marriage business completely. There could be civil unions for anyone that wanted them, completely regardless of sexuality---could be any two people, friends, parent/child, brother/sister, whatever--that would give them the complete legal rights of a partner. Then, let the churches decide their own marriage standards, and if people want a church ceremony they can find one that caters to their values, or they could just forego a church ceremony altogether.

My wife and I have been saying this for YEARS. I've even brought this up to hardcore religious conservatives that I know and they surprisingly are totally fine with this solution. The thing they have a problem with is the use of the term "marriage."

It's ridiculous that this hasn't been made law yet.

[Guest Yi-Long]

My wife and I have been saying this for YEARS. I've even brought this up to hardcore religious conservatives that I know and they surprisingly are totally fine with this solution. The thing they have a problem with is the use of the term "marriage."

It's ridiculous that this hasn't been made law yet.

So why do these religious folks feel only they have a right to the term or even institute of 'marriage'!?

[Guest Yi-Long]

Yes, I was a bit vague in my assertions. Apologies for any confusion.

Yi-Long's post regarding the original origins of marriage are accurate... up to a point. In fact marriage was at one point an inter-family union in which whole families would join together and often involved the transfer of money and land ownership. A very businesslike affair. Love was considered secondary - if at all.

Yes and no. There were many societies ofcourse, even before written history, who already had 'marriage' arrangements, and obviously, the terms of those arrangements were varied. Just like they still are, with big differences between cultures around the world.

Yes, of course. I've never had a problem with civil ceremonies. What I'm saying is that I understand why Chuck and fellow Christians object to gays demanding religious marriage. It's not the place of government to interfere in faith unless persecution is taking place. No one has the right to demand a religious marriage. It's at the discression of the Church, surely?

That would mean you can't be AND gay, AND a christian/catholic/muslim/jew/whatever!? Some people will agree with that and some won't, I guess.

I'm not sure where I stand, but that's mostly because I'm not religious myself so I don't feel at ease telling those who are what they can and can't do/think/feel. That's up to them. And many religious people are totally fine with gay people, with gay people getting equal rights, and with gay people also being religious themselfs.

To some religious people, their God is for EVERYONE, and their God is about LOVE and respect. Some other religious people think that their God excludes and hates people who are gay, or are atheist, or are of a different faith, etc etc.

I'm not gonna bother getting involved in that. That's just about personal faith and how people want to experience their religion.

"In Africa, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Nigeria and Somalia."

Now that's persecution!

I know. It's sickening how people all around the world would go so far and extreme in their hatred for those who might be a little different from themselfs...

It's also quite sad and pathetic. It won't change anytime soon either, I'm afraid.

Nowadays, after the whole illegal Iraq war, Iraqi gays are being prosecuted, tortured and murdered by local extremists who go out of their way to hunt them down and destroy them. The stories you read and hear are horrific.

[Guest Markgway]

That would mean you can't be AND gay, AND a christian/catholic/muslim/jew/whatever!? Some people will agree with that and some won't, I guess. I'm not sure where I stand, but that's mostly because I'm not religious myself so I don't feel at ease telling those who are what they can and can't do/think/feel.

Exactly. I'm not religious. I'm not a Christian (as Chuck is). Ergo I don't think it's my place to tell Christian institutions whom they should and shouldn't marry. Nor is it the government's. If a gay person considers themself a Christian but can't find any Christian official to marry them then that's a problem between them and the Church. It's not a legal issue and shouldn't be made such. I realise no one chooses to be gay but you DO choose your religion and if both are incompatable perhaps it's time to reconsider your faith.

[Killer Meteor]

I think faith should rule over religion. If a church won't marry you, then why should you let an institution get in the way of your faith in God AND who you want to marry.

Answer? We need a new Church.

[Guest Yi-Long]

I think faith should rule over religion. If a church won't marry you, then why should you let an institution get in the way of your faith in God AND who you want to marry.

Answer? We need a new Church.

I'd love to start a 'church' for atheists like myself...

Only asian nuns in sexy outfits allowed in my church. We're forced by rule that we have to play videogames, watch asian movies and cartoons all day!

[Guest Markgway]

I think faith should rule over religion. If a church won't marry you, then why should you let an institution get in the way of your faith in God AND who you want to marry.

That's why you can get a civil partnership. You don't have to compromise your faith but can still have the legal union.

Answer? We need a new Church.

We? Are you gay or Christian?

Only asian nuns in sexy outfits allowed in my church.

...and these nuns aren't celebate.

[Guest Yi-Long]

That's why you can get a civil partnership. You don't have to compromise your faith but can still have the legal union.

...but why shouldn't it be called 'marriage'!? Why would only straight couples be entitled to that label!?

...and these nuns aren't celebate.

That's for them to decide ofcourse. My church is all about individual freedom.

[KyFi]

I don't know, maybe it's different in the UK or Europe, but there are hundreds of denominations of Christianity in the US, and it's not that difficult to find one that performs gay marriage. That's why I said that the best solution is just to get the government out of the argument, and let people go to the churches that they believe in, or don't go to a church at all. There's no law against anyone calling themselves "married", and with civil unions everyone would have the same legal rights.

[massa_yoda]

I'd love to start a 'church' for atheists like myself...

Only asian nuns in sexy outfits allowed in my church. We're forced by rule that we have to play videogames, watch asian movies and cartoons all day!

Though I'm a theist, I may already be going to this church without realizing it! At least I'm following its protocol (Minus the asain nuns)...

[CatNap]

I'm actually shocked by the left wing nuts hurling insults. You may differ about your views on God but that doesn't give you the right to insult those beliefs many hold sacred. I personally believe many people enjoy insulting religion because they're angry at God.

Regarding guns, as a gun owner, if I obey the laws, and I did long before I joined a federal law enforcement agency. No one has the right to tell a law abiding citizen what they can and can't own, and that they can't defend themselves if threatened. If you don't want to hurt the attacker, let him take your life. Me, I believe in fighting back and no one should have to apologize for refusing to be a victim. So you hate Chuck because he believes in God and in the rights - all the rights, not just the first amendment, that young men and women died for so we could live freely and enjoy the rights many of them can't. I take offense at the right wing nut job stance since so many liberal actors use guns to make money in their films and remarkably carry them themselves. They just don't think "little people" can't handle the responsibility the way "trained" actors can.

Chuck Norris is one of the few decent men in entertainment - and Donna Summer, who passed today at 63 was another. 63 is far too young to leave, but I guess her strong faith in God makes her just another right wing nut job like Chuck......

Laura

[massa_yoda]

I'm actually shocked by the left wing nuts hurling insults. You may differ about your views on God but that doesn't give you the right to insult those beliefs many hold sacred. I personally believe many people enjoy insulting religion because they're angry at God.

Laura

Yeah, some people like to take any opportunity they can to bash people of faith and I don't like it either, but I think the main reason why people are sounding off on this thread has more to do with the third section of Chuck's article 'Gays in the news', not necessarily his belief in God. Though I'm sure plenty of people hate that too.

[Guest Yi-Long]

I don't hate anyone for believing in God, but when they (ab)use that religion to deny others equal rights, obviously I have a problem with that.

Anyone can believe in whatever they fuck they want, but let's not mistake any faith/religion for FACT.

We don't know. It's a BELIEF. Not a KNOWING.

Now, if that's 'insulting' to read for some, and I don't know how it could be, then that's their problem.

[massa_yoda]

We don't know. It's a BELIEF. Not a KNOWING.

Now, if that's 'insulting' to read for some, and I don't know how it could be, then that's their problem.

You don't see what's insulting about calling a person's God fake? (from your earlier post)

Faith and beliefs can be paths to knowing. If I may add, all scientific discoveries started with faith in an idea.

I don't disagree with your comment about abusing religion to deny others equal rights. Of course that is wrong. But let's respect those here that share the same faith and aren't doing horrible things with it.