That's the whole point.  Calling it "the morality of homosexuality" is already making it into a religious issue.  It doesn't hurt other people, so I don't see how it's a moral issue at all.  It's only moral in the eyes of religions that think it is wrong.  But it should be as legal as it is for me to walk backwards or talk backwards or to cut one of my fingers off, which would be unnatural and stupid but harmless to others.

If you believe there are moral arguments that aren't based on religion, I'd love to hear them.

Are you serious?

Honestly, are you serious?

So you're saying that one can not have morals unless they are religious?

If you believe there are moral arguments against homosexuality that aren't based on religion, I'd love to hear them.

I'm just talking about this one argument, not all morals in general.

negative health effects of homosexuality

higher incidences of domestic violence between homosexual couples

higher rates of promiscuity in homosexual culture

... I could go on...

also, common sense things like, it takes a man and a woman to create a child - that a man and a woman are naturally (obviously[surely]) supposed to go together.  I don't feel like I should have to state these things, and I'm not even trying to start an arguement or take a side on the supposed arguement, just merely state that it is possible for such an arguement to exist (which you have denied as possible.)

And you made a claim like this.

I'm sure we could start a discussion about the moral correctness of suicide.  I mean, suicide doesn't hurt other people, only yourself?  Totally not a moral issue.

as this thread has gone off topic, i made a new one just for the debate above.
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=32395

Why do you keep editing Rubangs posts in your quotes.  His COMPLETE statements clarify, explain, and support his argument very elegantly.

You, on the other hand, don't support your claim "I think there are a lot of arguements one could put against the morality of homosexuality that do not involve religious laws." with any evidence or logical argument.  I'm sure if you put some thought into it, you could come up with something that might pass for logical or material evidence.

I tend to agree with Rubang and this thread.  However, I think VG Mods have a job to do.  Some contreversy doesn't belong on VGChartz, whatever ioi decides hurts VGChartz as a business is his right to remove or have removed by mods.

Hey Avalach, I wrote up a long reply. Should I post it here or move it into PS360's new thread?

Ssj12, you've said some incredibly offensive things towards religion on the forums, and making a thread just to share your opinion that Scientology is a cult is completely inappropriate for the forums. Just because it's a smaller religion does not mean that it's fair game. Hell, if you made a thread called "The Catholic Church is Corrupt!," do you think the user response would be as enthusiastic?

This site encompasses members from all different beliefs, backgrounds, and nations. With the Global Warming thread, it started out well but I suppose it just got out of hand (I'm not sure, never viewed it). With a thread like the one you're speaking of, it would be out of hand from the moment you made it. This is not the forum to discuss how much you hate a certain religion, no matter how common the sentiment.

It would be fine if you left the thread open to both view points, but to just plop down your opinion (which could be viewed as offensive) in the thread title alone, is very unprofessional for the position you're in. We're trying to ease conflicts between the members and make the forums more peaceful. Sex threads are fine because they provide fun discussion and bring up common moments between members closer than just videogames. Threads about religion just tear us apart.

Besides, this is the internet. This site belongs to Brett. If there was completely free thought and speech, the moderators would have no purpose at all. We're here to differentiate between right and wrong. You're free to discuss your opinions on religion, but I've seen you discuss your viewpoints sometimes and they often tell why your point is right and why another is wrong.

Sorry ssj12, I agree with you about Scientology (I used to work for them) but as I said before, and Montana has so eloquently expanded, it's ioi's site.