According to the Bible, gay is not okay.

[MarbleZone]

The main reason homosexuals can't have kids is because the homophobes won't let them.

 

From a personal standpoint, I don't think adoption shouldn't be allowed just yet; not because I have anything against gay couples, but because of how that effectively affects the child.

I think it's unfair to subject a child to the overwhelming peer pressure that she'd inevitably be under if both her parents had the same gender. Even if society were to become more tolerant, the adopted child would still be regarded as different in the eyes of other kids her age, and it'd interfere with her integration and make her confused.

In an utopic society where people wouldn't even notice gay couples, maybe children wouldn't find it awkward, and even then, only if there was a very large number of kids adopted by a very large number of gay couples. As it is, the simple fact that it's different can (and does) prove very hard for the adopted children in their relationship with peers, because children are, as we know, brutally honest to the point of "cruel".

[Fidel Castro]

I can agree with that. homosexuality is a psychological condition. Majority of psychological conditions are affected by your enviroment. Raised in a gay enviroment the child is more likely to become gay. That said when did happyness become similar to homosexuality?

 

That said the main reason why nations don't legalise gay marriage is because gay people can't reproduce. No reproduction = loss in population = loss is productivity = loss of power/wealth.

 

And i don't hate gays, even if this post makes it seem like i do.

[Dr. Cakey]

The main reason homosexuals can't have kids is because the homophobes won't let them.

 

From a personal standpoint' date=' I don't think adoption shouldn't be allowed just yet; not because I have anything against gay couples, but because of how that effectively affects the child.

I think it's unfair to subject a child to the overwhelming peer pressure that she'd inevitably be under if both her parents had the same gender. Even if society were to become more tolerant, the adopted child would still be regarded as different in the eyes of other kids her age, and it'd interfere with her integration and make her confused.

In an utopic society where people wouldn't even notice gay couples, maybe children wouldn't find it awkward, and even then, only if there was a very large number of kids adopted by a very large number of gay couples. As it is, the simple fact that it's different can (and does) prove very hard for the adopted children in their relationship with peers, because children are, as we know, brutally honest to the point of "cruel".

[/quote']

 

You seem to be laboring under the impression that it is illegal for gay couples to adopt children.

 

 

I can agree with that. homosexuality is a psychological condition. Majority of psychological conditions are affected by your enviroment. Raised in a gay enviroment the child is more likely to become gay. That said when did happyness become similar to homosexuality?

 

That said the main reason why nations don't legalise gay marriage is because gay people can't reproduce. No reproduction = loss in population = loss is productivity = loss of power/wealth.

 

And i don't hate gays' date=' even if this post makes it seem like i do.

[/quote']

 

Because what the US desperately needs right now is more people. Not to mention that your "equation" is basically false. How many times do you need to be told that the United States has 5% of the world's population but uses something like 25-50% of the world's resources.

 

On the subject of 'how many times do you need to be told'...CRAB HAMMER!

 

A single-semester introductory Psych class will tell you that sexuality depends on a variety of factors; some genetic' date=' some environmental. It will also tell you that the environmental factors are far less significant than the genetic ones.[/quote']

[MarbleZone]

The main reason homosexuals can't have kids is because the homophobes won't let them.

 

From a personal standpoint' date=' I don't think adoption shouldn't be allowed just yet; not because I have anything against gay couples, but because of how that effectively affects the child.

I think it's unfair to subject a child to the overwhelming peer pressure that she'd inevitably be under if both her parents had the same gender. Even if society were to become more tolerant, the adopted child would still be regarded as different in the eyes of other kids her age, and it'd interfere with her integration and make her confused.

In an utopic society where people wouldn't even notice gay couples, maybe children wouldn't find it awkward, and even then, only if there was a very large number of kids adopted by a very large number of gay couples. As it is, the simple fact that it's different can (and does) prove very hard for the adopted children in their relationship with peers, because children are, as we know, brutally honest to the point of "cruel".

[/quote']

 

You seem to be laboring under the impression that it is illegal for gay couples to adopt children.

 

While I'm sure that varies with each country, I'm not labouring under any impression, I'm stating my view on whether or not I think it should be legal and why.

[Dr. Cakey]

The main reason homosexuals can't have kids is because the homophobes won't let them.

 

From a personal standpoint' date=' I don't think adoption shouldn't be allowed just yet; not because I have anything against gay couples, but because of how that effectively affects the child.

I think it's unfair to subject a child to the overwhelming peer pressure that she'd inevitably be under if both her parents had the same gender. Even if society were to become more tolerant, the adopted child would still be regarded as different in the eyes of other kids her age, and it'd interfere with her integration and make her confused.

In an utopic society where people wouldn't even notice gay couples, maybe children wouldn't find it awkward, and even then, only if there was a very large number of kids adopted by a very large number of gay couples. As it is, the simple fact that it's different can (and does) prove very hard for the adopted children in their relationship with peers, because children are, as we know, brutally honest to the point of "cruel".

[/quote']

 

You seem to be laboring under the impression that it is illegal for gay couples to adopt children.

 

While I'm sure that varies with each country, I'm not labouring under any impression, I'm stating my view on whether or not I think it should be legal and why.

 

Did you know that mixed-race marriages used to be illegal, for exactly the same reasons. You should probably think a little more carefully before you type.

[MarbleZone]

Did you know that mixed-race marriages used to be illegal' date=' for exactly the same reasons. You should probably think a little more carefully before you type.

[/quote']

 

Mixed-race marriages are now seen, in comparison anyway, as natural; homosexual couples not quite so yet, and the fact children are discriminated for that is not a hypothetical situation I'm posing as I've dealt with more than a couple of cases recently. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying and I have discussed this issue with a variety of people; the fact you don't agree with it does not mean my post wasn't thought out. ;)

[Silas Angel]

Wait' date=' are there people in here actually preaching the word of God?

[/quote']

 

Yup ^_^

 

My darling Max C.' date=' it's hard to believe that such a minor thing as blasphemy is the unforgivable sin. It's a pity, I was hoping to give away all my possessions to charity, but I guess there's no point now, huh? teh eternal fire does at least seem like an interesting place. I'll be able to ask Machiavelli if he was writing satire.

[/quote']

 

It's hard to believe because you have such a small view of who God is. Because you see God more of a muddy puddle you'd rather not mess with rather than a mighty King who deserves praise, honor, and glory, who is always good. It is not hard to see that if you compare His perfect and holy nature with that of a sinful wicked creature, that you'd have no more hope.

 

And charity wouldn't have helped you anyway. All your "good" deeds are still filthy rags before God until you are born again. (Isaiah 64:6).

 

I hope Max C is a troll.

 

I really really do.

 

Nope. =P Just a real Christian who knows his Bible well.

 

 

Also, I've seen the arguments about homosexuality being compared to race and I've also read about how it is genetic and has much more to do with your genes than your environment. But I just can't believe you unless I see any proof =/

[GraveHorizon]

I can agree with that. homosexuality is a psychological condition. Majority of psychological conditions are affected by your enviroment. Raised in a gay enviroment the child is more likely to become gay. That said when did happyness become similar to homosexuality?

 

That said the main reason why nations don't legalise gay marriage is because gay people can't reproduce. No reproduction = loss in population = loss is productivity = loss of power/wealth.

 

And i don't hate gays' date=' even if this post makes it seem like i do.

[/quote']

 

That said... no. Where do you people come up with these ideas? If people weren't allowed to marry because they couldn't reproduce (this is assuming that surrogacy is outlawed in the future), wouldn't that apply to sterile people too? And the people who choose to get their tubes tied or snipped. Are they denied marriage? You seem to forget that we're not running out of people anytime soon.

 

Also, what do you think homosexuals are doing while they're not being allowed to marry? Do you think they're off having heterosexual sex and making babies? Getting married wouldn't have any effect on reproductive rates, and even if it did it wouldn't be anywhere near as drastic as you make it sound.

 

Did you know that mixed-race marriages used to be illegal' date=' for exactly the same reasons. You should probably think a little more carefully before you type.

[/quote']

 

Mixed-race marriages are now seen, in comparison anyway, as natural; homosexual couples not quite so yet, and the fact children are discriminated for that is not a hypothetical situation I'm posing as I've dealt with more than a couple of cases recently. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying and I have discussed this issue with a variety of people; the fact you don't agree with it does not mean my post wasn't thought out. ;)

 

So what you're saying is that gay couples today are like mixed-race couples in the past, and each in their respective time periods shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they'll be made fun of? We just have to wait around for another 30 years and it'll be considered okay? How do we get other people to approve of it, just hope they come around to a fair-minded viewpoint and then try it out?

[Dr. Cakey]

Did you know that mixed-race marriages used to be illegal' date=' for exactly the same reasons. You should probably think a little more carefully before you type.

[/quote']

 

Mixed-race marriages are now seen, in comparison anyway, as natural; homosexual couples not quite so yet, and the fact children are discriminated for that is not a hypothetical situation I'm posing as I've dealt with more than a couple of cases recently. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying and I have discussed this issue with a variety of people; the fact you don't agree with it does not mean my post wasn't thought out. ;)

 

You're arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because homophobia exists? Is that right?

EDIT: I've been ninja'd by a much more thorough response.

 

It's hard to believe because you have such a small view of who God is. Because you see God more of a muddy puddle you'd rather not mess with rather than a mighty King who deserves praise' date=' honor, and glory, who is always good. It is not hard to see that if you compare His perfect and holy nature with that of a sinful wicked creature, that you'd have no more hope.[/quote']

Someone who deserves praise, honor, and glory, and who is always good would not consider something like blasphemy to be the ultimate sin. If He did, He wouldn't deserve praise, honor, and glory, nor would he be good.

 

Also, I've seen the arguments about homosexuality being compared to race and I've also read about how it is genetic and has much more to do with your genes than your environment. But I just can't believe you unless I see any proof =/

 

CRAB HAMMER...IT'S A CRITICAL HIT!

A single-semester introductory Psych class will tell you that sexuality depends on a variety of factors; some genetic' date=' some environmental. It will also tell you that the environmental factors are far less significant than the genetic ones.[/quote']

Now please, stop being a bigot.

[MarbleZone]

So what you're saying is that gay couples today are like mixed-race couples in the past' date=' and each in their respective time periods shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they'll be made fun of? We just have to wait around for another 30 years and it'll be considered okay? How do we get other people to approve of it, just hope they come around to a fair-minded viewpoint and then try it out?

[/quote']

 

You can force a law on a population, kids won't care; they'll only stop mentioning it when it looks natural to them; it's not a matter of whether it's religiously okay or not, or whether you're uneasy about gay couples; it's about a child being discriminated because his parents aren't like everyone else's. Regardless of gay couples being perfectly acceptable or not, as long as they're such a perceived minority and their status continues to spark drawn-out discussions that only make them look less integrated, then it's going to keep happening for a while longer.

Whether or not the child's emotional burden is heavy enough to be an impediment is up to each person to debate; in my opinion, having dealt with children in that situation, I oppose gay-couple adoption for the moment.

 

@Cakey: I wouldn't say it's the homophobes, but the fact that gay couples are still out-of-the-ordinary to children. Homphobe parents aren't inciting kids to hate gay people, but it's natural for the moment for a child to look at another's parents and say "hey, why do you have two dads instead of a mom and dad?". It's more of the novelty issue than over-conservative parents telling their kids that gay is bad, but from personal experience, that can scar the adopted child.

[Dr. Cakey]

So what you're saying is that gay couples today are like mixed-race couples in the past' date=' and each in their respective time periods shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they'll be made fun of? We just have to wait around for another 30 years and it'll be considered okay? How do we get other people to approve of it, just hope they come around to a fair-minded viewpoint and then try it out?

[/quote']

 

You can force a law on a population, kids won't care; they'll only stop mentioning it when it looks natural to them; it's not a matter of whether it's religiously okay or not, or whether you're uneasy about gay couples; it's about a child being discriminated because his parents aren't like everyone else's. Regardless of gay couples being perfectly acceptable or not, as long as they're such a perceived minority and their status continues to spark drawn-out discussions that only make them look less integrated, then it's going to keep happening for a while longer.

Whether or not the child's emotional burden is heavy enough to be an impediment is up to each person to debate; in my opinion, having dealt with children in that situation, I oppose gay-couple adoption for the moment.

 

Your arguments are identical to those of people who believed that the nation "wasn't ready" for racial equality just yet. Martin Luther King disagreed.

 

i haxxed w/ teh race card

[MarbleZone]

Again, like I said, if I had never been through the issue and was just theorizing, I wouldn't be so adamant about my position. I have no guarantees that allowing adoption would be disastrous for every single adopted child, but I've seen a few, and I wouldn't want a premature call on that subject to be responsible for something that could be avoided if the decision came later in time.

I could be wrong, of course, like people were about racial equality, but I stand by my position that it's a bit too soon.

[Silas Angel]

EDIT: I've been ninja'd by a much more thorough response.

 

It's hard to believe because you have such a small view of who God is. Because you see God more of a muddy puddle you'd rather not mess with rather than a mighty King who deserves praise' date=' honor, and glory, who is always good. It is not hard to see that if you compare His perfect and holy nature with that of a sinful wicked creature, that you'd have no more hope.[/quote']

 

Someone who deserves praise, honor, and glory, and who is always good would not consider something like blasphemy to be the ultimate sin. If He did, He wouldn't deserve praise, honor, and glory, nor would he be good.

 

If He were good, He would judge you for your sins. And just for curiosity's sake, why would He not be good or deserve those things?

 

Also, I've seen the arguments about homosexuality being compared to race and I've also read about how it is genetic and has much more to do with your genes than your environment. But I just can't believe you unless I see any proof =/

 

CRAB HAMMER...IT'S A CRITICAL HIT!

A single-semester introductory Psych class will tell you that sexuality depends on a variety of factors; some genetic' date=' some environmental. It will also tell you that the environmental factors are far less significant than the genetic ones.[/quote']

Now please, stop being a bigot.

 

My intention is not bigotry. =/ Just truth. I'll be doing a semester of Psych this next year anyways =P So I might learn something. But just because Crab posted it doesn't make it truth =/ I mean, links or real proof

[CrabHelmet]

On the Subject of Three Arguments Proposed by Morons

 

1) A lot of people don't like gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry/adopt/breathe oxygen/whatever.

 

You can't put civil rights up for a majority vote; it is not correct for a group to be oppressed just because they are seen as "different". This is not an issue that can be reasonably debated. You can't do that. To say that that is permissible is to say that long-term historical oppression of the Jews by Christian majorities was perfectly morally justified because they were different and it's perfectly fine to oppress people who are different as long as a majority agrees that they're weird. Or, alternatively, it is to say that slavery was perfectly fine because, back in those days, white Americans would largely see free blacks as weird and unusual. Such an argument style is inhuman and unsustainable. You should no more deny gays basic rights on the grounds that other people don't like them than you should confine the Jews to ghettos on the grounds that Christian majorities don't like them. What you are suggesting is, in essence, mob rule - exactly the thing that government is supposed to protect its minorities against.

 

2) Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it will turn the kids gay.

 

My first response is "So what? How is that a bad thing?", but there's actually a far more direct counterargument: that's simply not true. Though some environmental factors exist (though, again, genetic factors are much more important), simply being around homosexuals is not one of them. In fact, the reverse is actually true! One of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, environmental influences toward homosexuality is essentially "Exotic = Erotic"; that is to say, members of the same sex become more attractive precisely because homosexuality is "unusual". Being raised by homosexual parents makes it seem more normal, eliminating that influence.

 

3) I don't think it's genetic. I think it's a choice.

 

Read a book, you illiterate moron.

[Silas Angel]

3) I don't think it's genetic. I think it's a choice.

 

Read a book' date=' you illiterate moron.

[/quote']

 

Do you have any suggestions?

[MarbleZone]

You can't put civil rights up for a majority vote; it is not correct for a group to be oppressed just because they are seen as "different".

 

Problem here being' date=' gay people marrying is a situation that concerns the couple alone - I agree with allowing marriage. Placing adoption at the same level is wrong, because it does not concern only the couple, but a child as well, with his/her own set of rights. Eventually yes, it should be allowed without question. As it stands, integration of a minority into the rules of the majority (essentially, trying to dilute that minority and promote equality, which makes perfect sense) should, in my opinion, be progressive in what pertains to adoption in particular. That minority shouldn't even exist in the first place, but seeing as it does/did and it was so blatantly weeded out, I don't think it'd do children too much good if adoption came at a time where having "two dads" or "two moms" can still be a source of discrimination. From a legal standpoint, yes, there is no reason to deny [i']the couples[/i] any other right. But accounting for the third element in this particular situation, I think adoption should not be allowed at the same time/so soon after marriage was.

[CrabHelmet]

3) I don't think it's genetic. I think it's a choice.

 

Read a book' date=' you illiterate moron.

[/quote']

 

Do you have any suggestions?

 

I'm sorry to hear that checking wikipedia was just too difficult for you.

 

It contains nice quotes like this one:

 

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

 

It's okay. I know how difficult it is to type something into Wikipedia and actually do twenty seconds of reading.

 

(To be fair, "genetic" is rather an oversimplification; it's actually a combination of many factors that are not in any way affected by the person's choices and which have nothing to do with the person's upbringing. But to avoid getting into biological jargon and to keep things concise, "genetic" is a decent shorthand, since it has largely the same effect, and genetics are indeed one of the prominent factors; if my identical twin is gay, then I have a better-than-even chance of being gay as well.)

 

You can't put civil rights up for a majority vote; it is not correct for a group to be oppressed just because they are seen as "different".

 

Problem here being' date=' gay people marrying is a situation that concerns the couple alone - I agree with allowing marriage. Placing adoption at the same level is wrong, because it does not concern only the couple, but a child as well, with his/her own set of rights. Eventually yes, it should be allowed without question. As it stands, integration of a minority into the rules of the majority (essentially, trying to dilute that minority and promote equality, which makes perfect sense) should, in my opinion, be progressive in what pertains to adoption in particular. That minority shouldn't even exist in the first place, but seeing as it does/did and it was so blatantly weeded out, I don't think it'd do children too much good if adoption came at a time where having "two dads" or "two moms" can still be a source of discrimination. From a legal standpoint, yes, there is no reason to deny [i']the couples[/i] any other right. But accounting for the third element in this particular situation, I think adoption should not be allowed at the same time/so soon after marriage was.

 

I think we should deny blacks the right to adopt in the south. There's a lot of racist sentiment there, so it makes perfect sense to not subject kids to that sort of thing. Similarly, deny Muslims the right to adopt in America. There's a lot of Islam hate there, and we don't want kids subjected to that. Oh, and better deny Jews the right to adopt too, just to be on the safe side. And a lot of people don't like Hispanics, so they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. And the same goes for Catholics. And those of foreign birth.

 

Screw it, just deny everyone except white heterosexual Protestant natural-born American married couples from adopting. And require both of the members of said couples to be right-handed, too.

[MarbleZone]

Generalization to expose ridicule sometimes fails because situations aren't realistically comparable. This is one such case, in my view. Like I said before, I doubt children will have any sort of problem with black, Muslim, Jew, Hispanic or Catholic parents or classmates; I doubt they'll even notice. I somehow can't shake off the feeling they might notice a classmate has two male parents, and I can't shake off the feeling that one classmate will have a pretty hard time - and the right to be protected from discrimination is effectively contemplated on the Children's Rights. :/

 

Now, I'll post without being fully aware of the facts, but I don't recall any law being recently approved that allowed marriage within such groups; to me, that's been natural for quite a while I wouldn't give any of those couples a second look. Legal gay couples, however, are quite recent, which is the only reason I think postponing adoption for a while longer would make sense. I don't want to deny them that right like you just implied, I personally defend legalization of adoption by this kind of couple be postponed for the reasons I mentioned. But I feel like I already made this clear in the previous post and you just felt the need to blow everything out of proportion with comparisons that really don't apply. :/

[Silas Angel]

3) I don't think it's genetic. I think it's a choice.

 

Read a book' date=' you illiterate moron.

[/quote']

 

Do you have any suggestions?

 

I'm sorry to hear that checking wikipedia was just too difficult for you.

 

It contains nice quotes like this one:

 

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

 

It's okay. I know how difficult it is to type something into Wikipedia and actually do twenty seconds of reading.

 

(To be fair, "genetic" is rather an oversimplification; it's actually a combination of many factors that are not in any way affected by the person's choices and which have nothing to do with the person's upbringing. But to avoid getting into biological jargon and to keep things concise, "genetic" is a decent shorthand, since it has largely the same effect, and genetics are indeed one of the prominent factors; if my identical twin is gay, then I have a better-than-even chance of being gay as well.)

 

Well, two things: 1) Wikipedia isn't really a trusted source. =/ If I can't use it in a term paper, you can't prove your points to me either. And 2) I ask for your suggestions because my research will be biased. If I do research, I will, more than likely, not find anything authoritative. But if you give me links to actual authorities on the subject, I'll actually learn something.

 

And about "genetic", my apologies for not being an expert in biology =P I really don't like science... =/ I actually kinda hate it... But at least I've learned something. =P Thank you ;)

[Dark]

Wikipedia isn't really a trusted source.

 

Science teachers are idiots for saying it's not a valid source. If you must, cross-reference it with other sites, but it has only given me wrong information once, and I can assure you it was a troll who edited the page rather than an actual person with a brain.

 

It's a compliation of ideas and facts from a bunch of people, and Wikipedia cites their sources. So if you don't trust Wikipedia, don't bother trusting any website that they get their sources from.

[CrabHelmet]

Wikipedia's main Homosexuality article has over two hundred citations, plus a sizable bibliography. And that's not even counting the citations and references on all of the other more specific pages on homosexuality.

 

If you're too lazy to do even the slightest bit of research yourself, you're going to have to accept what Wikipedia says.

[GraveHorizon]

Maybe someone should ask one of those unadopted kids what they'd rather do: be adopted by a homosexual couple, have a home and deal with (possibly) being made fun of by homophobes for the adopted parents they have, or live it up eating ice cream all day, never being made fun of ever, and having an all around great time (as all parentless kids currently do).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a quote by "The Royal College of Psychiatrists" on a Wikipedia page is still a quote by a legitimate organization.

[Dr. Cakey]

Generalization to expose ridicule sometimes fails because situations aren't realistically comparable. This is one such case' date=' in my view. Like I said before, I doubt children will have any sort of problem with black, Muslim, Jew, Hispanic or Catholic parents or classmates; I doubt they'll even notice. I somehow can't shake off the feeling they might notice a classmate has two male parents, and I can't shake off the feeling that one classmate will have a pretty hard time - and the right to be protected from discrimination is effectively contemplated on the Children's Rights. :/

 

Now, I'll post without being fully aware of the facts, but I don't recall any law being [i']recently[/i] approved that allowed marriage within such groups; to me, that's been natural for quite a while I wouldn't give any of those couples a second look. Legal gay couples, however, are quite recent, which is the only reason I think postponing adoption for a while longer would make sense. I don't want to deny them that right like you just implied, I personally defend legalization of adoption by this kind of couple be postponed for the reasons I mentioned. But I feel like I already made this clear in the previous post and you just felt the need to blow everything out of proportion with comparisons that really don't apply. :/

 

It applies completely, because it's an identical situation. There is NO DIFFERENCE - people have just gotten more clever with their bigotry.

 

Postponement and moral compromise have never worked out very well in the government. The three-fifths compromise comes to mind.

 

If He were good' date=' He would judge you for your sins. And just for curiosity's sake, why would He not be good or deserve those things?[/quote']

God should have the moral high ground. But a God that asks for a groveling populace to lick His boots for a pass into eternal life, with any other transgressions being secondary, appears to stroke His ego a little too much. The only conclusions are that God doesn't really give a damn if we give Him extra-special titles and pronouns, or that God doesn't deserve that preserve for the reasons outlined in the previous sentence.

[Dark]

Just a bit of a nitpick; when referring to god(s) as a noun, the "g" should not be capitalized. When referring to a specific god that is named "God", it is considered a pronoun and it should be capitalized.

 

This is a bit useless since most gods go by a name other than "God", but since the main topic of these debates is always Christianity, I might as well point that out.

[Dark]

Just a bit of a nitpick; when referring to god(s) as a noun, the "g" should not be capitalized. When referring to a specific god that is named "God", it is considered a pronoun and it should be capitalized.

 

This is a bit useless since most gods go by a name other than "God", but since the main topic of these debates is always Christianity, I might as well point that out.