# General Discussion > Opinions >  What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

## Maciamo

As a continuation of the threads about gay marriage, I'd like to survey where people stand on this issue, including those who haven't expressed themselves so far. 

please read those posts to know my view on the issue :

Is homosexuality natural (genetical, inborn) ?

Can immoral sexual behaviours be criminalized ?

Gay marriage in other countries than the US

Please read this before voting, or you might not understand fully the issues at stake.

----------


## acquiredtarget

One could argue that gay marriage could provide an boost to the new economy as more marriages are planned, catered, locations rented, gifts purchased, new households created, new furniture purchased, etc. Of course the divorce rate would probably increase also, so that would mean new households are created, new furniture is purchased, etc, etc etc. 

But let me ask this, why bother? The divorce rate in the States is rather high, and with gay marriage, that would undoubtly increase some, so why go through all that? 

Buuuuuuut when I consider my personal opinion, so I suppose someone else should get married.  :Smiling:

----------


## Mimmy_08

I don't mind gays but gay marriage should not be allowed as it'd change the meaning of marriage

----------


## Elizabeth

In all honesty, my stereotype of gays and lesbians is somewhat negative (self-involved, aggressive and emotional, demanding, tempermental, etc) but as long as allowing this right doesn't lead down the road to legalized polygamy and polyamory (group marriage, it is in the Bible after all....:)) I can't come up with any reasonable objection.

----------


## PaulTB

> As a continuation of the threads about gay marriage, I'd like to survey where people stand on this issue, including those who haven't expressed themselves so far.


Yah, but I wouldn't be surprised if the results are affected by your vote being public in this poll.

*================================================== =*




> In all honesty, my stereotype of gays and lesbians is somewhat negative (self-involved, aggressive and emotional, demanding, tempermental, etc)


I suspect that comes mostly from those who _want_ to be noticed. An overly 'in your face' attitude could also easily result from a reaction to negative attitudes encountered elsewhere (e.g. the more you're pushed the more you push back).

My limited direct experience of lesbian and gay couple* they did as well or rather better than the hetrosexual couples I know.

Of course it probably also depends a lot on where you are in which country.

* Yes, that's right - singular. One lesbian couple and one gay couple  :Wink: 




> I don't mind gays but gay marriage should not be allowed as it'd change the meaning of marriage


I think that one of the partners is traditionally male and one traditionally female is not the most important part of the meaning of marriage.

If, on the other hand, you're concerned about the religious significance of marriage then I think you are too late.

----------


## EscaFlowne

I picked the last choice. Because they are like normal people and deserve the same right as anyone. My god thier human, some people act like that becaus they like the same sex they are a different species!  :Poh:   :Relieved:

----------


## jovial_jon

Ummm...I picked the 5th and 8th ones.  :Laughing:   :Poh:

----------


## TwistedMac

5 & 8.. because I live in Sweden.. the _REAL_ land of the free.
except for the fact that you can't wear swastikas in public.. that's basically the only opression we have around here.

----------


## PaulTB

> 5 & 8.. because I live in Sweden.. the _REAL_ land of the free.
> except for the fact that you can't wear swastikas in public.. that's basically the only opression we have around here.


5 is a very badly worded option (which is why I didn't pick it).

"Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice"

First of all it is assuming something which is far from known to be true. "Homosexuality is inborn." 

While it is certain that there is a significant genetic association it is *not* the case that if you're born with the same genes as someone who is gay / lesbian you will also _certainly_ be gay / lesbian. If grow up to be not gay and your identical twin grows up to be gay - was that difference established in the womb? At 1, 5, 10, 15 years old?

Secondly it's a false linkage. Do things _necessarily_ become *moral* if you have an inborn desire to do them? What of people who are born without the normal capacity to develop a conscience? Is a psychopath not immoral in his actions because they result from an inborn difference? (Obviously I am *NOT* suggesting homosexuality is psychopathic - I'm just pointing out a flaw in the logic).

In fact much that I view as moral consists of controling ones impulses and desires in the face of the needs, feelings and mores of others.

So, should homosexuality not be viewed as immoral? YES.

Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice. NO.

----------


## jovial_jon

I agree with what you're saying Paul, but I still pick it as I think it is inborn and the statement is still pretty close. I suppose if you put in the word 'and' in lieu of the second 'as' it would fit my opinion better.

It does annoy me a bit when why people are gay is discussed; what does it matter? I don't see how it is relevant, but hey.

----------


## PaulTB

> I agree with what you're saying Paul, but I still pick it as I think it is inborn


Hmm, I very strongly doubt it is inborn for absolutely 100% of people who call themselves gay / lesbian when adult.
I also as strongly believe that it is inborn (as much as hetrosexuality is inborn for most people) in a major proportion of cases.

Exactly where it falls isn't really relevant.



> I suppose if you put in the word 'and' in lieu of the second 'as' it would fit my opinion better.


Exactly - it's a lousy idea to fit two opinions into the same poll question.

----------


## TwistedMac

I agree with you guys.
But polls are usually like that, you have to make small compromises, so I just accepted it 
(I thought if Jovial can accept it then so can I)  :Poh:

----------


## Winter

> It does annoy me a bit when why people are gay is discussed; what does it matter? .


While some people do seem to be naturally homosexual, a lot of times homosexuality later in life is a trait that was engrained in the psyche of the person sometimes through a truamatic experience while they were developing mentally. 

Sexual abuse can often lead to acting out sexually in adolescence, and adulthood either by promiscuity, society-deemed lewd behaviour, or a lot of the times, a conflict in sexual identity.

So it may not matter in some cases why people are gay *for those naturally gay*, but when it comes to the person having a history of truamatic sexual abuse, I think that is a matter worth caring about. Sexual abuse is nothing to just cast aside.

----------


## jovial_jon

Ok, fair point. Although, I wasn't casting aside sexual abuse, it just didn't cross my mind.

----------


## Elizabeth

> I suspect that comes mostly from those who _want_ to be noticed. An overly 'in your face' attitude could also easily result from a reaction to negative attitudes encountered elsewhere (e.g. the more you're pushed the more you push back).


My personal experience hasn't been with the first category (the ultra-promiscuous or political about their orientation) either. There is certain defensiveness and excessive importance some gays and lesbians seem to give their sexuality that I find irritating, but of course the discrimination they have encountered hasn't been for the most part systemic or institutional so the suffering is much less obvious than with other minority groups. There's also the unique mixing of gender roles which may be a well-spring of creativity but can also make for unexpected social behaviors and mannerisms. At least I'm certainly more accepting of Japanese men, for instance, relaxing after a grueling day, who giggle and playfully touch each other than I would be for Americans.... :Sou ka:

----------


## bossel

> 5 is a very badly worded option (which is why I didn't pick it).
> 
> "Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice"
> 
> First of all it is assuming something which is far from known to be true. "Homosexuality is inborn."


There are enough studies to indicate a high prevalence of pre-birth reasons for homosexuality. Inborn does not necessarily mean genetic though, other factors can be the reason (or at least be involved): eg. hormone levels during pregnancy.

Human behaviour is complex & often has complex reasons. Homosexuality may very well be genetical. But maybe the involved genes only become active under special circumstances. Whether sexual abuse may be one of the factors, I don't know. There are scientists who say so (usually these seem to be psychologists or psychiatrists, hmmm...). Fact is, we still don't know for sure, how homosexuality originates. What we know pretty sure is that it is (in almost all cases) not a matter of choice.





> Secondly it's a false linkage. Do things _necessarily_ become *moral* if you have an inborn desire to do them? What of people who are born without the normal capacity to develop a conscience? Is a psychopath not immoral in his actions because they result from an inborn difference? (Obviously I am *NOT* suggesting homosexuality is psychopathic - I'm just pointing out a flaw in the logic).


Good point, but do we need morals to judge? I judge on the danger someone poses to others. A psychopath doesn't necessarily pose a risk, neither does a homosexual. As soon as anyone harms somebody without consent (I have no problems with eg. SM) or endangers the well-being of others it becomes a case for the authorities.

As long as there is no harm, the authorities should give people as much freedom as possible & grant rights & priviledges equally.

----------


## CC1

maybe some of you can explain this to me! (forgive my ignorance please)

Some people say that being gay is not a matter of choice...Does this mean that many gay people are saying that "I don't want to be gay, I would rather be straight, but I can't help it!"??? That concept doesn't make much sense to me...

anyone?

----------


## Lina Inverse

5.+7. for me.
I think homosexual tendencies are already determined pre-birth, but the enviroment in which the individual grows up also has much influence on wether these tendencies are lived out or suppressed.
Just like Maciamo I feel a little uneasy about gays (much less about lesbians), but there's absolutely no reason to limit their rights in any way  :Haihai:

----------


## bossel

> maybe some of you can explain this to me! (forgive my ignorance please)
> 
> Some people say that being gay is not a matter of choice...Does this mean that many gay people are saying that "I don't want to be gay, I would rather be straight, but I can't help it!"??? That concept doesn't make much sense to me...
> 
> anyone?


From M-W: " CHOICE suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely <freedom of choice>."

You can't choose your sexual orientation. 
You _can_ say "from now on I'm gay" & make love with your own sex (gender). That wouldn't make you homosexual in my eyes though, unless you already had the biological (&/or psychological) disposition of homosexuality, only suppressed for whatever reason (which means you were always homosexual, but didn't [want to] know). Maybe you would understand better, if you differentiate between sexual orientation & lifestyle (although that may not really fit for all cases, either).

----------


## jeisan

i dont care. gay folks can be married if they want, or not, its their choice, it doesnt matter to me. i generally dont care what people do as long as it doesnt hurt me. if someone feels they need the piece of paper, a legal agreement, to prove their love then thats fine, let them have it. who am i to tell them they cant? besides, why should i care? its really none of my business.

----------


## mad pierrot

> i generally dont care what people do as long as it doesnt hurt me. if someone feels they need the piece of paper, a legal agreement, to prove their love then thats fine, let them have it. who am i to tell them they cant? besides, why should i care? its really none of my business.


Are you a Libertarian by chance?

:)

----------


## Maciamo

> 5 is a very badly worded option (which is why I didn't pick it).
> 
> "Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice"
> 
> First of all it is assuming something which is far from known to be true. "Homosexuality is inborn."


Polls reflect opinions, not established thuth, otherwise, quite a few options are contradictory.




> While it is certain that there is a significant genetic association it is *not* the case that if you're born with the same genes as someone who is gay / lesbian you will also _certainly_ be gay / lesbian. If grow up to be not gay and your identical twin grows up to be gay - was that difference established in the womb? At 1, 5, 10, 15 years old?


Tests have shown that identical twins have a higher chance of being gay if their twin is gay (although not 100% because social pressure _can_ incite something not to "become" gay, although that is the way they naturally feel. That is called repressed instinct.) But by "inborn" I didn't mean genetical. These are 2 different things. "Genetical = in the DNA", while "inborn = present at birth". The theory is that the mother's  hormonal level plays an important role on the sexualization of the brain during pregnancy. This has nothing to do with genes. And unequal repartition of hormones between the 2 foetuses might explain differences (not just for gayness) between identical twins.




> Secondly it's a false linkage. Do things _necessarily_ become *moral* if you have an inborn desire to do them?


No, the other way round. It cannot be immoral if you haven't chosen it. The point is that if homosexuality is inborn, people can't really decide whether to become gay or not. They can only decide to repress their instincts.




> Is a psychopath not immoral in his actions because they result from an inborn difference?


I have never heard of psycopathy being inborn, but if it can be proven, that would make them mentally handicaped, and therefore play in their favour if they commit some crimes.




> In fact much that I view as moral consists of controling ones impulses and desires in the face of the needs, feelings and mores of others.


With this logic it seems that the only immoral gays are those who repress their homosexuality, as they divert their impulses and desires in an unnatural way.




> So, should homosexuality not be viewed as immoral? YES.


See above.

Anyway, eventhough I think your logic is twisted, this is a poll, and therefore not all options should be logical or the way you see it, otherwise I would have deleted anything including the word "sin" or "immoral" as IMHO these are very subjective concepts based on personal feelings and that defy all rational logic.

----------


## No-name

Are we going to get scientific about this? 

In the nature vs. nurture argument- I don't see convincing data either way- although why would I? since I don't as a vocation study human sexuality. Perhaps someone with actual background in behavioural sciences could enlighten us. Why does this matter anyway?

According to our High School text and 20 year old memories of Intro to Psych, our sexuality, including sexual preference is some combination of inherent trait and nurture. (Although I wouldn't swear by the veracity of this info.)

Morality however is not a scientific concept. What we value, what we hold good or evil, how we as a society define the parameters of normal human behavior through laws and rules and morals- this had little to do with science. All over this forum we continually explore the overlap of science and politics and religion: Homosexuality, Stem cell research, evolution, the existence of God, even the purpose of life.

I think we get into trouble when we believe our religion to be science or our science to be religion.

----------


## Winter

> All over this forum we continually explore the overlap of science and politics and religion: Homosexuality, *Stem cell* research, evolution, the existence of God, even the purpose of life.


I dont understand why that is considered sacreligious, or inept from decent morals. Can someone explain?

----------


## Fantt

Thanks Sabro. You just said pretty much what I would have said.

You mean Stem Cell research, Winter? Some people are against stem cell research because some interesting investigations require the use of embryonic stem cells which are harvested from non-viable embryonic cells. Some people do not wish to see a distinction between non-viable human embryonic cells and fully alive, out of the womb human beings.

----------


## Winter

I still dont understand that. It seems like there is nothing but positive medical outcomes to be acheived through working with those procedures. People dont like it just because they dont want to admit an embryo isnt a fully developed human or something?

----------


## Fantt

Yes - it generally requires the destruction of the non-viable embryo, which some people equate with the murder of a human being.

----------


## Winter

Considering an undeveloped embryo as a complete human is a bit extreme. But if thats the case, then why the frell do we still have the death penalty for fully developed humans?

----------


## Fantt

That's a good question. It's difficult for me to understand how you can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. My wife says that it's either pro-unborn human or pro-unconvicted potential republican voter.

Many of the same people who call themselves pro-life have no problem with the US having killed tens of thousands (100,000+?) of civilians in Iraq.

----------


## Glenn

> Considering an undeveloped embryo as a complete human is a bit extreme. But if thats the case, then why the frell do we still have the death penalty for fully developed humans?


The fully developed humans have had a chance to do what they will with their lives, and if they decided that they could kill others, then they should be dealt with in the same way. The unborn hasn't had a chance to do anything, so it should be left alone to develop and make its own path in life.

*Note* This is an explanation of what some people see as the difference, not necessarily my personal opinion.




> Some people say that being gay is not a matter of choice...Does this mean that many gay people are saying that "I don't want to be gay, I would rather be straight, but I can't help it!"???


I would say "yes." One of the managers at my work is gay, and he has said that he would rather be straight, or so I have heard.

----------


## jovial_jon

Yup, there are lots of people who would change it if they could. Me? I'm happy with it - sure life would be a little less complicated if I were straight, but it's no biggie. And it's good for freaking people out sometimes.  :Poh:

----------


## Glenn

That's why everybody loves jovi!! (Sorry for the bad rip-off...  :Blush: )  :Laughing:  :Cool: 

By the way, I love the sig, jovi!  :Cool:

----------


## architect

Marriage in a religious context should not be redefined for homosexual unions. I do believe that civil unions should be legalized with all the secular rights that a "marriage" has. Leave the word "marriage" within the religious domain. Should a partner be able to visit their significant other in the hospital? Yes. Should they get spousal benefits? Yes. I don't know, I think that we are starting to focus too much on the word "marriage" and ignoring the concept. 2 people love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives? They should not be denied.

----------


## Maciamo

> Many of the same people who call themselves pro-life have no problem with the US having killed tens of thousands (100,000+?) of civilians in Iraq.


But Iraqi are not White American Protestant, so they are not qualified as human or even life being, are they ?

----------


## babar-san

i say more power to um:)

----------


## mizerable_d

i support gays all the way

----------


## Martyr

I have no problem with homosexuals as long as they leave me alone (in regards to non-platonic things). I'm not a homophobe, but I don't want gay guys hitting on me, and I hate when people think such a mindset is homophobia. If I hit on a pretty woman at a club and she's repulsed, does that mean she's a lesbian? No, of course not.

Anyway, homosexuality doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights or civil liberties. I see no problem with it.

----------


## Bob in Iowa

The vehement opposition to legal recognition of commited gay/lesbian couples as being married really baffles me. I don't think that letting them be legally recognized as being married in any way diminishes the validity or the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage or any heterosexual marriage for that matter. 

Furthermore, the idea of ammending the Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriages is something that I find to be morally reprehensible. I say this because by doing so, we would be altering a document that was conceived and built upon the ideals of guaranteeing personal liberty to all Americans in such a way that it would deny liberty to some of the very people whom it is suppose to protect. In my humble opinion, if we as a nation, deny liberty to a few, then the very ideal of liberty becomes tarnished for us all.

--Bob

----------


## BamaFan2989

Hey guys!! Sorry I didn't have time to read everyone's posts before me. I will when I get time. I think most know how I feel already, because of ummm... other threads and stuff. Just wanted to vote. I like to be active in the forums!! ^_^ 

Ja

----------


## miu

this is a bit off subject but: 

The thing with stem cells is, as I remember it, that they can become any type of human cell. In that case, it's not defined that a baby will develop out of the cells, it could just as well become muscle or bone. I remember seeing one documentary where they injected stem cells into a man's heart who had somekind of a heart disease and the stem cells developed into healthy muscle and he didn't need an operation. Isn't it by far a more natural way of curing someone than taking drugs or having massive surgery?

Back to gays ^^;



> At least I'm certainly more accepting of Japanese men, for instance, relaxing after a grueling day, who giggle and playfully touch each other than I would be for Americans....


That's really interesting  :Sou ka:  I take it that you're not Japanese? In that sense it's maybe not very surprising but interesting nonetheless. 

My ex-flatmate had a gay friend and he was the collest person you could ever think of :) Also one of the coolest clubs I've ever been to was a gay club - not because it would've been somehow really diffrent superficially, the athmosphere was just really relaxed. I went there to see a drag show with my friends (we're not gay) and also because we hadn't been to a gay club before and it was a really positive experience. Not to even mention the show, it was really great ;) 

Maybe the current trend through media is also getting more and more positive towards gays because after "Sex and the City" became such a hit, all the women's magazines have since featured a "gay best friend"  :Oops:

----------


## King of Tokyo

Don't click this if you are a Republican that likes to tell people what they can and can't do. 

Heh. Take that Republicans.

----------


## Kamisama

yeah, that will show them. Making them register for something... ok..

btw.. Run DMC is never ever old school.

----------


## Jungle Boy

I think that religion and politics don't mix. It's none of the governments business who you, I or anyone else marries. I hardly think it's fair that the government uses the christian religion and it's 'values' and imposes thier beliefs over a entire multicultural country. I fully support gay marriage.

----------


## King of Tokyo

I don't see why it isn't working.. But..Try This and tell me if it works.

----------


## Camui

I don't mind gays..a lot of my friends are gay or bi...and I think that they are born that way and that it wasn't their decision..I do want them to have the same right as everyone else, but I feel it might bring too many problems among religious groups,etc..

----------


## Jungle Boy

> I don't mind gays..a lot of my friends are gay or bi...and I think that they are born that way and that it wasn't their decision..I do want them to have the same right as everyone else, but I feel it might bring too many problems among religious groups,etc..


So what? It's a free country. Let them deal with it. If I want to marry another human being should I really have to worry about what some religious zealot thinks? Should anyone have to stop and think "hmmm, how will my life affect religion" before doing what makes them happy? I don't think so. But if you do then I guess that's your opinion.

----------


## jovial_jon

Yup KoT, that second link worked. Good news! Go Ottawa.

----------


## Fantt

I still want to know why people have such a big hang-up about choice and homosexuality. As a gay person, jovi, do you think it's important within the gay community for people to view homosexuality as something you're just born with? 

I personally think that the whole choice thing is something to make some people feel more comfortable about homosexuality. If it's something you're born with, it's like a disease. You don't blame a child with cerebral palsy for being that way - they just are. You can't *force* such a child to be healed. On the other hand, if some people choose to be gay then they can choose not to be, and coercion can be used to force the issue. I think many people are more comfortable "knowing" that there's nothing that can be done about homosexuality.

Personally, I think that sexual orientation is not a simple on/off switch. In very paternalist societies (early to mid-20th century Germany, parts of today's muslim-majority countries and even feudal Japan) homosexuality is very common. Yet, many of these men who have homosexual relationships with each other would very vocally deny that they are gay. I remember hearing about the proxy homosexual sex that members of the taliban practiced which the local mullahs wouldn't condemn because they didn't consider it to be "technically" homosexuality. I think many samurai had homosexual relations with younger (or more effeminate looking) men. One of my wifes friends (a guy from the Phillipines) was nearly gang raped in Saudi Arabia by a group of young men. When women are portrayed as being little more than disgusting, horrible slaves and/or baby factories it's no wonder than men choose not to have sex with them.

Similarly, bisexuals show that sexual orientation isn't just a black and white issue. A couple (male and female) that I knew in college tried to recruit me for a sexual three-some because they thought I was gay, and the guy was bisexual. He figured I might swing both ways as well.

I would guess that homosexuality is a choice for some people, and for other's it's as much a choice as it is for men who get off on women with big feet or watching women step on things or men who like dirty women (literally covered in mud or flour or whatever). Adolescence is a time of extreme sexual imprint vulnerability. It doesn't take much - an experience here, a random encounter there, to swing a person one direction or another. Most of us (men) are genetically programmed to find heaving bossoms, thin waists and nice rounded posteriors to be attractive. Fortunately for nature, at the time we are most vulnerable to sexual imprinting, all the girls our age are showing these features as well as society bombarding us with images of sexy women. I'm sure that many gay men go through a similar process of sexual imprintation.

Either way, whether or not homosexuality is a choice seems to be irrelevant to me.

----------


## Flashjeff

I have no problem whatsoever with gays or gay marriage. People are people, regardless of their seuxal orientation and deserve to live their lives in whatever way they see fit, and thus are deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals have (and often abuse). 

It's the bible thumpers in their relentless zealotry who have made this such a hot button issue, practicing intolerance, even open hatred in some cases towards their fellow man, and all because some stupid book tells them to. I guess that the part which talks about "love thy brother" only applies if said brother was straight. Everyone else is out in the cold.

And of course, politicans are in bed with the bible thumpers because they need their votes, so they agree with the misogyny if it'll keep them in office, feeding gleefully from the public trough for another term. And of course, neither wants to discuss the fact that heterosexuals have done far more to wreck the so-called institution of marriage than gays ever will.

Like I said, people are people, be they gay or straight, and all of us deserve to be happy.

----------


## Revenant

> It's the bible thumpers in their relentless zealotry who have made this such a hot button issue, practicing intolerance, even open hatred in some cases towards their fellow man, and all because some stupid book tells them to. I guess that the part which talks about "love thy brother" only applies if said brother was straight. Everyone else is out in the cold.


Well, if you wished that to sway a Christian, you have essentially just lost the intended audience with a "all because a stupid book tells them to". That may be your feeling, but it is never a good way to reason with anyone, to attack that which they hold as important.

But you also have to see this from the other view as well. Most of them see it as intolerance towards the act of homosexuality, and not as intolerance towards the homosexuals themselves. 

So it is entirely possible to love someone while disagreeing with their action. Certainly, I didn't hate my brother the moment I discovered he had taken a crow bar to someone's head for their money. Did I find his action immoral? Absolutely! I didn't feel hate for him though. And that is the attitude that most Christians take on the homosexuality issue.

Sure, there are a few Christians marching around the country proclaiming God's hatred of gays. Does that make up the majority of Christians?

Onto my own opinion? I care little about the issue. Perhaps I just see other things as more important, but their marrying does not change my own definition of marriage.

I hope for the day when gays don't feel the need to make a statement. They'll then be just another average person walking down the street.

I am however not fully conviced that gays should have equal rights in adoption. It seems to me, that a straight couple should be given priority, given both the straights and gays were of good character.

----------


## Kinsao

> So it is entirely possible to love someone while disagreeing with their action.


I think that's a really important thing. And not just about people being gay or whatnot - other stuff too. It's possible to practice tolerance without having to believe *everything* is right. (Otherwise life would get very confusing because it's not possible to agree with both sides of every debate!)

----------


## rose_of_eternity

Gay marriage should first off be allowed in the US before anywhere else, mainly because this is a free country and each person has a right to express themselves. What if I want the love between my girlfriend and me to be official? Why should someone deny me the right because I'm different? If you look up marriage in a dictionary or online (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage) I see nothing of marriage being a "religious" union, its a legal union, a union by law, its a state institution. People MAY see marriage as a religious practice, but not all of us do, and by definition, it isnt either. I'm sorry but I'm also atheist, so if marriage really IS a religious practice, what, I'm not allowed to get married at all now? That just doesn't make sense. I don't understand why it annoys people so much to see gay and bisexual people. They don't bother you, however you bother them. You express your feelings to your partner, but they're not allowed to. Thats bs... I'm bi, I have a girlfriend right now and I'm more than happy with her, I don't care what people say or do or think, because see, she and I are happy, and they're not, so sucks for them.

----------


## jarvis

it's an abomination to God.

----------


## Limonette

You see - just as I said - he's the anti-Jarvis.

----------


## isayhello

Gay marriage should be as legal as hetero marriage. There's nothing more to it. Simple as that. Heterosexuals marry. So then, homosexuals will have to marry too, don't they? If they want to. It's outrageous that they can't.

----------


## Duo

how about them adoptin children then ?

----------


## Mamoru-kun

> Gay marriage should be as legal as hetero marriage. There's nothing more to it. Simple as that. Heterosexuals marry. So then, homosexuals will have to marry too, don't they? If they want to. It's outrageous that they can't.


Agreed!




> it's an abomination to God.


Desagreed!

...what a consructive post, isn't it?  :Wink: 

No, frankly, they have the natural right to love (well, it's naturel for them to love each other, so for me it's just like a natural law), so why shouldn't have the human right to deeply prove their love as we, hetero, do with marriage?




> how about them adoptin children then ?


...and that will probably start a painfull discution  :Wink:  I would personnaly say "yes", you can...but...I also have two childs, and it's just so hard for me to imagine that such young lifes could miss the presence of a male (or female) during their whole childhood (not speaking about what their school friends would say, at least untill that become usual within mankind (surely not before years and years))...But well, it's perhaps even better for those childs without parents to have two fathers (or two mothers) than nothing...

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I think all adoptions should be taken case by case. I don't think gay couples should be excluded from consideration for adoption. My friend has a niece, and if his brother disappeared I know Steve would be the best person to look after that kid, gay or not.

----------


## Mycernius

I used to have a real problem with homosexuality when I was younger. Homophobic was probably the best word to use. As I got older my views have changed a lot on the subject. I have gay and bisexual friends, both male and female, and certain held prejudices I have held have been redefined.
One of them was from a man who said that despite being gay he still had the same preferences when choosing a partner, whether it was male or female. He said the main problem he had come across was that because he was gay everyone assumed that he was after everyman. 
If they are happy with their partner then they should be afforded every right that a hetro couple should have, and that should included marriage. I am still a bit wary a round gay men, probably because I don't know how I would react if they tried to pick me up. I don't know whether I would be flattered or offended. Most likely mumble "I'm straight" and leave redfaced.
BTW I have always found that people seem to be more comfortable with gay women then men. Is this just me?

----------


## Sensuikan San

I dunno what all the bloody fuss is all about!

Doesn't anybody have anything_ else_ to get worried about?

Has the existence of any "gay" individual_ ever_ spoilt your day ... or ruined your life...?

What's the big deal? .... loss of control?

W

----------


## Mamoru-kun

What's the problem Sensuikan?

----------


## Sensuikan San

:Blush:  

 :Smiling:  

Precisely as I put in my post ... !

I don't _have_ a problem with the issue at all!

I'm just totally confused as to why anyone else considers it an important issue.

Let everybody get on with their lives! Nobody questioned my wife and I as to wether or not _we_ should marry ...!

W

----------


## Mamoru-kun

I got that point already, and am totally agree with you, so perhaps just permit me to rephrase: what's the problem with people aksing questions about laws as we are doing actually? Letting you live the life you want is a point (and once again, I personally agree with that). Letting people agree or desagree with it, have their own point of view, and discuss it on forums is another point, which should be respected too I think...

----------


## Sensuikan San

:Sorry:  

Yes ... you're quite right.

... but forgive me ... I'm a grumpy old guy ....!

That's my job!  :Wavey: 

... and I gave my _opinion_ ... you may agree or disagree but, as you say, do you not respect it as such? 

W

----------


## Mamoru-kun

> ... and I gave my _opinion_ ... you may agree or disagree but, as you say, do you not respect it as such?


Not at all. It's just that I could not, and even now, find in your original post any constructive contribution to the actual subject. Of course you are free to say you like or don't like this or that, but in a subject as hot as this one, people who are discussing expect more than a "I agree" or "I desagree". And that is obviously, if I correctly understood you, something that you could provide I guess. That's why I reacted to your post, not because of your way of thinking, which is, my I say it again, something I totally agree with.

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Not at all. It's just that I could not, and even now, find in your original post any constructive contribution to the actual subject. Of course you are free to say you like or don't like this or that, but in a subject as hot as this one, people who are discussing expect more than a "I agree" or "I desagree". And that is obviously, if I correctly understood you, something that you could provide I guess. That's why I reacted to your post, not because of your way of thinking, which is, my I say it again, something I totally agree with.


Oh dear, Mamoru-kun ... you have me slightly confused, now. But I admire your tenacity !

It would appear to me that what you are saying is that in your qualified opinion, my response ... is lacking _verbosity_?

That - although _you agree_ with my opinion (your words) ... my opinion should not be given respect? That my opinion did not contribute to the discussion because I did not explain each and every factor in detail that contributes or may contribute to me feeling the way I do? 

*Do I take it that you are actually being sufficiently arrogant and sufficiently qualified to give me a test?

Fair enough ... I'll take it!*

Here are my reasons for feeling the way I do ... :-

*Firstly* - What's so "hot" about this subject? It's only "hot" to homophobic people as far as I'm aware. Wether or not they are in the majority or not ... I confess I don't know! Truly - I believe that the "majority" agree with you and I - they don't know what all the bloody fuss is about! Even more - I don't think the "majority" give a damn one way or the other!

That's why you don't ever hear the true views of "the majority" - on this or many other issues! 
_
So what's all the bloody fuss about?_

*Secondly* - Homosexuality and Heterosexuality have been around for a year or two now. Both are becoming quite fashionable. I doubt wether either will ever be "stamped out" in the forthcoming future.

Homosexuality exists because it is _perfectly natural among all animal groups_ (especially, it seeems,the anthropoid apes - including man. and curiously ... geese ...!).

It's not rational, it makes little sense from the procreative point of view, and yes ... for most heterosexuals it is perhaps objectionable and/or very hard to understand - but it is perfectly natural. Nobody devised it. Nobody designed it. Nobody ever caught it. If you "have" it or "are" it - you can't "pass it on".

It's far less damaging to society than ..... avian 'flu .....?

_.... So what's all the bloody fuss about?_

*Thirdly* - If homosexual couples wish to marry - why not? I do not see that a male/male or a female/female relationship should be any different from a male/female relationship. As a heterosexual - I can only assume that the feeling of bonding would be quite comparable, otherwise ... why would they desire the union?

And if they do choose to marry - do they actually harm another living soul ...?

No!

*So .... what the hell is all the bloody fuss about?*


So, Mamoro-kun, there are my three basic points to get you started in understanding "wherefrom I come" ...

Is that sufficiently verbose for you?

Am I starting to "contribute to the forum"?

Is that enough ? I do have more .... if you wish .....


Cordially,

W


(If it makes you feel any better - one or two of my comments may have collected me more _flak_ than any _Lancaster_ bomber ever received over Berlin ...! I am standing by to receive ....!)

P.S. ....*I have just reviewed your own post!* _You didn't say much more than "agreed' or "disagreed" either!_ Go back and read it !

----------


## Mamoru-kun

Haaaa, thanks you, here we are...




> *Firstly* - What's so "hot" about this subject? It's only "hot" to homophobic people as far as I'm aware. Wether or not they are in the majority or not ... I confess I don't know! Truly - I believe that the "majority" agree with you and I - they don't know what all the bloody fuss is about! Even more - I don't think the "majority" give a damn one way or the other!
> 
> That's why you don't ever hear the true views of "the majority" - on this or many other issues! 
> _
> So what's all the bloody fuss about?_


Well I'm not english native, so I don't understand that "fuss" thing, but if I got your point, I think that such a discution is more and more in front of topics recently because more and more gouvernments tend to discuss about it themselves. That by itself is not enough to explain, but when the medias are around, there the things can get "hot". I mean, in my own country, if I hadn't seen the news speaking about such or such country permitting the marriage between gays, I wouldn't even have wondered if it was something possible. So to answer your question (if I got it well), I guess that such discussions take place not because there is more gays, or they want to marry much often, but because the medias put it in front of news more often. And that makes people naturaly ask themselves questions.




> *Secondly* - Homosexuality and Heterosexuality have been around for a year or two now. Both are becoming quite fashionable. I doubt wether either will ever be "stamped out" in the forthcoming future.
> 
> Homosexuality exists because it is _perfectly natural among all animal groups_ (especially, it seeems,the anthropoid apes - including man. and curiously ... geese ...!).
> 
> It's not rational, it makes little sense from the procreative point of view, and yes ... for most heterosexuals it is perhaps objectionable and/or very hard to understand - but it is perfectly natural. Nobody devised it. Nobody designed it. Nobody ever caught it. If you "have" it or "are" it - you can't "pass it on".
> 
> It's far less damaging to society than ..... avian 'flu .....?
> 
> _.... So what's all the bloody fuss about?_


I heard people saying that it is "not natural", that it is something "choosen" during the childhood. Not beeing a gay myself, I'm not qualified to argue here, but I deply believe that is not true, and that it is more linked to DNA than to anything else. About the fact that it is "natural" or not, well, if it's about human behaviour, I don't see where it could be not natural (being natural things ourselves), so I agree with you there. Unfortunately, as you said, it's not a mentality easy to reach for people who are "affraid" of homosexuality (if I well remember, it's the meaning of homophobic, right?)




> *Thirdly* - If homosexual couples wish to marry - why not? I do not see that a male/male or a female/female relationship should be any different from a male/female relationship. As a heterosexual - I can only assume that the feeling of bonding would be quite comparable, otherwise ... why would they desire the union?
> 
> And if they do choose to marry - do they actually harm another living soul ...?
> 
> No!
> 
> *So .... what the hell is all the bloody fuss about?*


Marriage seems to bring less problems than adoption. I even feel that marriage between gays is a problem only for catholic (or other religions)'s hetero, because it would change the meaning God (other gods) gave to it. In that situation, of course, except if God himself changes his writings, I don't see any solution to make them accept gay's marriage. About child adoptions, it's quite more difficult I think, because there, we touch a part of the humans being which, until now, seemed to be irrefutable: a child is the result of the union between a male and a female. Well, the fact that two males or two females want to have a child is (or should be), I think, not a problem. But for the child...even I, am not sure to agree with that. I mean, if an adult can bypass bad words said by other people, children usually can't. And childhood is famous for its lack of respect between young people. So I'm just wondering: how would be the life of such children (with two male or female parents) between more "usual" children? I'm afraid that it would soon become hell for him...




> So, Mamoro-kun, there are my three basic points to get you started in understanding "wherefrom I come" ...
> 
> Is that sufficiently verbose for you?
> 
> Am I starting to "contribute to the forum"?
> 
> Is that enough ? I do have more .... if you wish .....
> 
> 
> Cordially,


Thank you. I just hope that I haven't answered the wrong way. I have to say that you used some english expressions I don't know, so if it's the case, please correct me...

----------


## Kuro_Tsubasa69

QUESTION: Why would homosexuality be an abomniation to God? I have heard this alot, and i rally want to know what you peoples reason is....Rally.  :Doubt: 

(note: haven't read most of the thread...i just wnated to go out and ask my question 1st, 'kay?  :Bowing:  Thanx.)

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Haaaa, thanks you, here we are...
> 
> Thank you. I just hope that I haven't answered the wrong way. I have to say that you used some english expressions I don't know, so if it's the case, please correct me...


Pas de probleme, mon ami! (Votre lingue...c'est Francais, n'est pas? Pas Flamand?)

Je crois que votre Anglais soit bien mieux que mon Fran&#231;ais ! Alors ... en Anglais... 

No - you answered very well! I fear that we sometimes forget that we are talking to someone who uses a different language .... and we forget the problems associated with that! My apologies to you!

It seems that we agree on this matter to a great degree! Obviously, _all_ your points are points which I believe to be valid also. And yes ... your understanding of "homophobic" is correct. What more can I say?

I was interested though, in one point you make ... and I agree with you on this also ... ; the matter of adopted children.

My first feeling was that it is necessary for any child to be raised with a (male) 'father' and a (female) 'mother' ... but I'm not quite sure that this needs to be so ...

I know many people of many nationalities (including to a small degree, myself) who have been raised by a single parent - due to death, long absence through war, career demands ... even prison! (_No! - my father was at sea most of the time!_)

They are all well balanced folks!

I think that the desired component is love, and caring.

I also knowof many who have been brought up by uncaring, lazy, indolent, brutal _heterosexual_ parents - and they became animals, or suicide victims ... or worse!

If two gays wish to adopt a child - and they can love and care - that's OK with me too!

Regards,

John

----------


## Mamoru-kun

Mmmm, yes, if we think about the child balance, it is surely better to have him under lovely gay parents than violent "usual" parents. But would it be enough for him to grow "correcty" (society speaking)? Such a child, what kind of vision will he/she have about the "relations" world? Actually, I am almost sure that the environment doesn't makes someone become gay. But for children living with gay parents, would it be the same? We don't have enough background to analyse that I think...

And by the way, I've been surprised on your french. I thought that american people (sorry, I meant, people living in America continent) don't like so much french people, and so french language (well, except in Quebec of course  :Wink: ). Omedetou!




> QUESTION: Why would homosexuality be an abomniation to God? I have heard this alot, and i rally want to know what you peoples reason is....Rally.


Wasn't it just because God said it somewhere in the bible?

----------


## Revenant

> Wasn't it just because God said it somewhere in the bible?


A bit on the Christian beliefs and homosexuality (I'm not Christian).

----------


## Mamoru-kun

Thanks Revenant!




> Most interpret the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis as indicating the fall of humanity into sin. They view homosexual behavior as one evidence of that sin.


Just a word: WOW! Better to be hetero if God exists...

----------


## Pachipro

I believe that a true gay person is born that way and they have no choice in the matter. I have two experiences from my childhood to prove that point.

Case 1: I grew up with many boys on our block in New York City and we played the usual games that boys do like baseball and such. However, there was this one boy who seemed different from when we were about 7 or 8 years old. He couldn't play ball or run like the rest of us. When he tried to throw a ball, he threw it like a girl would, and when he tried to run, he ran the way a girl would. He would hang out with us as that is what he was taught and what was expected of him.

As we grew older and entered puberty he started to become more friendly and to start hanging out with the girls on the block. He seemed more comfortable with them and they liked him. He would jump rope with them and do all the girl things with them. He did try to be a "boy" so to speak and would try to play games with us but it was clear he still acted like a girl. Back then we didn't know anything about gay people, but it is clear now that he was definetly feminine and was born that way. 

Needless to say, as we bacame older and began to understand about life, it was clear that he was gay and he came to understand this also. He was just born that way and had no choice in the matter. That much is very clear to me.

Case 2: While in grade school there was another boy who was a great dancer in school plays and such and would often become the director of said plays. He was very feminine looking and had the same characteristics as the boy in case one. He was popular with the girls and would always hang out with them and they just loved him. Needless to say he also was gay and was born that way.

In both cases the boys were Catholic and attended catholic schools. As we got older and began to understand about sexuality the others would make fun of them behind their backs and call them "queer" or "faggot" or some other derogotory name. I always felt sorry for them as I somehow underestood that it wasn't their choice and I was practically the only male who befriended them. They never made a pass at me nor did they speak of it. After grade school we went our seperate ways.

These two were born that way and I'm sure their only interest were other males as they were just too feminine. But, on the other hand, there are other people in this world of ours who make it a choice. These may be what are called bi-sexuals who like both sexes for the sheer pleasure of sex regardless of gender. They can be completely happy having sex with a male, a female, or both at the same time. Does this make them weird or someone to be looked down upon? In my opinion no. Whoever one has sex with, it is their choice and no one should pass judgement on them if they are not hurting another person or a minor.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind, will be around till the end and is prevalent in all animal species. We can't stop it nor shoud we. Isn't it written in the bible, "Judge not lest ye be judged"? It's really a shame that so-called Christians cannot follow what God is saying to them in their own bible. Seems hypocritical to me. Besides, the Bible was written by MAN and not God and was revised so many times to suit certain needs or a certain King's needs that who knows what is really the truth?

----------


## Pachipro

> Citation:
> PostEpar Kuro_Tsubasa69
> QUESTION: Why would homosexuality be an abomniation to God? I have heard this alot, and i rally want to know what you peoples reason is....Rally.
> 
> 
> Wasn't it just because God said it somewhere in the bible?





> Thanks Revenant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Most interpret the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis as indicating the fall of humanity into sin. They view homosexual behavior as one evidence of that sin.
> ...


If I remember correctly, I think I was taught in Catholic school that, "God doesn't make any junk." If that is the case, why would people be born gay? Would God actually make someone gay just so he/she could be critisized and ostrasized by society in this world? If that is the case then God has a sick sense of humor in my opinion and is not really a loving God who loves all his so-called children unconditionally as I was taught.

If God did say it in the Bible why is it that alot of Catholic priests are homosexual and prey on young minor boys? Are they not going against the teachings of the Bible? I am not ashamed to admit that I was molested by a Catholic priest who was a friend of the family when I was about 14. Back then he used the excuse that he wanted me to help him rake leaves at his summer house in New Jersey. Being naieve I went along with him. At 14 I suspected that he was a little feminine by the way he talked and the way he looked, but I was not sure. Surely he couldn't be gay being a catholic priest I remember thinking.

After we raked the leaves he said that we should take a shower. He asked me to undress and escorted me to the shower. I could tell by the way that he looked at me naked that something was not right. I showered alone. After the shower he took one and said afterwards that we should take a nap. As we lay in the bed with towels around us I sensed that something was not right so I pretended to fall asleep. It was then that he removed my towel and took my penis in his mouth. I was terrified as I knew that this was not right and that he was indeed gay. I didn't know what to do at the time so I pretended to stay asleep.

To be honest, as I had never had any sexual contact before this, I was both aroused and revolted at the same time. I was so confused. I knew this was not what I wanted and soon became limp and he gave up on that. Then he turned me over and tried to enter me from behind. Then I was really terrified. I puckered up really tight and still pretended I was asleep. After a little while he became limp and gave up.

For about the next hour I pretended I was asleep while mulling over in my mind what had just happened. I knew he was gay, but was so confused as he was a priest and I knew that this wasn't right and it wasn't what I wanted. After a while he went downstairs and I pretended to awake later on. I said nothing and neither did he. He took me to dinner and then took me home.

I never said anything about that encounter as I was afraid. Who would believe me? As he was a friend of the family I didn't want to cause any trouble and I didn't even know at the time that what he did was against the law. I didn't say anything to my parents until I was about 30 and still they found it hard to believe. It was only after it became national news in the US that I found out that I wasn't the the only one. I was one of perhaps tens of thousands of boys who were taken advantage of by Catholic priests.

Did it affect me mentally? No. I knew it wasn't right as I got older, but I never let it bother me as he was gay and I was not and nothing really happened. I let it slide and never pressed charges when I really understood what was going on. I discovered later on that he died in about 1980 from a stroke. Quite young. I think he was about 50 when he died.

Do I fault him for what he did? Yes I do. Especially for taking advantage of a minor and trying to rape me. What he did was wrong even though I feel he was born that way. However, he should've been mature enough to find an adult male for his pleasure. But I also blame the Catholic church more than anything for not letting priests to marry and for covering up the rampant homosexuality among their priests. It was a feeding ground for gay men to become priests and prey on young boys in their school or parrish. Where does it say in the bible that priests cannot marry? It was probably some gay Pope who came up with that law. Surely not God.

So why are Catholics/Christians so against homosexuality when it is so rampant in their churches? And why is it better to be hetero if God exists when his own priests are raping and taking advantage of minor boys?

I don't think it matters to God one way or the other, if he exists. He gives all humans free will with no interference from him, and it is us humans who have to face the consequences of our actions after this life whatever that may be. But it surely it isn't to suffer in hell for all eternity. No loving God would do that to his "children".

----------


## Revenant

That is one harsh experience you went through. You're ability to reason it out and stay more objective is pretty impressive I think.

I do think that something about the system of priests does attract the wrong kind of people, and I don't think it has anything to do with the teachings of Christianity.

The idea of not having a wife comes from a verse that says it would be better to not have a wife, but that were one to have a wife, the person hasn't done wrong.

In another verse, it says it is better that one marry, than be consumed with passion.

In short, I think the idea was that if one could focus on serving God without a wife, then one should do that, but if one couldn't focus, then it would be better to marry.

Even in the time I considered myself a Christian, I disagreed strongly with the banning of same sex marriage. All things, as according to Christ, had to be sincere, and sincere also meant in thought. One couldn't follow a rule, but desire differently in their mind 'if you lust over a woman, you have committed adultery with her in her heart'. 

I thought that from that, a gay must decide for himself/herself that they must give up their lifestyle. They would really are no different from the priests and nuns who sincerely do remain abstinent.

If a Christian can follow their chosen morality without pushing it on others, or judging others for not doing the same, then I see nothing wrong with their belief. It doesn't seem a rational one, but it would then be along the same lines as a fighter who never had sex, just cause he thought sex would take away from his ability to focus.

I don't think all Christians, Muslims, or Judaists (is that the right word?) can be faulted with being judgemental.

Lastly, if a gay were to choose to give up the lifestyle, it could be possible to still be happy, just as the Dalai Lama, nuns, priests, and Gandhi also gave up sex and were/are able to remain happy people.

I don't know about your examples of gays, as I did see some very athletic and masculine gays in Vancouver, gays who could pass for musclebound rednecks in an instant. I think part of the 'femininity' I saw in Vancouver was partly 'cultural'. The gays learned how to talk with a lisp, how to move like a gay, like people who joined gangs learned how to act like gangsters.

----------


## smurf

I am totally against being a homosexual. I think that it is sick and unnatural. I don't mean to sound juvenile but I just find it very disturbing when a person chooses to be gay. I don't understand what could draw a person to find the same sex attractive.

----------


## isayhello

> Just a word: WOW! Better to be hetero if God exists...


... actually..._ if_ God _does_ exist... and if he's against homosexuals and them marrying... I'm not gonna like God. Because being against gay marriage is stupid.

*hides from bad rep points*


- Oh, and... Smurf... _what?_ What?

----------


## smurf

> ... actually..._ if_ God _does_ exist... and if he's against homosexuals and them marrying... I'm not gonna like God. Because being against gay marriage is stupid.
> 
> *hides from bad rep points*
> 
> 
> - Oh, and... Smurf... _what?_ What?


Yeah I'm sorry if I sounded harsh but I *strongly*  disagree with being gay. 
*gets ready to be flamed at*  :Relieved:

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Mmmm, yes, if we think about the child balance, it is surely better to have him under lovely gay parents than violent "usual" parents. But would it be enough for him to grow "correcty" (society speaking)? Such a child, what kind of vision will he/she have about the "relations" world? Actually, I am almost sure that the environment doesn't makes someone become gay. But for children living with gay parents, would it be the same? We don't have enough background to analyse that I think...
> 
> And by the way, I've been surprised on your french. I thought that american people (sorry, I meant, people living in America continent) don't like so much french people, and so french language (well, except in Quebec of course ). Omedetou!



l! ǂv܂!

En actualitė c je ne suis ni Americain c ni Canadien ! Je suis Anglais/Irlandais! cMais je mfhabite de Canada depuis 1976 et je suis un citoyen de la Grand Bretagne. J'ai visit&#233; la France et la Belgique beaucoup de fois. Mais il y a beaucoup d'ann&#233;es ....... !

Et mon Fran&#231;ais... Je suis d&#233;sol&#233; ! ... J'ai oubli&#233; sa majeure partie cc! Alors c en Anglais c

... and having reviewed my last post - my _"French"_ could use a little editing, couldn't it ! Sorry folks !  :Bluush:  

Just an off-topic note for a few seconds - but, no ... I would not say that most North Americans were anti-French at all. The demand for learning French in Canadian schools is probably greater now than it has ever been ... although, yes ... we have had our little arguments with Quebec over the last few years! Canada is just like Belgium - it is a bi-lingual country, with all the benefits andproblems that that entails.

I cannot speak for the USA.

... but these are matters, perhaps, for a different thread ....

The question of raising children, as you say, can be a more difficult one. I agree that it is desirable for _every_ child to have both a male and female influence upon their lives. But as I pointed out in my last post ... life is not perfect. Sometimes the desirable cannot be the attainable ... for many, many reasons. Everbody involved has to work towards an acceptable and workable goal ... and if that means gay parents ... I see nothing wrong with that, although I must confess that I feel there must always be a small element missing. But then again .. this also applies to so many children of single parents. And does environment affect the issue? - I suggest we ask a hormone ... ! 




> I am totally against being a homosexual. I think that it is sick and unnatural. I don't mean to sound juvenile but I just find it very disturbing when a person chooses to be gay. I don't understand what could draw a person to find the same sex attractive.


I'm sorry Smurf, and I say this without any animosity towards you, but ... but that is possibly the most ridiculous, uninformed, unintelligent piece of garbage I've ever seen posted on this forum! And you _do_ sound juvenile.

I too, cannot imagine in my wildest dreams, my snuggling up to another guy! I know where you're coming from ... but... Who was the last person you met ... who_ chose_ to be gay? (If I knew of anybody who_ did_ 'choose' ... then I would agree with you ...!)

W

----------


## smurf

> l! ǂv܂!
> 
> I'm sorry Smurf, and I say this without any animosity towards you, but ... but that is possibly the most ridiculous, uninformed, unintelligent piece of garbage I've ever seen posted on this forum! And you _do_ sound juvenile.
> 
> I too, cannot imagine in my wildest dreams, my snuggling up to another guy! I know where you're coming from ... but... Who was the last person you met ... who_ chose_ to be gay? (If I knew of anybody who_ did_ 'choose' ... then I would agree with you ...!)
> 
> W


Don't worry I agree with you, I could have worded what I said better. I just have one question about you saying that it is not there choice. How else are they gay? I've seen plenty of guys who have given up on women and *decided* to turn to men. If thats not choosing to be gay then what is?

----------


## Revenant

> I've seen plenty of guys who have given up on women and *decided* to turn to men. If thats not choosing to be gay then what is?


Sounds more like they were bisexual to from the start.

There is a theory that says that very few people are purely gay or hetero, and that most are shades of grey inbetween. Most have a stronger leaning towards one side or the other.

----------


## Kinsao

Hmm yeah, I know some people that were gay from right early age, as children as described by Pachipro (I think it was  :Doubt:  ), like that. I also know other people who "changed" their orientation when they were older, in some cases quite old. Of course, it's possible to argue that maybe they were "really" gay or bi underneath it all in some deep area of their subconscious without realising it for many years... but in a lot of cases these people did have what appeared to be happy and satisfying relationships with the opposite sex (again, it's not possible to know if they were truly happy... but it's only possible to go from the evidence you can see  :Worried:  ). 

So I think some people have genetic predisposition, and other people are influenced by their environment, other people around them, and other external factors. 

In the inverse, I also know a few people (men) who have what you might call characteristics that cause people to think they are gay, that's the "aura" (I suppose) that they have, but in real fact they are married or in long-term relationship with a woman (and with kids in some cases). Of course, I can't predict the future and something might change later in their life and they might say they were gay all along and just "repressed" or something (they are all over 40 years btw), but right now they seem happy in their lives. So it just goes to show, you can't tell anything about the way people feel.....  :Clueless:

----------


## Ma Cherie

One reason why I do see anything wrong with gay marriage is because it doesn't effect us. As far as I'm concerned this is more of a civil rights issue. There will a possibility that the gay marriage issue will be taken up to the supreme court. And the supreme court may rule the banning of gay marriage as unconstitutional or not.  :Doubt:  

But in all honesty, I feel the gay marriage issue is being used to distract Americans from other issues. These right-wing Jesus freaks Republicans are trying to get Americans to vote on the banning of gay marriage while they're sitting back and cutting back on things such as medicare, education, and other benefits, ect. Things that effect us.

Strike another blow for civil rights, people!  :Blush:   :Sorry:

----------


## gohan93

i dont get how gays can actually be gay. i mean how can you be attracted to another person of the same sex? if you were like that you could just look at yourself in a mirror. it is also a sin.  :Sou ka:

----------


## Revenant

How are you attracted to chicks? It's just something that they feel without actually making any sort of concious choice. No one wakes up in the morning and _decides_ I will be straight today, or I will be gay.

I am straight, so I don't quite get it either, but that's what I reason anyways.

According to the Bible, it is a sin. A Christian would be hard put to to rationalize just how it actually goes against the law of love though, and the best one can do, is say, God didn't intend it to be that way.

But looking at such verses as, 'if you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery with her in you heart', then it seems that all actions one does for the Lord must be sincere. In that can it be said that one cannot force someone to not be a homosexual, just as a Christian cannot be forced not to think lustfully over a woman. All must be actions the individual decides out of their own heart. 'I will not look at woman lustfully', or 'I will not look at the same sex lustfully'. All that is to say is that a gay should decide on their own, after having been won over to the faith, whether or not they have to give up their lifestyle.

Americans have religious freedom. It means that one can practice their own religion without fear of persecution. That is something all people in America should be grateful for. A Christian church can deny a homosexual couple marriage, and a Hindu place of worship can forbid any beef be brought in.

What were to happen were the Muslims to become the majority, and force all women in America to wear Burkahs? Not likely to happen, but it runs along the same lines of a Christian legislating their particular morals, such as homosexuals cannot be married.

A Christians primary goal, or should be primary goal, is to win people over to salvation. A Christian would best accomplish this by not saying, 'I disagree with your lifestyle, you are sinning', but rather by living a superb example of Christ's love, so that people are drawn to the faith.

Religious freedoms kept, gay rights given.

----------


## Ma Cherie

I see your point Revenant about how Christians are supposed to help give people salvation, but you may have noticed these days that most Christians aren't trying to save anyone. In fact, it seems to me that they're spending all their time condeming people for what they do. (i.e. Pat Robertson). I was so apalled at him when he said the reason for 9/11 was becasue of the way people lived in New York. Why add insult to injury? It's not enough for him that people died, he just HAD to say it was their fault.  :Okashii:  

I know this isn't all Christians, but lately some of them have been walking around believing that they're morally superior than everyone else. And they're probably just as "sinful" as the people they try call themselves condeming. And another thing, if Bush gets the chance to annuonce Christianity as the official national religion, he's only violating the First Amendment. I don't why some of these right-wing dolts keep saying this country was founded on Christianity, and it wasn't. 


I'm sorry if is offensive, but this is how I feel.  :Bluush:

----------


## Revenant

I'm not Christian anymore, and that is what I reasoned during the time I was a Christian. I am attempting to reason with the above poster, who I guess is a Christian.

I agree that religious morals should never be legislated, and that a lot of the more vocal Christians are the ones that are also the less well thought out ones. That's as it seems to me anyways. I have attempted both in the time I was a Christian and the time since to reason on Chrisian grounds why their beliefs should never be made law, or homosexuals condemned.

----------


## Kinsao

There's no reason why you can't disagree with what someone does, without having to 'condemn' or even dislike the person themselves (I guess it's the old adage of "hate the sin, not the sinner" or some such). Let's just say that for example you disagree with homosexuality (I'm talking about the behaviour, not the orientation/inclination, which obviously no-one can help); well then, can you point to any person who always and consistently behaves in a way that you think is 'right'? Are all your best friends models of perfection? Do _you_ always behave in a way you consider to be 'right' or 'moral'? My guess is No. You're never going to agree with everyone all of the time. Fact. I'm not a biblical sort of person, but I'll start looking at taking the plank out of my own eye before I start on about the dust in someone else's.

----------


## Revenant

I agree Kinsao, and perhaps my posts weren't articulate enough. I just think that saying gays are in the wrong is completely counterproductive to winning people over to the faith. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person is better won over to anything by seeing the benefits of a belief system, and not having our behavior being pointed out as being sinful, or what-have-you. Better to work from the positives than the negatives is all I'm trying to say.

----------


## Kinsao

Yup! Well said!  :Cool:

----------


## Mars Man

Well put things folks !! I've enjoyed the reading here. I'd like to interject that perhaps it is more important to make efforts to understand just what homosexuality is, and by doing such, probably taking the 'dislike' or the 'condemnation' out of the 'emotion box'. Yes, one can dislike or say that it is a 'sin', sure, far too many religionists do. . .because the authors of their religious data bases did not understand what it was--and yes, I have learned that there are more shades of mixtures there, just as there are shades of brain wiring differences, but that it is far more often there from birth. The religionists are as out of touch with reality on this point as they are most points that deal with the what is understood today, of the real world.  :Smiling:

----------


## Disembodied Spirit

I voted for "I feel comfortable with gays and think gays should have the exact same rights as anybody" 

Just because, I accept them  :Smiling:  I even have some homosexual friends, so yeah. (No I'm not homosexual myself, though, we'll see what time brings us.)

----------


## monrepo

I feel comfortable with gays and think gays should have the exact same rights as anybody.

----------


## McTojo

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

what needs to be understood is that marriage is a man-made convention. We define what a marriage is, not the church for that matter. But the church for some reason see's marriage as ordained by god, where's the non-biblical proof ? The question is, is where do we draw the line ? Do we accept a religious view which infringes on the constitionality of the law or do we accept the definition of marriage as two human beings who love each other regardless of what their sexual orientation is ? Most would tend to believe the latter. I say, marriage is between two consenting adults just like sex is and should be. And regardless of what religion thinks we need to follow a constitution that's all incorporating. 

Is it because you have the same sexual organ it's illegal for US to recognize your union ?

----------


## EddyKola

Gay marriage is actually being legalised in the UK this December.


One step forward, not one back IMO.


Religion IMO is wrong, its caused far more bad than good in this world.

And many still live my rules written by a story teller centuries ago.

----------


## Revenant

> Religion IMO is wrong, its caused far more good than bad in this world.


From the context I'd guess you mean "far more bad than good".

But I might actually disagree. Religions are powerful, in their ability to move large numbers of people towards one general direction. This can, like many other things, be used for both the benefit and detriment of others. A holy war = bad, a campaign to bring money to the poor inner city people = good.

Religion I think especially gets a bad rap just cause neither general history nor the papers highlight much of the good things they are doing. One doesn't read, 'the Mennonites came out in force and helped clean up following Hurricane John', but rather, 'Christians marching around the country declaring God's hatred for gays'. The vocal and wrong absorb all the media limelight.

Many so called religious wars were not really religiously motivated, but were rather motivated by socioeconomics. Religion was simply a good holy motive and rally call to a lot of these wars waged for socioeconomics. 



> And many still live my rules written by a story teller centuries ago.


That may be so. The rules, followed carefully won't actually cause much harm. If one takes the time to put the philosophy of most of the religions together, they are actually excellent, with but a few invalid rules here and there. Even the invalid rules practiced within the whole philosophical structure of said religion will hardly affect anyone.

Take homosexuality. Put together with what Jesus stated, 'If a man looks lustfully upon a woman, he has committed adultery with her in her heart', that simply means that a man must govern his thoughts, and keep them away from lustful thoughts. After all, thoughts preceed all action. The same rule would also apply to a gay, so a Christian who understands this, will understand that even a legislated rule like no gay marriages won't stop people from sinning. All change must be brought about from with, and cannot come from without.

There is also another verse that goes into Christians judging each other's actions, to ensure none loses eternal life for one unrepentant sin (compassionate motive). But that those outside of the church are to be left to God's judgement, meaning a Christian shouldn't concern himself with making sure those outside of the church follow the rules of the church.

Unfortunately, there are more than a few Christians that seem not well thought out. But the same would go for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and every other group of people. I don't think any group can claim the higher moral ground. Take an atheist who holds strong negative feelings towards Muslims, or Christians. I would argue they are also not well thought out.

My thoughts anyways.

----------


## EddyKola

> maybe some of you can explain this to me! (forgive my ignorance please)
> 
> Some people say that being gay is not a matter of choice...Does this mean that many gay people are saying that "I don't want to be gay, I would rather be straight, but I can't help it!"??? That concept doesn't make much sense to me...
> 
> anyone?



Exactly, no choice, they cant help it.


I know gay men who have forced themselves to go out with women...but its never worked out.

----------


## Silverbackman

My stance remains. I do not think homosexuality is a sin necessarily, as I do think many homosexuals (not all but most) did not choose to be gay.

But this doesn't change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how it is has always been and I do believe that the union of love between a man and a woman is sacred.

However, I do not mind if homosexuals want a union with rights equal to thats of straight couples just as long as they do not call it marriage (and as long as it made sure that there is a difference between a straight couple and a gay couple).

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> However, I do not mind if homosexuals want a union with rights equal to thats of straight couples just as long as they do not call it marriage (and as long as it made sure that there is a difference between a straight couple and a gay couple).


IMO, the only difference between a straight couple and a gay couple is the ability to have children. And even some straight couples can't do that.

----------


## Anchyyy

I don't have anything against gays. Gay marriges seems something natural to me. I think they should be allowed everywhere. I mean my relatives don't like gays, my family doesn't like gays, no one. Today we were talking about them (again) and we started to fight. My mothers partner said gays are discusting and they don't have a real relationship, they just cheat eachother and so. I had all teary eyes. He is so cruel. I wonder what will my family do if i will date a girl someday. I've been thinking a lot about that and i've came to the point, that i don't care what they think as long as i am happy.

----------


## alBiNo_effEct

I'm not really clear on this matter...I'm not gay but I'm also not perfectly straight either...I don't know where I stand on this issue. One thing is for certain though, I don't think people should allow gay marriages. No offense to anyone. Why do you want to complicate things by marrying? Marriage should be strictly restricted to male and female. Sorry if people disagree with me, that's just how I feel on this matter.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

This became a topical issue for us in the UK yesterday when gay marriage became legal. About time too.

----------


## Hoyu

I saw on the news here in Japan that Elton John was just married at "the 17th century Town Hall where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in April... The ceremony, which took less than an hour, was conducted by Registrar Clair Williams, who also presided over the union between Charles and Camilla":

Read the whole artilcle written by BY DANICA KIRKA, of the Chicago Sun Times at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/enter...r-elton22.html

In Gassho,
Rev. Hoyu

----------


## hitsugi_kitty

I personally cannot see any viable reason for gay people not to be allowed to marry, and its about time it was legalised in the Uk. Purely because history and the church have defined for so long that only a man and a woman may marry, it should not mean that it can never be so in todays society. Why should marriage be restricted to only a man and a woman, if undertaken for the right reasons, as the relationships are effectively no different, apart from biology.

----------


## Mycernius

Just to point out that it isn't strictly marriage. It is called a civil partnership. Okay it is marriage in all but name only. It also isn't just open to gay partnerships. Hetro couples can do this as well, who don't want the hassle of marriage. How long until the US allows this?

----------


## Elizabeth van Kampen

In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?" 
To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
> Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?" 
> To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.


Children have unusual family backgrounds for all kinds of reasons - mothers can die or walk out, leaving a child with just a father and vice versa. I'd rather see a child with two men who love and care for her than with a mother and father who neglect her.

----------


## Haru-san`sTeiraa

I don`t mind gay and lesbian(or bisexual)people as long as they don`t hit on
me...^_^

----------


## 大きいアメリカ人

It should be illegal and banished from existance.

----------


## bossel

> It should be illegal and banished from existance.


Great to see that such an open minded person has joined the forum. :Okashii:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> It should be illegal and banished from existance.


Why? Are you threatened by it (i.e. homosexuality)?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

First point: The problem arises when Christians (or anyone really) bring back the old way of thinking into it, saying that marriage is for producing babies which (obviously) two members of the same gender cannot do. As much as we would like to romanticize marriage and say that it is about love in reality it isn't and hasn't ever been. How else do you think arranged marriages came into being? If love had had anything do to with it people would have been horrifide at the thought. But nope. Get married, make babies. That's how it works. But in that case, how can you justify an infertile man/woman getting married? Going by the classic difinition of marriage, EVERYONE and ANYONE incapable of producing children with their loved one should not be allow to marry. Not so cut and dry now, is it?

Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.
Sub point: What if someone not of the Christian faith wishes to marry? Should they not be allowed? If you're going to bring religion into the mix you have to realize how BIG of an issue that is. Going by what Christians say then (that marriage is a Holy Union Under God aka a religious matter) anyone not of the Christian faith should not be allowed to marry. Hopefully you can see how wrong and unfair THAT is and I think the same applies to gay marriage, it's unfair to say they cannot marry just because they have not embraced your exact ideals, "values", or lifestyle.

Third point: And if you wish to bring love into the issue, gay couples love each other just as much as straight couples. So there is no valid reason there as to why they should not be allowed to marry in the romanticized sense of the word.

To make it simple: I believe that if two men, two women, or a man and a woman wish to marry, regardless of the possiblity or impossiblity of fertility and regardless of faith, that they should be allowed to under the law.

----------


## Kinsao

> Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.


I agree with that.
I think, that it's perfectly acceptable, indeed expected, for any religions that disapprove of homosexual behaviour, to say that homosexual couples aren't permitted to have a marriage within that religion. Because it should be free for people to believe what they want, so if they dissaprove of a particular behaviour, they can't be made to condone it, for example, if a particular religion was to say as one of its tenets that eating meat is wrong, I wouldn't expect to call myself a believer in that religion and still continue to eat meat, nor for them to permit me to do that.

But in the legal terms, marriage, it's a contract, isn't it? Why should same-sex couples not have that right? Because in the 'civil marriage', it's nothing to do with God or something. Let religious people practice what they believe to be right, but as a civil marriage is not valid in the religious sense anyway, the piece of paper makes no difference.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Exactly.
Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong. Church and Sate are supposed to be separate. If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Exactly.
> Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong.


Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.





> Church and Sate are supposed to be separate.


Church and state, yes, perhaps.

But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.




> If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.


Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

The United State of America is *not* meant to be a Democracy. "And for the *Republic* for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.




> Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.


They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.
Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party. In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc. Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."




> Church and state, yes, perhaps.
> But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.


I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole. And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them. If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage DOES NOT violate any one's rights meaning these laws are based solely on the church's standing on the matter. That is wrong.




> Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.


It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law. However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority. Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse. However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?

*Amendment I:*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"* that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because _Christians_ have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.

----------


## No-name

Not to disagree, just to note: But we have had laws limiting private sexual behavior among consenting adults in the past. We also have laws regulating marriage as far as outlawing plural marriages, bigamy, fraudulent marriages and in respect to age, relationship, and mental capacity. I don't think it is purely based on religion. I would also note that no major religion currently recognizes gay marriages- that there are prohibitions (right or wrong) in every major faith on the planet.

----------


## MeAndroo

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.


You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites

Religious Tolerance
Adherents.com
Wikipedia
Harper's

The problem I see is that just because the majority feels one way doesn't mean it's necessarily right. In a voting system based not upon individual citizens, but on representatives of those citizens, the possibility of slightly skewed representation exists. This is why district lines and possible gerrymandering are often hotly debated. It's also one of the issues I have with the electoral college system. That said, I'd like to see gay marriage be more of a state issue, and less interference from the federal government.

----------


## Sukotto

(copy & paste of my words from another string)

As for marriage, I do NOT believe it is ONLY a religious thing. There are plenty of people who get married outside of any religious setting. And that is nothing new in human history. 

If you want to go way back one can watch Mel Brooks movie "History of the World pt 1" in which the first marriage was a blonking of a mate over the head and dragging them home. This was followed by the first gay marriage done the same way. A light-hearted take on the history that includes arranged marriages, selling of children as brides, voluntarily marrying
only in one's social class or out of it, etc...

sanctity...?

I'm not so sure about that.

It's different things for different people. 
Why can't someone born with both sex orgins, none, or somewhere in between, decide for themselves who they want to marry?



+2 more things,
SOME Christians are just becoming upset because they are losing
their status as de facto official religion. Instead of privalege,
they will have to be like everybody else.

I forget the other

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites


I guess you just missed the whole section of my post about gays being the minority, huh? Just because Christians are a majority that does not make them 'the masses' that I meant. 'The masses' is referring to ALL not just the majority or minority. So no matter which the people in question belong too they are still impossing their view point on "the sheep-like masses" to quote Bette from The L Word. See, here's the thing, gays aren't trying to make everyone gay or join their "lifestyle" as Christians so tastelessly put it. Whereas Christians ARE trying to impose what they believe on EVERYONE. Gays just want equal rights is all, they aren't trying to make everyone Gay Lifestyle Converts.

----------


## afailedaffair

It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.

If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?

----------


## Mike Cash

> The United State of America is *not* meant to be a Democracy. "And for the *Republic* for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.


Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.




> They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.


I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?

Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?




> Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party.


That alone is insufficient reason to declare a right to gay marriage.




> In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc.


Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).





> Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."


Dear heart, I never said anything of the kind. I believe I quite clearly indicated that the First Amendment protects people's right to engage in the free exercise of their religion (i.e. formulate opinions based on their own values, however derived) and to engage in free speech (i.e. to vote in accordance with their own opinions/values, be it directly by referendum or indirectly through their elected representatives).

Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?




> I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole.


Name the last thing 350 million Americans all agreed on.




> And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them.


I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion. 




> If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses.


Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.


It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law. 

I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?

I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean. 




> However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority.


You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it. 




> Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse.


You're conflating two different issues. Also engaging in the "we're the minority and we demand to be treated like we're 51% and be given our way" sort of thing I mentioned above.






> However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?


Certainly. I can even empathize with it. For all you know, I may even agree with you. (Though I would bet money that you think I'm some rabid gay basher). You're arguing Gay Rights. I'm talking basic Civics.




> *Amendment I:*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.


Not at all. You merely have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment.




> *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"* 
> 
> that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed.


Thank you for proving my point. You have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment. You obviously haven't the slightest idea what the Establishment clause refers to.

America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.

Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and *totally ignore* the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint. 

And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.





> Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because _Christians_ have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.


If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.

You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.

----------


## Akakubisan

> Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because _Christians_ have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.



Out of curiousity, what religions are supportive of homosexuality? I don't think you will find many.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.


I am making that point not because it gets me closer to my goal, I point it out because it is a contradiction.




> I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
> And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
> And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
> And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?


Obviously you aren't paying the slightest bit of attention to anything I'm saying. If you were you would know that is not what I am saying.




> Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?


This is true, but how many atheists do you see marching around downtown with anti-gay and pro-Christians picket signs?




> Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).


If something is found to be wide spread but OUTSIDE of religion I see no problem with it. But when it stems solely from the church, I do. I don't see this as conflict of interest.




> Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?


Ah, but here's the rub. The First Amendment is a piece of paper and it's meaning is up to interpretation. Anyone can twist what it says to their point and it's still just as valid as the next person's idea of what the First Amendment is about.




> I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.


I almost can't think of anything to say because that statement is so horrible. But if you want me to shoot back so badly, which I'm sure you do, I will say this: yep, you'll find it right there next to women's rights to be first class citizens, black's rights to be equal, and it'll be right below the section stating that the Native Americans should be free. Just because something is not in the precious Constitution does not mean it is not a right.




> Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.


Do you want me to pull up the numbers? 'Cause I will if I have to.




> I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?


It's not news to me. I've lived in this screwed up system all my life. Believe me, it is not news to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's right.




> I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.


Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine going to school one day and between classes some of your classmates make a ring around you, they begin to yell horrible things at you calling you a "faggot" a "dirty homo" and many, many more and much worse things. Then they turn violent. The teachers finally break it up but you're still beaten inside and out. Imagine having people say that you are no better then the dirt in their back yard just because you're in love with someone they think you shouldn't be. Imagine people telling you that you are going to burn in hell because you loved the "wrong person." Imagine people tracking down where you live and putting signs in your yard that say you're a morally bankrupt homosexual sinner who is on a fast track to hell. Imagine you go to a bar, everything's fine, until some punk comes in with a gun and shoots and kills you all just 'cause it's a Gay Bar. Imagine that you've met the person of your dreams and you want to marry this person but you can't 'cause some Christians decided to bar you that right just because a pile of paper written thousands of years ago says it's "wrong."
I don't think you have ever stopped to think about what we go through on a day-to-day basis. Because if you had you would not say things like that.




> You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.


My grammar has nothing to do with this discussion.




> America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.
> Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and *totally ignore* the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.


If America cannot have an Established Church then how can it pass laws based on a church? Isn't that like Establishing said church to be the Church of America if America is bassing laws off of it? We are ruled by the church currently. Which by your own definition is against the First Amendment.




> And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.


As I said before how one sees pieces of paper is up to their interpretation of it. There is no One Way to view the First Amendment, it can be viewed in many ways because it is not a clearly stated document.




> If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.
> You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.


I've tried to be passive about this issue but I got my head bitten off by bitter Christians who made sure that I knew that I was going to hell for this. I've tried being nice, all it ever got me was a ripped open and bleeding heart. So I learned to be mean and drive my point home into the other's chest because this is the only way that I can be heard. If I had sweet-talked a.k.a BSed my way through this thread no one would have paid attention to what I said enough to respond to it. And if that means that I have to be the ***** in this situation to be heard then so be it. But I will not stand to the side, smile sweetly, and pretend that this doesn't get to me, or pretend that I don't care. There is only so much punishment someone can take before they stop being nice and I am WAY passed my threshold on said punishment. And I know I will probably not live to see the day America changes, I will probably go to my grave long before what I'm fighting for becomes a reality. But even knowing that I will be damned if I don't go down fighting even if it's a hopeless cause.
And of course, you're going to come up with a smart response to what I just said to try and make it sound like a pity-party or something like that to try and belittle me. But I don't care.




> It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.


That's because straight men get off on the idea of two women f**king each other. It's sickening.




> If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?


Very good point. I personally fail to see the big difference bewteen the two.

----------


## Mike Cash

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html#Q38

See also: 10th Amendment

(And the comment about the comma wasn't a grammar dig. It meant that I agreed with that particular statement up to that particular point.)

----------


## MeAndroo

> I guess you just missed the whole section of my post about gays being the minority, huh? Just because Christians are a majority that does not make them 'the masses' that I meant. 'The masses' is referring to ALL not just the majority or minority. So no matter which the people in question belong too they are still impossing their view point on "the sheep-like masses" to quote Bette from The L Word. See, here's the thing, gays aren't trying to make everyone gay or join their "lifestyle" as Christians so tastelessly put it. Whereas Christians ARE trying to impose what they believe on EVERYONE. Gays just want equal rights is all, they aren't trying to make everyone Gay Lifestyle Converts.


And YOU missed the rest of my post saying just because the majority thought something didn't make it right.

I really wish you'd stop saying Christians are doing everything when in fact it's just large portions of America. I know gay christians. Does that mean they're against their own right to get married? I've seen Muslim sites against gay rights (here) and Jewish ones (here). It's not limited to those that believe in Christ. Though perhaps you refer to them only because they're the majority and we have a Christian in the White House who's been quite vocal on the issue.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?


Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?

----------


## MeAndroo

> Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?


Here's a site that lists which states in the US sodomy is considered illegal in.

Linkage

And an additional site that gives perhaps a slight update

Wiki wiki wiki

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> It's not limited to those that believe in Christ. Though perhaps you refer to them only because they're the majority and we have a Christian in the White House who's been quite vocal on the issue.


I point the finger at Christians the most because the largest number of homophobes I've incountered are Christian and they are also the worst to deal with. And don't get me started on our dear President, we'd be here until the next February.

P.S. How can anal sex be illegal ANYWHERE? The fact that people would have laws banning certain kinds of intercourse is a just a bit odd, stupid, and quite silly to me. What does it matter how they do it? Honestly.

----------


## MeAndroo

> I point the finger at Christians the most because the largest number of homophobes I've incountered are Christian and they are also the worst to deal with. And don't get me started on our dear President, we'd be here until the next February.
> P.S. How can anal sex be illegal ANYWHERE? The fact that people would have laws banning certain kinds of intercourse is a just a bit odd, stupid, and quite silly to me. What does it matter how they do it? Honestly.


Couldn't that just be because the majority of people in this country are Christian? That said, however, I understand that much of the anti-gay rhetoric does originate in primarily Christian areas. There's a reason it's called the Bible Belt.

_Post edited._

Isn't Dick Cheney's daughter a lesbian? Odd how the current administration seems to promote the prevention of gay marriages in light of it. Then again, just because you have a family member with a certain characteristic doesn't necessarily change the way you think.

----------


## afailedaffair

> Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?


It's apparently "salutory" for straight people.

But when some straight "feller" sees his two dudes next door going at it, he'll probably do something about it.

----------


## afailedaffair

If christians are so "by the book"
Why do they call Easter "easter"
_The name Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe. A festival called Eastre was held during the Spring equinox by these people to honor her_

It's called Pasch.

----------


## No-name

I call it easter because if I call it anything else, no one will know what I am talking about and I will look stupid.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> From what I know, one of the reasons anal sex used to be outlawed was because of the spread of AIDS. Originally, it was primarily blamed on homosexual males. Without getting too graphic, sodomy has certain...factors that supposedly enhance the risk of contracting HIV from an infected partner. With the spread of AIDS and increase in knowledge about how it operates, this became less and less of a reason. Many states have in fact repealed their anti-sodomy laws, and I believe a major Supreme Court case took place in 2003 in Texas.


I know how it "works" thanks. But still, I think even with AIDS it's a little much to outlaw something like a kind of sexual intercourse. Educate people on the risk of it, fine, but to ban it is going just the tiniest bit far--Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "tiniest bit" too far? I meant WAY TOO FAR.
And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays.  :Okashii:  



> It's apparently "salutory" for straight people.
> But when some straight "feller" sees his two dudes next door going at it, he'll probably do something about it.


Oh, now that is just f**ked up (no pun intended). Right, so it's fine if a guy and girl do it that way but a guy and a guy? Hell, no. Why should the same standerds apply to gays that apply to straights? [insert BIG roll of the eyes here]

----------


## MeAndroo

> And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays.


Well, even some AIDS charities consider homosexual men to be one of the main causes of the worldwide spread of the HIV virus.

Avert.org

But a great deal of AIDS was also attributed to intravenous needle sharing, which, during the 60s and 70s, was more prominent amongst homosexual males than the rest of the population. Whether it was spread through needles or sodomy is not a question that's easily answered. This site argues it's more the fault of the drugs than of any sort of sexual experience.

A doctor named Alan Cantwell offers the theory that AIDS is a manmade genocidal tool aimed by the government at african americans and the homosexual population. This is getting off topic a bit, but I thought it was an interesting conspiracy theory.

----------


## Mike Cash

> it's a little much to outlaw something like a kind of sexual intercourse. Educate people on the risk of it, fine, but to ban it is going just the tiniest bit far--Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "tiniest bit" too far? I meant WAY TOO FAR.


Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.

(Of course the above isn't meant to be serious. It is meant to help you learn to focus your rhetoric and improve your odds of bringing others around to your way of thinking through rational presentation of your ideas.)




> And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays.  
> Oh, now that is just f**ked up (no pun intended). Right, so it's fine if a guy and girl do it that way but a guy and a guy? Hell, no. Why should the same standerds apply to gays that apply to straights? [insert BIG roll of the eyes here]


You weren't even around back then.

And you're once again conflating unrelated issues. People were quick to blame AIDS on gays becase early on AIDS was encountered predominantly among gays and because little to nothing was known about AIDS beyond that. I can remember people ragging me and saying I must be gay just because I knew what the letters "AIDS" stood for.

The simple fact was that heterosexual transmission of HIV (letters the public at large didn't learn until years after they learned the letters AIDS) just wasn't on the radar screen of public consciousness in those early days. AIDS was so predominantly found among the gay community and so (seemingly) conspicuously absent among straights that in their ignorance people assumed it was a "gay disease".

----------


## No-name

AIDS wasn't even known in the 60's or 70's. And all the anti-Sodomy laws predate the epidemic and can't actually be linked to any type of health concerns. The fact that AIDS primarily affected Gay men in the 80's probably affected the spread and delayed research into the cause and prevention of the disease.

----------


## MeAndroo

I'd like to publicly retract one of my earlier statements. Since Britain had an anti-buggery law in 1533 and Illinois was the first state to repeal their anti-sodomy law in 1962, 3 years after the first case of AIDS was found, it doesn't make sense that the establishment of anti-sodomy law would be influeced by the spread of HIV and AIDS. My post #130 has been edited.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.


There is a big difference between making a sexual POSITION illegal/legel and actual types of sexual RELATIONSHIPS. Why do you keep making these broad connections with things like this? I never said a thing about inter-person sexual relationships, I was talking about a sexual position. Stop trying to make it sound as though I am saying things that I am not please.

----------


## No-name

I'm coming up on my 20th aniversary too this year. Gay marriage seems to suggest certain advantages: leaving the toilet seat up, borrowing clothes, what movies and sports to watch, eating the same meal twice in the same week... but the biggest question is who gets the remote.

----------


## afailedaffair

> I call it easter because if I call it anything else, no one will know what I am talking about and I will look stupid.


You can secretly laugh to yourself knowing that you are the right one!  :Smiling:

----------


## afailedaffair

> Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.


Oh dear!
A Rick Santorum has been pulled!
Alert the PC police!

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

*sighs* Pointless.

Now getting back on topic:

I've noticed that the "strongest" anti-gay argument most people can make concerning Gay Marriage is that "legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution of marriage." But this statement hinges on the argument that marriage is not a legal matter but a religious one. But as I said before, there are quite a few problems with this way of thinking. To take the above standing is to say that it's not about legal marriage in the secular or civil sense but Holy Wedlock, a Union of Two God-Fearing Members of the Opposite Sexes and this is putting the right to marriage in a religious category. So in essence, Christians are saying that the whole country should follow their ideals concerning marriage, that sounds an awful lot like an Established Church of America to me. To pass laws in America forcing citizens to follow a moral code based upon the Bible, 'the word of the Christian God', is in a sense establishing said church as the Church of America. And according to dear Mike Cash's own definition of the Bill of Rights, this is against the law.
The reason laws forbidding murder, rape etc are expectable is because these are basic moral values found everywhere not just in Christianity. They're found in other religions as well as completely outside of religion. But the moral code dictating that homosexuality is immoral is found solely in religion and primarily in Christianity. Meaning by passing laws banning Gay Marriage that are blatantly based on Christianity the White House is all but officially naming that religion the religion of America. Matter of fact, President Bush used his religious convictions and therefore anti-standing on Gay Marriage as a campaign tool when running for office the second time. In his public speeches he talks as though he considers America to be entirely Christian with the exception of the Gay Community. "Our moral values", "_America's_ moral values" again, that sounds an awful lot like America has an Established Church to me.
Another reason laws banning murder are different then laws banning Gay Marriage is this, murder is one person infringing on another person's rights by taking the other's life without their consent. That is violating another citizen's rights. However, Gay Marriage takes place between two consenting adults, they are not violating the other's rights in any way by marrying. To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves. Gay Marriage falls under none of those categories. Which means the only reason these laws stand is due to religion, which means the United States of America is going against its own Constitution because it is establishing Christianity as America's Religion.

----------


## No-name

There are lots of laws that prevent acts between consenting adult that don't infringe on another and do not violate the rights of a third party. I don't believe that is a relevent legal standard.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

And that's probably because none of those laws apply to you. But these laws apply to me, me personally, I am effected by these laws.

----------


## No-name

I believe you misunderstand my point. We have laws against plural marriage, against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage), against certain consetual sex acts, against prostitution, against the consumption of drugs, against the ownership of prohibited items, against painting your house a particular color in a particular area... it need not infringe on the rights of another to be considered a law-- there are dozens of exceptions.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

And all those laws I find ridiculous.

"We have laws against plural marriage,"
Plural marriage is a person's choice and if everyone involved knows what's happening then that is not something to be outlaw.

"against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage),"
Marrying a member of one's family...okay, if they love each other then they're gonna do whatever they want anyway and again it is a choice. 

"against certain consetual sex acts"
I souldn't even have to say it  :Wary: 

"against prostitution,"
Position is the one of the oldest professions there is and it is that person's _choice_.

Oh, and I will paint my house whatever color I wish.  :Haihai:

----------


## No-name

That would make you a libertarian in this area.

I was just saying that the current legal standard is quite different than what you are assuming and what libertarians hope for.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Did I say the legal system based it's laws on whether or not something is in violation of rights? No. Did I say it _should_? Yes. And please do not label me, thank you.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> And all those laws I find ridiculous.
> "We have laws against plural marriage,"
> Plural marriage is a person's choice and if everyone involved knows what's happening then that is not something to be outlaw.
> "against marrying close relatives (including those related only by marriage),"
> Marrying a member of one's family...okay, if they love each other then they're gonna do whatever they want anyway and again it is a choice. 
> "against certain consetual sex acts"
> I souldn't even have to say it 
> "against prostitution,"
> Position is the one of the oldest professions there is and it is that person's _choice_.
> Oh, and I will paint my house whatever color I wish.


Laws against incest, that in no way can be compared to gay marriage. Those laws against incest have a basis in physical health of the child.

What happens in the room between two consenting adults is their own business. Just as how it should be with whoever signs the civil marriage papers that should bring ALL the same benefits or negatives as ANY marriage.

"Prostitution," -- regulated like any other business should be fine. If those are consenting adults following stringent health care policies, then fine. Let a person, in many cases one with no skills for employment, have a means to make a living without harrassment and the dangers of walking the streets or visiting truck stops. However, it is not comparable to gay marriage where two people simply want equality before the law.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Yes, with incest the health of the child is a major thing. But I still find the law somewhat...I don't know what word I'm looking for here.

And yes, you cannot compare those situations with homosexuality. It's like people who say homosexuals are sinners by comparing them with pedophiles. Did you know there are more straight pedophiles then gay? It's a mute point and besides that the two things have NOTHING to do with each other.

----------


## No-name

Actually you did imply in post #143 that you thought it was some sort of legal standard. That is exactly what I was responding to. My response was not an attack and it was rather neutral. And the libertarian was a label for the legal position you advanced. I noted that you are a libertarian in this area... not a label of you, but of your specific position. It was not meant as an insult.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I simply said laws shouldn't stand unless they are proventing the violation of rights that doesn't mean that that's the way it is. It just means that is how it SHOULD be. Granted I could have phrased that more clearly but you are still putting words in my mouth and I would like it if you didn't.

----------


## No-name

> To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves.


 These are the words you used and the implication is clear throughout your post. I am putting no words in your mouth and it is clear that you are looking for a fight where clearly there is none. 

Have I offended you in any way?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I just said I should have worded that better. What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?

----------


## No-name

I was only responding to what you posted.

You have not offended me in any way, and there is no need to appologize. I was taken aback and puzzled by responses that seemed unnecessarily and rather hostile.

What I want you to do is keep posting and expressing yourself in whatever way you feel is proper. I think you will find a broad and diverse sample of humanity on this forum that is amazing, accepting, honest, and always frank.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I wasn't apologizing, I was using a phrase to express myself. It's called a figure of speech.

----------


## No-name

> What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?


 The figure of speech you chose suggests an act of contrition-- a physical symbolic apology-- which I was saying is entirely unnecessary.

Your hostility is unwarranted. I am not fighting you, demeaning you, ridiculing you or showing the least bit of disrespect.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

*sighs* Okay, not even going to get into that first point. I already have a headache as 'tis.

I am not being hostile. But if you want me to be then I will be happy to do so. Being strong in stating one's opinions does not always mean one is being hostile.

----------


## No-name

Not being able to hear the tone of what you are writing, I have to depend on what you have written to covey not only the message, but all the intent.

It has nothing to do with stating your opinion strongly. The following bits from your last posts seem a bit edgy-- exasperated if not hostile:



> I simply said .... It just means that is how it SHOULD be. Granted I could have phrased that more clearly but you are still putting words in my mouth and I would like it if you didn't...I just said I should have worded that better. What do you want me to do? Get on my knees and gravel?...I wasn't apologizing, I was using a phrase to express myself. It's called a figure of speech...*sighs* Okay, not even going to get into that first point. I already have a headache as 'tis...I am not being hostile. But if you want me to be then I will be happy to do so. Being strong in stating one's opinions does not always mean one is being hostile.


I am not your enemy. Perhaps this is why Mike Cash thinks you have a chip on your shoulders. You don't need to sigh...or get defensive. I think you will find that people in our community are welcoming and quite civil for the most part and will defend their positions strongly without getting upset or personal unless cornered on rare occasion.

Perhaps we should just drop this and get back to the topic.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Right, so after you take your little jab at me you conveniently want to get "back on topic." Sure, why not?

----------


## No-name

No jab intended. Again did I say something that offended you? I thought you were sounding offended- exasperated and comming off a bit hostile-- that's all. If I am wrong, just say so and I will back off. Believe me, I am not trying to antagonize or offend you, nor am I arguing with you. If you want to continue this side discussion we can start another thread.

I though the original topic was interesting though.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I ALREADY said I was NOT being hostile. But if you keep pushing then I soon will be.

----------


## bossel

Thread closed temporarily. I suppose, a cooling period is required.


& open again. Please keep it civil from now on. Thanks.

----------


## No-name

> As a continuation of the threads about gay marriage, I'd like to survey where people stand on this issue, including those who haven't expressed themselves so far. 
> please read those posts to know my view on the issue :
> Is homosexuality natural (genetical, inborn) ?
> Can immoral sexual behaviours be criminalized ?
> Gay marriage in other countries than the US
> Please read this before voting, or you might not understand fully the issues at stake.



Back to business...thank you Bossel...I will hold my tongue :Blush:   :Sou ka:

----------


## mcanangel

I think that if 2 people want to get married, it shouldn't matter. I mean does it really have an effect on you day-to-day life? besides, is our country not a free one, with the motto free to persue life, liberty and the persuite of happiness? if happiness is to them marrying someone of the same sex then so be it, because you are not being forced to do that. If you think about it, this isn't so different as people fleeing thier country to come here to practice their own religion? I mean, sure it isn't what you believe or like, but it is a personal decision. I feel that the freedom is the beauty of the US, but freedom should be freedom. freedom of religion, freedom of love, life, and freedom to choose who you want to spend your life with.

----------


## Thor

I think homosexuality is acceptable. Homosexuality is just like hetereosexuality. The only problem it has expierenced is because of religion.

----------


## Silverbackman

Homosexuality does have some history behind it. It has been accepted in many cultures open to it. But if you really think about it has always been a recreational sexual activity like oral or anal sex. In that regard I am totally ok with it and in my opinion; anyone can be bi if they really broke taboo barriers. Never however has it been thought of as the same accord as straight relationships.

Modern western countries seem to get the wrong idea of homosexuality saying that is an equal to heterosexuality. But this clearly was not Mother Nature's intent as Nature intended all recreational activities just pleasurable pre-sex for the main sexual activity of intercourse for offspring.

Homosexuality does exist in large numbers in a species of chimpanzee called bonobos (pygmy chimps). Bonobos are the only non-human animal that engages in homosexual sex on a daily basis, though to them it is recreational only.

So homosexuality seems to be normal enough as far as recreational sex goes, but it doesn't make much sense to link it to a tradition that predates religion and homo sapiens and may even began back when homo erectus walked the Earth (humans being one of the only primates along with gibbons to be mostly monogamous).

----------


## sl0thmachin3

Live and let live I say. Everyone should have their pick of what they want for themselves. Ideally of course. It's very difficult to beat centuries of indoctrination. 

I've no problem with gay people. I find them fun to be with.

----------


## Kinsao

> Nature intended all recreational activities just pleasurable pre-sex for the main sexual activity of intercourse for offspring.


You mean all recreational _sex-related_ activities?  :Sou ka:  I enjoy a spot of table tennis but it never occurred to me to think it was pre- any sexual activity!!  :Laugh out loud: 

I feel like I really missed out on something...  :Sad:   :Giggle:

----------


## No-name

Without religious reference or inference from design or function, how could we know what "nature intended" with any certainty?

----------


## Carlitos

Totally agree with gay marriage. People have to find your happiness must be mad to marry, but marry the person you choose must have the same right as heterosexual or homosexual, same responsibilities, same rights.

----------


## Riccardo

I think that every intolerant shoud put him/herself in front of a mirror and ask him/herself why does he/she hate homosexual people ---> Why are they homophobic? Because if someone doesn't want to give to other people the basic rights to live their lives freely just because they are "different", it means that thay are intolerant and that they hate them.

What I ask is...Is it so much difficult to let everyone live his/her life? Even if someone think that it's wrong and it's not natural..Until they don't damage anyone...What's the problem?

If there was less sexual repression, it would be a better world. That's for sure. :P

----------


## LeBrok

The fear of strange, different, unfitting, or deformed people has evolutionary past. We are social creatures, and we are the product of the strongest groups/tribes of our ancestors. Obviously homosexuality wasn't the trait that made groups strong therefore wasn't accepted and we are paying price for it now in our liberal societies of today. The traits that made groups united and strong were spiritual/religion, arts/dances/group activities, fashion/traditions, heroism/sacrifices in war, cooperation/sharing, communication/peace within tribe, pride of your tribe/origin related to egocentricity (precursors of nationalism and racism),to name important once.
By negative behavior of most people toward homosexuality, one can deduct that homosexuality was more of a spoiler of the group coherence than a building block, hence having a tough time to become accepted even in today's free world. It also might be a side-effect of fear of anything or anyone that is different than average group norm.
The simplest way to get away with this problem is to educate new generations that homosexual people are valid, full members of our society, our group. If it is all us, there is no they.
The same group instinct that divides groups/nations, can be used to unite, if we all believe that we belong to only one group. There will be no hated "they", it will be only "we".

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

I personally a traditional man, don't like gays because from my point of view it's mistake of nature. With gays one big problem, they constantly trying to spend their damned parades, it must suppressed. Public advertisement of homosexuality in times when exist a problem with birth rate is unacceptable.

----------


## Carlitos

> I personally a traditional man, don't like gays because from my point of view it's mistake of nature. With gays one big problem, they constantly trying to spend their damned parades, it must suppressed. Public advertisement of homosexuality in times when exist a problem with birth rate is unacceptable.


 

Do you believe everything you have said?

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> Do you believe everything you have said?


Totally, you have a problem?

----------


## Carlitos

> Totally, you have a problem?



I have some problems, who does not?, but now is not the time nor the place. Returning to the thread, the issue is that homosexuals may be thinking like you but in reverse, and equally hate the homophobic, do believe that homosexuals are not capable of hate and dislike the same way as you hate them?

----------


## LeBrok

> I personally a traditional man, don't like gays because from my point of view it's mistake of nature. With gays one big problem, they constantly trying to spend their damned parades, it must suppressed. Public advertisement of homosexuality in times when exist a problem with birth rate is unacceptable.


Homosexuality is not only a human phenomenon. So far there are 500 spieces of animals indentified having homosexual behaviour. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Should we discourage them all from homosexuality? 


From scientific point of view there have to be an easy mutation, or one of many mutations/combination in genome that can lead to many forms of homosexuality. 
You can have overproduction of wrong hormones in your body making you look like a man, but feeling like a women, or vice versa. You can have female brain in male body, you can have some sections of brain mistakenly wired. 
For example, if you are strictly heterosexual man, when you hit puberty and you saw a naked woman, you got instant erection. Nobody had to teach you how beautiful and exciting female body is, did they?
It is a very distinct, very primitive, very ancient wiring in your brain that gives you instant and automatic sexual excitement, and enjoyment when you see a naked women, not even mentioning a beautiful naked woman, hehe. Same goes for scents, sounds and touching inducing automatic arousal.
Now, if you (assuming, you’re a man) have this simple brain connection messed up and actually your brain connects beauty of man's body with sexual excitement, then you are a homosexual. It really could be simple like this. One faulty wiring in your brain can define who you desire.
To make things interesting one can have double wiring for sexual excitation. One can get sexually attracted to both sexes, therefore engage in sex with both sexes. Some researchers define sexuality as a spectrum, and not simply as two forms homo or hetero. For examples, you can like women but sometimes you can find a handsome man that can lead you astray.

With today's science we know that certain shapes, textures, colour patterns are hard wired in our brains. Whatever was extremely important in our ancestors’ lives is engraved in our brains to make our lives simpler, to give us advantage in our lives. We don’t need to lose time learning basic things, we can act faster if we are born with this knowledge. It can save our lives. 
These shapes and patterns that we see, our brain analyzes. Once it fits obvious forms, the ones hard wired in our brain, it gets sent to emotional center of our brain, which is called Amygdala. At this point you will feel emotions that mach the hard wired patterns.
For example, most kids when they see bugs, spiders (even first time in their lives) they will shout, run away, get repulsed. It is an automatic, emotional reaction according to pre-programmed/hard wired function in their brains, based on visual cues.
When seeing and hearing of close thunder, everybody gets scared.
When you see naked mammalian teeth and hear growl, you know the animal is angry, and you have to back off,.
When you taste something sweet, you like it and want more.
Seeing green colour gives you peace. 
Sitting around flickering fire gives you pleasure.
When man sees female body it gives him sexual pleasure and excitement, and vice versa.
Nobody has to teach us these things, they are not cultural, they are hard wired and natural things. It is a very ancient adaptation that manifests itself as an automatic reaction, we call it instinct.

Therefore if man gets exited seeing other man, or woman seeing other woman, it is easy to prove that this phenomenon has to be hardwired but in form of faulty wiring. Homosexuality is not cultural, it is not learned. It looks more like a common, natural mutation in one of few places that can easily occur on our genome. On top of it it's very common among other spices pointing ever stronger that it's genetic, and not cultural.

Well, in this case most of us, overwhelmingly heterosexual men and women, what can we do with it, or should we, or even are we able to?

Should we reform daltonists so they can see all colours like most of us do?
Should we lock bold people in hospitals, so we don’t look at them with pity?
Should we hide people with down syndrome, so our kids won’t point fingers at them?
Homosexuality is a genetic condition, same as boldness or daltonism, nothing we can do about this. No amount of ridiculing will change their sexual orientation. 
You don’t need to worry, they won’t pull you or your kids to the “other side”. If your kid is born straight it will remain straight to the end of his/her life, and conversely if it’s born homosexual nothing you can do to change it. 
Why not living peacefully together in a free world?  :Cool V:

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> I personally a traditional man, don't like gays because from my point of view it's mistake of nature. With gays one big problem, they constantly trying to spend their damned parades, it must suppressed. Public advertisement of homosexuality in times when exist a problem with birth rate is unacceptable.


You can not force someone to produce and raise children if the person doesn't want to. It is the same problem with forcing young people to produce children for society, when they know it will be a ruin of their career in a place that lacks good jobs and demands for years of studying, practice and training, plus a child creates an additional poverty threat! 
I'm not even sure if a gay father would be the best dad for a child.

I'm undecided whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, because as mentioned above, it would change the meaning of marriage. With other rights for homosexuals I see no problem.

----------


## Gavroche

> I personally a traditional man, don't like gays because from my point of view it's mistake of nature


Not natural?
Do you know that animals can be homosexuals?
The nature is a mistery, and we must accept it...

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

Gays are joke of nature, aberration. No one here wishes to get rid of them or something. But they must know their place. 
If some people were born with defects in brain then it's does not mean that all others obliged look at their half-naked advertising campaigns on the streets in kind of mass demonstrations. It is immoral and ignorant. 
And I totally disgaree with statement: "_You don’t need to worry, they won’t pull you or your kids to the “other side”. If your kid is born straight it will remain straight to the end of his/her life, and conversely if it’s born homosexual nothing you can do to change it_." 
Maybe for adult man gay people really are harmless, but for child they are dangerous because the kid just beginning to explore the world, gays give a bad example. Direct path to total moral corruption.
And I don't see any other purpose of gay "parades of pride" exept getting of fresh "blood".

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> But they must know their place.


Which is...?

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> Which is...?


Modest, quiet place without public parades & gay wedding. 
Normal government & society must cultivate healthy values & landmarks, such as: healthy lifestyle, strong family, mutual respect of genders, not feminism; teach male to be manly & female to be feminine; respect for elders etc... not that gay shame of decaying society.
That's my opinion, all others can share other point of view. Everyone has his own truth anyway.

----------


## Carlitos

> Modest, quiet place without public parades & gay wedding. 
> Normal government & society must cultivate healthy values & landmarks, such as: healthy lifestyle, strong family, mutual respect of genders, not feminism; teach male to be manly & female to be feminine; respect for elders etc... not that gay shame of decaying society.
> That's my opinion, all others can share other point of view. Everyone has his own truth anyway.


What you should and should not be, the world is not going to end because there is homosexuality, "has never kissed another man in the mouth?

----------


## mikehayes

Separation of church and state should trump.

This means "marriage" should not even be recognized by the state. The state should do a find-and-replace done on all legal text, replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union". All current marriages should be automatically converted to civil unions on the state's records (in effect). Marriage licenses should no longer be granted from that point forward - only "civil union" licenses. 

The state should not even have a definition of marriage. "Marriage" is a sacred religious concept that every church can define as they see fit. Couples should be able to go to the state to get civilly united, and go to the church to get married.

IMO, this solves all the main problems. Most importantly, equal rights are embraced. And religious zealots and fundamentalists can still cling to "protecting" the meaning of "marriage". The word itself provokes too much nutty emotionally charged sacred ideology. So then as a state let's give up that word and let each religion have that "sacred" word to define as they wish. The state has no business using the word, and can function quite fine with "civil unions" alone, because civil unions are not a religious concept that's dirtied with an entanglement of religious ideologies. We could then tell each religion that "marriage" is successfully protected within their church, and each church has complete authority and control over how they see fit to protect marriage within their church. Let the churches discriminate all they want in their ceremonies.

----------


## Carlitos

" Psychiatric expert's report " for a priest of Fuenlabrada 'accused' of being gay
The episcopate of Getafe separates a priest of his parish, prohibits him to reside in his municipality and sends to him a therapist who prescribes the test of the VIH. - The priest refuses to respect the order.

For this motive, according to the version of the priest, the prelate designated a psychiatrist so that he was analyzing him. " He interrogated me of denigrating form, asked me if my parents had violated me of child or if it had seen them having sexual relations between them ". The doctor prescribed, between other tests, that of detection of the VIH. The therapy that will have to continue, " in accordance with the postulates of the Christian anthropology " - as he says the order of the bishop-, he still does not know her. Neither he has seen the report of the psychiatrist.

The priest affirms that the prelate said to him later, in a meeting, that these irregular acts were alluding to a homosexual relation with a seminarian. Both deny to have supported a sentimental relation beyond the friendship. " He is like an adoptive father for me ", he affirms Yannick Delgado, the 28-year-old seminarian and Cuban origin.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/madri...07elpmad_4/Tes


_This case is happening at present in Spain, nevertheless the parishioners support in his totality the parson accused of homosexuality by the Episcopate and even some believers affirm that of being true the news might be completely compatible with the office of priest, it can turn that the Spanish population has demythologized the credence of the past that demon the homosexuality, the church has not changed._

----------


## ali

I'm against it!

The media is making it worst by supporting it. This will effect the human race.

----------


## mikehayes

> I'm against it!
> 
> The media is making it worst by supporting it. This will effect the human race.


Out of curiosity, do you also oppose separation of church and state?

It's rational to oppose homosexual legal marriage, but only if you also oppose heterosexual legal marriage.

----------


## Ferreiro_

> Gays are joke of nature, aberration. No one here wishes to get rid of them or something. But they must know their place. 
> If some people were born with defects in brain then it's does not mean that all others obliged look at their half-naked advertising campaigns on the streets in kind of mass demonstrations. It is immoral and ignorant. 
> And I totally disgaree with statement: "_You don’t need to worry, they won’t pull you or your kids to the “other side”. If your kid is born straight it will remain straight to the end of his/her life, and conversely if it’s born homosexual nothing you can do to change it_." 
> Maybe for adult man gay people really are harmless, but for child they are dangerous because the kid just beginning to explore the world, gays give a bad example. Direct path to total moral corruption.
> And I don't see any other purpose of gay "parades of pride" exept getting of fresh "blood".


Ok, it's your opinion, but I'm not surprised because you live in Russia, where gays still have much rights to gain.
Gays are ok for me. In Madrid there is a gay parade with the participation of millions of people, and nobody has been raped or murdered for it. I believe that the murders of journalists, human rights defenders, etc., are much more common in countries like Russia, where I think gays are attacked, than in countries like Holland, Japan, Sweden, where people respect each other. 
The moral degradation of which you are speaking is more typical of countries like Russia, Afghanistan or Iran.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> Ok, it's your opinion, but I'm not surprised because you live in Russia, where gays still have much rights to gain.
> Gays are ok for me. In Madrid there is a gay parade with the participation of millions of people, and nobody has been raped or murdered for it. I believe that the murders of journalists, human rights defenders, etc., are much more common in countries like Russia, where I think gays are attacked, than in countries like Holland, Japan, Sweden, where people respect each other. 
> The moral degradation of which you are speaking is more typical of countries like Russia, Afghanistan or Iran.


I recommend to rename European Union into Gayropean Union then  :Laughing:

----------


## Gusar

10 characters.

----------


## ultralars

the scum of people is really coming out clear in this thread

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> the scum of people is really coming out clear in this thread


People just have different values

----------


## Gavroche

I didn't know that "intolerance" is a "value"... :Thinking:

----------


## Viktoriya

I have a negative meaning as for homosexuality. But as for the marriage of gays I think it should be allowed, because these men should have their rights and create their families.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> I didn't know that "intolerance" is a "value"...


That's not about tolerance or intolerance, it's matter of human values. If I will meet a gay or lesbian on the street then I will just pass over in silence. But this does not mean that I am loyal to homosexuality.
Scares fast increase of people of untraditional sexual orientation by hundreds of thousands. Already "traditional" gay parade in Berlin:
*2008 year ~ 500 thousands of participants*
2009 year ~ 550 thousands of participants
2010 year ~620 thousands of participants
*in 2011 year already ~ 700 thousands of participants*

Maybe for western Europe it's ok and maybe it's already even became a "value" there, but in such case me and western Europeans have different human values.
Totally agree with president of Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus, he names all these gay stuff a "violence of minority over the majority".
I believe that XXI century belongs to strong-willed independent from church atheistic man, but which in the same time adheres of traditional values (firstly - family, second place - job, third - friends, fourth - car, etc...).
In USA which Europeans so like to copy: 44% of population *constantly* *visit churches*, especially in small towns; only 6 states out of 50 allow gay marriage, it's very traditional and "familial" country despite on all that stream which comes from Hollywood.

----------


## Gavroche

> That's not about tolerance or intolerance, it's matter of human values


But tolerance is a human value...




> me and western Europeans have different human values.


Like xenophobia? 
I agree, we don't have the same values and i'm glad of it...




> In USA which Europeans so like to copy


...."*liked*" to copy...




> 44% of population constantly visit churches, especially in small towns; only 6 states out of 50 allow gay marriage, it's very traditional and "familial" country despite on all that stream which comes from Hollywood.


And what?
France is also a "traditional" and a "famillial" country, i think you wanted to say "religious" country, no?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> But tolerance is a human value...


Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance nevertheless. :Useless: 

Homosexuals find it hard to tolerate homophobes and homophobes find it difficult to tolerate homosexuals.

Tolerance is not a value when it is used to highlight intolerance. My view is that sexuality no matter what the form, heterosexual or homosexual, needs to be expressed in a respectful manner. Marriage or civil unions are not an issue because sexual orientation does not influence whether people can live together or not.

----------


## Gavroche

> Homosexuals find it hard to tolerate homophobes and homophobes find it difficult to tolerate homosexuals


The principal is to compare the speech of each group:
The gays say: "we want a normal life, like heteros"
The homosphobes say: "Gays don't have the right to live a normal life like heteros"

Wich group is the most intolerant?

PS:
Sorry for my basic english...

----------


## Dorianfinder

> The principal is to compare the speech of each group:
> The gays say: "we want a normal life, like heteros"
> The homosphobes say: "Gays don't have the right to live a normal life like heteros"
> 
> Wich group is the most intolerant?
> 
> PS:
> Sorry for my basic english...


Your English is fine, there is no need to apologize. 

What people say is not important, ask yourself what they need.

If you can answer a homophobe's or a homosexual's need you soon find the argument stops immediately. When people feel not listened to they tend to shout from the rooftops. Shouting is aggressive and disrespectful, it results in similar behavior from opposing sides.

There is an irrationality in what fanatical homophobes and homosexual groups express, namely that they feel they will only be satisfied once the extreme opposition accepts their views, this is the view of both sides, hence the argument rages on relentlessly.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> But tolerance is a human value...
> 
> Like xenophobia? 
> I agree, we don't have the same values and i'm glad of it...


Xenophobia is a too much radical word here, it can't be used. If a group of neo-Nazis gathered together, armed by sticks and iron bars and went to beat the homosexualists then they can be called as "intolerant xenophobes" etc... But nobody can hang such "labels" on ordinary people who simply resent seeing the spread of homosexual values in society.

Tolerance is too, the ambiguous word. If a mosquito just flying around and don't touch me and I don't touch him then we are tolerant to each other. But when the mosquito sits on my hand and tries to bite then any tolerance is over. Tolerance in this case turns into a self-masochism.



Tolerance is needed for the coexistence of different groups within the country, but it should be built on mutual respect otherwise it makes no sense. 

Also I think that the grow of homosexual tendencies in the western countries is connected with furious feminism since 60s. The females in the west had only one way to get more or less the same rights as males - the way of public protests and struggle for rights on the wave of mass enthusiasm about liberalism and fighting against racism. But at some point the feminist activist-careerists crossed an invisible red line, they started too fiercely oppress their own men. As a result the grow of "feminine boys", gays, lesbians, manlike-amazon type of females etc... That's abnormal imbalances inside of society, very dangerous thing.
In Russia communists in 20s established gender equality according to their "homogeneous classless society" ideology by fiat, it was even slightly pro-female. For example if the family is divorced then children stayed with mother, Soviet power was on the side of the mother; If a woman has committed a crime then she received less punishment than a male for similar crime, plus communist general equalization system etc... That tradition for 70 years of communism firmly entered into our life and we had not that feminist mood in 60s.

----------


## toyomotor

I have no problem with homosexuality, as long as it doesn't become compulsory.

----------


## Ember83

I feel very comfortable with gay people, I think they should have the same rights  :Satisfied: 
Those who discriminate gays don't seem to realize that they might have homosexual children one day, or grandchildren, members of their family, friends... don't they want them to be happy, free and safe?  :Disappointed:

----------


## LeBrok

> Those who discriminate gays don't seem to realize that they might have homosexual children one day, or grandchildren, members of their family, friends... don't they want them to be happy, free and safe?


I guess, they don't think it is going to happen to them, because they will raise kids properly. :)

----------


## Ember83

Well, many of them are destined to have some _surprises_ and call into question their beliefs!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Some persons I believe just have a genetic propensity to be homosexual.

----------


## Fire Haired

sorry if i said some inappropriate things it is the only way to make my point. please to abolish my account i said these things because their what make my argument.

No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. gay men use testosterone they have the same behavior(i dont want to get specific) as straight men. They dont have some strange sexuality with diff hormones they also dont have a woman's sexuality. it does not matter if a man has less testosterone or more estrogen than average he uses his balls, pennis, and testosterone for sexual suff. If a man has testosterone, balls, pennis he is straight not gay those body parts are made for many things one of them having sex with a human female not other men and this is how humans and other species reproduce. If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing. If a man uses testosterone, pennis, and balls for something that is not a human female that is unnatural and perverted and a sin. 

The same goes for gay females they have the same sexual behavior as straight females they are just using it on women when they should be using it in men.

In evolution homosexualty is one of the worst things for a species. Think about it a gene that does not allow some members to reproduce reproduction is the key thing for s species survival. If a homosexual gene popped up there would be two different ones for men and women also it would be killed off by natural selection because homosexuals would not reproduce. Also it would be extremely recessive like red hair. my uncle and aunt both have brown hair but had two redhead kids but if redheads stop reproducing eventualley red hair would die out. My brown haired aunt and uncle got the red hair gene from past redheads who reproduced so if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.

also i dont see how a homo gene would pop up. how could a man use testosterone, pennis and other things made to be attracted to women and somehow get a gene that totally goes against natural selection that makes him want to do the reproductive processes with a another man. and how could another gene do the same for woman on woman. that sounds very impossible to me mainly the natural selection and hormone parts.

I think homosexuality can easily be explained in psychology. It is not a surprise sexuality towards the same human gender is more common than towards animals(which does exist). Because humans are very social we spend alot of time together our same geneder has some of the same features as the oppiste gender so it would make sense some people would pervert and be attracted to the same gender. Also people treat it like a new thing which would add another reason why it is more tempting. 

In my opinon homosexuality is not natural at all and is a sin. i dont really think people of the same gender should marry like i said it is unnatural and is unmoral. but then people say america is made to let people do whatever they want. No that is not true that does not mean u against or natural sexulaity and live a perverted life.

----------


## toyomotor

As long as it doesn't become compulsory, I have no problems.

----------


## Twilight

Besides biblical accounts involving the village of Sodam, I see no reason who homosexuality be a problem. At this point in history I think it's politically safer to be going after the opposite gender if you can help it until the negative hatred dies down.

----------


## Leandros

Biological or mental disorder

----------


## tivali

Just to point out that it isn't strictly marriage. It is called a civil partnership.

----------


## Starlight

I think it's discusting,it's just my opinion.

----------


## Irene

Homosexuality is just a form of sexual behaviour, and should be respected as any other such behaviour. Any sexual behaviour involving consenting adults is of equal validity and deserves the equal respect. The right of two consenting adult people to marry (regardless of their sex), should be considered universal. The right to adopt children (if other proper criteria are met), also.

----------


## dia38europe

I don't really think homosexuality is a choice, you are born this way and it's not fair to be judged, I personally have lots of gay friends and they are wonderful people, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as we have?

----------


## Borderer

I am fine with homosexuality. Closest friend is a gay guy (I am a woman). But let a child decide or his/herself don't force it down their throats cause it's the newest fad to be gay. 

Fostering seconardy ideas, such as transgender on preteen kids, is also bit much nowadays. Let THEM decide what they are. 

I am quite sure if I was a teen today many people would say I am gay or trans due to how I acted growing up. I was a tomboy - wore boys clothes, played predominantly boy sports, climbed trees, mucked about in cars, helped out in home & car repairs (where I work maintenance jokes I should be doing their job because guess what I am more than capable of restarting a furance, more than capable of changing flat tires, etc.) & all around couldn't careless for girlie things (to me they were a waste of time). I am not gay or trans. It was a phase. I am a woman who doesn't need makeup but goes to work in skirts & dresses and who is only interested in men. If my parents had shoved the gay/trans down my throat rather than let me decide for myself they may have ruined my life.

----------


## Borderer

> I don't really think homosexuality is a choice, you are born this way and it's not fair to be judged, I personally have lots of gay friends and they are wonderful people, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as we have?


A close friend is bi, so he likes men & he likes women. I do not believe he was born to be sexually assaulted as a 4 year old, do you?

And that is what many who laud the born-this-way don't see the big picture or think to ask yhe delicate questions of was someone who is gay abused. People assaulted by pedophiles have a tendency to become one themselves, people raised in abusive households tend to be abusive, etc. 

Life is complex, humans are complex. As much as the more sheep-minded, go with whatever trend is popular/don't make waves/go with the flow, would like to believe we are individuals and *many* factors shape what we become.
Such is why I don't buy the born-this-way claim of many issues because if people were indeed born this way then nothing would change & yet drunkard parents won't necessarily have drunkard children, abusive parents may not have abusive children, etc. And gay parents may not have gay children.

----------


## InfamousAngel99

I don't see a problem with homosexuality...it is just someone loving another person. I've never understood why people get offended by it (besides indoctrination). 

Let people love who they love and mind your business! Life is too short to be worried about such trivial things...

----------


## RoeGriffin

Natural. Exists in the animal kingdom after all.

----------


## AlfonsoVIII

Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed.

----------


## AlfonsoVIII

> Natural. Exists in the animal kingdom after all.


Cannibalism exists in the animal kingdom too.

----------


## BillMC

I've made my point WRT gay marriage in the other gay thread. Regarding homoseuality - I have no problem with it. Provided that homosexuals have consenting relationships with adults and don't bore the rest of us to death by telling us how wonderful it is to be gay.

BTW it is not as if a person willfully decides that they want to be gay. Irrespective of how liberal or tolerant a straight person is they will always feel disgust about engaging in homosexual activity.

----------


## Twilight

I may have switched to the Republican Party since then but my opinion on Homosexuality has been the same as the day Obama made gay marriage legal in 2011. 
If you want to date someone in the same gender, I have no beef. Just make sure you keep your clothes on in the Pride Parades so the children can watch the parade-floats as well. :)

----------


## hadrian

On the question of heritability there are polygenic loci inferred from genome wide association studies. The 23andme research study and 
UK Biobank one have around 400,000 subjects.

The genes may be cracked with higher-power studies with larger population samples.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8558329/
nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082777/

----------

