# General Discussion > Opinions >  The Gay Marriage Controversy

## kirei_na_me

It's a huge story in the U.S. right now. As of now, it's up to the state, not the federal goverment, to certify same-sex unions. Dubya is trying his best to change this, though. He's now wanting to alter the Constitution of the United States of America by adding an amendment which will ban all same-sex marriages for good( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3320_2004feb24 ).

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

I'm adding a map showing the status of same-sex marriage by state(Alaska is questionable):

----------


## jeisan

i thought hawaii allowed same sex marriages...
personally i dont really care what other people do in their spare time as long as it doesnt hurt me or my friends/family and they dont try to push their beliefs on me.

----------


## Maciamo

I can't find that sinful, as I am not religious. Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together. 

Then, I was wondering what is the legal status of a gay couple who would have got married in a country or state where gay marriage is legal in any place where it is not legal. If it is the same as with dual nationality, it is only recognised where it is legal. E.g. if an American becomes Japanese, he/she will have both nationalities in the US, but only the Japanese one in Japan (as Japan does not recognised dual nationality, but the US do). How does it work with US driver's licences ? As ages varies from state to state, is it ok for instance for a 15 year old to get a driver's licence in a state where the legal age is 15, then drive anywhere in the US, or can they only drive in the states that accept 15 year-olds to drive ? (don't have this issue in Europe as the legal age for driving is 18 everywhere, so I don't have a clue).

----------


## jeisan

> Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.


actually sodomy is illegal in some states...
as for honoring the marriage it varies, some states recognize gay marriages from other states though they dont allow them themselves while others dont. not sure about the drivers licenses though, but i think they will be honored, when my uncle was 15 he used the one he'd been issued in a state where it was too early for him to get one there with no problems.

----------


## Hachiko

I think gay marriages should be legalized. I feel that Bush's move to ban gay marriage is a just a plan for him to get reelected. Bush won't succeed, and neither wi0ll the ban. Period.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Yeah, I think he's trying to do it to get voter approval too, but like you, I don't think he's going to succeed. He's done dug himself pretty darn deep already.

----------


## Eternal Wind

well.....i still think that same sex marriages are to be legal...cause it is the human choice of who loves who and not jus being controlled by human laws,each person got the right to choose who they love and who they don't.Cause love can't be forced.And as long as the 2 truely loves each other,Y not?

----------


## Frank D. White

Big business & government don't want to have to pay for benifits, lose tax money, and fight court battles over the legal issues involved. I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

Frank

----------


## Winter

Grr....this issue....ISNT AN ISSUE!

Let the freaking people marry whomever they love within reason *none of that minor bs*.

This isnt a freaking issue, and thats the reality of the situation. This shouldnt be having so much energy put in it. Rights shouldnt discriminate, and being a former supporter for Bush, I'd have to say that he is only doing this to regain support from his strongest redneck-....er....voters of the south.

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

As corrupt as our system of govt is, there will not be an amendment that will forbid these types of unions. Even if it does come out, it will be annulled immediately.

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, *CAPITALISTS*. With that said, once word gets out on how much money my hometown of San Francisco has made off this, the rest of the country will be itching to get in on the action. This 'issue' right now mean big bucks.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Summed it up pretty nicely, Winter. I also think all of this could be a ploy to get attention off other matters at hand, such as the whole Iraq situation. Let's take the people's minds off the issues that really matter...yeah...

----------


## lineartube

I don't know why everyone is so upset. after all, in the start of his term, Bush did pushed or tried to push a program to incentivate marriage. Perhaps it worked too well? :)

It is a serious issue, but I think that nowadays, it only draws attention from the right wing Christians and the people that are directly affected. In the middle is a mass of (more or less informed) people that threads on the politically correct, don't care less and wonders what's the big fuss about.

Looks like everyone's already forgot another major issue that was raised by Janet Jackson's Tiet Offensive.  :Laughing:

----------


## Maciamo

> I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!


So what ? money has always been a valid argument in politics, but religious shouldn't be. You can't impose your religious views to all the nation (especially such a hybrid one as the American one). I think the French are right when they want a strict separation of religion and politics (the ban on headscarves at school is another problem...).

----------


## Maciamo

> All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.


Completely agree with you.  :Laugh out loud:  




> Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, *CAPITALISTS*.


Inserting a ban on gay marriage in the constitution is plain non-sense, especially when this one grant the citizens freedom of opinion, beliefs, expression, etc. I've nener heard of a constitution that _forbids_ rights rather than grant them. Interesting new way towards tyranny.  :Danger:

----------


## Mandylion

First, I am in support of allowing gay people to marry if they wish. It doesn't bother me, in my view it doesn't cheapen the institution, nor endanger society. How can two adults who care and love each other be considered as bad?

That said - For the sake of discussion (remember, I don't endorse all these views, just want to keep it alive)

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

So what if everyone compromises by letting congress rewrite some laws to extend legal protections/benefits but stop short of demanding marriage? The right wingers would be happy because their ideals are met, gay couples gain legal protection/benefit for their relationship, and you can get rid of all this silly nonsense about gay marriage throwing open the door to polygamist/three men/animals and people. 

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

----------


## Hachiko

Which is the price to pay for living in a Puritan-based society.  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Kuro_Tsubasa69

@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also. So, if we are to go by your idea, do we have a 'legal union' reciption for them?  :Poh:  (Even though I can see ppl having probs w/that also.... :Ouch: .)

IMHO: I don't see any problems whatsoever with two people in love who wish to marry. If those bible-belt people raise a stink over gay marriage destroying the so-called 'sanctity' of marriage, then why aren;t they pissed off as much about those reality shows like 'my big fat obnoixious fiance' and 'married by america'? I think _those_ shows are the only things doing damage to marriage.  :Angry:

----------


## Elizabeth

> It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.


Yeah, I agree politization of an issue is ultimately antithethical or irrevelant to matters of the heart. Unfortunately as with so many other areas gays and lesbians often seem to perpetuate the controversy by reducing the reasons for marriage to a question of legal rights, universal recognition, as a statement against discrimination/anti-Bush etc none of which of course are integral to the institution itself. It's much rarer to hear what should be the most fundamental motivations of giving children a stable family life or preserving the longevity of their own relationship.

----------


## Maciamo

> Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.






> @Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also.


In laic Europe, (especially countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands...), so many people have come to dislike the idea of getting married because of its association with religion and church ceremony, that the number of umarried people living and having children together is on the rise. I don't know in the US, but in Japan almsot 100% of parents are married, because the father would not be recognised otherwise. 

In Europe, that's already a few decades that married and non married couples have the same legal status. France offers 3 possibilities to couples who want to live or have children together : cohabitation, "pacs" or marriage. The legal status of each is different, but in all cases the couple and their children are legally recognised. Couples in "pacs" can declare their revenue together and enjoy tax rebates after 3 years of "pacs", while married couples always declare together and cohabiting ones never do. The inheritence tax is also progressive, highest for cohabitation, then pacs (degressive with number of years spent together), then marriage (also degressive). 

For property and debts, cohabiting couples are completely separate, those in "pacs" have common property for thing sthey bought together and must be solidary for everyday debts, while married couples always have common properties and debts, unless otherwise specified in a "contract" (prenuptial agreement).

Now more interestingly, in all 3 situations, couples can have a common social security, medicare, etc. Even better, it is possible for a foreigner either in "pacs" or cohabiting with a French person (so not married), to obtain French nationality after 5 years of living in France (same condition as for married couples in Japan). If they are married, then only 1 year is necessary (that is for France, as each EU country has different laws ; e.g. it is only 6 months in Belgium).

For work, couples in "pacs" and married ones have the same priorities for holidays/vacations. That is, they are allowed to ask to have their holiday/vacation at the same time as their partner, but it's a matter of company policy.

It is also possible for couples in pacs to adopt children, though only one person can officially do so, while both can if they are married. Cohabitating couples can't.

In case of separation, there are no formalities for cohabiting couples, but "pacsed" and married couples must declare it officially at a tribunal/court. The only difference is that if they were married, they can ask their ex-partner for financial help/support. But in both case, damages can be sought by either party.

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

For those who can read French, here is the website where I obtained my information. BTW, these laws aren't new in France/Europe. I've always known this system since my childhood.

One last thing, in lots of EU countries, civil and religious marriages are clearly disctinct things. But that depends on the country. In France, Belgium, etc. the only legal way to get married is to sign at the townhall. Marriages made by a priest have no legal value. So if people want a religious marriage, they must get a civil one first. In countries like Italy, however, either way is acceptable. Japan is of course like France and many other Eu countries. How about the USA ? These "Las Vegas marriages" are only religious ones, aren't they ?

I suppose it's because marriage still has such a strong religious connotation in the US that it causes so much turmoil from religious activists and puritan politicians now. やはりアメリカはヨーロッパよりサウディアラビアに近い。

----------


## Keeni84

Does anyone remember the phrase "separate but equal"? I pray to God we won't do the same thing to homosexual people who's only crime is to want to be married to their significant other. I mean, damn.




> Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?


Well, there are several sorts of things like that in America. We call it a "Domestic Partnership Registry". My city became the first in the nation to allow it's citizens the right to vote on whether or not homosexual couples could be allowed domestic partnership, and we were the first in the nation to pass. Basically, you get all the same benefits as a married couple does.

However, I don't believe this to be enough. 




> That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.


This would be the "solution" for gays? Why does there need to be a "solution"? Why can't America just do the right thing and award equal rights to its citizens? How would this "satisfy" homosexual couples? The homosexual couples that I've talked to, and my homosexual friends don't believe this to be enough. Segregation didn't work before, remember?

Just the fact that you say "almost" the same rights gives me cause for alarm. "Almost" the same rights? Like homosexuals are "almost" citizens, right? 

Homosexual people are just like every other citizen, but more importantly, they PAY TAXES. I'm sorry, but if I was homosexual and I was being denied my rights, I would stop paying taxes, and take it to the Supreme Court.

----------


## Feral-Darkness

The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

It has to be equal.

----------


## jeisan

the US and australia have whats called a common law marriage, where if a couple has been living together for 12+ months then they can claim to be spouses, will work for citizenship in australia, not sure about the states though. in both cases claiming common law then separating still requires a legal divorce.

----------


## Maciamo

> The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.
> 
> IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.


Actually, I didn't see it as a "bullshit" at all. As you might know, I am not Christian, nor even religious, so for me the idea of "marriage" as it is understood in Western cultures, is slightest disturbing. I am married to a Japanse, but only because marriage in Japan has a completely different meaning, more of a social duty towards the family, and has nothing religious (we had no ceremony either in a church/chapel nor in a temple/shrine). What is more, it is the only form of officially recognised relationship (no cohabitation or "pacs"). But if it were up to me to change things, there wouldn't be any marriages, but just civil unions. So when I was talking about such sort of union for gay, I was thinking of a _better_  solution than marriage (given they aren't religious like me), as I would _never_  have got married had it been tinted with religious connotation.

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

----------


## kirei_na_me

It almost never fails that I agree with Maciamo completely.

The above post is exactly how I feel. I, also not being religious, would rather not have gotten married at all. In fact, I didn't want to get married when I did, and if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't be married. Yes, that's a bold statement and it is for very many reasons and it's a long, complicated story. Anyway...

The point is, though, that gay people simply want to be considered equal, and I believe they should have that right. If they wish to be married like their heterosexual counterparts, I think they should be able to. Not everyone is non-religious like me and there are still people who believe that marriage is necessary to seal the deal and make everything right. I don't deny that many might be doing it just to prove a point, though... ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ell_wedding_12 )

This hits close to home for me. There are several lesbians in my family(could it be genetic?) and also friends who have partners and some of them wish to be legally married to them. I know them and I know how they feel about each other, and I feel that if they want to be married to each other, then why shouldn't they be able to? They exhibit much more genuine, loving, and caring behavior toward each other than so many heterosexual couples I've known. Oh well...it's too personal for me, I guess...

----------


## bossel

> Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned?


If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

----------


## Elizabeth

> So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.


And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.

----------


## Keeni84

THANK YOU, Elizabeth.

Why should everyone else be denied the right to get married? Their are Christian homosexuals who have faith in marriage as a religious institution. Do not assume that homosexuals have no faith. There are Jewish homosexuals, Christian homosexuals, Catholic homosexuals, Pagan and Wiccan homosexuals...and the list goes on. Should they be denied their right to get married in the religion of their choosing? 

Not everyone in the world is non-religious. People should have the right to get married under their God in their religion. Just as I should have the right to have a civil union with no religious connotations. 

I believe that marriage and civil union should BOTH be allowed in society. For whomever wants to get married in religion (homosexual or not) and for whomever wants to just have a civil union with no religious connotations (homosexual or not).

----------


## kirei_na_me

I think I just said something about people who are religious wanting to get married and have some kind of ceremony to make it "right" for them? Even homosexual people have religion, and I don't think there's one thing wrong with that. I just want to make sure you all knew that I said that...

----------


## kirei_na_me

> If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.
> 
> Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.


bossel, separation of church and state doesn't really mean anything in this country. There has just recently been a long, drawn-out debate about The Ten Commandments being taken out of an Alabama courthouse.

----------


## Elizabeth

> If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.
> 
> Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.


Bush was simply using the term marriage in the legal sense in lieu of civil unions or domestic partnerships since as yet there's no universal agreement on where or how those should be recognized. As far as I'm aware, the governor of California has come out for full & equal legal rights between civil union (homosexual) and married (heterosexual) couples so I doubt even Bush would quarrel with that. Certainly no one can deny homosexual couples a purely religious ceremony and those have probably been going on underground for quite a long time now.

----------


## Keeni84

Oh, Kireina_me that wasn't in reference to you. I just wanted to point out that many if not most homosexuals don't want to be "civil unioned" they want to be "married".

----------


## mieboy

Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
BYE!!  :Oops:

----------


## kirei_na_me

Good for you, mieboy!  :Smiling:  

I think people are born being gay. So many people remember being attracted to the same sex--or both sexes--from very early on, like pre-K age. I don't think it's a conscious decision at that stage. 

I think it also could be genetic. How many people in my family are gay? Enough to make me question if it's inherited. Besides the ones that are officially "out", there are others that are not, but pop up on the gaydar.

----------


## Maciamo

> And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.


What I mean, is that _legally_ marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government. What does religion have to do with legal benefits such as tax rebates, common insurance, lower inheritance tax, possibility of adoption, etc. Religion always causes problems like now. If marriage had nothing to the state, there wouldn't be any problem betwen gays and the Bush administration. If they want to get married, that is up to their religion (and branch/sect). If the local priest/reverend doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they go somewhere else, change religion or protest against their religious leaders. What could people like Bush have the right to decide for everybody of all confessions and no-confession who has the right to get married, or align legal benefits on the institutions of marriage, when people like me would rather get the benefits without the marriage. In addition, nowadays people should be able to customise each legal part of their union to some else. Basically, instead of getting married and have the same law applying for everybody regardless of their peculiarities and situation, I'd rather make a contract that fits exactly to my relationship with the other person. You don't always want to have financial responsibility for your partner "in the package". That's why such contracts already exist ("prenuptial agreement", which sounds like a rather old-fashioned term). What I would like is keep the contract for legal matters between the couple, and let the marriage (not just the ceremony, but the whole idea of marriage) to the religious groups. So that if people feel marriage is "sacred" and an alliance before god, then they are perfectly free to do that in accordance with their religion or beliefs, and let others be free of that trouble.

----------


## Hachiko

> Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
> Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
> Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
> BYE!!


This from one who has come out in earnest, without hesitation or remorse. Applause.
*applause*

----------


## Elizabeth

> What I mean, is that _legally_ marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government.


The legal status of marriage may not be as flexible as you describe but it is in effect a totally seperate entity from the religious in the US at least which the language may or may not reflect depending on your context and perspective. I don't necessarily assume marriage implies a church wedding or contract between two people and their god and it certainly isn't the religious or ceremonial aspect of marriage per se that is the crux of the issue with gays and lesbians and Bush.

----------


## mdchachi

Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone. 

The issue that is at hand is the legal definition of marriage. Legally, marriage is basically an affirmative action program for married people. Married people are given certain rights and benefits that other people are not. These rights and benefits are mainly to do with practical matters such as inheritance, child custody or health care.

I think the debate needs to take a step back and determine what the State is attempting to accomplish with this "affirmative action" program. Once the issues and goals are clear, then the solutions will also appear. For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)? These ideas might make sense. Or they may not. But it really needs to be looked at in logical manner without bringing issues of religion into the discussion as they are not relevant.

----------


## mieboy

personally. I dont mind if the govern creat some law that allows gay people marry. I even dont care even more if the catholic church its against the gays union too...I just wanna spend my lifetime with someone that I love and trust...A piece of paper or a ceremony wouldnt make any difference.  :Cool:

----------


## Rachel

Personally I think this whole thing is staggering!
Ive been keeping an eye on this from my side of the pond, and I have to ask ?
Why the HELL did you elect this guy as leader of your country ? I mean WHY ?
I just dont get it !
Didnt you have enough warning about the Bush family when you elected George. The man who said :

"No, I dont know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.

Then you elect another one in and acts surprised when he declares gay marriages are wrong and cause confusion ! (What confusion by the way.That gay couples are capable of being a committed loving respectable couple, instead of being evil loose godless perverts.)

This man is a modern day Hitler ! And I'm sorry if that offends anyone but, lets look at the facts.

1. Like Hitler Bushy is funded more than any other industry, by the oil industry. Did you know that Hitlers war machine was funded by the export and sale of petroleum. Germany owned the patents on most of the petroleum products of the time and controlled most of the trade of those products.

2. Like Hitler Bushy has given his country a focus for it to hate, an minority for it to persecute and a religion to revile. A source of all woes for his countrys problems, keeping peoples focus away from the damage being done within by there own government. 

3. Like Hitler Bushy is inspiring and encouraging his own countrymen to spy on each other for the sake of National Security. This whole thing with Ashcroft and The Ministry of Homeland Security. Its the Gestapo all over again. And if you think thats harsh lets look at

4. Like Hitler Bushy has given his Intelligence arm the right to hold anyone they want, for any length of time, with out any legal rights, for any reason they damn well like.
Have any of you read the Patriots Act..Oh my god! Scary or what ?

5. Instead of German Aryans you now have American Patriots. Tell me are you a good little Patriot ? 

6. Like Hitler Bushy is now imposing extreme travel restrictions and permits on people coming into and leaving the country. In order to protect the country from agitators, terrorists and extremists who pose a threat to the fatherland.

7. Like Hitler Bushy is holding Undesirable None Combatants in a prison camp. If theyve done something wrong then give them a trial and a sentence. For **** sake treat them as humans or let them go.

The ONLY real difference is bushs PR is slicker and better developed than Hitlers was.

I could carry on for a while, but I think you get the idea by now. Your country has become the very thing that ours crippled its self to stop! And no one seems to really give a damn, which makes me mad damn it !
 :Boxing:  
(Big Breath)

Ok rant oversorry.  :Sorry:  I think I need some chocolate.

Good for you Mieboy. Never be afraid to be true to your self, no matter what. I hope you find that love and trust your looking for with your current boyfriend honey.
 :Love:  
Huggy Love, Rachel.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Thank you, from one Rachel to another!  :Smiling:  I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.

----------


## Rachel

> Thank you, from one Rachel to another!  I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.


Thank you for the compliment Kirei.

Its really not that hard. The lesson is already there in black and white, the problem is people just have to wake up and SEE !
If you compare Hitlers rise to power and the things he did in Germany before he invaded poland, to whats happening in America today. The closeness is frightening. 
People have to WAKE UP, to pay attention to whats happening and learn from the lessons of WWII. 
Before its to late.

----------


## Maciamo

> Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone.


I didn't know that. So why are religious leaders or extremist so agitated about now in the States ? Civil marriage shouldn't be a problem for them, as it is not connected to religion (oh, damn it, I forgot that the US does not separate church and state  :Angry: : )




> For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)?


Excellent point ! The future of our society lies in such reasoning. Marriage is an anticated institution. People should be able to live (that doesn't mean have sex or children - still another debate) with whoever they want and enjoy the same legal protection as "regular couples". I mean, some people can be sterile, castrated (still lots of them in India) or just don't like sex or don't want to have children. Wht couldn't they live with a friend or family member and share the benefits social and medical care, like a gay civil union ?

But very religious or conservative people will _never_ understand such logic of their lifetime.

--

BTW, great post Rachel, I completely agree !  :Cool:

----------


## jeisan

> ... Why the HELL did you elect this guy as leader of your country ? I mean WHY ?
> I just dont get it !


we didnt, bush lost the popular vote by 500,000. but because of the stupid system thats in place he got the presidency. anyway nice rant.

----------


## mdchachi

> This man is a modern day Hitler ! And I'm sorry if that offends anyone but, lets look at the facts.

> The ONLY real difference is bushs PR is slicker and better developed than Hitlers was.

I realize you are just ranting but the comparison is not apt in my opinion and I wouldn't worry about things getting out of control. Bush doesn't have the cult of personality that Hitler had. He doesn't have the support (remember only about 24% of people of voting age voted for him in the first place). On top of that he's not likely to gain much more support. Unlike Hitler he hasn't solved the nations problems. (Under Hitler the Germany's unemployment rates went down as production soared.) Unlike Hitler he doesn't have a grand appealing vision. (Afterall, Hitler foresaw the European Union -- unification of Europe -- he just happened to believe it would be best if Europe was unified as a single Germany.) Unlike Hitler he doesn't have enough support to change the nation's Constitution or subvert the courts. And I personally believe he doesn't have the ambition.

Even if Bush gets reelected, it won't be the end of the world. Certainly nothing even close to Hitler's regime.

----------


## Winter

I'm sure the hitler comparison was just a metaphor to symbolize Bush's apparent strive for tyranny, and oppression.

Guys, please, dont worry too much. Everything will change when I gain power. People think I'm joking when I say that; I'm really not.

----------


## howabe

Gays should be culled.
Set replies for any comments:
a) No offence.
b) I don't care.

NB, those two aren't the obvious contradictions they appear to be.

----------


## Kuro_Tsubasa69

> Gays should be culled.
> Set replies for any comments:
> a) No offence.
> b) I don't care.
> 
> NB, those two aren't the obvious contradictions they appear to be.



!PERDON!  :Wavey:  I don't care if you care or not, but _exactly_ what do you mean by that? (This goes to Toliet Roll too!) Please tell me, I wish to know what makes bigots tick.

----------


## kirei_na_me

You know what my husband said when asked if gays should be allowed to marry? He said it would be good in that maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist.

----------


## Frank D. White

bound to kill a love, no matter how strong!

Frank

 :Laughing:   :Poh:   :Cool:   :Blush:

----------


## Frank D. White

all the more women left for me !!

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## kirei_na_me

Yeah, we know Frank. You're licking your eyebrows...we know...  :Poh:

----------


## Frank D. White

> Yeah, we know Frank. You're licking your eyebrows...we know...


Excuse me, hairball !!

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## mdchachi

> You know what my husband said when asked if gays should be allowed to marry? He said it would be good in that maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist.


I don't follow the logic.  :Confused:

----------


## kirei_na_me

> I don't follow the logic.


Exactly. I don't either.

----------


## den4

Time for your local intermission.
Forget the negative campaign ads this year during the US Election time. Why settle for a lesser evil? Vote for Cutethulhu and VP Cute Kitthulhu!
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...  :Laughing: 

it's election time...what more is there to say?  :Laughing:

----------


## howabe

"Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."

The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.

----------


## howabe

> I wish to know what makes bigots tick.


Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.
Also, before ascertaining that it isn't because of my religion, or personal experience (ie. having been violently raped by a man etc) that I hold these beliefs, don't label me.

----------


## Kama

> "Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."
> 
> The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.



As also many heterosexual couples. And what do you want to do with this? Kill them, for this?

Definetely! Gay marriages should be allowed. I'd like to have a marriage with a person I love wether it's boy or a girl. I don't care about religious ceremony, as I am not religious, at last in the sense of being religious Catholic. 

I think that "marriage" can be viewed also as a sybol of equality. I am the same as you, why my love should be evil and siniful, juzt because I love the person of the same sex? Love doesn't bother with partner's sex... It's just descending onto you. Being in love and wanting to be in a relationship with this person... Is it bad? I don't want a world like this.

I know! I should become politician!!  :Laughing:

----------


## kirei_na_me

> "Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."
> 
> The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.


I knew that was what he was trying to say, but there are homosexuals who have children via artificial insemination, right? Like a gay man might use his sperm with the egg of a surrogate mother or a lesbian might use her egg and then sperm from a donor, as a lot of them do.

Then there's all those who aren't 'out' and are in heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. There will still be children produced from those relationships.

----------


## bossel

> The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.


Nope! Biologically/evolutionary invalid points.
BTW, which furtherment?

----------


## mdchachi

> The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate [sic]

And how would you happen to know this? Are you God?

----------


## Kuro_Tsubasa69

> Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.
> Also, before ascertaining that it isn't because of my religion, or personal experience (ie. having been violently raped by a man etc) that I hold these beliefs, don't label me.



I still think that you're a BIGOT.

1) Religion is not something to hide behind. (Because, after all, it was created by MAN.) ~AND, also, religion is mainly the reason behind bigotry, I actually assumed that was the reason you hate~

2) Really? Personal experience you say? 

AHEM. *enter rant mode*

Women are violently raped all the time...by MEN. Yet do they hate each and every single one out there?? NO. Also, you may not be aware of this fact, but a straight male is more likely to rape another man than a gay male is. 

Also, I assume you hate all homosexuals, correct? Well, if, say, it was a gay male who raped you, and you thus hated all gay males thenceforth, what about the lesbians? What'd they do? Why do you hate all if it was just one gender? 

*END RANT*

Oh, yeah. Please tell me how bigots are "right".

----------


## howabe

Ok. Firstly, although this obviously appears to simply be an attempt at ducking out of the situation, I'd like to point out that neither of those comments were actually my own opinion. Being the superficial person I am, the first was simply to amuse a friend. The second was merely an attempt to try and explain a standpoint which people seemed to have difficulty getting to grips with.
@ Mr. 'Pimp':
a) I'm an atheist.
b) 'a straight male is more likely to rape another man than a gay male is'. 
Maybe so. But my statement was hypothetical. Any 'bigot', as you so prejudicially put it, who had been raped, whether by a 'straight' or gay man, would, as a bigot, simply blame it on all gays, as he would obviously be prejudiced against them. I was simply working with your sweeping generalisation. Had you elaborated better, my reply would most likely have been quite different.
b) 'Personal experience'.
Not my own personal experience.
c) 'I assume you hate all homosexuals right?'
Another random assumption. My school had the highest proportion of gays than any other in the Northwest, and (I hate to phrase it in such a way, but needs must) daily interaction and of course close friendship with them has (I like to think) given me a higher-than-usual tolerance of gays.
d) 'Please tell me how bigots are "right"'
If there was nothing to base an opinion on, it would most likely never occur. Therefore, bigots must base their opinions on some (however feeble) semblance of truth
Addendum:
If you were more observant, you'd realise I was an avid Juggalo. You'd also probably know the Insane Clown Posse promote acceptance of all people and that everyone deserves to be treated equal. Being as obssessed as I am, I follow this to the word, which obviously means I try to hold as few prejudices as I can.
Bear in mind:
"There ain't no bigot that ain't been Clowned."

@ mdchachi:
Know how to form the perfect active infinitive of an impersonal deponant verb? No? Then don't mock an accidental grammatical mistake.

Probably going away for a while till matters calm down.

----------


## Rachel

> Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.


(Room drops a couple of degrees)

pardon !.....

(Sound of breeze block being sliped into handbag)

Howabe..2 questions.

a. How old are you?
b. What is your opinion on the 'NF'?

----------


## Rachel

> Look, I think what I am trying to say is, poofs are poofs, but when they start trying to have a baby? Its just wrong in my opinion


If anyone is intrested this guy is a brit, I'd say he's about the age of 8 - 13.

----------


## Frank D. White

> If they can't make love and produce off-spring, they should be shot.
> 
> I know animals can't be gay too.



digging your own right next to his? Intolarance is a hard lable to shake! Freedom of speech & right to your opinion
can lead to some BIG hard feelings.If we want everyone to feel welcome on this Forum, some things are better left unsaid, even if you do truly believe them! This looks like a good thread to lock down before we all go to far down the road & around the bend!!

Frank

----------


## Frank D. White

in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)
things get banned from posting, sometimes with a warning before and sometimes no warning. It doesn't pay to even joke about somethings. This Forum probably has less hate & anger then most do. It really is nice when everyone is friendly & polite; one big happy family!! By the way, I have no power or athority on the Forum, I just like happy people!


Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## kirei_na_me

My warning is up there.

----------


## Rachel

> in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)
> things get banned from posting, sometimes with a warning before and sometimes no warning. It doesn't pay to even joke about somethings. This Forum probably has less hate & anger then most do. It really is nice when everyone is friendly & polite; one big happy family!! By the way, I have no power or athority on the Forum, I just like happy people!
> 
> 
> Frank


I'm in agreement with you frank. I think some one needs to step in now and sort this out, before it gets out of hand.

----------


## kirei_na_me

He tried to be sneaky and add something to another one of his posts after I deleted the last one. I don't like sneaky, I don't like inflammatory posts, and I don't like someone trying to dumb down my thread.

----------


## Rachel

> He tried to be sneaky and add something to another one of his posts after I deleted the last one. I don't like sneaky, I don't like inflammatory posts, and I don't like someone trying to dumb down my thread.


(In best American accent)

You GO girl !! Yeah !  :Cool:

----------


## kirei_na_me

*gives Rachel high five* 

I have to crack that whip every once in awhile!  :Poh:

----------


## Rachel

Howabe... IF your saying your post was a joke, It was done in really bad taste.
It wasn't big, and it definitely wasn't clever.

----------


## neptunemoon

Well ok since I work at a zoo I know animals can be gay. I know female goats who are confused and try to mate with other females. These gay female goats think they are male. I think we also have a gay male goat something about a chemical imbalance. Well I think gay marriages are good and the whole thing about children well you know how many homeless kids we have. These couples could adopt and provide a stable home. I think this can help our society out and provide a home for these children.

----------


## mdchachi

> Know how to form the perfect active infinitive of an impersonal deponant verb? No? Then don't mock an accidental grammatical mistake.

I wasn't mocking your grammatical mistake (what made you think so?). It should be clear that I was questioning your statement itself. ([sic] is used to quote a person to indicate that the mistake is not the quoter's but the quotee's; it's not normally used to mock.)

----------


## Rachel

Ok lets get back to the matter at hand now. 
I think most of us agree that gay couples should have the legal right to be together.
Correct?
The question now seems to be what kind of union would be best.
I think gay couples should have the same right to marry as non-gay couples

----------


## Sanitarium

> bigot
> n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
> differing from his own


I think if you browse this thread, you'll find that the only people who are intolerent of other people's opinion (yes, *opinion* being the key word) are the ones in some kind of moral lynch mob, hypocritically flinging the word 'bigot' about.

I don't see any insults from anyone against gay marriage here, at all. Just derogatory remarks made to them, by others.

It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too. 

The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school, given the wrong image of how a family should be, and having to think about his parents having gay sex. It's abhorrent.

Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.




> Originally Posted by Frank D. White
> in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)


politically incorrect does not mean hateful. If it did, it'd be called 'hateful' and not 'politically incorrect'. A more accurate description of politically incorrect would be "what most people think, but don't want to say because of a select few people (usually minority groups) crying about it". It's just a restriction of free speech to make people look 'clean' and politicians safe from anyone whatsoever kicking up a fuss.

Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal. If I was gay I'd be worried about, well, being gay, not about the fact I couldn't get married.

----------


## bossel

> It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too.


Well, you can call homosexuality abnormal, for the vast majority (the "average") is not. But basic biology? No way! Homosexuality exists in a lot of species, not just humans. It obviously has a function or else it wouldn't exist in so many species. A deviation in the brain, doesn't mean that it is bad: abnormal ... maybe, harmful ... obviously not.




> I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school


The teasing originates from intolerance in society. If somebody is to blame then it's not the homosexuals.




> Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all.


True, but if they want to marry, why not?

----------


## kirei_na_me

Excellent, bossel.

----------


## Kama

> It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too.


Good God! No! Never! I don't want this. It's brainwashing... That can lead to tyrany. It's not abnormal... Maybe for you, but for me it's quite normal that I like both boys and girls... I feel offended by your statement. 




> The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school, given the wrong image of how a family should be, and having to think about his parents having gay sex. It's abhorrent.


It's good that they can marry. Your point of view is from middleages, I would say. More importantly the family should be loving, not talking about somebody's sex. A wrong image of how a family should be is having a drunkard and psychical/phisical violence at home. 





> Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.


You don't need, but maybe I want to marry the person I love. It's only your point of view, on the whole world there are people who marry somebody because of love. 




> Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal. If I was gay I'd be worried about, well, being gay, not about the fact I couldn't get married.


Why should I worry that I am gay [ok. : bi?]? It's absolutely normal for me, no need to worry about this. And I want to marry the person i love without worrying if it's woman or man. Yes, big deal. Why I can't get married? I am juzt a normal citizen.

----------


## mieboy

WHAT'S GOING ON?!I cant believe that there are people that thinks we're here just to procriate..We're all here with some mission to achieve here in the Planet...We're not animals! We are human beings. So I'm sure that we're not here just to procriate...

Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too

I'm really glad I was born GAY. And if I could turn back time and choose to be heterossexual...I wouldnt do that. I met many interestings people(gays and heteressuals) And if I wasnt gay. I wouldnt never know then..

I respect all u guys...So respect us!! RESPECT ITS ALL WE NEED...

And please dont compare animals with us! Off course I'm sure that there are animals more decent than many humans around...

P.S. My sister is a pshychologist and she says that people whom says too much bad things about gays. It's because they're gay thenselves...They just repress their feelings because they think it would be wrong.  :Giggle:

----------


## mieboy

If there's just one thing wrong about gays. It's gay people who get married and get involved in a relashionship with another (guy, woman). In Japan Man can just get promoted if he's married and have childrens...Many guys marry and have childrens After they get married so they wouldnt have sex relations with the wife(since the kids born the mother gets busy) .In Japan if u're 30 and not married. This is very bad. People would think u're addicted to something(alcohol , drugs, game)
Other day My friends Ex-Boyfriend broke up with him And he just said. I'm getting married next week, so it's better if we break up...My friend got shocked...So would I...
But nowadays. Japan is changing..and for better...

P.S. Off course there are many gay people who gets married and have and get involved with another person in the whole world
And KAMA :Poh:  !! Very nice!!People like u make us not the best...but almost the best!!!

----------


## mdchachi

> I don't see any insults from anyone against gay marriage here, at all. Just derogatory remarks made to them, by others.

Actually you missed some inappropriate remarks saying that gays should be killed. They were deleted.

> It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. 

Well as much as you can call left-handedness or red hair a defect. Since most people don't have these qualities then left-handed and red haired people are _abnormal_, right? If that is what you are trying to say, then I agree.

Another thinking point:
You are aware that some people are physically "abnormal" and have both male and female genitalia, aren't you? Just because they are a minority and are _abnormal_ does that give you the right to treat them unequally under the law?

> The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents. 

Personally, I pity any child that isn't given love and is abused or neglected. I am happy for children who have two loving parents. It sounds like you are talking about something you know nothing about. Very much like the arguments in the not-so-distant past against interracial marriage.

> Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining 
> about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.
> Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal. 

You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.) Try looking past your prejudice and thinking these issues through.

----------


## Rachel

Homosexuality does have a function. In fact I would say it has 2 functions.

 :Shocked:  

1 Survival  The human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence. 

2. Culture  Without the Homosexual community we wouldnt have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think). Without homosexuality we would never have had the genius of Oscar Wilde, without homosexuality we probably wouldnt be having this conversation right now. Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.

BTW Kama. I agree with you totally. Good reply honey !  :Cool:

----------


## Maciamo

> You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.)


Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it. I mean, if they didn't discriminate first against people living together but not married (shall I remind you that this is more common in Northern Europe than being married, as 50% of British parrents are not married to their partners, and the figure rises to 80% in Sweden).

I don't think that this kind of discimination exist in Europe. As I mentioned earlier, systems like the "pacs" in France give couples similar rights to married couples, and everybody know about these rights, as it is as common as marriage.

Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear.  :Sick:

----------


## Maciamo

Sorry Rachel, I will have to disagre with the following :




> 1 Survival EThe human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.


As homosexuality exist among animals too, humans have no additional advantage. We _are_ merely animals. Then, I don't see why homosexuality would have help us either survive or become dominant, for the reason mentioned above.




> 2. Culture EWithout the Homosexual community we wouldnt have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think).


Half of the culture is a gross exaggeration. Just a few % of the population is and has always been gay, in all times. There is no reason that this fraction of the population create a disproportionally high number of geniuses.

Besides, I don't think that homosexuals have such a unique mindset. It's just a hormonal factor. It has been more or less proved that homosexuality is caused by a lack of testosterone during pregnancy (especially the brain forming phase) for males, and an excess of testosterone during the same phase for female babies. Hormones have a powerful effect on the way the brain develops and specialises. Male hormones (testosterone) increases 3D imagination, orientation, logical thinking and semantic vocabulary capabilities. Female hormones (oestrogenes) increase sentence building and fluidity of the language, communication skills, emotion recognition (in faces, voice, etc.) and artithmetic capabilities (among others). 

In addition, these hormones give us our sexual orientation. Foetuses which have had a strongly imbalanced male/female hormone influx have very high chances of becoming gay individuals. Statistics show that 90% of gay are male. This is also easily explained by the fact that it is easier for a mother to lack testosterone. Both men & women have both hormones in the blood, but in different proportion. Doing physical activities, for instance, increase the testosterone level (which helps building muscles). Stress also increase testosterone in blood. I am not 100% sure, but it seems logical to think that pregnant mothers physically active or suffering from high stress have higher chances of having lesbian girls or very "male-minded" boys. But the reverse in more common, as women tend to lack testosterone.

Anyhow, all this to say that homosexuality appears in the womb, cannot be changed back after the brain has been formed, and is not a genetic defect or abnormality, but is due to the hormones' effects on the brain. In other words, gay men think like women, and lesbians think like men. The only think you could prove about gay playing a disprportionally high role in the the world's culture, is that they replaced women, who often throughout the history have had less chances to be recognised for their works.

----------


## mdchachi

_Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it._ 

Yes but as long as they can legally do this, they're not going to stop. It's expensive to insure people, they're not going to willingly insure extra persons.

_Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear._ 

Your solution is for them to lie thereby risking legal action and prosecution? Anyway that won't work in complicated situations. Like if there are other family members present that do not accept the "spouse" and thereby won't let him/her take part. Or, for example, say there is a decision in care that needs to be made. If the "spouse" isn't recognized, it would then get made by the next closest relative.

Anyway these are just two examples. I'm sure there are many more problems that can be enumerated.

----------


## Golgo_13

Where will it end?

Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?

What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?

"Yuck! That's disgusting!!!" Oh? But two men or two women marrying is okay.

I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.

I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?

----------


## Kama

Mieboy, when I come to Japan, we definetely have to go drinking.  :Cheers:  XD

Rachel, I like your point of view... XD

Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this? Don't forget about bi! They are homosexuals too... XD And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people. Don't remember now the people... XD Too much names for me...  :Laughing:  


Golgo, about Woody Alen, I think the same.

----------


## bossel

> Homosexuality does have a function.


Wasn't that what I said? Why should I be shocked?





> Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.


True. Though I would have said that in Perfect: has kept. Wouldn't say that it is absolutely necessary for the species' survival.




> Without the Homosexual community we wouldnt have half the culture we do today. [...] Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.


I agree with Maciamo here.
BTW, when it comes to the question who built the first computer I would go for Konrad Zuse. Not gay, AFAIK.

What Maciamo said about hormones during pregnancy is probably true. But genetical reasons can't be excluded yet. It is not yet certain what causes homosexuality.

----------


## bossel

> Where will it end?
> 
> Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?


Why not?

[QUOTE]What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?[QUOTE]
Why not?





> "Yuck! That's disgusting!!!"


Disgusting? No! Strange, yes.





> I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.


Don't see the problem.





> I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?


Nobody says humans should be. It's a simple fact that a certain percentage is gay. 
The point was that somebody said homosexuality is not natural, which is an invalid argument since a lot of other animals beside humans can be homosexual (or bisexual). Nobody said because animals are, humans should be, too.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this?


Bisexuals are apparently more common than simple homosexuals. Let's say their brain is at the border betwen male and female, probably more towards the gay side, but not decisively so. 




> And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people.


Yeah, and you can do a similar list with left-handed, epileptic, manic-depressive (check here for more) and exceptionally gifted people. All minorities, and all seemingly playing a disproportionate role in society. So many actors, musicans, athletes and artists (Picasso, Michelangelo, Da Vinci...) are left-handed, but also Bill Clinton, George Bush senior, Osama bin Laden (nice combination !), while Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln were both left-handed and epileptic, Gustave Flaubert and Vincent Van Gogh were also epileptic ; W.A. Mozart, Robert Schumann, Friedrich Nietsche, Victor Hugo and Winston Churchill were manic-depressive, and Napoleon was left-handed, epileptic and manic-depressive ! 

Interestingly, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were also gay. Actually, it is said of Ceasar that he was every woman's man and every man's woman, so "bi". Picasso was also bisexual. Alexander was Greek ; that explains all . :Laughing:  (Btw, did you know that George Michael, also gay, was of Greek origin - which is partly why is was selected to compose the Athens Olympics songs). 

Among the famous gays, there seem to be lots of rulers/military leaders, artists, actors, musicians, fashion designer, etc. Same giftedness as left-handed people, and naturally, lot's of gay are left-handed or vice-versa (=>see 5 examples above). 

Manic-depressive, on the contrary, seem to become more prominent intellectuals (even in music, Mozart and Schumann have nothing to do with modern pop or rock singers), with dark or cynical phases (due to the "low"). 

More famous homosexuals here or here too and here for desert

What not add the Jews or Freemason as well (although that's not a biological abnormality, is it ?  :Laughing:  ).

----------


## Jean-Francois

Actually, the main concern of the law-makers is to legitimatize gay marriage will open a door for other minority groups. What about incest couples? If they are in love, they pay taxes and they don't bother other people, are they entitled to equal rights too ? In North America, we follow common law codes which based on precedence...

----------


## mdchachi

I don't think that is the main concern in the U.S. It is more of a religious/moral issue here.

----------


## EscaFlowne

True it may not be the main focus like religious/moral issue it dose open that door. And somebody would bring it up. Religiously-they are always going to have a problem with it in any faith for what was written in the bible and what they believe in. Morally- is the same way, whats morally right and whats morally wrong. which that "incest" part could fall under because morally...thats just wrong!  :Mad:  
The gov. is not looking at the outcomes of someone who is gay, lesbian, etc who get togeather and nothing really can come out of that but then incest..could lead to diformities in children that they might have and etc....
This subject is like a side-coin when flipped it lands standing up because no one is ever going to let this drop....

[In my own opinion if your gay or whateva they should let them get married-they just like the average normal person getting by in the normal day of the life we live, who is the gov. to tell someone that they can't marry this person. Love is all that matters.]

~Adieu~

----------


## Rachel

I would like to say sorry if I havent done a good job of getting myself across, of explaining my opinions. This isnt something I find easy to do, ok!
Im not used to this wholethinking thing. Deep thoughts dont come easily to me, in some ways Im having to relearn how to think and feel now my brain is active again And being dyslexic to boot doesnt help matters much.
I am trying. Its not easy but Im trying. Ok.

Maciamo. Point one. Im not sure what the best way to explain my survival idea so you could understand it would be. 
Maybe an example. Ok Lets try this.

There are 3 children.
Their mother brings out 3 ice creams. 
Vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.
Child 1 eats the chocolate, child 2 eats the strawberry and child 3 doesnt eat any ice cream. 
It turns out that the strawberry is poisoned. 
Child 2 is taken to hospital. 
That leaves Child 1 who had a 1 in 3 chance of picking the bad ice cream but didnt because she liked chocolate.
And Child 3 who had no chance of picking the bad ice cream because she decided not to have anything to do with it.
Survival by diversity. 

The human race has survived by branching out in lots of different ways, through genetics, society and choice. No particular way is right or wrong. We are a tree, we can lose branches and the trunk its self can be harmed but to kill us as a race you would have to pull us up by the roots. Which isnt an easy thing to do because we spread out in so many directions.
Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bi-sexuality, even Transsexuality are all valid paths in the over all survival of the human race. The more variation in who we are, what we are and what we do, the harder it is for anyone thing to put an end to us.

Point 2.Yes. half our culture is an exaggeration if you take it literally. It was meant as a figure of speech, maybe I should have said a significant Proportion, it was late and I was tired ok.
And I didnt say that they were all geniuses. What I was saying was they have made up the bulk of our creative community through out history. And as for not having a unique creative mindset ! I have yet to meet a single Heterosexual that can exhibit the same kind of creative processes as a Homosexual. Ive meet plenty who have come close, but not one who could hit the nail on the head.

PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?

----------


## Golgo_13

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage 

Al Rantel
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.

First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger. 

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male. 

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition. 

Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?

There is an answer.

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall. 

While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence. 

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone. 

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring. 

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else? 


Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.

----------


## bossel

> PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?


German engineer who developed the first program controlled computer:
http://www.epemag.com/zuse/





> the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society.


Hmm, maybe not so much of a redefinition as this guy thinks. Here is a nice link regarding this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Quote:
"First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy."

----------


## Kuro_Tsubasa69

*sigh* I really, really don't see why people have such a problem with people of the same sex marrying.  :Sad:  You know, I am not a big advocate for marriage in general  :Poh: , but if I ever changed my mind, I would like the option to marry whoever I choose.  :Blush:  (And really, is it anyone's business what goes on in the privacy of another's bedroom?  :Giggle: .)

BTW, interesting link I found:: http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/sexualorientation.html

----------


## kirei_na_me

My stepdad sent me this nifty little cartoon by Tom Tomorrow:

And in case you can't read it, the quote under the title says, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence...a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." --George W. Bush

The note in his hand at the end says, "TO DO: 1. Scapegoat-GAYS"

----------


## Maciamo

Take a good look at this : BBC News : Oregon county bans all marriages 




> Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.
> 
> Until the state decides who can and cannot wed, officials in the county have said no-one can marry - even heterosexual couples. 
> 
> They hit upon the plan to ensure that none of the county's 79,000 residents are subject to unfair treatment. 
> 
> Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion.


Great decision !  :Spray:  Others should follow in protest !

----------


## Satori

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-10.htm

----------


## Rachel

ALRIGHT !! Strike one up for the good guys.

----------


## emperor

I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

----------


## Kama

> I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.


And what about just homosexual love? 

If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?

----------


## emperor

> And what about just homosexual love? 
> 
> If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?


Bio-circle is simplified form 'biosphere'.... :Joyful: 
homosexual love? why not?
I love my father.. i love my brother.. i love my comrade.. i love my male teacher..
Yes, this is love... but, we can't get marriage only...
 :Spray:

----------


## bossel

Emperor:
I think, what Kama meant was not only platonic love, but also acting on it. IE relationships, tenderness, sex.
As Kama said, the natural side of it has already been discussed here. Have you read the thread?

----------


## emperor

i read, i read!! okok...  :Joyful:

----------


## playaa

I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine.  :Poh:

----------


## Kama

> I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine.


But nobody tries to pushi it on you!  :Laughing:  For me it's just, live and let the others live...  :Smiling:  Nothing else... XD

----------


## Golgo_13

> But nobody tries to pushi it on you!  For me it's just, live and let the others live...  Nothing else... XD


Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?

----------


## bossel

> Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?


Yeah, why not? 
& why restrict polygamy to polygyny? Shouldn't have women the same right?

----------


## Golgo_13

Sure, why not let people marry their own kids? 

Woodie Allen did.

----------


## bossel

Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

----------


## yimija

Sorry, I'm late.. just discovered this topic. No time either to read everything, just across and diagonal reading. Sorry too if I repeat what has allready been said.. 

BUT what "howabe" said :
"_The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species_."

is real bullsh....

Sorry ! Animal have that sole purpose, but really ? Why are they here in the first place ?

And, my dear HOWABE, believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about : (because I was born a woman and an homosexual)

1) I'm not on earth for the sole purpose of multiplication and procreation. Absolutely not ! I would be extremely unhappy if I were...
2) As a woman, I have the most powerfull possibility to procreate WITHOUT ASKING YOU OR ANYONE ANYTHING, or not. I have that choice, whether I'm a lesbian or not.
3) Admittedly, gay women have more power in this field than men.
4) It does'nt stop the gay community to adopt CHILDREN THAT ARE IN NEED OF A HOME SO AS NOT TO DIE within the next days, weeks, months or year. That will also help a lot in the fields of the survival of the species...

I hope dear Howabe, that you have other goals in your life than just trying to make copies of yourself...

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

First, about Bush, no one should care about what he thinks, he should be away within months, so, what's the worry.

Then, as it has been said (by mieboy21 I think) the most important is to give love and care and respect. No need for official ties to do so.

Finally, who wants toi get married or pacsed, anyway ? Just to imitate "regular couples" ?

Not worth it.

Just to prove something to your partner ? That's not the proof he wants.
To feel more secure ? Well it might work for some. I know any kind of "official" ceremony, be it religious or civilian, would make me feel like entering into a jail, just because of the complications to get out again...

I'm sure many hetero couples would feel the same.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Good post, ascate!  :Smiling:

----------


## yimija

> Good post, ascate!


but it's all coming from inside

WINK smiliy if it exists......!

----------


## TwistedMac

> Ok lets get back to the matter at hand now. 
> I think most of us agree that gay couples should have the legal right to be together.
> Correct?
> The question now seems to be what kind of union would be best.
> I think gay couples should have the same right to marry as non-gay couples


i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!

what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...

I think bush is fighting some personal issues.. like the "why do i get aroused when i look at www,weeeeforbigdicks,com?..no..no.. IT CANT BE!!"

"why not let someone marry more than one person"
why not indeed? aslong as all parties are happy with it, who gives a toss?

"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.

----------


## yimija

> Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
> Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?



Woody Allen got maried with his stepdaughter because he fell in love with her. (I?m not wether reciprocity was requested, though, but I think the answer is yes).

And love can be blind, happiness opens your eyes. Even the age difference in this case is not a matter to talk about. Those two are still together, no ? And it's been a long time..

Consanguinity (inbreeding) has nothing to do since the "daughter" was totally outside the family-related blood. She was adopted by Mia Farrow.

So good luck to them and a good day to you bossel.




> i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!
> 
> *Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...* 
> 
> what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...
> *We are human allright. Nut for some humans, THEY believe that they ARE more human than others. The typical example was Hitler.* 
> 
> "why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
> because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.



*Well, let's keep it to something slightly "reasonable" and let's be somewhat respectfull for the life to come.*

----------


## TwistedMac

> Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...


ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P

----------


## yimija

> ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P


 weel, no one is worried, i'll never ever will be forced into anything, and all the less that kind of thing...

----------


## mieboy

:Balloon:  GAY PRIDE PARADE IN SAO PAULOPEOPLE!! I'm going to Brazil in the next two weeks!! SO EXCITED!!
On June 13th there will be a gay pride parade in Sao Paulo...  :Cool:  
It's the world's third biggest parade...Over 1 million people are going to be there...On Saturday..We're going to the gay day in Hopi Hari (amusement park)
Anybody wanna join me?! KAMA?! LETS'S GO GIRL!!!  :Balloon:

----------


## bossel

> "why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
> because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.


Actually, this is a common misconception.
Incest is prohibited on moral grounds, the biological reasons are minor. Personally, I see this kind of reasoning as leading in the direction of Eugenics as the Nazis enforced it. You forbid people to procreate for reasons of the "health" of future generations.

The probability for genetic disorders is of course bigger in incestuous relations (than in most other relations of healthy adults), but it's normally highly exaggerated. Usually you'd need several generations of inbreeding to see negative results.

From Wikipedia:
"Incest may be a form of inbreeding, and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. 
[...]
If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. The overall effect of inbreeding depends on the size of the population."

Your argument of "grave disabilities" holds more water for relationships of (related or non-related) bearers of genetic deficiencies, let's say haemophiliacs. I think, if a male bleeder procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a bleeder.

According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry? This question counts for other genetic deficiencies as well.

----------


## Rukasu

In the Netherlands homosexual marriages are legalised.
It's been like that for a while now, and nothing bad has happened because of it.
That's why it shouldn't be a problem there as wel in my opinion.
I think it's very frustrating for gay couples if they can't marry the one they love.
I guess it's the same as when I would like to marry a girl I love and I'm not allowed.
But I don't think marriage is the most important thing in a relationship, as long as you love eachother there is no problem i.m.o.

----------


## Kama

> Anybody wanna join me?! KAMA?! LETS'S GO GIRL!!!



I'd like to, Mieboy, but for now U have no time...  :Laughing:  Studying to the summer session.  :Sad:  

And we had a GAY Parade in Krakow last weekend. Well, first it was the church, who wanted the city prseident to ban the Days of Tolerance (from Thursday to Sunday), and to the University vice chancellor not to let them meet and have prelections and so on in that University. They even had a anti-manifestation leaflet (I'll translate it later and put it here) send to the peoples' mailboxes...  :Ouch:  

There was also an antimanifestation (illegal). They had transparents like "Let's throw out himosexualist from krakow" or "Homosexualists of all countries get treatment" or "Wawel's Dragon was hettero" (this Dragon is Krakow's symbol.  :Ouch:  

Anti-manifestation threw eggs and stones towards the manifesting gays and their sympathizers. Ah, there were also shouts like "Tolerantion! Go to the clinic!" Heheh... And they heard in response "Don't pick up us!"  :Cool:  

Well, there was a bit of brawl between these 2 groups...  :Sad:  And because of the anti-manifestation they couldn't finish their manifestation, and they had to change route for a few times.  :Ouch: 

Well, at last the good point of it was that it hasn't been cancelled, and that the city's goverment and the university authorities hadn't been scared of the church and right-wing f... politicians. And that Famous Krakowians like Wislawa Szymborska, a Noble Award owner, were for the Days of Tolerance...  :Bravo:

----------


## yimija

[QUOTE=mieboy] :Balloon:  GAY PRIDE PARADE IN SAO PAULOPEOPLE!! I'm going to Brazil in the next two weeks!! SO EXCITED!!

You'r right mieboy, go to Brazil, it's a fantastic place to go. Dont forget to tell them all to stop destroying de rain forest and to keep the indigenous populations out of trouble (i.e. alcohol & smokes & drugs). That will seem somehow more appropriate and important.

Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)

Then you will realise how small our problems are and how ridiculous all that can be.

Yes, let's organize a HUMAN BEINGS PRIDE (meaning we are PROUD to be human beings) let's show how we, hetero ans homos we can do things together. Let's make music, let's dance, let's show off on that ! YES !!!

You'll never see me in one of those gay pride. You are right to go to Brazil, and dance, and enjoy yourself, but don't make a monkey out of you. It's not a zoo nor a circus.

Have a good time and send us a postcard, we'll all be happy for you.
Love
Mi-ja

----------


## PaulTB

> I think, if a male hemophilliac procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a hemophilliac.


I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.




> According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry?


People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.

In my personal opinion if I was a carrier of a gene that _with treatment_ reduces life expectancy by ~10 years I'd get the snip and rely on sperm banks. 

Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf. The reason being that they wished their child to be part of the deaf community. I believe that the court ruled against them.

----------


## bossel

> I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.


You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!). As I said, it was just from memory.
In my example above the probability of a child being a bleeder is actually 50% (the probability for being a carrier of the gene even 75%). The probability of 25% is in the case of a female carrier procreating with a healthy male.





> People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.


Exactly! Like always when people want to have children.
But the question is: Should it be possible to forbid people to marry or procreate for genetic reasons? I don't think so!





> Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf.


This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.






> Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)


The Love Parades (or whatever these Techno parades are called) all over the world could count as such, I think. :Music:  
Anyway, I know from German gay pride parades that they are not an exclusively homosexual event. 

Yeah, there are bigger problems on this world, but the most urgent problem for people is always the one that currently buggers themselves. That's OK, as long as the bigger problems are not forgotten.

----------


## PaulTB

> You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!).


It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.




> This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.


You could argue that it would be beneficial for a child being brought up by two deaf parents to be deaf himself. If he isn't deaf then there will be strong influences acting to separate him from his parents and their culture.

----------


## Kama

> Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)
> Have a good time and send us a postcard, we'll all be happy for you.


Yes, definetely send (me) a postcard, mieboy. :) 

I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.

----------


## bossel

> It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.


I never heard that bleeder could be an insult. Upon your statement I looked it up in the OED & indeed it can be, but in a different context, not referring to haemophilia. Since the context is clear, I don't see the problem.

From the OED:
bleeder
2. Med. A person subject to hmophilia, i.e. disposed by natural constitution to bleed. 
3. low slang. A very stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person; also transf.; also used inoffensively, preceded by little, poor, etc., = DEVIL n. 4c.

----------


## yimija

> I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.


*Yes, Kama, you might be right. It might be good for Poland, but now that your country is in EEC, it will make things go faster. But it will take time for older generation to adapt (even some younger ones), but finally, it will come to a "normal" situation. thanks for your posts*

----------


## TwistedMac

> Actually, this is a common misconception.
> Incest is prohibited on moral grounds, the biological reasons are minor. Personally, I see this kind of reasoning as leading in the direction of Eugenics as the Nazis enforced it. You forbid people to procreate for reasons of the "health" of future generations.
> 
> The probability for genetic disorders is of course bigger in incestuous relations (than in most other relations of healthy adults), but it's normally highly exaggerated. Usually you'd need several generations of inbreeding to see negative results.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> "Incest may be a form of inbreeding, and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. 
> [...]
> If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. The overall effect of inbreeding depends on the size of the population."
> ...


good post, but where does that leave me?

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..

does that make me racist.. errr.. sexist? or something like that?  :Sou ka: 

i guess it does... i'll have to ponder this...  :Doubt: 

(yeah, i know.. not racist for sure, but i can't really think of anything else that sounds as hated as racist..)

----------


## PaulTB

> good post, but where does that leave me?
> 
> to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine...


Whether or not the children will do fine _biologically_* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.

There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm

* And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any _known_ individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.

----------


## yimija

Thank you for the links PaulTB

If I might just say that there are more than 50 organizations ( NGO, UN affiliated, private and official gov.) that are shouting into India's top ministers'ears about this problems.

Unfortunately, the laxity of the government and the fact that India is a self-proclaimed civilized country stops them from taking serious actions, even if they try. A good punishment, such as emasculation, without prescription (limitation of action by laps of time ) shoud be more appropriate and should bring to a stop a large part of what is considered as a way of life. But can y human being do that to another ? I would say yes.

But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive. Even if they have a tendency to be less important in Europe and North America, it has not completely disappeared.

And it will always remain in countries such as some regions of Africa, Middle-East, and some more Oriental Nations. As long as the male considers himself as more worthy and important than the female. And as long as he will feel himself supported as such by law, religion or ancestor's traditions.

It's a familly affair and all of them who knows, knows nothing. Terror, blackmail and beatings are a common "language" in these situations. Quickly, you'll find the whole familly living in a sort of "Syndrome of Stockholm", just to keep alive.

And it's not only girls that are the victims, boys too. You never know who might be the next victim. If you have a neighbour with children, just ask yourself if they are safe...

Frightning nightmares that have kept me awake more than a night ! Even worst, tears of anger, rage and despare that have run down my cheeks, suspecting of what was going on, and not been able to do anything.

Empty eyes, without light, of an abused child wandering into nothing-land, future with no hope. Emptiness, no rewards.
She was called Ies and she died at the age tewlve, on january 3rd 2003. Not so long ago. How many more since then ?

----------


## bossel

> to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..


Hey, you don't have to like it! There are lots of things I don't like, incest is one of them, but if people enjoy what they do & nobody is harmed without their consent, why should I forbid them to do it?







> Whether or not the children will do fine _biologically_* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.
> 
> There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.
> 
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm
> 
> * And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any _known_ individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.


Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

I quote myself (bad habit, I know):



> Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?


With child abuse you are actually harming someone!
There is something called the age of consent, in most countries somewhere between 16 & 21, I think. We are talking about adults who are able to make a choice. Should they be allowed to marry, or not? I don't see, how child abuse enters the game. Child abuse is harmful & without consent.

Editing: BTW, I searched NewScientist for what you mentioned but didn't find anything. Can you provide a link?






> But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive.


Right on! In the link below, you will find that of 60% of children in Europe say that they are "abused" at home. These are all forms of abuse & the number is not very objective, but it shows that abuse is quite common.
It's hard to get the real numbers, anyway, since many cases go unreported.
http://www.euro.who.int/document/med...re/fs0203e.pdf

----------


## yimija

Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

*This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !* 

We know that incest between adults may results of perversity or of a somewhat disturbed minds. But nature has from time to time made "funny" twists, and a young man, arriving at maturity might physically fall in love with his mother (even his father). Same thing apllies to the daughter / father relation. So is it ok between adults ? I would tend to say yes, it's none of our business as long as they dont reproduce.

----------


## PaulTB

> Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!


No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).

Unfortunately the New Scientist article was a right pain to trackdown the last time I had to look it up - there weren't any obvious 'keywords' to use.

Incidently there is very good evidence that people brought up together will have less successful relationships regardless of whether they are related or not. 

(The classic study on the subject being 
Wolf, A., & Huang, C. (1980). Marriage and adoption in China: 1845-1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. )

----------


## bossel

> Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!
> 
> *This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !*


Before you are really afraid of me, read again what I posted!  :Worried:  

What you quoted is simple logic, maybe this makes it clearer: Incest among adults is no child abuse. Children can be abused by complete strangers, hence no incest.
If you'd read further in my last post, everything should have been clear, I think.




> No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).


Well, I wouldn't take that bet. As I said, statistics on this topic are not very reliable, since esp. abuse by relatives is often not reported.
What makes it even more complicated are the differing definitions of incest. In some countries it means only sexual relations between direct relatives (IE parents, children, siblings), while others include more distant relatives.

----------


## Golgo_13

> Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
> Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?


Okay, how about a father marrying his own biological adult son?

Don't bother answering. I already know you think it would be okay.

----------


## TwistedMac

i'm gonna go with bossel on this whole topic.. it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...

so i've decided to go entirely with bossel's live and let live attitude...

----------


## Rachel

Strike two for the good guys.  :Cool:   :Bravo:   :Yeahh:   :Cheerleader:   :Victory:  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

----------


## PaulTB

> it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse..


Nobody has said differently. 



> in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...


Care to put a percentage on that 'could very well' for a country of your choice?

From the set of parent/child incestual relationships what fraction are non-abusive and started when both parties were adult. 1%, 0.01%, ... I don't know, but I'd bet it's on that edge of the graph by a long way.

----------


## Morfos

I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them getting married. Equal Civil unions or marriage sounds acceptable. I do not think the church should tell the government what to do or vise versa. If gay marriage is against Christianity, then the church will simply refuse to preform them. If the church is willing to preform a homosexual marriage, than so be it. I hate how Conservatives want to get the government involved with religious and cultural affairs (especially since they say they are for smaller government, but clearly are not). Conservatives like to censor what they find "offensive" and punish who even made it. Stupid Religious Right Wingers are the reason teenage girls go to jail for having naked pictures of themselves. Either Bush and the religious right looses power or I am leaving the country. I am sick of Conservatives and their anti-homosexual, anti-everything attitudes. Religious-Right Wingers think they speak for every Christian in the world, however they are wrong. There are plenty of Christians who believe Social-Conservatives are a bunch of bigoted morons, which they are. 
 :Poh:

----------


## yimija

> I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them


the funny part about it is that you have to ACTUALLY TELL everyone that you are ok with homosexual. Why speak about it ? Do you tell everybody that you aare actually OK and have nothing AGAINST hetero ?
Why make a difference netween them, since you seem to agree that ther shouold NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE ?
On that point you are right : There is no difference.




> it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...
> 
> on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...


so we all agree on that point. It's good to see there is some cohesion...lol




> Strike two for the good guys.      
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm


Hi Rachel, I'll go along with you, too

----------


## Lina Inverse

There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.

----------


## yimija

> There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.


yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...

----------


## Kama

> yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...


and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better...  :Sad:

----------


## Frank D. White

> and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better...


self rightous people will do if when they die, they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??

Frank

 :Doubt:

----------


## yimija

> and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better...


no, for most of them, they have just bee born and raised not to be open-minded andthe rest of them are too weak to have their own minds and cannot think.
Thea are just weaklings and we cannot blame them !!! LOL




> ... they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??
> 
> Frank


We want names, Frank, please !!!!!!

----------


## Kama

Im starting to be ashamed of being Polish. First, in Krakow (Cracow), now in Warsaw there is a church organization which sends to PEOPLE'S MAILBOXES. They doesn't allow a peace march of gay and followers because it's one day after a church holiday (so what? XD) and because it's immoral (we gays are sodomists XD). The march will end before the parliament's building with petition to allow gay marriages. There will (probably) be "allpoland's teenagers" who last time threw stones into the marching people. They want to confront us with aggression. People from this group won't shake hands with gays. ==" Some days ago there was a politician who publicated over the net names and e-mail addresses of people who opposed his anti-gay politics. 

Warsaw's president because of his OWN THOUGHTS banned the march. His decision was cancelled from the up. But he refused to allow the march for the second time. Till this year, nobody banned the march. 

Everybody is shouting it's the end of family, we want to destroy a beautiful relationship between man and woman. And yes, they all say, we want to promote our lifestyle. Yes, yes... That's our plan!!  :Laughing:  We will agitate for sure "become gay, become les". And everybody will rush to become gay/les. XD 

Some people say that they tolerate gays only when they are doing it inside and when they are not reminded outside that gays DO exist. Why can't I hug or kiss my love on the street? Why it's allowed for a boy to kiss a girl on the street?And why I can't kiss my girl? Why it's awful? Why I and my feelings are worse? 

I think I will never understand people. I wish some ot these f... politicians tasted what is like to be hated by (almost) everyone, when in reality you haven't done anything wrong. The country (in the paper, as everything in Poland) is such a wonderful country... So what if we have european-union-standards law, when nobody respects them? So what if we ratificated Genevian convention if the politicians (not talking about normal people) didn't even bother to respect it? So what if we have "unreligious" country where in reality is dictated by the Church (one and the only one right)? How can people critcize muslim religious countries (theocracy) when it's in Poland (so what that not officially?)

----------


## nekosasori

I'm very proud to be Canadian. The melding of Church and State is also appalling in Ireland. Gay sex became legal in the Republic in 1991 I believe, but I don't know a single "out" person in the company of 300 people I work with. Dublin has one gay bar (we have a population of 1.2 million or so). After having lived in Toronto and Boston, I am outraged at the impact that Catholicism has had here (and how little progress has been made in the realm of recognition of homosexuality and bisexuality).

----------


## dreamer

I just learnt that this morning in France the 1st Gay wedding happened(a few hours ago).
So, I 'd like to know what people think about it?
Is it a bad thing or a new step toward more tolerance?

----------


## kirei_na_me

We've already got a thread about that?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7090

----------


## dreamer

oops sorry^^
then feel free to either move or delete this thread  :Laughing:

----------


## kirei_na_me

I'll just merge it.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> I just learnt that this morning in France the 1st Gay wedding happened(a few hours ago).
> So, I 'd like to know what people think about it?
> Is it a bad thing or a new step toward more tolerance?


Well, if it makes them happy... why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

----------


## dreamer

Dunno it's because of the church I guess...

----------


## EscaFlowne

IMO, In terms of tolerance I blieve it is a step. True in the church its not meant to be done for a man/man-female/female relationship but "god loves all" dosen't he  :Doubt:  Like so many other things from the past that changed this is just another one. Its all well and all to have faith in the church to pick the best point of view for some people but we all know in some places the churc is just as wrong. So it all depends on the person. And I for one knows it make some people[my two best friends: Lesbians] happy to be married[Soon]. Both know it may be wrong, but love is all it takes it seems---Just like god.  :Smiling:

----------


## dreamer

If god really loves everyone, then how do you explain the church position toward gay marriage?

----------


## Buddha Smoker

> Dunno it's because of the church I guess...


Makes you wonder when the church started to dictate everything.

I follow my own religion...hence the name.  :Laughing:

----------


## Flashjeff

Personally speaking, I don't see what all the uproar is all about here. Gays who marry should have equal rights as straight couples do. Period. Anything less would be discrimination. And discrimination hurts E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y.

I've always believed that the so-called "institution of marriage" is threatened a great deal more by the immoral acts of heterosexual couples who've made a royal mess of things with cheating (on both sides), spousal abuse (mental and physical), not to mention couples who live together for years and years, even have children but never bother to tie the knot. 

But the politicians and obnoxiously self-righteous bible thumpers won't acknowledge that fact or even discuss it because they can't do anything to correct those sins. So they jump on gays, if but for no other reason than they are a minority and can be easily held accountable for the wrongs of heteros who've caused the real damage to marriage.

Now, I'm straight and I had no trouble figuring that out. Why can't more enlightened people like elected officials and religious leaders see that for themselves? Boggles the mind.
 :Sou ka:

----------


## Swtess

i agree with flashjeff.
i don't understand how come some people are against gay marriages. it's not their life or their business to not accepting same sex marriages. if it was me i would be like f off! i don't see what's the problem. so they both got dicks or both don't. they still love eachother like heterosexual couples. it's not their fault they fell in love with the same sex.. 

i remember watchin tv lastyear about a couple hundreds of people in front of Ottawa rejecting same sex marriage. i don't understand what's their problem against this, but it's THEIR opinion that its wrong. not the rest of the world. some people who are throwing a fit about this just seems to me like an overgrown spoiled brat.

----------


## Areku

I think we need to seperate 'marriage' into Christian marriage, and normal marriage.

My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.

Anyway, with Christian marriage, if they want it prohibited, then that's up to them. If Christians see it as wrong, then gay people can't do anything about it. It's up to the religious leaders to see how hypocritical they are, and change things.

With legal marriage, erm, I don't see a big problem with it being legal EXCEPT moving towards an image of gay couples as family units. I don't believe that gays should have mistreatment from anyone else because of their sexuality, and that they should be able to do what they want without harassment, but...allowing them to adopt/foster kids is very wrong. And if marriages are legalised, it's just one more step towards letting them have kids because of stupid political correctness.

Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.

----------


## Kama

> My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.
> 
> 
> Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.


F... !!  :Ouch:  And why not let me deicide if I want confirm my love with ring or not? You (hetero) don't understand this problem, so just please don't talk about this. If you want to live without marriage, you just do so, if you want a marriage, you do so. But we don't have the right to choose. It is a very major issue, try thinking about this in a braod perspective, okay? Don't trivialise it.

Or by two women..  :Laughing:  And what else matters? Please explain this to me, because I am far too stupid or too idealistic to understand you. Is it really important to have mum and dad to see the "right exemplar"? Having a family with mum and dad won't make you a good sane sociable person in advance. I suppose that more harm would bring having one of the parents who is drinking and abusing phisically/mentally the resty of the family.

So once again, please explain me what's wroing with having parents of the same sex? Les/Gays may be as good parents as hetero people. This is my opinion.

----------


## Areku

As I said, I don't really have a problem with non-Christian gay marriages. But for Christian weddings, it really is under their jurisdiction.

Yes...I believe kids need hetero parents to develop properly, emotionally and psychologically. That's not being homophobic, it's just because I understand that there are issues with same-sex parents that go MUCH deeper than 'if they love the child it's ok'. Sure, kids need love, but there are much more complex relationships at work than just love. Care and love are just parts of the whole bringing up a child thing.

If you set aside the psychological issues for a start, what about the social issues? Would you want a child to be bullied at school for having gay parents? Kids can be very hurtful to each other and in today's society many would just jump on it for fun. "Look, there's that kid with two dads". It wouldn't be nice.

At the end of the day, it's unnatural. And it's not fair to bring up a kid in the environment. That's not being homophobic, it's just the way it is. Kids need a father figure and a mother figure for different reasons. Sorry to offend you. If you look through psychology books you'll see there's a lot of development kids go through relating to parents and sex. Single parents are bad enough (although understandably, this is unavoidable sometimes) but same sex parents is totally controllable...and thus, should be. Sure, having same sex parents would be a better deal for many kids with abusive/drunken parents, but that doesn't qualify it as being ok

----------


## Duo

Personally, I think it's stupid to make legislature against gay marriage. If gay people want to get married, then they should be able to. Marriage nowadays is nothing more then a secular social status. Is just a piece of paper that binds you together under the law. It's stupid to waste all that effort and money to counter gay rights. It's their business and the Gov has no business in their private life.

----------


## nekosasori

> I think we need to seperate 'marriage' into Christian marriage, and normal marriage.


What about all the other marriages that are approved by other religions? Buddhist, Shinto, Muslim and of course Jewish... even within Christianity, Orthodox vs. Catholic vs. Mormon etc. - they're all just religious ceremonies that are, reasonably enough, optional for the couple to choose or not. I don't see any need to separate out definitions, since even a Wiccan handfasting ceremony is just that - a spiritually motivated ritual that symbolizes a union. The "normal" marriage is to do with _rights_. See below.




> My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.


Well, perhaps you're not reading about the issues because you've made up your mind, but it's not actually about a ring. It's about inheritance, receiving your partner's pension after he or she dies, being an emergency contact in case of accident, receiving health insurance and other coverage via a partner's employers... a HECK of a lot of monetary and legal issues arise from being unable to get married.




> I don't believe that gays should have mistreatment from anyone else because of their sexuality, and that they should be able to do what they want without harassment, but...allowing them to adopt/foster kids is very wrong.


Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child. 




> And if marriages are legalised, it's just one more step towards letting them have kids because of stupid political correctness.


And it's not politically correct to TEACH society to exercise tolerance, to not treat people who are different with a default and reasonable level of respect and understanding?




> Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.


I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia, what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities, or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is. I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others. I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone. 

It all starts with every single one of us CHOOSING to say it's okay (or not) to let this go on, and you're saying that things can't improve, so let's keep our backwards view. In that case, I don't see why slavery still isn't in effect, and women shouldn't be able to vote today. Fact is, things CAN and DO change, and I for one think that legalization of homosexual partnerships is long overdue.

----------


## Duo

> Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child.



Wouldnt that then mean that child could only be female since the egg has only the female chromosomes ? What about gay men, there is no technology for their unification of DNA.




> I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia, what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities, or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is. I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others. I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone.


Legalization of homoseuxal partnerships is fine, but for them to raise a child should be considered a little more with further scrutiny. If the couple are gay men, who will breastfeed the child ? Also, children feel comfortable and secure around their mother, what if they dont have one at younger age ? Who will provide the maternal care for the child ? Negative expereinces in the youth can have ever-lasting consequences. To me it just seemse a little farfetched the idea of a gay couple raising a child. It's not about beeing backwards, it's about being reasonable. Slavery and the discrimination of women are not comparable to the a gay couple raising a child. We shouldn't think about the freedom of the couple, but about the rights of the child. Similarly, when children are not taken well care of in regular couples, they get taken away from them. I mean a child needs two different kinds of parental care, he needs both opposites.

----------


## nekosasori

> Wouldnt that then mean that child could only be female since the egg has only the female chromosomes ? What about gay men, there is no technology for their unification of DNA.


My point is that the urge to reproduce does not _necessarily_ disappear in homosexuals, and that it is more common than not that the child has genetic ties to at least one parent. And yes, a female-female DNA merging can only produce female children. So far, all humans must have at least one X chromosome, but lots of gay men father children with a willing woman who either just becomes a surrogate or fertilizes her own egg with his sperm. 




> Legalization of homoseuxal partnerships is fine, but for them to raise a child should be considered a little more with further scrutiny. If the couple are gay men, who will breastfeed the child ?


Lots of women canNOT breastfeed, even if they know that "breastmilk is best". I was raised on formula alone because my mother didn't lactate (produce milk). I don't think of this as an issue. Besides which, for gay men who had a child through an amicable situation (e.g. with a lesbian mother) she could still have access to the baby while milk is needed, and breastfeed it.




> Also, children feel comfortable and secure around their mother, what if they dont have one at younger age ? Who will provide the maternal care for the child ?


Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman? I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence. That's a false argument that I don't understand. There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up. Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.




> Negative expereinces in the youth can have ever-lasting consequences.


Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple. 




> To me it just seemse a little farfetched the idea of a gay couple raising a child. It's not about beeing backwards, it's about being reasonable. Slavery and the discrimination of women are not comparable to the a gay couple raising a child.


I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison. 




> We shouldn't think about the freedom of the couple, but about the rights of the child.


Okay, in which case we should take away gay children who grow up under the care of Christian fundamentalist parents. Or kids with no interest in academia, away from very academically-minded parents. Or introverted kids from extraverted parents.




> Similarly, when children are not taken well care of in regular couples, they get taken away from them. I mean a child needs two different kinds of parental care, he needs both opposites.


I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.

I do think that children should be cared for by competent parents - I'm just not using any discriminatory criteria like race, religion, OR sexual orientation to make a blanket statement on whether a person would NOT be competent JUST based on those criteria. Just being able to impregnate someone or get pregnant oneself also, in my opinion, does NOT automatically mean that a person is a competent parent either, for that matter - but that's a whole other debate.

I think at the least that two gay men, with differing strengths, personalities, and with (probably) double the income can at least provide an adequate if not downright excellent environment for a child, compared to a single hetero father, or a single mother who's stretched to the limit by struggling to make ends meet, or by a hetero couple where one or both parents are abusive, or one or both are alcoholics or addicted to drugs or into crime (blue or white collar), or... you should get the idea. 

And incidentally, just as many hetero couples who get married don't choose to have kids (like me, in fact), and many hetero couples don't exercise their right to get married, not all gay couples will choose to get married, and the rate of gays adopting OR procreating and raising children is unlikely to change. That's another false argument as far as I can see.

----------


## Areku

> What about all the other marriages that are approved by other religions? Buddhist, Shinto, Muslim and of course Jewish... even within Christianity, Orthodox vs. Catholic vs. Mormon etc. - they're all just religious ceremonies that are, reasonably enough, optional for the couple to choose or not. I don't see any need to separate out definitions, since even a Wiccan handfasting ceremony is just that - a spiritually motivated ritual that symbolizes a union. The "normal" marriage is to do with _rights_. See below.


My point is that if the Church doesn't allow it, it's in their control. I'm not religious and I don't support the Church and think it's full of hypocracy but at the end of the day, it's up to them. It's their religious texts which damns homosexuality, and hell if they're gonna change it.




> Well, perhaps you're not reading about the issues because you've made up your mind, but it's not actually about a ring. It's about inheritance, receiving your partner's pension after he or she dies, being an emergency contact in case of accident, receiving health insurance and other coverage via a partner's employers... a HECK of a lot of monetary and legal issues arise from being unable to get married.


Two things here. Firstly I don't really oppose gay marriage on it's own, and secondly, what about a will?




> Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child.


Yes and this I find completely disgusting and a violation of the child's human rights. Ideas like that come from one thing only - political correctness, the bane of a free thinking man. The people in control of the jurisdiction of such technology are blinded by buzzwords like 'rights' and 'equality', and they fail to see the blatant and unavoidable fact that it is not natural.




> And it's not politically correct to TEACH society to exercise tolerance, to not treat people who are different with a default and reasonable level of respect and understanding?


There is a huge difference between treating gay people with tolerance and respect, and letting them raise children. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
The human rights of the child are worth more than the twisted concept of 'tolerance' that is preached these days about this issue.




> I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia,


No, it's not just about their genitalia, and I never implied it was limited to it. It's about the complex and deep relationships between the child and the parents that go unnoticed throughout it's years but show themselves later in life. Having a masculine father figure, and feminine mother figure. Having a "mum and dad". Having an image of a 'female' to compar others to, subconciously. Having a relationship model to base your own learning and experience on. Lots of inherent things that are not only missing in a same-sex parenthood, but innapropriate things that replace them.




> what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities,


There is no such thing as a proper male/female couple who act like two same sex parents. It's technically impossible. Even if the father is a little bit camp, or the mother is a bit butch (pardon the expression) it just doesn't come close to how twisted the impressions are from the same sex parents. If the parents both work all day and leave the child to a carer? It's proven that that disturbs the development of children and causes them emotional problems later on in life to a varying degree. I never said they were good. In 20 years time when the stories come out (no pun intended) of children raised by gay parents and the things they had to endure and suffer as a consequence, maybe the govts. will realise what a mistake political correctness was, in this case.




> or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is.


How would you know this, considering there are very few (if any) adolescent/adult people who have grown up with gay parents? On the contrary, there's plenty of scientific study on children and their stages of development which directly ties in to the gender/behaviour of their parents to suggest that varying from the norm can produce adverse effects on the child's eventual psyche.

Things like communication, skills etc, these are the methods of parenting that are obvious, that people can directly influence. What I'm talking about is stages of subconcious development that isn't seen or heard, just the product of it is. Things like seeing your parents kiss. Things like observing the shape of your mother's hips/breasts. Things like this have subconcious effects that you can't control or understand until a later date.

In short - gay parenthood is *intefering with nature* to the detriment of the child's development. 




> I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others.


I disagree. Teasing/bullying over looks/wealth is an age old happening and though it's bad, at least the kids know they're not alone. Geeks and that type of kid at least have geeky friends (I know - I was one). But having gay parents? A kid teased about that will feel more or less totally alone. It's embarassmnt on a whole new level. The kid will have to put up with thinking about how he isn't normal, how he wished to have normal parents, and at some point he's gonna realise his parents have gay sex, which his fellow students at school will no doubt relish in telling him about.




> I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone.


Gay parenting as a discrimination against human rights in itself. If what I've said means I discriminate against it, then so be it. But I have the child's best interests at heart in this argument, rather than mindless gay-bashing (I hope you can see that).




> It all starts with every single one of us CHOOSING to say it's okay (or not) to let this go on, and you're saying that things can't improve, so let's keep our backwards view.


No, the view of gay parenting being ok is backwards. We've come so far in education and discovery about the human body and mind, and then we go back on this because of 'PC', which results in things like that.

I don't see how gay parenting be seen as an improvement? If you're talking about marriage here, ignore that statement.




> In that case, I don't see why slavery still isn't in effect, and women shouldn't be able to vote today. Fact is, things CAN and DO change, and I for one think that legalization of homosexual partnerships is long overdue.


I agree. It shouldn't be illegal. Gay people can't help being how they are, and should be allowed the same rights about relationships as straight people. But not parenting.




> Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman?


No, but two of the same sex are. There is a balance. We have evolved this way and look how it's got us. Evolution has done a far better job than us at parenthood and the system is fine (and important) as it is.




> I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence.


True, but they are removed from the *mother figure*, of which no carer/relation can replace.




> There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up.


It's still not the same. IF the carer/aunt is as close as the mother figure should be, then it would be different. But then, is it really a gay marriage scenario for the child? 




> Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.


again, let me stress the importance of a single, close mother figure. 




> Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple.


That may be the case, but it's not a valid justification to allow it. Would you say, having drunken parents is better than physically abusive ones? Probably, but does that mean it should be allowed? Nobody said those types of parents were good either.





> I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison.


What about the child's right to be born into a natural family? It's a violation of human rights to knowingly birth a child into a gay family and inflict the psychological and social issues onto it before it's even born. The unborn child has done nothing to deserve it. 






> Okay, in which case we should take away gay children who grow up under the care of Christian fundamentalist parents. Or kids with no interest in academia, away from very academically-minded parents. Or introverted kids from extraverted parents.


In a perfect world, yes, we should. But it would be impossible and impractical to coordinate. How would you judge whether or not parents were too introverted to raise a slightly extroverted child? How long would it take you to notice the child being an extrovert? 5 years? 15 years? How are you gonna tear a 15 yr old kid away from his family just because they don't match up perfectly? Not feasible.

However, you can protect the rights of children being raised by gay couples, because it's easy to disallow before the child is even conceived - because it's based on the parent's actions and not the child's.




> I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.


They're not total opposites. But I'm sorry, in this world, gender roles play a huge part in society and people's development. Yeah, in a closed room, people might act very similiar. But this is the real world, and males and females in it are very different, and the social implications of sexuality are wide ranging. You can't apply closed-room theory to a scenario we have to consider in real life.




> I do think that children should be cared for by competent parents - I'm just not using any discriminatory criteria like race, religion, OR sexual orientation to make a blanket statement on whether a person would NOT be competent JUST based on those criteria. Just being able to impregnate someone or get pregnant oneself also, in my opinion, does NOT automatically mean that a person is a competent parent either, for that matter - but that's a whole other debate.


But don't you see that we aren't questioning the competence of the parents? It's nothing to do with that, its about the rights of the child and the effect of merely having gay parents, however competent they are at caring etc.

Religion is another interesting debate (although again, an open and shut case for me). Religious people indoctrinate their children, which should be illegal. Forcing a child to believe in nonexistent entities, possibly pray to them, wear stupid clothes etc. it's practically the definition of 'backwards'. We ain't in the Dark Ages now  :Bravo: 

by the way, I don't mean to offend you. It's nothing personal. I just tend to argue rather brashly over topics like this. Maybe one day I'll be a politician :P heh

----------


## Duo

> My point is that the urge to reproduce does not _necessarily_ disappear in homosexuals, and that it is more common than not that the child has genetic ties to at least one parent.


The urge to reproduce is chanelled by us through sex right ? If a man is not attracted at the aspect of having sex with a woman, how can he still have an urge to reproduce ?




> Besides which, for gay men who had a child through an amicable situation (e.g. with a lesbian mother) she could still have access to the baby while milk is needed, and breastfeed it.


Doesn't this sound ridiculous to you? A gay man and a gay woman getting together to have a baby. Where is the purpose in that ? Are they going to be a family? No!! They are having the baby simply for their own desire. It's a selfish act. In the end the baby will have two daddies, and two mommies. That's quite a predicament for a child to go through. Even if a woman donates her egg, or acts a surrogate, or whatever other way that a child can be artificially conceived, the family unit will still remain a problem. Our society is based on the family being its most basic and prime unit.




> Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman? I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence. That's a false argument that I don't understand. There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up. Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that each has a different and distinct role in raising a child. I'm not talking about a female presence, but a motherly or fatherly present. No one can act as a surrogate and fulfil that role, be it aunties, grandmas, teachers or whatever. What if a Lesbian couple have a boy and he begins to enter puberty, how are they supposed to guide him through this period when they themselves have no idea of what a man goes through during puberty. Same goes for two gay man and their daughter. How can they deal with her first menstruating cycle when they themselves have never experienced it and really have no idea of what the female body goes through at this stage. The care of a mother and that of a father is irreplaceable. 




> Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple.


That's true, but let's admit it, we have the impression that gay couples are more understanding and loving and more stable than a regular couple, when in fact I don't think that's true at all. Gay couples like other couples have their issues and their quarrels, which is certainly normal. 




> I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison.


Personally I don't beleive in discriminating others who are different from us, be it race, gender, ethinicity, sexual orientation, or whatever, but the core of the matter is not the discrimination of gay people when it comes to children. The question is weather they are able to provide the necessities needed to raise a child. I will digress here a little by saying that the right to freedom is not the same as that of voting. Freeedom is an inhereted right, whereas the right to vote is a political right, therefore not fundemental. However, this is a different topic.  :Poh:  

When it comes to the right to reproduce, only the "fit" are successful; it should not be taken for granted that each of us has the right to have a child. Gay people are certainly not "fit" to reproduce becuase their sexual orientation doesn't allow them to be attracted to the opposite sex, which has only one scope to it- reproduction. If one is not attracted to the opposite sex, he/she is not attracted at having sexual intercourse with the other sex, therefore exhanging genes and reproducing. Sex, in nature, has but one purpose- the continuation of a species. Homosexuals in past centuries have not been able to have children through artificial ways such as today. It is only because we have these ways that the demand has risen amongst the gay community. Having a child today is for some people like buying a new car. Now, maybe due to my limited intelligence, I don't understand how the want for a child arises in a gay couple. The want for a child can only truly arise between a man and woman. It is only the unification of the two sexes that produces a child in nature. It is my view that the want for a child is "induced" into a gay couple by what society expects of a couple, and by the need of gay people to prove to the others that they are normal just like them. 
I might BE WRONG, if so I'm sorry, I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE 




> I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.


I'm am referring that women and men occupy opposite roles in nature. The penis is the opposite of the vagina, the sperm is the oppositte of the egg. Therefore, there are somethings that only men have, and somethings that only women have, not only in terms of physical appearance. It's know that women care more about feelings and emotions than men, so perhaps this aspect is very important in rasing a child seeing as how each of the parents is preoccupied with a different aspect of the child's growth. If the child has parents of the same sex, the other type of care will be missing. 




> I think at the least that two gay men, with differing strengths, personalities, and with (probably) double the income can at least provide an adequate if not downright excellent environment for a child, compared to a single hetero father, or a single mother who's stretched to the limit by struggling to make ends meet, or by a hetero couple where one or both parents are abusive, or one or both are alcoholics or addicted to drugs or into crime (blue or white collar), or... you should get the idea.


And why is that we always think of gay couples being sophisticated individuals of the middle class layer ? I think this is a big sterotype. Gay people are like any other normal person out there. Not all the gay couples are "functional"(whatever that means) and addiction free from drugs and alcohol. Abusive and irresponsible parents dont have a label on their forehad that lets us know their status. I'm sure that many abusive and irresponisble parents initially looked just as caring and loving as anyone else. So, gay couples, as loving and caring and nice and secure and stable they may seem, can also turn out to be neglective and abusive parents. Just like there are many stable gay couples out there, there is just as many middle class and rich couples who aren't able to conceive a child and are lookin for an adoption.

----------


## nekosasori

@Areku - I'm against the concept of organized religion myself, so there's no debate there... 

I'm giving up on quotes, but a few responses now to your latest post:

A will does not cover emergency contacts even if it deals with inheritance, and even the latter can and often is contested by relatives after the death - it's not as easy or the same as the default set of benefits that a legal marriage brings.

As long as gay couples can and do have children it's a moot point about children's rights to a set of hetero parents, etc - 
In more repressed times - and even now - lots of gay people are living a "lie" as a hetero married person, raising children while not being emotionally fulfilled because they're not oriented to the opposite sex sexually. Mainly these people get married due to the urge to reproduce. In my view, the urge to have children is NOT related at all to sexual orientation. As stated before, I am straight, and I do not want children (never have, probably never will). Some subset of the gay population want children because of the biological imperative, NOT (and I was offended by this shallow view, Duo) as an accessory or a device to appear "normal". If gay people wanted to appear normal they'd try to blend into the majority of society (e.g. behave "straight"). I'm talking about openly gay couples here.

Besides which, I never said that ALL gay couples were white collar and well educated (though all the ones I know are, personally) - I know that there are dysfunctional and abusive gay couples out there - but just as we don't condemn ALL straight couples just because of the many that are dysfunctional and abusive, the right for all gay couples to raise children (bio or adopted) shouldn't be taken away. Let each couple be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses.

Now, for some external links and quotes:

From Alt.politics.homosexuality:




> Studies done of the children of gay parents show such children to be as or more well-adjusted then children of straight parents. A gay couple that loves each other and the child will certainly make better parents than a straight couple with an unwanted child, of which there are all too many. The most important factor in raising a healthy and happy child is whether the parents give the child ample love and support, not what sex the parents are.


As for "few" children growing up with gay parents - well in the US (population over 290 million total) there have been studies. I've never claimed that children of gay parents grow up to be "the same" as those with straight parents, but here's a quote from a recent (Mother's Day 2004) study:

http://www.planetout.com/families/ar...tml?sernum=382




> Stacey's study, published with co-author Timothy Biblarz in the American Sociological Review, concludes, "Contemporary children and young adults with lesbian or gay parents do differ in modest and interesting ways from children with heterosexual parents." The article reports the authors' findings from a re-examination of 21 existing studies of the children of lesbian and gay parents. "There is no evidence whatsoever of harm to kids according to the sexual orientation of their parents," Stacey said. In fact, the findings show that lesbian mothers and gay fathers may have an advantage over heterosexual couples because, for one thing, more lesbian parents plan their pregnancies. "We certainly know these are all wanted children, and there's plenty of research demonstrating that wanted children do better than unwanted children or even than accidental children," Stacey said. Her research indicates that children of lesbians and gay men exhibit levels of self esteem, anxiety, depression and other indicators of emotional well being similar to those of straight parents' children. Children of gays tend to function as well as other children cognitively and show higher levels of social popularity. The children of gay men and lesbians, especially girls, are more likely than others to depart from traditional gender roles in their dress, activities and occupational aspirations, according to Stacey.
> 
> As young adults, they are also more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships, though they are not more likely to firmly self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Children of gays are just as likely as children of heterosexuals to wish they were a member of the opposite sex, the study concluded. Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults than children of heterosexuals, according to the researchers, while male children show an opposite trend. Male children of gays are also less likely to show aggression than other boys. Children of lesbians and gays do report experiencing peer stigma regarding their own sexual orientation at higher levels than children of heterosexuals.
> 
> Elizabeth O'Connor, Ph.D., a lesbian mother and co-author of "For Lesbian Parents," said she wasn't troubled by most of the findings. "What the differences found are what you might expect," O'Connor said. "Our daughters are more androgynous, more willing to consider fields in traditionally masculine fields, they're less sex-typed in their play-how can that be a bad thing? "And boys show some of the same patterns," she added. "They are more nurturing and caring, and that's also not a bad thing." O'Connor is not disturbed that children of gay men and lesbians are more likely to question their sexual identity. "Most of them decide 'I'm a straight kid,'" she said. "As a psychologist, I'd say thinking about all the possibilities before deciding who you are is also not a bad thing." Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian families, said she does not dispute the new study's findings. "I think the authors of the study have represented the truth," she said. "I've long been concerned about the defensiveness with which we describe our differences." Gelnaw said advocates for gay parent rights need to recognize that "difference is not deficit." Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a mother of two, is pleased to see evidence that children of lesbians and gay men are less likely to embrace rigid gender roles and limit their sexual expression to heterosexuality. "To say that there's something wrong with that or to defend it by saying, 'Oh no, that's not true,' or to have any response other than 'So what?' implies that there would be something wrong with a child growing up to be lesbian or gay," Kendall said.


Things like communication, skills etc, these are the methods of parenting that are obvious, that people can directly influence. What I'm talking about is stages of subconcious development that isn't seen or heard, just the product of it is. Things like seeing your parents kiss. Things like observing the shape of your mother's hips/breasts. Things like this have subconcious effects that you can't control or understand until a later date.[/quote]




> The kid will have to put up with thinking about how he isn't normal, how he wished to have normal parents, and at some point he's gonna realise his parents have gay sex, which his fellow students at school will no doubt relish in telling him about.


There are many parenting resources for gay couples, and they address these issues early on and with the support of organizations (like the Family Pride Coalition, at least in the US):

http://www.planetout.com/families/ar...lies/parenting

I'm curious, you're stressing the importance of a maternal figure more so than a father - so you personally object less to a lesbian couple raising children? 
To me too, this is an open and shut case. 

The mention of "what if gay male parents raise a daughter who starts to menstruate" - well, each woman has a different experience with menstruating - cramps, frequency, regularity, etc. - just because a mother exists doesn't mean that even she could identify fully with what her daughter is going through. As well, though I was brought up in a traditional two-parent household, personally I was brought up to be a boy (only wore boy's clothes, had a boy's haircut, learned "hard" subjects, played sports, played with boy's toys). Moreoever my father barely interacted with me because even as a neonate I didn't like him (I'd cry at age 6 months if he tried to hold me) - but despite that all I still turned out straight. I think there are a lot of households that aren't "ideal" - and considering that most gay parents PLAN their children, and prepare for raising them, this preparation and situation at least negates the disadvantage of having bigoted straight parents of their classmates teasing them in school.

In any case, gay parenting has always been a reality - and the percentage rate of gay chidlren coming from gay parents is the same as in straight households... I just don't think that it's a terrible thing for children to have gay parents.

----------


## Areku

Bahhhh %^&&^ browser lost my reply. Gonna have to make this brief.  :Okashii:  




> @Areku - I'm against the concept of organized religion myself, so there's no debate there... 
> 
> I'm giving up on quotes, but a few responses now to your latest post:
> 
> A will does not cover emergency contacts even if it deals with inheritance, and even the latter can and often is contested by relatives after the death - it's not as easy or the same as the default set of benefits that a legal marriage brings.


Fair point.




> As long as gay couples can and do have children it's a moot point about children's rights to a set of hetero parents, etc - 
> In more repressed times - and even now - lots of gay people are living a "lie" as a hetero married person, raising children while not being emotionally fulfilled because they're not oriented to the opposite sex sexually. Mainly these people get married due to the urge to reproduce. In my view, the urge to have children is NOT related at all to sexual orientation. As stated before, I am straight, and I do not want children (never have, probably never will). Some subset of the gay population want children because of the biological imperative, NOT (and I was offended by this shallow view, Duo) as an accessory or a device to appear "normal". If gay people wanted to appear normal they'd try to blend into the majority of society (e.g. behave "straight"). I'm talking about openly gay couples here.


I agree, the biological desire to have children isn't sexuality related. Certainly sex related, to a degree (more females want kids than males), but not sexuality. Well maybe it is slightly, but not enough to matter in this debate.

but about the gay people who have kids in unhappy relationships, at the dnd of the day, it's their problem, and not their unborn child's. Traditionally, the rights of the children comes first. Be it about abortion, about child abuse, about bad surroundings, the child has rights that protect it from it's own parents. 

If a gay person has a problem with his desire for children, it's on his head to sort it out, not bring a child into the world and force upon it gay parents.




> Besides which, I never said that ALL gay couples were white collar and well educated (though all the ones I know are, personally) - I know that there are dysfunctional and abusive gay couples out there - but just as we don't condemn ALL straight couples just because of the many that are dysfunctional and abusive, the right for all gay couples to raise children (bio or adopted) shouldn't be taken away. Let each couple be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses.


In a perfect world, you'd need a license to reproduce. Too many irresponsibly and badly influencing parents have kids these days. I tell ya, a birth license would cut crime in half within a generation or two.




> From Alt.politics.homosexuality:
> 
> Studies done of the children of gay parents show such children to be as or more well-adjusted then children of straight parents. A gay couple that loves each other and the child will certainly make better parents than a straight couple with an unwanted child, of which there are all too many. The most important factor in raising a healthy and happy child is whether the parents give the child ample love and support, not what sex the parents are.


I really doubt the credibility of these 'studies', especially coming from alt.politics.homosexuality. There are no references to researches or to records of the methods/people/results involved. And to try and justify gay parents by saying they raise better kids than straight ones who don't wan their kids is an invalid argument, it's just an observation. Which further casts doubt on the study.


about this; 

http://www.planetout.com/families/ar...tml?sernum=382




> The children of gay men and lesbians, especially girls, are more likely than others to depart from traditional gender roles in their dress, activities and occupational aspirations, according to Stacey.


Now that's a vague sentence if I ever saw one. That could easily mean 'they grow up to be transexuals/crossdressers' for all it says.

Again, I doubt the source of the article. By a 'gay-friendly researcher' the article says. Coulda guessed. Also, it says that the only opposition to claims of gay parents being as good as straight ones is from 'conservatives intent on stopping gays reproducing/having children' which is blatantly rubbish, there are plenty of scientists who condone it if you look hard enough, the trouble is I bet most of them are scared to 'come out' (hehe) for fear of being jumped on for being non PC / homophobic / other crap by the kind of peopel who write that article and have no real grasp of neither biology nor human rights, just the feel-good trash talk that gets fed to them by people every day.




> As young adults, they are also more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships


Which is bad. See, the parents are already rubbing off on the kids, in a bad way, which is unsuprising.




> Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults


Well that's good for the blokes out there, but not for the rates of teenage pregnancies and STDs.




> Elizabeth O'Connor, Ph.D., a lesbian mother and co-author of "For Lesbian Parents,"


lol....




> Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a mother of two, is pleased to see evidence that children of lesbians and gay men are less likely to embrace rigid gender roles and limit their sexual expression to heterosexuality. "To say that there's something wrong with that or to defend it by saying, 'Oh no, that's not true,' or to have any response other than 'So what?' implies that there would be something wrong with a child growing up to be lesbian or gay," Kendall said.


YES there is and the sooner people realise that the better. Political correctness and pressure from pride groups has turned homosexuality into a vastly misrepresented phenomena. These days, it's a culture, a lifestyle, an expression, a challenge, fun, different...no, at the end of the day it's a disorder, a genetic abnormality in the brain. It's glamourised and the reality of what homosexuality is is avoided like the plague because people are so scared of the backlash that they'd get if they even attempted to say it's anything otherwise to what the hippy feminists over in america decide it is.

To expect people to say "so what?" to it is an obscene display of pc gone crazy and people who have no idea what they are talking about.




> I'm curious, you're stressing the importance of a maternal figure more so than a father - so you personally object less to a lesbian couple raising children? 
> To me too, this is an open and shut case.


I was stressing the importance of a maternal figure because in that paticular part of the debate we were talking about female figures replacing the mother like aunts etc. I object to both same sexes raising children equally.

----------


## kirei_na_me

> In a perfect world, you'd need a license to reproduce. Too many irresponsibly and badly influencing parents have kids these days. I tell ya, a birth license would cut crime in half within a generation or two.


Thank you!!!  :Bravo:  

That's what I've been telling people for years. "You have to have a license to drive a car, so don't you think you should have to have a license to have a baby?!" I couldn't agree with you more.

----------


## nekosasori

I'll be even briefer then  :Smiling: 

First, I agree with licensing - I've been saying that myself, for years also. 

Second, since a certain percentage of homosexuals has always been found in all human societies, I think it's a stable part of the gene pool, for whatever reason. I would not call homosexuality an "abnormality" also because many animal species have demonstrated homosexual behaviour.

If we had continued to embrace "rigid gender roles" then a lot of women who have pioneered the way to accomplish great things in traditionally male-dominated areas of work and research would have never had the chance to do what they do best (my heroine has always been Marie Curie). That's the main reason why I oppose this notion of "we must behave within the confines of gender roles" rubbish. I think each person should be allowed to explore their talents and inclinations without being denigrated. Not every woman has even the skills let alone inclination to become a stay at home mother (which is of course an important path in life to take, for those who CHOOSE it). Not every man is ambitious or even competent enough to become a strong male role model, career-wise, for his son(s).

Living in Ireland as I do, gays are still very closeted (I don't know of a single "out" person in a company of several hundred employees). Yet they continue to be out there. Silence and being closeted is NOT the solution to this "aberration" - being gay is NOT a choice for many people - how many people would have chosen such a rocky path in life, especially when political-correctness wasn't a societal reality? Anyone who claims to "choose" a gay lifestyle is actually bisexual IMO. And sexuality is a continuum.

I hope that you see that I'm not being a knee-jerk PC liberal when I defend my views. It's a combination of exploring my own experiences, understanding the friends I have, and thinking about the individuals whom I know well as human beings (and who happen to be gay) that I've reached my decision to support their wishes, be they to get legally married, and/or to have and raise children. I would much rather see all my (well-educated, white collar) gay friends care for children personally, than some (well, many) of my un-self-aware, Irish work colleagues who seem to only have children because of familial or societal pressure - without their really wanting them or preparing to shoulder that burden in a responsible and committed fashion.

----------


## Areku

> I'll be even briefer then 
> 
> First, I agree with licensing - I've been saying that myself, for years also. 
> 
> Second, since a certain percentage of homosexuals has always been found in all human societies, I think it's a stable part of the gene pool, for whatever reason. I would not call homosexuality an "abnormality" also because many animal species have demonstrated homosexual behaviour.


There are plenty of other mental abnormalities in animals too. And also, the rate of homosexuality in normal mammals (ie. not seahorses or asexually reproducing organisms) increases with the complexity of the brain. Basically you're more likely to see homosexuality the higher up you go. It's a correlation but really it just backs up the main argument, that is, humans wouldn't have evolved to have opposing sexual organs if they were meant to be homosexual. Out of the millions of sexually reproducing organisms on the planet, I'd say either all or 99.999% do it the male/female way, like with humans. It makes biological sense. In contrast, homosexuality serves no purpose. In fact from a genetic standpoint, it's a fatal flaw, because in a more regressed society (few thousand years ago) people didn't have the technology or the ability to forcefully reproduce homosexually.

Obviously in todays society people are on a higher mental level than just having kids. Lots of people don't even bother, so therefore homosexual can lead perfectly fulfilling lives.

But...it doesn't change what it is itself.




> If we had continued to embrace "rigid gender roles" then a lot of women who have pioneered the way to accomplish great things in traditionally male-dominated areas of work and research would have never had the chance to do what they do best (my heroine has always been Marie Curie). That's the main reason why I oppose this notion of "we must behave within the confines of gender roles" rubbish. I think each person should be allowed to explore their talents and inclinations without being denigrated. Not every woman has even the skills let alone inclination to become a stay at home mother (which is of course an important path in life to take, for those who CHOOSE it). Not every man is ambitious or even competent enough to become a strong male role model, career-wise, for his son(s).


That's true and I didn't really mean there was a problem with that. My problem with her sentence as it's ambiguity, it sounds like it was said with the aim of veiling some undesirable consequences of being raised by gay parents. I mean, how can you depart from traditional gender roles about clothes if you're male? wear a skirt? well, ideally, nobody should have a problem with it, but you have to take into consideration the rest of society, who aren't going to treat someone who cross dresses as normal. If she was more clear about what exactly the depart from gender roles was I wouldn't be so suspicious.




> Living in Ireland as I do, gays are still very closeted (I don't know of a single "out" person in a company of several hundred employees). Yet they continue to be out there. Silence and being closeted is NOT the solution to this "aberration" - being gay is NOT a choice for many people - how many people would have chosen such a rocky path in life, especially when political-correctness wasn't a societal reality? Anyone who claims to "choose" a gay lifestyle is actually bisexual IMO. And sexuality is a continuum.


I don't think anybody chooses it (except bisexual people, as you say). The brain has specific regions which are related to sexual urges and it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex.

There are people who can be 'straight', but be aroused by gay sex, either having it or watching, and this doesn't mean they're gay. It's a kink. People have kinks for all sorts of things...fetishes etc. But to be properly gay I think you have to have a pretty firm attraction to the same sex from puberty, which is usually the case.




> I hope that you see that I'm not being a knee-jerk PC liberal when I defend my views. It's a combination of exploring my own experiences, understanding the friends I have, and thinking about the individuals whom I know well as human beings (and who happen to be gay) that I've reached my decision to support their wishes, be they to get legally married, and/or to have and raise children. I would much rather see all my (well-educated, white collar) gay friends care for children personally, than some (well, many) of my un-self-aware, Irish work colleagues who seem to only have children because of familial or societal pressure - without their really wanting them or preparing to shoulder that burden in a responsible and committed fashion.


Heh totally, you're not like that at all.  :Haihai:

----------


## Kama

> Obviously in todays society people are on a higher mental level than just having kids. Lots of people don't even bother, so therefore homosexual can lead perfectly fulfilling lives.


Where?  :Doubt:  Not in my country, so please don't generalise.




> I don't think anybody chooses it (except bisexual people, as you say). The brain has specific regions which are related to sexual urges and it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex.


Oh... I chose my sexuality...?  :Sou ka:  Well, I didn't (and I am/think of myself as bi), so I agree with Areku. :) No sense...? It makes sense!! Who would understand you better, if not the person who is of the same sex and share the same hardships and joys? Who would rather know what do you need? Of corse I'm not saying this is the reason for being gay/lesbian... XD

I didn't like the opinion that wanting to have child is sexually related... And about this puberty thing. I have never talked with my parents about sex and menstruation. And I knew what is menstruation and sex anyway. School/friends/magazines. It's enough, I suppose.

----------


## bossel

> homosexuality serves no purpose. In fact from a genetic standpoint, it's a fatal flaw


You're slightly mistaken here. Homosexuality can serve a purpose. Although, it is not yet clear how all this works out. But it is definitely not a "fatal flaw".

----------


## Areku

> You're slightly mistaken here. Homosexuality can serve a purpose. Although, it is not yet clear how all this works out. But it is definitely not a "fatal flaw".


Well you explain to me how the genes of a homosexual could be passed on, considering that we haven't always been this clever? From an evolutionary standpoint it's a genetic dead end. 

I don't know how you can say it can serve a purpose, yet not know what the purpose is. One theory I've heard is that it evolved to cut down on the population, a kind of evolutionary taking-one-for-the-team for the human race to make sure there aren't too many people..and it's interesting but

a) it's a very strange and inefficient way of cutting down the population - being born sterile would do the job in a much better way
b) I've never heard of any other species having such a mechanism
c) the 'survival of the fittest' would cut down the population on it's own.

I'm not assuming that's what you meant, but just mentioning it anyway.

still, I maintain it's some form defect in the brain, until someone can prove otherwise.




> Where?  Not in my country, so please don't generalise.


Well ok in some countries gay people might get a LOT more hassle than others, but in most Western ones you can certainly get by. Basically I meant that compared to thousands of years ago, where a homosexual males probably didn't either live fulfilling lives or have kids, today, where they can meet and have relationships with other gay people, and even have kids in some places, they can live pretty much normal lives.




> Oh... I chose my sexuality...?  Well, I didn't (and I am/think of myself as bi), so I agree with Areku. :) No sense...? It makes sense!! Who would understand you better, if not the person who is of the same sex and share the same hardships and joys? Who would rather know what do you need? Of corse I'm not saying this is the reason for being gay/lesbian... XD


Lol there's definitely a lot of things you can only get from the same sex. I'm content with having some best (male) friends for that. We can share just as much without being in a relationship. When I say it makes no sense, I mean on a biological level. From a genetic point of view, it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex, because it'll get the genes nowhere fast.




> I didn't like the opinion that wanting to have child is sexually related... And about this puberty thing. I have never talked with my parents about sex and menstruation. And I knew what is menstruation and sex anyway. School/friends/magazines. It's enough, I suppose.


Yeah, I agree with you, I think it's a bad argument against gay parenting to say that they might not won't be told about puberty and sex from parents the same sex as them, because I learned from school/friends too, and so did most of my friends. It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## bossel

> Well you explain to me how the genes of a homosexual could be passed on, considering that we haven't always been this clever? From an evolutionary standpoint it's a genetic dead end.


Why should it be a dead end? Homosexuality is a continuum, it's not as if there could be drawn a definite line where it starts or ends. Lots of homosexuals had & have sexual contacts with the opposite sex, not too seldomly resulting in kids. 
Furthermore, it's probably not only genetic but there is more to it.






> I don't know how you can say it can serve a purpose, yet not know what the purpose is.


Well, in science there is a little something called theory. Having a theory doesn't mean that you know something exactly, but that you have an idea how it might work (or where it comes from, etc.) & research has to be done to verify this idea.
One theory is that homosexuality evolved for social reasons. 
You can read more on homosexuality & evolution here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_doesn't_explain_homosex uality

Quote:
"# Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum [Haynes, 1995]. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals [Adams et al., 1996]. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propogated.
# Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000]. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans. "





> Well ok in some countries gay people might get a LOT more hassle than others, but in most Western ones you can certainly get by. Basically I meant that compared to thousands of years ago, where a homosexual males probably didn't either live fulfilling lives or have kids, today, where they can meet and have relationships with other gay people, and even have kids in some places, they can live pretty much normal lives.


What makes you think, that thousands of years ago homosexual males didn't have kids?

----------


## Areku

> Why should it be a dead end? Homosexuality is a continuum, it's not as if there could be drawn a definite line where it starts or ends. Lots of homosexuals had & have sexual contacts with the opposite sex, not too seldomly resulting in kids. 
> Furthermore, it's probably not only genetic but there is more to it.


Well you can draw a line between whether you are turned on by men, or women.





> Well, in science there is a little something called theory. Having a theory doesn't mean that you know something exactly, but that you have an idea how it might work (or where it comes from, etc.) & research has to be done to verify this idea.


I am aware of that, but you didn't mention what the theory was.




> One theory is that homosexuality evolved for social reasons. 
> You can read more on homosexuality & evolution here:
> http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_doesn't_explain_homosex uality
> 
> Quote:
> "# Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum [Haynes, 1995]. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
> The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals [Adams et al., 1996]. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propogated.
> # Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000]. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans. "


Those studies don't really prove anything we don't already know. Of course gays can still contribute homosexual genes, because they can physically have sex with women, if they aren't heterosexual. But that's only because we've evolved to be so clever. It still doesn't answer the simple question - why do homosexuals exist, and why is it only 2-3% of the population?

The second study means nothing either, it's a well known fact that many extremely homophobic males are homophobic because they are in fact struggling to come to terms with being gay (to any extent) themselves.

The chimp study is not forthcoming either. The fact that a chimp species uses homosexuality has a social cement has nothing to do with whether the genes in humans are useful or not. It seems very flawed to me, because;

It's one chimp species being studied
The chimps may be heterosexual but exhibit homosexial behaviour as a form of bonding
The chimps may have homosexuality as a mental abnormality yet use it as a form of social cement anyway (the social cement is a consequence of the homosexuality, not the cause)
If it had 'evolved' to serve a purpose of social cement, why only 2-3% of humans are homosexual

To be honest virtually all the research on homosexuality that is propogated by gay rights groups is incredibly flawed and inconclusive, but it's worded in a way that liberal groups and gay rights people will lap it up because it's exactly what the public like to hear.

Similiarly, some of the research on homosexuality which concludes things the people *don't* want to hear are funded and spread by typically Christian groups who consider homosexuality a 'sin' so I'm very wary of either side of the research.

I prefer to stick to biology and scientific theory rather than case studies.




> What makes you think, that thousands of years ago homosexual males didn't have kids?


Several reasons. If you go far back enough, humans probably weren't clever enough to actually overcome to attraction to males, and to force themselves to have sex with women. These days we have a clear understanding of reproduction, and can physically do it with the opposite sex, that is based on intelligence and not instinct.
Also, I can imagine that civilisations were much more strict on homosexuals back then.

I could be wrong on that account. But I'm pretty much certain homosexualit is tolerated a lot better now that it was in previous times.

----------


## Kama

> still, I maintain it's some form defect in the brain, until someone can prove otherwise.


Everyone always said that there is something wrong with my head.. :P Now I finally know why I like girls! 

Currently, I'm looking for a doctor to heal me of:
*brain's malfunctioning
*inferiority complex

 :Blush:   :Laughing:

----------


## Golgo_13

Are we still on this topic?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/140806.shtml

----------


## bossel

> Well you can draw a line between whether you are turned on by men, or women.


Well, as has been said, it is a continuum. Actually, the whole human sexuality is a continuum, there are no clear boundaries. In some cases you may be able to say "clearly homosexual" & in others "clearly heterosexual", but there is a lot in between.





> I am aware of that, but you didn't mention what the theory was.


Because there is not only one.






> Those studies don't really prove anything we don't already know. Of course gays can still contribute homosexual genes, because they can physically have sex with women, if they aren't heterosexual. But that's only because we've evolved to be so clever. It still doesn't answer the simple question - why do homosexuals exist, and why is it only 2-3% of the population?


It is not clear in how far homosexuality is genetically induced & what role the environment plays (eg. hormones in the womb during pregnancy). Just because there is an easy question that doesn't mean there is an easy answer. Homosexuality may be latent in every human being but the genes are only activated under certain circumstances.






> The second study means nothing either, it's a well known fact that many extremely homophobic males are homophobic because they are in fact struggling to come to terms with being gay (to any extent) themselves.


Yep, but a lot of those guys have children, don't they? Hence doing the homosexual gene-pool some good.






> The chimp study is not forthcoming either. The fact that a chimp species uses homosexuality has a social cement has nothing to do with whether the genes in humans are useful or not. It seems very flawed to me, because;


There is a slight mistake in the article: bonobos are no chimpanzees! They are often called dwarf chimpanzees (this may be the reason why in this article they're called bonobo chimpanzees) but they are a distinct species.
Well, if homosexuality is useful as social cement that might explain why it has evolutionary value also for humans. It's an approach to find an explanation, that's science.





> (the social cement is a consequence of the homosexuality, not the cause)


Like with the chicken & the egg?





> I prefer to stick to biology and scientific theory rather than case studies.


Case studies are not scientific? Well, some maybe, but in general I heard of a lot of case studies used in science.






> Several reasons. If you go far back enough, humans probably weren't clever enough to actually overcome to attraction to males, and to force themselves to have sex with women. These days we have a clear understanding of reproduction, and can physically do it with the opposite sex, that is based on intelligence and not instinct.


Not only males are homosexual. 
Are you saying we are more intelligent now than 20,000 years ago?
If cleverness is needed for homosexuality, why is it that it exists in several other species who are not so clever as humans? Or do you think that eg. zebra finches are more intelligent than we are (well, OK, let's only talk about the average)?





> Also, I can imagine that civilisations were much more strict on homosexuals back then.


Which would mean that homosexuals had to lead a normal life if they didn't want to be persecuted. Hence a lot of them would have kids just to show how normal they are. Pretty good for the homosexual gene-pool.






> I could be wrong on that account. But I'm pretty much certain homosexualit is tolerated a lot better now that it was in previous times.


That depends on the time & the society. Compared to the old Greeks the US is not exactly heaven for homosexuals.

----------


## King of Tokyo

I don't really care.. what's the big deal if they wanna get married.. let them.. doesn't affect me.. I'll be straight and they can be gay, It's all good.. lol

----------


## blessed

I agree with King of Tokyo, in every way.  :Laughing:   :Laughing:  

But did you know, that there have been studies made, nd it is possible that male homosexuality is in fact genetic?

yes, it is said that there is a 3% chance that a male is genetically gay, and for every older brother, that figure increases by 33% (i.e. from 3 to 4, from 4 to 5.3...). so you can't really blame them if you so wish cause its not really their "fault".

----------


## Glenn

A question for Areku: you seem to be saying a lot about children's rights and even rights of unborn children. This seems to be in stark contrast to your views on abortion, namely that the parents have the right to kill their child until it can survive on its own, because until then it isn't alive and doesn't have rights. How do you justify this seeming dichotomy?

----------


## Rachel

Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm

My blood is boiling

----------


## DragonChan

> Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm
> 
> My blood is boiling


That's horrible! If they're going to stop making them legal, they should at least leave the ones they already issued. How would those people feel if they were suddenly told that they were no longer considered 'married' to thier spouse? 

Ugh. This is all so stupid.

People can't control what sex they are attracted to. I don't see any reason why they can't get married and have the exact same rights as everybody else.

----------


## akaisha

> Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm
> 
> My blood is boiling


Oh Bush can kiss my ass. Its a shame these things are happening, but I don't it will be outlawed any time soon. I'm lucky to be in a state that is considering to legalize it, but still a ban being in that many states as is is just stupid. I mean honestly, how the hell does this effect him? What kind of power does he have to make these choices? I could care less if the's the damn president. You can't change the constitution, america is a land of freedom, this limits the freedom we are born with by being on this soil. This is just stupid. Why must people even care? I mean honestly.

----------


## mdchachi

It was a good ruling. We can't have local officials breaking the law every time they feel like it. If the laws preventing same-sex marriage are bad or illegal, then they need to be overturned. That mayor is no better than that stupid southern judge who insisted on posting the ten commandments in his courtroom.

----------


## antantrevolution

To hell with Bush, he's as useless as a surplus condom from WWII.. which is where his ideals and beliefs are at now.

I can say for myself, I have several people that are gay around me that I feel should be able to decide for themselves where their life paths take them, not some tard trying to follow in his puppeteer's footsteps. If you are responsible enough to stay with one life partner and not mess around, jeapordising your health and that of those around you, then you should have every right to your marraige freedoms and not have to suffer the wrath of ignorance.

This country was founded on something that gave us the freedom to choose so, and God, even though there are those that seem to use his name for their own crusades (A.K.A. Bible belt..), obviously wouldn't have given us emotion, compassion, love and free will if he didn't deem it ok to choose who is best for us.

Let people be ******* happy.

Worry about things that matter in life, and our world.

Ant

----------


## Miss_apollo7

I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples. In fact, Denmark was the first country to allow gay marriages. LINK:
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/



> THE FIRST legal married gay couple was Axel & Eigil Axgil, who married together with 10 other couples in Copenhagen the 1st October 1989. It was a worldwide media event. But at this time Axgils had been together for nearly 40 years, 32 of which under a common name. 
> 
> Axel and Eigil had in 1957 combined their first names into the family-name Axgil when they were in prison for gay right activism. So many gay couples also changed their names that the government soon stopped this early precursor to civil union. In 1989 the Partnership Law again made such name changes possible.

----------


## Satori

This might shed a little bit of light on the recent decision in California and where it's headed:

*Gay Marriages Voided, But Questions Remain:*

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040813/b48a...a5c856f_1.html

*Next Gay Marriage Fight Could Move Fast:*

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040817/3a90...aa236d1_1.html


Hopefully, they will get this matter straightened out as quickly as possible. What they did to all of those marriages is just terrible ...

----------


## Kala

OK, I get here a little late, so many things has already been said. I have to admit it was too long to read absolutely ALL of what it have been posted, but I read a big part of it, and I have some things to say.
Personally, I think gay marriage it's ok, I don't really think there's a problem with it. Though I don't think marriage it's important, I do think it's important to have the right of getting marriage, that’s the whole point (I say this because there was a person who say marriage it’s not so important, and someone answered that straight people doesn’t understand…) I’m bisexual, I believe I have the right to have that “option” either I fall in love with a man or a woman. In the other hand, we have to understand there’s a lot of things beyond the simple fact to be united to the person you love. Getting marriage gives you a lot of rights that other way wouldn’t be there, like with life insure and stuffs like that. It also makes you legally related to the other person, and that’s important in so many ways too (like when a person is hospitalized and only admit relatives, in that case, sometimes the one that person shares her/his life with can see him/her just because “it’s not a relative”-we’re talking about same sex partners, of course-). 
I have to say to me the marriage it’s more important legally than religiously. Actually I think religious shouldn’t be so involved with the countries and their societies, but I’m not stupid, and I know they are, luckily, not so much now a day, but they still influence a lot, especially the catholic one in west. Religions are something that goes with each one, it’s something each person believe on, so each one decides what to believe, and what not to, with out impose your beliefs to the others. So, you either can try to impose changes to the religions because you think they are good (say this because it was also said in some part something about catholic gay marriages) Anyway, what I’m trying to say, it’s that the religious part, no matter how stupid it’s, or it’ sound, it’s understandable to exist. 
Something that didn’t sound me understandable was comparing the gay marriage with incest marriage or animal-human marriage!! God!!! What are you talking about!! It’s absolutely not the same!! There’s a lot of reason, let’s start with: 1) both parts involved in it have conscience of what they are doing- 2) none of the part can get psychologically damage from it (no matter what, that always happen with incest), and the reasons go on but this thing it’s long enough- -”… 
… I think one of the most important reasons against this kind of marriages, it’s the fact of the children. Personally, I think that’s something to be treated separated. Though, for one side, I think a gay couple can raise a child (sometimes better than some heterosexual couples), the reasons why other people don’t think like I, seem pretty reasonable and I really believe it has to be treated separated. We have to think, that something very repeated it’s that thing of “as well they don’t bother anyone else, as well they don’t mess with anyone else…” Yeah, yeah I know the couple wouldn’t be “bothering” the child, but what I mean it’s that topic it’s already included another human being whose life will depend exclusively of all this, so…
Well, there are a lot of things to say about this if you think on this through… so, I guess I’ll post something else eventually…
 :Sorry:   :Relieved:  Sorry for the long, and sorry it something doesn’t make sense.  :Relieved:  
 :Smiling:  Bye & Good Luck  :Smiling:  (let`s put this nice face, it was all too serius...  :Poh:  )

Rest in Peace. Nade-Ka’

----------


## meme9898

I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred. On health care they should get the same benifits exept for aids or something, that happened during there civil union, cuase thats there own fault. Same with hteros but before the marriage.

----------


## Kama

> I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred.


Maay I ask why? What's so special? Marriage is marriage. :) Giving birth to children isn't sacred... XD There is civil and religious wedding... Let it be. XD




> On health care they should get the same benifits exept for aids or something, that happened during there civil union, cuase thats there own fault. Same with hteros but before the marriage.


I don't unbderstand. Could you explain it to me?

----------


## digicross

The whole marriage controversy is nothing more but just something to make people fight each other. They're not fighting for the rights of the homosexuals, they're making people fight each other.


Really, homosexuals probably can arranged something that resemble a marriage contract using normal laws, and they have being doing these things for years.

The same goes for heterosexuals who have their prefered ways being unlawed, like being polygamists. They usually arranged something on their own ways.

----------


## Japanimaniac

> I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred.


The word "marriage", in this day and age, is the union of the net worth of the two parties involved (not stepping on any moral toes here, just saying). Otherwise, prenuptual agreements would not exist.

Homosexual couples should have every right to be married, and be entitled to every benefit and hardship that comes with it. Looking at this subject from a purely economical view, there is no difference between two men/two women being married than there is for a man and woman being married.

Who is to judge who can love who, anyway? I'm all for being married because of love, and it is the reason I hope to be married, but I would not want someone saying "No, you can't, because it isn't right". Unfortunatly, the government likes to contradict itself quite a bit, claiming to not be religion biased, yet continually bringing up the morality issue.

----------


## Fantt

This is one of those issues that people will look back on in 30 years and wonder why the conservatives were fighting so hard against it. Kind of like the fight to stop women's sufferage or civil rights for blacks or the fight to keep the work week 12 hours a day 6 days a week.

----------


## Maciamo

Reply to a PM I received from Antifederalist




> Right now, marriage is between man and woman either by law and/or value system. By allowing gay people to claim life partners and call it marriage is what people are against.


Since when does marriage bind people for life ? Are divorces also banned in the US ? Actually, I though the US had the higher divorce rate in the world. 




> This wouldn't be an issue of state if gov't hadn't decided to use marriage as a basis to tax us on.


Don't civil union act the same way as marriage for tax rebates ? Anyway, is it better to have a gay and a lesbian getting married for a tax rebate, while having sex with somebody else ?




> After all, to most Americans, marriage is the union of man and woman before God (where man and woman become one flesh--this really shows when a man and woman have sex there's a really good chance a baby will come about, making the concept of one flesh tangible)--not Uncle Sam.


In Europe there is no legal difference between having a child while being married or not being married.




> To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.


How could it be a sin when people are born like that ?
Please read this post of mine in this thread




> I have no problems with civil unions and gays couples receiving the benefits that a married couple gets (to be able to claim the "spouse" as dependent, etc.) but for religious purposes, I do not want it called marriage.


But marriage on paper and the wedding ceremony at the church are completely different things. If the government bans gay marriage that will only be on paper, refraining them from having benfits. However, they CAN still marry at a church if that church accepts gay marriages (and some do). The goverment has no power to change the rules of religious organizations. Which is why I don't understand why American people want to block gays from social benefits by voting for Bush, knowing they can still get a religious marriage.

----------


## No-name

Newsflash: Homosexuality is a sin. Lots of behavior is "sinful." All sin is natural- as is death, bad gas, decay, and sitcoms that aren't funny. Every single person alive has sinned. It is human nature. (The whole point of Christianity is saving you from this nature.)

As for gay marriage. Making it legal won't make anyone gay. Making it illegal won't make anyone straight. So what if Carl and Bob want to wed? It doesn't bother me. It shouldn't concern me at all. (unless they forget to invite me.) Gay people have enough problems already without legalized discrimination. Isn't this country founded on some kind of freedom and liberty thing? Didn't someone say something about leting people do whatever floats their boat unless it adversely affects someone else. Can't we leave them alone?

----------


## Antifederalist

What was said to Maciamo: 




> To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin. But then don't we all live in sin?


Posted by Maciamo:




> To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.


*edit:

The first quote, while many of you may still find it amazing people still talk about sin in such an enlightened age as this, makes me sound tolerant to homosexuality (which I am). For me to point a finger at them and yell 'Sinner!' would be hypocritical--which is what Maciamo tried to paint me as by leaving out the rest of what I said. 

F*ck it, even though it was a PRIVATE message, I will post it here:



> By saying "forced" on the populace didn't mean to force people to become gay and get married. What it meant is:
> 
> Right now, marriage is between man and woman either by law and/or value system. By allowing gay people to claim life partners and call it marriage is what people are against.
> 
> This wouldn't be an issue of state if gov't hadn't decided to use marriage as a basis to tax us on. After all, to most Americans, marriage is the union of man and woman before God (where man and woman become one flesh--this really shows when a man and woman have sex there's a really good chance a baby will come about, making the concept of one flesh tangible)--not Uncle Sam.
> 
> To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin. But then don't we all live in sin? I have no problems with civil unions and gays couples receiving the benefits that a married couple gets (to be able to claim the "spouse" as dependent, etc.) but for religious purposes, I do not want it called marriage.
> 
> Oh well, I guess I am still a troglodyte for even having religion and conservative values.
> ...

----------


## bossel

> Newsflash: Homosexuality is a sin.


How can it be a sin if it's not your choice? If I understand the concept of sin correctly, your god gave humans the opportunity to choose between good & evil. Since people are born homosexual, how can they choose?

----------


## december

Damn, I'm tired of gay folks. Go back into the closet, PLEASE! 

That's how I feel.

----------


## King of Tokyo

> Damn, I'm tired of gay folks. Go back into the closet, PLEASE! 
> 
> That's how I feel.


First discriminations against asians, now against gays, you're on a roll buddy.

----------


## december

Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.

Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.

However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.

----------


## TwistedMac

> Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.
> 
> Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.
> 
> However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.


sounds like that run-of-the-mill excuse people that are accused of being racist use "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!" uh-huh... sure.

but you know, damn, I'm tired of you! get off the internet, PLEASE!

... I'm not discriminating against you. I have friends that aren't too bright! in fact, my friend from high school turned out to be quite the dope.

----------


## King of Tokyo

> Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.


Since when? Since the other thread you said that Asians shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't, and can't rap. You love the asian race alright, as long as they are doing what you stereotype them to do, and don't cross over into things that are, in your mind, specially reserved for other races. 




> Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.
> 
> However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.


You know a couple of gay people? Wow, I'm sorry.. I didn't know.. I was wrong about you..

----------


## december

> but you know, damn, I'm tired of you! get off the internet, PLEASE!


You don't know me...  :Doubt:  




> ... I'm not discriminating against you. I have friends that aren't too bright! in fact, my friend from high school turned out to be quite the dope.


That's hot.  :Okashii:  




> You know a couple of gay people? Wow, I'm sorry.. I didn't know.. I was wrong about you..


I don't really sarcastic people either cause I'm sarcastic myself... 

But...

Why is it so hard to accept people's opinion? If a white person dislikes all blacks based solely on their skin color, then I respect that person's OPINION. However, I do not support it.

If a person wants to be gay, then I respect that person's choice. However, I do not support it.

Hell, if a person wanted to jump off a mountain without a parachute, then I will accept his decision. However, I won't support it!

Does that make me racist? Does it me wrong? Does it make me deserving of a verbal (or in this case written) attack? And yes, I use the word attack because that's what it becomes when you throw in personal insults. It's ashame one can't fully enjoy a debate without having to be belittled by others.

Somebody, *ANYBODY* , explain to me because I don't understand, why do people have such a difficult time accepting someone elses opinion. If you disagree with me, fine. Say you disagree, state your reasons intelligently, and leave the childish and stupid insults elsewhere. Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they are right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong.

An opinion is just that - a view that is neither wrong nor right, a statement that is neither be true nor false.

----------


## TwistedMac

> You don't know me...


you don't know all gay people, yet you see fit to tell them to get back in the closet.




> Why is it so hard to accept people's opinion? If a white person dislikes all blacks based solely on their skin color, then I respect that person's OPINION. However, I do not support it.
> 
> If a person wants to be gay, then I respect that person's choice. However, I do not support it.
> 
> Hell, if a person wanted to jump off a mountain without a parachute, then I will accept his decision. However, I won't support it!
> 
> Does that make me racist? Does it me wrong? Does it make me deserving of a verbal (or in this case written) attack? And yes, I use the word attack because that's what it becomes when you throw in personal insults. It's ashame one can't fully enjoy a debate without having to be belittled by others.
> 
> Somebody, *ANYBODY* , explain to me because I don't understand, why do people have such a difficult time accepting someone elses opinion. If you disagree with me, fine. Say you disagree, state your reasons intelligently, and leave the childish and stupid insults elsewhere. Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they are right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong.
> ...


It's pretty hot how you compare being gay to racism and suicide. Smooth.
It's their opinion that they should get to get out of the closet, it's your opinion that they shouldn't and it's my opinion that you should stfu. all opinions...

you can't state your own opinion and the fact that you have every right to have it, and then get sad when someone else responds to it.

----------


## Flashjeff

I may have mentioned something like this here previously, but in my mind, the only reason why gay marriage is controversial in the first place is because narrow minded and bigoted conservatives have made it so.

To anyone with even half a brain, the real enemy to the so-called institution of marriage are----*GASP*----heterosexuals! Between adulterers, abusers and polygamists, straights have done a bang up job of wrecking the sanctity of marriage, and have done so for decades. But is that ever mentioned by the holy rollers and the gutless politicians (like Bush) who are in their back pockets? Of course not. It's safer, not to mention easier to go after a soft target like gays and unfairly demonize them for everything that's gone wrong about marriage. To attack the real culprits harming marriage would be to admit that straights, not gays are the cause of all the problems, and that's something conservatives will never do. 

America is supposed to be a land of inclusion, but conservatives and their Bible slanted agenda have made it a land of exclusion, denying rights to an entire class of people because some hackneyed book that's insanely out of step with today's world says so. People come in all colors and all mindsets, to shun one class of people because they don't jibe with the words in a book that turns people into mindless lemmings is just plain wrong. Gays should be allowed to marry if that's what they want. I mean really, where's the outrage in that?

----------


## PaulTB

> An opinion is just that.


Er no.

An opinion is not _just_ an opinion if it is also, say, defaming, inciting racial hatred etc. At least in the UK 'an opinion' of that sort can be actionable in court.

Also saying "In my opinion 1 + 1 = 3" doesn't make you any less wrong and you shouldn't expect to not be told you're an idiot just because you precede idiotic statments with "In my opinion".

----------


## Fantt

I just now discovered this thread, so I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. I think a lot of the controversy surrounding gay marriage is due to bigotry, hatred and fear of homosexuals. That said, though, I don't think that that's the only reason why people oppose gay marriage. Obviously the very religious people in this country are tolerant of gays or else we'd have laws similar to other religiously dominated countries which imprison or execute homosexuals. We don't do that too much here. I know they tried that in Texas, but well, that's Texas. In Texas you can be pro-life and still execute retarded people (for murder).

I think a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage because, for them, it will change the very definition of marriage. Marriage, in most all human societies, has always been between a man and a (one or more) woman/women. In allowing gays to have a "marriage" ceremony, we are changing a tradition much older than slavery, racism, subjagation of women and other long held traditions, and lots of people are uncomfortable with that - even people who aren't bible thumpers.

However, for the life of me, I can't see why tolerant people would be against allowing homosexuals to obtain civil unions and get the same rights that heteros have. The only reason I can see to deny them those basic rights and responsibilities is, sadly, fear, hatred and ignorance.

Eventually, we're going to run into a freedom of religion thing here. There are at least a few religions which would gladly marry gays if allowed. The Unitarian Universalists come to mind. By denying the Unitarians from marrying gays, we're denying them a bit of their religious freedom. The Universal Life Church will grant ministerial status to anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs (as long as they agree to a very basic and mild moral agreement) and many of those ministers (who have full legal rights to marry people in every state) would gladly marry gays as well.

Society is changing quicker than the moral conservatives like. Eventually, the moral conservatives (who are now in power) will have to chose whether to remain tolerant or turn our country into repressive theocracy. I'm betting on tolerance.

----------


## Kamisama

It's genetic. It's as simple as that. If you want to call anything a sin call your hate a sin. Bisexuality is not genetic. Hating someone because they are homosexual is like hating a black man because he is black. You can't hate people because their DNA came out the way it did. You can dislike the immoral sins they create against others, such as adultry,necrophilia,pedophilia. I find it very stupid for many Christians to have hate against homosexuals. I think abortion is a greater issue than homosexuality. 

I have known many homosexual people. Funny enough when I run across them they are very intelligent. They know a hell of a lot more than I do which makes me wonder why they have a great intelligence. Perhaps it's because they need a greater intelligence to be respected in this world because they are not respected enough like regular people. 

I do find problems with many people who are bisexual though. I find a lot of the time they have something wrong in their head. Many of them like children. I knew a bisexual female who was 19 and liked 13 year olds. I have known a bisexual who was into necrophilia. That is one of the sickest things I have known. 


I find that many people who actually come bisexual because of abusive males or their past of abuse from people(childhood). There was this singer I once knew from New York. She had been ganged raped and treated wrongly by her crackhead father. She may have had an attraction to men, but she was only shown a completely negative image of man growing up. Thus she met her girlfriend Star and they have been dating ever since. Which makes you wonder if she is actually bi-sexual, or else homosexual.

Is this a sin? Is it a sin to decide against or to ignore part of the human race because you have been treated wrongly by it, or else you feel no attachment to it? People do that everyday. 

In truth, I can't judge on such issues. Nor should anyone else. For we are just people, living a life, and trying to obtain some happiness through it.

Although, I would like to say lots of people come out cold 13itches in the end because they can't have what they want.

----------


## Fantt

I don't think there's ever been any conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is a genetic trait. If you have a link to some, I'd be interested in reading it. Even if we agree momentarily that homosexuality is purely a choice, then I still can't see why people have such a hard time with dealing with it. It's just a different choice. 

Part of the problem with Moral Conservatism is that a lot of the things they are against are things that are victimless. As long as a homosexual relationship is voluntary between both partners then no one is getting hurt - no one's freedom is being impeded.

Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:

Sale of sex toys is illegal in many states - where's the victim. Oh my god! Sally may have an orgasm ALL BY HERSELF! We can't have that! In fact, we'd rather pretend Sally can't even have one. Sex is just a procreative duty.

Orgies, swinger's clubs, etc. - where's the victim?

Pornography - this is a bit trickier, because some women have been coerced into entering the world of smut, but by far the majority are volunteers. Now, if a man knows he has a sexually transmitted disease and he continues performing in pornography, then, yeah - that seems like a crime.

Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - where's the victim? Seat belt laws - the same thing. Do we need to be protected from ourselves? If so, why?

There is an argument that if the majority of people in one area feel something should be forbidden then it's ok for them to forbid it. This however, still abridges personal freedom. I would rather be free and live with other people doing things I find distasteful than put them in jail to take up space where real criminals should be.

----------


## Kamisama

If you don't think it's genetic, then it must be psychological, whichever the case it's embedded into people at a young age. Most people i've spoken to who became/were homosexual actually learned it through childhood. They would begin to notice more and more they were attracted to the same sex. If this is not genetic, then it must be psychological. But the thing is many of them have never had cruel abuse or a cruel past. Sure you can say homosexuality is by choice because all beings have free will, but I think it's embedded into you before you come out of the womb. If it's not, there would be a lot of interesting universal factors that come into play to make a person homosexual.

----------


## Glenn

> Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - where's the victim? Seat belt laws - the same thing.


I think here the victim is the average taxpayer, who has to foot the bill because of someone else's irresponsible acts. At least I've heard that smoking raises health care costs for everyone, so I would assume that it would be the same for the cases that you mentioned.

----------


## Fantt

> If you don't think it's genetic, then it must be psychological, whichever the case it's embedded into people at a young age. Most people i've spoken to who became/were homosexual actually learned it through childhood. They would begin to notice more and more they were attracted to the same sex. If this is not genetic, then it must be psychological. But the thing is many of them have never had cruel abuse or a cruel past. Sure you can say homosexuality is by choice because all beings have free will, but I think it's embedded into you before you come out of the womb. If it's not, there would be a lot of interesting universal factors that come into play to make a person homosexual.


Kami, at any moment I can choose to be homosexual or not. I decide for myself what I find sexually stimulating at any given time. When we get down to it, an orgasm is an orgasm. Why do people have to be so obsessed with labels?

I didn't say that homosexuality wasn't genetic. I said that I didn't think there was any conclusive evidence which supported that thought. 

Again, it's amusing to me that we have to be so obsessed with something which boils down to with whom would you like to make the silly face.




> I think here the victim is the average taxpayer, who has to foot the bill because of someone else's irresponsible acts. At least I've heard that smoking raises health care costs for everyone, so I would assume that it would be the same for the cases that you mentioned.


Instead of outlawing riding a motorcycle without a helmet, why not have a law requiring riders who choose to be less safe to carry more insurance? That way, those rider's freedom is less restricted while also saving taxpayers.

When government tells you that you can not do something, it's backing up that demand with potentially lethal force. I don't think coercing people into doing things for their own good (when such things involve no one else) is conducive to a free society.

----------


## Duo

Oh noooo, this thread opened up again.
*sigh another pandora's box this is.

What is there 2 discuss, why can't we all just mind our damm business and not care what people want to as long as they are happy and dont hurt other people. If gay people want to get married, they have my blessing, it has nothing to do with me, they don't affect me, they should be allowed to be happy like the rest of us. Marriage between man and a woman is sacred. YEAH RIGHT, not now it is, ppl get married, cheat break up, bak together, divorce, leave their familes and what not. Hardly anything sacred. Just because you choose some priest to tell you that you are now married, it doesnt mean that you have something sacred. I mean c'mon its the 21 first century, I can't beleive we have to sit here and discuss such stupid issues that are made out of nothing. People are gay,that's just the way it is, just you look at your own life and worry about saving yourself from hell or whatever you beleive and let others beleive in their own salvation. Life is too short to argue about things that are made into an issue uncesarily. You beleive god gondems gay ppl? Fine go to church and pray for them, but dont try to forcefully save them. 

that's my 2 cents on the issue, not directed at anyone in particular, just basic stuff.

----------


## Glenn

> Instead of outlawing riding a motorcycle without a helmet, why not have a law requiring riders who choose to be less safe to carry more insurance? That way, those rider's freedom is less restricted while also saving taxpayers.
> 
> When government tells you that you can not do something, it's backing up that demand with potentially lethal force. I don't think coercing people into doing things for their own good (when such things involve no one else) is conducive to a free society.


I wouldn't argue against that; my point was to show where the victims could be. Remember, you listed this under the




> Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:





> Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - *where's the victim?* Seat belt laws - *the same thing*.


My post was merely to answer the highlighted question (I'm assuming that the second highlighted part was in reference to the first hightlighted part), and didn't mean to say that people should be restricted. I don't really care if anyone rides a motorcylce without a helmet, even though I think that it's reckless and stupid.

----------


## Fantt

Why does whether or not homosexuality is genetic matter so much to some people?

----------


## december

Call me racist. Call me a bigot. Call me whatever the f*ck you want. The fact is no one on this board knows me or a thing about my life. If you're gay or support gay rights, fine whatever. But don't try to make everyone accept that because you do. 

All I've been hearing and all people have been talking about are gay folks getting married. And quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about this issue.

And as well, I don't talk to people who are not open-minded and accepting of others. So I've stated my opinion and I have nothing left to say.

----------


## Maciamo

> I don't think there's ever been any conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is a genetic trait.


I posted in this thread an explanation about that. DNA can have an influence, but through hormonal levels. Homosexuality is due to a lack of male hormones (for men) or an excess of it (for women) during the period of pregancy when the barin was formed. Few are the cases like Kami-sama cited with the gang-rape when someone changes sexual orientation after birth (because of a trauma against one sex). 

For some reasons, I feel it is easier for (beautiful) women to become bisexuals (even just kissing or caressing other female friends) because women have easier to create deep emotional contacts, are warmer and more seductive. That is just my impression based on my observations though.




> Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:


"Vitimless" crime, as you call it, is usually referred to as "offence". I suppose that Amercian people also make this distinction. For example, riding without seatbelt, speeding, foreigners overstaying their visas, etc. are all offences and not crimes. The difference is that punishments are much milder for offences and almost always limited to a fine, and no emprisonment (or execution), justly because their was no victim.

These laws are generally intened to protect people against themselves. Forcing motorcyclist to wear a helmet is for their own safety, and the law exist because many people are not responsible enough to do it otherwise. Same for setting a legal age for alcohol and driving, banning dangerous drugs, etc.

Visas and tax laws are a bit different as they aren't really protecting anybody, and nor respecting them is plainly defying the government.

In the case of moral laws that conservative want to impose on the whole population, it is yet another category. These laws aren't really protecting people from themselves (where is the risk in buying pornography or sex tools, or being gay and getting married ?). These are subjective values based on a particular religion and shouldn't be imposed on the whole population. Otherwise they become breach of liberties, and the government turns into an authoritarian one that care more for its self-satisfaction than for the good of its people. 

This said, if people who strongly believe that all these sex-realted issues are immoral by their standards, they are still free not to do them. But if it becomes illegal, the rest of the population won't be free to do them anymore, because of a some people's selfishness.




> Kami, at any moment I can choose to be homosexual or not. I decide for myself what I find sexually stimulating at any given time. When we get down to it, an orgasm is an orgasm. Why do people have to be so obsessed with labels?


I don't think you can do that, except if you are borderline gay-straight, and therefore have a high chance of being bisexual. Actually, gayness can be tested with simple questionaires (as in the book *Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps* ), because being gay just mean having a brain like the other sex. So if you are a man but think and feel like a woman (good at fashion, good at listening to people's problems, more emotional than logical, poor sense of directions, etc.), you are surely gay. And it's not something you can change.

----------


## Glenn

But that's almost to say that there aren't gay men who are "manly" (like sports, don't care about fashion, etc.). There also seem to be some effiminate men who aren't gay.

----------


## Maciamo

> But that's almost to say that there aren't gay men who are "manly" (like sports, don't care about fashion, etc.). There also seem to be some effiminate men who aren't gay.


Of course, few straigth people are the perfect archetype of their sex too. Many women like sports (even boxing) and cars, and many straight men like cooking or having long baths. Rather than the interest people have, it is the way their barin work (how they solve problem, communicate, react emotionally, etc.) that give clues on someone's "brain gender", so as to determine whether they are (or could be) gay or not. The advantadge of these tests is that homosexuality can be detected in children before puberty and the rise of sexual desire.

A manly body does never determine one's gayness as the hormonal level that counts is that of the _mother during pregnancy_. So indeed many gay men can look very manly, sometimes even more than straight ones.

----------


## Fantt

Maciamo, do you have links for your research? I've heard stuff like that before, but it has usually been shown to either be inconclusive or of questionable quality. Either way, I'm still not sure why people care if being gay is a choice or not.

By your definition of homosexuality, were the samurai gay or did they just like having sex with boys because that's all they could get? The same question could be asked about many of the more sexually repressed Islamic countries where (supposedly) non-homosexual same sex copulations occur.

I think that most people who feel that sexual orientation is a simple binary switch (trinary for bisexuals I guess) which can't be changed once set are fooling themselves. Imprinting in humans is very strong, but there are ways to remove any imprint. Just as others have discussed about very strong physical/emotional triggers, altered consciousness caused by drugs or meditation will also suffice for changing mental states.

There are those who are able to change their mental states at will, going from straight to gay, Republican to Democrat, atheist to pious Christian at the drop of the hat. I personally have some experience with this, though I'm not all that skilled at it yet. there are also those who claim that such distinctions are all illusions and simply stand in the way of reality. I have some experience with that as well.  :Laughing:

----------


## bossel

> I think that most people who feel that sexual orientation is a simple binary switch (trinary for bisexuals I guess) which can't be changed once set are fooling themselves.


Quite a good point actually.
But just as with human races, a missing clear borderline does not mean that there are no distinctions. The borderline may be blurry, but the further away from the borderline (IE the less bi-sexual you are) the clearer the distinction is.

Human beings are not binary (or trinary), not everything is black or white. There is a lot of grey.

----------


## Fantt

> Human beings are not binary (or trinary), not everything is black or white. There is a lot of grey.


It's just a whole lot easier, less taxing on the brain, and a lot more comforting if you view everything as black and white. Sadly, most people choose not to think for themselves and just latch onto an alpha male to tell them what to do and what to think. 

Mooooooo!

----------


## The AnteLyfe

I am against gay marriage in the united states not because I am against gays but because I think it would cause tremendous problems for their children if they were to adopt some (as a few people have already mentioned here). I think the problem is that our society is still not completely accepting of gays, and because of this any child who has two mothers or two fathers will be the constant target of laughter and ridicule throughout their young elementary school life. Elementary school is really the first (official) situation where a child has to meet other children his/her age and learn how to mingle, and at that young age such constant teasing (when a child doesn't understand the concept that those years are quick and fleeting) can be extremely detrimental to their social growth and development. Of course, this wouldn't happen if our society were more tolerant of gays, but I think there are other steps we need to take to ensure tolerance before we just let loose 100% and allow gay marriage.

----------


## Sr Pasta

> Well ok since I work at a zoo I know animals can be gay. I know female goats who are confused and try to mate with other females. These gay female goats think they are male.



Or maybe they're just not strictly heterosexual? Why do you believe they are 'confused'?

Genetically, it doesn't have to be very complicated. If noone cares who they have sexual relationships with, the end result will still be a steady stream of little babies. Evolution doesn't have to choose between hetero- and homosexuality: there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality. 

Greek society shows that's our genes makes it fully possible to make us all forget about strict heterosexuality. If puritanism is "natural", why does it need laws for people to follow it? Unless you believe in Satan, which is quite a medieval concept, these laws should be quite unnecessary.

----------


## bossel

> Genetically, it doesn't have to be very complicated. If noone cares who they have sexual relationships with, the end result will still be a steady stream of little babies. Evolution doesn't have to choose between hetero- and homosexuality: there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality.


Actually, it's not quite so easy. There is a certain evolutionary advantage if you concentrate you reproductive efforts where they have the greatest probability of success. If you waste your energy on sex without reproductive success, you have less chance of spreading your genes.
If you look at Bonobos, you can see that a rather ambiguous sex life doesn't need to be disadvantageous for a species. But, well, how many species are as ambiguous? As I said, not so easy.

----------


## Sr Pasta

The key point is _strict_ heterosexuality. Having sex doesn't necessarily "waste your energy" very much - at least not more than playing around in other ways does. 

Non-reproductive sex is very common among animals, and the variety of sexuality is wide:
http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/ho...homosexuality/

----------


## Fantt

I think animals mating (or attempting to mate) with dead animals and animals which aren't of their own species (horse + donkey == mule ) is relatively common as well. I think anyone who looks at the actual behavior of other animals would have a difficult time saying that homosexuality is an unnatural animal behaviour. However, I'd guess people can believe whatever they'd like from their religious faith. The only problem with that is when they feel they have to enforce their own religious beliefs on other using coercion.

----------


## Japanimaniac

I'm for gay marriage, but I do see a flaw in the "animal homosexuality" argument. Animals (as in, non-human) do not make a conscious decision about "I want to mate with a male". At least, not as far as anyone can tell. They simply mate with what they see because they're...uumm..."happy".

Example? I own two male guinea pigs, and for the longest time the one tended to...how should I put this..."enjoy the other's head". It wasn't because he consciously knew what he was doing, it was because he was in the moment.

----------


## Sr Pasta

> I'm for gay marriage, but I do see a flaw in the "animal homosexuality" argument.


I didn't intend to say "Animals aren't heterosexual, therefore all marriages should be allowed." Animals do all sorts of stuff, some that definitely should be considered criminal for humans. Killing each other for example. 

I do believe the sexual variations among animals means the arguments of heterosexuality as something "natural" are wrong though.

----------


## bossel

> The key point is _strict_ heterosexuality. Having sex doesn't necessarily "waste your energy" very much - at least not more than playing around in other ways does. 
> 
> Non-reproductive sex is very common among animals, and the variety of sexuality is wide:
> http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/ho...homosexuality/


To quote your original message again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& that's simply not as easy as you put it. Evolutionary there is a certain advantage for heterosexual animals. Having non-reproductive sex is a waste of energy & time, unless there are other advantages earnt through it (as in the case of Bonobos: social coherence).

To say that non-reproductive sex is very common is quite misleading. It occurs, but "very common"? Nope. Just because someone has seen male frogs mating male frogs doesn't mean those are homosexual. You have to differentiate.

Anyway, this whole "natural"-argument is crappy for both sides. Natural doesn't mean that something has to occur in more than one species. Certain traits can evolve in just one species & yet it would be natural. Hence heterosexuality & homosexuality both are natural, whether occurring only in humans or in other species as well.

----------


## Sr Pasta

> To say that non-reproductive sex is very common is quite misleading. It occurs, but "very common"? Nope. Just because someone has seen male frogs mating male frogs doesn't mean those are homosexual. You have to differentiate.


Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you. 




> Having non-reproductive sex is a waste of energy & time, unless there are other advantages earnt through it (as in the case of Bonobos: social coherence).


So is playing around with a bone. And still, dogs do it all the time. Call it training - why wouldn't sexuality need training? Or you could just say that it's evolutionary beneficial to have some strong urges - to run around, to play with things, to have sex - even though these urges will often be a waste of energy.

I see very little evolutionary reason to go from a tendency to heterosexuality to strict heterosexuality. Homosexual relations are no more a "waste of energy" then masturbation.

----------


## ragedaddy

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, that is strictly their business and not mine. They can go do what they want to do, and that is cool with me. Many argue that being gay is a choice, but I still think that people are born with what types they are attracted to, and so I'd say it has a little to do with being biological. I know that I am not attracted to guys, and there is no possible way for me to be like that, because I have no desire or passion for this type. Therefore, I do not have opposition toward gay people and their rights. I especially oppose a constitutional ban on this, because the constiution should not be manipulated. If states want to ban these types of marriage, then that's their choice, but don't bring the constitution into this. 

I guess the question is why fight it? I mean look at before, when interracial marriages were looked upon as being the eptiome of wrongfulness. That finally became an obsolete observation. The gay population keeps increasing, and so you can only freeze their rights for so long. You can say it's wrong, and that the sanctity of marriage should be preserved, but what is marriage anyways? I see it as a union of two people who want to be exclusive to each other until the day they die. I am a Catholic myself, but I don't agree with everything the bible says. It all comes back to a person being born that way, and so that is my opinion.

----------


## Maciamo

> Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.


Not to mention heterosexual sex with condom, pill or other contraception method.

----------


## bossel

> Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.


How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?




> So is playing around with a bone. And still, dogs do it all the time. Call it training - why wouldn't sexuality need training? Or you could just say that it's evolutionary beneficial to have some strong urges - to run around, to play with things, to have sex - even though these urges will often be a waste of energy.


Dogs are a bad example since they have been messed with for ages.
BTW, playing actually serves a purpose in nature, but again even here you have to differentiate.




> I see very little evolutionary reason to go from a tendency to heterosexuality to strict heterosexuality.


To quote your original message yet again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& again I say it's not as easy as you put it. You can keep hammering on your "strict" heterosexuality point as much as you want, it doesn't get easy. You need to differentiate.

----------


## Japanimaniac

> I didn't intend to say "Animals aren't heterosexual, therefore all marriages should be allowed." Animals do all sorts of stuff, some that definitely should be considered criminal for humans. Killing each other for example. 
> 
> I do believe the sexual variations among animals means the arguments of heterosexuality as something "natural" are wrong though.


No, not at all. I didn't mean to imply that that you meant that. I was just making an argument that I know someone who opposes homosexuality would eventually make. Putting the theory that your sexual orientation is programmed at birth aside for a second, humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.

----------


## Sr Pasta

> How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?


Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.

There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).




> To quote your original message yet again:
> "there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
> & again I say it's not as easy as you put it.


Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't. 

The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.




> ...humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.


Hehe, yep, you're right. But the question is, do they ever _plan_ to go find a mate of the opposite sex?

----------


## bossel

> Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.


Ah, Bagemihl. Sadly, his book is not available in any of the local libraries (not too surprising, from the reviews I read). He, too, makes a too simple case of it. Eg. just because 2 male swans together bring up their kids, doesn't mean that they are homosexual. Sorry, again, it's not that easy.

If I'm correctly informed, he quotes some 40 species as having something like what you'd probably call strict homosexuality. 40, hmm... There are 1.5m known animal species, perhaps millions of unknown. 40 of 1.5m is not what I would call the norm. Even if you take the 450 of the website you quoted before, it's still far from that.

Since I haven't found any references, could you provide me with some examples of masturbating animal species & with the number of species that allegedly do it? Same goes for oral sex.




> There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).


Strict heterosexuality has to be proved? Since it is assumed the norm & there are only few counter examples, I can't see why that should be so. You want to show that it's not the norm, then you have to prove that a majority of animal species differs.




> Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't.


It's not so easy because you have to look at the circumstances under which allegedly homosexual behaviour occurs.




> The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.


For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it.
Another argument is that homosexuality needs to spread the related genes. If you don't have offspring there is no such spread. & again this is a point which shows that it's not as easy as you picture it, since different species have different survival strategies & you have to look at the specific circumstances to see if a behaviour is homosexual & if so, how the behaviour survives into the next generation.


BTW, I can't really see the point in this argument, since it's completely unrelated to gay marriage. What's more, as I already said, it's a crappy argument for both sides of the "morality" discussion.

----------


## No-name

I'm not certain I understand the logic of bringing up animal behavior here. We are not mice or swans or fruit flies or monkeys. Animal behavior does not justify human behavior or should it relate to the rules we write for our societies. Animals do all kinds of strange things. Some animals consume their dead. Many abandoned their own young or kidnap the young of others. Most animals are not monagamous and don't have "marriage." Animals have been known to kill members of their own species (eg. cats kill the offspring of rivals, chimpanzees kill infants from other clans...) My dog likes to lick himself... 

Morality, ethics, behavior, and nature are all separate things. Because something is natural does not make it moral. Because a behavior exists does not make it ethical. Because something is "normal" does not make it moral. Morality is more about the social, political, cultural, and religious constructs of a society. I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.

I think we are all big people here. Each community should decide on their own what a marriage is and who it involves. This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions. In large communities of gay people, like we have in West Hollywood and San Francisco, I think this provides a better sense of stability and fosters stronger community.

----------


## bossel

Right on, Sabro! But I can't withhold myself from commenting on 2 things.




> I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.


Morality actually is related to genetics. Frans de Waal has written some good stuff about morality in non-human animals (you should have a look at it). 
But human morality is highly flexible, dependent on culture, character, mood aso. Non-human morality is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Hence we have to find solutions in regard to our circumstances. I would always take the stance "equal rights to everybody" & everything is allowed as long as nobody is hurt against their will. Long live the ZAP!




> This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions.


But wouldn't that go against one of our cultures' most important principles: equal rights?
Polygamy is another interesting example of denied rights.

----------


## Sr Pasta

Sorry, double post.

----------


## Sr Pasta

I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more. This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy _because_ they couldn't earn any advantage through it." 

Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption. 

Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious. It's an idea for people who firmly believe that the concepts of their current cultural environment (and not say, ancient Greece) forms the basis of how evolution works. But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.

Sabro: If you try reading the posts, you'll see we agree that animal behaviour is not a reason to form laws. Though many people believe so. Misconceptions of what is natural often forms a part of peoples moral beliefs.

----------


## No-name

Agreed and agreed again. RE: morality and human behavior.
I read the posts, and they seem to miss a basic foundational argument. Fruitfly morality, swan morality and bird migratory patterns shouldn't have anything to do with marriage laws.

We do have laws prohibiting sex and marriage between close relatives, minors, and pets. (They're on the books in many states.) As well as prohibitions against homosexuality and polygamy. There does seem to be a movement to trace the behavioral evolution of taboo's back to some kind of natural selection process. i don't have sources in front of me, but I read somewhere that people have taken Claude Levi-Strauss' work and extrapolated all kinds of moral theory from it. These theories are beyond me, but These taboos would seem to be based upon some natural law especially since they make good genetic sense in some cases, but I think again that intelligent adults can get together and make good laws.

----------


## bossel

> I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more.


Then why do you?




> This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy _because_ they couldn't earn any advantage through it."


Too bad that you don't understand it. Maybe your English is even worse than mine.




> Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption.


Wrong. Heterosexual behaviour has been observed over & over again. Homosexual behaviour only occasionally.




> Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious.


I don't, most scientists don't. It's still an open question, but if it's not directly linked to our genes, there is at least an indirect link. Evolution in either case has an influence.




> But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.


How do you know? Most behaviour is somehow influenced by our genes, hence evolution can't be ruled out at least as a partial cause. Our brain is simply an organ, our mind a bodily function. Evolution plays a role in our thinking, in our morals, in our behaviour, wherever.

----------


## Japanimaniac

I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle...?

----------


## forkagentsmith

first off...some religions werent started by man 
Christianity and Judaism are based on facts given to us by the one true God
i believe(take it for what it is worth) that this country was founded on Christian morals and that that is the only way it will stand
allowing gay marriages to be legal would start corruption of the government
i am not treading on anyones pursuit of happiness 
i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion

----------


## BamaFan2989

wow, if you don't know already I know forkagentsmith personally, because he lives right down the road from me, and we play poker and study Japanese together.

I used to think the same way as forkagentsmith, but I am starting to think/realize/believe that we shouldn't get in the way of their rights. They should have the same rights. I also now understand that just because I believe something that it doesn't make it "right" to EVERYONE. I have found that out the hard way too.

And in your post you show some selfishness with the statement:
"i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion"
Well it can't always be about OUR beliefs and OUR religion. We don't have to make everyone believe what we believe, but as being a Christian it is about telling them about the Gospel, Jesus Christ, and what we believe, and let God take over from there... 

Anyway there is much more but I am hungry lol.... so til the next post...

Ja

----------


## Japanimaniac

BamaFan, that has to be the smartest and most enlightened thing I have read about religion on this forum since I joined. Very, very well put.

----------


## BamaFan2989

Thanks. I take things too sarcastic... but I will believe you hehe. ^_^

----------


## Japanimaniac

Na, wasn't being sarcastic.  :Cool:  It's the only post I've read from a religious person's point of view that actually said "our way may not be the right way for everyone else" (at least, as far as I can remember).

----------


## BamaFan2989

Yeah, that was a fast reply... Thanks. Yeah I was just about to edit my post. I don't know exactly yet what I believe. I started a thread about that somewhere, but maybe there should be ..... a comprimise, or is it only Christianity, or is the religion thing just a fantasy... I dunno yet, but I hope to find out. 

In that case, what do you think "Truth" is? I have been trying to find that out for awhile now.... I am not sure if Christianity is right, if it's all fake, or there is no God... you know all the possibilities.....  :Clueless: 


until then....  :Ramen:  lol

----------


## Japanimaniac

Lol, yeah, instant e-mail notification let's me reply quicker. ^.^"

And though it's not exactly the thread to get into this subject, I'll let you know that I believe in the possibility of anything. I don't put my faith into any one thing, but I don't discredit it as false. There could be one, all mighty God, or Zeus and Hera could be sitting on a mountain laughing at all of humanity. I'm pretty confident in science, though, so there'd have to be overwhelming evidence to push me towards an actual "religion". I guess you just never know.  :Smiling:

----------


## BamaFan2989

I can see what you mean....

----------


## bossel

Genes influencing male homosexuality identified 
Quote:
"They identified sequences of DNA related to sexual orientation in three separate chromosomes

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The researchers analyzed the genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
[...] 
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.""

Still a long way to go, but at least science shows progress.

----------


## seasurfer

First of all, I think it is ok for gays to get married, why not? As long as they love each other, and those involved parties consent...then let them do what they want. Others should not have any right to object. They are the one living their lives, not thoes who object.

Just wondering, a gay couple adopts a child, whose surname should that child follow?

How does that child call their parents? Call them both daddy? or...

Sorry, I don't know any gay couple with a child...However, I am quite interested in knowing their lifestyle. Can anyone kindly tell me?

----------


## Moon Child

George Bush, is a very arrogant president. I do not like him, I think that he is trying to push his religious beliefs on the entire nation. Which is wrong, and against his own. Not everyone believes Gay & lesbian's are evil demons trying to corrupt the world. I for one am one of them who don't believe the same as him.

----------


## Shooter452

I hear about the "seperation of church and state" all the time. That is despite the fact IIRC that there is *no such doctrine* written into the US Constitution or in any codified law of the Federal government. Look it up, boys and girls. 

It is a doctrine based soley on opinions of many jurists in the United States of America, but not in any precendent of which I am aware. It may be on the books in different states (I dunno know, but I doubt it because cases are always being argued--more correctly threatened to be argued--in Federal courts) but not with the Feds.

Nevertheless, assuming its existance, why are we arguing at all? Marriage is a institution native to religions. Civil unions--as opposed to marriages--are available to homosexual and lesbian couples already in many states. Why is the issue of marriage important? It is not a civil liberties issue in the states that permit civil unions, and that is a fight that everyone could win in each and every state north of Virginia and west of Nevada. So why does the fight over marriage go on?

I dunno, but I have my own carefully guarded opinions. Don't ask...won't tell ya! Put it to music, the answer is the same.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

_Dura lex, sed lex_

----------


## alexriversan

marriage allows these ***** to adopt/grow up children/to have those around at home legally.

marriage is defined as to establish a bond to secure the act of growing up children. cheers.

christianity votes for itself. not that the bishops love underage persons. NO. HOW THEY DO IT. THIS MAKES ME ANGRY.

nothing more to say. abolish the discussion.

annull these marriages and fine the registrars. ban the bishops and close down their houses. 

i know these words are hatred, but it is a shame for america.

imagine HULK flirts with little boys and buys them sweets. are you getting sick? *and hulk is not that narrowminded.*

for those who need explanations: this would set up a bad example, and put america in the situation of getting a military attack target.

spongebob is O.K. as it is, as long as there are no insane crosses and churches in ghey colors.

take it easy. soap tastes good, but in a marriage cake? one meaing of this is we have enough soap opera.

----------


## Dutch Baka

Hello everybody

im sorry first off all, im not going to read 260 posts that would take me to long, so i just read the first 30..

my opinion about gay marriage, is that it should be legal... because, when a person love somebody male or female, the have should be able to life together, sometimes marriage is a fiancial thing, somtimes its just because of love and ceremony. who is a president, or other people to tell people what they should do or not do with there love one.... 

this is i think a verry serieus thread ( its in the serieus discussions duh) because for gay people its a really big problem, in many places in the world!!!

im happy to life in the netherlands, where we have lots of freedom with things like this, and opinions ( how ever saying your opinion is getting difficult here, after the murder of PIM FORTUIN, and movie maker THEO VAN GOGH)

In 2 months my mom is going to marry her girlfriend. before this my mom had some other lesbian relations, and im Happy for her a lott.... and also for her wife, whom i can get along really good!!!!

im happy that they can marry each other, also for fianancial reasons, and for example, if my mom dies her girlfriend have NO RIGHTS ON ANYTHING.....

so as i say in this, i dont have people around me that are against gay marriage, or anything like this.... but the last month a new problem came up and that is, that my japanese girlfriend her parents have a hard time to respect that... and her mom maby even want the rest of the familie not to know anything... 

it hurts me a lott, and even my girlfriend ....

i hope that in the future gay people will get more rights, and more respect, because there normal people like everybody else!!! so as i said before ... WHO THE **** IS A PRESIDENT TO DESIDE ABOUT PEOPLE THERE LIFE, IF ITS THIS PERSONAL!!!

greetings BAka dutch

----------


## isayhello

good rant Dutch Baka! I agree! Gay marriage should definitely become legal. Not letting people who love eachother marry one another when they want to is SICK and stupid! I don't get the people who are against gay marriage... *angry* (um, I have not bothered to read all the posts so I don't know what the oppinions are)

Sweden is a pretty liberated (is that right?) country, and we have these gay pride festivals and all - but Gay marriage is still forbidden.. I can't believe that. There are still too many people out there who are against homosexuality... *wants to fight with the ones who are against gay marriage*

You have a lesbian mother? Cool.. I've never met anyone with a lesbian mother.  :Cool:

----------


## Dutch Baka

> Sweden is a pretty liberated (is that right?) country, and we have these gay pride festivals and all - but Gay marriage is still forbidden..


that is crazy yeah.. so they say : SURE YOU GAY PEOPLE CaN HAVE PARTIES AND THAT KIND OF THINGS, NO PROBLEM...

ow you want to get married,,,mmm no im gay people are not allowed to get married in here....

i think btw,, just my personal opinion gay people are pretty nice, and funny, at least the once i know!!!

thanks for your sharring opinion isayhello

----------


## EnzoHonda

I'm just jumping in here to give my opinion, then I'll flee to the shadows:

The only problem with gay marriage is... that people have a problem with gay marriage. This is only an issue because people have made it an issue. Nothing bad happens in places where gay marriage is legalized. The Netherlands didn't implode and Canada hasn't fallen into the sea. Everyone just take a moment to imagine what would actually happen if all gay couples on the planet were allowed to marry. What happens? Nothing. Just a whole bunch of happy gay people.

----------


## alexriversan

it might be the fate of christianity.

remarkable a system of belief (one superhero died for a community of people)
introduced by the ROMANS.

for the purpose of establish heterosexual bonds, for the purpose of childbirth.

the romans HAD orgies, baths, wine, sexual freedom. and fate.

not to say i am not a christ, because i do not like wine/painful death glorification.

means the discussion is not affecting me and i should not contribute.
well and i am not living in america.

----------


## Dutch Baka

> Everyone just take a moment to imagine what would actually happen if all gay couples on the planet were allowed to marry. What happens? Nothing. Just a whole bunch of happy gay people.


  :Bravo:   :Bravo:   :Bravo:   :Bravo:

----------


## alexriversan

imagine a world of people which are not narrowminded.
no need to be ghey anymore.

----------------

or to increase taxes for all (no more tax reductions for families)
or to decrease taxes for all (tax reductions for families no more required)

----------------

probably you can read the biography of this politican:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonaldWilsonReaganOnline/
and get an answer yourself. he was the predecessor of bush/clinton.

----------


## alexriversan

well i have edited my reply and reduced the NEGATIVE speak.
to show some piety now that the pope has deceased.
a message to the church of christus: underage choir OR this marriage.

not both things.
it lacks seriousity, remember the church is also responsible for birth and burial.

four couples whatever composition, they do not really need marriage. it is just to have a little financial advantage, and to adopt children legally.

----------


## Dutch Baka

I think to Adopt children LEGAL is a Verry important thing !!! and the Financial advantage ( as you call it advantage) is important...

my mom is a lesbien, and have a g/f who lives her... that g/f here live is in this house... if my mom dies ... that g/f DOESNT HAVE ANYHING,, she wont be able to live in this house,, ( neither do i...) so i think its B-sh*t about LITTLE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE... and getting married is a big think!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## alexriversan

*in japan, it is expected a man enters permanent relationship with a woman. if this does not occur after the age of 35, people consider this as almost unlikely.*

polite how they are, they offer assistance and ask friendly, but sometimes suggestive. at least a formal marriage is entered.
this is economic for all parties.

an unequal relationship can be considered as "hetero", by the word meaning.
of course, english brings gender into play, so you use it wrong.
another example how wrong speak generates "spook" and "abberation".

----------


## Silverbackman

I am not anti-gay or anything, I in fact have gay friends. However the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion is a stupid question. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is no way around it. Saying a homosexual couple is marriage is like saying a construction worker is a fireman. A police officer is a police officer and a construction worker is a construction worker, there is no way around it. Mariage is a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is how it has always been. I don't however mind if gays have the same econmical rights straight couples do in a civil union as long as it is not called marriage, because it is not marriage.

----------


## Silverbackman

> George Bush, is a very arrogant president. I do not like him, I think that he is trying to push his religious beliefs on the entire nation. Which is wrong, and against his own. Not everyone believes Gay & lesbian's are evil demons trying to corrupt the world. I for one am one of them who don't believe the same as him.


Is he? All he did is say his mind on the issue and never enforced nothing. Is it not his right to freedom of speech? Especially considering he is our leader.

Where did Bush ever say that gays and lesbains are evil demons? Again you are doing something what many liberals, do putting people in boxes of disagree with you. I am against gay marriage, and I don't think gays are demons nor do I follow a religion.

----------


## Dutch Baka

> I am not anti-gay or anything, I in fact have gay friends. However the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion is a stupid question. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is no way around it. Saying a homosexual couple is marriage is like saying a construction worker is a fireman. A police officer is a police officer and a construction worker is a construction worker, there is no way around it. Mariage is a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is how it has always been. I don't however mind if gays have the same econmical rights straight couples do in a civil union as long as it is not called marriage, because it is not marriage.



So if you gay friends say to you, were getting married, you wont accept that? 

thats bit strange for me... maybe its the place if been born, and raised ( already before i knew my mom was gay) .

for me, this thing like marriage is man-wife, i think thats a bit old fashion... but yeah, everybody there opinion.

just being a child of a gay, makes it hard sometimes, when people cant accept such a thing as this....  :Sad:  

sorry i just think you are a bit Double... you accept your friends because there gay, but not there marriage? am i right?  :Doubt:

----------


## Silverbackman

> So if you gay friends say to you, were getting married, you wont accept that? 
> 
> thats bit strange for me... maybe its the place if been born, and raised ( already before i knew my mom was gay) .
> 
> for me, this thing like marriage is man-wife, i think thats a bit old fashion... but yeah, everybody there opinion.
> 
> just being a child of a gay, makes it hard sometimes, when people cant accept such a thing as this....  
> 
> sorry i just think you are a bit Double... you accept your friends because there gay, but not there marriage? am i right?


If the friends that I have that are gay get married, my freindship would not change whatsoever. All I would say is that I am against what he is doing but I would be cool with it, just so long as the my gay friend doesn't let it come between our friendship.

Again though, liberals seem to put everyone that is against gays getting marriage into a box. They say that being against gays getting married means you think gays are demons from hell that need to be killed. No I don't hate gays but I do love logic and truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just like a chair is a chair, a lion is a lion, a planet is a planet, ect. ect. The word marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. There is no way around it. You don't have to have to hate gays to support the word marriage is between a man and a woman.

----------


## bossel

> but I do love logic and truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


That's neither very logic, nor true. There are even places in the world where some girls traditionally got (get?) married to dogs.  :Poh:  




> The word marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.


Ah, now, that's closer to the truth. You follow a certain definition of the word marriage, but that doesn't mean that others have to follow the same definition.

----------


## Sensuikan San

If two guys or two gals want to get married....

...is it _really_ going to ruin my day ?

I think not.

W

----------


## marcus314

Is it REALLY that important to be "married?" Homosexual marriages do not bother me one bit, but here is my humble take on this issue.

How is your life going to be the different before or after marriage? Are you fighting for the right to simply go through the wedding ceremony? After the ceremony, it is not going to be very much different than if you are co-habitating with your partner.

With the divorce rates so high these days, I think that marriage is merely a piece of certificate rather than an insurance for you and your partner's relationship......

I think I am simply going against the concept of marriage....rather than homosexual marriage.......

I am open to any criticism.....

^_^

----------


## Kama

Still, some people wish to be married. Homosexuals also. Why deny them what others can have?

----------


## misa.j

I hardly see any relation between religion and gay people having the same rights as heterosexual people. Things get complicated when people bring up their beliefs which sometimes distort you from rational thinking. 

This should not be an issue, everyone must have the equal rights.

----------


## Revenant

This was an issue only meant to put Bush back in office as I see it, and it succeeded. 

The religious people, most of them, like most of all people, don't think through things carefully enough. 

The main objective of Christianity, is to win others over to salvation, so they too may have eternal life, and not go onto their second death (spoken of in Revelations, and as I read it, no eternal suffering).

It would work far better, if first a gay was won over to the faith, and then gave up part of his/her lifestyle for the faith out of desire.

But by imposing laws based on Christianity alone, those who feel forced to follow a law they don't agree with, will naturally feel angry, as it's just a normal human mechanism for people who feel forced to get angry. And as people do, they then attach negative emotions to Christianity, and so are driven away from the faith, as are so many others who are witness to this.

Two arguments against those Christians that would ban same sex marriage,

Freedom of religion would be under no threat, in either Canada or America, as the churches have the full right to refuse anyone a marriage ceremony.

Allowing same sex marriage isn't destroying the sanctity of marriage, as that was done long ago, according to Christian belief, when divorce became a common and accepted practice. Jesus said that anyone who divorces a woman causes her to commit adultery, and any who marry the divorced woman would also be guilty of adultery. That's just the beginning of the arguments.

Two arguments against common liberal attacks.

Disagreement with the gay lifestyle doesn't equal hate. I can disagree morally with an action my friend took, but not hold any negative feelings against him.

Suggesting abstinence as a viable option for a gay-convert isn't suggesting the impossible. How are the homosexual and the heterosexual different, besides being attracted to the same or opposite sex? Sexual urges are just that, desires, and even a most basic urge, is controllable. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and a host of other people are testament to this. Also, that one should never beat oneself up for having a desire arise, but simply refocus, as that is the healthier way, then saying, "I am evil for having these desires". Common sense really.

I am a Christian, but would not vote against same sex marraige, nor would either condone, nor condemn same sex marriage, as there are strong arguments that the Levitical laws were cancelled in verses such as Colossians 2:14, and that the verses speaking against homosexuality in the new testament are actually mistranslations. I don't have any knowledge of greek, or latin, and it's not an issue that I must make a personal choice on. I will therefore let the gay-convert look at both sides of the arguments, within the Christian world, and come to his own conclusions. There are homosexuals on both sides of the argument with the Christian world.

----------


## alexriversan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050515/..._marriage_poll

this is from AP / YAHOO!, two hours ago

----------


## Dutch Baka

as this thread is about the Gay Marriage, im happy to pronounce that This next Thursday my mom is going to have her Wedding with her, yes yes yes with her GIRLFRIEND!!!!! 

its going to be a nice party!! ( should be .. im the dj... ( i go crazy... first time i do this...) , and im really happy for my mom, and her girlfriend!!!

LONG LIVE THE GAY MARRIAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT AND NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Sensuikan San

Congratulations, Dutch Baka !

*Would you please be so kind as to extend my sincerest best wishes to the Happy Couple?
*
This whole deal as to wether gay couples should be "allowed" to commit themselves to each other, or wether or not common law marriage is "right" or "wrong" simply _disgusts_ me.

Everybody has their own life. Everybody has their own love. Most of us do not interfere or want a say, or want to control anothers life. I certainly want nobody to try to control_ my_ life !

Let's all get on living _our own_ lives - dammit ! They're short enough, anyway !

Best Regards,

W

----------


## Dutch Baka

thanks Sensuikan san!!! i will give my wishes to them!!!!

there will always be a group of people that will be picked on like this!!! were there any problems in the greek time about this???

----------


## Kara_Nari

Yes dutch baka, congratulations :)
At least there are countries that acknowledge and accept gay couples out there. Then there are always going to be the rednecks that oppose... Im all for the 'so what let them do what they want' In some of the situations im sure that they have put up with a lot to get to where they are now, so they would deserve to marry, or join in civil union. I know it made lots of NZ gay couples happy when they brought in the Civil Union.

----------


## Kama

Congratulations to your Mum, Dutch baka. :)

----------


## Dutch Baka

thank you all  :Laughing:  after the wedding i will post some pictures her if you guys would like!

----------


## Kama

yes, yes, please do so.  :Smiling: 

btw, have you seen "a me madre..." (I don't remeber the whole title) a film by Almodovar?

----------


## Dutch Baka

No, whats it about kama?

----------


## Kama

the full title means "my mother likes women"

mother tells her adult daughters that she's in love with a girl. a girl is from Czech if I remember correctly, and the woman gave her art scholarship above all the other things. Daughters doesn't agree with this, and want to get rid of the girl. :P it's really weird and many things are mixed up together. great film.  :Smiling:

----------


## Dutch Baka

ow thanks, yes i will have a look for it!!!

a nice movie is F U C K I N G amal ( movie title!!!!!) look at http://www.*******-amal.com/ ( ***** is F U C K I N G ( without space)

nice swedish movie about high school girl, !!

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PORN MOVIE

----------


## Kala

I don't know if anyone cares, but the name (in spanish) is "a mi madre le gustan las mujeres", it's not actually a film by almodovar, it's of two spanish women, but 'tell' (not sure that's the correct word-_-UU) in the almodovar's way....just comenting  :Bluush:   :Bluush:

----------


## Ma Cherie

I'm late in this thread, of course. I hope I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but please just grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. For one, I am sick of hearing about this issue. And two, it's getting on my nerves the way some researchers are coming up with reports that if children are more likely to be sexually abused growing up in gay/lesbian parents than heterosexual ones. (That's only if those couples want to adopt children).

----------


## Kama

> I don't know if anyone cares, but the name (in spanish) is "a mi madre le gustan las mujeres", it's not actually a film by almodovar, it's of two spanish women, but 'tell' (not sure that's the correct word-_-UU) in the almodovar's way....just comenting



Thank you for correcting me.  :Smiling:  I wonder why I did that mistake.  :Laughing:  It really is told in Almodovar's style, maybe that's way. Anyway, that's a great film, worth watching.

----------


## alexriversan

"there is a fine line between love and hate" (IRON MAIDEN)

----------


## Dutch Baka

HELLO  :Wavey:  

Sooo yesterday my mom and her girl (woman from now on) got Married  :Wavey:   :Wavey:  

It was a really Beautifull day, they where being picked up by an old cadilac ( people stoped on the street to watch it what was really cool!!!! then we went to the city ward, there was a really beautifull ceremonie, ( i was the man of honor!!!  :Relieved:  ) then we had a party from 4 till 12... where i was the dj  :Relieved:  ( it was doing okay... so i can come to you next time KIrei!!!!!  :Wavey:  )

they got lots of presents, and it was just ABSOLUTLY amazing, how Happy the were, and how all the people react on everything....

most beautifull thing was that her ex-husband , my dad, was on the whole wedding all day!!!!!! 

i will show you peeps some pictures as soon as i have them!!!!!  :Wavey:  

and again thanks for all the best lucks!!!!!

----------


## kirei_na_me

Congratulations to dutch baka's mom and wife!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :Romance: 

May they have a long and happy life together!

Oh, and I'll be having a party July 1. Are you game?  :Poh:

----------


## Dutch Baka

first of july... yeah , i can be the Online dj for you darling hihi!!!!

thank you for the congratulations !!!!!

Here are some pictures of the wedding

1. from right to the left: Driver , cousin Robert ( crazy micheal jackson fan) my brother, me, and the chid of a friend of my mom her wife... Cayen... SOOO KAWAII)
 

2. my mom , Carolien (her wife) in the car with the 2 children... carolien is the woman left, and then my mom
 

3. in the city ward, just before the YES!!


4. at the party 
 

as i said it was a really great day, and i hope that in the future, it will be more easy for gay people to have Better rights, and will be less discriminated!!!

----------


## Kama

Congratulations for your mum once again. :)

They really look happy. Let them have a happy life.  :Laughing:

----------


## Maciamo

Little update; Canada has just legalised gay marriage (BBC News : Canadian MPs back gay marriages, and Spain is also planning to very soon (BBC News : Spain set to back gay marriages ). If Spain, one of Europe's most religious country does it, then others will probably follow (Scandinavia and France first I guess).

----------


## Dutch Baka

i thought Spain Rejected it around 1-2 weeks ago.....  :Doubt:

----------


## moffeltoff

Congratulations to your mother dutch ^^

Now my opinion on gay marriage:
I personally dont really care if gay people get married or not so why not let them ,if it makes them happy. =)

----------


## Kama

That's a good point of view, moffeltoff. :) I would like to see more people thinking like this.

What's your view on what lately happened in Berlin? (protest of German gays when Kaczynski went to Berlin) Do you think they should have protested about situation in Poland?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here is news:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/03/11/2

(Somebody please kill that fool ( -.-) )

----------


## moffeltoff

Well I think everyone should be able to express himself so if they want to protest let them protest, and although Im not affected by the more or less disrciminating way he deals with gays I still think ,that it shouldnt a possibuility for someone ,who isnt a democrat at heart ,which in this case means tolerating different perspectives, to become prime minister of any country.

----------


## Matiasu

I believe the government should approve any gay marriage, but it should be up to every priest whether he wishes to marry gay couples or not.

----------


## Aristander

I believe that gay couples should have exactly the same rights as anyone else. 
I think that they should have to suffer just as much as straight people!  :Grin:

----------


## LeBrok

LOL
I don't care much for this. Anyway the definition of marriage and family is changing and blending with common law, and often indistinguishable for tax purposes or divorce settlements.
If they marry or not it doesn't have much barring on rest of the society, therefore none issue in my books.

----------


## dmdiannemorales

In my own opinion, we should not judge other people decision and wants. If marriage with the sex makes them happy and fulfill their needs then let it be, though it's against the law.

----------


## Riccardo

They should have the same rights! I don't only make an ethical statement, but they pay taxes, they are citizens as everyone else. So YES, they should have the same rights...And it is something that should be acquired in 2011.

----------


## sparkey

> They should have the same rights! I don't only make an ethical statement, but they pay taxes, they are citizens as everyone else. So YES, they should have the same rights...And it is something that should be acquired in 2011.


<Devil's Advocate>So, they should have the same rights as everyone else... to marry someone of the opposite sex, yes?</Devil's Advocate>

----------


## Canek

I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

----------


## Riccardo

> <Devil's Advocate>So, they should have the same rights as everyone else... to marry someone of the opposite sex, yes?</Devil's Advocate>


Nope, just to marry someone they love.

----------


## LeBrok

> I feel it is wrong and should be banned.


Where there any gays in Aztec empire?

----------


## Antigone

I really don't care, gays are a minority in any population and there is far too much attention and importance given to this topic, especially when there are more pressing issues that should be addressed first.

----------


## Canek

> Where there any gays in Aztec empire?


i wasn't life by then... so i don't know. but if they existed they surely didn't get married.  :Rolleyes: 

i have no problems with homosexuals living togheter, btw... their lifes is not my bussiness.

but being married as any other normal couple? no, i think that's wrong. it's anti-natura. it established a wrong precedent.

----------


## Riccardo

So the question now is...When something is anti-natura and pro-natura?

I think the only criteria one should follow is that if they damage someone or not. And they don't. =)

----------


## Canek

pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
anti-natura = the opposite

----------


## sparkey

> pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
> anti-natura = the opposite


Ergo, infertile couples are "anti-natura" and should be banned from marriage. Thanks for clearing that up.

----------


## Canek

that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.

----------


## sparkey

> that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.


Not so much demagoguery as a logical deduction from your premise. You're going to need to redefine your premise to avoid that conclusion rather than just dismissing it. It could go something like:

pro-natura = a couple able to procreate or fitting a gender pattern that typically is able to procreate
anti-natura = opposite

It still seems like an arbitrary exception to me. Neither an infertile couple nor a gay couple can produce children by natural means. Why should society favor one over the other? All I can think of is that it comes from an instinctive reaction against the one that is perceived to be unnatural, whether it is or not...

Incidentally I would strip governments of the ability to authorize marriage licenses, allowing only civil unions. Civil unions could then support whatever arrangement among consenting adults that people can come up with. Nothing immoral there--just legal contracts. Marriages would then be the responsibility of the religious bodies.

----------


## Canek

ok, i will clarify mi first statement.

pro-natura marriage = a man and a woman.
anti-natura marriage = two persons of the same sex.

----------


## civillib

Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.

Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).

----------


## sparkey

> Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.
> 
> Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).


Exactly.  :Good Job:

----------


## Reinaert

I don't agree.
The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions. 
That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
But don't call it a marriage!

----------


## Aconform

When it comes to the state then they should be able to get married like any other couple. So that they don’t have legal problems like if something happens to one the other should be able to inherit.

But I don’t think that there should be a law that forces religious institutions to marry gay couples. That would be stepping on others rights.

----------


## sparkey

> I don't agree.
> The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!


That doesn't really make sense... the point of civil unions is for the state to recognize some sort of union. Basically, a legally-binding contract of some sort. So clearly we need the state to be there for civil unions. Although if you mean that it should be basically unrestricted as to who should be able to get a civil union, I agree.




> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
> I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions. 
> That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
> But don't call it a marriage!


OK, so you can declare from your perspective that gay marriages are not _real_ marriages because they do not fit your definition. And you can tell people who call gay marriages "marriages" that you think that. But it doesn't follow that there should be a _law_ to prevent people (or churches) from calling such a thing a "marriage," does it?

----------


## Reinaert

Well.. If you look at it in the cultural way, man and wife have some ceremony when they want to get married in every culture.
For the rest of the community to see, they are going to live together. In fact, that marriage even asks if anyone has an objection.
So, it's in a sense also an act of acceptance by the community.

Now what, if 2 people from the same sex wanted to get married. 
They would be the laughing stock of the community. 
In fact, it was done as a joke many times in European history.
Especially with carnival (mardi gras).

The problem arose, when the states in Europe took over the control over cultural habits.
In early European history the Church was accepted to marry people.
Later on, the state took over.
And now, we are facing the struggle between rational logic, and irrational feelings.

The state says, men and women are equal.
So, they were very fast to put military conscription for women into the refrigerator. 
Because it's not very popular, and it would cost them lots of votes.
The other way around, gay marriages are a subject that is accepted for the simple reason it produces votes.
Populism is government that isn't based on principles, but what some groups of people want.

In The Netherlands we have gay marriages, and if you ask people about it, most of them have no objection because they don't give a damn about it. But at the same time there is a discussion how to think about community secretaries that refuge to marry a gay couple. From that moment on, tolerance against a civil servant that is against gay marriages has disappeared!

So, in the general opinion civil servants are deprived from the rights and tolerance that normal citizens claim for themselves.!

Really, a strange way of thinking!

And in fact, this kind of situations you get, if the state tries to make more and more rules and laws.
It is getting a bigger mess every day.
It's like in the Arthur story, where Arthur in the end becomes the victim of his own laws.
A tragedy.

----------


## Carlitos

In my country that is Spain is accepted gay marriage, I accept the laws and I have no objection, except to be mad to marry.

----------


## Rastko Pocesta

Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - _I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples!_ No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.

----------


## Riccardo

> Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - _I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples!_ No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.


I totally agree. Societies are still fighting about this issue in 2011 (in Italy we don't neither have a law against homophoby), because most times homophoby hides homosexuality; that's why many people are anxious to show their homophoby and to limit the rights of people with a different sexuality.

----------


## Franco

In Spain homosexual marriages were legalised in 2005 if I recall well, but very few couples compared to total homosexual population (10% of total population according to some estimations), got married. This contradicts one of the arguments that one could hear back then in Spain in favor of gay marriages which was the big number of gays who were awaiting this law to marry. That simply didn't happen. I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time". In my opinion I don't mind gay marriages but I'm a bit more concerned aboug gay adoption. Every child should have a mother and a father, but I guess that if the only option is just one mother and no father , one father and no mother or a gay couple, then that's always better than being orphan. This is my sincere opinion, I hope homosexuals don't find it disrespectful.

----------


## PaschalisB

> I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time".


This is totally wrong and homophobic. It has nothing to do with being homosexual, I know lots of heterosexual men who do exactly the same as you say (have fun while you can and change your partner) and I also know homosexual couples who have been together for lots of years.

----------


## Taharqa

*Live and let live*. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

----------


## LeBrok

Though homosexuality turned to be genetic, it is a baffling question, why human homosexuality rate is much higher than any other mammals?
I think that the culprit is and was arranged marriage in combination with intolerant village communities. You wouldn't confess that you are gay in small conservative religious homophobic communities. Bulling and "accidental" death would come rather quickly. So you are trapped in a closet, parents arranged marriage, you have to agree, or otherwise you will not inherit anything. In rural scenario, not inheriting a field to plow, or herd to flock, it is pretty much a death sentence. 
Now, all family is expecting kids and making constant nagging and pressure,... I wonder how gays did this trick?
Well, maybe it wasn't so difficult, the night and room is very dark, you touching a soft young body (it's dark so you can't tell boy or girl, whatever lol), in your mind you see a naked handsome guy, the one you saw last summer working with hay without a shirt, ....and vuala, new gay is made. No really it's not that difficult, you see, a straight young herder can have sex with sheep if horny enough, so what's difficult with my gay example, lol.

I'm pretty sure that in free society, where gays are not forced to marriages and having kids, ration gay to straight will fall in coming generations, to be on par with other mammals.

----------


## Carlos

I do not think that homosexuality will disappear in future generations, on the contrary, I think it will increase. The seizure of power of women, the changing role of women in society towards an increasingly female character added to the abandonment of his pleasure in the only concern men to meet women will make more and more men seek freedom sex with men.

----------


## Riccardo

> *Live and let live*. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.


I think it's just a way to exorcise a fear. Many people just don't accept the possibility to be "different" and not accepted. This doesn't mean that they are all latent, but they fear it.

----------


## Brett142

Remember when the US and a lot of other countries didn't allow Black people to marry white people? You go ask a kid in British school these days and I bet you they wouldn't have even thought such laws existed. I think (and hope) that in the next couple of decades, especially in countries where gay people are equal in the law, kids will react the same when they learn two men or two women never used to be able to get married. 

Also, at least in the UK, non-acceptance of gay people 95% of the time tends to be a generational problem. People who are now in their 20s are generally not homophobic. Once all the oldies start dying off, their out-dated values dying with them, I think we'll see much wider acceptance of gay people.

----------


## Barrister

> *Live and let live*. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.


That's the issue, it's not confined only to the bedroom anymore. This gives rise to a whole new level of social and cultural issues.

----------


## toyomotor

> That's the issue, it's not confined only to the bedroom anymore. This gives rise to a whole new level of social and cultural issues.


I agree with the concept of so-called "Gay Marriage". Why should two people not be able to legally commit to each other? But Gay Marriage leads to a far more important area, that being the right of gay couples to adopt children. OK, so they can love their children as much as hetrosexual couples, but my view leans toward a child having parents, one of each gender, for the childs proper mental and sociological development.

----------


## LeBrok

> but my view leans toward a child having parents, one of each gender, for the childs proper mental and sociological development.


You are assuming that average heterosexual parents can do job raising kids better than average homosexual ones. Otherwise, do we have a proof?
Are you're concerned that homosexual parents can skew child sexuality? I'm sure they can't, it is hardwired in our genes. You can't say to the adolescent boy, "Look, here is a beautiful man, you have to like him, erect your penis now"? It just doesn't work this way. It is not a cultural phenomenon.

----------


## nordicwarrior

1. Government has no business telling a gay couple whether or not they can get "married".
2. Government has no business telling a heterosexual couple whether or not they can get married.
3. Government should stay out of marriage, period. It's not their concern.

That being said, I feel it's better for the child to have both a mother and a father. Biology has designed it like this... there must be valid reasons or advantages for having such a time tested arrangement.

Is polygamy going to be acceptable now? Where is the line? Can a man or woman "marry" another species? There has been a very clever word shift surrounding the term marriage. Can a person now "marry" a lawn chair? 

Altering word meaning, especially one as basic to society as marriage, does have far reaching repercussions.

----------


## LeBrok

> That being said, I feel it's better for the child to have both a mother and a father. Biology has designed it like this... there must be valid reasons or advantages for having such a time tested arrangement.


Biologically only man and women can have a child the natural way. The big question is if gays can raise adopted kids proper way, as good and valid members of society. I don't think there is science indicating otherwise.
Mostly people are against because it is not a traditional way. It is something new, and usually new scares people a lot.

----------


## ElHorsto

What scientifically to prove, actually that's the question. Do we need proof that it is harmless for the kids before we allow gay parenting, or do we need proof that it is harmful before we forbid gay parenting?

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Mostly people are against because it is not a traditional way. It is something new, and usually new scares people a lot.


This "gay" thing really isn't new. Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.

I have no problem with two adults doing whatever they want to each other (or three adults-- however they float their boat)... but when kids are brought into the picture, we are talking about a different situation.

Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth.

----------


## Luan

I personally don't agree with it. To me, its between man and women.

----------


## hope

> =nordicwarbler;408005]This "gay" thing really isn't new.


This is true, there are proofs from different times in history that show not only that but also, same sex partnerships existed. For example Nero is said to have married two different men.





> Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father.


To the best of my knowledge NW studies on children raised by same sex parents show they are no more prone to psychological problems than those raised by different sex parents.
In my opinion a child raised in a loving and secure environment will benefit from this, regardless of the sex of parents.

----------


## hope

> You are assuming that average heterosexual parents can do job raising kids better than average homosexual ones. Otherwise, do we have a proof?
> Are you're concerned that homosexual parents can skew child sexuality? I'm sure they can't, it is hardwired in our genes. .


Good points, LeBrok. There are less studies on gay parents than lesbian parents, however on both, it seems children suffer no more or less than those raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers.
Also we should note, the majority of gay or lesbian people were raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers, which did not influence them to be heterosexual. Likewise, why should being raised by same sex parents result in a child being gay or lesbian?

----------


## LeBrok

> This "gay" thing really isn't new. Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.


Do we have ancient records telling us how they raised their kids? Well then, this is new and scary.





> Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth.


 Again, how do you know that they fare better in comparison with two loving fathers or mothers scenario?

----------


## LeBrok

> Also we should note, the majority of gay or lesbian people were raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers, which did not influence them to be heterosexual. Likewise, why should being raised by same sex parents result in a child being gay or lesbian?


Sometimes when busy looking into the details we miss the obvious. Thanks for bringing it up.

What? Heterosexual parents are not perfect either?! (sarcasm)

----------


## Barrister

> *This "gay" thing really isn't new.* Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.
> 
> I have no problem with two adults doing whatever they want to each other (or three adults-- however they float their boat)... but when kids are brought into the picture, we are talking about a different situation.
> 
> Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth.


I agree, but did ancient gays actually live their entire lives gay? Or did they fool around with men, and then marry women to procreate??

The difference is, many gays today want to live their entire lives gay in marriage to another gay, and then artificially bring children into the mix.

'Gay' has become something much more than just sexual preference. It's become an entire cultural and social identity and a movement.

----------


## LeBrok

> 'Gay' has become something much more than just sexual preference. It's become an entire cultural and social identity and a movement.


Well put, Barrister.

----------


## LeBrok

> I agree, but did ancient gays actually live their entire lives gay? Or did they fool around with men, and then marry women to procreate??
> 
> The difference is, many gays today want to live their entire lives gay in marriage to another gay, and then artificially bring children into the mix.


It might be a definition of free societies. Gays were always amongst us, coming out off closets only during times of personal liberty, personal safety.
There were no gays during middle or dark ages, or pretty much till 20th century. It is still hard to be openly gay in small European of American villages, ...village justice is always close by...around the corner.

----------


## Nobody1



----------


## hope

> 



Nobody 1,I`m not at all sure what point you are trying to make here by posting this clip of a television series. Do you perhaps have concerns regarding "dogs"?

----------


## Nobody1

> Nobody 1,I`m not at all sure what point you are trying to make here by posting this clip of a television series. Do you perhaps have concerns regarding "dogs"?


its just a clip, dont take it too seriously.
and since its Tony Soprano, not a scientist or politician, me posting this clip was just a joke; obviously you didnt get it; too bad

On a serious note, since all western societies have established that all their citizens are equal no matter what gender or what race, now its time for the 3rd dimension: no matter what sexuality.
And since science has taken a clear stand that homosexuality is not a choice but given by birth, should be no problem to give them all the equal rights.

But that does raise the question why dog effers and incestus siblings are excluded.

----------


## hope

> me posting this clip was just a joke; obviously you didnt get it; too bad




No, you see I still don`t "get" it. Explain it to me..what exactly are we "laughing" at here?

Also what has this clip to do with this thread ?

----------


## Nobody1

> No, you see I still don`t "get" it. Explain it to me..what exactly are we "laughing" at here?
> 
> Also what has this clip to do with this thread ?


just take it the way it is, 
you dont get it and i think its funny.

----------


## Barrister

> It might be a definition of free societies. Gays were always amongst us, coming out off closets only during times of personal liberty, personal safety.
> There were no gays during middle or dark ages, or pretty much till 20th century. It is still hard to be openly gay in small European of American villages, ...village justice is always close by...around the corner.


I agree, for sure.

----------


## Boss

I don't agree with people who believe "genetics" can justify homosexuality. Whether or not homosexuality (or heterosexuality or any other sexuality) is a choice is irrelevant. Perhaps pederasty or bestiality are not chosen either. That doesn't mean they're justified (i.e. surely we think that pederasty is immoral whether or not the pederasts themselves chose to be pederasts or they simply just can't help it). Nor is of course equal rights (for a similar reason).

To me the justification of gay marriage has to do with several different facts that together build a cumulative case for gay marriage, rights and so on. Homosexuals are not mentally unstable. They are capable of forming loving, long-term relationships. They are as capable of raising children together as heterosexual persons are. Their acts are consensual and generally speaking, they do not harm anyone.

So IMO, it is not because homosexuality is innate (dunno if it is and as I said I think that's irrelevant) that we should be in favour of gay marriage. It is because homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, they are not harming anyone and as such they deserve to enjoy the same benefits everyone else does.

----------


## nordicwarrior

The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

That being said:

Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.

When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

----------


## LeBrok

> The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.


 In case of polygamy technically you can have two women and man in same union. If man dies there are only two women left in it. I think the definition of marriage already encompasses it even in many old conservative societies. Nothing new to be afraid off.






> For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.


Oh but we know. Tony told us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=q1U7MLr5eSU

----------


## nordicwarrior

I'm not talking about how ancient Greeks treated canines, I'm talking about how they viewed children.

----------


## sparkey

> The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.


I _hate_ word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.




> Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.


I agree with this.




> When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.
> 
> For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.


That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I _hate_ word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.


I agree that this is a highly inflammatory example Sparkey. Please allow me to clarify (and also site examples).

Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males. However, compared to women... both male groupings probably commit these crimes much more frequently than their female counterparts. The recent highly publicized trend of female teachers seducing their male students might eventually effect these numbers on a macro level, but I don't think we're any close to this point yet.

Secondly, our complex societies would not be able to function without laws and contracts. Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract. This is THE historical binding agent between a man and a woman in the West. Altering this building block of society will have huge consequences.

Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life. 

I've noticed that whenever a man (or group of men) decide that these laws don't apply to them-- big problems seem to pop up from every corner. You asked me to site examples other than the Greeks-- the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly.

Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chambers. 

So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?

The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.

----------


## hope

> Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males.


The "abuse" or "molestation" of children is a seperate issue and is not driven as result of ones gender preference.






> Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract.


I`m not so sure about that. In essence, all that is needed for a "contract" , is that both [ or all] parties are in agreement and it contain mutual "consent" and "agreement".
Party A may say, "I will give you four eggs if you give me a jug of milk".. therefore an offer is made. Party B may say, "Yes, okay" , thereby the offer is "accepted"...thus contract between the two is made. Now back in history this happened .."barter".. [and oral contract may still occur to-day] It happened before even the invention of marriage. I think this shows as a good example of both a "basic" and "historical" form of contract. And yes, oral contracts may be binding as long as they contain mutual "consent" and "consideration". The only thing here is mutual consent can sometimes be difficult to prove with an oral contract.




> Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't.. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life


. 

Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.




> the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly


. 

I think these priests you speak of disregarded "legal" laws and "moral" laws also { as do many who commit offences,} so I`m not sure why you speak only of Biblical law here N.W.





> Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chamber


. 

Not sure which laws exactly you are speaking of here..Legal or Biblical? 




> So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?
> 
> The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.


 Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?

Do not think I am making little of your beliefs N.W. for that is not intended.

----------


## gyms

Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.
> 
> Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?...


Fair criticism Hope. And yes I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly, I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

If the State insists on regulating adult sexual relationships (gay or straight)... I think the best option for same sex couples is a civil union. But again, the State should stay out of it.

Regarding the ultra-elites, in my opinion most of them are avowed humanists. I don't think they could obtain their power or position otherwise in today's framework.

----------


## hope

> Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly


,

Believe me N.W. I think nothing of the sort :Smile: 




> I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).


Agreed.

----------


## sparkey

NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.


You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)(1) is _not_ because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.(1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become _easier_ to follow when more things are legalized?)(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)

All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.

----------


## Boss

> Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!


Are you referring to adoption or something else? (or maybe just wanted to pay tribute to Pink Floyd?)

----------


## Grubbe

I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.


Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.

----------


## Grubbe

> Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.


 Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that. 

My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children. 

Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?

----------


## nordicwarrior

> NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.
> 
> 
> You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)(1) is _not_ because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.(1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become _easier_ to follow when more things are legalized?)(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)
> 
> All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.


I realized after I read my own comment it might be difficult to follow. I'll address your questions numerically.

1. If we as a society distance ourselves from Judeo-Christian values-- I have no doubt that the baser elements of mankind will fill the void. It may take fifty years or 200 years, but if we erode our traditional structures and mores... the simple answer to your question is yes. Over the course of time the sexual abuse of children will increase-- but it may not even be viewed as wrong at that point in the future because we would have abandoned our "instructional guidebook".

2. Again, the increase or even acceptance of children used as sexual objects will come from the fact that we now seem to be moving away from Biblical teachings and traditional structures.

3. Not an easy question to answer. It is my opinion that women are better equiped to raise children than males. I don't want to sound sexist (probably unavoidable here), but I feel women on average are more patient, caring, and nurturing than men. This is dealing with typical male/female observation-- excluding outliers which of course we see on an almost weekly basis.

4. This is where everything comes into sharp focus. I believe marriage is a religious covenant more than anything else. Calling a union between two men or two women a marriage does not compute in my world view. I know this may seem harsh or selfish-- there isn't another way to say it though. 

I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.

5. This is another difficult question Sparkey. My answer is that those with my mindset should strive to take the high road at every junction and help those less fortunate than ourselves. We are our brother's keeper. It doesn't matter if this brother (or sister) is gay, straight, black, white, yellow, red, or purple. We all have to try and love one another.

----------


## nordicwarrior

So to recap Sparkey, this is a complicated situation and there are no easy answers. If you apply strict logic to my viewpoints, you will soon see that they are not fully logical. For me, this is where faith takes over. 

Hopefully this last screed is more an example of informal writing than diatribe. :)

----------


## Grubbe

> I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.


I wouldn't be surprised. In Norway (and Sweden, maybe in other countries as well) they are now rewriting children's books, and especially take away words such as "negro" and "gipsy", which are now considered very offensive to use, even though there were no offense meant when these books were written in the 1950'ies and 1960'ies. I am myself grown up with these words. And if they can't rewrite things, as with songs, they simply ban them. But what is political correct now can very well turn around again, as it has before: If somebody read "The Dark Tower" books by Stephen King, they will perhaps remember the african-american woman who were transported from her own time in the 1960'ies and to the 1990'ies. She was appaled by the word "black", and insisted that she be called a negro, because to her, "black" was the "no-no" word. It could happen again. And then they are going to rewrite again?? Can't they see how idiotic this is?

----------


## Boss

> Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that. 
> 
> My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children. 
> 
> Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?


Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).

You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.

But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).

Read this by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.

----------


## Grubbe

> Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).
> 
> You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.
> 
> But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).
> 
> Read this by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.


You are of course right that neither adoption nor insemination is new. When I think that insemination is more "dangerous", it is because it is usually not known who the sperm donor is, and the firms that offer this service, have the policy to keep it unknown _indefinetely_. Adopted people usually have a paper trail, and the information of who their parens are can be known when they reach 18 years of age.

You are also right that some adoptees live quite happily without knowing who their biological parents are, but then again: Today most adoptees can know i_f they so choose._

My worry now is that making gay marriages legal has created a much larger market for insemination (and surrogaty) than it was before, because earlier gay people would marry to "hide" their nature, and then often had children in their marriages, while now they go to these clinics abroad instead, if they want children, even if their home countries maybe have laws at least against surrogaty. So I think that the governments have not thought far enough ahead to see what could come, when they made their decisions. Gay marriages will probably not see such increase in adoptions; not because they are not allowed to adopt (at least they are in Norway), but because the countries where the adopted children come from will not give their children to gay couples, as far as I understand.

----------


## Sennevini

I think not a lot will change when legalizing gay marriage.
Here in the Netherlands we have this institution since 2001;
records say about 2% of marriages is a gay marriage. In overall,
the number of marriages is declining, whether straight or gay.


The principal key to marriage is equality. If two people consent to each other
to share their life for as long as possible, why deny some of them rights like financial
constructions in for example assurancies and hereditary rights?


If one says marriage is to be destroyed, then that's not the case. For straight
people nothing changes at all. 
If one says it will open the road to legalize stuff with children and animals, 
then that's hopefully not the case: marriage is built upon consent from both spouses. 
If one says it is bad for children to grow up with gay parents, well, it may raise confusion in some circles,
but I think it depends on how caring the parents will be. 
For now, what I see, many children are born outside of a marriage (maybe half of them in these days!), 
or are raised by single mothers, or by step-parents. 
I think divorces or severe arguments between parents are a larger problem for children then 
the single fact of having gay parents. Also, think of all adopted children, thank god they find someone 
who agrees to care for them. And hopefully, they will grow up in a stable, loving environment. 
If one says marriage is all about the raising of children, you are welcome, because raising children should be
in a stable environment. But don't forget that a fundament for a good, stable marriage is a good relationship 
between both spouses.
For the record, I am talking here about the juridical marriage, not about the religious; religion is not quite strong
in my area.

----------


## 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.

----------


## sparkey

> If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing.


I think I see a flaw in your argument.

 :Laughing:

----------


## Fire Haired

> I think I see a flaw in your argument.


What flaw. Humping is a reproductive process mens sperm is suppose to go in womens egg to make children. if men hump other men they are doing a action that is suppose to be done on women and for reproduction obviosuly they are confusing their body from the natural way. since gay people are known for having add's and they do this it proves many are just perverted.

i know what i am saying sounds sick but it is the only way to explain my point. we cant just assume people are born gay i haven't seen any legit evidence for people being born gay i think it i absolutely impossible.

----------


## hope

Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.







> No one is born gay it is gay


Quote your sources or reference the studies.






> people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people.


FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons. 
1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.
2.Why must there be any debate? 
We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice? Why should it matter to you at all?
3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?

Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.




> if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.


Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.

----------


## Ike

> I don't have anything against gay marriages per se.


I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...

They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.

----------


## LeBrok

> No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. .


Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion? Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?

To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).

----------


## Fire Haired

> Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion?


i know gay men use their private parts for sexual stuff and that they hump i knwo that is sick but it is key to my argument. they have the same sexual behavior as straight men wouldn't u agree so they dont have differnt hrone they dont have pink balls. thee have been no gay hormones or body parts discovered that i know of. what research are u talking about i would love to see it.

The fact gay men and women use the same bady parts and hormones for sewual things as straight men and women and have the same behavour. i cam up with the conclusion they dont have a dffernt sexuality they are perverting the natural human sexuality that is why they do the reproductive stuff but dont create kids.




> Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?


i thought of these idea on my own. when the bible mentions homosexuality which is rarely does it just says it is perverted they dont say we will kill all gays like people say modern Christians do. it does say it is a hated sin and they almost always put sexuality towards animals with homosexuality and lust. it says the same things in the new and old testment. People in the ancient world like Romans and Greeks where not exactly the greatest moral people in the world neither where Jews but the Jews where as good as they got and their laws where good just the people rarely followed them like the bible mentions many times.

Roman traditional law which went back to Italic tribes says homosexuality is against the law but Romans went into Greek culture and did it anyways. Nero who was bisexually i think also motorsexual(animals), insane, mass murder is not a good argument for gay marriage.

Also Roman gay men used to dress and try to act like women to suduce roman men. well of course their going to act feminine that will trigger male hormones. if they act like john wayne and had hairy chest. i doubt the roman men would giggle like girls or be attracted to them.


i cant find this source it had books and bookd and books of very anceint roman and greek writting. I rember one talking about Celtic tribes aound the alps and other Gaulic tibes. they said war like people only allow sexual relations with men and women and the toughest guys gets more women, but starngly these Gauls allow sexual relations of men with men. 

ancient homo relationships where out of lust not love the modern gay marraiges thing from what i know i may be wrong did not exist in the ancient world. also in the ancient world men could have many wives does not matter if they are not involve men could also have conkbines aka prostutes. It was Christians and Jews who stopped these things they only allowed men to have one wife who they married out of love(this all marriages where suppose to be out of love but usselly not some whee for political and economic reasons) and that people can choose who their husband and wife is before it was ofentlly arranged.

also since ancient people where so lusful why does the fact some where gay help the argument for gay marraige. i know u did not say anything about this just it reminded me.




> To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).


It came naturally i cant speak for other guys. it kind off starts around 4th grade 10 years old. i dont want to get specific but the first time it just came naturally. then the next step is around 12 and 13 when ur voice gets deeper and u start to grow body hair. like i said before it came naturally literally the first time i dont know about other people. and i saw that what i thought was a good looking female is what all other men did too. i as kind of surprised. i started to realize weather women on the news alot of the time where not real weather experts.

again i really dont want to get specific but i taught myself like in kindergarten before anyone told me about certain things. Of course i dont know the whole human psychological procces for me before anyone told me i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct and "gay" ones perverted the natural way and use the same behavior on the same gender.


that was a extremely personal question

----------


## Fire Haired

> Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.


RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!! I will start calling them now give me their numbers. 








> Quote your sources or reference the studies.


I dont because i thought of it on my own. but what i do know is gay men use their privets just like straight men they hump just like straight men and have the same sexually behavior. so they dont have a different sexuality there has been no gay hormone i have heard of that causes homosexuality. Also gay men an women would have different hormones and the fact it would be impossibly for that to survive and that it would survive twice seems very unlikely.







> FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons. 
> 1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.


actulley i have researched this subject i looked and looked for any mention to a gay gene or hormone non. all i could find is they use perverted animals as a argument and something about babies being born upside down and their moms had gay milk crazy stuff like that. 



> Why must there be any debate? 
> We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice?


Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural and if it is unatural i dont want in our society. we are not just suppose to let people do whatever they want. i dont want people talking to chairs or babies thinking a bird is their mum that is unnatural. i have had this born gay argument with many of my teachers in school i have a very libearl school. All of them had no response to my main argument about people being born gay. all they said is we will never know or it doesnt matter. also when i brought up the other shades of sexuality like animals they said that is wrong so they do have a limit to sexuality so why cant homosexuality be that limit.




> Why should it matter to you at all?


if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say it is not natural i am not going to ignore that. i dont think it is arogent to judge peoples personal choose all of what u are saying is of post 1960's philosophy origin. it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. humans are naturally very socail we are suppose to communicate and care about our tribal members where not animals. like i said human society is naturally tribal we are suppose to live in somewhat small family groups. that is why we feel so natural and so much love for our sports teams, families, school classmates. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.






> 3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?


that is true it is not a new phenomenon but how does that change anything from my argument. When did i have mention human race declining because of it well i guess if less people reproduce hey it does decline in survival. I think it causes tension within the society between gays and not guys because gays have been known in history to be sexually aggressive like in ancient Rome men would dres as women to try to seduce other roman men. this again proofs even more no one is born gay they saw the best way to seduce men is be like women a feminine attitude wakes make hormones up. The Roman men would defintley not be attracted to big strong and hairy macho man like women are(well i cant say from experience i am not a girl but i assume).

why do u think homophobes exist homo stuff gets people angre. Also that is why there is a liberal stereotype homophobes are gay because sometimes fear and that it is differnt causes them to have gay temptations.




> Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.


thanks for the advice i have tried this once and got lazy. i always wanted to do a huge research project on this. maybe i will now possibly make a thread about it in the next few days or weeks i suck in information very quickly.




> Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.


i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source. i would love to see what ur opinon on the topic of are people born gay.

----------


## LeBrok

> i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct...


Thanks for the novel, but I just needed this line above. So hold on to this thought. If you agree it is an instinct it means, that from two things that makes us - the nature and nurture, you think that our main sexual behaviour is controlled mostly by Nature. I completely agree with this too. If it is Nature then it means that it is in our DNA. DNA dictates architecture of our brain and basic instincts. Therefore this simple exercise tells us that our sexual instinct, our sexual preferences (whether woman's body excites you, or man's. one) is coded in DNA and brain architecture (we are born with).
In short, we are born with our partner's sex preference. It is simple like that, you hit puberty and you *automatically* know. No classes needed.
If you strictly straight man only female body can sexuly excite you, so there is no way you could hump man.




> that was a extremely personal question


 Not really, billions of man on this planet had same experience. You made it personal with your long post. ;)

----------


## hope

> Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural


And who are you to say what you want other people doing or not doing? Who do you think you are to say how people should live their lives?




> and if it is unatural i dont want in our society.


How do you know if it is natural or not? Have you not said you are just too lazy to do the research? Oh no wait..you tried it once.




> if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say





> it is not natural


Your opinions and again not based on research but on personal feelings.




> it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.


This is a rather unsettling statement in my opinion. 












> this again proofs even more no one is born gay





> i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source.


Okay, well here you seem to be contradicting yourself. Which one are you going for?



My problem with your post is this. Everyone has opinions..and this is good. We live in a society that allows us to express our opinions..and this also is good. However, there are ways to give your opinions and when you start using terms such as .."not natural", "wrong", "sick" etc..that becomes very insulting and sounds somewhat prejudiced.

----------


## hope

> I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...
> 
> They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.


You start off by saying you "have nothing against gays"..then go on to say they have been "given too much space"..that they are a statistical "deviation" and imply they will "go to hell" for their "diabolical" acts and they are not "regular" [ although to quote correctly, these you did put in as way of what they might be thinking]
Indeed, it sounds like you really have nothing against gays.

----------


## ebAmerican

Today's society categorizes sexual acts and relationships. This has not been the norm throughout history. If Fire Haired was born a Celt or Roman 2000 years ago his chances of having a homosexual relationship would be very great. Celtic culture had a very open sexual society. The chief or big man had first priority over all the women in the clan. It was not uncommon for cousins, brothers, and fathers to share wives, as long as they were not mother to son relationships. The war bands that traveled and raided settlements consisted of single men. They would form tight bonds, and even sexual bonds. The type of sex "Prison sex" was very common in ancient cultures. The definition of "Prison sex" - anal sex as a means of dominate power over another individual. It was common in Roman society to give it to a guy, as long as you were not the one getting it. Sex has always been looked at from a power perspective. In modern culture we have soften the views and blurred the lines of dominance. Sex is natural, love is natural, and it doesn't matter if it's between two women, two men, two women one man, four women two men, or just a man and woman. I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years. Woman are beautiful, and I'm not gay, and do not have any homosexual feelings, but I can't say that if I was a Roman I wouldn't have participated in the cultural norms of the day (religious orgies and homosexual acts). What is funny about the bible is it was so common and pervasive that it had to be mentioned as a sin.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years.


I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.

I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
> Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.
> 
> Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
> Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.
> 
> I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.


It all makes sense, but I don't understand why homosexuality is not extinct if it is genetic. Instead it keeps existing by about 10% (or some other minor percentage, have no source at hand right now) in most vertebrates.

----------


## ebAmerican

Sexuality, not Sexual characteristics. You forget we are all female at conception, and the amount of testosterone determines sex. The Y chromosome has a big part to play in the amount of testosterone that develops. If there is a genetic link to sexuality, then it is hormonal. I strongly believe that if sexuality is open socially people would have no problem experimenting. At the end of the day genetics might steer one back to the opposite sex, but it doesn't stop one from trying; society does that. The common disgust, and revolting attitude towards homosexuality is all social and not genetic. A person learns to hate, they are not born with it.

----------


## sparkey

> I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
> Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.


Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations. IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice. That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.

----------


## sparkey

> What flaw.


Gee... it may have to do with the fact that if I walked in on two men humping each other, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aha! A clear sign that these men are _straight_!"

----------


## Sennevini

There is indication that the orientation is determined by the brain structure. As brain structure is mainly developped in a child who is still in the womb, the environment of the womb - hormones - may play a significant role in structuring the brain of the unborn baby. In that way, the baby is born with it's sexual orientation, but without a gene as single cause.

----------


## hope

> Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations. IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice. That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.




I agree..I think at the moment this is indeed the most compelling. I was actually going to quote the same study sparkey. I think "probably" in the next few years epigenetic studies may well give answers. [ however please to note I said probably..I`m not going to the guillotine for this just yet]


EDIT: Strike the last two sentences above..your Friberg and Rice link is more up to date than the one I had, seems they are much further along :)

----------


## hope

> I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.


Yes, I would go with that LeBrok. I think however it is fair to say most have now adapted to the notion of nature and nurture..some perhaps more to nature.

----------


## Fire Haired

> There is indication that the orientation is determined by the brain structure. As brain structure is mainly developped in a child who is still in the womb, the environment of the womb - hormones - may play a significant role in structuring the brain of the unborn baby. In that way, the baby is born with it's sexual orientation, but without a gene as single cause.


then why do gay men use their privets and testosterone like straight men. There is no evidence they use differnt hormones they used female estrogen they would not hump there is no evidence gay men use estrogen for sexuality or that gay women use cornerstone if gay women dont have pennis their not lesbian. i think it is possible though but extremely unlikely that maybe a man could get more estrogen that may make them have some female sexuality. but it wont really effect his sexuality if it was estrogen that cause gay men they would not hump they would act like women when it comes to stuff like that and they would not be men that makes them women too.

i know that stuff is sick and unappropriate but it is needed for these arguments. i have not seen any good evidence for people being born gay.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Thanks for the novel, but I just needed this line above. So hold on to this thought. If you agree it is an instinct it means, that from two things that makes us - the nature and nurture, you think that our main sexual behaviour is controlled mostly by Nature. I completely agree with this too. If it is Nature then it means that it is in our DNA. DNA dictates architecture of our brain and basic instincts. Therefore this simple exercise tells us that our sexual instinct, our sexual preferences (whether woman's body excites you, or man's. one) is coded in DNA and brain architecture (we are born with).
> In short, we are born with our partner's sex preference. It is simple like that, you hit puberty and you *automatically* know. No classes needed.
> If you strictly straight man only female body can sexuly excite you, so there is no way you could hump man.


people can still dictate their sexuality why do some people attracted to animals u really think that is natural. People can defintley pervert and it is most likely they can do it on the same gender because the same gender looks more similar to the oppiste gender than a dog.

also do u think people might be naturalley more attracted to their race. if u think about europeans ancestors have been separated from sub sharen Africans ancestors for over 100,000 year we already know some evolution happened so it is possible. 

humping is for reproduction so why would if there was a homosexually hormone which there is not from what i know. would it cause them to try to reproduce. I think that shows they have normal male instinct but they are perverting it.




> Not really, billions of man on this planet had same experience. You made it personal with your long post. ;)


i always make long posts and i thought that is what u wanted.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Gee... it may have to do with the fact that if I walked in on two men humping each other, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aha! A clear sign that these men are _straight_!"


what i am trying to say is it shows they have nromal male insict. they use the same hormones they dont have a gay hormone and their body is trying to reproduce which is suppose to be with a female. they are just perverting their nature.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations. IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice. That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.


Since the gay gene does not exist no one is born gay. men have the same sexual hormones and behavior as straight men same with gay women and straight women. i think gay people just pervert what they are suppose to do. i think it is choose and the source is psychological.

----------


## Sennevini

Well, main point in this theory - which is quite popular in my country these days -
is the structure of the brain. It's not that gay people use more female hormones, it's that their
brain structure differs slightly from straight people.


I don't think one chooses his own brain structure and size. 


I think the brain governs the personality of a person, and therefore
the brain structure may hold the key to that.
Here it is important to make difference between what one *feels*, and how one *acts* 


I think the brain governs what one feels, whom one is attracted to, whom one would like to "hump". I think that is 
a innate, inborn thing. If one acts on that feeling, as to say, chooses to "hump", then that is a behavioural thing, not written in the brain.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Sexuality, not Sexual characteristics. You forget we are all female at conception, and the amount of testosterone determines sex. The Y chromosome has a big part to play in the amount of testosterone that develops. If there is a genetic link to sexuality, then it is hormonal. I strongly believe that if sexuality is open socially people would have no problem experimenting. At the end of the day genetics might steer one back to the opposite sex, but it doesn't stop one from trying; society does that. The common disgust, and revolting attitude towards homosexuality is all social and not genetic. A person learns to hate, they are not born with it.


well people are born with the ability to hate learn to do it to a extreme. also people are born with sexuality but can pervert it. Also some people might have a better chance to be tempted by homosexuality based on their past live experiences. 

Also since from what i have seen there is no good evidence anyone is born gay it seems abosultly impossible. So that makes me disagree with gay marriage why let people do what is unnatural why let a little kid think a bird is his mom. and homosexulaty is more sick and serious than other perversions. Also it in huge war and crisis it hurts are chances of survival. 

Also falling in love and sexualley things is for a man and a woman.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Well, main point in this theory - which is quite popular in my country these days -
> is the structure of the brain. It's not that gay people use more female hormones, it's that their
> brain structure differs slightly from straight people.
> 
> 
> I don't think one chooses his own brain structure and size. 
> 
> 
> I think the brain governs the personality of a person, and therefore
> ...


i still dont think that is good evidence i have heard in science class and tv that scientits know the sexuall parts of the brain. I am pretty sure they have not found a gay brian. Also humping is a straight thing it is for reproduction gay men use the same hromones and behavour as straight men same with gay women and striaght women. 

So what i have concluded is that gay people have the same sexuality as straight people. Gay men dont have straight womens sexuality and gay women dont have straight men's sexuality. Also gay men and women dont have their own form of sexuality so all they are doing is perverting the naturall way. Also people do convert to being gay or straight i think that is more evidence gay people are gay out of choose and past life experiences. 

I still think there might be something very complicated in the brian that might somehow cause homosexuality. but i am extremely doubtful all the evidence points to that not being the case and if it was it counts for a small minority of gays. so do most people in the Netherlands think that gays are naturally gay i am intrested on what their arguments are if they do think that.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I agree..I think at the moment this is indeed the most compelling. I was actually going to quote the same study sparkey. I think "probably" in the next few years epigenetic studies may well give answers. [ however please to note I said probably..I`m not going to the guillotine for this just yet]
> 
> 
> EDIT: Strike the last two sentences above..your Friberg and Rice link is more up to date than the one I had, seems they are much further along :)


Frib & breg seem to be saying tha homosexuality is caused in the womb and some how male babies can be somewhat femalized and vi versa with females. but my orignal argument i think defeates that male gays and female gays use the same sexuality as starght people. If gay men wbecame gay in the womb because they where femized then why do they use pennis testostorne and act like straight men obvisouly they dont have a females sexuality.

I have heard the argument they gay men have females sexuality and gay women have males sexuality. and it is not true so i think that study is wrong. In my opinion that is not good evidence but i am open to see more arguments if u have some. Also i just want to say these studies are most likely biased and want to say people are born gay. 

i think three needs to be a hige unbiased serious study on homosexuality. they nned to not just assume if some men have more estrogen their gay look at their behavour if they sexualley act like men then they dont have womens sexuality. Study the psychological back round of people. I think they will come up with the conclusion that most likely no one is born gay. My orignmal argument has still not been defeated. If gay men hump and use testosterone and have the same sexuall behavior estrogen is not the source of their gayness. So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense.

i think my orignal argument makes alot of sense. i gave this argument to my very very pro gay science teacher he is actulley a hig expert ins cience. He could not give a response his only argument was the estrogen testosterone stuff which mty argument proves incorrect. He said something that i think anyone including gay people he said there are 1-2 billion natural gays, 1-2 billion natural straights, and the rest are bisexual where is the scientific evidence he had none.

Sex is for making kids why on evlotion would there be so many gays. also he said well i am naturally straight i am attracted to wmen but that is what like every man would say and they have the same experiences as him but he thinks most are bi sexual or gay. His thoery is absloutley extreme and has no evidence.

----------


## LeBrok

> people can still dictate their sexuality why do some people attracted to animals u really think that is natural.


 There are very few people sexuly atracted to animals. It is in realm of DNA mutation, or brain damage/malnutrition. Do you personally know someone like this? Me neither.

Can yo tell me why there are Asexual people? People who never been sexuly atracted to anyone. Never felt a sexual need or desire. What does bible say about these people?
Why homosexuality exists in animal kingdom? Is this unnatural too?
Why there are siamese twins, or cows with two heads, or 5 legs? Wouldn't you say unnatural?
Why people are born deformed and sick? Do you think it is all environmental? Or is it god's will to punish parents?
Why half of all fetuses are aborted naturally by mothers' body? Half of human population is naturally killed before conception. I wonder why. (yes there is research about this, I just don't have time to find it)





> People can defintley pervert and it is most likely they can do it on the same gender because the same gender looks more similar to the oppiste gender than a dog.


 I'm not in your brain and can't follow your thoughts. Please try to be clear with your writing.




> also do u think people might be naturalley more attracted to their race. if u think about europeans ancestors have been separated from sub sharen Africans ancestors for over 100,000 year we already know some evolution happened so it is possible.


 I thought when two humans have sex and it is culminated with a kid, you would call it a natural way, right? So what is this example about?!
When two races mate is it a perversion or deviation for you?




> humping is for reproduction so why would if there was a homosexually hormone which there is not from what i know. would it cause them to try to reproduce. I think that shows they have normal male instinct but they are perverting it.


You mixing some things, that's why they don't make sense for you.
Hormones like testosterone can't decide who you going to like. They can give you full erection and lots of strength when you find a person (or dog) that you like. The brain wiring is actually responsible for finding this person. Your eyes catch the light reflected from her, they send impulses to visual cortex to make sense of this light and work with patterns. Once, the pleasant/sexual patterns, are recognized it is send to Amygdala where all emotions are located. And only then you will feel the sexual desire, after this, the right hormones are released and you get an erection.
First brain (pattern, desire), then humping. If your brain doesn't get the right pattern (female body) there is no humping, not even with most handsome man. (unless you have wiring for that too)
The decision about desire starts in your brain, based on neuronal connections. Brain is the biggest sex organ. And when it comes to sexual preferences, what excites you, it is mostly hardwired, stuff you're born with. It all starts in brain.

I would like to remind you that, when we did this puberty exercise, you admitted that sexual excitement came automatically in natural way. It pointed us to hardwired functions of brain and DNA role in sexuality. Unfortunately, instead of following this development, you disregarded it and went along with your previous convictions. It doesn't really sits right with scientific mind, wouldn't you say?

Sennevini is right. There are research based on brain scans showing that gay man has different brain from straight man brain. Gay brain is, how should we put it, more feminine. Well, it explains a lot, it explains why gay man want to have sex with man, isn't it? And no, you can't change so much brain architecture by learning and environment. They are born with female brain in man's body. One of nature's many screw ups.






> i always make long posts and i thought that is what u wanted.


 No, I never asked you this. You acted on your natural instinct, which makes you talk a lot and write a lot. Can you stop this natural instinct?
Perhaps with difficulty and dislike (we'll see in the future), and we are not talking about strong primal sexual instinct.

----------


## LeBrok

> My orignmal argument has still not been defeated. If gay men hump and use testosterone and have the same sexuall behavior estrogen is not the source of their gayness. So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense.


It's been defeated long time ago by decades of research, you've just never read it.
Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.




> So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense.


 You are on the right track here. Surely it is confusing but it doesn't mean it is not true.
Homosexuality exists also in animal kingdom. Isn't it confusing? but I guess, it makes it natural.
People with very short 'useless' penises, or having both genitals, or ones with third nipple are confusing too. Why the hell something like this happened? It doesn't make sense.
Well, it doesn't make sense only from point of view of functionality of normal human being. But nature doesn't give a shit about what we think or feel about this. From dawn of life on Earth, nature uses blind changes, mutations, mistakes, mixing genes of different species, etc, to find out the best combination for new successful life forms. If billions of deformed unfortunate individuals dies unhappy in this process, so be it. She doesn't care. Loving mother nature? Think again. How about "cruel beach"?
If god had made us, or any other conscious logical being, even scientists, we all would have been smart, good and beautiful. Unfortunately we are in hands of blind natural selection, the forces of nature, hence the mess, confusion and less than perfect people.

Going back to gay issue. As I mentioned before, it is not only human phenomenon. Homosexuals or biosexuals exist among other animals too. This actually proves that it is not cultural thing but a easy to make genetic mistake. Looking at science, it is a mistake made during brain development. Individual is getting female like brain in man's body, and vice versa for lesbiens. 
However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.

Here is my take on this cause:
For a very long time people lived in small patrilocal societies with arranged marriages. Also in small groups any deviation from normal is not tolerated very well, if at all. The disfigured, the gay, the odd looking always got the short end of a stick. Somebody had to be sacrificed for gods, or was kicked out of village for bringing bad luck. Let's be honest, they would be proclaimed unnatural by folks like yourself. The point is that being openly gay wasn't an option (it is still not an option in small European villages). You either pretend that you're straight and marry or you're dead.
Well good amount of social and family pressure, scare of being unnatural and eternity in hell, and gays got married too, and with opposite sex. Some more family pressure and they managed to make kid or two, and their gay mutation could survive in DNA.

To prove my hypothesis I will make a prediction. If I'm right, in open tolerant societies, where gays don't hide their sexuality, the number of homosexuals will fall sharply during next generation or two to the level comparable to gayness among other animal species. Which I think is no more than 1 percent. The number is still sort of big, but I think, it shows that this genetic/brain architecture mistake is a very easy to make. I guess, brain development is a very complicated process.

I hope the nature make a bit more sense now. :)

----------


## alibaz

What I am finding very interesting about this very difficult subject is the assumption that you know what 'normal' is and that there is a 'normal' way for people to behave and that this is a mutation.

----------


## LeBrok

> What I am finding very interesting about this very difficult subject is the assumption that you know what 'normal' is and that there is a 'normal' way for people to behave and that this is a mutation.


If you're referring to my post, I used word "normal" as defined/used by Fire Haired, mostly meaning a natural way, and not invented by people as cultural phenomenon. Not necessarily as common definition would imply. 

PS. Don't be shy, elaborate you point. :)

----------


## ebAmerican

> Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.


Your missing the point of the hormone homosexual theory. It's testosterone levels during fetal development, not after birth. Testosterone controls sexual desire. It is proven by all the horny teenagers after puberty. It is a powerful hormone. It can affects emotion, sexual libido, and development. I read the study that was posted earlier about epy-genes, and it make some sense. I think I would have to agree that homosexuality to an extant, and really any sexuality, is strongly governed by both Nurture and Nature. I still strongly believe that all people are capable of forming tight relationships with both sexes. It doesn't always mean they will turn sexual, but have a good chance if certain circumstance prevail. Like I said earlier, the reaction of repulsion to homosexual activity is strictly social and religious. If, as a society we can become desensitized to violence, and encourage violence, then we surely can be tolerate of the sexual act. Lets face it, most of the disgust coming from homosexuals is their feminine traits and the thought of anal sex in a society that values masculinity in men and disproves of anal sex. Ask any guy and he has no problems with "lip stick lesbians ", but add a butch lesbian and it's a different story. We value femininity in our woman, and not masculinity (modern definitions). The conditioning of attraction is strictly social and has very little to do with genetics. The genetic part is strictly reproduction with someone who is different. It cares less what that individual looks like, as long as they can produce a genetically diverse child.

Even in the hormone homosexual theory, there are many fetus' that show abnormal hormone levels that grow up heterosexual. There are just as many individuals that show the specific homosexual brain image patterning as adults, that are happily heterosexual. 

I recently watched a program on History or Discovery (can't remember) called the Science of Attraction, and how pheromones play a large part in sexual attractions. They did an interesting experiment with vaginal secretions. They took the secretions in very low levels where they couldn't be detected, but were present and gave them to male participants to smell. They showed a series of photos to the men before giving them the secretions and asked them to rate the woman on a scale of 1-10 for attractiveness. They then gave the male participants the secretions and asked them to rate the same woman again on a scale of 1-10. Prior to the secretions they rated the woman all over the board. After they gave the men the vaginal secretions (which was in a breathing apparatus, and they didn't know if it was on or off) they rated all the women in the upper range.

A similar experiment using male sweat was performed on women. The woman's job was to rate the smell on a scale of 1-10 of different towels, that had different male sweat on each. They took the DNA of each participant. both male and female, and found out that the towels woman choose as having the best smell were least genetically similar. The scientist concluded this was a protection mechanism against inbreeding, and allowed a more diverse genetic offspring. They found that homogenous groups of people have less protection against disease . It was natures way of insuring survival.

What happens when nature doesn't need those survival tactics (population control) and these genetic protection markers are shut off? Until there is a smoking gun I have to believe that if the markers are shut off, then the individual is free to choose (social conditioning). I would argue there is more evidence of a genetic disposition to being heterosexual (survival of the species), then an actual homosexual gene that makes one homosexual. My theory is this heterosexual gene is turned off, and the child bonds to the same sex while developing through puberty. He/she doesn't have the same response to the opposite sex pheromones. As homosexual behavior is accepted, and child conditioning allows for equal tolerance in picking a mate, then we will see an increase in homosexuals in society as more children born with the heterosexual gene turned off pick same sex partners.

I would like to see a study using homosexuals and pheromones, and see if there is some type of correlation of attraction. Maybe homosexuals will choose more sweaty towels belonging to men, then women, or be repulsed and find women less attractive if exposed to vaginal secretions. I believe the tests would be inconclusive because the pheromone detectors in the brain are shut off in homosexuals. They are not trapped by the biological need to multiply. The question is what governs homosexual attraction within the homosexual community? I think the answer is social trends, similar to heterosexual attraction behavior. Most gay men find the same men that straight females find attractive. It is the same in the lesbian community.

I believe the trend in answering the question "Did you know you were gay as a child?" by answering yes is a modern trend in the gay community to help legitimize the movement. I wonder what the answer would be 20 years ago. I suspect it would be something on the order of "when I reached puberty I found the same sex more attractive", or "after having an opposite sex relationship in high school I realized I liked the same sex better", then any answer regarding early childhood. As far as I'm concerned girls had Kooties until middle school. I looked at my dad's playboys in fifth grade and found them more funny, then sexual. It wasn't until seventh grade that something changed (puberty). I know people will say "I had a crush on a girl in 3rd grade, or I had my first kiss with a girl in 5th grade", so the attraction was there. I will respond, be honest, you also were very close to your best friend (same sex), and had a few moments of curiosity, which is absolutely normal. My point being we are socialized at an early age by our different sexed parents, that this is what should be, and we gravitate to duplicate the mother and father relationship outside of the home. Real attraction, and sexual urge happens during puberty, everything before is driven by curiosity.

----------


## alibaz

Hi LeBrok - I have a lot of posts to wade through before I can comment properly but what I would like to say is what is NOT natural. An unnatural sexual relationship is one where one party (maybe both), are either non-consenting or have been coerced in some way. Apart from the obvious ones like rape, brutality, child abuse, it could even extend to a loveless hetrosexual marriage.

This is such a subjective discussion. Some people may be afraid of facing their own sexuality and become agressive, some may think that gay relationships threaten society, some may feel it goes against any religious faith they have.

I see you are exploring nature vs nurture - I yet to have to read all this properly.

I would like to ask a question. Does a prisoner consider himself to be gay when he forces his cellmate to submit to his sexual advances?

----------


## hope

> I see you are exploring nature vs nurture - I yet to have to read all this properly.




Forgive me alibaz, I see your are in conversation with another member but I think the nature-nurture sentence might have been something I wrote. There are a few posts yet I have to read but as far as I am aware [ and I may be wrong] the actual nature-nurture question, wasn`t being debated, per say.


By the way, interesting question at the end. It could be worded a little clearer however. Do we know if the prisoner is a heterosexual man, are we to assume you mean he is?
You are asking a speculative question, it is hard to say what another person may feel regarding himself. Also why ask if we think he might think himself gay..why not ask if he might rather think himself a rapist, seeing as you say, he forced the other to submit.

----------


## Fire Haired

> It's been defeated long time ago by decades of research, you've just never read it.


Right now it seems there is no way anyone is born gay and now ur saying it is a fact some are ur coming to quick conclusions




> Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.


We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations. Tell me how brain architecture is the reason. well then gay people dont just use testosterone for sexual libido they do the same actions like humping which involves the brain if they had diff brain architecture. They would not do that they would make totally different sexual actions.

Aslo i made the point earlier more testosterone in a woman or more estrogen in a man does not make them gay or lesbian. Because to be attracted to women like men are u need male gentiles also if u use male gentiles in sexual things u cant be attracted to men the way women are.




> You are on the right track here. Surely it is confusing but it doesn't mean it is not true


.

No offense but it is not confusing for me because i am trying to argue no one is born gay. It is confusing for u to find a answer in science for gay people.




> Homosexuality exists also in animal kingdom. Isn't it confusing? but I guess, it makes it natural.


That does not make homosexuality natural. Click here it talks about the very rare occurrence of ape rape on humans uselly apes who grew up with humans meaning it is a psychological thing even though apes don't have much of a brain compared to humans. A famous chimp named Oliver at first suspected of being half human attempted more than once to rape the female owner he grew up with. u will have to search the links and vidoes to find it. click here DNA proves a pitbull raped a 2 year old as sad as that is..

Animal rapes or anything like that on humans is extremely extremely extremely rare but it does happen. Animals would have a better chance feeling attraction for their same gender than a human but what this shows is animals can pervert and dont work like robots. maybe u should read this article about homosexuality amoung animals sometimes it has nothing to do with sex just play that looks like sex at least for dogs here is a link. The article says most animals are not exclusively gay the ones that show homo sides are not 100% homo they mate with the oppiste gender too which in my opinon means their straight just they can pervert it would make more sense with the same species.'It does not matter if their are gay animals animals animal species have choose (click here) many scientist have said animal sexual choose is key to natural selection.

I think u also need to understand people who study this are going to be very pro gay and want to say homosexuality is a bigger deal in animals than it may be. Same with the people who try to find a science reason for homosexuality. That is why no one has done a study on gay animals to say that it is also not natural every study has tried to say it is natural. It does not matter if their are gay animals u need to have string scientific evidence which u dont have.




> People with very short 'useless' penises, or having both genitals, or ones with third nipple are confusing too. Why the hell something like this happened? It doesn't make sense.


We are talking specifically about homosexuality u need to give scientific evidence for why it is natural.




> Well, it doesn't make sense only from point of view of functionality of normal human being. But nature doesn't give a shit about what we think or feel about this. From dawn of life on Earth, nature uses blind changes, mutations, mistakes, mixing genes of different species, etc,


The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING. The most important part of evloution and changes in a species is having a good amount of offspring which homosexuality does not have so that makes it impossible to be a gene or mutation. Also most homo animals are not homo they have sex with the same gender and the oppiste gender which i said before shows they have choose and that they are born straight but pervert. There are very few completely gay animals but very biased studies have said in domesticated rams 10% of the males are only gay but if it was a gene that caused that gayness it would not be passed down because they dont have offspring so that means they are just perverting or i guess u can think of another scientific reason but again they HUMP like straight rams so they don't have a diff sexuality or brains structure.




> best combination for new successful life forms.


well homosexuality is one of the worst things for evolution and to say homosexuality is natural in a none gene mutation way is extremely unlikely. 




> If billions of deformed unfortunate individuals dies unhappy in this process, so be it. She doesn't care. Loving mother nature? Think again. How about "cruel beach"?
> If god had made us, or any other conscious logical being, even scientists, we all would have been smart, good and beautiful. Unfortunately we are in hands of blind natural selection, the forces of nature, hence the mess, confusion and less than perfect people.


Dont u believe everything is chance so why are calling chance mother nature. U don't know who God is why do u except him ti make ur life perfect or the world perfect. That whole argument if God is real why does my life suck is a terrible argument for no God. God lets us make our own decisions he lets us go i think most things in the world are chance but many things are controlled but in a way u wont notice as much.

cant say if there was a God this is how the world would be U DON'T KNOW HOW THE WORLD WOULD BE NONE OF THAT PROVES THERE IS NO GOD. u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to. the ones who think God is just this big powerful guy with a beard in the sky. U DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS none of us truly do u cant define who God would be.

I know miracles do happen God has shown himself to human. Why do u think 99.9% of the world in the world except in recent times believes in a God. All religions around the world are similar and have similar traditions on who God is creation stories and flood stories. Since South Africans and Ancient Celts who genetically had been separated for at least 150,000 years had such similar mythology stories is not just random. It is in Human instinct i think to believe in God. i have been talking about natural human society but i forgot about religion which is very important in 99.99% of human soceites.

My family has witnnissed probable miracles but we dont say it was for sure a miracle and dont talk about it alot because we are not suppose to make miracles the base for our faith in God that is what the Bible says. 

i would give u examples in another post but right now it would take up to much room.




> Going back to gay issue. As I mentioned before, it is not only human phenomenon. Homosexuals or biosexuals exist among other animals too. This actually proves that it is not cultural thing but a easy to make genetic mistake. Looking at science, it is a mistake made during brain development. Individual is getting female like brain in man's body, and vice versa for lesbiens. 
> However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.


Homosexuality is impossible to be genetic because they don't have offspring at least in the animal kingdom. Bisexuality animals do have offspring but where is the scientific evidence for bisexuality. All u are saying is brain structure well then why do bisexual male animals hump like i have said many times they have the same sexual behavior. If a gay or bisexual male humps and has the same behavior as a straight males it is not just testosterone humping takes eyesight and brain's not just feeling. I want to make that clear how canu take male gentiles which are made to make kids and some how change them to be attracted to males that would take an extreme evolution which would make no sense why hump if it does not make kids it does not help their survival it hurts it.

If they had a female brain they would not hump how many times do i have to say gay humans and animals have the same sexual behavior as straight ones. Meaning they dont check each other out like females check out makes they check each other out like males do to females. Humping is not just at testostorne feeling it takes eyes and brains.




> However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.


This is most likely because gays are known to be aggressive it is true. Also fear of gay's may cause people to be tempted. So if u think homosexuality is natural u have to admit most human gay's probably are not naturally gay u can explain it psychologically but i think u can do that with all of them




> Here is my take on this cause:
> For a very long time people lived in small patrilocal societies with arranged marriages. Also in small groups any deviation from normal is not tolerated very well, if at all. The disfigured, the gay, the odd looking always got the short end of a stick. Somebody had to be sacrificed for gods, or was kicked out of village for bringing bad luck. Let's be honest, they would be proclaimed unnatural by folks like yourself. The point is that being openly gay wasn't an option (it is still not an option in small European villages). You either pretend that you're straight and marry or you're dead.
> Well good amount of social and family pressure, scare of being unnatural and eternity in hell, and gays got married too, and with opposite sex. Some more family pressure and they managed to make kid or two, and their gay mutation could survive in DNA.


Finally someone besides me think's natural human society is patriotical and in small tribes or family groups. I have argued this in history class everyone accused me of being sexiest when i have nothing against women and the type of patriotical i am talking about is not suppose to oppress women.

It does not matter what very smart human society does with arranged marraiges and stuff we are talking about brainless animal society. True animal homosexuals are not natural because they dont produce offspring so they dont pass on a gay gene it is purley mental or another strange mix of up of genes or something i dont know but i dont think it is natural at all.

u cant say all pre historic human societies where the same that is being a bad historian but u are partly right about many ancient societies but probably not most and not all marriages where arranged.

----------


## hope

> We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations


 ..
Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe patterns of enduring emotional,romantic and sexual attraction. The criteria for this is one thing with heterosexual men and women and another thing for homosexual men or lesbian women. We see this in life, it is there, ergo it exists.
.



> Because to be attracted to women like men are u need male gentiles also if u use male gentiles in sexual things u cant be attracted to men the way women are.


 .
No and No. [And can we leave the Gentiles out of this one]




> No offense but it is not confusing for me because i am trying to argue no one is born gay.


How do you know this? Where have you read this? And to quote yourself .."give scientific evidence". Your opinion just wont do here.





> That does not make homosexuality natural


 ..
You are talking about one of the most basic human instincts..the wish to love and be loved, the desire to care and be cared for. This need has no notion of colour or gender.




> I think u also need to understand people who study this are going to be very pro gay


 . 
How do you know this..it`s quite a statement.





> We are talking specifically about homosexuality u need to give scientific evidence for why it is natural


 .
Why? Who is to say what is and what is not natural? 




> The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING.


Yes, I recall recently pointing that out to you when you said this:



> if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.


 .





> well homosexuality is one of the worst things for evolution


In what way? It has been around for quite some time and society has not been affected




> u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to. the ones who think God is just this big powerful guy with a beard in the sky


Please, spare us the religious lesson and don`t presume to know what other people think about God or if they have or have not read the bible..that is just too arrogant




> u can explain it psychologically


No, you cannot. Being homosexual or lesbian is not a mental health health issue whatsoever. There are many who suffer some psychological problems because of it however, due to how they are treated by some sections of society or made to feel different. Many are isolated and do not know where to turn for counsel. At least 30 times more homosexual men will attempt suicide compared to heterosexual men. At least 6 times more lesbian women will attempt suicide than heterosexual women. Now it is a sad thing when a human feels their only option is to take their own life. It is also a poor reflection on our society IMO.


On a final note, before I leave this thread. You have been given links to studies here, you have heard other members tell you of findings from MRI scans [ I am not sure to which study the poster was referring but it may have been that carried out at the Stockholm Institute] and you have heard other very good opinions. And your response to all of this has been to stamp your foot and insist only you have the answer. You have done this while using very negative semantics regarding homosexual or lesbian people. Could I remind you Eupedia is a very large forum, it has a large number of members and also visitors to its pages. Do you really think [ or care] that perhaps not all are of the heterosexual lifestyle and many seeing some of your "finer" pieces may be much insulted.


.

----------


## Fire Haired

> ..
> Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe patterns of enduring emotional,romantic and sexual attraction. The criteria for this is one thing with heterosexual men and women and another thing for homosexual men or lesbian women. We see this in life, it is there, ergo it exists.


what i am trying to say is we dont know if homosexuality or any sexuality besides hetrosexuality is natural.
.
.



> No and No. [And can we leave the Gentiles out of this one]


Sorry i have to use words like gentiles in this subject. If some uses male gentiles for sexuality he is using testosterone and if this person humps he has male sexual brain structure it is not just a sensation. male genetiles and humping is not made for two males if it used that way it is perverted i just cant see in anyway that would be natural. I dont think u can think of a way either.




> How do you know this? Where have you read this? And to quote yourself .."give scientific evidence". Your opinion just wont do here.


It is alot easier to say no one is born gay and give evidence than to say people are born gay. Lebrok was saying it is confusing because he was trying to find a natural reason for homosexuality and i was pointing it out to him it is not confusing for me to say it is not natural.


..



> You are talking about one of the most basic human instincts..the wish to love and be loved, the desire to care and be cared for. This need has no notion of colour or gender.


what does color have to do with it that is a whole different subject. Gender does have to do with this the most basic human instict i am talking about is sex not falling in love that does not have to do with the argument of if homosexuality is natural.

. 



> How do you know this..it`s quite a statement.


Lebrok was mentioned deformaties and that not everyone has the perfect human shape. That is off subject we are specifically talking about is anyone born naturally gay.


.



> Why? Who is to say what is and what is not natural?


when i say natural i mean someone is pre destined to do something it is in their nature. For example it is in my nature to talk it is in a bear's nature to hunt. I am talking about instinct things that are unlearned.





> Yes, I recall recently pointing that out to you when you said this:


I think that point is key we need to stop searching for a gay gene or muatation because it would not be passed down to offspring. Purley gay rams dont have offspring so they either are not naturally gay or there could be another explanation.
.






> In what way? It has been around for quite some time and society has not been affected



Evloution is about survival a new gene may be better for survival and out survive the old gene so far that is the best explanation for evolution. Homosexuality does not produce offspring so it is just about the worst gene for survival it would only survive one generation and it would not survive in evolution. What about homosexuality in animals animals dont have human society so saying that does not change anything.





> Please, spare us the religious lesson and don`t presume to know what other people think about God or if they have or have not read the bible..that is just too arrogant


Lebrok mentioned religion so i responded. Come on every services in Church till 1490's was in Latin why do u think martin Luther was so PO'ed. Why do u think christian leaders from 300-1900's forced so many people to be christian and where so corrupt and went against jesus's teachings. There where still some people who understood Christianity back then but very few and still very few today. also i know many everyday Americans that is what they think and that is what people in the middle ages thought. Why do u think people in the mid ages where so scared of God and made up stuff about purgatory and paying for dead friends and relatives so they can go to heaven. 

It is a fact the vast majority of Europeans in the mid ages did not know how to read or understand Latin so they did not really know who the bible said God was. Martin Luther was shocked after reading the Bible once he learned how to read Latin. The Pope was corrupt and mis treated the people in my opinion martin luther brought Christianity back to live but he was not a perfect guys either none of us are.




> No, you cannot. Being homosexual or lesbian is not a mental health health issue whatsoever. There are many who suffer some psychological problems because of it however, due to how they are treated by some sections of society or made to feel different. Many are isolated and do not know where to turn for counsel. At least 30 times more homosexual men will attempt suicide compared to heterosexual men. At least 6 times more lesbian women will attempt suicide than heterosexual women. Now it is a sad thing when a human feels their only option is to take their own life. It is also a poor reflection on our society IMO.


I nenver said being gay is a mental health issue but i think u can explain it through psychology. the Pschology thing is a whole diff argument i live in a very gay area of america okay and i have witnessed people going form having kids and being married to being gay AS SICK AND WRONG AS THAT IS it is a choose u cant say it is all natural.

There is a new movement that trys to hide the dark side of homosexuality. There is a reason why they have been known as perverts and child molesters they gave themselves that reputation. My brother friends dad who is actulley okay with gay marriage witnessed a gay pride parade before the whole USA court gay marriage stuff he said it was sick men who are half naked making out and touching each other in places they should not flirting with men walking down the street. Throwing used condmes but of course the media wont show that. If they here in my neighborhood a would first politely ask them to leave if they did not i am bringing out some type of club and chasing them out that type of stuff really gets me angre. I guess that might be the right thing to do but i don't want them in my neighborhood the gay pride parades are sick. In the Gay areas of my city they where absolutely sick clothing they are not as innocent as the media portrays them and the gay lesbian part of Netflix is almost all porn. I can give u examples

I think a reason why gays might commit suicide is the used to not be gay then a life experience changed them, don't just shot me down and say that is not possible it happens. I can show u psychological reasons if u want. I know homosexuals are miss treated but that does not make it natural. 





> On a final note, before I leave this thread. You have been given links to studies here, you have heard other members tell you of findings from MRI scans [ I am not sure to which study the poster was referring but it may have been that carried out at the Stockholm Institute, and you have heard other very good opinions. And your response to all of this has been to stamp your foot and insist only you have the answer. You have done this while using very negative semantics regarding homosexual or lesbian people. Coul I remind you Eupedia is a very large forum, it has a large number of members and also visitors to its pages. Do you really think [ or care] that perhaps not all are of the heterosexual lifestyle and many seeing some of your "finer" pieces may be much insulted.


I will study this more and i might send u some messages on what i find. I have always been very confident in my opinion and insisted im right and arguing with people offenlley since i could talk my family understands how u feel i know i am very stubborn and can get annoying.

I still think my whole argument about gay people having the same sexual behavior as straight people shows a female brain structure in gay men is not the source because they hump. there is no gay hormone found. Also a gay gene could not be passed done in humans animal ancestors because they dont have offspring. So if homosexuality is natural then they would have to use the same sexual resources that exist in heterosexuals and in someway mix it up but that does nit explain the whole sexual behavior thing.

If u think about Homosexuality being natural in a scientific way it seems impossible. Also those studies try to find a reason for homosexuality not a reason why it is not natural i cant find exact references which shows their bias but trust me they are totally biased. The fact all studies on gay animals tried to say it is natural and relate to humans show they where pro gay.

In what way have i offended homosexuals in anyway i can have an opinion that what they are doing in unnatural. I do know gay's might be insulted but they shouldn't i have a opinion they have a opinion. I am offended by their lifestyle and gay pride parades in my city where they do very inappropriate things so what. I can say to Lebrok for saying God does not exist offends my faith but i dont. Maybe people are too sensitive.

I do care about offending them but i am not going to hide my opinion.

----------


## alibaz

I do care about offending them but i am not going to hide my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Thats good Fire Haired - so you won't mind me making these observations....

1. You are NOT gay - OK, we get it - you're a red blooded hetrosexual male - your mother must be so proud. Though 'Thou dost protest' a little too much.
2. You are a God fearing Christian who reads the Bible - great, its good to have a faith. So it is a mortal sin for a man to lie with a man (or beast) - and you would NEVER do that. Presumably you also dont eat shellfish, have a tattoo, touch anything to do with pigs etc etc. Perhapsl this was really good health advice when the Gospels were written and maybe should be (unselectively) rethought now our medical awareness has improved. (Its far more interesting to read the gospels which James II left OUT of the bible - but thats another thread).
3. The sexual drive or urge to reproduce is natures strongest urge. Males with a high sex drive will 'hump' (as you call it), pretty much anything.
"Why did you sleep with your sister/horse/goat/sheep? ..... Because the nearest village is 10 miles away." (Old joke but I like it.)
A friend of mine who was in the Merchant Navy told me that using a tin of beans to gratify themselves was commonplace. I presume you masterbate - your argument forbids all this and leads me to believe that if you want 'unnatural' - find yourself a hetrosexual male who is gagging for it.
4. Have you not heard of IVF and turkey basters? Of course same sex couples can have children and pass their genes to the next generation. All they need is a good friend of the opposite sex in there somewhere.

----------


## alibaz

Hi Baron - thanks for your comments on my post. I was trying to catch up with what was going on with this thread and to be honest, its quite an annoying journey!!!! I really cant get my head around the logic (if there is any) of whats being said by certain contributors and regular members are being very valiant in trying to be reasoned and rational, and very interesting. I decided in the end to simply list my observations (#422) in response to one particular contributor and leave it at that.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Thats good Fire Haired - so you won't mind me making these observations....
> 
> 1. You are NOT gay - OK, we get it - you're a red blooded hetrosexual male - your mother must be so proud. Though 'Thou dost protest' a little too much.
> 2. You are a God fearing Christian who reads the Bible - great, its good to have a faith. So it is a mortal sin for a man to lie with a man (or beast) - and you would NEVER do that. Presumably you also dont eat shellfish, have a tattoo, touch anything to do with pigs etc etc. Perhapsl this was really good health advice when the Gospels were written and maybe should be (unselectively) rethought now our medical awareness has improved. (Its far more interesting to read the gospels which James II left OUT of the bible - but thats another thread).
> 3. The sexual drive or urge to reproduce is natures strongest urge. Males with a high sex drive will 'hump' (as you call it), pretty much anything.
> "Why did you sleep with your sister/horse/goat/sheep? ..... Because the nearest village is 10 miles away." (Old joke but I like it.)
> A friend of mine who was in the Merchant Navy told me that using a tin of beans to gratify themselves was commonplace. I presume you masterbate - your argument forbids all this and leads me to believe that if you want 'unnatural' - find yourself a hetrosexual male who is gagging for it.


all of that defends what i am saying that people can pervert and unlike what lebrok and others say that people who do stuff with animals have a brain issue. They ignore that it is totally possibly for people to pervert.
4. Have you not heard of IVF and turkey basters? Of course same sex couples can have children and pass their genes to the next generation. All they need is a good friend of the opposite sex in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

but totally gay animals dont reproduce. for example pro gay studies say 10% of a certain type of domestcated ram males are completly gay and dont have offspring that means they dont have a gay gene because they cant pass it down. So before human society and the IVD turkey basters gay people had no offspring i have seen that even pro gay people admit homosexuality would not be passed down and is terribly in evolution.

----------


## Ike

Hasn't anybody posted breaking-the-thread link yet?

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...8/part_1_full/

p.s. Read the warnings before you proceed.

----------


## alibaz

Ike - I only got to the warning page on your link, there is no way I am going to view anything like that. Why would you post a link like that? We dont have stuff like that going on in the UK where people (gay/straight whatever) are openly performing sexual acts - presumably to shock everyone - because it is simply ill mannered (how British!!!!). Good grief - the US has some weird and extremely unpleasant ways of expressing themselves. Please repost on the "Is America the Land of the Free" thread as I think its probably relevant there!

----------


## Fire Haired

> Ike - I only got to the warning page on your link, there is no way I am going to view anything like that. Why would you post a link like that? We dont have stuff like that going on in the UK where people (gay/straight whatever) are openly performing sexual acts - presumably to shock everyone - because it is simply ill mannered (how British!!!!). Good grief - the US has some weird and extremely unpleasant ways of expressing themselves. Please repost on the "Is America the Land of the Free" thread as I think its probably relevant there!


i know my country recently has gone nuts in many ways.

my on teacher said that there are more gays than straight people and everyone is hiding it but of course he is straght while half of the country is not what a freak. He think if people have gay temptaions that makes them gay but if gay's have straight temptations their not gay. He is one of the most close minded and biggest freaks i have heard in my life i have to listen to his long political speeches everyday when i correct him he calls me close minded when he is not open to any opinions but extreme liberal ones. And when it comes to ancient dna and other types of history he knows alot for a average person but compared to people like maciamo he claims Germans mainly Germanic tribes are the most evil people in history.

also i live in the most gay city in america san fran and i have only seen gay people holding hands. well my firends dad said and a gay pride parade they did many very very very sick things.

----------


## LeBrok

Sorry guys, not much time to argue my points recently, not even to read everything. Here is in short:




> Right now it seems there is no way anyone is born gay and now ur saying it is a fact some are ur coming to quick conclusions


Gay gene in fruit flies discovered:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210094541.htm



> Featherstone, associate professor of biological sciences at UIC, and his coworkers discovered a gene in fruit flies they called "genderblind," or GB. A mutation in GB turns flies bisexual.
> It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. They even attempted copulation


.
I know there is a far cry between humans and flies, but this is interesting. This mutation blocks repulsive pheromone smell males produce to let other males know, don't copulate with me. Otherwise fruit fliies are hardwired as bisexual. 
Fruit flies don't have ability to learn, so this is definitely not a cultural thing, no perverting.

In humans there is no one gay gene (yet) but there are few strong candidates, all the clues point of hereditary nature:



> What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? In 1993 Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute discovered a preliminary but nevertheless tantalizing clue.[9] Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html




> The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING.


I personally know to gays that left their families and kids (yes their genetic kids) in late 40s. They said they were sick and tired hiding their real sexuality all their life. It make sense as we are mostly susceptible to peer or family pressure in young age, and we go with our true nature later in life. On other hand I'm in later 40's myself and when I see two men kissing (sexually) I find it very repulsive, as repulsive as i've seen it the first time. I can't change it, but I can understand, tolerate, even though I can't look at it.




> We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations.


 If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.





> u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to.


I'm sorry but it only shows your young age and vast experience with real world. For 35 years I was a devoted catholic, I know the bible, and I know how world works on both sides, believer and atheist. My change of spirituality was strictly based on inability of bible to explain the world. Science explains it much better and more completely without need for miracles or any extra natural phenomenons. Actually science can explain spirituality and religion, but it doesn't work in reverse.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Sorry guys, not much time to argue my points recently, not even to read everything. Here is in short:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay gene in fruit flies discovered:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210094541.htm
> .
> I know there is a far cry between humans and flies, but this is interesting. This mutation blocks repulsive pheromone smell males produce to let other males know, don't copulate with me. Otherwise fruit flies are hardwired as bisexual. 
> Fruit flies don't have ability to learn, so this is definitely not a cultural thing, no perverting.





> "Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli," he explained.




which means it is just because they became more sexual. 




> "It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. .




So their gay sexulaity came from the same source as straight male sexuality it is not its own. So it is either its own sexuality mutated out of straight make sexuallity or a over reaction to sexual stimli. 




> To test this, he and his colleagues genetically altered synapse strength independent of GB, and also fed the flies drugs that can alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off -- and within hours.




so they used more than the GB gene to strengthen the sexuality of the fruit flies which made them bi. I dont exactly understand the other things they said. Their b sexuality was not a female source from what these guys said because they treated males like they did females. It was of male sexual source so it is not a specific gay gene or comes from a unique gay brain part. It comes from the same source as male sexual attraction to females. I cant decide if it is a overreaction to sexual feelings which is what the head of the study suggested or if somehow it is a mutated straight gene but then why would it cause them to be attracted to the same gender. That would not evolve from natural selection and how would it pop up there is no reason for it. I dont understand all of the science behind it i dont think u do either before we come up with conclusions i think both us need to study more. right now it looks like a over reaction to sexual stimli not a gene that specifcally causes them to be bi.

it is not a gay gene if anything it is a bi gene. also i think there needs to be more studies on this and compare this to other animals.




> In humans there is no one gay gene (yet) but there are few strong candidates, all the clues point of hereditary nature:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html


u need to realize this is all bias research and the writer of the article obviously shows is pro gay opinon much of the research is very questionble and not relible. Like studying families with gay people and their realtives i dont trust that one. How many have they studied and they just asked the people if they have had homosexual temptaions many people have so that doe snot make them gay it can totally be explained their their past life.

and they say the females had more homo sexual temptation then that the gene was passed from the mother. Where is the DNA evidence those are just speculations. Also gay men like i said have the same sexual behavour as straight men so it could not come from the mother it coems from the same source as striaght mens attrcation to women. 





> I personally know to gays that left their families and kids (yes their genetic kids) in late 40s. They said they were sick and tired hiding their real sexuality all their life. It make sense as we are mostly susceptible to peer or family pressure in young age, and we go with our true nature later in life. On other hand I'm in later 40's myself and when I see two men kissing (sexually) I find it very repulsive, as repulsive as i've seen it the first time. I can't change it, but I can understand, tolerate, even though I can't look at it.


then why did they get married they fell in love with women orignally and spent many years with them had kids. falling in love is one of the strongest emotions a human can have and it is completly willing. they defintley where very hetro sexual to commit to all of that and their homo stuff can be explained in temptaions and since they where so diff thought that is who they where. This stuff defintley is from more recent times they probably saw the homo temptations fearfully and diff so it made it more tempting. 

trust me people influced by gay stuff like child rape have a much better chance of becoming gay. i have argued this with many of my teachers they just ignore the whole life experience thing.




> If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
> Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
> We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.




U cant just say if someone has homo temptaions that makes them 100% gay. And many of u people just ignore obvious phscological causes of homosexuality. u always assume everyone goes 100% from instinct that is not true. I know a very sick and perverted side of homosexuaiy i have seen and been flitered by homo's in my town which has many gays. It is very sick dont lie and act as if they are exactly the same and are perfect little angles they have a perverted side which is not natural. 

Stop asking saying stuff like why question sexual orientation. of course u can question it that makes no sense that u cant. U cant defintley explain homosexuality and bisexuality with past life experiences stop ignoring that it is so true not every sexual feeling people have they where born with. and if people have a little temptation towards something that is not their gender does not mean they are homosexuals or motor sexual u need to read the biased pro gay articles with caution. 

honestly i can not believe u support those 40 year old men and women who left their family for the same gender. That get me so angre and i have the right to dont say i am a bigot that is just plain wrong. They probably said they where hiding their sexuality because they had those temptations for a very long time and they felt since it was gay it somehow meant they where 100% gay and pro gay people like u probably encouraged them. stop taking past life experiences and mental reason for homosexuality out of the picture they defintley matter.

i have seen pervert mental cases one threaten to kill my father and raped children now he is in prison. Which reminds me every heard of the saying dont drop the soap u think those prison rapist arent perverts and are naturally gay. Maybe they are gay for the same reason as those fruit flies over sexual stimli meaning they are extremly horney. These are people who say well i am just gay it was the way was born,. gay pride parades in my city with guys making out and touching each other in the wrong places throwing condoms and i have heard many people support them. 

what the heck it does not matter if u support gay marriage that is sick. it shows a sick side of homosexuality the media does not let us show and when people like me who have wittnessd it say stuff about it. We are called haters of gays. u have to consider the perverted and sick parts of homosexuality dont ignore it.




> If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
> Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
> We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.


when i say difference i mean we dont know if any one is naturally any thing but straight which is made for reproduction which is what sex was made for egg meets sperm not the other way around. i dont understand why u would think i am bisexual i guess now u want call everyone bi or gay i have noticed many people in recent times have been accused of being gay. Like any in the office since everyone though he was gay that made him consider if he was gay which he said gave him gay tempation again a good way to explain it in life expernces. 

so in ur opinion if someone has any gay temptation their gay or bi. have u considered that it could be from life experiences. there maybe needs to be a not pro gay study on gays personal sexual history. Also i would like to say female attitude has alot to do with male sexuality and vis versa with females so i wonder how many gay men like hairy chests and hairy men. or would be attracted to a big bearded beast viking( i cant speak for girls it seems like this is true). this is just from what i have experienced it seems girls like the athlete or a tough guy the majo man or other distinct personalty traits. girls change their opinion quickly based on personality while guys choose who they like before hearing a word come out of the girls mouth and also their femine attitude. also guys are the aggressors and stay stubborn to a girl till he losses interest or is constantly rejected.

why do people accuse men of being unfaithful that gets annoying its the girls who are unfaithful and cheaters. Guys make quick decisions while girls are picky and break alot of guys hearts. girls reject way more guys than guys reject girls.

i bet if their was a study they would see gay men sexual feelings for other men is based on the straight mans feelings for women. They show the same mental and other complicated sexual traits and like i said they have the same sexual behavior and i would guess same brain sexual behavior it is defintley not just testosterone like u said before. like the leader in the study said the fruit flies treated the men the same same way as the women. their sexual source was from male hetrosexuality the attraction to the male fruit fly may be over dose of sexual feelings like the lead of the study said or another reason but is unrelated to female sexuality. 

the reason those supreme court people probably turned gay. is reasons i have metioned fear and angre from the world they see they are the small minority to oppose gay marriage. i would not be supirsed if they have been attacked by gays i am not suprised this occurs in high ranking people against gay marriage it is totally mental and can be explained by life experiences. i am sick of people who want them to be gay and act as if one gay temptation makes someone gay. u completly ignore the life experiences factor.





> I'm sorry but it only shows your young age and vast experience with real world. For 35 years I was a devoted catholic, I know the bible, and I know how world works on both sides, believer and atheist. My change of spirituality was strictly based on inability of bible to explain the world. Science explains it much better and more completely without need for miracles or any extra natural phenomenons. Actually science can explain spirituality and religion, but it doesn't work in reverse.


majority of Americans are Christians technically. The vast majority i have meet throughout the country are in no way show signs of being christian(i cant say for sure). Catholics in my opinon are defintley the most unfaithful i go to a catholic school not one kid is a christain. when asked if they are atheist they almost always say yes they say they are Catholics too.

since u are catholic there is a chance u grew up mainly around left winged people who only showed their side on the bible. u never got to see the other side well u where probably only shown the extreme bad parts of the other side.

well u think miracles dont happen well i can show they do if u would like but that would take a new post(dont worry it is not extremely long). where did the first matter come from did it just pop up and i think so many amazing scientific thing s in our world are not completely chance. '

u cant dis agree catholic people are very un catholic. also that Christians from 300-1900ad defintley did not have a great idea on what the bible was. mainly because much of that time it was in Latin. the prove they where going against Jesus is the crimes, killings, and corrupt things so called christian Europe did for over 1,000 years.

----------


## Fire Haired

sorry about my long message repeated alot of my points.

----------


## LeBrok

> sorry about my long message repeated alot of my points


You can't help your nature, can you? I'm sure "this lot of blablabla" is hardwired too. You just can't go against your nature, well with huge difficulty.




> So their gay sexulaity came from the same source as straight male sexuality it is not its own. So it is either its own sexuality mutated out of straight make sexuallity or a over reaction to sexual stimli.


Whatever..., this is an example of genetics influencing sexual orientation. One gene mutation and natural animals developed homosexual predispositions.
Instead of this lot of blabla, can you finally admit that genetic mutation can lead to homosexuality in animals (fruit flies in this case)?





> u need to realize this is all bias


 Because they don't agree with your biblical point of view?
Can you say Copernicus and Galileo?






> then why did they get married they fell in love with women orignally and spent many years with them had kids. falling in love is one of the strongest emotions a human can have and it is completly willing. they defintley where very hetro sexual to commit to all of that and their homo stuff can be explained in temptaions and since they where so diff thought that is who they where. This stuff defintley is from more recent times they probably saw the homo temptations fearfully and diff so it made it more tempting.


It was the point to show you that homosexuals can have kids. You didn't believe it.
He is bisexual from birth. With family pressure and woman (his future wife) was loving him and he got married to this woman. Later in life love evaporated, and it happened that he met a guy that he fell in love with. Being bisexual he could have sexual relationships with both sexes. He's sexual orientation was bisexual from puberty. Actually it wasn't 50/50 he always liked men more than women.
Simple biology in action to explain it all. We don't need devils, temptations, miracles, perverting, influencing, all this mumbo jumbo. Sexual orientation at genetic level and manifested at puberty, makes a choice for us, what sex we are attracted to.




> trust me people influced by gay stuff like child rape have a much better chance of becoming gay.


 Are you insane? It is like saying that raping a women will make her loving and wanting men even more. You don't really get psychology, nor understand people.






> if people have a little temptation towards something that is not their gender does not mean they are homosexuals


 Yes it does. I'm a straight man, I never in my life found any man sexually attractive, not even Brad Pitt. I find homosexual acts mentally repulsive, can't watch it even in mild form in movies. From puberty I was only attracted to women, and it is still the case. And I had no sexual education at all, and when I was growing up TV was very asexual. It all came in natural way to me.




> or motor sexual u need to read the biased pro gay articles with caution.


 Tell me why would I like to read gay pro biased articles?
The articles that I cited explain sexuality in simple scientific understandable terms, that's why I like them.




> honestly i can not believe u support those 40 year old men and women who left their family for the same gender. That get me so angre and i have the right to dont say i am a bigot that is just plain wrong. They probably said they where hiding their sexuality because they had those temptations for a very long time and they felt since it was gay it somehow meant they where 100% gay and pro gay people like u probably encouraged them. stop taking past life experiences and mental reason for homosexuality out of the picture they defintley matter.


 For god sake man, get a grip on yourself. Nobody did this on purpose to make you angry. You're not that special, lol. Grownups made their life choices, and life is too short to get stuck with person one hates.
If you let them be gay and marry men they wouldn't need to pretend for years to love women and make them both unhappy. Unfortunately biggest like you is screwing peoples lives with hatred and social pressures.
But I guess you read your bible and you know the truth. Can you say again Galileo and Giordano Bruno.




> i have seen pervert mental cases one threaten to kill my father and raped children now he is in prison. Which reminds me every heard of the saying dont drop the soap u think those prison rapist arent perverts and are naturally gay. Maybe they are gay for the same reason as those fruit flies over sexual stimli meaning they are extremly horney. These are people who say well i am just gay it was the way was born,. gay pride parades in my city with guys making out and touching each other in the wrong places throwing condoms and i have heard many people support them.


 So what if their orientations are genetic, it still doesn't mean they can break the law and hurt people. 90% of killers in prisons (according to one study) have brain abnormalities, either from birth or accidents. It doesn't mean we let them loose.





> what the heck it does not matter if u support gay marriage that is sick. it shows a sick side of homosexuality the media does not let us show and when people like me who have wittnessd it say stuff about it. We are called haters of gays. u have to consider the perverted and sick parts of homosexuality dont ignore it.


 Any study showing that homosexuality ruins society in any way, economy, sociological, politically?
Actually the most prosperous countries on this planet have the biggest numbers of homosexuals out of closets. How is this possible? Bible says otherwise.








> so in ur opinion if someone has any gay temptation their gay or bi. have u considered that it could be from life experiences


 Yes I did. You can't change sexual orientation. If you had slightest temptation for a guy, at least you are a bi. What I can assure you is that if you are 100% straight this thought would never cross your mind.




> there maybe needs to be a not pro gay study on gays personal sexual history. Also i would like to say female attitude has alot to do with male sexuality and vis versa with females so i wonder how many gay men like hairy chests and hairy men. or would be attracted to a big bearded beast viking( i cant speak for girls it seems like this is true). this is just from what i have experienced it seems girls like the athlete or a tough guy the majo man or other distinct personalty traits. girls change their opinion quickly based on personality while guys choose who they like before hearing a word come out of the girls mouth and also their femine attitude. also guys are the aggressors and stay stubborn to a girl till he losses interest or is constantly rejected.


 I'm sorry you can't find true love.






> i bet if their was a study they would see gay men sexual feelings for other men is based on the straight mans feelings for women.


 Of course the mechanism is the same. But you can't change what gender exites you sexully. Of course life experiences have effect on our sexuality, but they can't change your sexual orientation. This primal instinct is set in stone from conception.







> the reason those supreme court people probably turned gay. is reasons i have metioned fear and angre from the world they see they are the small minority to oppose gay marriage. i would not be supirsed if they have been attacked by gays i am not suprised this occurs in high ranking people against gay marriage it is totally mental and can be explained by life experiences. i am sick of people who want them to be gay and act as if one gay temptation makes someone gay. u completly ignore the life experiences factor.


Woohoo, conspiracy to get you. Again, you're not that special.






> majority of Americans are Christians technically. The vast majority i have meet throughout the country are in no way show signs of being christian(i cant say for sure). Catholics in my opinon are defintley the most unfaithful i go to a catholic school not one kid is a christain. when asked if they are atheist they almost always say yes they say they are Catholics too.


 Oh yeah, you're the only real christian, you are the chosen one!




> since u are catholic there is a chance u grew up mainly around left winged people who only showed their side on the bible. u never got to see the other side well u where probably only shown the extreme bad parts of the other side.


 Bad part for one is beautiful for other.




> well u think miracles dont happen well i can show they do if u would like but that would take a new post(dont worry it is not extremely long). where did the first matter come from did it just pop up and i think so many amazing scientific thing s in our world are not completely chance. '


I don't care for miracles, I don't need miracles. Human mind is making miracles every day. Look at your computer screen with internet connection or penicillin. I guess god didn't give us instruction how to make these in the bible. Too bad, maybe I would have a believed then.




> u cant dis agree catholic people are very un catholic. also that Christians from 300-1900ad defintley did not have a great idea on what the bible was. mainly because much of that time it was in Latin. the prove they where going against Jesus is the crimes, killings, and corrupt things so called christian Europe did for over 1,000 years.


 Sometimes I think you ignoring scientific facts because you think that Holy Spirit is showing you the truth and the only way. Can you say Giordano Bruno and Darwin?

----------


## Fire Haired

> You can't help your nature, can you? I'm sure "this lot of blablabla" is hardwired too. You just can't go against your nature, well with huge difficulty.


no i think it is the way a grew up but partlly in my nature i can still stop it though it was my mistake. something that is in my nature is to beat the crap out of dis respectful people who think their smart like u.





> Whatever..., this is an example of genetics influencing sexual orientation. One gene mutation and natural animals developed homosexual predispositions.
> Instead of this lot of blabla, can you finally admit that genetic mutation can lead to homosexuality in animals (fruit flies in this case)?



the only non human species i heard about was fruit flies. uu do know they used drugs
The team led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.
Genetic manipulation is scientists messing with their genes click on the link it explains i dont completly uunderstand it u have to understand this was an experiment.

I dont think either of us understand the Fruit fly gay gene thing. The leader of the study said it affected how they responded to Pharmone Pheromones are powerful sexual stimuli," Featherstone said. "As it turns out, the GB mutant flies were perceiving pheromones differently. Specifically, the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus."

can u explain exactly what the GB gene is i doubt it. U need to understand it for some not completly known reason causes the male fruit flys to sexually treat male and femlae fruit flys the same why they tried to put sperm or whatever fruit flys have into the male furit flys. that means their bi sexuality is caused by the same source as male heterosexuality it is not its on gene it works with the male sex genes. i think the leader said it may be a overreaction to sexual stimil i dont completly understand what stimil means. 

Before u said well science is complicated and just because gay men and gay women sexual behavior is like straight men and straight women their might be a very very complicated answer in science. but now that they say they found a GB(that scints created and added drugs) bisexual gene in male fruit flys u automatically call it a total gene like a gene for red hair when u dont even understand how it works. U don't study it further. 







> Because they don't agree with your biblical point of view?
> Can you say Copernicus and Galileo?


Well if u want evidence i will give u evidence. 
 


> Take, for example, the lugubrious statements of-once respected investigators. Here is Sandor Feldman, a well-known psychotherapist, in 1956:





> It is the consensus of many contemporary psychoanalytic workers that permanent homosexuals, like all perverts, are neurotics.[1]



the author of the article called them lugubrois statemenst maki his or her opinon very clear.so the person who wrote that article was pro gay. 




> Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and a small group of researchers concerned to distinguish biological and genetic influences on sexual behavior has discredited much of the loose rhetoric that has been used about homosexuality. In August 1991, LeVay, a neuroscientist who now directs the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education in southern California, published in the magazine Science findings from autopsies of men and women of known sexual preference. He found that a tiny region in the center of the brain--the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 3--was, on average, substantially smaller in nineteen gay men who died from AIDS than among sixteen heterosexual men.[7]




simon was obviously trying to find evidence people are born gay all they said was a part of the brain was smaller. he was a biased researcher and did only one study and besided female and male homosexuality is unrelated. 




> The most convincing evidence he puts forward to support his view comes from women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This condition, in which masculine characteristics, such as androgenized genitalia, including clitoral enlargement and partially fused labia, become pronounced in women, is caused by excessive testosterone production and leads, in adulthood, to an increased frequency of lesbianism affecting up to half of all the women who have the condition. The theory, still unproven, that is proposed to explain these behavioral effects of hormones is that one or more chemical signals act during a brief early critical period in the development of most males to alter permanently both the brain and the pattern of their later adult behavior. Unless this hormonal influence is switched on, a female pattern of development will follow automatically.




earlier both of us agreed this could not be the case. because lesbian women dont hump or adore women the same way straight men do. also they dont have a pennis.i think it is clear the guy who did this study wanted to say that and that was his goal he was a biased researcher.




> Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women.




once agian they where looking for something like that a biased reseach. that is just one family and how would a gay egen that cause men to want to hump men be passed down from the mother also gays use the same hromones as straights. all they asked is if they had a gay temptation well i am sure all of them had a straight temptaion. someone being attracted to a dog at some point does not mean they are motor sexuals or that it is natural. this article was made to say homosexuality is natural u know its biased.

I think u also know that the american educational world is very liberal. the american media is very libearl. my father has almost been kicked out of his universty when getting a phd and been given bad grades because of his opinion plus it was catholic. it is people like u the run american education all of this studies where defintley pro gay. I KNOW UR GOING TO BE STUBBORN ABOUT THIS LIKE U HAVE THIS WHOLE TIME AND SAY I LIE. i am sure u where great catholic same reason u insult the bible Catholics i have meet are atheist and Catholics. 






[QUOTE=LeBrok;412447]It was the point to show you that homosexuals can have kids. You didn't believe it.
He is bisexual from birth. With family pressure and woman (his future wife) was loving him and he got married to this woman. Later in life love evaporated, and it happened that he met a guy that he fell in love with. Being bisexual he could have sexual relationships with both sexes. He's sexual orientation was bisexual from puberty. Actually it wasn't 50/50 he always liked men more than women.
Simple biology in action to explain it all. We don't need devils, temptations, miracles, perverting, influencing, all this mumbo jumbo. Sexual orientation at genetic level and manifested at puberty, makes a choice for us, what sex we are attracted to.

[QUOTE=LeBrok;412447]Are you insane? It is like saying that raping a women will make her loving and wanting men even more. You don't really get psychology, nor understand people.



Yes it does. I'm a straight man, I never in my life found any man sexually attractive, not even Brad Pitt. I find homosexual acts mentally repulsive, can't watch it even in mild form in movies. From puberty I was only attracted to women, and it is still the case. And I had no sexual education at all, and when I was growing up TV was very asexual. It all came in natural way to me.




> Tell me why would I like to read gay pro biased articles?


humm...... are u kidding me BECAUSE UR PRO GAY AND HAVE A POSSSBLY BI SEXUAL ACCORDING TO UR THEORYS



> The articles that I cited explain sexuality in simple scientific understandable terms, that's why I like them.


stop lieing ur biased their biased american media is biased too. come on man i know where u are coming from i have seen so many so called Catholics like u almost everyone in my city.




> For god sake man, get a grip on yourself. Nobody did this on purpose to make you angry. You're not that special, lol. Grownups made their life choices, and life is too short to get stuck with person one hates.
> If you let them be gay and marry men they wouldn't need to pretend for years to love women and make them both unhappy. Unfortunately biggest like you is screwing peoples lives with hatred and social pressures.


u act like u know everyones life story and u understand psychology of sexuality we u dont u know just as well or worse than i do. see i know who u are ur are made of 1960's hippie mindset ur like a scientific creation. obviously u have some hate against me you biget. u think in this liberal mind set wow tolernce well we cant allow people to do whatever they want. hey u are a biget towards people who like animals but of course u are going to say that is much more rare but according to what u say we cant go agianst our nature then why are some people attracted to animals and did u see that article i showed a pitbull raped a little girl is that natural too. 

u guys don't know me or my people u think where just haters when we are not(i know i seem to angre sometimes i apoligize). i have meet gay people i dont dis respect them but when the subject comes up i wont lie i think what their doing is wrong. u guys have blinded yourself and ignored the psychological factors and people attracted to animals to fit ur perfect world. u make ur selfs think there is not a sick side to homosexuality. 

we cant have a compeltly tolerant society there are wrongs and rights. u need to realize ur people rule Americas media ur people rule our education systems. my people's voice is not shown we are shown in the way u want us to seem as bigets. u create this fixed idea of what society is as tolerant when the rules of tolerant constinley change. i accept other people but i have rules just like u i don't want to hate people. 

i have a 68 year old teacher who is like u times 10 i have to listen to his speeches about tolerance when he is not tolerant. he says he is open mined no he isn't at all he believes is the extreme liberal opinion and hates any thing to do with religion just like u. i am 15 u think i am the smartest person with my opinion. u know what u and other have made me want to become a politician and wake this country up. maybe do some studies on this subject. trust me this country will be changed and i will help it happen.

i know that i seem very angry sometimes i apologize ur dis respectful attitude, insults, and over confidence got me angry. i am defintley not a good example of a good person.





> So what if their orientations are genetic, it still doesn't mean they can break the law and hurt people. 90% of killers in prisons (according to one study) have brain abnormalities, either from birth or accidents. It doesn't mean we let them loose.


The guy i am talking about had mental problems one of his problems was he was a pervert apart of that was he was attarcted to other men and raped little kids. u are going to call anytype of gay act comepltly natural arent u dont even consider anything else. Why do u think men act more gay when in prison they say that they raped other men because they had not had a woman for so long theyw here desprite it was not natural. when u see a attractive girl on tv that is not a woman it is electronic stuff on the tv scrren so ur body does not say wait no that is not a phiscal human being. the male and femlae body has so many similraties that u should except homosexuality to be more popular than motorsexuality and perversion is defintley possible. U ARE SO STUBBORN ON THAT POINT EVEN THOUGH U HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT UR NATURE SAYS.





> Any study showing that homosexuality ruins society in any way, economy, sociological, politically?
> Actually the most prosperous countries on this planet have the biggest numbers of homosexuals out of closets. How is this possible? Bible says otherwise.


i never said homosexuality will destroy society u just wanted me too. obviosuly u dont know the bible well(Catholic for 35 yearsaka athiest but modertley dis like Christianity) the bible just says it is going agianst our nature and what humans are made to do it never mentions its affect on society. The reason the most proporus countries alloow homosexuality is because their western nations which began to allow it in the last 30 years when they where already powerful.









> Yes I did. You can't change sexual orientation. If you had slightest temptation for a guy, at least you are a bi. What I can assure you is that if you are 100% straight this thought would never cross your mind.


WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE U HAVE NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! i have a teacher u ignored the fact people have CHOOSE stop ignoring it. how do u know ur not gay because the culture has made u straight see if everyone started putting that in ur mind u have a better chance of having gay temptations. u say that because it goes along with ur argument i am sick of ur dis respectful attitude and how u think ur all smart do u realize i am 15 wait till i am 25 so how much i know i might do some studies myself.

gay men and women have the same sexual behavior as straight men and women they dont have a unque sexuality. so if there is a gay gene it is based on hetrosexuality of that gender either they are just [perveting because they have very big sexual feelings. or somehow something in the dna causes some weird think that is hard to explain that somewow makes a man want to ump another man i really dont know how to explain that and why would it help in evolution. like alcholics there are no natural alcholics but there are people who have bodies that will become more addicted to alchol than other people it might be something like that with gay people.

the scientists created the so called fruit fly gay egen the leader said it might be a overreaction to sexual stimili and that they really dont know exactly why it causes them to also be attracted to male fruit fly's. u know they also used drugs and probably put all male fruit flys in a box for about one hour i am just saying it could be the same case with those guys in jail their desperate. then later they put females in. 

i think there needs to be more study in this and there needs to be studies.




> I'm sorry you can't find true love.


wow u are so respectful and mature. i dont understand it is women who pick which guy they want and reject like 50 and why do u think guys are so defensive because women are cheaters too.






> Of course the mechanism is the same. But you can't change what gender exites you sexully. Of course life experiences have effect on our sexuality, but they can't change your sexual orientation. This primal instinct is set in stone from conception.


the way the act and the way they check each other out the way they think about sexual stuff is the same. i dont understand how naturally a man could want to treat another man like he is a woman which is for reproduction which is what sex is for. whatever this gay gene is u think exists it is based on hetrosexual sexuality in every way not just hormones which is why i dont think it exists. this sexual orientation thing is just a word and yes life experiences can change ur sexual orientation why are u so stubborn on that. 

show me evidence it is completely set in stone that just a saying. primal instinct u dont know what that is when it comes down to DNA ur not a expert neither am i on this both of us are biased on one side. if there is a so called gay gene it would not be passed down then it would have to be a bisexual gene also i still don't understand and i dont think u know how to explain why gay men and women have the exact same sexual behavior then how could they have a diff sexual orientation


if it is not female genes that make gay men attarcted to other men then what does. they are attracted to other men the same way straight men are attracted to women how can u make a gene that switches it that makes no sense to me. can u explain that. 

u should watch the office episode where andy thinks he is gay because Micheal his boss made a rumor he was. andy said he had only been attracted to women but when they called him gay he reconsidered and said he wanted to explore it obviously shows a how someone can change their sexuality. any pschologist who is not completely biased and has dealed with perverts would say ur wrong we can change our sexual orientation it is not all natural.

why do some men rape little girls who did not go through puberty and dont have those female markers that technically is unnatural well i guess maybe u could find a way to get around that. what about men raping little boys men who said they where straight their whole life or people raping dogs i bet men have i higher rate i know from the studies i read and the wikpedia page animal homosexuality said the rate is higher in males.








> Woohoo, conspiracy to get you. Again, you're not that special.


when did i ever say i was special id di not really beive it but if it was true that was what i thought the cause was.






> Oh yeah, you're the only real christian, you are the chosen one!


i never said that. what i know is Catholics and former Catholics like u are not Christians and are very left winged and hateful towards people like me because i have experienced that hate they are usually Christian by culture. i really doubt u where a serious catholic based on what u are saying and the dis respect u show towards Christianity u should be ashamed of ur self. u say i am spreading hate u spread hate agianst people like me. there are limits in society i think homosexuality is one of them just like u think motor sexuality is one does that make u a bigiot.




> Bad part for one is beautiful for other.


so u did grow up left winged catholic that explains alot. 




> I don't care for miracles, I don't need miracles. Human mind is making miracles every day. Look at your computer screen with internet connection or penicillin. I guess god didn't give us instruction how to make these in the bible. Too bad, maybe I would have a believed then.


u show alot of respect for Christianity don't u what a model citizen of a tolerant society and a former catholic. why should the bible show instruction on making a computer obviously u don't understand the bible. that totally goes with Christianity and the bible on how amazing humans are. u show the same hate for Christianity my catholic school does including or priests so i guess ur still catholic.

and miracles do happen and u would care if God himself went up to u anyone would care. I can give u some examples now my family would not like me to tell it as if it was a miracle because we are not suppose to base faith on miracles they might not be miracles and we should not give them alot of attention.

mu uncle in law not by blood(my dads family is not christain anyways) total redneck says he wants nothing with God. while on his truck route has a vision of Jesus telling him who he is. Says the vision lasted for about 10 minutes while he was on the highway. he knew specific stuff about the Bible after that vision he never learned plus he was not in a accident his truck was fine. Says he never remembered waking up became a chrsitain becuse of the vision.

my friends family from Zion Illinois family orignalley moved there because they said themselves dowie healed them from a deadly disease and many people say they where healed by him. That is why the city was started. dowie went very crazy and trusted on his miracles but it seems he really did heal people their are many witness.

my father when he had just became a Christian was ministering to a old old man at a retirement home the guys yells at him tells him to believe says the Bible is a bunch of lies. then while my dad is leaving the old man is crying like a little baby my dad comes in to help he is touching his head so my dad prays for him the second my dad says amen the pain is gone the old man became a christian.

my greate grandmother giving birth to my grandmother in 1936. she died when giving birth my grandpa named my grandmother after her. then about 10 minutes later she jumped up out of her bed automatically and sang in tongue(she lived to be 103 i am not saying thats a miracle just saying). the doctor is dead but my family did know him and from what i hear he did not deny it. my great grand parents my grand parents and my mom almost never talk about it i asked today just for u. u could just say their a bunch of liers but i doubt that they are not the extreme bigets u might think they are. that may be a mircle.

i have many more examples some in my own life put that might be to personal and tell more about my self. i dont know if these are miracles but it gets convincing after a while where people witness things like someone speaking in tongues in a language he never learned stuff like that has happened i have meet people saying they have seen that. people say they have seen mircles just like in the bible i know u are really going to criticize on this and be 10 times more stubborn than before.

the fact the disciples followed Jesus and died for him because they say they saw him be raised from the dead. If they never did it why would they face rejection from the Jewish people and gentiles and be persecuted made fun of and then killed why would they lie to themselves. and why does Christianity spread so much in ancient Rome and just ancient people period. i know far left people who truly do hate Christianity give the excuse to as earthquake or try to say it was all forced conversions even though Christians where heavily persecuted the new testament makes it so clear so many times Jesus is for all nations and one day all nations will hear of him and at least some from every nation will convert look at Christianity today and how spread out it is. i doubt Paul every considered the Germanic tribes or Irish to be major Christians or convert.

people try to make Christianity seem as small as possible but it is pretty amazing simple Jews 2,000ybp where able to spread it and make it so large that may be a mircle in it self. i can give u more examples if u would like. also how do u explain nearlly everyone in the world except recent modern atheist. Believe in a God and every religion is so similar we all got it from the same source i also think it is in our instinct to believe in God.





> Sometimes I think you ignoring scientific facts because you think that Holy Spirit is showing you the truth and the only way. Can you say Giordano Bruno and Darwin?


when did i ever say that i am not ignoring scientific fact what i am doing is studying science unlike u. i think u are ignoring a scientific fact that gay people have the same sexual behavior as straight people gay men treat men the same way straight men treat women they have the same sexuality. how could that twist if they dont have any signs of a woman sexuality because they treat men in every way the same as men treat women even the fruit flys also did u know they had a scientific experiment the fruit flys where not born with it they changed the synpess strength in the fruit flys i bet u dont even know what that means.

----------


## Fire Haired

sorry man i wont be able to respond till maybe tomorrow i am busy making a huge thread bout Germanic tribes historically and Genetically. i think u will like it i will edit if there are mistakes which there probably will be. i have been responding to posts and it has really slowed me down.

----------


## LeBrok

> no i think it is the way a grew up but partlly in my nature i can still stop it though it was my mistake. something that is in my nature is to beat the crap out of dis respectful people who think their smart like u.


 By length of this post it is obvious you can't control your nature. You can say, in your standard long blablabla, that it is not true, but your actions speak louder.

Anyway without much of my blabla, didn't they turned flies gay or bi by switching GB gene? Can you give me a short answer? We don't need a novel again.




> Well if u want evidence i will give u evidence.


And you cited all contrary to your views material and called it biased. How come all the scientists don't share your point of view? Is it a case that at age of 15 you are not understanding all facts and implications?




> humm...... are u kidding me BECAUSE UR PRO GAY AND HAVE A POSSSBLY BI SEXUAL ACCORDING TO UR THEORYS


Aside the fact that your sentence makes little logic, you didn't explain why I'm pro gay if I can't even look at two gay kissing.





> stop lieing ur biased their biased american media is biased too. come on man i know where u are coming from i have seen so many so called Catholics like u almost *everyone in my city.*


That's what I mean that you are special. Everyone else thinks different than you.





> u act like u know everyones life story and u understand psychology of sexuality


Maybe because I'm old and have seen a lot and you're just 15 and mostly full of christian dogma.




> pitbull raped a little girl is that natural too.


Did you show the dog perverted movies?




> u guys don't know me or my people u think where just haters when we are not(i know i seem to angre sometimes i apoligize).


 Yes, we know your people and left them in times of Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition. I guess some escaped...




> u i don't want to hate people.


Shit, you've broke your rules again.




> i have a 68 year old teacher who is like u times 10 i have to listen to his speeches about tolerance when he is not tolerant.


Have you ever considered the fact that actually you might be wrong?







> i am 15 u think i am the smartest person with my opinion. u know what u and other have made me want to become a politician and wake this country up.


 Congratulation on a visions but it is not going to happen. First of all, you can barely communicate with people using words. Not a very good trait to excite people to action.
Secondly, most people will hate your vision of the country.




> i know that i seem very angry sometimes i apologize ur dis respectful attitude, insults, and over confidence got me angry. i am defintley not a good example of a good person.


 More reason to reflect on your points of view. Overconfidence and erratic thinking had lead you to wrong conclusions.






> U ARE SO STUBBORN ON THAT POINT EVEN THOUGH U HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT UR NATURE SAYS.


 If you were 100% heterosexual you wouldn't have any difficulties to understand that it is impossible to change sides. If you think you are, try to get an erection thinking about handsome man. How did it go?
If it comes to your blabla nature it is very hard to write something short to the point, but not impossible.







> i never said homosexuality will destroy society u just wanted me too.


 Well then, what are you afraid of? Otherwise read again your sentence. When you are a politician (on a mission to change the rotten world), Jay Leno and others will eat you alive first.





> i am sick of ur dis respectful attitude and how u think ur all smart do u realize i am 15 wait till i am 25 so how much i know i might do some studies myself.


 I can't wait till you're 25, perhaps your logical part of brain can catch up with your hyperactive memory and lips.




> gay men and women have the same sexual behavior as straight men and women they dont have a unque sexuality. so if there is a gay gene it is based on hetrosexuality of that gender either they are just [perveting because they have very big sexual feelings.


 How many times I have to point you into understanding that movements of humping is one thing and what you hump is completely different.
Sexual act - humping.
What you hump - sexual orientation.
Can you see the difference between these two concepts and definitions?





> the scientists created the so called fruit fly gay egen the leader said it might be a overreaction to sexual stimili and that they really dont know exactly why it causes them to also be attracted to male fruit fly's. u know they also used drugs and probably put all male fruit flys in a box for about one hour i am just saying it could be the same case with those guys in jail their desperate. then later they put females in.


 I'm glad you still contemplating this research. Perhaps there is a gay gene?




> i think there needs to be more study in this and there needs to be studies.


You can bank on it. But wait, they will be all biased.





> show me evidence it is completely set in stone that just a saying. primal instinct u dont know what that is when it comes down to DNA


I'm the walking evidence. After 50 years bombarded by liberal christian and other liberal media and liberal movies I'm still 100% straight man with not even one temptation with same sex.
Tell me how is this possible?




> u should watch the office episode where andy thinks he is gay because Micheal...


Excellent material to learn psychology.




> why do some men rape little girls who did not go through puberty


Similar thing. Wrong neuronal connection making men sexually excited on sight of little girls. Also psychopaths are people getting sexually excited on sight of human torture and suffering. Brain hardwired the wrong way. Genetic mistake.
We don't need devil or perversion. Just stupid nature playing roulette.







> when did i ever say i was special id di not really beive it but if it was true that was what i thought the cause was.


 Another Jay Leno special...








> i never said that.


 So maybe you better spend more time writing what you say, and be clear, and double check. Just be courteous towards other people reading your posts.




> fact what i am doing is studying science unlike u.


 Ouch you got me, that hurts, lol.





> i think u are ignoring a scientific fact that gay people have the same sexual behavior as straight people gay


 Let's try the definitions again. Humping - sexual act, who you hump - sexual orientation. 




> the fruit flys also did u know they had a scientific experiment the fruit flys where not born with it they changed the synpess strength in the fruit flys i bet u dont even know what that means.


 I'm glad you still contemplating fruit flies. Keep thinking.

----------


## Fire Haired

> By length of this post it is obvious you can't control your nature. You can say, in your standard long blablabla, that it is not true, but your actions speak louder.
> 
> Anyway without much of my blabla, didn't they turned flies gay or bi by switching GB gene? Can you give me a short answer? We don't need a novel again.


I can control my nature ur not a Psychologist why are u using that to help ur argument. I apologize for being so angry towards alright i will stop now. U know humans have free choose like with controlling how they talk dont u i dont think we need to argue about this.

What they did was change the regulator in the synpass by genetic manipulation or drugs. The fruit flys where not born like that the Scientists did it to them. I dont know exactly what they did also they did not turn them gay they said the fruit flys treated male fruit flys excatley the same as female ones when it comes to sex thats all. 

I dont think either of us understand Genetic Manipulation or Synpass strength. What i can conclude on this is that the attraction those male fruit fly's had for other males was based on male attraction for females. They where not using female anything from what i know. Everything they did to the males is also what they did to females so it is male sexuality. 

The leader of the study said it may have been a overreaction to sexual stimil what ever sexual stimil is. I think there needs to be way more studies on this the article called it a gay gene when it was put in by scientists not by nature. also it was not a gay gene it caused them to use their male sexuality on each other it was not a diff type than they already had.

plus the study was done by people from UIC. That is a very liberal college they are going to want to go more on the gay side. That is very true not matter how much u want to deny it. I am not saying their liers but u need to study it on ur own don't believe a title(which is trying to get attention like all media titles) to a article really figure out on ur own what the study showed.





> And you cited all contrary to your views material and called it biased. How come all the scientists don't share your point of view? Is it a case that at age of 15 you are not understanding all facts and implications?


The article was made to say homosexuality is completely natural with no choice. Of course it was biased dont u agree. That is not all scientists that was just the ones that one author showed. I think i understand the facts about this study from what i have seen all u do is quote the title of a article that trys to get attention and u did not actulley study what it was.




> Aside the fact that your sentence makes little logic, you didn't explain why I'm pro gay if I can't even look at two gay kissing.


Ur pro gay because u say people are born gay. u try to make every little thing fit ur perfect world. U say all sexual choose is 100% natural when it comes to gender u say it is impossible to pervert so that the idea that gay people are not naturally gay is not possible. Every psychologist who studies perverts would dis agree with u. Then when i bring up humans who have sex with animals or people who rape little kids or animals that rape humans. U either ignore it or say they have a mental problem but how does a mental problem cause people do do something u say is impossible.

I want to make this clear people have alot of sexual choose they can be attracted to the gender they are not biologically suppose to be. U argue that is not true because if it was it would hurt ur argument. U also want to take out the perverted and sick side of homosexuality that has always been there. U want to say they are all 100% innocent even that guy who had mental problems and threaten my dad's life and raped a child u still dont belive he is a pervert. Or those guys who rape other men in prison even though they where completely straight and say they do it because they had no women. u still say their gay or bi u make ur own definitions based on psychology u mad up to fit ur idea about homosexuality.

u have no Psychological evidence that if someone has one tiny gay temptation their at least bi. Do u think sandusky is bi for raping little boys i think he is just a pervert. U say u belive in sexual choose but when it comes down to diff gender it is impossble the only reason is it does not fit ur argument u are being very stubborn about such a simple fact perverts exist. U theory will cause u to defend sick perverts throughout history like Nero or Sandusky from Penn state.






> That's what I mean that you are special. Everyone else thinks different than you.


No u and the liberal world thinks everyone is like u. U know that almost half of the voter did not vote for Obama. There are many many people who would agree with me. The media uses its power to make america more libearl. and u think that is okay. When people with my opinion are possed as un tolerant bigets who want to cut the heads off of gay people and are raciest. even though all of that is not true. Dont u think it is wrong such a large portion of the american population is mis represented on american media. Why would u support that if every station was like fox news i would not support that. i dont support fox new period i dont like how they are biased.

This shows u grew up in a liberal world u think everyone thinks like u. I grow up in one of the most liberal world i am used of being the only person with an opinon.






> Maybe because I'm old and have seen a lot and you're just 15 and mostly full of christian dogma.


U can say i am full of Christian dogma and u are defintley full of Liberal dogma and anti Christian mind set. I thought of all of these arguments on my own i have argued this issue with my family so many times they think there is some type of gay gene but are against gay marriage. I had a huge argument with 3 of my brothers, 1 cousin, grand parents, my mom's cousin, and sister. On this issue they all pushed towards some type of gay gene at the end some agreeed with me. What i am trying to say is no one taught me this argument sure the motivation behind it is from my Christian backround in a way.

I have heard ur exact arguments from other people before so i know it is not completely original not saying that makes it worse. U are going off of Liberal rules and dogma in ur opinion there is no way anyone can pervert because that destroys ur idea on homosexuals because that means they might be perverting. u ignore people who are attracted to animals or little kids and give the excuse of a brain issue but how does that explain the sexual part it destroys ur idea people cant pervert. i have heard people give those exact arguments. U ignore the creepy history of homosexuality and those people in prison to fit ur perfect world. U try to make everything fit ur ideals.




> Did you show the dog perverted movies?


no i gave u a link of a dog who raped a two year old girl and the cops found his seman in side of her after the mom called the cops. U try to ignore human motor sexuals because it does not agree with ur idea about it is impossible to go agianst ur nature.




> Yes, we know your people and left them in times of Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition. I guess some escaped...


I dont know what u know who i call my people. We are not raciest, not hateful against different people like u think. Christianity like the most non hateful religion and not raciest at all it repeats in the Bible so many times it is for all nations. U think ur more tolerant than me ur tolerance is just different. I think homosexuality is wrong that does not make me un tolerant. U think a grown men having relationships with 5 year old's is wrong would if someone though different. U think someone in a loving relationship with a dog is wrong maybe some dont. They can call u un tolernt maybe now u get my point.

Think we are archaic or neanderthal. People like me think u guys went way to far ur ideas and hatefulness against tradition and religion go way to far. Ur mind set is just wrong u control our media but u blame us and don't even care. u are so hateful of the past and forget about all of it. u barley care about morals just look at modern tv shows and ur over confident. 

I don't want to be like people in the dark ages i want to take out the mistakes u guys made and bring back the good from the past u want to take out. And make a better world. and this world is not full of prejudice, hate, and un tolerance like u think. It does want to get ride of terrible morals, high divorce rate, high suicide rate, and extremely individualistic(letting everyone do what ever they want with no limits when they go to far), hate for the past the 1960's created.

i want to make it clear i am not about just destroying other people and prejudice. u guys blame us for that even though i see u doing the same against us.




> Shit, you've broke your rules again.


i know i have. It is not like u have not u have been insulting me this whole time acting like a stubborn know it all. and througing insults left and right. form the stuff u are saying and ur whole mind set if is like u learned from so many people i have meet.




> Have you ever considered the fact that actually you might be wrong?


not that much but i have researched unlike u. I know u have not considered u are wrong mainly with the Psychological factor to Sexual orientation. Which u ignore because it destroys ur idea about homosexuality. We have two diff opinion i dont think either of us have really considered being wrong.







> Congratulation on a visions but it is not going to happen. First of all, you can barely communicate with people using words. Not a very good trait to excite people to action.
> Secondly, most people will hate your vision of the country.


I guess people like u wont agree. But others wont well i guess u think everyone has ur opinion.




> More reason to reflect on your points of view. Overconfidence and erratic thinking had lead you to wrong conclusions.


No they have not. Just look at the way u talk almost everything u say is a snobby insult. Plus u ignore the psychological impact on homosexuality which is so obviously true. u ignore anything contrary to ur liberal mindset.






> If you were 100% heterosexual you wouldn't have any difficulties to understand that it is impossible to change sides. If you think you are, try to get an erection thinking about handsome man. How did it go?
> If it comes to your blabla nature it is very hard to write something short to the point, but not impossible.


It is not impossible to change side u are stubborn about this part of the human mind but i doubt u are on other issues. i know this goes against ur liberal world i have heard these same arguments from other lifetime liberals. u cant win this side of the argument basic knowledge will go against u. I have given u so much evidence yet u ignore. also can u stop accusing me of being gay or what ever and u say i am insulting u looks like u doing alot of insulting too. it is people like u who accuse the whole world of being gay just like one of my teachers or if anyone is against gay marriage u say their a homophobe then say their gay. u think every gay or bi person is going by their nature and ignore anything that says their not perfect.









> Well then, what are you afraid of? Otherwise read again your sentence. When you are a politician (on a mission to change the rotten world), Jay Leno and others will eat you alive first.


I dont care what jay leno or ur media says. There the ones i would show the world first their the main problem(not really jay leno). I am not saying our world is totally messed up what i am saying is people from the hippie mind set like u have gone way to far. U are so anti past and hateful against religion and morals. Ur whole mind set in my opinion causes alot of hate towards people like me and and is too controlling reminds me of communism. 

Plus people from ur mind set rule our media and make my people look like haters when i dont want to be and i am not. I see a insult against people with my opinion every day on almost every tv show. We are mis repented they want to control the country in that way. all u do is give a snobby response even though u know un justice is happening. U show just as much hate and prejudice as u say i show u are not as tolerant as u say. Please dont give another one of ur snobby anti religious remarks to this. and ignore what i am telling u by assumptions and criticize on off subject things and not directly respond to what i am saying


[/QUOTE]How many times I have to point you into understanding that movements of humping is one thing and what you hump is completely different.
Sexual act - humping.
What you hump - sexual orientation.
Can you see the difference between these two concepts and definitions?[/QUOTE]

first of all sexual orientation is just what someone is attracted to. Also the fruit flys they put those drugs and other things into where treating males sexual exactly the same as females. Not just humping that is not my only point their mental attidue they way they look at each other all of that is the same as straight. Gay's have the same sexuality not just the humping action or hormones as straights. They dont get it from a female think or the other way around. So in my opinion that means there is no gay gene it bases its sexuality on normal heterosexuality. which also means in my opinion there is no way they are naturally gay. They are just doing something to the normal heterosexuality.





> I'm glad you still contemplating this research. Perhaps there is a gay gene?


i am not exactly complementing it i am studying it. i study this stuff instead of just listening to what goes with what u think.





> You can bank on it. But wait, they will be all biased.


Yey they probably will. libearls ignore the fact of how biased our media and education system is. and say it is all fox news.





> I'm the walking evidence. After 50 years bombarded by liberal christian and other liberal media and liberal movies I'm still 100% straight man with not even one temptation with same sex.
> Tell me how is this possible?


Of course that is possible it is more likely than the other way. The fact is that people can pervert i dont why u ignore the evidence. where do u think the word pervert came from oh wait let me guess hateful people from the 1800's who wanted to defend their children or sisters agianst rapist. The psychological factors of sexual orientation are very obvious. 




> Excellent material to learn psychology.


i know it is easy to say that about a TV show. I have had friends who say they never had a gay thought but after hearing my 68 year old teacher say well how do i know i am not gay samething happened with Andy it eventulley gave him gay temptatins. it is one of the many psychological factors i think that office episode repents it pretty well.




> Similar thing. Wrong neuronal connection making men sexually excited on sight of little girls. Also psychopaths are people getting sexually excited on sight of human torture and suffering. Brain hardwired the wrong way. Genetic mistake.
> We don't need devil or perversion. Just stupid nature playing roulette.


U dont have enough evidence to say that is what all perverts are. and where is the evidence a type of brain would natural be attracted to human torture that is just a mental problem added on to sexuality like someone with that problem is more likely to talk to a chair or whatever. Or like no one is naturally a alcoholic just some people have a personality type or something in their body that makes them way more addicted to alcohol.

Maybe the human body adapted to alcohol but i think it is only been hear since farming so native Americans did not get it till like 300 years ago and their huge alcoholics from what i know actulley there is a hug native american center by my house. My parents know people there my dad said the native american guys are alcoholics and are wicked bar fighters.





> Let's try the definitions again. Humping - sexual act, who you hump - sexual orientation.


the fact is that humping is for males to put sperm in female egg it is heterosexual. also the bi fruit flys(they where not born bi scientific drugs and other stuff) treated females and males the exact same way sexually. So their sexuality is from the male side not female. gay's don't have sexuality it seems from the other gender either they perverted it psychological or a way i see as impossible they for some reason want to do reproductive stuff on the same gender. 

Which creates no offspring i dont see how that can happen in nature or how it would help evolution. Possibly their is something that makes them more likely to be more sexual or it is some how like alcoholics. Or like what that guy said over reaction to sexual stimili. 




> I'm glad you still contemplating fruit flies. Keep thinking.


i will also i apologize for my attitude it is hard to stop but i am not letting my self stop sorry. i dont want to create hard feelings between us.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=Fire Haired;412633[/QUOTE]
Sorry I don't have will nor time to go through your novels again. What is the problem keeping this stuff short to the point?




> U can say i am full of Christian dogma and u are defintley full of Liberal dogma and anti Christian mind set. I thought of all of these arguments on my own i have argued this issue with my family so many times they think there is some type of gay gene but are against gay marriage. I had a huge argument with 3 of my brothers, 1 cousin, grand parents, my mom's cousin, and sister. On this issue they all pushed towards some type of gay gene at the end some agreeed with me. What i am trying to say is no one taught me this argument sure the motivation behind it is from my Christian backround in a way.


I'm so tired of your whindy arguments, super long posts, and incorrect observation that I'm considering the same as your family, to agree with you just to stop you talking.






> first of all sexual orientation is just what someone is attracted to.


 Duh, finally.




> not that much but i have researched unlike u.* I know u have not considered u are wrong* mainly with the Psychological factor to Sexual orientation. Which u ignore because it destroys ur idea about homosexuality. We have two diff opinion i dont think either of us have really considered being wrong.


This is a perfect example of your jumping to conclusions, not realizing all possibilities, and pure arrogance. 
In my life I was on both sides of this issue. Did you?
I've analyzed this problem, and guess what, I went against my original supposition.
This is how research and science is done. You go where the clues lead you to, against your feelings, religion, wants and wishes.
On your defence you have your extremely young age with feelings overwhelming logical functions of your brain. Plus 15 years of biblical education, and we know how bible helped science through history.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Sorry I don't have will nor time to go through your novels again. What is the problem keeping this stuff short to the point?
> 
> I'm so tired of your whindy arguments, super long posts, and incorrect observation that I'm considering the same as your family, to agree with you just to stop you talking.
> 
> 
> This is a perfect example of your jumping to conclusions, not realizing all possibilities, and pure arrogance. 
> In my life I was on both sides of this issue. Did you?
> I've analyzed this problem, and guess what, I went against my original supposition.
> This is how research and science is done. You go where the clues lead you to, against your feelings, religion, wants and wishes.


u have had a clear biased since the begging. windy arguments i give very real arguments i can say the same to u. for making so much stuff up about human psychology to fit ur idea of homosexuals and not taking the fact that they have the same sexual behavour into any consideration. it has been good arguing with u honestly hopefully ur not finished but it is alright if u are.

----------


## frankmiller11

i am completly fine with the same sex marriage.
if the two persons like each other and then there is no problem. They are build that way what can we do about it.

----------


## Fire Haired

> i am completly fine with the same sex marriage.
> if the two persons like each other and then there is no problem. They are build that way what can we do about it.


the argument is are they really built that way. There has to be limitations like on attraction to animals on children why not limitation on gay marriage. I am fine living in a country that allows it but i defintley oppose it i guess that kind off goes along with freedoms but might be pushing it a little to far from freedom to un moral.

----------


## Sennevini

Maybe I should let the subject rest, but, there is a difference between gay relationships and things with children and animals The first one is, as a straight relationship is, built on _consensus between both partners_. 
You can't have consensus from children, from animals. Therefore such combinations are not ok. From all law, there will and can never be a further legalisation of such combinations, because it does not involve consensus from both sides; the child or animal is abused in such.
People can only marry of course if both are able to agree.

----------


## Fire Haired

sennevini

see u guys are saying exactly what almost every american would say in 1950 gay marriage are u kidding me that is just wrong. I think about gay marriage as wrong just like u think a 10 year old having a relationship with a 40 yea old is wrong. u cant just say that is unrelated. Would if the 5 or 10 year old agree's would u still think it is wrong i think u would. 

some people think their being all tolerant when they don't realize they just have diff rules on what is tolerant and what is not. I am against gay marriage that does not make me hateful and un tolernt i just have a different opinion on what the limits should be.

----------


## Sennevini

Well, I don't suppose you are very hateful. We have a different limit on what to tolerate and what not. That's ok, we're humans.


You are right, a 5 to 10 year old can say "yes", but is it really an agreement? Does it know what it is doing?
It is too young to be in a "real" relationship. It needs to grow, to learn about everything. Only when entering adulthood
one is assumed to possess some sense of knowledge about the world, people, a lot of things. Before that, a child should not be involved in things it does not know enough about. In that way only the adult takes advantage of the child. That's immoral. You can't let a child marry; all kind of laws are connected; for example, how would such a couple buy a house? It's impossible; laws make difference between adults and children.


Same for animals. That doesn't work. Laws are for people. Animals can't agree, can't sign documents, can't earn money. How can it look after it's "partner"?


These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.


I can say, in my country gay marriages are held since 2001; since then, only 2% of all marriages each year is between gay people. That leaves 98% of the marriages between men and women. A constant percentage, which I think is quite stable. I don't think it ruptures society. You might say, "if all people get gay married, human race dies off", but this isn't happening. Moreover, I think there are more straight couples consciously without children, or single people, than married gay couples. What about them? Can you blame them for consciously not starting a family?
I think people are not very changeable, and the majority of society will start families in a traditional way, anyway. So I don't think it's lot of a problem.


Do you know the Edith Windsor case in New York? She and her female partner were together for at least 40 years. Then, becoming a widow, The state asked her to pay very much money to inherit from her longlife partner, who had designated her to inherit from her. If she was a man, Edith wouldn't have to pay anything - or a lot less. I believe that's unfair to her. Such things in the law are exactly the reason that support for "marriage equality" arose.

----------


## LeBrok

> These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.


Well said.

----------


## Fire Haired

i dont ever remember saying gay marriage will led to those things. all i was trying to say is just because i am agianst gay marriage does not make me hateful i just have a diff opinion on the limits and what is right.

As an American with most of my ancestry going back to settlers who came in 1630 and pre 1750's(i dont feel apart of any other country since it has been over 250 years). I think the biggest parts of being a true american is loving baseball and being all for equal rights. Our country in many ways was founded by very strong Evangelical Christians who belived in equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, allowing people to make their own decisions. So to say protestant christainty makes u more un tolerant of people and not about equal rights is not true. I am not saying any of u said that but i have heard that before. 

Also i have noticed in the libearl mind set it ignores many morals. Just look at family guy(which seriously i think it is so sick which makes it not funny that is why i dont watch it) and compare that to TV show's before the 1960's. For school i had to watch i movie about girls getting pregnant in highschool and it crtized the town they grew up in because it was conservative and religious and was very against these girls. well what is so bad bout not wanting them having sex not in marriage or acting like hors. I think with modern libearlism from the 1960's has brought alot of bad morals into the modern western society. 

Also they are against Americas wars in the mid east just because it reminds them of vietnam and becuse it also reminds them of american patriotism and power. What did america do wrong we took down saddam a dictator who was a threat to his people and our world(does not matter if we did not find weapons of mass destruction). Also we fought to stop terrisom in the mid east which hurt their people's and us. when u think about america did not have bad intentions and the war was just the only thing is was it worth it money wise.

What did we do bad in veitnam we fought against the expansion of soviet supported communism which was a huge threat to the whole world. we fought for the saftey and freedom of south vietnam. what did we do wrong we where fighting for justice yet hippies and my teachers in school pose america as the aggressor. The reason i bhelif they where aginst that is hatred towards the american cowboy type of character and western power.

same reason why Conservative are against helping the envirmont i dont see what is wrong with that it only helps but i dont like going looney and calling all of humanite evil and other radical stuff. the reason conservatives are anti envirmont is because it has a hippie feel to it and seems anti human at times. I think both conservatives and libearls have their biased and have mistakes on their ideas of a good socety. we basically agree put we dis agree on what the limits are.

----------


## Sennevini

It must have been unpleasantly for a generation who did it's duty for country and society, for example WO II and wars you mention to keep the world free from evil to be confronted by a 60's youth criticizing them and starting a laissez-faire life.
Yes, in that time a lot of liberal ideas went too far. I don't object sexual intercourse between high school people, but it has to be done with a feeling of responsibility, as to say: don't have sex with everyone if you already are in a relationship, and use protection for your own sake.



But the time of very free moral, that's over now. I was raised mostly in the 90's. That was a nice time, alas already 20 years ago. From the 80's on, upbringing was more focused on "the family" than "the self". Liberal ideas were profound, but there was a sense of responsibility which was taught to me. My parents forbid me what was abundant in their generation; drugs, drinks and rock and roll. Thank god they forbid me.
Now, I'm in my 20s and what now? Time of plenty is over, it's time of "crisis". I and my generation (maybe not everyone) realize it's crisis and it needs to be solved. We worry about jobs etc. That also brings a feeling of responsibility with it. We know we can't have everything, like a nice car.


Your generation - I assume you grew up in the '50s? - has done a lot to save the world, to stand for values of liberty etc. But why can't a sense of duty go hand in hand with a sense of liberalism? It's important to have both. Under duty and moral behaviour I understand being a nice person to your neighbour, family and friends, do the best you can, keep an eye on people who might have troubles and such things, and defend your values. Under liberalism I understand having the freedom to choose your house, job, studies, partner, to vote, to freely speak without getting sent to Siberia. Gay marriage is something which I view as a part of liberalism. It's not immoral in my eyes, no, marriage is the ultimate moralizing of gay people. They are in that way totally able to be involved in society, and are encouraged to marry, and having a lifelong partner. It's better than saying it's immoral, because that will lead to people having sneaky, secret relationships, which are not healthy for everyone.
The most important thing in marriage is responsibility toward each other. It's serious business. I think people who want to marry are fully aware of that, and that's something you shouldn't forget.

----------


## Fire Haired

it seems we agree on everything except gay marriage. so now we understand each other. i grew up in the 2000's i am 15. i am not in my 50's i guess it might seem i am by my opinion on some things. how do u think i have so much time to make long posts i dont have as many responbilities.

----------


## errantbit

Glad to see France joining the "gay marriage" club.Homosexual couples are not going to disappear whether they're allowed to get married or not.

----------


## American Idiot

It's pretty obvious Jesus was gay.

Ok, first let's assume for argument's sake, he did actually exist.
Yeah, I know he was the son of god or whatever but he was human too and unless he was born with a deformity (limp-dickism ?), he would have had the natural physical human tendency to want sex.

Ok, he never ever gets married which was extremely unusual in his day for any man to never have been married by the time he died (at about 30yrs old, according to most scholars.) 

Going by the Bible, He spends most of his adult life surrounded mostly by men, and all that it talks about is how he goes fishing with his buds all the time and hangs out with his guy friends but nothing about him meeting women or hooking up with women.

Then, when he is about to die, and knowing that he is about to die, he spends his last night on earth drinking wine, surrounded by men and his guy friends.
No women, no strippers, nothing. :Shocked: 

If I was Jesus and I knew I was about to die the next day, I would tell Peter to go fetch me that Mary Magdeline b*tch ( you know, the former prostitute according to most Christians), and have her show me some of her skillz because who the hell wants to be crucified and die a lonely 33yr. old (?) virgin?

and dont give me that "he was the son of god and had better things to do with his life", B.S...... what?, the guy can raise the dead but he cant get laid? :Confused: 

and going by this view, probably most of the apostles were queer as folk too. ( never married, no mention of women, liked to be around men more than women, etc...)

I think even at one time , it may have been either Peter or Paul, who said he was "married to God"- :Laughing: . ...............what a loser!

Sorry, but God cant give you what a woman can give you!

----------


## Sile

_Question in australia is , If gay marriages are allowed then de facto gay relations are also ( similar to man- woman defacto) allowed . If rules apply for man-women defacto then same rules for both sex de factos relationship- End result, gays will not get social services relief if both are not working ( only one can get it ) same as normal defacto/marriages. This is upsetting to the gay community as income is halved ( loss that normal marriages_ have had for many many years) .

But the other issue is, what constitutes a gey defacto relations? .....Are males ( or females) living together as they leave home early classified as defacto? The Government are grinning all the way ,as they stop paying social services money to the unemployed who live with either, their parents, are married or in a defacto relationship.

----------


## toyomotor

*Sile:* I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.

----------


## Sile

> *Sile:* I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.


agree with you.
Knowing Australians......to get a vote to change on any part of the constitution would be a miracle. The best was the vote to become a republic ( 53 to 47% was the vote). Anyway a failed vote , means a minimum of a decade wait for another vote for that topic.
Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women. It does not say a marriage is between 2 persons/people.

----------


## LeBrok

> Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women.


Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?

----------


## Sile

> Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?


Unsure, you mean a genital test? 

I know someone who I worked with had no distinguishing sex organs ( i forget the term ), born man in a women's body, had a sex change............he/she ( still confuses me ) was not allowed to marry.

----------


## toyomotor

> Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?


No, the Constitution doesn't define what a man or a women is. In Westminster legal systems, where a law does not define something, the common law and generally accepted view of the people is accepted. In this particular case, this would mean that a person born with male reproductive organs is a man, a person born with female reproductive organs is a woman. In those exceptionally rare cases where a person is born with neither or both sets of reproductive organs, possibly the dominant (most developed) organs would be the determinant. If all else fails, the matter would be decided by a court.

----------


## toyomotor

*Sile:* That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?

----------


## LeBrok

> *Sile:* That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?


Let me ask bluntly so I understand. If person is born a man and undergoes operation and hormonal treatment and at the end looks more like a woman than a man. Can this person be classified as a woman?

----------


## shaadisankalp10

I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle

----------


## John123

I for one was born looking like a girl. Nowadays most people say I look like a woman as well. It's not a bad thing, girls find it very attractive actually (large eyes, big lips, soft yet defined chin, great athletic body-type). I also have a very manly packet as well, I'm deffinetly anatomically male. But the world is changing from what I see, people can acquire these good looking features via plastic surgery and other methods that take away from the 1-2% of elite people that are legitimately good-looking (3/4 of my old high school friends are fakes now, that's for sure.) as for me, I just continue working out.

----------


## Sile

> *Sile:* That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?


As far as I remember ( as the person resigned 3 years ago ), they had a sex change due to having smallish/miniture male parts but having breasts as she/he aged. after sex change, she is now classified as a woman, but cannot marry because born as a male. ( due to genitals seen at birth )

----------


## LeBrok

> , she is now *classified as a woman*, but cannot marry because *born as a male*. ( due to genitals seen at birth )


I'm not sure if civil rights can be written the way to reconcile this duality. I think for the law to be transparent and easy to follow the latest classification should matter only.

----------


## toyomotor

*Sile:* The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

----------


## Sile

> *Sile:* The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.


I like it how it is, and if we want to change , we need a referendum ( which will never get up in my life time).

There are gays who do not even want similar recognition ( for gay marriages) as married people, because they loose too many privileges

----------


## Ike

> I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.


What about bisexuals? They may wanna form a union of three, because one part of their personality and sexuality is not fulfilled in a simple dual union. That way we could have mother father and himher.

----------


## hope

> What about bisexuals? They may wanna form a union of three,.


That would be polygamy or polyandry.

----------


## Sylvari

that would be polyamory

----------


## hope

> that would be polyamory


The relationship itself would be polyamorous ..... marriage would be polygamy or polyandry.

----------


## Sylvari

Hmm... good point! 

What if it was two men and two women? What would we call that? (Besides a huge headache)

----------


## Ike

> That would be polygamy or polyandry.


So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?

----------


## hope

> So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?


Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?

----------


## hope

> Hmm... good point! 
> 
> What if it was two men and two women? What would we call that? (Besides a huge headache)


How about.. a group wedding  :Laughing:  

No, I believe it is still seen as polygamy or polyandry, Sylvari...I never thought about that to be honest.

----------


## Sennevini

Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As most other people they fall in love with one person at the time. If straight people marry, they are still attracted to women in general, and see nice women walk at the street apart from their wife. Is that mere attraction a reason to extend marriage to more partners than the one they fall in love with? Then everyone would marry more times a week.

----------


## Sylvari

No matter their sexual orientation many people have found themselves falling in love with more than one person. If all parties agree and they write out a contract detailing everyone's responsibility to the relationship then why not let people marry more than one person? Love is not a finite resource. 

Also- I was raised by two women and I am (mostly) sane and normal. What is the fear for kids who are raised by same sex couples?

----------


## Ike

> Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?


No, I'm wondering why would someone be bashing anti-gays for their backwardness, while doing the same thing to the other sexual groups?

What's the point of calling yourself liberal or open-minded and talking about all wrongs of the lines that had been drawn, when all you have done was drawing the line elsewhere. LOL - right on the mark where you find it convenient. It interests me why have liberals agreed to act like in this neo-religious way? It looks like same old "keep the bridge up down until I pass over it" story.





> Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As *most* other people they fall in love with one person at the time.


 You mean 'most' like 99%? What about the other 1% or to be more precise 70.000.000 people who may think different? You think they don't deserve their rights to live in threesomes, foursomes, multiplesomes or free-love?

----------


## Sennevini

OK, if three or more people agree to each other to live with each other in love, that's fine to me. It's their agreement to each other. My definition of what relation is acceptable is if all parties involved gave their consent to it.
Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".

----------


## Sylvari

"Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".

This truth is going to disappoint a lot of people. 

In the end I think that any artificial constraint on how consenting adults conduct their relationships with other adults should not be the business of government. If three people want to marry each other, if two people of any gender want to be wed then it should not be up to governments to tell them they cannot.

----------


## hope

Well now *Ike*, that`s a strong opinion, and I think, unjustly given.
I am not for bashing anyone, and I certainly have never accused anyone of being backward.
I may have said some opinions were poorly given, without anything to prove them reliable, or that throwing certain terms at people was unnecessary....is this bashing anyone for their opinion? I certainly don`t think so.
Regarding lines that had been drawn. There was a time when a line was drawn at the point where only men could vote. There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were. I can think of other lines but that would be rambling so these will suffice as examples.
Regarding gay marriage, the actual topic of this thread that was begun ten years ago, a new line has now been drawn there. 
Whatever your opinion on the matter Ike, our society includes people who are gay or people who are transexual, or bi-sexual besides those who are heterosexual. Should we, who are heterosexual draw the lines of union so they stop at us? 
I do not seek to bash you into changing your beliefs or opinions, they are yours to keep or not. I simply say, we should allow everyone the freedom to make their own choices, be it regarding their sexual orientation, their choice of religion, or their political views so long as it is not harmful to others, and in my opinion gay marriage does not threaten or devalue heterosexual marriage. 
You talk about building walls and drawing up bridges. I speak of inclusion and sensible laws. We see things differently, Ike...and that is our privilege.

----------


## Ike

No, I'm not quite accusing you. Yes, you sometimes seem to be on "that" side, but I'm not quite familiar with your detailed opinion so I wouldn't go in there. I was talking more in general.




> There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were.


1. That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is like giving the right to black people to sit in front of the bus, but not letting yellow. That is what I don't understand. If we've disregarded the Bible considering LBGT, why don't we do the same it the case of all sexual matters?

2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever? 

p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
http://www.slideshare.net/indiafutur...ty/slideshelf#

----------


## LeBrok

> 2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever? 
> 
> p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
> http://www.slideshare.net/indiafutur...ty/slideshelf#


 What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her? 
It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.

Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples. On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society. To the degree that we forbid such conduct even on our enemies or animals. Especially in today's "sick western world" where happiness of citizens, equality and inclusiveness are cherished.
That goes for the rest of your silly examples. The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.

If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...relatives.html
Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing her all together for the old and traditional honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional families.

----------


## Ike

> What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her?


Dude :) I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships, with no harm on the other side. Where have you gone....




> It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
> If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.


 I don't know how things have been in Soviet era, and I don't care about Soviets. Never had here been a denial that gays don't exists. There's been a consensus that their doing is sexually deviated, but they were not persecuted, unlike for example USA from where we heard hideous stories about electro-convulsive therapy...




> Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples.


Silly? You seem to be in some form of denial here.




> On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society.


What's this got to do with any my text? Have I advocated violence anywhere up?




> The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.


OK, so what with polygamy? 




> If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...relatives.html 
> Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing here all together for the honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional setting.


Wanting to call things the right name doesn't make someone a taliban or terrorist. Acting like one does. 

Those are just some (probably half-impotent) sexual perverts that are hiding under the mask of what's traditional and conservative. Yes, the concept of their society lets them mask better and more easily but it' not the reason to break it and destroy their country. It would be more proactive to concentrate on helping them make violators more transparent and their judicial system up to the task.

----------


## FBS

http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/sam...view-finds.php

----------


## LeBrok

> http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/sam...view-finds.php


Thanks for posting it. More and more it looks like that people, who are against same sex marriages and adoption of children, base their opinion only on fear of unknown or different, which boils down to what they consider going against "traditional family" values (which can be defined as a the state of social order of their youth).

----------


## Ike

> Thanks for posting it. More and more it looks like that people, who are against same sex marriages and adoption of children, *base their opinion only* *on fear of unknown or differen*t, which boils down to what they consider going against "traditional family" values (which can be defined as a the state of social order of their youth).


It is very well know. We base our opinion on the disgust we have towards the people who abuse children by incorporating them into their own little pervert dual communities, thinking that more similarity with a classical biological family would give them more legitimate and normal look and that with the acknowledgement would come the right to exercise their sexual peculiarities in public.

----------


## FBS

When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:
1. are less likely to have had personal contact with lesbians or gay;2. are less likely to report having engaged in homosexual behaviors, or to identify themselves as lesbian or gay;
3. are more likely to perceive their peers as manifesting negative attitudes, especially if the respondents are males;
4. are more likely to have resided in areas where negative attitudes are the norm (e.g., the midwestern and southern United States, the Canadian prairies, and in rural areas or small towns), especially during adolescence;
5. are likely to be older and less well educated;
6. are more likely to be religious, to attend church frequently, and to subscribe to a conservative religious ideology;
7. are more likely to express traditional, restrictive attitudes about sex roles;
8. are less permissive sexually or manifest more guilt or negativity about sexuality, although some researchers have not observed this pattern and others have reported a substantially reduced correlation with the effects of sex-role attitudes partialled out;
9. are more likely to manifest high levels of authoritarianism and related personality characteristics.
Sex differences in the direction and intensity of attitudes have been observed fairly consistently. It appears that heterosexuals tend to have more negative attitudes toward homosexuals of their own sex than of the opposite sex. . . .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html

----------


## FutureEarth

People against gay marriages is just a temporary nonacceptance towards change. Eventually there will be gay marriages everywhere and people will look back on all of this with shock. It's just a matter of time. Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to love and nobody has the right to govern what they think proper marriage is. Even though I think the concept of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, it is the joining of two beings who feel a strong enough connection with each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's nobody's business who one person chooses to do that with.

----------


## Ike

It is no change. Gay behavior was known throughout the history and although sometimes treated with limited acceptance, and sometimes persecuted, it was always considered as a perverted and deviated thing. It is no problem if you want to accept or not accept perverts as legits considering their private business, but why trying to redefine the reality? It's just a NLP experiment on the people which will not stop there.

----------


## Maleth

> People against gay marriages is just a temporary nonacceptance towards change. Eventually there will be gay marriages everywhere and people will look back on all of this with shock. It's just a matter of time. Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to love and nobody has the right to govern what they think proper marriage is. Even though I think the concept of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, it is the joining of two beings who feel a strong enough connection with each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's nobody's business who one person chooses to do that with.


Well said Future Earth, Same with women rights, who would ever think that women will get a vote or even have a job without being perceived as evil, and perverted not till a few decades ago and many women actually believed it too (meaning they were just a baby and cooking machine. Not many people can imagine that (although many countries still struggling with the issue)

----------


## Maleth

http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/15/g...ing-eu-leader/

Congratulations of course.

----------


## Maleth

Well done Ireland

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32856952

----------


## pacificbreeze

I don't care about marriage but if they want why not??

----------


## draj

Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..I don't see heterosexual parades so why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..

----------


## LeBrok

> Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..*I don't see heterosexual parades so* why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..


Go ahead and organize one. How difficult it can be? Does it bother you when others are organized and having fun? 
Perhaps we should be bothered by cultural and religious parades too if it is not our ethnicity or our religion?

----------


## gyms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

The paper lays out a six-point plan for a campaign:
Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.Give homosexual protectors a just cause.Make gays look good.Make the victimizers look bad.Solicit funds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ
Milo Yiannopoulos - Homosexuality is more nurture then nature and he wants to be cured

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obw4Y_xfNAo

----------


## LeBrok

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
> 
> The paper lays out a six-point plan for a campaign:
> Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.Give homosexual protectors a just cause.Make gays look good.Make the victimizers look bad.Solicit funds.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ
> Milo Yiannopoulos - Homosexuality is more nurture then nature and he wants to be cured
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obw4Y_xfNAo


And I thought you were playing the victim all the time.

----------


## bicicleur

> Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..I don't see heterosexual parades so why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..


it's narcisism

----------


## gyms

Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 1) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFWWIXWP0g

Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLqYXaGoGM

Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3SbEreRy8

----------


## srdceleva

Though i agree that all people should be respected and free to do and live as they choose, and also that homosexuality in anyway should not be criminalzed or homosexuals ostracized and punished in any way. I coud never support gay marraige regardless of religion, i could be an atheist and never support it. The problem in this day and age is that no one wants to be intolerant or offend good people by saying that their "actions arent good," even if that would mean stating the truth. I just want to list totally objective, non religioius reasons why I could never support the whole modern gay agenda, which funny enough even after the legalization of gay marraige in the u.s, has not calmed down.

1) Its a scientific and biological fact that the human specias has a male and female variety specifically to engage in sexual activity with eachother and not with members of their own sex. Its interesting because most people like to yell and scream at religious for being irrational, and unscientific but when something so clear and evident as the relationship between men and women comes into play, they almost begin to start speaking spiritually about love and tolerance, things that have no weight on the actual fact that all children even gays have a mother and a father, and this is literally the only way to keep the human existence going. Marraige may be a social construct and even a religious one, but what it does is it reflects and stabalizes the most natural, healthy and biological form of the sexual relationship and ensures for the well being of the members in this relationship ( the parents and children). To say that " Oh this doesnt affect me, they should be allowed to be married" is completely false as it changes all of society and comes into complete contradiction with the most basic facts of life. It equates a relationship that is totally fruitless and makes it equal to a relationship which is literally the cause of all of existence. With out homosexual relationships the world would go on thriving and developing as it always has, with out heterosexual relationships humans would cease to exists. It doesnt theoretically affect me if everyone claims the sky is red, but the fact is, is that its blue and im scared to live in a soceity that denies the most simple basic facts of life. 

2) the argument that homosexuality does not lead to other declines in morals that regardless of religion have a negative impact on society is false. The acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy practice has always been a hallmark of declining socieities. The Romans were able to conquer the greeks because the ancient greeks became so morally in want that their population fell while the ancient romans grew. Homosexuality had a large part to play in this, funnily enough the exact same thing occured to the Romans when because of so much moral depravity ( homosexuality, the killing of children, there are literally hills of baby bones found outside the city walls of Rome because romans were killing their children so much) the population fell and romans didnt have enough men to fill the ranks in their military while germanic tribes to the north had a population boom and then easily destoryed the ancient roman empire. Im not blaiming personally homosexuality for the falling birth rates in western countries but simply saying that when the most basic family unit isnt held with esteem and respect and is placed on the same level as a relationship that is fruitless this is what happens. The complete schism in rational thinking in society when we accept these things to be equal becomes so great that a society begins to slowly collaps. A proof of the opposite is the fact that Russia is the only european country which now is having a growing population rate can directly be attributed to Putin outlawing homosexual propganda and instead filling Russia with propoganda promoting the classic family. Putin is no dummy he knows just as I know how much of an effect these things have on society really do have. 

3) classical arguments in favor of homosexuality fall under real scritiny. I really read extensively to see if there was scientific backing of homosexuals being born this way or some how homosexuality being normal to the human experience and not just a mental gearing of sexual desires in a wrong way and could find no strong support of the homosexual agenda. there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are genetically different in any way than non homosexual ones and that any study claiming this, has essentially been extremely pseudo scientific and counter intuitive. things like ' the youngest brother tends to have lower rates of testosterone than older brothers could have an effect on sexual orientation" are not proofs in favor of homosexuality. Lower testosterone would mean a lack in sex drive not that someone is gay, and gay people do not have a lack in sex drive and many gay men are extremely masculine. there are hundreds of other so called studies stating similar nonsense. The argument that animals also exhibit homosexual behavior is extremely weak and down right one of the worst arguments in favor of gay marraige. Humans are actually the only species to exhibit exclusive homosexuality as animals exhibit all sorts of sexual behaviors. You only have to observe how a dog may mount a human leg, another male dog, an object or lastly a female to realize sexual desire is sexual desire it can be geared in many ways. Animals also exhibit traits such as rape, murder, and incest. we do not want to use animals as an example of how humans should behave. there is no real reason to believe gays were born that way and did not become that way through some type of mental complex. Its very easy for me to see that someone may have been molested as a chid and now has a mental complex towards the opposite sex but still wants to be in a relationship so they naturaly feel comfortable in the gay community or that the opposite may occur. I once knew a person who worked with young teenage boys who had been molested and they told me that one of the main questions they had always was they think they may be gay now, as though the experience of being molested was horrible, still because sexual experiences are some how pleasurable in a way they found it somehow attracitve, almost a stokholm syndrome thing in a way. Im not sayng all gay people are this way because of this but there are many many normal mental processes that can lead someone to consider themselves gay. 

3) If two adults who give consent and arent hurting eachother is the only requirment for what should be legal and accepted then why dont we accept incestious relationships? There are many cases each year of grow daughters and sons who are adults having sexual relationships with their parents. If they are both adults and consenting who are you to say these people should not be married? most of you would claim that was sick and gross, but guess what thats exactly what people were saing ten years ago and you called them intolerant for it. All of the exact arguments can be used in favor of incest. If you dont admit this and support both gay peoples rights to marry as well as parents and children who are adults then you are a hypocrite. 

these are just some of my thoughts on this topic. I really dont mean to offend anyone especially if you are gay, no body is perfect, im definitely not but I wanted to just put a different perspective out there than what everyone these days is doing.

----------


## gyms

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...t-after-birth/
"Sexual attraction is such a fundamental part of life, but it's not something we know a lot about at the genetic and molecular level.
“I hope that this research helps us understand ourselves better and why we are the way we are."

----------


## srdceleva

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...t-after-birth/
> "Sexual attraction is such a fundamental part of life, but it's not something we know a lot about at the genetic and molecular level.
> “I hope that this research helps us understand ourselves better and why we are the way we are."



yes Ive read the study as well before its interesting. The fact is I believe that nobody is really born gay or straight, we are genetically born with a sexual desire, this can however be affected by many things. Sexual desire is very maluable and can change after certain influences and time. Some people may have not been attracted to a specific type of person before a sexual encounter but after they are ect. The adolescent mind is particularly sensitive to this and events that may occur to a person at that age are highly influential to their orientation. thanks for sharing the article

----------


## gyms

> And I thought you were playing the victim all the time.


Roger Scruton; Why The Left Hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ

"Here are the differences between the right and the left;If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a supporter of the Left is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone."

----------


## LeBrok

> Roger Scruton; Why The Left Hate
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ
> 
> "Here are the differences between the right and the left;If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a supporter of the Left is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone."


You read what I write for years but you don't get zip what I am. I'm a libertarian at first! Get it through your thick skull finally!!! In case at hand, I love my heterosexualism and I "let" everyone to decide who they are, homosexualism included. Freedom of choice. Did it finally register in your head?!!!

On other hand you are the one who tells others what they are and how they should feel about their sexuality. If you are heterosexsual, you want everyone to be heterosexusual, " he wants all meat products banned for everyone." It exactly fits your personality.
Let me explain it better for you.* If a Conservative is a heterosexual, he doesn’t do gay stuff. If a supporter of the Left is heterosexual, he wants all gay way of life to be banned for everyone."
*According to analogy/logic that you posted, I'm behave here as conservative, "live and let live", and you are behaving like socialist. You see, the simple definitions are very often misleading. In reality you are conservative, who is scared of all the changes in society, therefore forcing others to stick to old world order. Some sort of conservatism mixed with tyrannical tendencies, with intolerant and hateful undertone, combined with your depressing personality.

Stop telling people how to feel about their sexuality. Stop forcing them into your lifestyle. Don't make them do what you do. Let them live.

----------


## gyms

" On other hand you are the one who tells others what they are and how they should feel about their sexuality. If you are heterosexsual, you want everyone to be heterosexusual,..."

You are wrong! I am not against homosexuals,I am against the massive hysteria and the aggressive political propaganda surrounding homosexuality. That's all. Easy to understand.

----------


## LeBrok

> " On other hand you are the one who tells others what they are and how they should feel about their sexuality. If you are heterosexsual, you want everyone to be heterosexusual,..."
> 
> You are wrong! I am not against homosexuals,I am against the massive hysteria and the *aggressive political propaganda surrounding homosexuality*. That's all. Easy to understand.


Who are you kidding? lol. The only reason you see this "*aggressive political propaganda surrounding homosexuality"* is because you are scared by homosexuality or you find it disgusting. For you every gay in public place or in a movie is "aggressive political propaganda".

----------


## draj

> Go ahead and organize one. How difficult it can be? Does it bother you when others are organized and having fun? 
> Perhaps we should be bothered by cultural and religious parades too if it is not our ethnicity or our religion?


Why would I celebrate my sexuality? Don't see the point in celebrating something like that..Offcourse I like when others are having fun, but fun and sexual parades have no connection at all..Like I said, I don't think that sexuality should be matter of celebration..I'm having fun while reading a book and also while drinking coffee with my friends..Should I organize a drinking coffee parade or coffee with friends parade? Also I enjoy running, running parade anyone? My favourite color is blue, blue color parade? Get it, it's my personal thing! 
Homosexual parades could do more damage to homosexuals than good in my opinion. Parades where people are almost engaged in coitus (Sheldon Cooper style) shouldn't be a matter of public parade and I'm against it like I would be against a parade of heterosexuals almost engaged in one above mentioned. 
Hope it's more clear to you now..

Pravni portal
Pravo i pravni pojmovi

----------


## LeBrok

> Why would I celebrate my sexuality? Don't see the point in celebrating something like that..Offcourse


Great, your choice.



> I like when others are having fun, but fun and sexual parades have no connection at all..Like I said, I don't think that sexuality should be matter of celebration.


Why you are against others feeling differently about this matter?




> .I'm having fun while reading a book and also while drinking coffee with my friends..Should I organize a drinking coffee parade or coffee with friends parade?


 Again, it is your choice, just don't be against other people choices in this matter, if they feel like organizing coffee parade. Never heard of coffee festival?
http://www.mydestinationpuertorico.c...coffee-harvest



> Also I enjoy running, running parade anyone?


Wait, you are not very observant fellow, because running parades happen everywhere in a major cities. How come it doesn't bother you? You didn't even notice, lol. Parades of runners going through Bosnian cities every year, and everywhere on this planet. 5 km, 10k, 20k, marathons, cross country, you name it, lol, a celebration of running!
https://www.mynextrun.com/run/10k/Bo...nd+Herzegovina
How come you let them do such disgusting thing in public. Hords of half naked men and women running through centers of our cities. Please, stop them, protest, do something!!! Many of them ending up in hospitals. Save them for their own good!




> My favourite color is blue, blue color parade? Get it, it's my personal thing!


Now you are just being silly. You compare importance of colour blue to sexuality of people.
Funny you mentioned Blue. There is a movie about this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3YNVqXhgg




> Homosexual parades could do more damage to homosexuals than good in my opinion. Parades where people are almost engaged in coitus (Sheldon Cooper style) shouldn't be a matter of public parade and I'm against it like I would be against a parade of heterosexuals almost engaged in one above mentioned.


Are you also against pair dancing?



How come this doesn't bother you? Or all the parades and festivals with dancing, the imitation of pair bonding, touching and sexual acts?

So let's summed it up:
You are not against parades, you are against gays' parades.
You are not against dancing, just against dancing gays.
And not even against gays, just against gays doing gay stuff.

I hope you can see now how pathetic your stand against gay parades is. You know what is funny? I don't have anything against gay parades, but I don't care for them, don't watch them, don't go there. I don't even remember last time I saw a gay parade on TV news, though they happen every year in every bigger city in Canada. I'm sure there are not too many gay parades in Bosnia, if ever happened, but you are so strongly against them. 
Think about this. Why is that? Perhaps you are afraid of a scarecrow?

----------


## Maleth

What difference from the gay pride in Stockholm to that of Belgrade in 2010. and things did not change much in 6 years anyway

----------


## Maleth

Both prime minister and leader of the opposition in Malta attended gaypride Malta. (they represent 98% of Maltese electorate)

Prime minister (Joseph Muscat: Labour)

Its important in a symbolic way to celebrate this day. We are proud as a small nation to have given equal rights to the gay community and our government has taken leadership and rebutted a passive stance. We have the satisfaction to see that Gay marriage is well accepted in our society and this is an natural evolution the country has to go through.

Leader of the opposition (Simon Busutil, Conservatives)

We are reminding on this day that the LGBT is a part of our society. We who are leaders have to understand and take action in the right direction. That is the reason that I am here today.

----------


## gyms

> Who are you kidding? lol. The only reason you see this "*aggressive political propaganda surrounding homosexuality"* is because you are scared by homosexuality or you find it disgusting. For you every gay in public place or in a movie is "aggressive political propaganda".


Stop tell me how I feel!You are not my therapist.

----------


## srdceleva

lebrok im not some fanatical anti gay person, but you have to be honest a gay parade is significantly different from the vast majority of parades. Here in vienna they had a gay parade, people were literally holding dildos walking around naked with sex toys, people in chains, and everyone carrying rainbow flags. I also saw tons of people carrying signs saying blasphemous things against Christians. I went to a parade for the traditional family and the lesbian protestors threw used tampons on us. This isnt a normal movemtn and is nothing like people celebrating normal things like dancing or descent normal civil rights movments like what martin luther king jr was doing. People outside of the west are horrified at these things and unlike the past were the west was usually in the right when it came to civil rights, we have now perverted it into a distortion of reality and are equating a relationship that is completely fruitless to a relationship that is the cause for all of human existence. This isnt about being tolerant or intolerant or live and let live, its just about standing for whats true and whats not true. Homosexuality is not beneficial to society and should not be equated to heterosexuality. it makes me sound bad, but ten years ago this was a view held by the vast majority of people and no one would have claimed i was a fanatic or unreasonable for believing that. In the past five years though the homosexual agenda amped up all of its propoganda and now suddenly everyone is a big supporter. We just need to be honest with ourselves, this isnt a normal movement and eventually society will revert back to supporting the traditional family as its the most natural and proper way of continuing soceity.

----------


## gyms

> lebrok im not some fanatical anti gay person, but you have to be honest a gay parade is significantly different from the vast majority of parades. Here in vienna they had a gay parade, people were literally holding dildos walking around naked with sex toys, people in chains, and everyone carrying rainbow flags. I also saw tons of people carrying signs saying blasphemous things against Christians. I went to a parade for the traditional family and the lesbian protestors threw used tampons on us. This isnt a normal movemtn and is nothing like people celebrating normal things like dancing or descent normal civil rights movments like what martin luther king jr was doing. People outside of the west are horrified at these things and unlike the past were the west was usually in the right when it came to civil rights, we have now perverted it into a distortion of reality and are equating a relationship that is completely fruitless to a relationship that is the cause for all of human existence. This isnt about being tolerant or intolerant or live and let live, its just about standing for whats true and whats not true. Homosexuality is not beneficial to society and should not be equated to heterosexuality. it makes me sound bad, but ten years ago this was a view held by the vast majority of people and no one would have claimed i was a fanatic or unreasonable for believing that. In the past five years though the homosexual agenda amped up all of its propoganda and now suddenly everyone is a big supporter. We just need to be honest with ourselves, this isnt a normal movement and eventually society will revert back to supporting the traditional family as its the most natural and proper way of continuing soceity.


ascent, rise, upswing 
*Synonym Discussion of decadence*deterioration, degeneration, decadence, decline mean the falling from a higher to a lower level in quality, character, or vitality. deterioration implies generally the impairment of value or usefulness _<the deterioration of the house through neglect>_. degeneration stresses physical, intellectual, or especially moral retrogression _<the degeneration of their youthful idealism into cynicism>_. decadence presupposes a reaching and passing the peak of development and implies a turn downward with a consequent loss in vitality or energy _<cited love of luxury as a sign of cultural decadence>_. decline differs from decadence in suggesting a more markedly downward direction and greater momentum as well as more obvious evidence of deterioration _<the meteoric decline of his career after the scandal>_.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decadence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW5KieBAm1c

----------


## gyms

*Moral Relativism*_First published Thu Feb 19, 2004; substantive revision Mon Apr 20, 2015_
Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people's intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it. These include such prominent figures as Gilbert Harman, Jesse J. Prinz, J. David Velleman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

----------


## Fire Haired14

> lebrok im not some fanatical anti gay person, but you have to be honest a gay parade is significantly different from the vast majority of parades. Here in vienna they had a gay parade, people were literally holding dildos walking around naked with sex toys, people in chains, and everyone carrying rainbow flags. I also saw tons of people carrying signs saying blasphemous things against Christians. I went to a parade for the traditional family and the lesbian protestors threw used tampons on us. This isnt a normal movemtn and is nothing like people celebrating normal things like dancing or descent normal civil rights movments like what martin luther king jr was doing. People outside of the west are horrified at these things and unlike the past were the west was usually in the right when it came to civil rights, we have now perverted it into a distortion of reality and are equating a relationship that is completely fruitless to a relationship that is the cause for all of human existence. This isnt about being tolerant or intolerant or live and let live, its just about standing for whats true and whats not true. Homosexuality is not beneficial to society and should not be equated to heterosexuality. it makes me sound bad, but ten years ago this was a view held by the vast majority of people and no one would have claimed i was a fanatic or unreasonable for believing that. In the past five years though the homosexual agenda amped up all of its propoganda and now suddenly everyone is a big supporter. We just need to be honest with ourselves, this isnt a normal movement and eventually society will revert back to supporting the traditional family as its the most natural and proper way of continuing soceity.


Amen.....................

----------


## Maleth

> its just about standing for whats true and whats not true.


Thats exactly what you are not doing.....being true. Homosexuality been round since time immemorial. Living in denial is not an option in 2016. It also exists in other animal species, and you are to here to lecture what is true and whats not true. I wonder if you would reason that way if you had a child that was homosexual. What do you expect? to exterminate us? or make us live a false life like the era you are talking about. You are talking of a time when homosexuals used to go to prison and were considered mentally sick. You are talking of a time when social pressures used to make homosexuals get into false marriages and bullying and persecution was the norm with blessing. Who is shocked with equal rights? someone from a third world country or fanatically religious country such as the Muslim ones.Of course you sound bad and shame on you and stop insulting me.

----------


## Sile

The need to is take marriage away from religious institutes and make only civil marriages legitimate .............same as Italy has done since 1805 ( introduced by Napoleon )...........( one can have a religious marriage after the civil ceremony , if you like )

this will then change many peoples attitudes over gay marriage as time passes

If the country is a secular country, one has to have civil marriages as a must ...............anything else does not make any sense.

----------


## Angela

The evidence is clear, imo; some people are just "wired" differently. There have always been homosexuals, as Maleth pointed out. It's part of the spectrum of human identity and sexual orientation. We don't yet know exactly why that's the case, but that much is clear as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, I think that human sexuality is on a continuum. In certain circumstances, at certain stages of life, adolescence, for example, the lines might get a little blurry for more people than the percentage who are actually homosexuals.

Given that, the question is, do you treat them with respect and accord them the same equal rights accorded to other human beings, or do you not? Do you make them hide who they are? For me, there's no doubt about the answer. I'm not interested in criminalizing the type of sexual behavior going on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own rooms, homosexual or heterosexual. 

That's an entirely different issue than whether I find gay pride parades tasteful. I don't. I wouldn't find heterosexuals marching around like that tasteful either. No one is forcing me to go, and I don't.

In fact, given what most people over 20 look like, I would say keeping on their clothes in public places is a good aesthetic choice. Heck, I don't even like using the locker room at the gym sometimes; way too much information, if you get what I mean. Now, the tango is a totally different thing. :)

----------


## srdceleva

> Thats exactly what you are not doing.....being true. Homosexuality been round since time immemorial. Living in denial is not an option in 2016. It also exists in other animal species, and you are to here to lecture what is true and whats not true. I wonder if you would reason that way if you had a child that was homosexual. What do you expect? to exterminate us? or make us live a false life like the era you are talking about. You are talking of a time when homosexuals used to go to prison and were considered mentally sick. You are talking of a time when social pressures used to make homosexuals get into false marriages and bullying and persecution was the norm with blessing. Who is shocked with equal rights? someone from a third world country or fanatically religious country such as the Muslim ones.Of course you sound bad and shame on you and stop insulting me.


you didnt read my posts well I never claimed gays should be exterminated or punished in any way, actually i started off my first comment saying the exact opposite none of us are perfect and we all have mental complexes but to try and act as they are good is something i could never do. I would reason exactly the same if my child was gay. I would love him and accept him but i would never aprove of homosexuality as a good and healthy behavior just as I dont approve of my own behavior when it isnt good or healthy and ive made a lot of mistakes. Saying there have always been homosexuals is not a proof that it is a good behavior and not a mental complex. Its not only poeple from third world countries, many of us are shocked in western countries still to this day. Countries from all across the world are looking at the west from china to kenya thinking we have lost our marbles because we act like men dressing as women are totally mentally healthy people when its obviously not the case. Im not insulting anyone just stating the fact that a relationship that beirs no fruit can never be equal to a relationship that is the reason for all of human existence. Do you not have a mother and father? yes you do its the only way you could come into this world. All of us have a mother and a father even orphans, they just dont know them, but we all know the ideal situation for a child to grow up is to be with his biological mother and father and that is the natural and normal way of things, everything besides this is either a less ideal situation or a deviant form of the original one. Even in homosexual relationships very often one takes the dominate and masculine role while the other takes the submissive and feminine role, this is very common especially among lesbians, this is a plane immitation of the whats natural in our species trying to recreate the masculine and feminine energies in a relationship that cant fully do it. shame on me yes for stating the truth

----------


## bicicleur

> Given that, the question is, do you treat them with respect and accord them the same equal rights accorded to other human beings, or do you not? Do you make them hide who they are? For me, there's no doubt about the answer. I'm not interested in criminalizing the type of sexual behavior going on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own rooms, homosexual or heterosexual. 
> 
> That's an entirely different issue than whether I find gay pride parades tasteful. I don't. I wouldn't find heterosexuals marching around like that tasteful either. No one is forcing me to go, and I don't.


a step further is whether gay people should adopt and raise children

----------


## srdceleva

> The evidence is clear, imo; some people are just "wired" differently. There have always been homosexuals, as Maleth pointed out. It's part of the spectrum of human identity and sexual orientation. We don't yet know exactly why that's the case, but that much is clear as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, I think that human sexuality is on a continuum. In certain circumstances, at certain stages of life, adolescence, for example, the lines might get a little blurry for more people than the percentage who are actually homosexuals.
> 
> Given that, the question is, do you treat them with respect and accord them the same equal rights accorded to other human beings, or do you not? Do you make them hide who they are? For me, there's no doubt about the answer. I'm not interested in criminalizing the type of sexual behavior going on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own rooms, homosexual or heterosexual. 
> 
> That's an entirely different issue than whether I find gay pride parades tasteful. I don't. I wouldn't find heterosexuals marching around like that tasteful either. No one is forcing me to go, and I don't.
> 
> In fact, given what most people over 20 look like, I would say keeping on their clothes in public places is a good aesthetic choice. Heck, I don't even like using the locker room at the gym sometimes; way too much information, if you get what I mean. Now, the tango is a totally different thing. :)


Angela I never claimed homosexuals should be punished or criminalized for being homosexuals, I clearly said they shoudnt be. I really am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone or be intolerant to anyone, im just stating what i see as true and i think im being very reasonable. Just answer me this one question. Should an adult mother and an adult son be allowed to be married legally? If they both are adults and love eachother and give full consent who are we to stop them? incest has always been a part of the human identity and is very common in the animal kingdom. Incestual relationships have always existed so why shouldnt they be allowed to be married? also with technology these days there is no worry that they would have an unhealthy child as that can easily be prevented these days so what is the problem? the fact is most poeple would say thats not right, not natural and not a healthy relationship. 

I also dont buy that argument that they are wired differently. We all are sexual creatures, as a man i dont have to tell you how strong sexual desires are and how they can be geared in many ways. Sexual experiences are also associative meaning our past sexual experiences influence our sexual attraction. Even places or objects that are involved in our sexual experiences can turn us on just from being around them. There are literally people with thousands of the strangest fettishes out there, and many of them are not dangerous or hurting anyone but still we wouldnt call them healthy or good. Its very obvious that sexual orientation isnt set in stone. Thats why there are people who are bi and have relationships with all sexes and all types of people, many people in jail for instance carry out sexual relationships with their own sex but when they get out continue to have heterosexual relationships. The fact is there is no such thing as straight and gay. These are modern terms that were foreign to the ancient greeks and romans as greeks thought both relationships should be carried out. Exclusive homosexuality is actually a very modern construct and is something that is also extrmely ever seen in the animal kingdom outside of humans as animals will have sex with anything. Why is it so hard for me to believe that maybe some people choose to be in relatioinships with members of their own sex because they feel more comfortable mentally there than they do with the opposite sex? there are many logical mental processes that could lead one to be homosexual and have nothing to do if one is born that way or not.

Also I treat all people with love and respect I dont in any way want to isolate people or make them feel they dont belong, but hurting peoples feelings shouldnt be a hindarance to me when considering what is true or not, many times the best thing for people is not want they want to hear.

----------


## bicicleur

a bizarre story : a lesbian woman disguises herself as a man, even puts a fake penis, to seduce a heterosexual lady friend she fancies 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7357891.html

or did this also happen all time in history?

----------


## Angela

Well, I'm glad that you don't approve of denying homosexuals human rights or treating them with disrespect.

As to your view of homosexuality, we'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I agree there are people who, because it is increasingly accepted, might have homosexual experiences where once it might not even have occurred to them. I also agree that being who we are, people who are isolated from members of the opposite sex might turn for sexual fulfilment to someone of their own sex, even though that isn't their preference. There are also people, jaded with experiences with their own sex, who might turn to homosexual sex for titillation. In adolescence, when sexual identity is more fluid, sexualized feelings can attach themselves to a good friend or a slightly older and admired person. It passes.

I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about people who from the earliest awakening of sexual feeling have fantasized only about other men, have only been attracted to other men. I know men like that, have worked with them, have grown to love some as friends. It's who they are...I don't know if you've done any research into the subject, but the science seems to bear it out. 

Now, you're right; if the whole world turned to homosexuality, it would be a huge problem for the human race. There's absolutely no chance of that, however; there's nothing to fear. At the most we're talking about a few percent to 10% of men. Even if it were a psychological aberration and not a matter of genetic determination, so long as they are consenting adults, how does it harm you in any way. Why does it so concern you? There's not enough love in the world. There's not enough loving, nurturing sex in the world either. Perhaps if there were, people would be happier. Let them find it where they will so long as nobody is being exploited. 

Which brings me to your question about incest. That's usually what people raise, that or bestiality, and I don't think either are good analogies. I think incest has been a taboo for most of human history, and not just because many cultures realized the danger for the survival of the tribe through birth defects and recessive disease. It's also extremely destructive to the family unit, to the kind of protective relationships, relationships based on trust, not exploitation of the young, which are necessary for the survival of the family. Added to all that, I think there may be something primal, maybe hormonal about it, an aversion, an adaptation, which is increased by the amount of time spent in one another's company. There are some studies to that effect. 

I recently read an article about a woman whose biological father had abandoned her as a newborn. She met him thirty-five years later for the first time, and she maintains that they fell in love. They started a physical relationship and are still in it. She had herself sterilized. This is a bizarre situation in no way comparable to homosexuality, which, as Maleth pointed out, has been a part of human life from the very beginning. Sometimes it was accepted. Just consider the Indo-European initiation ceremonies, the Greco-Roman world, tribal Afghanistan, some New World Indian societies. Sometimes it has gone into hiding. It has never gone away. If you investigate it, I'm sure you'll find that's the case. 

@Bicicleur,

Well, some of the most beautiful love poetry in the world was written by Sappho, who was a Lesbian. 

"You came and I was longing for you,
You cooled a heart burning with desire."

"*Please*Come back to me, Gongyla, here tonight,
You, my rose, with your Lydian lyre.
There hovers forever around you delight:
A beauty desired.
Even your garment plunders my eyes.
I am enchanted: I who once
Complained to the Cyprus-born goddess,
Whom I now beseech
Never to let this lose me grace
But rather bring you back to me:
Amongst all mortal women the one
I most wish to see."

Women couples have just been able to hide in plain sight.

----------


## bicicleur

> @Bicicleur,
> 
> Well, some of the most beautiful love poetry in the world was written by Sappho, who was a Lesbian. 
> 
> "You came and I was longing for you,
> You cooled a heart burning with desire."
> 
> "*Please*
> 
> ...


well I guess both Sappho and Gongyla were lesbian or maybe Gongyla was bisexual

in the bizarre case I mentioned the lady seduced didn't have a clue her seducer was female, she even put op a fake ..

----------


## bicicleur

> Now, you're right; if the whole world turned to homosexuality, it would be a huge problem for the human race. There's absolutely no chance of that, however; there's nothing to fear. At the most we're talking about a few percent to 10% of men.


well, I don't know, is DNA in play to determin whether you'll be gay?
many will say yes, but ..

maybe, in the times of Adam, 90 % was gay, but only the 10 % straight procreated and the gay did not

wait a minute, if so there should be no gay people left today, except those very few with a coincidal DNA mutation at birth
no, your DNA doesn't tell you you should be gay
isn't it influenced by the society in which you grow up after all?

or maybe the forefathers of todays gay people were bisexual because society didn't allow them to be gay?

----------


## bicicleur

oh, and while we're at it,

why not legalise a 3-way marriage, just like Manny and his 2 lovely senoritas would like ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...gether-9029654

----------


## Maleth

> I would reason exactly the same if my child was gay. I would love him and accept him *but i would never aprove of homosexuality as a good and healthy behavior*


Clearly you contradicting yourself. How can you accept someone if you do not approve of their sexuality? Irrelevant to wether you aprove or not homosexuality is a* reality.* How can you love someone and at the same time thump in their head that they are abromal. Ever cared to think of the consequences of the mental state of that person having someone telling them they are not good and dont have a healthy behavior. Why dont you think that as a human being the desires of homosexuals to love and live are similar to those of heterosexuals. And what is the problem anyway?






> just as I dont approve of my own behavior when it isnt good or healthy and ive made a lot of mistakes.


For a homosexual there is nothing wrong and its neither a mistake, and they do not appreciate being told so. As Angela mentioned what two concenting adults do is not much of anyones business. Did you know that not all homosexuals go parading? Did you know that a good number of homosexual males become priests? Did you know that there are different types of homosexual characters and lifestyles. Not very different from the spectrum of behaviors you find among heterosexuals.




> Saying there have always been homosexuals is not a proof that it is a good behavior and not a mental complex.


Its a natural behavior since recorded history, no point in keep saying a bad behavior and all the other adjectives you use. It is what it is and its not going to change




> Its not only poeple from third world countries, many of us are shocked in western countries still to this day. Countries from all across the world are looking at the west from china to kenya thinking we have lost our marbles


Taboo countries where persecution (even execution) is still rampant are African and Islamic countries. I am not sure who has marbles missing with this kind of behavior. China as it developed has improved its attitude towards homosexuals like most first world countries do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China





> Im not insulting anyone


of course you are and you also think its ok. You stated homosexuals are not beneficial. That is a heavy statement and has lots of repercussions. Let me know how non beneficial we are please. I am the only person caring for my sick mum and I have two sisters and a brother who are very grateful for what I do, and been told if it wasnt for me she would be in a home as they could not cope with commitments. I met a friend in the mall I haven't seen in years and told me he nursed his Mother until she passed away a few months ago. Say that to Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. Respect please.





> just stating the fact that a relationship that beirs no fruit can never be equal to a relationship that is the reason for all of human existence.Do you not have a mother and father? yes you do its the only way you could come into this world. All of us have a mother and a father even orphans, they just dont know them, but we all know the ideal situation for a child to grow up is to be with his biological mother and father and that is the natural and normal way of things, everything besides this is either a less ideal situation or a deviant form of the original one. Even in homosexual relationships very often one takes the dominate and masculine role while the other takes the submissive and feminine role, this is very common especially among lesbians, this is a plane immitation of the whats natural in our species trying to recreate the masculine and feminine energies in a relationship that cant fully do it.


Unfortunately life is not all about ideal situations. A fact you are leaving out is that not all is Black and White. How about the shades of Gray? Why is there orphans in the world? Some children have been abounded by their parents and some have also been mistreated. Its the exception not the rule thank goodness. If they can live in orphanages why cant they live with a homosexual couple? and more focused attention for a better upbringing. Not everyone qualifies like not all hetero couple qualify for some reason or another, but who does makes a pretty good job.




> shame on me yes for stating the truth


all i can read is negative remarks and generalization.....far from the truth.

----------


## Maleth

> oh, and while we're at it,
> 
> why not legalise a 3-way marriage, just like Manny and his 2 lovely senoritas would like ?
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...gether-9029654
> 
> 
> 
> a bizarre story : a lesbian woman disguises herself as a man, even puts a fake penis, to seduce a heterosexual lady friend she fancies 
> ...


maybe you are confusing apples with oranges? you know the difference? nothing bizarre happens with Heterosexuals?

----------


## srdceleva

> Well, I'm glad that you don't approve of denying homosexuals human rights or treating them with disrespect.
> 
> As to your view of homosexuality, we'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I agree there are people who, because it is increasingly accepted, might have homosexual experiences where once it might not even have occurred to them. I also agree that being who we are, people who are isolated from members of the opposite sex might turn for sexual fulfilment to someone of their own sex, even though that isn't their preference. There are also people, jaded with experiences with their own sex, who might turn to homosexual sex for titillation. In adolescence, when sexual identity is more fluid, sexualized feelings can attach themselves to a good friend or a slightly older and admired person. It passes.
> 
> I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about people who from the earliest awakening of sexual feeling have fantasized only about other men, have only been attracted to other men. I know men like that, have worked with them, have grown to love some as friends. It's who they are...I don't know if you've done any research into the subject, but the science seems to bear it out. 
> 
> Now, you're right; if the whole world turned to homosexuality, it would be a huge problem for the human race. There's absolutely no chance of that, however; there's nothing to fear. At the most we're talking about a few percent to 10% of men. Even if it were a psychological aberration and not a matter of genetic determination, so long as they are consenting adults, how does it harm you in any way. Why does it so concern you? There's not enough love in the world. There's not enough loving, nurturing sex in the world either. Perhaps if there were, people would be happier. Let them find it where they will so long as nobody is being exploited. 
> 
> Which brings me to your question about incest. That's usually what people raise, that or bestiality, and I don't think either are good analogies. I think incest has been a taboo for most of human history, and not just because many cultures realized the danger for the survival of the tribe through birth defects and recessive disease. It's also extremely destructive to the family unit, to the kind of protective relationships, relationships based on trust, not exploitation of the young, which are necessary for the survival of the family. Added to all that, I think there may be something primal, maybe hormonal about it, an aversion, an adaptation, which is increased by the amount of time spent in one another's company. There are some studies to that effect. 
> ...





> Well, I'm glad that you don't approve of denying homosexuals human rights or treating them with disrespect.
> 
> As to your view of homosexuality, we'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I agree there are people who, because it is increasingly accepted, might have homosexual experiences where once it might not even have occurred to them. I also agree that being who we are, people who are isolated from members of the opposite sex might turn for sexual fulfilment to someone of their own sex, even though that isn't their preference. There are also people, jaded with experiences with their own sex, who might turn to homosexual sex for titillation. In adolescence, when sexual identity is more fluid, sexualized feelings can attach themselves to a good friend or a slightly older and admired person. It passes.
> 
> I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about people who from the earliest awakening of sexual feeling have fantasized only about other men, have only been attracted to other men. I know men like that, have worked with them, have grown to love some as friends. It's who they are...I don't know if you've done any research into the subject, but the science seems to bear it out. 
> 
> Now, you're right; if the whole world turned to homosexuality, it would be a huge problem for the human race. There's absolutely no chance of that, however; there's nothing to fear. At the most we're talking about a few percent to 10% of men. Even if it were a psychological aberration and not a matter of genetic determination, so long as they are consenting adults, how does it harm you in any way. Why does it so concern you? There's not enough love in the world. There's not enough loving, nurturing sex in the world either. Perhaps if there were, people would be happier. Let them find it where they will so long as nobody is being exploited. 
> 
> Which brings me to your question about incest. That's usually what people raise, that or bestiality, and I don't think either are good analogies. I think incest has been a taboo for most of human history, and not just because many cultures realized the danger for the survival of the tribe through birth defects and recessive disease. It's also extremely destructive to the family unit, to the kind of protective relationships, relationships based on trust, not exploitation of the young, which are necessary for the survival of the family. Added to all that, I think there may be something primal, maybe hormonal about it, an aversion, an adaptation, which is increased by the amount of time spent in one another's company. There are some studies to that effect. 
> ...


Actually I really have researched the subject quite in depth at least at one time, and honestly there has never been any real scientific evidence to support the fact that they were born this way. As i mentioned before almost all have been quasi psuedoscientific studies that dont in the end prove anything. Such as the example that I believe is even given on this website claiming things like a younger son with multiple older brothers is more likely to be gay because his testosterone rate is lower..this statment doesnt prove anything in itself as lower testosterone would mean a lack of sex drive not that your attracted to members of your own sex. I know and have known plenty of gay men who were extremely masculine, essentially bodybuilders and from getting to know them and talking to them. They thought and acted just like any man, and it was quite easy for me to understand them and their way of thinking. someone can claim all he wants that he or she has been like that since the time they were born but that also isnt a proof in itself. Children arent born with sexual attraction we develople that later and sexual attraction can be and is a very maluable and can be bendable in many many directions. I know and understand those people are genuinely attracted to the same sex, im not doubting their sincerity at the same time I honestly think many many homosexuals are not happy that way and actually in a way have bought into the modern concept that you are either gay or straight and feel they have no choice they were born that way and have no say in it, and i also dont agree with this. Studies have shown that many homosexuals were molested as children (one claiming upwards of 60%) and obviously this will have massive affects on your orientation. As i mentioned before I knew someone who worked as a psychologist( the person was gay) with young teens who had been molested, and he told me one of the most common statments he gets from them after their experience is they tell him they now believe they are gay as they are having same sex attractions. Also as mentioned exclusive homosexuality is a modern construct and was not common in ancient greek and roman times were people essentially believed it was good to be both and just do whatever. Exclusive homosexuality is also extremely rare in the animal kingdom outside of humans, yes homosexual behavior is common but being exclusively homosexual is almost never seen outside of humans. 

also i believe we have to be objective and just seriously think about the subject with out letting ourselves be influenced by whats popular today and what the media feeds us. Someone famous( lol i cant remember who now) said something to the extent of : theres nothing common to man that I cant comprehend. I really agree with this statment. Every man( though many wont admit it) has had sexual attractions to all sorts of stuff. If I actually did the things ive done in my dreams i would be arrested and put in a mental assylum and this is the case for every man. I can very easily see how certain situations and experiences can affect our orientation and if people are honest i believe they would agree with me. Im not saying these things to be intolerant or to make people feel bad and act like im perfect thats the last thing i would want to do, but i dont believe society is on the right track with this, and i honestly think homosexuals would be happier deep down knowing that they are normal and just like everybody else and we all could be like them and are like them regardless if we choose to live in that mindset 

and yes obviously gay people can be talented and wonderful people creating beutiful music and poems. Im a big fan of a lot of gay actors and musicians and I dont think of them as bad people. George michael has always been a favorite of mine and is one of the best looking guys ive ever seen! still these are more emotional arguments and dont take away from anything ive said. 

you might find this interesting angela, its from a pro gay website specifically speaking about this subject. 

https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/1...5-reasons-why/

----------


## srdceleva

> Clearly you contradicting yourself. How can you accept someone if you do not approve of their sexuality? Irrelevant to wether you aprove or not homosexuality is a* reality.* How can you love someone and at the same time thump in their head that they are abromal. Ever cared to think of the consequences of the mental state of that person having someone telling them they are not good and dont have a healthy behavior. Why dont you think that as a human being the desires of homosexuals to love and live are similar to those of heterosexuals. And what is the problem anyway?
> 
> 
> For a homosexual there is nothing wrong and its neither a mistake, and they do not appreciate being told so. As Angela mentioned what two concenting adults do is not much of anyones business. Did you know that not all homosexuals go parading? Did you know that a good number of homosexual males become priests? Did you know that there are different types of homosexual characters and lifestyles. Not very different from the spectrum of behaviors you find among heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a natural behavior since recorded history, no point in keep saying a bad behavior and all the other adjectives you use. It is what it is and its not going to change
> 
> ...


your arguments are all emotional ones and though you cant believe it I really am not trying to make you or any homosexual feel bad, its actually the exact opposite of what i wan to do. take that as you like but its the truth 

now to your statments. 

1)You are putting words in my mouth. I never would say to my child " You are not good" or "You are not normal" actually i would say the exact opposite you are totally normal and fine, everybody can have homosexual attractions some stronger than others its what kind of mindset and what kind of actions you choose to give yourself up to. Loving my child doesnt mean approving of everthing he or she does, actually good parenting means being loving but standing up for whats right even if it hurts your childs feelings at the time. 

2)again never claimed heterosexuals are better than homosexuals, im very aware that there are some gays just like anybody who are kinder and better people than many many heterosexuals including myself

3) OCD has been around for ever as well so have many mental conditions, incestual relationships have been around for ever as well. Im curious do you believe an adult mother and son have the right to marry? as they are consenting adults who arent hurting anyone. I dont mean to be provocative with this question just curious about your answer.

4) Russia is not a third world country and they dont approve of homsexuality many south american countries also dont actually the vast majority of the world still does not approve of homosexuality but yes this argument isnt really important

5) I didnt say homosexuals arent beneficial, everyones life is equal we are all humans. I said homosexuality the act of it isnt beneficial and i think it speaks for itself as it doesnt lead to anything but physical pleasure. Again i realize there are many many good homosexuals

6)actually life is about trying to take less ideal situations and creating more ideal ones especially for children. Obviously if an orphaned child on the street is adopted by two homosexuals who give him a safe and good life its more ideal, however a heterosexual couple is the most ideal because it best replaces his or hers mother and father and allows the child to grow up experiencing both sexes and not just one. The fact is there are more couples trying to adopt than there are actual children up for adoption at least in the u.s and the vast majority are heterosexual couples. 


7) not trying to be negative just voicing my thoughts on this subject.

----------


## Maleth

> Actually I really have researched the subject quite in depth at least at one time, and honestly there has never been any real scientific evidence to support the fact that they were born this way. As i mentioned before almost all have been quasi psuedoscientific studies that dont in the end prove anything. Such as the example that I believe is even given on this website claiming things like a younger son with multiple older brothers is more likely to be gay because his testosterone rate is lower..this statment doesnt prove anything in itself as lower testosterone would mean a lack of sex drive not that your attracted to members of your own sex. I know and have known plenty of gay men who were extremely masculine, essentially bodybuilders and from getting to know them and talking to them. They thought and acted just like any man, and it was quite easy for me to understand them and their way of thinking. someone can claim all he wants that he or she has been like that since the time they were born but that also isnt a proof in itself. Children arent born with sexual attraction we develople that later and sexual attraction can be and is a very maluable and can be bendable in many many directions. I know and understand those people are genuinely attracted to the same sex, im not doubting their sincerity at the same time I honestly think many many homosexuals are not happy that way and actually in a way have bought into the modern concept that you are either gay or straight and feel they have no choice they were born that way and have no say in it, and i also dont agree with this. Studies have shown that many homosexuals were molested as children (one claiming upwards of 60%) and obviously this will have massive affects on your orientation. As i mentioned before I knew someone who worked as a psychologist( the person was gay) with young teens who had been molested, and he told me one of the most common statments he gets from them after their experience is they tell him they now believe they are gay as they are having same sex attractions. Also as mentioned exclusive homosexuality is a modern construct and was not common in ancient greek and roman times were people essentially believed it was good to be both and just do whatever. Exclusive homosexuality is also extremely rare in the animal kingdom outside of humans, yes homosexual behavior is common but being exclusively homosexual is almost never seen outside of humans. 
> 
> also i believe we have to be objective and just seriously think about the subject with out letting ourselves be influenced by whats popular today and what the media feeds us. Someone famous( lol i cant remember who now) said something to the extent of : theres nothing common to man that I cant comprehend. I really agree with this statment. Every man( though many wont admit it) has had sexual attractions to all sorts of stuff. If I actually did the things ive done in my dreams i would be arrested and put in a mental assylum and this is the case for every man. I can very easily see how certain situations and experiences can affect our orientation and if people are honest i believe they would agree with me. Im not saying these things to be intolerant or to make people feel bad and act like im perfect thats the last thing i would want to do, but i dont believe society is on the right track with this, and i honestly think homosexuals would be happier deep down knowing that they are normal and just like everybody else and we all could be like them and are like them regardless if we choose to live in that mindset 
> 
> and yes obviously gay people can be talented and wonderful people creating beutiful music and poems. Im a big fan of a lot of gay actors and musicians and I dont think of them as bad people. George michael has always been a favorite of mine and is one of the best looking guys ive ever seen! still these are more emotional arguments and dont take away from anything ive said. 
> 
> you might find this interesting angela, its from a pro gay website specifically speaking about this subject. 
> 
> https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/1...5-reasons-why/


well well. I said this many times and I say it again. I was brought up in a very conservative family. My brother is just 1 year older then me, we have same mother same enviorment. Never had porn around and never been molested and I am homosexual and* always* been since adolescence. There are different grades including bisexuality which is very real too. There are children that were born very feminine to the point they feel more like a women that they feel its natural to qualify for gender reassignment while most homosexuals do not fall in that category. You make it sound like its some kind of choice which is definitely not. If not I would be happy to know if you ever had to chose your sexuality, because I did not have to. I always knew what I was and most heterosexual had no issues in choosing. Sexuality is not something you choose by something you already are. I love to know how many people struggled with choosing their sexuality here. Why make it so complicated? I never came across any homosexual who just press a switch and go from homosexual to heterosexual or the other way round. Thats something that only happens in repressed societies and communities as an excuse through the insecurity of living in an unaccepting environment moving to a more accepting one. Fakeness in never really recommended and repressed societies that can be a mode of survival.

----------


## Maleth

> your arguments are all emotional ones and though you cant believe it I really am not trying to make you or any homosexual feel bad, its actually the exact opposite of what i wan to do. take that as you like but its the truth 
> 
> now to your statments. 
> 
> 1)You are putting words in my mouth. I never would say to my child " You are not good" or "You are not normal" actually i would say the exact opposite you are totally normal and fine, everybody can have homosexual attractions some stronger than others its what kind of mindset and what kind of actions you choose to give yourself up to. Loving my child doesnt mean approving of everthing he or she does, actually good parenting means being loving but standing up for whats right even if it hurts your childs feelings at the time.


There are your own words srdceleva............. _but to try and act as they are good is something i could never do. I would reason exactly the same if my child was gay. I would love him and accept him but i would never aprove of homosexuality as a good and healthy behavior just as I dont approve of my own behavior when it isnt good or healthy 
_



> 3) OCD has been around for ever as well so have many mental conditions, incestual relationships have been around for ever as well. Im curious do you believe an adult mother and son have the right to marry? as they are consenting adults who arent hurting anyone. I dont mean to be provocative with this question just curious about your answer.


Two persons of the same sex loving each other has nothing to do with Mother and Child, has nothing to do with pedophilia, has nothing to do with 3 person marriage, has nothing to with bestiality and has nothing to do with OCD. 




> 4) Russia is not a third world country and they dont approve of homsexuality many south american countries also dont actually the vast majority of the world still does not approve of homosexuality but yes this argument isnt really important


? 







> 5) I didnt say homosexuals arent beneficial, everyones life is equal we are all humans. I said homosexuality the act of it isnt beneficial and i think it speaks for itself as it doesnt lead to anything but physical pleasure. Again i realize there are many many good homosexuals


what is wrong with physical pleasure. Many heterosexuals do it too without procreation. Homosexuals not allowed? really?

----------


## srdceleva

> well well. I said this many times and I say it again. I was brought up in a very conservative family. My brother is just 1 year older then me, we have same mother same enviorment. Never had porn around and never been molested and I am homosexual and* always* been since adolescence. There are different grades including bisexuality which is very real too. There are children that were born very feminine to the point they feel more like a women that they feel its natural to qualify for gender reassignment while most homosexuals do not fall in that category. You make it sound like its some kind of choice which is definitely not. If not I would be happy to know if you ever had to chose your sexuality, because I did not have to. I always knew what I was and most heterosexual had no issues in choosing. Sexuality is not something you choose by something you already are. I love to know how many people struggled with choosing their sexuality here. Why make it so complicated? I never came across any homosexual who just press a switch and go from homosexual to heterosexual or the other way round. Thats something that only happens in repressed societies and communities as an excuse through the insecurity of living in an unaccepting environment moving to a more accepting one. Fakeness in never really recommended and repressed societies that can be a mode of survival.


never claimed that you and other homosexuals arent genuine and sincere in your orientation. I know and believe you are. I also dont believe you chose to be that way like flipping on a switch, we cant choose our attractions but this isnt an argument proving that you were genetically born this way and that it isnt a mental issue. Also there are many heterosexual men who have worried they were gay before, seriously worried and were in depression. I know people in my own family who are straight and genuinely straight and went through worrying they might be gay at one point and now are totally confident in being straight and not even fazed by that issue. Ive also known friends who were like this and they werent gay and still arent. Actually the question "Am I gay" is one of the most common questions psychologists get from teens and even adults and the vast majority of those people are straight. Its not such a black and white issue and as i said i dont believe in those terms gay and straight, not all of my desires have been completely straight in my life time, doesnt mean i would act on them. 

Never claimed you were molested or involved with porn, you dont mention a father being around though.

----------


## srdceleva

> There are your own words srdceleva............. _but to try and act as they are good is something i could never do. I would reason exactly the same if my child was gay. I would love him and accept him but i would never aprove of homosexuality as a good and healthy behavior just as I dont approve of my own behavior when it isnt good or healthy 
> _
> 
> 
> Two persons of the same sex loving each other has nothing to do with Mother and Child, has nothing to do with pedophilia, has nothing to do with 3 person marriage, has nothing to with bestiality and has nothing to do with OCD. 
> 
> 
> 
> ? 
> ...


youre not even discussing with me any more. Yes read my own words i said "Homosexuality" not "homosexuals" i clearly made that distinction but you dont want to grant me that i can be a rational and carrying human being while opposed to homosexuality

dont want to disturb your peace, if your in peace then dont read my comments, ive said what ive had to say and people can take from it what they want. all the best to you, really all the best!

----------


## Angela

@Bicicleur,

Well, with women there are no performance issues really, so I don't see the problem. 

The fact that a man can perform with a woman if he must doesn't mean he's not gay or should be labeled bi-sexual. Some men can't seem to perform with a woman, however, and that has indeed created problems if they were supposed to produce an heir.

I mean, you have Edward II of England and James I of Scotland and England whose conduct with their favorites was considered scandalous even then. You could argue that they were bisexual, but it seems to me as if they were just homosexual men who fulfilled their responsibilities with their wives, but otherwise were gay. There's Phillipe I, Duke of Orleans, as well, who is the ancestor of most modern royalty, but who was openly and unabashedly homosexual when not fulfilling his duty unenthusiastically by getting his two wives pregnant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward..._with_Isabella
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip...f_Orl%C3%A9ans

Ludwig II of Bavaria doesn't seem to have been able to manage it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II_of_Bavaria

It also has to be said that the church was a refuge for a lot of homosexual men over the centuries.

A man wanting to and actually sleeping with two women at the same time is hardly noteworthy, is it? It's just that they don't say they're "married" to both women. As for a man marrying two women, I don't know if I would call that bizarre, either. That's polygamy, and a lot of cultures think it's totally unremarkable. I guess you're not used to polygamous people in Europe. Here, we have the fundamentalist, break away Mormon sects. Now, the marriages after the first one are not legal, but the relationships exist. What I object to is the fact that the man can't support all of his children, and so the wives have a different residence and collect welfare and other benefits.

Don't misunderstand; I have no sympathy with polygamy whatsoever, and I think any woman willingly participating must be mad.

----------


## Maleth

> youre not even discussing with me any more. Yes read my own words i said "Homosexuality" not "homosexuals" i clearly made that distinction but you dont want to grant me that i can be a rational and carrying human being while opposed to homosexuality
> 
> dont want to disturb your peace, if your in peace then dont read my comments, ive said what ive had to say and people can take from it what they want. all the best to you, really all the best!


I am strong thanks. I could not have been. I am a homosexual happy with my homosexuality and I pay my taxes and try to do good. I have a relationship of 16 years and I dont want to marry my mother and neither have OCD. All the best to you too :)

----------


## bicicleur

> maybe you are confusing apples with oranges? you know the difference? nothing bizarre happens with Heterosexuals?


the lesbian women with her fake penis is bizarre

the demand for the 3-way marriage may be legitimate in this case

that is why I put them in a seperate quote

if you legalise gay marriage, why not legalise the 3-way marriage?
where do you draw the line?

are you upset that I mention this?

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> T
> Two persons of the same sex loving each other has nothing to do with Mother and Child, has nothing to do with pedophilia, has nothing to do with 3 person marriage, has nothing to with bestiality and has nothing to do with OCD.


Why do you have to mention pedophilia?

Why do you object to a relationship between a mother and a 'child' if they are adults? Or a 3-person (or 10-person) marriage of various sexes who 'love each other'? You will use a moral argument, I think.

----------


## Maleth

> the lesbian women with her fake penis is bizarre
> 
> the demand for the 3-way marriage may be legitimate in this case
> 
> that is why I put them in a seperate quote
> 
> if you legalise gay marriage, why not legalise the 3-way marriage?
> where do you draw the line?
> 
> are you upset that I mention this?


:) of course I am not upset, its just we are discussing Gay marriage when a person loves another person of the same sex (not related of course in 100% of cases) and want to make a bond official. Heterosexuals do it even if they do not intend to procreate. What you state is truly not relevant to the subject. Simple no?

----------


## Maleth

> Why do you have to mention pedophilia?
> 
> Why do you object to a relationship between a mother and a 'child' if they are adults? Or a 3-person (or 10-person) marriage of various sexes who 'love each other'? You will use a moral argument, I think.


I mentioned pedophilia because some less informed people espesially in uneducated circles mistake it with homosexuality, and been used a pretext even on this forum. Gay marriages have nothing to do with this. Re other issue I did not approve or object in my post as you stated. I just stated when two people of the same sex want to unite has nothing to do with was has been mentioned. Most often to put a negative light on the issue.

If you want my opinion polygamy already existed and also approved by historical Moses (if there ever was such). Some Jews and Muslims do practice it. I am not in favor of it personally, but if the people involved feel fine with it, so be it, however I feel that even were its allowed it does not happen often. Same with son and Mother or other way round. This has nothing to do with people who are born attracted to the same sex falling in love and wanting to make their bond official. I have never come across yet a son who wants to marry his mother or a daughter his daddy, so the whole aspect is totally ridiculous. Whats next? A man marrying his dog? how come no one mentioned it yet. Its one of the favourites of the anti gay marriage lobby.....with the slogan god created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...or something to that effect....  :Rolleyes:

----------


## bicicleur

> :) of course I am not upset, its just we are discussing Gay marriage when a person loves another person of the same sex (not related of course in 100% of cases) and want to make a bond official. Heterosexuals do it even if they do not intend to procreate. What you state is truly not relevant to the subject. Simple no?


why is it not relevant?
do you think these 3 people can't make a good and stable family?
do you think there will be no lasting love in the house? to much jealousy?

if you accept gay marriage, why not discuss this kind of families?

----------


## Maleth

> why is it not relevant?
> do you think these 3 people can't make a good and stable family?
> do you think there will be no lasting love in the house? to much jealousy?
> 
> if you accept gay marriage, why not discuss this kind of families?


You can start a new thread about group marriage. Its not very relevant to this thread.

----------


## Carlos

Marriage among gays? Spanish television has recorded a documentary in Russia. There are geeks in the purest style of black novel that are dedicated to locate homosexual teachers and get the Russian government expel these teachers from their jobs destroying their lives. How stupid would you think kids are going to be gay because their teacher is gay or lesbian? The gays in Russia live in terror, hiding all day, any unfortunate can beat or kill or expel them from their jobs. I did not know that in Russia they were so far behind, I was perplexed. It is much more productive and healthy to have a happy person, who can develop his life fully and not someone frightened by going to the psychologist, getting dirty with all the damage he causes around and about himself. I expose him thus to see if these donkeys realize.

Poor gays and lesbians from Russia!!!

----------


## medic

If the friends that I have that are gay get married, my freindship would not change whatsoever. All I would say is that I am against what he is doing but I would be cool with it, just so long as the my gay friend doesn't let it come between our friendship.

----------


## firetown

I have always respected other people's desire to make themselves happy without impacting me negatively.

----------


## The_Lyonnist

Sodomy is the wrong way.

----------


## Carlos

There will be hundreds of opinions, from religious, moral, against and in favor, but the reality is that in the end everyone tries to put it in a hot hole and touch the sky for a few minutes.

----------


## tivali

I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

----------


## Maleth

> I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.


Don't be harsh on yourself Tivali. 

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/

Welcome to Eupida and the world of genetics  :Smile:

----------


## Dinarid

> Sodomy is the wrong way.


Pathetic one-line comments meant to be bold or 'edgy' reveal a lack of intellect.

----------


## Yetos

οκ 

I can respect the sexual difference,
as long as it respects me, and my prefers
but don't you think is alittle bit 'over stretched'

the 'first ladies' (wifes) of NATO countries leaders,



why I have a feeling that something is wrong the picture?
ok maybe my eyes are still not used/familiar in such photos, 
but don't you think is a little bit extraordinary and overstretched?

----------


## Dinarid

> οκ 
> 
> I can respect the sexual difference,
> as long as it respects me, and my prefers
> but don't you think is alittle bit 'stretched'
> 
> the 'first ladies' (wifes) of NATO countries leaders,
> 
> 
> ...


I think "first spouse" would be more appropriate.

----------


## Gitte

I'm pansexual myself - meaning I don't give a shit who I fall in love with. It's the person that counts, not their gender or sex. And honestly, I'd like to marry in a very fancy long dress when my soulmate happens to be a woman.

----------


## Angela

> οκ 
> 
> I can respect the sexual difference,
> as long as it respects me, and my prefers
> but don't you think is alittle bit 'over stretched'
> 
> the 'first ladies' (wifes) of NATO countries leaders,
> 
> 
> ...


OK, first spouse is more appropriate, as Dinarid said. However, the only one that looks "out of place" is the poor Muslim woman who's made to dress like an alien.

----------


## Carlos

I usually watch the North American soap opera "Modern family" for years not laughing so much watching t.v. is very good and a homosexual marriage that has even adopted and homosexual marriage that is reflected in the film is no less crazy than the rest of homosexual marriages, which implies a reflection of normality and that after all are human relationships , nothing special.

----------


## Angela

> I usually watch the North American soap opera "Modern family" for years not laughing so much watching t.v. is very good and a homosexual marriage that has even adopted and homosexual marriage that is reflected in the film is no less crazy than the rest of homosexual marriages, which implies a reflection of normality and that after all are human relationships , nothing special.


I like that show a lot too, and you're right: it's like a heterosexual marriage. :)

----------


## Gitte

All right wo are the 52 assholes who say it's bad and should be banned.

Kind regards,

A girl who likes girls.

----------


## ruskabajka

I would like Gay people to support polygamy

----------


## Dr.SYSTEM

(Lot's) people are very happy about this marriage idea... :Cool V: 

2.7.0.0

----------


## srdceleva

> I usually watch the North American soap opera "Modern family" for years not laughing so much watching t.v. is very good and a homosexual marriage that has even adopted and homosexual marriage that is reflected in the film is no less crazy than the rest of homosexual marriages, which implies a reflection of normality and that after all are human relationships , nothing special.


Yea because we know how accurately t.v represents real life....

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

----------


## srdceleva

> All right wo are the 52 assholes who say it's bad and should be banned.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> A girl who likes girls.


I'm one of them, why should we be banned because we have a different opinion? And why so agressive obviously you don't have kind regards for people who don't support homosexuality. 

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

----------


## Alexandra97

I'm not religious and I'm part of the community myself so obviously I want everywhere to be a safe place for LGBT people and for everyone to have the same human rights. But even from aa religious point of view, I really doubt Jesus was an ******* and hated people for something they couldn't help.

----------


## Angela

> I'm not religious and I'm part of the community myself so obviously I want everywhere to be a safe place for LGBT people and for everyone to have the same human rights. But even from aa religious point of view, I really doubt Jesus was an ******* and hated people for something they couldn't help.


Exactly. 

@srdceleva,
No one's banning anyone. 

Personally, I don't get why they want it so badly, other than assome form of acceptance, because it's like jumping on a sinking ship.

----------


## davef

I support gay/transsexual marriage 100 percent!!! 100000 percent! Infinite percent! Seriously though, i think it's wrong to deny marriage to any couple based on them being of the same sex

----------


## Farstar

I think all marriages should be banned. The reason is that when a couple (either hetero or homo) gets married, immediately the individuals of the couple get "rights". These rights, at least in Europe, are the rights to get pensions in some circumstances. The problem is these pensions are funded by taxes paid by individuals who have nothing to do with that marriage. This is an externality. Since it makes no sense that I have to fund payments to a couple when, for example, this couple divorces, I do not want that official marriages exist. Of course, private contracts are OK.

----------


## srdceleva

> I think all marriages should be banned. The reason is that when a couple (either hetero or homo) gets married, immediately the individuals of the couple get "rights". These rights, at least in Europe, are the rights to get pensions in some circumstances. The problem is these pensions are funded by taxes paid by individuals who have nothing to do with that marriage. This is an externality. Since it makes no sense that I have to fund payments to a couple when, for example, this couple divorces, I do not want that official marriages exist. Of course, private contracts are OK.


In a culture where no children are being born it's mean as an incentive for couples to come together and start families, I don't see anything wrong with that as it's necessary. 

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

----------


## srdceleva

> Exactly. 
> 
> @srdceleva,
> No one's banning anyone. 
> 
> Personally, I don't get why they want it so badly, other than assome form of acceptance, because it's like jumping on a sinking ship.


Kind of true in this day and age.

----------


## Farstar

Having a government paper does not increase the likelihood of having children. Government could give subsidies for having children (this is an externality, so I could agree with it), but you can have children when signing a private contract.

On the contrary, the guaranteed payments for signing an official marriage have nothing to do with having children: they are payments in case of a divorce (!) or pensions for old age. Things that people could do privately.

----------


## MaraMe

In Romania, in 2018, they created a referendum to forbid gay marriages. Fortunately, people didn't bite the trap and didn't wont to vote. 
I really don't understand what is with this paranoia with gays. They should have the same right like everybody else.

----------


## Héloïse

I'm for the gay marriage, in France with have it

----------


## morris

I support gay marriage 100%. I`m a girl and I love girls

----------


## sofitofi

It's outrageous how people tend not to mind their business. Love is love, stop using lame arguments to justify your ignorance

----------


## ZAkino

I'm so sorry. But I dont respect this...

----------


## Wanderer

I dont care about gays getting married.

----------


## bigsnake49

I think gay marriage was banned by the state and the official religion because it did not produce children. Same as the prohibition against masturbation and abortion. Always look for rational reasons of self interest behind these kind of prohibitions.

----------


## I()

I think it's a disgusting psychic/psychiatric deviation. It needs more medical attention. That's all.

----------


## Krum

Forbidden because it is unnatural, antimoral. Whoever he wants to go to bed with but doesn't need to occupy the whole world. Once they want to have a gay marriage, they find a way to reproduce without using a donor of the other sex. If that were normal then physiologically they would be able to reproduce. Gay marriage. Absolutely not

----------


## AlexWill1989

Personally, I think this should be allowed. This is one of the variants of the norm. And who cares who is married to whom? Just give others the opportunity to be happy.

----------


## kile

> I'm not religious and I'm part of the community myself so obviously I want everywhere to be a safe place for LGBT people and for everyone to have the same human rights. But even from aa religious point of view, I really doubt Jesus was an ******* and hated people for something they couldn't help.


Yeaahhh. 

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves.
Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or
practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-
none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed;
you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid
down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy andprofane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who
practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...

Jude 7
And don't forgetSodom and Gomorrahand their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality
and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the
eternal fire of God's judgment.

More and more.

----------


## Doggerland

> So, probably the legalization of these marriages between them, in the absence of biological descendants, will lead to the massive reduction of this anomaly, by the disappearance of the genetic transmission of homosexuality.


Wont happen so because the known genetic reasons for homosexuality are not exclusive linked to homosexual behavior, but to many other things. For example the SNPs associated with homosexual behavior are also linked to promiscuous sexual behavior in everybody. And this is and was an advantage for many men to reproduce.
There are many single moms today that got children from irresponsible guys and the government makes it possible for them to survive without a men on their side. Their genes will pass on.
In the past promiscuous leaders would definitely had more offspring then the monogamous ones.

Borderline Personality Disorder is also a reason for homosexuality and is widespread in the population. It is a horrible condition and I really cant stand this people, but the women who have it for example are also very sex hungry, even if they are bad mothers in general.
The men who have it are often antisocial/psychopaths and may had been great leaders in the past and brutal warlords.

And then there are metabolic conditions like thyroid disease which are linked to homosexual behavior in men, or polycistic ovaries in women. Polycistic ovaries produce more testosterone and can lead to homosexual behavior in women. It is a widespread condition and present in up to 32% of normal women and 80% of lesbian identified women.

To get the actual European population disease free, you would have to do massive inbreeding projects, because the population is soaked with recessive disease causign alleles, that wont show up until you do line breeding. This is due to the fact that the European populations is heterozygote for many things, due to of constant mixing over thousands of years.

Another way would be genetic engineering/embrional selection but I think this would be too expensive. And don’t forget, with that you eliminate variants that may be diseases today, but could be the base for more advanced human life in the future. You could crash the whole society by eliminating psychopaths, who knows.

----------


## bigsnake49

> Exactly. 
> 
> @srdceleva,
> No one's banning anyone. 
> 
> Personally, I don't get why they want it so badly, other than assome form of acceptance, *because it's like jumping on a sinking ship*.


Angela do you think that the institution of marriage is breaking down and is no longer needed?

----------


## Angela

I'd say yes to the first but no to the second, and it gives me no joy to say so. 

The vows which people make on their wedding day don't seem to matter very much to them nowadays; I'm weary of getting all dressed up and spending lots of money to go to weddings and watch couples make promises which in all likelihood they're not going to keep. All those protestations of undying love, and care, and fidelity don't last very long for a lot of people nowadays, that's if the women can ever manage to get the men to commit to them in any real way, never mind marriage, before their biological clocks have timed out. 

That's not a good thing imo, certainly not for children. Yes, it's not good for children to live in a home where the parents are at war with one another constantly, but unless the fighting is really terrible, it's worse, imo, being the product of a broken home. All the studies, if done honestly, show the same thing. Children need to be raised by a mother and a father in a stable environment. The goal is to make the union, the commitment, whether or not it's a legal marriage, work if at all possible, although I think the legality and the ritual are also important in meeting that goal. 

I also don't think it's a good thing for men and women. I saw what company my parents were for one another after my brother and I left, and more importantly, I saw the constant care and support my father gave my mother during her long illness. She died holding his hand as well as mine. That's what I want for myself and what I want for my children. 

I'm probably not the best person to ask, however, because I was raised very conservatively and have lived my life very conservatively. I fell in love almost at first sight very young, as did my mother, and it's been a lifelong affliction. :) Not that we haven't had our issues, because we have, as two hot tempered individuals were bound to have, but it would take something catastrophic to induce me to leave him, and he has never shown the slightest inclination to let me go. Far from it. Of course, in the early years I was probably also influenced by my father's words to me shortly before our marriage. He told me in no uncertain terms that I had to make my marriage work, that it was now my over-riding commitment, and that minus my husband beating me or our children, becoming an alcoholic or drug addict or gambler, or moving a mistress into the house, I'd made my bed and I would have to lie in it. Whether he actually meant it I now doubt, but I believed it at the time. 

It seems to run in my family, this idealistic view of love. My great-aunt had her issues with my great-uncle, mostly stemming from the fact that contrary to his promise he brought her to live in his family home with mother-in-law and father-in-law, sisters-in-laws, debts, the Nazi occupation, you name it. Yet she often used to speak to me of how she loved him and what a hole his dying had left in her life. She'd say, "After a long day of work, I'd wash my face and comb my hair and put on a fresh apron,and stay near the door or window looking for him to come in from the fields. When I saw him coming over the hill my heart would lift, and everything would be right with the world." If you choose well and think that it's not just being in love but working at loving that counts, that's what you can have.

----------


## bigsnake49

The question that many people have asked is that since women have now acquired equal status and pretty much can support themselves without needing a man, why do women need a man anymore? Just for the sperm? There are a lot of men that do not help with the kids, do not help with chores and basically make a nuisance of themselves besides bring a paycheck home if at that. I also believe that kids need both a dad and a mom to raise them. But other than that and the occasional sex, do we really need each other?

----------


## Angela

Yes, we do. That's what I was trying to explain in talking about my parents and my great-aunt and great-uncle. 

I didn't need my husband to support me, although he's made triple the amount of money than I ever made. I definitely needed him to be a father to my children, and he's been a damn good one. That's a bond we share that will never be broken.

It's also about companionship and friendship, but more than that, and even more than sex. I think it sounds disparaging to call it "occasional sex". If it's "right" between you sexually it helps to create that unbreakable bond between you. 

God knows I loved my parents immeasurably, and love my children that way as well, so much so that my husband used to joke that if we were all drowning, I'd save my mother first, then my children, then my father, and then him. That was only when he'd been particularly domineering and bull-headed, however. :) 

Seriously, how can anyone explain love between a man and woman, or how it enriches one's life just to feel that way about someone. It's vastly more important than "being" loved.

My parents are gone now, my children as well in a way now that they're grown. Would I want to face the next decades, God willing, alone, with only my women friends and some "gentleman friend" for comfort, or would I want to be with my best friend, my mate, the man with whom I sacrificed and raised children and built a life, and whom I took care of as he's taken care of me?

My father was my mother's primary care giver for the last nine months of her life. I don't think he ever really slept, because he didn't trust anyone else to turn her every few hours, clean her, cream and powder her. She never got a single bed sore. I would watch him try to coax her to eat for hours at a time, comb her hair, bathe her face, put perfume on her, sing to her, read to her. When she died, some blowhard at the funeral reception told me not to worry about him because in six months he'd be in Florida beating off the women. He didn't know my father. Three months after she died, he was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer and died six months after that. I expected it. All he kept saying was: I want to go be with your mother. I think he willed his own death; it was like his main spring was broken. They, my grandparents, my great-aunt and uncle, and many others in my family showed me what love between a man and a woman can be, and also showed me it isn't something that you're given or that just happens. You create it between you.

I wanted a marriage just like theirs, and have done my best to create and maintain it. 

It used to be much more common to see marriages like that. That's why I'm not very optimistic about what the world will be like in another generation or two.

----------


## bigsnake49

I have been married to my wife for 40 years now so I know what it takes to have an enduring marriage particularly between two headstrong partners :). Particularly if one of the partners snores (not me). My parents marriage only lasted 25 years because my mother died of cancer at the tender age of 51 of ovarian cancer.

----------


## Angela

> I have been married to my wife for 40 years now so I know what it takes to have an enduring marriage particularly between two headstrong partners :). Particularly if one of the partners snores (not me). My parents marriage only lasted 25 years because my mother died of cancer at the tender age of 51 of ovarian cancer.


So...more things we have in common...my sincerest condolences. To lose a mother, especially young, is one of the hardest things imaginable. 

My mother also died young of cancer, a primary brain tumor, although not as young as that. She was 61. My father was ten years her senior, and as I said, died nine months almost to the day after she did. It was a hell of a two years. I sometimes think I still haven't recovered. 

Also, are you familiar with the term capa tosta? In case you aren't, it's a term for Calabresi meaning hard headed, or tough, or stubborn. It absolutely applies; there's his way...and his way. :) I'm hot tempered on occasion, but I break like a wave against the cliffs when dealing with my dear husband. Yet...the heart wants what the heart wants, and it also sees the whole person, not just the faults. It's all been very much worth the compromises.

I don't envy anyone in the "dating game" nowadays, trying to find someone with the right values, the willingness to commit and make the compromises. 

Btw, I'm also told I snore, but I think it's a calumny because he can find so few other faults in me and has to try and even the score. :)

----------


## Wanderer

I personally dont care about gay marriage.
But the gender thing is delusoonal

----------


## BillMC

I don't have any issues WRT gay marriages. Nevertheless I do believe that people who are opposed to gay marriage due to religous reasons should have respect for their religous sensitivities. 

Some while ago there was a legal and moral controvesy regarding a Christian baker in Northern Ireland who refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. The baker was accused of homophobia and taken to court. Fortunately for the baker the court said that the baker was not obliged to make a cake.

----------


## hadrian

> For example the SNPs associated with homosexual behavior are also linked to promiscuous sexual behavior in everybody. And this is and was an advantage for many men to reproduce.




Study?




> And then there are metabolic conditions like thyroid disease which are linked to homosexual behavior in men, or polycistic ovaries in women. Polycistic ovaries produce more testosterone and can lead to homosexual behavior in women. It is a widespread condition and present in up to 32% of normal women and 80% of lesbian identified women.
> 
> To get the actual European population disease free, you would have to do massive inbreeding projects, because the population is soaked with recessive disease causign alleles, that wont show up until you do line breeding. This is due to the fact that the European populations is heterozygote for many things, due to of constant mixing over thousands of years.
> 
> Another way would be genetic engineering/embrional selection but I think this would be too expensive. And don’t forget, with that you eliminate variants that may be diseases today, but could be the base for more advanced human life in the future. You could crash the whole society by eliminating psychopaths, who knows.


Yes pleiotropy makes genetic engineering problematic.

----------


## Olivia_19

I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

----------


## LarrCarter1231

I have nothing against same-sex marriage. I would like to communicate with such families in real life, I have been to different sites, I ended up communicating here https://stripchat.com/men/gays and https://stripchat.com/girls/lesbians. They will tell you a lot of interesting things, how others treat them, etc.

----------

