PDA

View Full Version : Proposition 8 Repealed


Pages : [1] 2 3

Beans-Bot
04-08-10, 21:08
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

--

:jmp::jmp::jmp::jmp:

Even if you're not a California citizen or part of the GLBT community, this is major news. People say this might be what was needed to finally have same-sex marriage become a Supreme Court issue. NOH8.

Kittypower
04-08-10, 21:10
Mazel tov!

Cochrane
04-08-10, 21:11
A good decision, but this will not be over until the Supreme Court has ruled.

Super Badnik
04-08-10, 21:15
Well good. Seriously? Why vote against Gay Marriage? How would same-sex couples actually harm all these people who voted against it? It dosen't, but by voting against same sex marriage your pretty much violating people's basic rights. America really needs to become more tollerant.

Carbonek_0051
04-08-10, 21:16
This makes me really happy.

TRhalloween
04-08-10, 21:16
This is great news! :D

ShadyCroft
04-08-10, 21:25
Well good. Seriously? Why vote against Gay Marriage? How would same-sex couples actually harm all these people who voted against it? It dosen't, but by voting against same sex marriage your pretty much violating people's basic rights. America really needs to become more tollerant.

being an Arab living in a Middle Eastern conservative country, this statement makes me laugh a little, no offense. :)

regarding the news, its good to hear. Here's for more steps ahead :tmb:

Ward Dragon
04-08-10, 21:41
A good decision, but this will not be over until the Supreme Court has ruled.

Precisely :) While it's a good stepping stone to getting the case heard in the Supreme Court, people shouldn't start celebrating until the Supreme Court has made a decision on it. I guess what I'm saying is people shouldn't take victory for granted until the final decision has been made.

Well good. Seriously? Why vote against Gay Marriage? How would same-sex couples actually harm all these people who voted against it? It dosen't, but by voting against same sex marriage your pretty much violating people's basic rights. America really needs to become more tollerant.

Way to insult an entire country there :p America in general is extremely tolerant, especially compared to other times and places. As for why people would vote against gay marriage, it's because of how the issue is presented to them. Rightly or wrongly, they view it as the government violating their religious freedom by defining who is allowed to have one of the sacraments of their church.

I know it'll never happen because it's too impractical, but it would make me happy to accommodate those concerns by simply taking the government out of marriage entirely and having all government documents refer to civil unions (whether the couple is gay, straight, religious, atheist, etc.). I wonder if they'd have a reason to complain then? :p Seriously though, it does make sense to me for the government to only concern itself with civil unions, but all of the laws and documents refer to "marriage" so it's too much work to change it all and people should accept that the term as used by the government refers to secular marriages that are recognized by the state (not necessarily religious marriages, although a marriage could be both of course).

Cochrane
04-08-10, 22:08
I know it'll never happen because it's too impractical, but it would make me happy to accommodate those concerns by simply taking the government out of marriage entirely and having all government documents refer to civil unions (whether the couple is gay, straight, religious, atheist, etc.). I wonder if they'd have a reason to complain then? :p Seriously though, it does make sense to me for the government to only concern itself with civil unions, but all of the laws and documents refer to "marriage" so it's too much work to change it all and people should accept that the term as used by the government refers to secular marriages that are recognized by the state (not necessarily religious marriages, although a marriage could be both of course).

I disagree. In my opinion, the basic premise saying that marriage is something religious is wrong. Sure, some people like to turn theirs it into a religious thing, and if thatís what they want, I wonít object. And yes, marriage had a long history of being something performed only by religious groups. But marriage itself is not limited to religious people, just like reading and writing is not and should not be limited to the cleric. There is a long-standing tradition of common law marriages that have no religious component. Similarly, the tradition of having marriages administered through a justice of the peace or other government officials without church intervention is very long. As an atheist, I can guarantee you that I would not be happy if any government would try to remove my right to marry through a back-door like this.

And letís face it, thatís what this would be. A civil union is not the same thing as a marriage. It was specifically invented to be not the same thing as a marriage, to keep people opposed to marriage rights for everyone happy. Marriage is a culturally universally accepted establishment. A civil union, even if it is just a different term for the same legal situation, does not have that.

In a modern, pluralistic society, giving traditional duties of the government over to religion is an extremely bad idea. Even if its "only" about an extremely well-known and important label for something.

Ward Dragon
04-08-10, 22:24
I disagree. In my opinion, the basic premise saying that marriage is something religious is wrong. Sure, some people like to turn theirs it into a religious thing, and if that’s what they want, I won’t object. And yes, marriage had a long history of being something performed only by religious groups. But marriage itself is not limited to religious people, just like reading and writing is not and should not be limited to the cleric. There is a long-standing tradition of common law marriages that have no religious component. Similarly, the tradition of having marriages administered through a justice of the peace or other government officials without church intervention is very long. As an atheist, I can guarantee you that I would not be happy if any government would try to remove my right to marry through a back-door like this.

And let’s face it, that’s what this would be. A civil union is not the same thing as a marriage. It was specifically invented to be not the same thing as a marriage, to keep people opposed to marriage rights for everyone happy. Marriage is a culturally universally accepted establishment. A civil union, even if it is just a different term for the same legal situation, does not have that.

In a modern, pluralistic society, giving traditional duties of the government over to religion is an extremely bad idea. Even if its "only" about an extremely well-known and important label for something.

The government does a lot of things based around religion (such as requiring people to swear an oath to God while testifying in court). What I'm saying is if people really want a separation of church and state, and they are arguing against gay marriage on these grounds, then go the whole way and see where it leads. If they get what they want, then they won't have legally recognized "marriage" either because the logical end of that road is for everyone to have civil unions legally and then call it marriage anyway.

Also as far as I see it, people have a First Amendment right to say that they are married and as long as they don't claim it on any legal documents it's unconstitutional for the government to tell them that they're not married (assuming it's between consenting adults of course). The only part of marriage that the government deals with is legal stuff anyway, therefore all legally recognized marriages are civil unions because they are defined by the state. I don't think there should be any legal difference between a civil union or a legally recognized marriage.

All of this arguing over a label and the principle of the thing only delays the actual enactment of equal rights for all couples. Real change takes time and people have to prioritize. In my opinion the rights are more important than proving a point to the opposition, therefore people should be focusing on making civil unions equal to marriages in states that won't support gay marriage but are willing to do civil unions. Then after years pass and people see that nothing bad happened from allowing civil unions, they'd be more accepting of just calling it marriage and not having any difference at all. But that takes time to change people's minds, so I think in the meantime people should be more concerned about having the rights regardless of what label is used to get those rights.

Draco
04-08-10, 22:38
There is no valid line of thought that prevents same sex marriage.

Super Badnik
04-08-10, 23:17
being an Arab living in a Middle Eastern conservative country, this statement makes me laugh a little, no offense. :)I didn't say those countries shouldn't be more tollerant too. ;)
But America does claim to be "the land of freedom" and things like this gay marriage ban (among other things) does contradict this claim.

TRfan23
04-08-10, 23:55
Request Deletion.

LaraLuvrrr
05-08-10, 00:09
:yah:

Hopefully it'll make it with whatever the next process is

**** Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!

just*raidin*tomb
05-08-10, 00:12
Kudos to them. Same-sex marriages don't harm anyone anyway. :)

knightgames
05-08-10, 00:17
I didn't say those countries shouldn't be more tollerant too. ;)
But America does claim to be "the land of freedom" and things like this gay marriage ban (among other things) does contradict this claim.


Oh puleeese. Get off the soap box. The issue is much more complicated than the simple 'land of the free, home of the brave' sentiment. Is England really that much more tolerant than the US? Or is tolerance legislated?

Legislating it won't make anything people find wrong or offensive more tolerated than it was prior to legislation. It's just legal.

I think (despite legal status) you'll still find many who oppose gay lifestyle, but because it's legal or that it doesn't affect them, they shrug it off. That's still not right, but I think it's more honest than believing because something is legislated that it's suddenly accepted or in some eyes - normal. Legislating doesn't make something more tolerant.



For full disclosure I'd have voted FOR gay marriage. As long as people don't try to force churches, synagogues, temples to perform marriage ceremonies, I have no objection.

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 00:17
**** Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!You know there are Democrats who oppose gay marriage too. Believe it or not, some Republicans in the past have supported gay marriage. It's my understanding that gay marriage isn't strictly a partisan issue in the US.

As long as people don't try to force churches, synagogues, temples to perform marriage ceremonies, I have no objection.Unfortunately they're trying to do that here I think.

Jo269976
05-08-10, 00:18
Excellent news :D

knightgames
05-08-10, 00:19
:yah:

Hopefully it'll make it with whatever the next process is

**** Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!

I think your cute, but no thank you. :ton:

MattTR
05-08-10, 00:19
You know there are Democrats who oppose gay marriage too. Believe it or not, some Republicans in the past have supported gay marriage. It's my understanding that gay marriage isn't strictly a partisan issue in the US.

Absolutely not, you're right. :tmb:

Woot! Way to go California. :jmp:

TRfan23
05-08-10, 00:21
Unfortunately they're trying to do that here I think.

Really? O.o

But I'm okay with what it is atm - Civil Partnerships :)

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 00:23
Really? O.o

But I'm okay with what it is atm - Civil Partnerships :)Yeah, I think so. At least, back when Labour were in office forcing their equality act BS anyway. Yeah, I have no objections to civil partnerships, although I don't think they should force religious institutions to offer them.

Beans-Bot
05-08-10, 00:23
Unfortunately they're trying to do that here I think.

What's given you that impression? :confused:

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 00:27
What's given you that impression? :confused:This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8584339.stm

Tonyrobinson
05-08-10, 00:28
SEX AND MARRIAGE WAS MEANT FOR MAN AND WOMAN!!!
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE




I'm kidding this is great news!:tea:

knightgames
05-08-10, 00:29
You know there are Democrats who oppose gay marriage too. Believe it or not, some Republicans in the past have supported gay marriage. It's my understanding that gay marriage isn't strictly a partisan issue in the US.

Unfortunately they're trying to do that here I think.


Ummmmmmmmmm I have a hard time with that. Personally with the accepted belief by many in the church that gay = hell, why would gay people want to marry in the church, anyway?


There are churches who perform marriages. Unitarian and Trinitarian churches perform wedding vows for same sex couples. I have no problem with that either. Just don't expect to walk into Saint Rose of Lima and expect the priest to marry you.

knightgames
05-08-10, 00:31
SEX WAS MEANT FOR MAN AND WOMAN!!!
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE




I'm kidding this is great news!:tea:


Forget Adam and Steve. I'm more concerned with Eve and Yvette. :ton:

MattTR
05-08-10, 00:31
SEX AND MARRIAGE WAS MEANT FOR MAN AND WOMAN!!!
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE




I'm kidding this is great news!:tea:

http://i40.************/10g9ufm.jpg

Beans-Bot
05-08-10, 00:31
^^^LOL

This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8584339.stm


Well, that's the UK, not here. :p We ***** over pretty much anything and everything, so I doubt anything similar would get off the ground. It's the church's decision to sanctify marriages or not, though I think they should. But that's not what this thread is for; feel free to start another one if you like.

EmeraldFields
05-08-10, 00:32
A good decision, but this will not be over until the Supreme Court has ruled.

This. And I'm afraid with the Roberts court, gay marriage will be pushed back even further. :(

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 00:33
Well, that's the UK, not here. :p We ***** over pretty much anything and everything, so I doubt anything similar would get off the ground. It's the church's decision to sanctify marriages or not, though I think they should. But that's not what this thread is for; feel free to start another one if you like.Well I live in the UK, hence why I said I think they're trying to do that here.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 00:34
Proposition 8 Repealed
Awesome !

KIKO
05-08-10, 00:35
These are awesome news :tmb: It terrifies me how people can vote on other's rights... like, mind your own rights *******. Just wait until the day that some people will look back at this and realize how dumb they were...

Tonyrobinson
05-08-10, 00:36
I wonder why we have sexuality laws these days. Do people honestly think there is danger in gay couples? The Gay community is treated like crap all because some straight people are scared of the unkown!

Beans-Bot
05-08-10, 00:36
This. And I'm afraid with the Roberts court, gay marriage will be pushed back even further. :(


This scares me too. The Supreme Court is always a double-edged sword of sorts because if it rules in favor of something, a cause could greatly benefit, but if the Courts rules against it, there could be set-backs for years. I fear a slim 5-4 anti-gay majority and gay rights getting the past years of progress completely nullified. :(

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 00:38
I wonder why we have sexuality laws these days. Do people honestly think there is danger in gay couples? The Gay community is treated like crap all because straight people are scared of the unkown!Hold on a minute, I think you're generalizing there (again).

Draco
05-08-10, 00:40
I wonder why we have sexuality laws these days. Do people honestly think there is danger in gay couples? The Gay community is treated like crap all because straight people are scared of the unkown!

Unknown? Pretty sure straight people invented the muffler tickler position.

Tonyrobinson
05-08-10, 00:41
Hold on a minute, I think you're generalizing there (again).

Sorry I meant some. :o

We should all know how I love to generalise by now Tony.:p

Anyway, I don't want anything heated to errupt so I'll just agree that I was wrong. ;)

EDIT:

@Draco, OMG! :vlol:

xMiSsCrOfTx
05-08-10, 00:49
Wonderful news!!!

knightgames
05-08-10, 00:56
I feel if it does get voted down by the Supreme Court, it won't be because of bigotry. More likely because of legislation by the bench. That's a dangerous precedent to set allowing for future rulings by lower judges - thus overthrowing the will of the peoples -and possible corruption by special interests.

Like suffrage, and equal rights for blacks I think there should be an amendment to the Constitution.

trXD
05-08-10, 01:06
Very happy, yay :D

TheBloodRed
05-08-10, 01:06
Gay couples have the right to be miserable like straight couples do. :ton:

TippingWater
05-08-10, 01:09
Gay couples have the right to be miserable like straight couples do. :ton:

But at least they are now legally allowed to suffer together :p

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 01:12
Like suffrage, and equal rights for blacks I think there should be an amendment to the Constitution.I don't think this should be compared to those things. Women were denied the right to vote and blacks were segregated and discriminated against. While I agree everything isn't perfect for gays I think they're a lot better than blacks before they got equal rights or women before they got the vote.

Draco
05-08-10, 01:17
The problem is that the Bill of Rights provides for the freedom of religion, which is what the 'Law of Marriage' is typically based in. So you can either 'interfere' in religious freedom or declare marriage to be no longer a legal status for anyone to obtain.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 01:21
I think people should allow gays to get married, there are bigger things that need to be taken care of , not that gay marriage should be viewed as an "issue" , but unfortunately many view it as one :(. What I find "amusing" is that many people donate lots of money to forbid gay marriage , but for example they wouldn't donate a dime to help starving children :mad:.

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 01:29
The problem is that the Bill of Rights provides for the freedom of religion, which is what the 'Law of Marriage' is typically based in. So you can either 'interfere' in religious freedom or declare marriage to be no longer a legal status for anyone to obtain.

Yes, that is precisely what I was getting at before :tmb: I don't much care which way it goes as long as everyone gets the same legal rights. I feel like this argument in general distracts from more important issues so I want it to be resolved quickly (which I guess requires a Supreme Court ruling) in order for people to focus on more important things instead of arguing over what the word marriage means.

knightgames
05-08-10, 01:57
I don't think this should be compared to those things. Women were denied the right to vote and blacks were segregated and discriminated against. While I agree everything isn't perfect for gays I think they're a lot better than blacks before they got equal rights or women before they got the vote.


Well I think an argument could be made for both sides of the coin (as it were).

But when you look at the big picture for gay marriage the issue runs deeper than the right to marry. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Rights for cohabitation, insurances, medical rights, housing, and even child rearing are issues you and I can take for granted. It's not just about a ring on the finger.

larafan25
05-08-10, 02:06
Well I think an argument could be made for both sides of the coin (as it were).

But when you look at the big picture for gay marriage the issue runs deeper than the right to marry. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Rights for cohabitation, insurances, medical rights, housing, and even child rearing are issues you and I can take for granted. It's not just about a ring on the finger.

I think it's even deeper than that.

Like the idea of women, black people, gay people, not actually being recognised as people, being put in certain roles, being abused, and of course random killings based on sexuality and background or skin colour, also mass killings based on some hate towards gender. That last one is something I'd never expect.

knightgames
05-08-10, 02:20
I think it's even deeper than that.

Like the idea of women, black people, gay people, not actually being recognised as people, being put in certain roles, being abused, and of course random killings based on sexuality and background or skin colour, also mass killings based on some hate towards gender. That last one is something I'd never expect.

Uh huh. The basic common element is that we're all human. Bigotry and hatred doesn't see anything more than the outward. For what ever reasons, prejudice blinds people to that basic element of all humans being equal.

Fear? Not in the concept that someone is mightier, stronger, faster etc..... but that they themselves are equal to what they despise.That scares many people.

larafan25
05-08-10, 02:22
Uh huh. The basic common element is that we're all human. Bigotry and hatred doesn't see anything more than the outward. For what ever reasons, prejudice blinds people to that basic element of all humans being equal.

Fear? Not in the concept that someone is mightier, stronger, faster etc..... but that they themselves are equal to what they despise.That scares many people.

Very true.:)

TippingWater
05-08-10, 03:18
Don't know about you guys , but this repeal gives me so much hope , and I don't even live there :) , it makes me feel that things will be OK :) .

-DaNnEe..
05-08-10, 03:28
This really is amazing! <3

IceColdLaraCroft
05-08-10, 03:31
I'm hoping this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they rule that all states have to legalize gay marriage

TippingWater
05-08-10, 03:33
I'm hoping this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they rule that all states have to legalize gay marriage

:tmb:

Uzi master
05-08-10, 07:09
Mazel tov!

"remembers when we learnd of juidasm"

hmm, the only jewish guy in my class never did anything the religion said he has too...


anyway good news! when you think about it though very few people are actually tollerant tbh though.

Johnnay
05-08-10, 07:43
Absolutely not, you're right. :tmb:

Woot! Way to go California. :jmp:

i do wish same sex couples have the right to marry all over America after this thing which happened in California

Now i need a man for me(though i feel like im gonna be single for the rest of my life).

Cochrane
05-08-10, 08:01
The government does a lot of things based around religion (such as requiring people to swear an oath to God while testifying in court). What I'm saying is if people really want a separation of church and state, and they are arguing against gay marriage on these grounds, then go the whole way and see where it leads. If they get what they want, then they won't have legally recognized "marriage" either because the logical end of that road is for everyone to have civil unions legally and then call it marriage anyway.

Also as far as I see it, people have a First Amendment right to say that they are married and as long as they don't claim it on any legal documents it's unconstitutional for the government to tell them that they're not married (assuming it's between consenting adults of course). The only part of marriage that the government deals with is legal stuff anyway, therefore all legally recognized marriages are civil unions because they are defined by the state. I don't think there should be any legal difference between a civil union or a legally recognized marriage.

All of this arguing over a label and the principle of the thing only delays the actual enactment of equal rights for all couples. Real change takes time and people have to prioritize. In my opinion the rights are more important than proving a point to the opposition, therefore people should be focusing on making civil unions equal to marriages in states that won't support gay marriage but are willing to do civil unions. Then after years pass and people see that nothing bad happened from allowing civil unions, they'd be more accepting of just calling it marriage and not having any difference at all. But that takes time to change people's minds, so I think in the meantime people should be more concerned about having the rights regardless of what label is used to get those rights.
The government, in particular the US one, does do a lot of things based on religion, thatís true, but I am not entirely sure why that is considered constitutional. Swearing to only tell the truth isnít necessarily a religious thing. Pledging allegiance to a country isnít or shouldnĎt be a religious thing. Printing money most certainly is not. But thatís a different issue. Marriage is already recognized as something that is not religious. What you propose amounts to reversing that.

The idea of getting the rights first and the labels later may be more practical in some situations, but getting all at once would always better if it is possible, and going through the supreme court, it may well be so. Human and civil rights must not depend on public opinion. If they did, that would destroy the entire point of them.

The problem is that the Bill of Rights provides for the freedom of religion, which is what the 'Law of Marriage' is typically based in. So you can either 'interfere' in religious freedom or declare marriage to be no longer a legal status for anyone to obtain.
No, marriage, as performed and recognized by the government, is not based in religion. It may have historic connections to religion, but it is most definitely not related to any religion today. What makes you think otherwise?

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 08:40
The government, in particular the US one, does do a lot of things based on religion, that’s true, but I am not entirely sure why that is considered constitutional. Swearing to only tell the truth isn’t necessarily a religious thing. Pledging allegiance to a country isn’t or shouldn‘t be a religious thing. Printing money most certainly is not. But that’s a different issue.

It's not unconstitutional because the US Constitution never mentions separation of church and state, only that people have freedom to practice their own religions. Jefferson used the phrase elsewhere and it's generally accepted to be the ideal, but it's not unconstitutional for the government to make very general religious references such as referring to God in all of those things you mentioned (unless the Supreme Court says it is, which hasn't happened yet).

Marriage is already recognized as something that is not religious. What you propose amounts to reversing that.

What I propose amounts to removing the government's ability to control who is allowed to get married. The government has dominion where taxes are concerned, but it should not be allowed to declare who can or cannot get married. In the past the government has used this power to block interracial couples from getting married, now gay couples, and it's just going to keep going with constant battles over how the government defines marriage (for example, I'm sure polygamy is coming up next once gay marriage is settled). I personally think most of these "rights" shouldn't be tied to marriage at all in the first place (for example people should be able to give permission to their friends to visit them in hospitals as well, whether or not they are married to those friends) so I view the arguments over the definition of marriage as a distraction which won't settle the real issue.

I'm too tired right now to explain more clearly, but Wiki has a few paragraphs explaining some of this more clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence#Controversy

I want the government completely out of people's private lives, and I know that's not going to happen, but marriage is just one more example of the government trying to control society by legislating what should be people's personal choices to make.

The idea of getting the rights first and the labels later may be more practical in some situations, but getting all at once would always better if it is possible, and going through the supreme court, it may well be so. Human and civil rights must not depend on public opinion. If they did, that would destroy the entire point of them.

Then civil rights don't exist at all because they are always determined by public opinion. If the public is generally okay with the government oppressing a group of people, then it'll just keep happening until public opinion changes. It took over a hundred years for black people to get equal rights in the eyes of the law and in the end what won it was winning over public opinion with non-violent protests. The country isn't going to suddenly have a change of heart overnight about gay marriage.

I'd also argue that tax benefits aren't a civil right either, and that's all the government has the constitutional right to control concerning marriage. People should be more concerned with getting rid of laws that criminalize sexual behaviors between consenting adults because that actually does violate civil rights by putting people in prison (or at least threatening to do so) based upon what they do in private with each other. That's much more of a civil rights issue than how the government decides tax rules.

No, marriage, as performed and recognized by the government, is not based in religion. It may have historic connections to religion, but it is most definitely not related to any religion today. What makes you think otherwise?

In the US, ministers, priests, etc. are authorized to "solemnize marriage" and the marriages they perform are legally recognized. The state does issue its own marriage licenses on occasion (for example my parents got married by signing papers in the court house) but the vast majority of marriages are handled by religious institutions and are legally valid if the priest/minister/etc. has the appropriate license from the state giving them authority to combine a wedding ceremony into a religious marriage and a civil contract at the same time.

Cochrane
05-08-10, 09:22
It's not unconstitutional because the US Constitution never mentions separation of church and state, only that people have freedom to practice their own religions. Jefferson used the phrase elsewhere and it's generally accepted to be the ideal, but it's not unconstitutional for the government to make very general religious references such as referring to God in all of those things you mentioned (unless the Supreme Court says it is, which hasn't happened yet).
Okay. Still, I will maintain that I donít think it is a good thing.

What I propose amounts to removing the government's ability to control who is allowed to get married. The government has dominion where taxes are concerned, but it should not be allowed to declare who can or cannot get married. In the past the government has used this power to block interracial couples from getting married, now gay couples, and it's just going to keep going with constant battles over how the government defines marriage (for example, I'm sure polygamy is coming up next once gay marriage is settled). I personally think most of these "rights" shouldn't be tied to marriage at all in the first place (for example people should be able to give permission to their friends to visit them in hospitals as well, whether or not they are married to those friends) so I view the arguments over the definition of marriage as a distraction which won't settle the real issue.

I'm too tired right now to explain more clearly, but Wiki has a few paragraphs explaining some of this more clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence#Controversy

I want the government completely out of people's private lives, and I know that's not going to happen, but marriage is just one more example of the government trying to control society by legislating what should be people's personal choices to make.
Ah, OK, I think I understand your point a little better now. You view marriage mainly as a private thing, whether it is religious or not, right? This is certainly an interesting point of view. I think for most people, however, the official recognition by the government and/or their religion is an important part of being married, as opposed to just living together. Iím not sure the concept of private-only marriage would be very popular among those who donít go to church.

Then civil rights don't exist at all because they are always determined by public opinion. If the public is generally okay with the government oppressing a group of people, then it'll just keep happening until public opinion changes. It took over a hundred years for black people to get equal rights in the eyes of the law and in the end what won it was winning over public opinion with non-violent protests. The country isn't going to suddenly have a change of heart overnight about gay marriage.

I'd also argue that tax benefits aren't a civil right either, and that's all the government has the constitutional right to control concerning marriage. People should be more concerned with getting rid of laws that criminalize sexual behaviors between consenting adults because that actually does violate civil rights by putting people in prison (or at least threatening to do so) based upon what they do in private with each other. That's much more of a civil rights issue than how the government decides tax rules.
I disagree here. The most important part of civil rights is about treating all people equally as far as the law and government are concerned, and the Supreme Court has long held that this has constitutional status in the US. Tax benefits themselves are not a civil right, but if they are offered to some, then they must be offered to everyone, regardless of public opinion.

In the US, ministers, priests, etc. are authorized to "solemnize marriage" and the marriages they perform are legally recognized. The state does issue its own marriage licenses on occasion (for example my parents got married by signing papers in the court house) but the vast majority of marriages are handled by religious institutions and are legally valid if the priest/minister/etc. has the appropriate license from the state giving them authority to combine a wedding ceremony into a religious marriage and a civil contract at the same time.
The question is: Is (legally recognized) marriage an act of the state, which it delegates to priests etc. under certain circumstances, or is it a religious/private thing that the state barges in on? To me, it is clearly the former.

Super Badnik
05-08-10, 09:32
Oh puleeese. Get off the soap box. The issue is much more complicated than the simple 'land of the free, home of the brave' sentiment. Is England really that much more tolerant than the US? Or is tolerance legislated?

Legislating it won't make anything people find wrong or offensive more tolerated than it was prior to legislation. It's just legal.

I think (despite legal status) you'll still find many who oppose gay lifestyle, but because it's legal or that it doesn't affect them, they shrug it off. That's still not right, but I think it's more honest than believing because something is legislated that it's suddenly accepted or in some eyes - normal. Legislating doesn't make something more tolerant.

For full disclosure I'd have voted FOR gay marriage. As long as people don't try to force churches, synagogues, temples to perform marriage ceremonies, I have no objection.Er, I'm pretty sure I never mentioned the UK apparently being more tollerant. Although the UK does seem to have less homophobia than America now. As for the whole legislation thing, I believe it was mentioned earlier that Americans voted for this ban on gay marriage. And Churches, Synagogues, temples and so on should allow gay marriage. I don't see why hommosexuals should be denied a religous ceremony if they desire it.

larson n natla
05-08-10, 09:33
Great news :tmb: love shouldn't be limited by bigotry.

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 09:34
Okay. Still, I will maintain that I donít think it is a good thing.

I don't argue otherwise :p I just think it's so firmly embedded in America that it's impossible to sort out without causing more trouble than it's worth.

Ah, OK, I think I understand your point a little better now. You view marriage mainly as a private thing, whether it is religious or not, right?

Yes, exactly. I don't think the government has the right to interfere and tell people who they can or can't marry. No matter what the government's definition of marriage is, it will always leave somebody out. Therefore better to not get involved because that's the only real way to avoid discriminating against anyone.

I disagree here. The most important part of civil rights is about treating all people equally as far as the law and government are concerned, and the Supreme Court has long held that this has constitutional status in the US.

The only way to treat all people equally as far as marriage is concerned is to not have the government deal in marriages at all. Otherwise there will always be somebody who wants to get married but doesn't fit one of the government-recognized categories and is therefore discriminated against.

Tax benefits themselves are not a civil right, but if they are offered to some, then they must be offered to everyone, regardless of public opinion.

The IRS does whatever the hell it wants and isn't accountable to anybody XD That also needs to be addressed but is a completely different issue of which this marriage debate is merely a symptom.

The question is: Is (legally recognized) marriage an act of the state, which it delegates to priests etc. under certain circumstances, or is it a religious/private thing that the state barges in on? To me, it is clearly the former.

I view it as the second, but anyway I edited something into my post before you replied but you probably didn't see so I moved it here instead :p

To finish my thought which I strangely left hanging before, if the state now says that gay marriage is allowed and a priest doesn't believe in it, will he be forced to perform gay marriages or lose his right to perform marriages at all? It's a very touchy issue and that's why a lot of people view the legalization of gay marriage as an attack on their religion whereas they have no problem with equal rights under a civil union.

Dustie
05-08-10, 09:36
In my opinion the rights are more important than proving a point to the opposition, therefore people should be focusing on making civil unions equal to marriages in states that won't support gay marriage but are willing to do civil unions. Then after years pass and people see that nothing bad happened from allowing civil unions, they'd be more accepting of just calling it marriage and not having any difference at all. But that takes time to change people's minds, so I think in the meantime people should be more concerned about having the rights regardless of what label is used to get those rights.

I agree with this, sounds very reasonable. There's many people who don't like the view of two men or two women together, so they use the argument about marriage being sacred, basically constantly throwing the definition of it under the bus for the sake of winning their fight to put homosexual people into shame and under hatred. In a way it's like people are fighting over a word.

Super Badnik
05-08-10, 09:48
Hm, I don't really buy this Civil Union that we have in Britain and, by the sounds of it, in some places in America (not 100% on that). I know it is basically the same sort of concept of joining two people, but it still alienates homosexuality, it still in a way shows it as being something different from same sex relationships. It think it still makes it appear to be something alien. As for Ward Dragon's idea, not disrespecting it, but I don't think homosexuals should be made to wait even longer for something that should be a basic right.

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 09:54
As for Ward Dragon's idea, not disrespecting it, but I don't think homosexuals should be made to wait even longer for something that should be a basic right.

If it was a basic right, then the state wouldn't be able to regulate it the way that they do. It's not a basic right until the government stops controlling it by telling people who they are allowed to marry. Even if gay marriage is legalized, there are still other relationship arrangements that consenting adults could make which are not recognized. No matter what's legal now, there will always be a group that is left out as long as the government is the one defining what marriage means.

TRfan23
05-08-10, 10:09
Request Deletion.

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 10:10
I think it's even deeper than that.

Like the idea of women, black people, gay people, not actually being recognised as people, being put in certain roles, being abused, and of course random killings based on sexuality and background or skin colour, also mass killings based on some hate towards gender. That last one is something I'd never expect.Come on, you can't honestly say the way homosexuals are treated today is the same way black people before equal rights. Sure there is still discrimination but it's my understanding that it's nothing like what blacks faced.

And Churches, Synagogues, temples and so on should allow gay marriage. I don't see why hommosexuals should be denied a religous ceremony if they desire it.Not if they don't want to. It's a breach of religious freedom.

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 10:14
Come on, you can't honestly say the way homosexuals are treated today is the same way black people before equal rights. Sure there is still discrimination but it's my understanding that it's nothing like what blacks faced.


I'd say its true for most of Africa and the Middle East, niave to say that of "the West", however. Even if it can be really bad in certain communities, there is practically no comparison to black suffrage and gay abuse in the broad sense of the community in "the West".

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 10:20
I'd say its true for most of Africa and the Middle East, niave to say that of "the West", however. Even if it can be really bad in certain communities, there is practically no comparison to black suffrage and gay abuse in the broad sense of the community in "the West".

I agree. In my opinion the only valid comparison to make is to look only at the government's actions concerning marriage and to show how things like interracial marriage were illegal at one point but are perfectly legal now, as gay marriage probably will be a few years from now once the Supreme Court rules on it and all the dust settles.

Cochrane
05-08-10, 10:21
Yes, exactly. I don't think the government has the right to interfere and tell people who they can or can't marry. No matter what the government's definition of marriage is, it will always leave somebody out. Therefore better to not get involved because that's the only real way to avoid discriminating against anyone.
Okay, that seems like a valid point of view, and sounds quite american: Keep the government out of peopleís lives as much as possible. Not a bad idea at all, although I probably would not vote for it to be implemented here. But that may be considered a cultural difference.

I view it as the second, but anyway I edited something into my post before you replied but you probably didn't see so I moved it here instead :p

To finish my thought which I strangely left hanging before, if the state now says that gay marriage is allowed and a priest doesn't believe in it, will he be forced to perform gay marriages or lose his right to perform marriages at all? It's a very touchy issue and that's why a lot of people view the legalization of gay marriage as an attack on their religion whereas they have no problem with equal rights under a civil union.
Yeah, I really didnít see that. :D In my opinion, a religious official should not be forced to perform a marriage he does not want to. For example, you wouldnít expect a catholic priest to marry two non-catholics either. My reasoning for that is with the first interpretation: Marriage is mainly something done by the government, and that has to be discrimination free. Marriages by a church are an optional extra if all involved agree, but not a right in any way. Your interpretation reaches the same conclusion, of course.

I wonder what the next set of rights will be once gay rights are complete? And the next minority?

Zoosexual rights? (aka Bestiality) :pi:

What happened to objectumsexuality? Seems like the rights for those were already there since the beginning... Since people can be married to objects (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2035996/Woman-married-to-Berlin-Wall-for-29-years.html). Oh and fruit apparently (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/349643-german-pop-star-marries-a-pineapple) :p

The 1900's & 2000's are one heck of two centuries over civil rights...
The difference between homosexuality and all these fetishes people like to mention is that homosexuality is something between consenting adults, which can hardly be said for e.g. zoophilia. There is no valid reason to deny marriage to legal adults who know what they are getting into. But if one of the partners is not consenting or not capable of informed consent, then the government does have a right and in fact a duty to not allow it.

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 10:25
I agree. In my opinion the only valid comparison to make is to look only at the government's actions concerning marriage and to show how things like interracial marriage were illegal at one point but are perfectly legal now, as gay marriage probably will be a few years from now once the Supreme Court rules on it and all the dust settles.

I'm surprised more sweeping international changes to the marriage laws haven't occured. Especially since the entirety of the UK, Canada and many European countries allow gay marriage. I think the Netherlands has had gay marriage for years and years now (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dutchies :D).

What dissapoints me, is instead of the international community moving towards a consensus on this issue, some countries have been actively going BACKWARDS. IE; Australia actually CHANGED the marriage laws to define it between a man & a woman... and there is a Christian marriage group, which CELEBRATES the date it occurred, every year. :(



If we're such a "laid back" country, this shouldn't even have been an issue. Bring back the convict orgies on Sydney beaches, I say!

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 10:27
I'm surprised more sweeping international changes to the marriage laws haven't occured. Especially since the entirety of the UK, Canada and many European countries allow gay marriage. I think the Netherlands has had gay marriage for years and years now (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dutchies :D).As far as I know gay marriage isn't allowed here.

TRfan23
05-08-10, 10:31
^ Yeh it's Civil Partnerships. Why do people outside the UK think over here we can get married? Also why is it people over here still think 18 is the consented age for gay sex, yet back on 8th January 2001 it was lowered to 16?

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 10:35
As far as I know gay marriage isn't allowed here.
Ah, well whomever told me said it was "marriage", I guess they didn't think it worth explaining to me the differences between a Union and a Marriage. I agree, they aren't the same thing - and here's hoping for "out-right" gay MARRIAGE in the UK, then :tmb:.


Ah, now I get an explanation :)

^ Yeh it's Civil Partnerships. Why do people outside the UK think over here we can get married? Also why is it people over here still think 18 is the consented age for gay sex, yet back on 8th January 2001 it was lowered to 16?

This is a problem in Australia, also. AFAIK, in my old state - sex between men can only be consensual at 18+, 16+ for heterosexual intercourse, and I don't think there's anything written at all in regard to Lesbian intercourse. Whereas, In my current state and most others, its 16+ for all.

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 10:35
Okay, that seems like a valid point of view, and sounds quite american: Keep the government out of peopleís lives as much as possible. Not a bad idea at all, although I probably would not vote for it to be implemented here. But that may be considered a cultural difference.

I'm somewhere between conservative and libertarian depending what the issue is, so I'm probably not representative of general American culture considering most people are "moderate" (which seems to mean apathetic given how the media uses it lately :p). Glad that you think my view is valid though :D (and no, that wasn't sarcasm)

Yeah, I really didnít see that. :D In my opinion, a religious official should not be forced to perform a marriage he does not want to. For example, you wouldnít expect a catholic priest to marry two non-catholics either. My reasoning for that is with the first interpretation: Marriage is mainly something done by the government, and that has to be discrimination free. Marriages by a church are an optional extra if all involved agree, but not a right in any way. Your interpretation reaches the same conclusion, of course.

I agree. I was just trying to explain why some people would object to gay marriage but support civil unions which do the exact same thing. Regardless of what will actually happen, they fear that the government will order their religious leaders to either perform gay marriages or resign their ability to perform legal marriages altogether. Because of this, they do think that gay marriage will hurt them personally despite that it shouldn't make a difference in their lives one way or the other.

The difference between homosexuality and all these fetishes people like to mention is that homosexuality is something between consenting adults, which can hardly be said for e.g. zoophilia. There is no valid reason to deny marriage to legal adults who know what they are getting into. But if one of the partners is not consenting or not capable of informed consent, then the government does have a right and in fact a duty to not allow it.

What about polygamy? Or some other kind of arrangement? I really don't pay much attention so I don't know too many examples of what people are into, but I'm sure rule 34 implies that people are into things I would never even conceive of and as long as they aren't hurting anybody, I really don't care what they do as long as I don't have to see it :p

Andyroo
05-08-10, 10:39
If we're such a "laid back" country, this shouldn't even have been an issue.
I know, right?
Bring back the convict orgies on Sydney beaches, I say!
Hell yeah.

It was interesting, to hear what Gillard thinks about it, that she's against it. Ain't got my vote....

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 10:41
It was interesting, to hear what Gillard thinks about it, that she's against it. Ain't got my vote....You don't let politicians views on one subject swing your vote do you?

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 10:42
I know, right?

Hell yeah.

It was interesting, to hear what Gillard thinks about it, that she's against it. Ain't got my vote....

I KNOW! I was so dissapointed! Our first woman, first atheist, first RANGA PM, and she comes out and says she's against gay marriage. What the hell kind of Atheist is she?! Her "partner" is a hairdresser for God's sake - she must know PLENTY of gay people.


Personally, I really think she's voicing what the fat men in suits behind her in the party think, rather than what SHE thinks. Even if she did say it was her personal view. I think I'm going to vote for the greens, at this stage. But I would personally love to she her as elected PM.

Andyroo
05-08-10, 10:43
You don't let politicians views on one subject swing your vote do you?

Depends what their standing in my book is already, and depends what that topic is, and of course if it's not the only topic I don't agree with their views on.

Oh and if it's a topic I feel strongly about, hell yeah.

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 10:44
I KNOW! I was so dissapointed! Our first woman, first atheist, first RANGA PM, and she comes out and says she's against gay marriage. What the hell kind of Atheist is she?! Her "partner" is a hairdresser for God's sake - she must know PLENTY of gay people. Wait, who cares about whether or not she was your first woman or first atheist prime minister? Why do people care about that stuff? :tea: It's not like it's going to affect her ability to govern the nation.

Oh, and you're operating under the assumption that all atheists are accepting of homosexuals. A lot aren't believe it or not. Not all people who dislike gays are religious.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 10:46
Oh, and you're operating under the assumption that all atheists are accepting of homosexuals. A lot aren't believe it or not. Not all people who dislike gays are religious.

I agree :tmb:

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 10:47
Oh, and you're operating under the assumption that all atheists are accepting of homosexuals. A lot aren't believe it or not. Not all people who dislike gays are religious.

Yes, this is know. However, as a politician she needs to back her decisions, and without religion to source as it being "wrong", she hasn't got anything to back-up her voiced opinion.

Super Badnik
05-08-10, 10:52
Can't help but notice that here in the UK next to, if not all, attacks on Homosexuals have nothing to do with religion. I've never heard of a gay basher actually being religous here, they're always mindless thugs. And to suggest religion and homophobia go hand in hand, well, it's just like those people who say "all muslims are terroists".

TRfan23
05-08-10, 11:00
Request Deletion.

Johnnay
05-08-10, 11:02
Ah, well whomever told me said it was "marriage", I guess they didn't think it worth explaining to me the differences between a Union and a Marriage. I agree, they aren't the same thing - and here's hoping for "out-right" gay MARRIAGE in the UK, then :tmb:.




This is a problem in Australia, also. AFAIK, in my old state - sex between men can only be consensual at 18+, 16+ for heterosexual intercourse, and I don't think there's anything written at all in regard to Lesbian intercourse. Whereas, In my current state and most others, its 16+ for all.


well in the East Coast of Australia gay brothels are legally allowed.. i know that and i know its on Wikipedia somewhere

here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 11:04
well in the East Coast of Australia gay brothels are legally allowed.. i know that and i know its on Wikipedia somewhere

Prostitution is legal in Australia regardless of orientation. "Whatever your perversion, it's all for sale on the Golden Mile" etc. etc.


But Johnnay, come on REALLY? What has your post got to do with the price of eggs?

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 11:05
Prostitution is legal in Australia regardless of orientation. "Whatever your perversion, it's all for sale on the Golden Mile" etc. etc.


But Johnnay, come on REALLY? What has your post got to do with the price of eggs?I think he's really into sex. I still remember when he said Deu Sex instead of Deus Ex :vlol:

Cochrane
05-08-10, 11:08
I agree. I was just trying to explain why some people would object to gay marriage but support civil unions which do the exact same thing. Regardless of what will actually happen, they fear that the government will order their religious leaders to either perform gay marriages or resign their ability to perform legal marriages altogether. Because of this, they do think that gay marriage will hurt them personally despite that it shouldn't make a difference in their lives one way or the other.
I am not convinced that objection to homosexual marriage is all reasonable. Many people who oppose it might just be homophobic, but look for other reasons to avoid admitting their homophobia to others and/or themselves.

What about polygamy? Or some other kind of arrangement? I really don't pay much attention so I don't know too many examples of what people are into, but I'm sure rule 34 implies that people are into things I would never even conceive of and as long as they aren't hurting anybody, I really don't care what they do as long as I don't have to see it :p
I try to pretend that those donít exist. :D In theory, if a group of consenting adults decide that this is how they want to live their lives, I will not object. Practically, though, many real instances of polygamy are really systems for oppressing women, and that is not something the government should support. I don't have a solution, but Iíll think about this some more once Polygamist Pride movements (or whatever they would be called) start getting traction.

Johnnay
05-08-10, 11:08
But Johnnay, come on REALLY? What has your post got to do with the price of eggs?

What???
I think he's really into sex. I still remember when he said Deu Sex instead of Deus Ex :vlol:

lol, that was a rehtorical post i did a while back.. because if you do pronounce it it does feel like your saying deus and sex( a God who wants sex in latin)that is a guess

Paddy
05-08-10, 11:09
I think he's really into sex. I still remember when he said Deu Sex instead of Deus Ex :vlol:
Thats how I say it, not as funny saying it properly lol

TRfan23
05-08-10, 11:19
What???

He was being metaphorical ;) I think?

Legend 4ever
05-08-10, 11:25
Come on, you can't honestly say the way homosexuals are treated today is the same way black people before equal rights. Sure there is still discrimination but it's my understanding that it's nothing like what blacks faced.

I think it's worse. If the sexual orientation was written on our foreheads or our skin, there would be a lot more killings and abuse against LGBT people in the world.

Good news on Prop8 repealing.

TRfan23
05-08-10, 11:40
Well according to some documentary I watched July last year, homophobia originated from the hatred of woman.

So basically Masculinity Vs Effeminacy. Which one will win?

Harry Hill: "There's only one way to find out! FIGHT!" :p


As I said in another thread I'd prefer a mixture of both :)

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 12:31
The government does a lot of things based around religion (such as requiring people to swear an oath to God while testifying in court). What I'm saying is if people really want a separation of church and state, and they are arguing against gay marriage on these grounds, then go the whole way and see where it leads. If they get what they want, then they won't have legally recognized "marriage" either because the logical end of that road is for everyone to have civil unions legally and then call it marriage anyway.

Also as far as I see it, people have a First Amendment right to say that they are married and as long as they don't claim it on any legal documents it's unconstitutional for the government to tell them that they're not married (assuming it's between consenting adults of course). The only part of marriage that the government deals with is legal stuff anyway, therefore all legally recognized marriages are civil unions because they are defined by the state. I don't think there should be any legal difference between a civil union or a legally recognized marriage.

All of this arguing over a label and the principle of the thing only delays the actual enactment of equal rights for all couples. Real change takes time and people have to prioritize. In my opinion the rights are more important than proving a point to the opposition, therefore people should be focusing on making civil unions equal to marriages in states that won't support gay marriage but are willing to do civil unions. Then after years pass and people see that nothing bad happened from allowing civil unions, they'd be more accepting of just calling it marriage and not having any difference at all. But that takes time to change people's minds, so I think in the meantime people should be more concerned about having the rights regardless of what label is used to get those rights.

I like your post very much...
very logical :)

Actually, my opinion, I don't have any problem with this...
But I just think, that if such couples marry... what are their rights? What can not they do?

Can they adopt... if they do, what sprt of environment will these children grow in...?

What if a child wanted to be religious... what if a child wanted to be lesbian... i mean, will they have limits... will this thing then later on lead to allowing Incest relations???

This subject is bigger than it seems...

Still, good luck:)

Andyroo
05-08-10, 12:38
I like your post very much...
very logical :)

Actually, my opinion, I don't have any problem with this...
But I just think, that if such couples marry... what are their rights? What can not they do?

Can they adopt... if they do, what sprt of environment will these children grow in...?

What if a child wanted to be religious... what if a child wanted to be lesbian... i mean, will they have limits... will this thing then later on lead to allowing Incest relations???

This subject is bigger than it seems...

Still, good luck:)

:eek: Really????

Why would they be any different from anyone else?

Same-sex couples aren't a 'bad environment' to raise children.

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 12:42
:eek: Really????

Why would they be any different from anyone else?

Same-sex couples aren't a 'bad environment' to raise children.

I am not saying they are a bad environment...
I am just asking whether they will be given all their rights t do so and so :)

I just fear that when one thing gets done, someone else from another side will pop up suddenly asking for the same thing...

Incest as a matter... it freaks me alot and i just can't imagine it at all :yik:

What i mean if this is established, what about the rest....????

Andyroo
05-08-10, 12:47
I don't see why children of same-sex couples would have any less rights than any other child, if that's what you're saying?

But, I really don't know what incest has to do with anything, though. Same-sex relations has nothing to do with that, any more than the rest of the world.

And about if the child wanted to be religious, how is that any different to religious and non-religious families right now? If a religious couple have a child, they'll take him/her to church. If a non-religious couple have a child, they won't take him/her to church, because they don't go. Where's the problem there? If a same-sex couple were welcome in a church, they'll go. And if they aren't welcome, then they don't have to go to church to be religious

Super Badnik
05-08-10, 12:51
I am not saying they are a bad environment...
I am just asking whether they will be given all their rights t do so and so :)

I just fear that when one thing gets done, someone else from another side will pop up suddenly asking for the same thing...

Incest as a matter... it freaks me alot and i just can't imagine it at all :yik:

What i mean if this is established, what about the rest....????Incest and Homosexuality are completely different. I've heard that arquement before and I really dislike it. It kinda suggests homosexuality isn't natrual and it is. It has been established before I believe that gays are most likely born with their homosexuality.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 12:53
I am not saying they are a bad environment...
I am just asking whether they will be given all their rights t do so and so :)

I just fear that when one thing gets done, someone else from another side will pop up suddenly asking for the same thing...

Incest as a matter... it freaks me alot and i just can't imagine it at all :yik:

What i mean if this is established, what about the rest....????

Well I don't think that LGBT people right to marry has anything in common with incest or other categories of people , perceived as wrong and immoral in society , we just want equal rights that's all , equal right as the heteros , nothing more and nothing less .
Sure there are gay incests , but there are also straight incests , it depends on the person , just because some gays or straights are incestuous doesn't mean all of them are this way :tea:.
People will always have or find a reason to fight for something , whether it is the right to vote , equality between the sexes or equal rights , but I don't think it's fair to compare the struggles of LGBT people with the categories of people that are into incest , especially with their parents :ton: .

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 12:54
I think it's worse. If the sexual orientation was written on our foreheads or our skin, there would be a lot more killings and abuse against LGBT people in the world.It's nowhere near worse. Even people who are openly gay are never segregated like blacks were. You hear of racially motivated murders way more than murderers motivated by sexual orientation. I understand how homosexuals feel oppressed but let's not overstate it.

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:02
Incest and Homosexuality are completely different. I've heard that arquement before and I really dislike it. It kinda suggests homosexuality isn't natrual and it is. It has been established before I believe that gays are most likely born with their homosexuality.

Not that I am trying to be against this... I just dont care and I adore whatever gay/lesbian act if the couples feel it is the way to be...

But there is nothing almost exact about people being born homosexuals because we hear and read many stories about sexual transformation and emotional drifts and shifting every now and then...

Cant people just fight for something from the perspective that they want to be that way...
They dont have to prove anything...
All I can say, "it is my CHOICE... Leave me for my Decisions :)"

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:09
If you are referring to being gay as being a choice , you are wrong , being gay is no more of a choice than being born a man or a woman , it's something natural that can't be controlled or changed . You can pretend to be "straight" and lead a straight life , because even if we don't like to admit it we all are actors , and we many times pretend to be something else to please others or even ourselves .

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:17
If you are referring to being gay as being a choice , you are wrong , being gay is no more of a choice than being born a man or a woman , it's something natural that can't be controlled or changed . You can pretend to be "straight" and lead a straight life , because even if we don't like to admit it we all are actors , and we many times pretend to be something else to please others or even ourselves .

Don't want to make a fuss about it, but why and how could someone who was previously gay become bisexual or have a relation with a girl later on... ??? :confused:
It happens...

xcrushterx
05-08-10, 13:20
Don't want to make a fuss about it, but why and how could someone who was previously gay become bisexual or have a relation with a girl later on... ??? :confused:
It happens...
It's called lying :p

Ward Dragon
05-08-10, 13:21
Don't want to make a fuss about it, but why and how could someone who was previously gay become bisexual or have a relation with a girl later on... ??? :confused:
It happens...

Maybe their hormone levels changed? There are so many biological and environmental factors involved in how people develop that it's impossible to pinpoint a cause for something like that. But something emotional like who a person finds attractive, that's not really something that anyone has conscious control over and it's not a person's decision who they are attracted to.

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:23
It's called lying :p

Not necessarily

Maybe their hormone levels changed? There are so many biological and environmental factors involved in how people develop that it's impossible to pinpoint a cause for something like that. But something emotional like who a person finds attractive, that's not really something that anyone has conscious control over and it's not a person's decision who they are attracted to.

Excellent point... so in the end, it can be called a choice... :)
Homo feelings, every feeling in the world happens because of something... because of the environment someone lives in:)

There has never been, and will never be, an exact reference to sexual feelings being genetic...

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:23
Don't want to make a fuss about it, but why and how could someone who was previously gay become bisexual or have a relation with a girl later on... ??? :confused:
It happens...

:) Maybe they were not gay to begin with , just confused , it can happen . . . and besides sexuality is not black or white there are different shades to it , it's a full spectrum .

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:25
:) Maybe they were not gay to begin with , just confused , it can happen . . . and besides sexuality is not black or white there are different shades to it , it's a full spectrum .

Why this... and not they could change their sexual desire...

M point is, everything is possible... and there is never one story for something...

xcrushterx
05-08-10, 13:25
Not necessarily

No, it is. You can't change your sexuality, so if someone is gay one minute and bi the next, they either lied about one of them or they're still confused/unsure themselves.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:28
Why this... and not they could change their sexual desire...

M point is, everything is possible... and there is never one story for something...

Let me put it this way , could you fall in love with your own sex or even expand upon your feeling and have sex with your own gender ? If it is a choice as you say , you could , but you can't since you are straight , well you can but you will feel no attraction toward your gender .

No, it is. You can't change your sexuality, so if someone is gay one minute and bi the next, they either lied about one of them or they're still confused/unsure themselves.
Or they like the attention :ton:

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:30
No, it is. You can't change your sexuality, so if someone is gay one minute and bi the next, they either lied about one of them or they're still confused/unsure themselves.

Why do they have to lie or be unsure :confused:

when you're born to start with, kids and babies have no sexual feelings... it develops with time... and the environment is the thing that helps it evolve ;)

Can you go back in time and try to member how you discovered SEX ;)

My GOd, this thread is becoming Restricted

Andyroo
05-08-10, 13:31
so in the end, it can be called a choice... :)


Huh......... If that choice is to rip your eyes out so you never see another person of the same sex, so there's no chance of thinking they're attractive, then, yeah.

A choice in the gender you're naturally attracted to? Dream on.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:35
Why do they have to lie or be unsure :confused:

when you're born to start with, kids and babies have no sexual feelings... it develops with time... and the environment is the thing that helps it evolve ;)

Can you go back in time and try to member how you discovered SEX ;)

My GOd, this thread is becoming Restricted

From the moment our sexual organs are developed we are sexual beings , humans are sexual beings , also if you must know baby boys even get erections , yup erections .No , this thread is not restricted , your thought process is .

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 13:35
Huh......... If that choice is to rip your eyes out so you never see another person of the same sex, so there's no chance of thinking they're attractive, then, yeah.

A choice in the gender you're naturally attracted to? Dream on.

Maybe I am no explaining well...
Yeah you're right at this point...
The way I cant change my sexuality, the same way probably homos can't is because of an environment we live in...

I'm not gonna speak of religion, spirituality and the power of transformation, the chi... blah, blah... as it makes many nervous and mad :)

But at some point, every human being is able to reach some point of transformation...
What controls it is our belief and faith... and with this, Yes, our Choices play the biggest role... that;'s why we say Humans are Free :)

xcrushterx
05-08-10, 13:36
Why do they have to lie or be unsure :confused:

when you're born to start with, kids and babies have no sexual feelings... it develops with time... and the environment is the thing that helps it evolve ;)

Can you go back in time and try to member how you discovered SEX ;)

My GOd, this thread is becoming Restricted

Well it's my belief that one is born with their sexuality, and many many people know their sexuality from a young age. They're obviously too young to understand it, but they do know, and as far as I'm aware it can't change. These cases of it 'changing' in my opinion are a load of ********. Someone either misunderstands their feelings, has been lying to themselves and other people or as stated above, they just want attention.

scoopy_loopy
05-08-10, 13:40
Frued believed in an innate bisexuality that was moulded into modern categorical terms for sexuality by their upbringing and environment. I'm not sure I believe him, but I also don't think sexuality is 100% stable. 4 years ago, kissing a guy would have repulsed me... that's no longer true.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:44
Maybe I am no explaining well...
Yeah you're right at this point...
The way I cant change my sexuality, the same way probably homos can't is because of an environment we live in...

I'm not gonna speak of religion, spirituality and the power of transformation, the chi... blah, blah... as it makes many nervous and mad :)

But at some point, every human being is able to reach some point of transformation...
What controls it is our belief and faith... and with this, Yes, our Choices play the biggest role... that;'s why we say Humans are Free :)

I really hate when people refer to same sex loving people as homos :mad: , just for the record we all are "homos" , Homo Sapient (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") to be more exact .If you say that humans are free why do you judge , enjoy your freedom and let people decide for themselves and live the life that the ought to live

Draco
05-08-10, 13:45
Think of it as a bell curve. Everyone is bisexual to varying degrees.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:47
Think of it as a bell curve. Everyone is bisexual to varying degrees.

This is true :tmb: , although few admit or try acknowledge it .

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 13:49
Think of it as a bell curve. Everyone is bisexual to varying degrees.That's just a theory. Personally I've never felt that way. I don't think everyone is bisexual, although bisexuals obviously do come in different varieties.

Super Badnik
05-08-10, 13:50
Think of it as a bell curve. Everyone is bisexual to varying degrees.There actually is an offcial scale of varying degrees of gay/straight I believe. I'm not sure how it works though, or how you know just how gay/straight you are.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 13:52
That's just a theory. Personally I've never felt that way. I don't think everyone is bisexual, although bisexuals obviously do come in different varieties.

Just the simple fact that you were conceived from both a male and a female , means you can appreciate/like both genders :) . You may have unknowingly had crushes on men in forms of admiration .

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 13:56
Just the simple fact that you were conceived from both a male and a female , means you can appreciate/like both genders :) .

Where did you get that from? :confused:

RockSteady101
05-08-10, 13:56
I don't think it's appropraitte trying to convince other members who are straight they might not have been or be in the future, I don't know, just doesn't seem right

Draco
05-08-10, 14:02
That's just a theory. Personally I've never felt that way. I don't think everyone is bisexual, although bisexuals obviously do come in different varieties.

We all have the chemicals, chromosomes, and genes for all possibilities. We just have them in different amounts leading to different results.

Legend 4ever
05-08-10, 15:04
It's nowhere near worse. Even people who are openly gay are never segregated like blacks were. You hear of racially motivated murders way more than murderers motivated by sexual orientation. I understand how homosexuals feel oppressed but let's not overstate it.

No. They're killed. Not everyone lives in USA and Western Europe. Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, South America etc. those are all highly intolerable towards LGBT people.

Even in the US, gay people are frowned upon and it doesn't really matter how people act, it's how they feel about gay people. I would consider a person who says they don't like gay people, but would never attack them violent. They still have violent thoughts.

Plus, you were never legally allowed a person for being black, but you were allowed to kill a gay person. Being who you are is still punishable by law in many countries.

Oh and BTW, on the topic of "we're all bi" I'd have to say I don't think that's really true. I'm more worried about people not believing there are bisexual people ie. people thinking a girl says she's bi because it's a fad and a boy saying it because he's really gay, but is just trying to please others by being at least half "normal".

trXD
05-08-10, 15:20
Just the simple fact that you were conceived from both a male and a female , means you can appreciate/like both genders :) . You may have unknowingly had crushes on men in forms of admiration .

Dont flaunt your opinion as fact TippingWater, no need to tell people what they are and aren't, I also dont believe in the bisexual theory.
I don't think it's appropraitte trying to convince other members who are straight they might not have been or be in the future, I don't know, just doesn't seem right
Totally agree with you RockSteady :)

TRfan23
05-08-10, 15:26
Request Deletion.

knightgames
05-08-10, 16:29
George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.

George Clooney is not a handsome man.


I'll chant that bi-sexuality out of me yet. :ton:

Sorry I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone has varying degrees of bisexuality.

remote91
05-08-10, 16:32
Good news!

Cochrane
05-08-10, 16:35
I am all for the varying degrees. What are the alternatives, after all?

A three-position switch saying "gay", "bi" and "straight"? Considering that bisexual people often state different preferences, this seems highly unlikely. So is it that switch plus a certain "bi"-scale for those in the "bi" position? That does not make sense to me.

The idea that it is one continuous scale seems most useful: Most are very near to the straight end, but people are distributed all over the scale. And everybody has a certain range of positions they can comfortably stay at, with the width of that range varying, depending on internal and external factors.

knightgames
05-08-10, 16:46
So finding Goerge Clooney a good looking man is in the bi scale even though I have no sexual/emotional tendencies toward him? Am I understanding correctly?

To me bisexuality is loving or being sexually attracted to both sexes. I only find one sex stimulating. I couldn't fall in love with a man. While the opposite is true for the female persuasion. So that's what I base my opinion on.

Draco
05-08-10, 16:52
I am all for the varying degrees. What are the alternatives, after all?

A three-position switch saying "gay", "bi" and "straight"? Considering that bisexual people often state different preferences, this seems highly unlikely. So is it that switch plus a certain "bi"-scale for those in the "bi" position? That does not make sense to me.

The idea that it is one continuous scale seems most useful: Most are very near to the straight end, but people are distributed all over the scale. And everybody has a certain range of positions they can comfortably stay at, with the width of that range varying, depending on internal and external factors.

The scale makes more sense and looks a lot more balanced when you set it up with both males and females putting strongly attracted to male (gay or straight) on one side and strongly attracted to female (gay or straight) on the other. Then the center is made up of both males and females of varying degrees of bisexuality.

NOTE: Believing in a black and white sexuality is just as closed minded as believing it is a choice.

TippingWater
05-08-10, 17:04
NOTE: Believing in a black and white sexuality is just as closed minded as believing it is a choice.

::tmb:: I agree !

Mad Tony
05-08-10, 17:30
No. They're killed. Not everyone lives in USA and Western Europe. Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, South America etc. those are all highly intolerable towards LGBT people.

Even in the US, gay people are frowned upon and it doesn't really matter how people act, it's how they feel about gay people. I would consider a person who says they don't like gay people, but would never attack them violent. They still have violent thoughts.

Plus, you were never legally allowed a person for being black, but you were allowed to kill a gay person. Being who you are is still punishable by law in many countries.I was referring to the US mainly. It's undeniable that blacks were treated worse before equal rights than gay people ever were. If we're talking about countries in the Middle East ans Africa, yeah you're probably right.

Avalon SARL
05-08-10, 17:39
From the logical point of view... the way males and females are, their build,their physique, they fit each other...

Lesbians are ought to... ummm..well, u know what...
and gays are bound to... well... you know what i mean :p

So,from this point of view, logic says that nature/God, what ever you wanna call it has brought everything in couples...

Religions have prohibited homo acts for humans completely...

So it is a matter of two options...

Either all religions are wrong and this is something far bigger and more complicated to discuss within few lines or these acts are bound to be transformed due to OUR WILL and homo acts are not something people are born with ...

I just find this quite interesting to discuss and i dont intend to hurt anyone....

It is just some thoughts in my mind that i would enjoy sharing with you...

We are all learning :)

TippingWater
05-08-10, 21:47
You can be confused about your sexuality but you can't change it :tmb: . It's the same like with hair color , you can dye your hair but it will still have it's original color once it grows or you stop dying it . It will only change it's natural color once you get old , which can also be compared to the people that lie about their sexuality all their lives , after a while they accept their miserable pathetic lying existence :o instead of being who they truly are :mad: .

larafan25
05-08-10, 23:03
From the logical point of view... the way males and females are, their build,their physique, they fit each other...

Lesbians are ought to... ummm..well, u know what...
and gays are bound to... well... you know what i mean :p

So,from this point of view, logic says that nature/God, what ever you wanna call it has brought everything in couples...

Religions have prohibited homo acts for humans completely...

So it is a matter of two options...

Either all religions are wrong and this is something far bigger and more complicated to discuss within few lines or these acts are bound to be transformed due to OUR WILL and homo acts are not something people are born with ...

I just find this quite interesting to discuss and i dont intend to hurt anyone....

It is just some thoughts in my mind that i would enjoy sharing with you...

We are all learning :)

That's awesome.:)

scoopy_loopy
06-08-10, 03:01
From the logical point of view... the way males and females are, their build,their physique, they fit each other...

Lesbians are ought to... ummm..well, u know what...
and gays are bound to... well... you know what i mean :p

So,from this point of view, logic says that nature/God, what ever you wanna call it has brought everything in couples...

Religions have prohibited homo acts for humans completely...

So it is a matter of two options...

Either all religions are wrong and this is something far bigger and more complicated to discuss within few lines or these acts are bound to be transformed due to OUR WILL and homo acts are not something people are born with ...

I just find this quite interesting to discuss and i dont intend to hurt anyone....

It is just some thoughts in my mind that i would enjoy sharing with you...

We are all learning :)

"All religions" is incorrect to say the least - there are/have been religions that have either nothing to say about, or nothing to say against homosexuality or bi-sexuality.

In modern times, taoism, wicca, shinto and buddhism aren't at all like modern christianity/judaism/islam and their hateful opinions of gays. It seems to me that any religion that comes from the middle east condemns gays :p (which in itself is strange to me, considering Ancient Egypt was generally accepting of gays and gay relationships) Whereas most others have no opinion. Or don't mind.

aktrekker
06-08-10, 04:35
You can be confused about your sexuality but you can't change it :tmb: . It's the same like with hair color , you can dye your hair but it will still have it's original color once it grows or you stop dying it . It will only change it's natural color once you get old , which can also be compared to the people that lie about their sexuality all their lives , after a while they accept their miserable pathetic lying existence :o instead of being who they truly are :mad: .

People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
What about babies born with deformities? It's the way they were born, should we just leave them that way?

If your argument is that "it's the way you're born so don't try to change it" then it should apply equally to all conditions a person is born with.

Paddy
06-08-10, 04:39
People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
Dont think anyone can compare sexuality to being a killer, some serial killers cant be changed or rehabilitated.

Quasimodo
06-08-10, 04:46
People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
What about babies born with deformities? It's the way they were born, should we just leave them that way?

If your argument is that "it's the way you're born so don't try to change it" then it should apply equally to all conditions a person is born with.

There's a hole in this somewhere, but I'm not sure how best to explain it yet. But I don't like the way this line of reasoning seems to suggest that non-hetero orientation is a condition to be corrected. I could be reading that all wrong, though - it's late over here :o

TippingWater
06-08-10, 04:58
People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
What about babies born with deformities? It's the way they were born, should we just leave them that way?

If your argument is that "it's the way you're born so don't try to change it" then it should apply equally to all conditions a person is born with.

I am "sick and tired" of people that compare gayness to metal disorders and physical handicaps (:mad: . What if I told you to start liking men , how would you feel (considering that you are a straight dude) ? Being gay is no way harmful to anyone , some people make it seem like a bad thing , but do not get me wrong being gay is nothing to brag about , the same way that being straight isn't or being black or white , it just is , it a part of you , but it doesn't necessarily define or makes you stand out from from the "normal" crowd . Which brings me to , the question "Define normal ?" , this is the def of Normality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_(behavior)) , but still it doesn't properly define it because what may seem normal to me , might "not be normal" to you .

Uzi master
06-08-10, 05:03
People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
What about babies born with deformities? It's the way they were born, should we just leave them that way?

If your argument is that "it's the way you're born so don't try to change it" then it should apply equally to all conditions a person is born with.

mental preferences and mental dissorders are different things.

Paddy
06-08-10, 05:04
^^ which is why such a comparison was silly.

TippingWater
06-08-10, 05:27
^^ which is why such a comparison was silly.

:tmb:
I said it before and I will say it again "Ignorance is bliss" .

AmericanAssassin
06-08-10, 05:41
It's crazy how every gay-related discussion on the TRFs turns into the exact same thing every time. Haha! Oh well. I'm glad Propostion H8 was repealed. It was completely ridiculous in the first place.

scoopy_loopy
06-08-10, 05:54
People can be born psychopathic killers. Why do we try to change them? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are?
What about babies born with deformities? It's the way they were born, should we just leave them that way?

If your argument is that "it's the way you're born so don't try to change it" then it should apply equally to all conditions a person is born with.

Dr. Trekk, curing the hordes of gheynezz and while he's at it - rehabilitating psychopathic killers! :tmb:

TippingWater
06-08-10, 06:11
It's crazy how every gay-related discussion on the TRFs turns into the exact same thing every time. Haha! Oh well. I'm glad Propostion H8 was repealed. It was completely ridiculous in the first place.
:tmb:

Dr. Trekk, curing the hordes of gheynezz and while he's at it - rehabilitating psychopathic killers! :tmb:
:vlol:

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 06:20
"All religions" is incorrect to say the least - there are/have been religions that have either nothing to say about, or nothing to say against homosexuality or bi-sexuality.

In modern times, taoism, wicca, shinto and buddhism aren't at all like modern christianity/judaism/islam and their hateful opinions of gays. It seems to me that any religion that comes from the middle east condemns gays :p (which in itself is strange to me, considering Ancient Egypt was generally accepting of gays and gay relationships) Whereas most others have no opinion. Or don't mind.

What confuses me is why should the religion be wrong and not he other thing...

It is always wise to look at things from both sides...
We always need to hear both sides of the story...

and it is not wise to go seek some pagan religion like Ancient Egypt to backup something like this...

aktrekker
06-08-10, 06:40
mental preferences and mental dissorders are different things.
Why are they different? Because you believe they are different?
How do you know "genetic gayness" is not also a disorder that needs curing? How do you know it's not a mental disorder?

What if a drug was created that could "cure" gayness at a genetic level? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 06:44
^ well since being Gay or Lesbian doesn't possess people to go out and harm other people, its not dangerous therefore not worth curing even if it was a mental disorder (which its not its just an alternate preference, the same way my Dad hates spicy food because thats the tongue he was born with).

And why would anyone waste time "curing" something thats in no way a threat to the safety of others when there are things out there like cancer?

scoopy_loopy
06-08-10, 06:50
What confuses me is why should the religion be wrong and not he other thing...

Man created religion out of conscious decision, there has been homosexuality for aeons longer than there's been written language or organised religion.

and it is not wise to go seek some pagan religion like Ancient Egypt to backup something like this...

I also brought up the major religions of modern Asia. My comment on Ancient Egypt was more a curiosity of mine, seeing as modern western religions are from the same geographical area... well, slightly North and East to be sure.


Why are they different? Because you believe they are different?
How do you know "genetic gayness" is not also adisorder that needs curing? How do you know it's not a mental disorder?

What if a drug was created that could "cure" gayness at a genetic level? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

"A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture. "

aktrekker
06-08-10, 06:56
"A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture. "
Seems to me most gays (at least the ones on this forum) tend to be pretty stressed out about it.
And it is still a small minority of the population, so it does not qualify as "normal development". If you consider it statistically it's more an aberration.

If the whole population became gay, the human population would crash pretty quickly. So you could see it as a danger to the human race as a whole.
Or don't you think everyone would become gay? Do you think the current gay population is stable? Do you think it needs to grow? How large do you think it should be? Just large enough to get recognition or even larger? Maybe a majority?

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 06:57
^ Excellent Point of view :D thumb up


Why are they different? Because you believe they are different?
How do you know "genetic gayness" is not also a disorder that needs curing? How do you know it's not a mental disorder?

What if a drug was created that could "cure" gayness at a genetic level? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

^ well since being Gay or Lesbian doesn't possess people to go out and harm other people, its not dangerous therefore not worth curing even if it was a mental disorder (which its not its just an alternate preference, the same way my Dad hates spicy food because thats the tongue he was born with).

And why would anyone waste time "curing" something thats in no way a threat to the safety of others when there are things out there like cancer?

Man created religion out of conscious decision, there has been homosexuality for aeons longer than there's been written language or organised religion.



I also brought up the major religions of modern Asia. My comment on Ancient Egypt was more a curiosity of mine, seeing as modern western religions are from the same geographical area... well, slightly North and East to be sure.




"A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture. "

Everyne seems to have a point...

But Logic plays its part here...
and that is, Nature/ GOD whatever you call it, created man and woman to fit for each other...

Doesnt this make the best sense to everyone...

Lesbians or gays... such a relation... it just dont fit... :confused:

Tyrannosaurus
06-08-10, 07:05
If California had voted to abolish Proposition 8 on its own, that would be good an well, but I do resent the power of judges. Not every argument against same sex marriage derrives from religion, of course:

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

scoopy_loopy
06-08-10, 07:06
Seems to me most gays (at least the ones on this forum) tend to be pretty stressed out about it.
And it is still a small minority of the population, so it does not qualify as "normal development". If you consider it statistically it's more an aberration.

If the whole population became gay, the human population would crash pretty quickly. So you could see it as a danger to the human race as a whole.
Or don't you think everyone would become gay? Do you think the current gay population is stable? Do you think it needs to grow? How large do you think it should be? Just large enough to get recognition or even larger? Maybe a majority?

Of course there are many gays who are stressed out about it, society places stigma on them! I really believe that people absolutely wouldn't mind being gay if it was deemed as totally and universally normal as being hetero. Yes, you're right about gays being a minority - but you know what, red heads are a minority as well. They're a statistical aberration!

Personally, I have to wonder if being gay is a form of populaton growth control, and strengthening of the family unit. Gay people who don't have their own children to look after, often have more money and more of themselves to give in support to their family & friends.


As for your second paragraph, of course the human population would crash if everyone became gay - but what has that got to do with anything? You think the world's population will suddenly turn gay because suddenly it's legal for two men or women to marry? I haven't given two thoughts as to whether I think the gay population should be larger or smaller.




Everyne seems to have a point...

But Logic plays its part here...
and that is, Nature/ GOD whatever you call it, created man and woman to fit for each other...

Doesnt this make the best sense to everyone...

Lesbians or gays... such a relation... it just dont fit... :confused:

You could argue that two men fit together just as well as a woman and a man. Both couples are capable of loving each other unconditionally and for entire lifetimes, both couples get pleasure from sexual intercourse and from physical intimacy.

The only difference is two men can't have children. All the above could be said for lesbian couples, as well.

aktrekker
06-08-10, 07:20
Of course there are many gays who are stressed out about it, society places stigma on them!
They also seem to be stressed because they aren't sure which they are.

And I don't think people would suddenly become gay if gay marriage was allowed. But do you think gayness is on the rise? Do you think the population is genetically changing towards being gay? And if so do you think the entire human population will change? Or will it stabilize at some point?

And since it wasn't really answered, I'll ask again.
If a drug was created that would "cure" gayness at a genetic level, would this be a good thing? Why or why not?

I'm not asking if someone would take the time and money to develop the drug. I'm asking if it existed would you consider it good or not.

TippingWater
06-08-10, 07:29
aktrekker and Avalon SARL why are so stirred against gays , what is it up to any of you ? Don't you have better things to do than to waste time on a forum , promoting hate ? Or do you fear you might have gay tendencies ? ;) Or are you afraid that you will get gayness from the gays ? It is pointless to further debate this , with people that are so narrow minded . Just because you are straight doesn't mean you are superior or have the right to criticizes others or spread lies , but since I believe in democracy , I have learned to respectfully agree to disagree .

Cochrane
06-08-10, 07:33
Why are they different? Because you believe they are different?
How do you know "genetic gayness" is not also a disorder that needs curing? How do you know it's not a mental disorder?

What if a drug was created that could "cure" gayness at a genetic level? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
Quite an interesting question. The real issue is, of course: Is homosexuality something we should accept simply because it is not a choice? I donít think so. If homosexuals had a choice (in the form of your drug, and a similar one to turn people from straight to gay as well for good measure), that would still not justify discriminating against them.

As others have pointed out, homosexuality is not harmful. Sure, humanity would have a problem if every single one turned gay over night, but a hypothetical individual choice to be gay would still be the same as an individual choice not to have children, regarding the long-term effects. And as long as it is not harmful, I would consider it to be covered under personal freedom to do whatever you want.

If California had voted to abolish Proposition 8 on its own, that would be good an well, but I do resent the power of judges. Not every argument against same sex marriage derrives from religion, of course:

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
Isnít there a saying along the lines of "Majority rules, minority rights" somewhere?

TippingWater
06-08-10, 07:37
The Earth is already overpopulated , just imagine what would happen if everyone was straight and able to reproduce :yik: . I know it is a very simple example but maybe it is the perfect example to justify homosexuality in the eyes of bigots , maybe it's all God's plan :ton: .

aktrekker
06-08-10, 07:41
aktrekker and Avalon SARL why are so stirred against gays , what is it up to any of you ? Don't you have better things to do than to waste time on a forum , promoting hate ?
I'm just asking questions. No need to get so emotional.

Or do you fear you might have gay tendencies ? ;) Or are you afraid that you will get gayness from the gays ?
Interesting how gay people think that's the only possible reason for disagreeing with them. Nothing of value to say so try to attack the other person's motives.

but since I believe in democracy , I have learned to respectfully agree to disagree .
Apparently not. You aren't disagreeing very respectfully.

Uzi master
06-08-10, 07:52
so if someone doesnt like a certain colour is that a mental illness then?;)

or perhaps if they dont like apples they are somehow different?

it's personal preference that is different for everybody, some people like red some dont, some people like men and some don't. like manny have said it causes no harm, but someone that feels like going on a killing spree though...

aktrekker
06-08-10, 09:09
If homosexuals had a choice (in the form of your drug, and a similar one to turn people from straight to gay as well for good measure), that would still not justify discriminating against them.

Interesting idea. And that brings up some other questions.

Assuming a drug that could make gay people straight, and another drug that could make straight people gay,
Would either drug be good? Would one be good and the other bad? Which one?
Would using either drug on someone be illegal? Since it changes their will, would it be a violation of their will? What if they didn't know you gave it to them? Could they prove you had? Would they care?

so if someone doesnt like a certain colour is that a mental illness then?;)

or perhaps if they dont like apples they are somehow different?

it's personal preference that is different for everybody, some people like red some dont, some people like men and some don't. like manny have said it causes no harm, but someone that feels like going on a killing spree though...
Then is it just a preference or is it something you're born with?

I only got into this because someone mentioned you're born with it and can't change it. That caused me to think of some questions. So I asked.

Uzi master
06-08-10, 09:49
you cant change your preferences. also gayness cant really be genetic, how do straight parents have gay children:p

I think he meant your born with your sexuallity, you may not know it, you may not accept it but its you, like you could lie about any preference or attribute about yourself, but will not change it. but it is not genetic either, a preference.

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 10:31
Well, according to basic biology, it can happen if we assume sexual orientation is genetic and has genes in our DNA, and assuming the straight gene (lets say H) is the dominant one and the gay gene is the recessive gene (lets say h)

a straight couple could have the genes Hh (Husband) Hh (Wife)
so the children they can produce HH (Straight), Hh (Straight) and hh (Gay)

of course, am using basic genetics principles I took in highschool :p I know genetics is far more complex and I've assumed homosexuality is gene-related


Homosexuality could also be hormones related. It may seem ridiculous, but there has been tests and experiments on animals in which certain hormones were injected in them and those hormones HAD an effect on their bodies, completely out of their control, like hair growth in certain area (I know it would be better if I provide links, but am not in that field so much so I dont have many sources, just things I read off my friends' bio books. If someone else knows about these hormones experiments and could provide links, I'd appreciate it :)).
Hormones are chemicals, I do not have control over them, the amount I produce or such things. I didnt ask God to have my testosterone pump around my body when I see a hot dude, it just happens.

Legends
06-08-10, 10:37
Wonderful news. :tmb:

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 10:38
you cant change your preferences. also gayness cant really be genetic, how do straight parents have gay children:p

I think he meant your born with your sexuallity, you may not know it, you may not accept it but its you, like you could lie about any preference or attribute about yourself, but will not change it. but it is not genetic either, a preference.

Well, according to basic biology, it can happen if we assume sexual orientation is genetic and has genes in our DNA, and assuming the straight gene (lets say H) is the dominant one and the gay gene is the recessive gene (lets say h)

a straight couple could have the genes Hh (Husband) Hh (Wife)
so the children they can produce HH (Straight), Hh (Straight) and hh (Gay)

of course, am using basic genetics principles I took in highschool :p I know genetics is far more complex and I've assumed homosexuality is gene-related


Homosexuality could also be hormones related. It may seem ridiculous, but there has been tests and experiments on animals in which certain hormones were injected in them and those hormones HAD an effect on their bodies, completely out of their control, like hair growth in certain area (I know it would be better if I provide links, but am not in that field so much so I dont have many sources, just things I read off my friends' bio books. If someone else knows about these hormones experiments and could provide links, I'd appreciate it :)).
Hormones are chemicals, I do not have control over them, the amount I produce or such things.

It's because There is something called MUTATION ;) the effect of release of estrogen and testesterone...

Do you know @ body building... males take something called Vitrix... IT INCREASES TESTOSTERONE AND BLOCKS ESTROGEN RLEASE... MAKES YOUR PENIS BIGGER... MAKES YOUR HAIR GROW MORE... INTENSIFIES YOUR STRENGTH AND YOUR VOICE BECOMES MORE MANLY...

But were the hell did any stupid scientist discover some chromosome carrier with a specification of sexual feelings...

What's it like: XgXl, XnYg :vlol:

so these couples marry and bingo... their boy is XgYg

g for gay, l for lesbian, n for normal... :p

That's stupid...
Emotions are not hereditary... they are affected by the environment...

The reason Gays are growing is because the environment is so...

knightgames
06-08-10, 10:38
The Earth is already overpopulated , just imagine what would happen if everyone was straight and able to reproduce :yik: . I know it is a very simple example but maybe it is the perfect example to justify homosexuality in the eyes of bigots , maybe it's all God's plan :ton: .

By that logic, cancer, heart disease, murder are all ways of culling the field as it were. It's all in god's plan. I highly doubt that's the case. :ton:

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 10:48
and what's wrong with mutations ? mutations, domination, they're all basic natural concepts. Survival of the fittest. You dont use a limb, that limb would disappear. Some characteristics manifest themselves in later years, sometimes early.

and I didn't say scientists discover a gay gene. Oh there has been studies, yes, but I wont say am into those studies or know what they're about, and I was graceful enough to say it and add in my post...

Well, according to basic biology, it can happen if we assume sexual orientation is genetic and has genes in our DNA, and assuming the straight gene (lets say H) is the dominant one and the gay gene is the recessive gene (lets say h)

Emotions are not hereditary... they are affected by the environment...

you dont know that, maybe they are, maybe they arent. You get scared (EMOTION) because of your adrenaline hormone. Your muscle gets tired because of the production of the Lactic Acid.
People though for years the Earth was flat.

I'm not sure how to take your lol smiley in your post. :) I hope you arent being sarcastic.

Cochrane
06-08-10, 10:48
Interesting idea. And that brings up some other questions.

Assuming a drug that could make gay people straight, and another drug that could make straight people gay,
Would either drug be good? Would one be good and the other bad? Which one?
Would using either drug on someone be illegal? Since it changes their will, would it be a violation of their will? What if they didn't know you gave it to them? Could they prove you had? Would they care?
A drug is just a drug, it depends on the use (assuming that side-effects are irrelevant). I would see no reason to forbid anyone from taking them, assuming they know about the consequences.

But forcing someone to take them (openly or covertly)? I donít think that should be OK for any kind of drug, apart from very special circumstances (such as required therapy for sex offenders). And in that sense I would see the gay-to-straight drug as potentially bad, because there are governments out there that would at least consider forcing people to take it, while the danger the other way around is very low.

Could it be proven? Iíd say it depends on the specifics of the drug, but you would at least be able to notice the effects (unless it was used on small children). About whether theyíd care, I seriously doubt that anybody wouldnít. Whether one wants to reverse the effects or continues to go with it is a different question that probably depends on the individual victim.

you cant change your preferences. also gayness cant really be genetic, how do straight parents have gay children:p

I think he meant your born with your sexuallity, you may not know it, you may not accept it but its you, like you could lie about any preference or attribute about yourself, but will not change it. but it is not genetic either, a preference.
As long as we donít know why people have certain preferences, I think it is premature to say that they canĎt be changed. The drug that aktrekker proposed is, as far as we currently know, at least not impossible.

An alternative idea: Say you canít change it, but there is a scientific, accurate test for being gay or not. How about allowing two men or two women to marry only if either partner scores high enough on that test? I remain at my basic point: It does not matter if it is a choice or not.

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 10:50
The reason Gays are growing is because the environment is so...

also, could you please elaborate on that ? I dont know from which angle to take it. The number of gay people is growing because the environment has changed ?
your post implies that there are straight guys who turn gay and they're increasing because the environment is changing..would appreciate it if you could clear that out.
Also, what environmental changes are you talking about ?

Oh and the way you say it is like a fact. Sorry, must have missed your research paper somewhere.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 10:53
and what's wrong with mutations ? mutations, domination, they're all basic natural concepts. Survival of the fittest. You dont use a limb, that limb would disappear. Some characteristics manifest themselves in later years, sometimes early.

and I didn't say scientists discover a gay gene. Oh there has been studies, yes, but I wont say am into those studies or know what they're about, and I was graceful enough to say it and add in my post...





you dont know that, maybe they are, maybe they arent. You get scared (EMOTION) because of your adrenaline hormone. Your muscle gets tired because of the production of the Lactic Acid.
People though for years the Earth was flat.

I'm not sure how to take your lol smiley in your post. :) I hope you arent being sarcastic.

NO I AM NOT SARCASTIC... THIS IS A GREAT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION... WHY WOULD I BE SACRASTIC :)

sO, THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE RELEASE OF A HORMONE... IT IN THE GLANDS...

wHEN YOU LISTEN TO SOFT MUSIC, DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE, YOU BECOME HAPPY, SAD, FEEL LIKE DANCING...

iT'S BCZ OF THE ENVIRONEMENT...

A CHILD WHOSE PARENTS CONSIDER DANCING AS A MAJOR SIN WILL GROW UNABLE TO DANCE OR DOESNT LIKE IT... IN THE END HE MAY BE ABLE TO DANCE...

A CHILD WHOSE PARENTS SPEND ALOT OF TIME IN CLUBS, PARTIES, WHATEVER... OR IF THE CHILD SPENDS HIS TIME WITH FRIENDS PARTYING... DOING WHATEVER... HE WILL LIKELY BE ,ORE ACCUSTOMED TO IT...

SO IT IS BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONEMENT... AN EVENT... EVERY HUMAN BEINGS ADMIRES BOTH SEXES... that's not a reason to HAVE SEXUAL DREAMS ABOUT THEM :)

Legends
06-08-10, 11:07
Avalon SARL, You either are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or your not. You don't grow up to become it because of how your parents lived their life. (or how they not lived their life) It is more accepted to be gay today, but more people won't be gay because the "environment" tells you its okay! More people might be open it, but that's who they really are. And you are comparing a feeling to sexuality such as dancing when you hear a song. It's got nothing to do with each other. It's only natural to dance when you hear a catchy song, the same doesn't go for your sexuality and environments. That is just stupid, and so are most of the things you say. :wve:

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 11:10
I'm glad you find this topic great. No need to use the caps lock button though. ;)

No one knows exactly why this happens. If we did, do you think we would be arguing right now ? would there be conflict between different groups of people ? would it be a controversial issue ?
There has been experiments and researches that yielded many results, but then again you cant force these results on everyone and make them take it as true. There will always be those who are on the other side of it. :)

As for the environmental changes, they're not necessarily accurate. :) I have grown up in a very quiet environment. My parents dont like dancing and partying and they dont really consider dancing a sin, but they're not big fans of it. However, I like to dance, attend parties and mingle. We're total opposites. They like classical Arabic music, I like Western music. As I grew up I listened to both and liked Western music...I liked it ! Period. There's nothing more to it. The same way you like the color blue and dont like red for example, or not really into metal music.
I certainly didnt come out of my mum's womb dancing to Thriller.

I havent been always like that thought. In my early teens I was a shy person and never really liked to be put in social situations. When I started uni, I've changed because, well, you have to, have to have a stronger personality.
However, I've been gay since my early teens, when I became sexually aware and active. :)

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 11:15
also, could you please elaborate on that ? I dont know from which angle to take it. The number of gay people is growing because the environment has changed ?
your post implies that there are straight guys who turn gay and they're increasing because the environment is changing..would appreciate it if you could clear that out.
Also, what environmental changes are you talking about ?

Oh and the way you say it is like a fact. Sorry, must have missed your research paper somewhere.

Avalon SARL, You either are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or your not. You don't grow up to become it because of how your parents lived their life. (or how they not lived their life) It is more accepted to be gay today, but more people won't be gay because the "environment" tells you its okay! More people might be open it, but that's who they really are. And you are comparing a feeling to sexuality such as dancing when you hear a song. It's got nothing to do with each other. It's only natural to dance when you hear a catchy song, the same doesn't go for your sexuality and environments. That is just stupid, and so are most of the things you say. :wve:

Well, it is good to read someone showing me that I'm terrible in analysis :p

Hope i can be ore specific...

Let everyone speak how he discovered he found he was gay and from their we can proceed in the discussion :) ;)

I'm glad you find this topic great. No need to use the caps lock button though.

No one knows exactly why this happens. If we did, do you think we would be arguing right now ? would there be conflict between different groups of people ? would it be a controversial issue ?
There has been experiments and researches that yielded many results, but then again you cant force these results on everyone and make them take it as true. There will always be those who are on the other side of it.

As for the environmental changes, they're not necessarily accurate. I have grown up in a very quiet environment. My parents dont like dancing and partying and they dont really consider dancing a sin, but they're not big fans of it. However, I like to dance, attend parties and mingle. We're total opposites. They like classical Arabic music, I like Western music. As I grew up I listened to both and liked Western music...I liked it ! Period. There's nothing more to it. The same way you like the color blue and dont like red for example, or not really into metal music.
I certainly didnt come out of my mum's womb dancing to Thriller.

I havent been always like that thought. In my early teens I was a shy person and never really liked to be put in social situations. When I started uni, I've changed because, well, you have to, have to have a stronger personality.
However, I've been gay since my early teens, when I became sexually aware and active.

I like your quote :)
Ure arabian..?
me too :) and i hate arabian music soooooooooooooooo :p

But how did you discover this? in your early teens... what triggered this feeling ....???

Legends
06-08-10, 11:22
Well, it is good to read someone showing me that I'm terrible in analysis :p

Hope i can be ore specific...

Let everyone speak how he discovered he found he was gay and from their we can proceed in the discussion :) ;)

Your "analysis" is basically saying sexuality is a choice. You should be able to explain that without anyone having to tell you how they came out.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 11:28
Your "analysis" is basically saying sexuality is a choice. You should be able to explain that without anyone having to tell you how they came out.

My way of life possibly tells me that whatever goal i beleive i want to acheive comes from me doing a few stuff GOD demands... i am spiritualist and many stuff i beleive in may not fit with you or seem complex...

One of them is that GOD testing the people :)
If you want to further the discussion, it will become so steamed up...
i dont want this thread to get closed...

simply saying it: do wrong, GOD punishes you with doing sin and stuff...
do well, the bliss of the world will come running after you :)

Legends
06-08-10, 11:32
My way of life possibly tells me that whatever goal i beleive i want to acheive comes from me doing a few stuff GOD demands... i am spiritualist and many stuff i beleive in may not fit with you or seem complex...

One of them is that GOD testing the people :)
If you want to further the discussion, it will become so steamed up...
i dont want this thread to get closed...

simply saying it: do wrong, GOD punishes you with doing sin and stuff...
do well, the bliss of the world will come running after you :)

Now I know you are stupid. ;)

If you want this thread to stay open... get out of it.

Apathetic
06-08-10, 11:34
Avalon SARL, You either are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or your not. You don't grow up to become it because of how your parents lived their life. (or how they not lived their life) It is more accepted to be gay today, but more people won't be gay because the "environment" tells you its okay! More people might be open it, but that's who they really are. And you are comparing a feeling to sexuality such as dancing when you hear a song. It's got nothing to do with each other. It's only natural to dance when you hear a catchy song, the same doesn't go for your sexuality and environments. That is just stupid, and so are most of the things you say. :wve:

:tmb:

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 11:35
Now I know you are stupid. ;)

If you want this thread to stay open... get out of it.

You think so... that's very sweet of you...

funny how you always make us as your enemies, while in fact we arent... just truing to conclude something around here, whether you could see that or not...

Still ask:
Why couldn't nature create an already accepted relation between homos...

Do you even know how homosexuality began in the world...???

From the normal sense, the logical way... man is created for a female...
this cannot be denied... why did not both sexes come with some other things so that they can be for each other...

A snail for example :)

Cochrane
06-08-10, 11:43
You think so... that's very sweet of you...


Why couldnt nature create an already accepted relation between homos...

Do you even know how homosexuality began in the world...???

From the normal sense, the logical way... man is created for a female...
this cannot be denied... why did not both sexes come with some other things so that they can be for each other...

A snail for example :)

So human relationships are just about the plumbing for you? I do think and hope that there is more to love than Ikea-style "insert Rod A into Rod-Support B". And lets face it, when gays are together in bed, they don’t sit around all night thinking "Hm, what to do?". If everybody involved is happy with a particular solution, then it can well be described as doing what it is supposed to.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 11:50
So human relationships are just about the plumbing for you? I do think and hope that there is more to love than Ikea-style "insert Rod A into Rod-Support B". And lets face it, when gays are together in bed, they donít sit around all night thinking "Hm, what to do?". If everybody involved is happy with a particular solution, then it can well be described as doing what it is supposed to.
WOuld have apprectaited some better answering...

Human relationships are about everything... this is one of them, what we are describing right now...

if i love my childhood buddy... should i end up in bed with him...
don't think so....

Legends
06-08-10, 11:54
@Avalon SARL:

You are preaching that the man is made for a woman, and that's fine, but that is not what this topic is about. The bottom line is that you can't help who you love, whether it's a man or a woman. Don't even get me started on religion with you, because your beliefs are narrow minded and starts with God. If everything has a balance, you should argue evolution, and not use religion as a reason for your views.

And you are talking about better answers? You should try and make some sense before you ask others to. ;) Might I also suggest a dictionary. :wve:

knightgames
06-08-10, 11:56
You think so... that's very sweet of you...

funny how you always make us as your enemies, while in fact we arent... just truing to conclude something around here, whether you could see that or not...

Still ask:
Why couldn't nature create an already accepted relation between homos...

Do you even know how homosexuality began in the world...???

From the normal sense, the logical way... man is created for a female...
this cannot be denied... why did not both sexes come with some other things so that they can be for each other...

A snail for example :)


I don't know about anyone else. I'm not even gay but I find the term HOMOS quite derogatory. I don't even know if it's used in that way any more, but to me it's as bad as calling someone a faggot.

I also kind of wonder if you're just trolling.

Andyroo
06-08-10, 12:01
I find the term HOMOS quite derogatory. I don't even know if it's used in that way any more, but to me it's as bad as calling someone a faggot.

Same here, I totally agree. Although some people might say something like "it's short for homosexual", it's always (in my experience anyway, what I've seen) only ever used very negatively. It's just as bad as that word I find the most disgusting of all, 'faggot'. :(:mad:

But anyway, this thread has become........... I don't even know a word for it. :(

Legends
06-08-10, 12:06
this thread has become........... I don't even know a word for it. :(

I am sorry for that, I take the blame for it. I wish I hadn't had to say some of the things I said, but I felt they were necessary. :(

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 12:06
@Avalon SARL:

You are preaching that the man is made for a woman, and that's fine, but that is not what this topic is about. The bottom line is that you can't help who you love, whether it's a man or a woman. Don't even get me started on religion with you, because your beliefs are narrow minded and starts with God. If everything has a balance, you should argue evolution, and not use religion as a reason for your views.

And you are talking about better answers? You should try and make some sense before you ask others to. ;)

If beleifs start with GOD, this doesn't make them narrow minded...
Being straight doesn't mean you cant love a man... everyone has friends...

And i know it is evolution silly... that's why i already said the environement plays the biggest role in this..
i neither agreed nor disagreed on the subject... only with the logical way... the common sense of how GOD created living things... ;)

larson n natla
06-08-10, 12:06
They also seem to be stressed because they aren't sure which they are.

And I don't think people would suddenly become gay if gay marriage was allowed. But do you think gayness is on the rise? Do you think the population is genetically changing towards being gay? And if so do you think the entire human population will change? Or will it stabilize at some point?

And since it wasn't really answered, I'll ask again.
If a drug was created that would "cure" gayness at a genetic level, would this be a good thing? Why or why not?

I'm not asking if someone would take the time and money to develop the drug. I'm asking if it existed would you consider it good or not.

How can 'gayness' or correctly put 'homosexuality' be on the rise it isn't a disease it is a sexual preference it has no bearing on you or anybody else just concentrate on your own sexuality. Obviously the entire human population isn't going to 'go gay' it isn't a choice you can't change how your body reacts and produces hormones.

This is ignorant how about I ask you if there was a drug to 'cure' being straight would you take it and would it be a good thing, obviously not if some bigoted people have a problem than that's their fault maybe they should take a drug to cure single mindedness.

Please could people just grow up and concentrate on there own sexuality and that means both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. I don't see the point in Gay Pride, I think it should be Sexuality Pride as you are celebrating your sexual preference and it is a constant reminder that Gay and Straight people are separate entities. I think it should involve all people regardless of sexuality, and that children should be taught about both Homosexual and Heterosexual relationships to learn that they are not dirty or wrong but that they have been portrayed this way by Religion and Fascism.

- Long Post Over -

P.S I don't believe in God, Religion has brought more violence in to this world than it has peace.

lunavixen
06-08-10, 12:15
A good decision, but this will not be over until the Supreme Court has ruled.

uhhh, you mean the high court? supreme court is next down in the court system

Mad Tony
06-08-10, 12:18
Just before the religion bashing gets into full swing I'd just like to point out that not all branches of Christianity are against homosexuality. I can't speak for other religions.

Andyroo
06-08-10, 12:18
I am sorry for that, I take the blame for it. I wish I hadn't had to say some of the things I said, but I felt they were necessary. :(

I assure you, you're not at all responsible. Unless I missed some post :p

But you have made the thread a bit nicer and easier to read with your font :D

I guess this thread is just a case of 'dragging the dead cat'. That cat's long-dead, and it's just making things worse by dragging it around the living-room.

Archetype
06-08-10, 12:20
P.S I don't believe in God, Religion has brought more violence in to this world than it has peace.

Correction.

Man is responsible.

Legends
06-08-10, 12:21
If beleifs start with GOD, this doesn't make them narrow minded...
Being straight doesn't mean you cant love a man... everyone has friends...

And i know it is evolution silly... that's why i already said the environement plays the biggest role in this..
i neither agreed nor disagreed on the subject... only with the logical way... the common sense of how GOD created living things... ;)


First off, things’ starting with God isn't common sense. Its beliefs and religion, not common sense. Common sense is not telling people they will burn in hell when they are gay.

Second, this isn't about loving your friends, it's about loving anyone. Regardless of what sex they are.

Third, again, the environment has nothing to do with people being gay.

And finally, there is nothing logical about what you are saying!

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 12:30
First off, thingsí starting with God isn't common sense. Its beliefs and religion, not common sense. Common sense is not telling people they will burn in hell when they are gay.

Second, this isn't about loving your friends, it's about loving anyone. Regardless of what sex they are.

Third, again, the environment has nothing to do with people being gay.

And finally, there is nothing logical about what you are saying!

And things starting with your own point of view is not common sense to me as well...

Cant you see...
beleif/ disbeleif... it has been since the very first humans started living on earth...
So i dont have any intention to make that be resolved right now...


But the logical thing is that anal sex is not good...
Ask the doctors and men of science... that is what makes people wonder. ha?

Draco
06-08-10, 12:41
uhhh, you mean the high court? supreme court is next down in the court system

We aren't discussing Australia.

Andyroo
06-08-10, 12:50
But the logical thing is that anal sex is not good...
Ask the doctors and men of science... that is what makes people wonder. ha?

How is that the logical thing? The logical thing, if anything, is that it's enjoyable and not harmful when done properly. And, it's not only done between same-sex couples so there's no reason to bring anal sex into this anyway. You're just saying whatever you think, not what you know.

No doctor will tell you that it is 'not good'. They'll even stick their finger up there to make sure you don't have cancer. So if it's supposed to be 'not good', why did your god put the prostate up there, where you have to have someone physically feel to check if you'll get cancer - and die. And on top of that make it enjoyable in the first place? ha?

Moving on...........

knightgames
06-08-10, 12:55
And things starting with your own point of view is not common sense to me as well...

Cant you see...
beleif/ disbeleif... it has been since the very first humans started living on earth...
So i dont have any intention to make that be resolved right now...


But the logical thing is that anal sex is not good...
Ask the doctors and men of science... that is what makes people wonder. ha?
IDK. I went to my proctologist last week for an exam. During it he said, "this might hurt a little bit." I turned, winked, and said, "Au Contraire." :whi:

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:01
How is that the logical thing? The logical thing, if anything, is that it's enjoyable and not harmful when done properly. And, it's not only done between same-sex couples so there's no reason to bring anal sex into this anyway. You're just saying whatever you think, not what you know.

No doctor will tell you that it is 'not good'. They'll even stick their finger up there to make sure you don't have cancer. So if it's supposed to be 'not good', why did your god put the prostate up there, where you have to have someone physically feel to check if you'll get cancer - and die. And on top of that make it enjoyable in the first place? ha?

Moving on...........

1- Well Islam bans it completely and married couples are immediately divorced...

2- It is considered to be downgrading and an immoral act... especially oral-anal acts :yik:

3- pleasure during intercourse is that the glans and shaft give pleasure by rubbing the CLITORIS in the vagina...
anal intercourse hurts at first and needs time so that someone gets used to the pain... so that when anus muscles become wider... something a vagina doesnt need to be accustomed to at all...

4- GOD put it there so that you can check the prostate if it is diseased or not... due to some secretions... like semen from the anus... or other forms of liquid...
doesnt have to be for sexual pleasure ;)

5- Prostate is there way behind above the anus... you dont need t insert some 17 cm sick to reach it, unlike a vagina whose clitoris requires as little as 7 cm to be satisfied :)

there are lots of other things to state

6- While a vagina is crowded by erotic sensory nerves, the only things that are in the anus are the endings of these nerves...

7- thumbs up for Science

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 13:08
^ :vlol: I lol'd

Just before the religion bashing gets into full swing I'd just like to point out that not all branches of Christianity are against homosexuality. I can't speak for other religions.

Yes. We know. I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said that or something like it. :hea:

Anyway...

The point in this whole thing is this: no matter what you believe, letting two people who love each other, cherish each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together marry, is not going to hurt anyone.

Whether you believe they were born that way or not, it cannot be compared to letting homicidal psychopaths roam the streets as that is endangering the public. Loving another man or woman is not. Therefore a law banning such a non-dangerous activity is illogical and useless.

If you think they'll go to hell for being gay, then accept that its their choice to go to hell, and let them make that choice. If you think its creepy, think that, nobody's asking you to marry another bloke or chick. This is about discriminating against people based on who they love and that is morally wrong no matter what religion or belief system you hold.

We are all human, and we all deserve to love and be loved in return. What genitalia the person who inspires that love has is irrelevant and the law needs to recognise this.

/rant.

EDIT: AND America isn't a Muslim country, so the whole Muslim thing in this case is completely irrelevant. Move the **** on from the Muslim thing.

Mad Tony
06-08-10, 13:13
Yes. We know. I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said that or something like it. :hea:I don't believe I've said that many times before. :confused: One thing I have said a lot is that religion isn't what causes war and that it's people. However, this has only been in response to people foolishly blaming war on religion.

Legends
06-08-10, 13:14
I assure you, you're not at all responsible. Unless I missed some post :p

But you have made the thread a bit nicer and easier to read with your font :D

I guess this thread is just a case of 'dragging the dead cat'. That cat's long-dead, and it's just making things worse by dragging it around the living-room.

Thank you, it's the little things. :D I agree, the cat is dead, and as should this be now. :)

But the logical thing is that anal sex is not good...
Ask the doctors and men of science... that is what makes people wonder. ha?

Clearly you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Being gay is not all about anal sex, you moron. A lot of straight people enjoy anal sex as well and there is nothing wrong with that. As Andyroo said; you are just saying what you think, not what you know. And now I am going to say what I think... You are 100% wrong about everything you have said here, and I can't stand people like you. You should also get the F out of this thread and take your Islam crap somewhere else. For all I care you can shove it deep up your ass and afterwards you can crawl up there and die. I might go to hell for this according to you, but to hell with it. ;)

Draco
06-08-10, 13:15
1- Well Islam bans it completely and married couples are immediately divorced...

So?

2- It is considered to be downgrading and an immoral act... especially oral-anal acts :yik:

Who cares? Don't do it if it bothers you so.

3- pleasure during intercourse is that the glans and shaft give pleasure by rubbing the CLITORIS in the vagina...

Sometimes, sometimes other stimuli is needed.

anal intercourse hurts at first and needs time so that someone gets used to the pain... so that when anus muscles become wider... something a vagina doesnt need to be accustomed to at all...

Never been with a virgin eh?

TRfan23
06-08-10, 13:19
For once can't humans respect their own race? Instead of condemning one another? :(

@aktrekker - Can you teach me how to become emotionless?

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:21
Thank you, it's the little things. :D I agree, the cat is dead, and as should this be now. :)



Clearly you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Being gay is not all about anal sex, you moron. A lot of straight people enjoy anal sex as well and there is nothing wrong with that. As Andyroo said; you are just saying what you think, not what you know. And now I am going to say what I think... You are 100% wrong about everything you have said here, and I can't stand people like you. You should also get the F out of this thread and take your Islam crap somewhere else. For all I care you can shove it deep up your ass and afterwards you can crawl up there and die. I might go to hell for this according to you, but to hell with it. ;)

This proves how marvelous you are in negotiating and discussing...
My idea is not to shove anything in your face, but just many of you cant swallow this and whenever you read GOD/ Religion you just become so agitated...

Why?
Whilst you would have become so amazed and happy if you found Religion backed up gay acts... ;)
and it ends with you saying Religion is not true...


Calling something crap is just your idea and point of view, while the subject is even deeper and much scarier and greater than what you think...
You can see i did not ever spoeak badly about you or any1... neither said you are idiot or whatever ugly words you have learnt to use through your immoral way of life... if that is how you want us to speak...

To discuss something you have to analyze everything around you...
you cant take whatever you like and ignore other things that are essential components of the story

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 13:21
3- pleasure during intercourse is that the glans and shaft give pleasure by rubbing the CLITORIS in the vagina...

On a totally unrelated note, the clitoris is not in the vagina. And as a woman I can honestly say sex hurt the first few times until my muscles got used to it so as Draco points out, your argument is ill-informed and wrong.

And irrelevant...sorry for bringing it up but I hate it when people don't know basic ****.

Back on topic..

knightgames
06-08-10, 13:22
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e354/knightgames/350uwx4.gif

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:24
On a totally unrelated note, the clitoris is not in the vagina. And as a woman I can honestly say sex hurt the first few times until my muscles got used to it so as Draco points out, your argument is ill-informed and wrong.

And irrelevant...sorry for bringing it up but I hate it when people don't know basic ****.

Back on topic..

I'm not a master in English... sorry for any irrelevant thing i said... but the clitoris is the main part... dont care where the hell it is located... :)
You feel pain because of stress... but that place is full of erotic sensory nerves... while the anus completely lacks these... :)

why?

Capt. Murphy
06-08-10, 13:26
The next thing on down the line (if it's not people that want to marry farm animals or inanimate objects, or legalizing "relations" with anyone under the age of consent) will probably be something like legalizing suicide. You can use the same logic to argue for that as you can for same sex marriage.

amirite? :pi:

larson n natla
06-08-10, 13:27
Correction.

Man is responsible.

Your right Man invented the idea of religion.

Legends
06-08-10, 13:27
This proves how marvelous you are in negotiating and discussing...
My idea is not to shove anything in your face, but just many of you cant swallow this and whenever you read GOD/ Religion you just become so agitated...

Calling something crap is just your idea and point of view, while the subject is even deeper and much scarier and greater than what you think...
You can see i did not ever spoeak badly about you or any1... neither said you are idiot or whatever ugly words you have learnt to use through your immoral way of life... if that is how you want us to speak...

To discuss something you have to analyze everything around you...
you cant take whatever you like and ignore other things that are essential components of the story


I am not going to discuss this any further with you. Until you learn the meaning of your words, you shouldn't either. I am not sorry for the things I said because you don't realize what you said about every gay person here, and if I get banned for telling you off because of that, then so be it. At least I understand my actions, and what I say, but you are incapable of understanding what this is really about. Which is why I don't care to discuss this anymore with you.

You should learn the meaning of your words before you discuss with anyone.

Draco
06-08-10, 13:27
Suicide being illegal is silly in the first place.

trXD
06-08-10, 13:27
So avalon you really think when gays have sex its not pleasurable? Why on earth would they do it then? Even straight people have anal sex for pleasure.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:32
So avalon you really think when gays have sex its not pleasurable? Why on earth would they do it then? Even straight people have anal sex for pleasure.

My views are so different from what alot think of...
and this is a gap...
i dont want to defend my beleifs to prove you are wrong (no mater what i think)...

It is just a way of life based on what we think is moral and immoral...

Other than this, the discussion can proceed to nowhere...

I am not going to discuss this any further with you. Until you learn the meaning of your words, you shouldn't either. I am not sorry for the things I said because you don't realize what you said about every gay person here, and if I get banned for telling you off because of that, then so be it. At least I understand my actions, and what I say, but you are incapable of understanding what this is really about. Which is why I don't care to discuss this anymore with you.

You should learn the meaning of your words before you discuss with anyone.

Don't remember i was ever sarcastic or said anything bad... till you started and disrespected GOD
How emotional... BE A MAN :mis:


if so, is it proper for males to go dress as women, wear their clothes, act so stupidly feminine...
the reason is that many people just don't see how things get carried out...

Keep the thread as clean as it is of ugly words...

if gays can harm no one from their acts.. okay then...
What harm results from asking questions :confused::confused:

you should be confident about your answers then

Draco
06-08-10, 13:34
My views are so different from what alot think of...
and this is a gap...
i dont want to defend my beleifs to prove you are wrong (no mater what i think)...

It is just a way of life based on what we think is moral and immoral...

Other than this, the discussion can proceed to nowhere...

You can't prove beliefs. That is why you have to believe in the first place.

Legends
06-08-10, 13:35
Moral and Immoral. Do you even know what that means? Seriously, shut up.

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 13:36
I'm not a master in English... sorry for any irrelevant thing i said... but the clitoris is the main part... dont care where the hell it is located... :)
You feel pain because of stress... but that place is full of erotic sensory nerves... while the anus completely lacks these... :)

why?

As someone who actually has a vagina, no it is not. The vaginal corridor is the main part (the place the penis is actually inserted) the clitoris is just the end of the urethra where urine comes out that happens to be full of nerve endings and very sensitive. It is part of the female genitalia but is not always stimulated during intercourse.

In the vagina itself there is a g-spot (a rough feeling area) which gives immense pleasure, there is also one of these in the anus, making the second part of your argument, also incorrect.

I was also drunk when I first had sex and very very relaxed. I felt pain the first time due to the rupturing of the hymen, and the second time as the vaginal wall stretched to accommodate the girth of the penis.

I suggest you actually maybe have sex, or do some basic research before you start running your mouth about things you clearly know nothing about.

TRfan23
06-08-10, 13:40
Request Deletion.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:43
As someone who actually has a vagina, no it is not. The vaginal corridor is the main part (the place the penis is actually inserted) the clitoris is just the end of the urethra where urine comes out that happens to be full of nerve endings and very sensitive. It is part of the female genitalia but is not always stimulated during intercourse.

In the vagina itself there is a g-spot (a rough feeling area) which gives immense pleasure, there is also one of these in the anus, making the second part of your argument, also incorrect.

I was also drunk when I first had sex and very very relaxed. I felt pain the first time due to the rupturing of the hymen, and the second time as the vaginal wall stretched to accommodate the girth of the penis.

I suggest you actually maybe have sex, or do some basic research before you start running your mouth about things you clearly know nothing about.

Well your suggestion is pure bad and sinful because i dont betray my girlfriend and i dont do that like some stupid man craving for sex... as much as i need it, it is still not time ;)
if that is yopur environement and way of life, glad it is not mine :D

how sacrastic people are...
na dwhat i typed bove is from an article... then go **** the doctors they seem wrong in their discoveries... if you feel it like that doesnt make it correct.... the way you think it is good to have anal sex ;)

Moral and Immoral. Do you even know what that means? Seriously, shut up


Otherwise when you pass by the seweres, donot hesistate to shout with pleasure....
this stinks :(
Yes, oral-anal is immoral... no matter who is doing it... :yik:

Archetype
06-08-10, 13:43
Your right Man invented the idea of religion.

The core beliefs are from God, the empty rituals are of man.

I find it interesting that when someone's gay the church and that goes oh he should repent etc etc...

But when someone commits suicide, they get all "awwww poor thing" etc... Why don't they condemn the person, and say he was created by Satan and is going to hell like some churches always enjoys doing to minorities :(

Funny enough the bible denounces suicide.

Talk about hypocrisy!

The loss of life is terrible, regardless of whether it's suicide. You don't condem the person, rather their actions.

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 13:46
Well your suggestion is pure bad and sinful because i dont betray my girlfriend if that is what you want me to do... you can simply say, hey bro.. u r wrong here,... so and so and so and so is the right thing...

:

I shouldn't have to! Learn some ****ing common sense! Or ask your God for some, whatever, just think before you post please! :hea::hea::hea:

Honestly how can someone with access to the internet be SO uninformed and ignorant!

Capt. Murphy
06-08-10, 13:52
... going to hell like some churches always enjoys doing to minorities :(


"Enjoys"? I have to call you out on this.

Listen. Wanting people to repent from their sinful ways - whatever they may be - is in NO WAY hateful. I find that So irritating when people cry "Hate Crime" because someone says someone will go to hell for not changing their ways. That is EXACTLY like someone getting mad because they're told they'll be ran over for standing in the street.

Whatever type of sexual relationship it is - if it's fornication - then it is condemned by God. This would include heterosexual couples too. And since the only acceptable sexual relationship according to God/the Bible is between a Man and Woman that are married to each other -then that should tell you that everything else is Immoral/Sinful.

ETA: And anyone that actually does "enjoy" the idea of sinners going to hell - then they'll be right there with 'em. :mad:

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 13:54
I shouldn't have to! Learn some ****ing common sense! Or ask your God for some, whatever, just think before you post please! :hea::hea::hea:

Honestly how can someone with access to the internet be SO uninformed and ignorant!

:wve:
Clitoris ? The Only Organ Designed for Pleasure
In fact, providing its owner with sexual pleasure is the organ's only known function, and the clitoris is the only organ in either sex with pleasure as its sole function. It has nothing to do with getting pregnant, with menstruation, or with urination. When a woman becomes sexually aroused, both the glans and the shaft fill with blood and increase in size. The glans can double in diameter. There is no evidence that a larger clitoris means more intense sexual arousal.

As erotic stimulation continues and orgasm approaches, the clitoris becomes less visible as it is covered by the swelling of tissues of the clitoral hood. This swelling is designed to protect the clitoris from direct contact, which, for some women, can be more irritating than pleasurable. It moves out again when the stimulation stops. After orgasm the clitoris returns to its normal size within about ten minutes because the orgasm leads to a dispersal of the accumulated blood. If the woman doesn't have an orgasm, the blood that has flowed into the clitoris as a result of sexual arousal may remain there, keeping the clitoris engorged for a few hours. Many women find this uncomfortable.

A woman's clitoris can be stimulated through direct or indirect contact. During intercourse the penis does not contact the clitoris directly. The thrusting of the penis in the vagina, regardless of the position used, moves the labia minora, and it is this movement of the lips against the clitoris that usually creates the orgasm. Direct contact with the clitoris by touching it with a finger, vibrator, or a tongue can cause more discomfort than pleasure for many women. For these women, more general rubbing or licking of the area around the clitoris is likely to feel better. Other women enjoy very intense direct stimulation. There is great variability in sensitivity of the clitoris and each woman.

Nefertiti_89
06-08-10, 13:59
^ Yes I know I'm right. As a woman, when it comes to my own reproductive organs I'm always right.

What is your point? You learnt how to Google, good for you. Your family and friends will be so proud. I've known how to do that since Google was created. My 5 year old Nephew also knows how to Google. Sure, he can't spell, but he knows Google will fix that for him too.

Welcome to the 21st Century, where Gay is okay, and Gay marriage is legal and accepted in many places, and people research their **** before they post.

knightgames
06-08-10, 14:14
If I say smoking is murder (Thou shalt not kill) do I have the right to enforce that believe on someone? If I don't follow the sabbath and therefore disobey two commandments (Keep the Sabbath day holy and Thou shall have no other gods before me) do I have the right to make people believe as I do?

If laying with another man is against the ordinances of god do I have the right to convict him of immorality?

No. I have my own departures from what god expects of me. I can't pull the dust from someone's eye when I have a huge splinter stuck in it.

IOW. Let god worry about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. I can only judge myself and how I believe god expects me to follow him. If god is love, like I believe he is, then I am responsible to display that love - not to condemn someone.

Life is hard enough without this back and forth over morality issues, when none of us have the upper hand in that department.

Capt. Murphy
06-08-10, 14:20
If I say smoking is murder (Thou shalt not kill) do I have the right to enforce that believe on someone? If I don't follow the sabbath and therefore disobey two commandments (Keep the Sabbath day holy and Thou shall have no other gods before me) do I have the right to make people believe as I do?

If laying with another man is against the ordinances of god do I have the right to convict him of immorality?

No. I have my own departures from what god expects of me. I can't pull the dust from someone's eye when I have a huge splinter stuck in it.

IOW. Let god worry about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. I can only judge myself and how I believe god expects me to follow him. If god is love, like I believe he is, then I am responsible to display that love - not to condemn someone.

Life is hard enough without this back and forth over morality issues, when none of us have the upper hand in that department.

A fool despises correction.

Saying something or someone is immoral is like saying the grass is green. If it is - it just IS. Period.

And condemnation can only come from your own conviction. If it weren't true - then what would anyone care? If the accusation affect you in your heart -then there must be a reason why. And the fault doesn't fall upon the one pointing out the flaw.

trXD
06-08-10, 14:22
So your persisting that anal sex is not pleasurable? How can you say that when there are so many people who have experianced it and say they are? Use your brain you idiot.


Its pleasurable the same way vaginal sex is, it just uses different organs.

And comparing anal sex to the sewers is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said on these forums.

scoopy_loopy
06-08-10, 14:23
A fool despises correction.

Saying something or someone is immoral is like saying the grass is green. If it is - it just IS. Period.

im∑mor∑al   [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
Ėadjective
1.
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.



Therefore, hugely liable to change. Morality is not black and white.

Cochrane
06-08-10, 14:24
WOuld have apprectaited some better answering...
Yeah, but this is the best you’re going to get as long as you keep arguing as you do. Your line of arguing is so horribly broken that the only reason I haven’t blocked you yet is for the entertainment value, and I don’t think I am the only one thinking like this.

The next thing on down the line (if it's not people that want to marry farm animals or inanimate objects, or legalizing "relations" with anyone under the age of consent) will probably be something like legalizing suicide. You can use the same logic to argue for that as you can for same sex marriage.

amirite? :pi:
Wait, suicide is illegal in the US? That seems incredibly stupid (assuming forms that don’t hurt others).

Edit to add, because I seem to have missed this earlier:"Enjoys"? I have to call you out on this.

Listen. Wanting people to repent from their sinful ways - whatever they may be - is in NO WAY hateful. I find that So irritating when people cry "Hate Crime" because someone says someone will go to hell for not changing their ways. That is EXACTLY like someone getting mad because they're told they'll be ran over for standing in the street.

Whatever type of sexual relationship it is - if it's fornication - then it is condemned by God. This would include heterosexual couples too. And since the only acceptable sexual relationship according to God/the Bible is between a Man and Woman that are married to each other -then that should tell you that everything else is Immoral/Sinful.

ETA: And anyone that actually does "enjoy" the idea of sinners going to hell - then they'll be right there with 'em. :mad:

The intention may well be positive, but you can certainly imagine how it can be considered annoying. According to my value system, I am not going to hell, ever (nor heaven, for that matter). If someone claims that I would and that I should repent legal actions that I don’t feel sorry for, I would consider this to be disrespectful of my personal world view, and a form of assault on my personal freedom to do whatever I like.

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 14:37
But the logical thing is that anal sex is not good...
Ask the doctors and men of science... that is what makes people wonder. ha?
if so, is it proper for males to go dress as women, wear their clothes, act so stupidly feminine...
the reason is that many people just don't see how things get carried out...

First of all, when has anal sex been the center point of homosexuality ?
and second of all, when has men dressing as women and acting femininely been the center point of homosexuality ?

I don't wear women clothes, I don't wear makeup, I don't wear earrings, eye liner, eye shadow and lipstick. I'm a man last time I checked and wear a pair of jeans, t-shirt and white sneakers.
Whatever some dude likes to wear is their business.
I see no relation whatsoever between acting femininely and homosexuality.

I like your quote
Ure arabian..?
me too and i hate arabian music soooooooooooooooo

But how did you discover this? in your early teens... what triggered this feeling ....???

thanks, and yes, I'm an Arab, from the country Jordan. I do not hate Arabic music, I just don't like or enjoy it. I don't have time to hate. ;)

as for your question, when I first discovered am gay, ask yourself, when did you first discover you're straight and that you're attracted to women ?
answer this and you'll know my answer.

Loving your guy friend in a friendly kind of way is different than 2 gay guys loving each other. What you fail to realize is that we also revolve around companionship and partnership, not just sex (anal sex). I've been offered many times to do hookups and one night stands, but I turned them all down, and the only thing I always looked for is good company.
Relationships and the rest comes later. We do things the same way you do things, except my mate is of the same sex.

Also, religion is a personal belief, you cannot enforce your beliefs on others. I'm a Christian and happy to be one, and I do not believe religion is the cause of hate and all, but men are, and some of them arent even an inch in their own religion.

knightgames
06-08-10, 14:44
A fool despises correction.

Saying something or someone is immoral is like saying the grass is green. If it is - it just IS. Period.

And condemnation can only come from your own conviction. If it weren't true - then what would anyone care? If the accusation affect you in your heart -then there must be a reason why. And the fault doesn't fall upon the one pointing out the flaw.


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I abhor the hypocrite. He is as a sneeze in my nostril.

Pull the plank from your own eye first before you attempt to pull the mote out of another.

Conviction comes from the spirit of god..... not someone condemning someone's imperfections.


That's why I mentioned smoking cigarettes as murder/suicide. I PERSONALLY believe that. But I'm not going to preach that to others and condemn them for not following my conviction.



UNLESS: I misunderstood your intent Capt. in your reply to me.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 14:45
First of all, when has anal sex been the center point of homosexuality ?
and second of all, when has men dressing as women and acting femininely been the center point of homosexuality ?

I don't wear women clothes, I don't wear makeup, I don't wear earrings, eye liner, eye shadow and lipstick. I'm a man last time I checked and wear a pair of jeans, t-shirt and white sneakers.
Whatever some dude likes to wear is their business.
I see no relation whatsoever between acting femininely and homosexuality.



thanks, and yes, I'm an Arab, from the country Jordan. I do not hate Arabic music, I just don't like or enjoy it. I don't have time to hate. ;)

as for your question, when I first discovered am gay, ask yourself, when did you first discover you're straight and that you're attracted to women ?
answer this and you'll know my answer.

Loving your guy friend in a friendly kind of way is different than 2 gay guys loving each other. What you fail to realize is that we also revolve around companionship and partnership, not just sex (anal sex). I've been offered many times to do hookups and one night stands, but I turned them all down, and the only thing I always looked for is good company.
Relationships and the rest comes later. We do things the same way you do things, except my mate is of the same sex.

Also, religion is a personal belief, you cannot enforce your beliefs on others. I'm a Christian and happy to be one, and I do not believe religion is the cause of hate and all, but men are, and some of them arent even an inch in their own religion.

Well i ask bcz i myself have got no answer to it.. i just felt that way... that's why i ask....

many say that the environement someone is raised in, some emotional crisis, bad relationships in family lead to gay acts...

by far no one ever could pretty well describe something, but only some hateful words just because they read GOD...

Anyway... may it be the best to everyone if that is what they think it is...

xcrushterx
06-08-10, 14:51
many say that the environement someone is raised in, some emotional crisis, bad relationships in family lead to gay acts...

So many people saying it makes it true? Many people say god exists, but for all anyone on the world knows, he doesn't. Just because some people say something doesn't make it true.

Nature over nurture ftw.

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 14:52
^^well, there you go. I couldn't answer it myself...same as you are, I just felt that way. I didn't wake up on the rainy day of 15th of November and all of a sudden decided "I like guys now!"
for as long as I remember, and for as long as I have been sexually aware, I am attracted to guys, not girls.

As for the environment, I have told you before I live in a normal environment. Regular dad, regular mum, us the kids, family gatherings and all.
and only recently have I got to know other gay guys, so I had no outside bad influence as I grew up, and I actually knew about these feelings before I learned the word "gay"...I had feeling for guys and I thought I was sick or sth, didn't know there were others or that there are activists and a community ooutside of my house, I didnt even know about anal sex, just the kissing part which is also a heterosexual thing. I had the feelings all along...and I was never raped (as some people say, that being raped as a kid makes you gay), and I have no recollection of any emotional crisis whatsoever, and as for relationships...well, seeing as I live in a conservative country and have only made a few gay friends, I've never had a relationship, never had a date, and am still a virgin.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 14:58
^^well, there you go. I couldn't answer it myself...same as you are, I just felt that way. I didn't wake up on the rainy day of 15th of November and all of a sudden decided "I like guys now!"
for as long as I remember, and for as long as I have been sexually aware, I am attracted to guys, not girls.

As for the environment, I have told you before I live in a normal environment. Regular dad, regular mum, us the kids, family gatherings and all.
and only recently have I got to know other gay guys, so I had no outside bad influence as I grew up, and I actually knew about these feelings before I learned the word "gay"...I had feeling for guys and I thought I was sick or sth, didn't know there were others or that there are activists and a community ooutside of my house, I didnt even know about anal sex, just the kissing part which is also a heterosexual thing. I had the feelings all along...and I was never raped (as some people say, that being raped as a kid makes you gay), and I had no recollection of any emotional crisis whatsoever, and as for relationships...well, seeing as I live in a conservative country and have only made a few gay friends, I've never had a relationship, never had a date, and am still a virgin.

Okay, now this is something we can base a discussion on....

So, saying/ believing that this is all correct...
how can we put side by side, this and religion...


my idea is not bashing or any thing rather than finding some meaning in this...
that perhaps there is still something not fully understood in the religious texts or the like?
:)

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 15:54
Oh no worries, am not taking your posts as bashing, and you raise a very good point. How can we put these 2 topics side by side ?

that perhaps there is still something not fully understood in the religious texts or the like?

maybe yes, maybe no. I told you before, if that question could be answered, if we could find the truth, a cutting edge answer, a crystal clear answer with no hint of doubt that not even the most doubtful person could find, we wouldn't be having this arguments.
However, what we can do, is be open-minded, try to understand things, tolerate what may be unusual, because misunderstanding may make it unusual. You don't think I'd love to get answers more than you do ?

but lets put it this way, this may be very complex, and here's why. We have many religions, many beliefs and many opinions, You cannot enforce your religion on me as much as I cant enforce mine on you.
Also, regarding religion, you cannot tell me for sure that the Bible is the word of God. You believe it is. I believe it is because it makes me feel safe and content to know there's something much more powerful than I am is in control. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve ? Did you see Adam and Eve with your own eyes ? No.
Why cant 2 men have babies ? If continuation of life can only be achieved by a man and a woman, doesn't it mean that only a relationship between a man and a woman is right ? A penis and a vagina fit together, so doesnt it mean the same ?
can you tell me that this is all true ? Have you seen Mosis ? Have you seen Jesus ? Have you witnessed how many times the Bible has been rewritten/retranslated and handed down for 2000 years ? Have you got any evidence that the Quran has never been rewritten ? Have you got hardcore evidence that Buddhism and spiritual belief might be the only true religion and the others are false ?

so many questions and yet so little we can do and have to answer them. Its all Faith...you believe in sth without a proof, or the proof maybe be clear to you but not to others.

But you can always question and try to understand. You never know, maybe we are closer to the truth.

I personally can put the 2 topics side by side. I love Jesus and I always try to do the good things, and I believe he doesnt hate me for being gay. Doesnt he say not to judge and to love one another ? For example, even if I dont agree with some of the Islamic teachings, I have no right to say they're false as long as you are not inflicting harm on me. I love you regardless of what you believe in because I was told to love others, just as long as you dont punch me in the face and call me "fag!" or abomination ;)

Quasimodo
06-08-10, 16:06
Seems to me most gays (at least the ones on this forum) tend to be pretty stressed out about it.
Who isn't stressed out over their sex life at some point?
And it is still a small minority of the population, so it does not qualify as "normal development". If you consider it statistically it's more an aberration.
Like left-handed people!

If the whole population became gay, the human population would crash pretty quickly. So you could see it as a danger to the human race as a whole.
Or don't you think everyone would become gay? Do you think the current gay population is stable? Do you think it needs to grow? How large do you think it should be? Just large enough to get recognition or even larger? Maybe a majority?
Many gay people want to have families. Homosexuality =/= population control.

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 16:08
^yeah, we adopt the kids you irresponsible heteros produce :rolleyes:

:D

Quasi, :hug:!

lunavixen
06-08-10, 16:11
We aren't discussing Australia.

doesn't America have a high court?

knightgames
06-08-10, 16:21
The Supreme Court is our highest court. Each state has it's own state supreme court. Then you have you lower courts which deal primarily with criminal and civil litigation.


It was the state supreme court that overturned Prop 8.

MangelinaJolie
06-08-10, 16:31
Like left-handed people!

So if you're left-handed and gay (like myself) what does that make you? :p

Cochrane
06-08-10, 17:14
The Supreme Court is our highest court. Each state has it's own state supreme court. Then you have you lower courts which deal primarily with criminal and civil litigation.


It was the state supreme court that overturned Prop 8.

If I recall correctly, the supreme court of california allowed Proposition 8. It was now overturned by the lowest level of federal court, and will most likely go to the federal supreme court, with possibly some steps in between.

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 17:43
Oh no worries, am not taking your posts as bashing, and you raise a very good point. How can we put these 2 topics side by side ?



maybe yes, maybe no. I told you before, if that question could be answered, if we could find the truth, a cutting edge answer, a crystal clear answer with no hint of doubt that not even the most doubtful person could find, we wouldn't be having this arguments.
However, what we can do, is be open-minded, try to understand things, tolerate what may be unusual, because misunderstanding may make it unusual. You don't think I'd love to get answers more than you do ?

but lets put it this way, this may be very complex, and here's why. We have many religions, many beliefs and many opinions, You cannot enforce your religion on me as much as I cant enforce mine on you.
Also, regarding religion, you cannot tell me for sure that the Bible is the word of God. You believe it is. I believe it is because it makes me feel safe and content to know there's something much more powerful than I am is in control. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve ? Did you see Adam and Eve with your own eyes ? No.
Why cant 2 men have babies ? If continuation of life can only be achieved by a man and a woman, doesn't it mean that only a relationship between a man and a woman is right ? A penis and a vagina fit together, so doesnt it mean the same ?
can you tell me that this is all true ? Have you seen Mosis ? Have you seen Jesus ? Have you witnessed how many times the Bible has been rewritten/retranslated and handed down for 2000 years ? Have you got any evidence that the Quran has never been rewritten ? Have you got hardcore evidence that Buddhism and spiritual belief might be the only true religion and the others are false ?

so many questions and yet so little we can do and have to answer them. Its all Faith...you believe in sth without a proof, or the proof maybe be clear to you but not to others.

But you can always question and try to understand. You never know, maybe we are closer to the truth.

I personally can put the 2 topics side by side. I love Jesus and I always try to do the good things, and I believe he doesnt hate me for being gay. Doesnt he say not to judge and to love one another ? For example, even if I dont agree with some of the Islamic teachings, I have no right to say they're false as long as you are not inflicting harm on me. I love you regardless of what you believe in because I was told to love others, just as long as you dont punch me in the face and call me "fag!" or abomination ;)



^yeah, we adopt the kids you irresponsible heteros produce :rolleyes:

:D

Quasi, :hug:!

:vlol:

Okkkk... just busy abit now.....
it's new album by Phil Collins :D
Awesome new songs by this legend..

:p many people say that Phil collins is the best singer for gays...
lmao...donno where from a friend of mine got that :p

ShadyCroft
06-08-10, 17:46
^hmm, heard of him but I dont know him that well, except his songs in Disney's Tarzan.

best singer for gays ? :p I thought that was the fabulous trio of Madonna, Britney and Lady Gaga :D

Avalon SARL
06-08-10, 18:03
^hmm, heard of him but I dont know him that well, except his songs in Disney's Tarzan.

best singer for gays ? :p I thought that was the fabulous trio of Madonna, Britney and Lady Gaga :D

:p
Maybe because his relations with his wives suck :vlol:

Beans-Bot
06-08-10, 18:11
^hmm, heard of him but I dont know him that well, except his songs in Disney's Tarzan.

best singer for gays ? :p I thought that was the fabulous trio of Madonna, Britney and Lady Gaga :D

Add Cyndi Lauper and Kylie Minogue to that list right nao. :mad:

I can't think of any male singers "for gays". I guess Adam Lambert, but that's kinda a given. :o

Carbonek_0051
06-08-10, 18:15
I'm a Christian, and I can't say that I agree with a homosexual lifestyle, but it's not my place to tell people what they can or cannot do. I don't want to judge anyone.

That's why I pretty much choose not to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole, I'm pretty neutral on it.

Same sexed couples are already living as if they are married anyway. I personally find marriage to be a religious union between a couple, which is why I don't understand why a homosexual couple would even want that (it's kind of like an African American joining the KKK in my opinion), but like I said before, I can't tell someone what they should or should not do.

I'm Christian and I am a homosexual, so I don't know what our religion has to do with not agreeing with the homosexual "lifestyle". My mom is Christian and she supports me completely.

Also, I don't understand your comparison. The whole KKK thing is extreme, while a gay person wanting to be married isn't. Last I checked gay people can be part of religion, like myself. You make it sound like gay people are against religion.

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-08-10, 18:20
I'm Christian and I am a homosexual, so I don't know what our religion has to do with not agreeing with the homosexual "lifestyle". My mom is Christian and she supports me completely.

Also, I don't understand your comparison. The whole KKK thing is extreme, while a gay person wanting to be married isn't. Last I checked gay people can be part of religion, like myself. You make it sound like gay people are against religion.

Well it probably depends on the religion, and how hardcore one is into it. I have a real close gay friend that says he's a Christian, but I haven't really discussed it that much with him.

I just know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and actually considers it an abomination, hence the KKK comparison.

The whole thing (a christian homosexual) confuses me, which is why I try to stay out of it for the most part. I'm not in the business of judging people or telling them what they can or cannot be, but I still feel like a homosexual Christian is like an African American KKK member.

I mean that in no offense. If you have an explanation, then please enlighten me, because the whole notion confuses me.

Cochrane
06-08-10, 18:27
I am not sure about how gay people see religion, considering that I am neither gay nor religious, but my guess is that they, like most christians, pick and choose what part of the Bible to believe in and what parts to disregard. And there are not that many parts of the Bible you have to disregard to make it fully compatible with homosexuality.

Apart from that, I donít think marriage is a religious thing. It can be religious, sure, but I think it is more than that, a universal bond and institution used by and available for everyone, no matter what religion they belong to or whether they are even religious at all.