Spain has voted Gay marriages & adoption... [Archive]

SwiftSloth

06-30-2005, 09:19 PM

Actually its fact, not opinion. Heterosexuality is the norm. It is normal. Homosexuality is a deviation. It is abnormal. Don't try to ignore objective facts now.

Normality, so what? No one is normal. Everyone is individual. Their have been many abnormal things in the course of history, that are now absolute normal. I suppose deep down you really do feel women are incapable of working dont you? Because it didnt used to be normal... But you see, now it is... Normality means nothing.

I think this thread proves that their activities have a huge effect on others.

Only because people choose their own reactions. I choose to be passive and allow them to enjoy their lives how they You choose to try and opress their happiness, because... IDK, you dont like things you dont understand? Your jealouse that they can actually be happy with eachother, and maybe you have trouble finding someone to be happy with? Maybe your a closet homosexual who was brought up in an extremely conservative environment that frowned on it, and you feel the need to opress it by lashing out at others? The reasons are numerous for any person to oppose homosexuality. But non of them are valid. Just old dogmas.

It will not happen because homosexuality is not the norm, it is abnormal. It is impossible. What are you hoping for, millions of genetic mutations to occur over the next 10 years making half the population gay? Thats not going to happen, bud.

? So in order to have the right, you must be the majority? :bs:

You see, I have no problem giving minorities the same rights as myself, so long as they dont use those rights to impose their beliefs on me. Gay marriage doesnt come close to imposing on my rights.

If you or gays don't like the fact that homosexuality is abnormal and a biological defect, them I suggest you go pack your bags and live in some kind of dream world.

... Let me try and put it this way: Humans are made to have sex... so if I never marry, and never have sex, I have a biological defect? So tell me, Contra, and you of course dont have to answer this is if you dont want to: Are you normal yet? Are you going to be? When can I become normal?

Its all about interpretation... And mass consensus does not = correct philosiphy contra.

SwiftSloth

06-30-2005, 09:20 PM

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

Whats more, by the logic used by Contra, they have a biological defect.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 11:46 PM

Honest question: What proof do you have that homosexuality is a biological defect, as opposed to a biological occurance, such as hair color, or eye color?

Current biological evidnce points in that direction. http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8622 These latest findings suggest a genetic abnormality or flaw which inadvertently "turns on" femininity in males and masculinity in females, the root cause of homosexuality or bisexuality. Where as eye color is a product of normal genetic development, homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia (ins some cases) and retardation (in some cases) are examples of unintentional genetic flaws which hinder the survival of the individual or species.

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

Families are the basic building block of Western cultures and of republican societies. Marriage is an institution designed to bind the family together according to judeo-christian tradition and for the transmission values. No such institution is neccessary for individuals outside of such relationships. Therefore the question is fundamentally moot. Legally they can be married, and they can call themselves married but there is really no point to it.

A father and a daughter could have a child, sick as that may be...

Yes I know, but that is simply biologically reproduction, not a true family.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 11:50 PM

Whats more, by the logic used by Contra, they have a biological defect.

I never stated anything of the sort. Stop making **** up. :rolleyes:

CowPunk

06-30-2005, 11:58 PM

Current biological evidnce points in that direction. http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8622 These latest findings suggest a genetic abnormality or flaw which inadvertently "turns on" femininity in males and masculinity in females, the root cause of homosexuality or bisexuality. Where as eye color is a product of normal genetic development, homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia (ins some cases) and retardation (in some cases) are examples of unintentional genetic flaws which hinder the survival of the individual or species.
- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

Families are the basic building block of Western cultures and of republican societies. Marriage is an institution designed to bind the family together according to judeo-christian tradition and for the transmission values.
- No, religious marriage is, and even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

No such institution is neccessary for individuals outside of such relationships. Therefore the question is fundamentally moot. Legally they can be married, and they can call themselves married but there is really no point to it.
- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

Yes I know, but that is simply biologically reproduction, not a true family.
- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is. Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

Zoot

07-01-2005, 12:11 AM

None of us have any idea how this will work until a couple of decades have gone by. I bet it'll be the same end result as most marriages......which are in divorce status.

Patrician

07-01-2005, 12:31 AM

Normality, so what? No one is normal.

Yes, people are. Heterosexuality, for example, is normal. Deviation from heterosexual behavior is abnormal.

Their have been many abnormal things in the course of history, that are now absolute normal.

I think you are confusing normal behavior from accepted behavior. They are two very different things. Homosexuality will never be normal. Perhaps some day it will be forced into acceptance but that will not make it normal.

I suppose deep down you really do feel women are incapable of working dont you?

Not married ones with young children, no. They should raise their own children, not send them off to some minimum wage day care slob. Other than that I could care less. What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

Because it didnt used to be normal... But you see, now it is... Normality means nothing.

Normality has a very clear, straightforward definition:

normal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

norm
n.
A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

Normality does not mean "nothing". If it referred to a state that was undistinguishable from any other state, there would be label required. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

I choose to be passive and allow them to enjoy their lives how they. You choose to try and opress their happiness

Nonsense. I don't care about any of them or want to have any thing to do with them. When they try to change MY culture and impose themselves on ME, they are oppressing ME and its my job to fight back and highlight their crimes.

you dont like things you dont understand?

The problem here is that I understand too well exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

Your jealouse that they can actually be happy with eachother, and maybe you have trouble finding someone to be happy with?

Maybe your a closet homosexual who was brought up in an extremely conservative environment that frowned on it, and you feel the need to opress it by lashing out at others?

So now homosexuality is perfectly normal but those who question the actions of homosexuals are head cases? Don't you see the blaring hypocrisy in your own argument? You scream that its intolerant to label these people defective then you proclaim those who dissent and question are the defectives? You've argued yourself into a corner on this one bud. Nice move.

The reasons are numerous for any person to oppose homosexuality. But non of them are valid. Just old dogmas.

I am not opposed to the state of being known as homosexuality. I am opposed to homosexual marriage and other special rights for gays and the homosexual lifestyle, not because of dogma but because they are flawed and irrational, illegal and immoral.

? So in order to have the right, you must be the majority? :bs:

It is not a right. How old are you? Why do you keep confusing basic concepts like rights, normality and acceptance? Something that is normal is the norm or archetype of a population. In this case, heterosexuality. It has nothing to do with rights or the majority. Its a fact or reality, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, the archetype.

You see, I have no problem giving minorities the same rights as myself,

I propose that everyone have the same rights. Marriage is not a right, however, neither is normality. Marriage is a cultural institution which government should not be regulating. Normality is a label given to the state of being for some objects in relation to other objects. What you want is special rights for gays, not equal rights for all.

so long as they dont use those rights to impose their beliefs on me. Gay marriage doesnt come close to imposing on my rights.

Oh yes it does. Gay marriage is a direct attack on our freedom by left-wing extremists.

... Let me try and put it this way: Humans are made to have sex... so if I never marry, and never have sex, I have a biological defect? So tell me, Contra, and you of course dont have to answer this is if you dont want to: Are you normal yet? Are you going to be? When can I become normal?

Jesus man, where do you pull this **** from? Do you just make **** up as you go? Seriously how old are you? You REALLY need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Its all about interpretation... And mass consensus does not = correct philosiphy contra.

Again with confusing concepts. I was never talking about consensus, I was talking about normality, they are two totally separate things. You keep lumping different concepts together. Why do you think they have different names and definitions? Come on man, wake up already.

Patrician

07-01-2005, 12:46 AM

- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

Where did you pull this BS straw man from? Didn't you read what I wrote before you responded? Why don't you try responding to my argument rather than making something up? Can't compete?

- No, religious marriage is

What the hell are you yammering on about now?

even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

As I noted, I was speaking in contect of Western culture. Don't you pay attention duder? :rolleyes:

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

There is no such thing as a "gay family." "Civil marriage" is not an institution, its a program run by the state for regulating personal relationships. It should not exist, IMO, the state should not regulate marriage.

- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

Sorry, wrong again. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not civil marriage which I've alredy said should not exist as the goverment has no right or duty to involve itself in personal relationships. Don't you bother reading anything before you respond to it? :nonono:

- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is.

No its not. I am again speaking in the context of a Western society. How many times do I have to say this over and over until it FINALLY sinks in? A family has a specific definition. If a family can be anything, then the word family means nothing.

Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

Love is part of the relationship between family members, but it does not define a family. Some of these relationships are valid, some are not. A gay cross-dressing man who ****s sheep pretending to me a mom to a young child is not valid- its perverse and totally unhealthy.

As marriage is a WESTERN cultural institution, it is western, republican, judeo-christian society that defines its limits and nature and we have defined gays OUT of it. Thats it bud, and nothing you say or do can ever change that. If gays want to be married and have families, they better either learn to control their instincts and starting acting like heteros or hope for a biological cure for gayness.

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 01:03 AM

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj0502.htm

What happened to gay parents supposedly not having any impact on their adopted children? This is full of courses that claim otherwise. Haven't followed any of them up however, but i probably will later.

Della April

07-01-2005, 01:06 AM

Agreed, this makes me want to barf.

This just shows how a well organized minority group, no matter how radical or extremist, can manipulate the political system to their own benefit against the laws of sociey, civilization and nature. Unfortunatly the good guys didn't win this one this time but it doesn't mean we aren't right. We are. Might doesn't make right. Laws can't cover up the blaring realities of biology, those who still think see right past this act of tyranny. The homosexual extremists are making a power grab. The next thing we'll see is affirmitive action and reparations for gays as well as other special rights.
Well said, Dazen. :nice:

Della April

07-01-2005, 01:09 AM

w00t w00t.... Spain is the shizzle... Id say the US is within 10 years, then 10 years later no one will care, and it will be perfectly normal.
Let's hope not! :nonono:

Della April

07-01-2005, 01:14 AM

Honest question: What proof do you have that homosexuality is a biological defect, as opposed to a biological occurance, such as hair color, or eye color?

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

A father and a daughter could have a child, sick as that may be...
The founding of a family doesn't necessarily mean having children. IMO, homosexuality is a defect, and that's all there is to it. Most gays want it to be biological, but it is a choice, and not a healthy one, psychologically or physically.

Della April

07-01-2005, 01:19 AM

- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

- No, religious marriage is, and even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is. Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

There was a case in New Zealand a few years ago, of a father who had had control of his daughter, and claimed to the neighbours she was his wife - he even got her pregnant - but he made the mistake of letting her get out of his control. He's now in prison for years to come - although she had to move to Germany to get truly free of him. Family, bullsh*t! :bs:

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 01:31 AM

Where did you pull this BS straw man from? Didn't you read what I wrote before you responded? Why don't you try responding to my argument rather than making something up? Can't compete?
- In other words, you can't deal with the point with a rational argument.

What the hell are you yammering on about now?
- See above.

As I noted, I was speaking in contect of Western culture. Don't you pay attention duder? :rolleyes:
- Irrelevant - civil marriage performed by a judge is NOT religious marriage.

There is no such thing as a "gay family." "Civil marriage" is not an institution, its a program run by the state for regulating personal relationships. It should not exist, IMO, the state should not regulate marriage.
- Civil marriage is CERTAINLY an institution - it's just a civil one. It is whatever the state says it is. Two entirely separate things: religious marriage and civil marriage.

And marriage has to be regulated because it involves child custody and property issues, and many other ones fundamental to the welfare of the state and people.

Sorry, wrong again. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not civil marriage which I've alredy said should not exist as the goverment has no right or duty to involve itself in personal relationships. Don't you bother reading anything before you respond to it? :nonono:
- Sorry, but this is bull**** - we DO have civil marriage, and the fact you don't like it doesn't change the fact that we do. The state has oversight of marriage, and that's that.

No its not. I am again speaking in the context of a Western society. How many times do I have to say this over and over until it FINALLY sinks in? A family has a specific definition. If a family can be anything, then the word family means nothing.
- Even if that were true it would NOT mandate that YOUR definition of "family" be the one accepted. A family for legal purposes is whatever the state says it is.

Love is part of the relationship between family members, but it does not define a family. Some of these relationships are valid, some are not. A gay cross-dressing man who ****s sheep pretending to me a mom to a young child is not valid- its perverse and totally unhealthy.
- Straw man - a parent's sexual behavior has NOTHING to do with the definition of "family," as married heterosexual partners' families aren't suddenly nonfamilies because the parents engage in sex with a sheep.

As marriage is a WESTERN cultural institution
- No, it's not - it's a universal human one, and not just a Western one.

it is western, republican, judeo-christian society that defines its limits and nature and we have defined gays OUT of it. Thats it bud, and nothing you say or do can ever change that. If gays want to be married and have families, they better either learn to control their instincts and starting acting like heteros or hope for a biological cure for gayness.
- No, actually what the Supreme Court says will change it. Whether you like it or not, the state has oversight and will define these things as is consonant with the law.

If they change the definitions that you now hold, they'll no longer exist under the scrutiny of the law as they did previously. The fact you think it isn't within your conception of culture is irrelevant.

The definitions of marriage and family are as fluid as anything else, and will change as society does. And, as always, you'll get owned.

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 01:32 AM

There was a case in New Zealand a few years ago, of a father who had had control of his daughter, and claimed to the neighbours she was his wife - he even got her pregnant - but he made the mistake of letting her get out of his control. He's now in prison for years to come - although she had to move to Germany to get truly free of him. Family, bullsh*t! :bs:
- This is irrelevant to the discussion. They never stopped being a "family," they were simply a family that committed incest.

SwiftSloth

07-01-2005, 01:59 AM

Yes, people are. Heterosexuality, for example, is normal. Deviation from heterosexual behavior is abnormal.

No. This is very simple, so follow me here:

Anything not normal is abnormal. The norm is what the majority believes. The majority, can often times be very wrong, making what was abnormal, actually correct. This is proven countless times during history. I’m not saying homosexual is the true correct/norm... I’m saying whether it’s normal or not does not for one second cause grounds to oppress those who would do it. You can’t say that because a majority of people do it this way, that is the norm, and there is no other way it can be done. There are so many levels of 'normal' that saying so only means your interpretation/breakdown of what normal is to you. So by your logic: All vegetarians shouldn’t be allowed to only eat vegetables, because eating meat is the norm. We should not allow abnormal behavior. We should not allow killing, because to murder is abnormal behavior, normally we do not do this. Eating peanut butter and jelly with carrots on it should not be allowed, as it is certainly not normal. See how flawed your logic is when applied to true worldly logic, as opposed to oppressive dogmatic views?

I think you are confusing normal behavior from accepted behavior. They are two very different things. Homosexuality will never be normal. Perhaps some day it will be forced into acceptance but that will not make it normal.

This can be said about tons of things going on today. And worse yet, a lot of the things that this can be said about, actually are oppressive and harmful to others then those who obtain those rights. Yet, you choose to back such ideals, and oppose ideals which would grant individual rights despite their lack of implications on your own.

Not married ones with young children, no. They should raise their own children, not send them off to some minimum wage day care slob. Other than that I could care less. What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

LOL. Thank you for proving my point... BTW, I went to daycare. I enjoyed it very much.

Normality has a very clear, straightforward definition:

Normal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

norm
n.
A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

Normality does not mean "nothing". If it referred to a state that was undistinguishable from any other state, there would be label required. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

No, it does. Because who decides what the 'standard, pattern or level/type' are? Its all a matter of opinion as to what should truly be normal. Let me help you on this one:

o•pin•ion P Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

mmk? Just because you feel that heterosexuality is 'your norm', this is far from true to the norm of homosexuals.

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

Hmm... I feel lame saying this, but alls I can say is--'So?' What does that do for your argument? It’s not normal... So I don’t like it... K, that’s fine... Also, defining the intentions done in sexual intercourse as opposed to homosexual intercourse are two very different things. One is impregnation, the other is sexual gratification, which is a very serious requirement of being human. They serve different purposes.

Nonsense. I don't care about any of them or want to have any thing to do with them. When they try to change MY culture and impose themselves on ME, they are oppressing ME and it’s my job to fight back and highlight their crimes.

What 'crimes' would that be? Did they harm you, take something from you? Are you going to be not allowed to do something anymore? Did they take your land? Did they try to force you into homosexual activities (forcing themselves on you)? Near as I can tell, when they ask for personal rights, that really doesn’t affect you. You can get over the culture shock. All those who fear change eventually do. Or grow old and bitter on their front porch talking about the good old days. Either way, you can’t really be happy with your position of oppressing others. Especially a losing one.

The problem here is that I understand too well exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

? The assertation of their own rights in society?

So now homosexuality is perfectly normal but those who question the actions of homosexuals are head cases?

Not at all. But those who would take it to a degree of oppressing that which they’ve never taken part in or for that matter clearly have no desire to understand the situation, I really could care less for. Unless you can tell me that you got gang raped by a bunch of gay guys, I have a hard time believing you have grounds for your opinion besides you were taught that homosexual is evil, which really has no grounds. And if it’s my perception that heterosexuality is evil, would I be correct? No more then you are. (Just so you don’t flip out, because I know you will, im not saying heterosexuality is evil.. At least I hope not. :))

Don't you see the blaring hypocrisy in your own argument? You scream that it’s intolerant to label these people defective then you proclaim those who dissent and question are the defectives? You've argued yourself into a corner on this one bud. Nice move.

Nah. Although I did enjoy your straw man.

I am not opposed to the state of being known as homosexuality. I am opposed to homosexual marriage and other special rights for gays and the homosexual lifestyle, not because of dogma but because they are flawed and irrational, illegal and immoral.

Special rights? I don’t see what’s special about having the exact same rights as everyone else. You’re denying them rights, and then claim they want special rights... Also, you prove that indeed you operate on dogmatic views by then turning around and claiming homosexuality (although you aren’t opposed to the state of it) is flawed, irrational, illegal and immoral... All dogmatic views which you have no grounds for.

Oh yes it does. Gay marriage is a direct attack on our freedom by left-wing extremists.

Well, sure sucks that you’re going to lose it... Damn the supporting of over 1.2 million members of this country... Dude, your going to have to accept it: There are over a million people in this country who are gay. They didn’t ship over here, they were born here this way. They are a part of our culture. As much as this bothers you, it’s how it goes.

Jesus man, where do you pull this **** from? Do you just make **** up as you go? Seriously how old are you? You REALLY need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Hahahaha... actually Id have to say if you cant grasp my analogy at all, and can merely say 'do you make this up', you must really be lacking in the area your attempting to critic me in. You see, my analogy makes perfect sense. But, because it doesn’t suite your dogmatic certainties in your own ideals, you would never stand a chance of willingly conceding it to be truth, even if god himself smacked you in the face with it. You’d say 'nope, gods wrong, because my logic is right.' It just doesn’t matter to you.

Again with confusing concepts. I was never talking about consensus, I was talking about normality, they are two totally separate things. You keep lumping different concepts together. Why do you think they have different names and definitions? Come on man, wake up already.

LOL... We live in a world where everything, all concepts and ideas must at all times be connected. You can’t just say 'I’m going to prove creationism by using the bible' and then be pist when people use scientific data to argue about what you’re saying... Bad analogy on that one, I know. But surely even you can grasp where im coming from: All aspects of a situation must be taken in to decide the truth of the matter. You can state your opinion, but you can’t pick and choose your argument, leaving out certain aspects that would go against it, in a real argument, and then get pist off when someone else brings them in.

Della April

07-01-2005, 04:43 AM

- This is irrelevant to the discussion. They never stopped being a "family," they were simply a family that committed incest.

Not, in her case, willingly. That being so, the father forfeited his right to be involved in any family his daughter was in.

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 04:45 AM

Yes, quite typically, gay families don't commit criminal offenses against their children. :rolleyes:

Von Apfelstrudel

07-01-2005, 07:58 AM

A marriage is a moral relationship whose purpose is to build a family. Gays cannot achieve these ends, wrong ...
nor could a relationship between say a father and daughter.
... and childish .

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 08:06 AM

Yes, quite typically, gay families don't commit criminal offenses against their children. :rolleyes:

According to Adolescence magazine's study, they actually do.

Della April

07-01-2005, 08:25 AM

According to Adolesence magazine's study, they actuslly do.
That makes sense to me....

johann_moritz

07-01-2005, 08:51 AM

Quo vadis, Domine?

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 09:39 AM

Thats impossible because homosexuality is not normal.

You really have an obsession with what's "normal", huh Dazen? Normal to who, you? NO thanks.

That you actually think homosexuality is a biological defect shows that you, are the one who is brainwashed. Spain voted to make this change, because just like we voted for Civil Rights, they realize its time to allow for change and evolution , and recognize what is now accepted . albeit not the norm, except, to biggots like you. :nonono:
You are 24 years old and think you have everything pegged, right? Do me a favor, watch this week's 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock. Its about taking someone like you, and having them live with a gay man in San Francisco for 30 Days to see if any of the prejudices change. You're young. There's still hope for you, in my mind. :nice:

Oh, and just so you know, I recently got married, to a man. Not in a church, by a JP who I do theatre with.... who is a Dead Head and a single mom :nice:
And although I would like to have a child someday, right now, my husband does not. We never got married just to have children. and to say that Saison, Baboon, and perhaps my stance on that is irrelvant is insulting.

Do you have children??? :rolleyes:

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 10:04 AM

According to Adolescence magazine's study, they actually do.
- Uh, no - according to forty years of research across multiple nations, they don't. Let's see some references to Adolesence's study so we can examine its validity.

Misteria

07-01-2005, 10:09 AM

wow i didnt realise how close minded some people were as regard to the rights of individuals rights such as living together legally and protecting their inheritance with their partners after nurturing and looking after each other as us straight people.........
i cant judge the love of 2 people of the same sex who am i to judge them?
who am i to turn my back on a person because he / she is a homosexual?
who am i to stop that a child be allowed to be adopted and given a happy home regardless of his parents sex?
i am no one but a lady with her heart in the right place and who cares enough for the happiness of others.

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 10:18 AM

king of kings

07-01-2005, 10:19 AM

Yeah you got that right, good post Anrora. :) :nice:

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 10:26 AM

In further news, Spain is now called *lisp* Spheeeeeeyn *lisp*

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 10:34 AM

In further news, Spain is now called *lisp* Spheeeeeeyn *lisp*

Ok, Jon Stewart. :p

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 10:38 AM

Ok, Jon Stewart. :p

I take it that Jon Stewart allready made this joke?

Damn him... I could so replace that morAn...
if I only knew something about politics.

...or news.

:|

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 11:44 AM

I take it that Jon Stewart allready made this joke?

Damn him... I could so replace that morAn...
if I only knew something about politics.

...or news.

:|
No - don't worry - you're still the all original hysterical freak that you are. :p

You could sell him that joke though. :nice:

TheLateGreat

07-01-2005, 02:45 PM

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 02:50 PM

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

Not according to Webster:

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 02:50 PM

Can one go to spain, get married there, and come back to the states and be considered legally married. ...or does this marraige become null and void upon re-entering the US?

TheLateGreat

07-01-2005, 02:51 PM

Most gays want it to be biological, but it is a choice, and not a healthy one, psychologically or physically.

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

X3nos

07-01-2005, 02:56 PM

Well its here and official :cool:
Lets see how it goes and what you guys and gals think.......... :D
discuss :|

I'm happy for Spain... Breaking anti-equality barriers. :)

-michele

X3nos

07-01-2005, 03:04 PM

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

Good post.

Homosexuality is physiological. And perfectly natural, I might add. BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GAY! A little bit, at least.

Some may believe what they want about gays and their supposed ability to "choose," but your beliefs do not change reality.

I ask you this: can you all of a sudden up and "choose" to become gay? Why or why not?

-michele

igofast

07-01-2005, 05:14 PM

Not according to Webster:

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law
He doesn't say he deserves to be married. He said he deserves the legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

There is a difference, and I'd like marriage to be allowed to gays, but even if it's not, they should be allowed legal partnerships that grant them the same privileges and protections as a marriage.

SwiftSloth

07-01-2005, 05:31 PM

BTW, Modern day webster sucks.

Stigger

07-01-2005, 07:14 PM

None of us have any idea how this will work until a couple of decades have gone by. I bet it'll be the same end result as most marriages......which are in divorce status.

Who knows how the gay marriage experiment will turn out, but while none of us can truly know what the future holds, there are many indications even today telling us what the likely result of our changing culture will be.

The West is becoming something twisted and decadent, weak from apathy, greed and perversion. While gay marriage is just a small example of this, I think it is a part that demonstrates very clearly it's decline, and what will be an inevitable departure, first from the world stage, then from the world altogether.

Westerners prattle on about values like equality, tolerance and diversity, but from their mouths these ideals ring hollow, because they are weak. Their spirits(not in a religious sense. I lack a better word) are atrophied and in the coming years they will lack the strength to defend these ideals. It might someday be argued that our inability to defend these ideals will have been due to their conception and overly enthusiastic adherence to them in the first place.

You can see the beginning of our fall even now. The countries of the west are filling up with those who are not of the west. They mouth it's values but it is only a charade. In the end they will not truly integrate but instead build something new over the bloated corpse of what was the West. We will have been replaced by a stronger more virile civilization. One that liberal-minded people are not going to like(or conservatives for that matter).

living love

07-03-2005, 01:37 AM

If homosexuals were taken out and stoned to death like in the old days you would find almost no one practicing this evil. This homo stuff is just mind control by the Luciferan, Illuminati (TPTP) to rob you of you soul and family. This is being pushed for population reduction etc. http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html http://www.savethemales.ca/241001.html

Della April

07-03-2005, 01:53 AM

Betrade

07-03-2005, 09:07 AM

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

So be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Marriage isn't all it's cracked up to be in many cases, and when gays start down the road of divorce, child custody battles, child support, alimony, etc., many of them WILL wish they had not gotten married. They'll be longing for the good old days when these things weren't an issue. Those who marry to prove a point to society will be very disappointed when things go sour. They'll understand what many of us straight people have had to suffer through.

Over half of heterosexual marriages fail ( since 1990, it's up to 64% in America, according to one poll I have read), and out of the other half, a certian percentage are miserable unions that are only continued because of the children created during the marriage or financial reasons.

With the high incedence of promiscuity and unfaithfulness in male homosexual relationships (statistically speaking), I would bet all of my money that the divorce rate in that group will exceed 75% if marriages become the norm. I don't really care much about the issue one way or another, but all I can say is, "good luck, you're gonna' need it".

Smashing Young Man

07-03-2005, 09:26 AM

Who knows how the gay marriage experiment will turn out, but while none of us can truly know what the future holds, there are many indications even today telling us what the likely result of our changing culture will be.

The West is becoming something twisted and decadent, weak from apathy, greed and perversion. While gay marriage is just a small example of this, I think it is a part that demonstrates very clearly it's decline, and what will be an inevitable departure, first from the world stage, then from the world altogether.

Westerners prattle on about values like equality, tolerance and diversity, but from their mouths these ideals ring hollow, because they are weak. Their spirits(not in a religious sense. I lack a better word) are atrophied and in the coming years they will lack the strength to defend these ideals. It might someday be argued that our inability to defend these ideals will have been due to their conception and overly enthusiastic adherence to them in the first place.

You can see the beginning of our fall even now. The countries of the west are filling up with those who are not of the west. They mouth it's values but it is only a charade. In the end they will not truly integrate but instead build something new over the bloated corpse of what was the West. We will have been replaced by a stronger more virile civilization. One that liberal-minded people are not going to like(or conservatives for that matter).
Well said and all too true.

It really amazes me how an entire culture - the West - can become so adamantly suicidal. Liberals claim to be the intellectual vanguard, yet they can't see the inevitable outcome of the path they have set us all upon. This won't end in a Utopian equalitarian society, and it won't be we western conservatives who bring it all crashing down upon their heads.

I sometimes feel like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, when she was caught up in that nightmare, screaming and banging on the fence while the children play in their little equalitarian playground, oblivious to their imminent doom.

johann_moritz

07-03-2005, 10:03 AM

Hmmm, I guess they have now the right to suffer like the rest of us. This really sweetens the news.

Stigger

07-03-2005, 12:04 PM

TheLateGreat

07-03-2005, 01:29 PM

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

Fantastic. As an intelligent, responsible adult, I'm eager to make my own decisions on the matter.

Somebody

07-03-2005, 03:44 PM

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

You're gay due to something that happened in your llife, the way you were raised, some outer influence. People are not born gay.

I'm sure you don't want the persecution. Everyone wants to be accepted.
Everyone deserves to be accepted as an equal human being, but homosexuality does not have to be accepted.

Love the person, hate the act.

Everyone is equal.

Homosexual marriage doesn't make sense.

It's just one step closer to the end of time.

When this world gets so bad that there's no redemption.
(Sodom & Gomorrah) our Lord will come.

This is just one more step in that direction.

Evil Pure Evil

07-03-2005, 04:02 PM

You're gay due to something that happened in your llife, the way you were raised, some outer influence. People are not born gay.

I'm sure you don't want the persecution. Everyone wants to be accepted.
Everyone deserves to be accepted as an equal human being, but homosexuality does not have to be accepted.

If you go by that then civilisation will never improve. We've got to learn to treat eachother with respect and accept everyone. The same thing happened with people of different races. They were heavily discriminated against, and now that has stopped the world is a better place. Gays are just the same. I don't particualry agree with homosexuality, but stopping them from making a family and being able to love in public will get us nowhere. You may not want homosexuality to be accepted but it's the 21st century, it is becoming accpeted whether we like it or not.

Somebody

07-03-2005, 05:45 PM

If you go by that then civilisation will never improve

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

jmarley60

07-03-2005, 06:18 PM

(...)

When this world gets so bad that there's no redemption.
(Sodom & Gomorrah) our Lord will come.

This is just one more step in that direction.

I'm confused here. The Christians I know want the Lord to return yesterday. Going by this logica - wouldn't that just mean that gays are (indirectly) helping Christians to reach that day faster?

Battletoad

07-03-2005, 11:06 PM

Well said and all too true.

It really amazes me how an entire culture - the West - can become so adamantly suicidal. Liberals claim to be the intellectual vanguard, yet they can't see the inevitable outcome of the path they have set us all upon. This won't end in a Utopian equalitarian society, and it won't be we western conservatives who bring it all crashing down upon their heads.

I sometimes feel like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, when she was caught up in that nightmare, screaming and banging on the fence while the children play in their little equalitarian playground, oblivious to their imminent doom.

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?! Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

Stigger

07-04-2005, 11:38 AM

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?!

No one said that the fate of western civilization depends on whether or not a law allowing same sex marriage passes. I think the fate of the west is already a done deal, the point of no return was crossed a long time ago. As I said, homosexual marriage is merely one example of the kind of thinking that got us where we are.

Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

It is a small mind that separates every issue into liberalism and conservatism. One does not need to be a conservative to oppose homosexual marriage, or to oppose the dead-end that liberalism will prove to be for it's practitioner nations. It is pretty clear as well that contemporary conservatism has proved to be just as harmful to the west as liberalism, perhaps more so.

Somebody

07-04-2005, 12:15 PM

I'm confused here. The Christians I know want the Lord to return yesterday. Going by this logica - wouldn't that just mean that gays are (indirectly) helping Christians to reach that day faster?

The path is already set.
This world is in a downward decent.
No one is against the people that commit homosexual acts.
The acts are abnormal.
They are against God.
We're still here for one reason,
for as many souls as possible to be saved,
before the world is deemed hopeless.

Marriage between homosexuals ia a farce.
God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real. :not:

Von Apfelstrudel

07-04-2005, 12:22 PM

God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real. :not:
the law will acknowledge such marriages.
so they're real .

Let this "God" person sue the spanish goverment in court, or get elected in the Spanish chamber /get appointed in the Spanish Goverment, if he wants to have abrogate the law

btw, what's his first name ? John God ? Manuel God ? We'll have to know, for his lawsuit to be valid . :|

:rolleyes:

Myrddin

07-04-2005, 02:11 PM

God can be made support any side of any issue because he is just a voice in some persons head or just a person cynically using the name of this supernatural being to support what ever they are saying. Unless God can physically come forward to state his opinion, what he says what he says through proxies is irrelevant.

TheLateGreat

07-04-2005, 02:53 PM

Marriage between homosexuals ia a farce.
God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real.

Well then the gays will all go to Hell when they're done. Fantastic. Meanwhile, during their 60/70/80 years on earth, the man-made institution of government can treat them like anyone else who pays taxes to said institution and walks up to the courthouse for a marriage license: give it to them so that in their time on earth they can be certain that their legal guarantor/heir/etc is the person they want in that role. It has no bearing, as you've said, on how God decides their fate, so let's not lay the smackdown on 'em twice.

Battletoad

07-04-2005, 04:30 PM

No one said that the fate of western civilization depends on whether or not a law allowing same sex marriage passes. I think the fate of the west is already a done deal, the point of no return was crossed a long time ago. As I said, homosexual marriage is merely one example of the kind of thinking that got us where we are.

Which is what, precisely?

It is a small mind that separates every issue into liberalism and conservatism.

I was being very tongue-in-cheek. But I agree, and is largely what I hate about political debate nowadays. Instead of discussing deficiencies in the tax system, or industry groups' not-so-positive influence on government-funded research, most of us end of debating how liberals generally hate freedom , and how conservatives are generally inbred hicks. I've heard replacing the "c" with a "k" in America and public school alleviates this problem.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 04:37 PM

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

Hahahahaha... What an oxymoron.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Join the KKK. I think they'r still opposed to change of any sort.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 04:47 PM

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

Not a race, but a dis-grace . Already the others are comming out of closets . Go check out zoophiles and tolerate beastiality too , and most homos accept them . Wil we love the serial killer and hate the person ? The serial killer is the person, so I don't like him or his act, he is the act and vice versa . This is just something a hypocrit money snatching preacher came up with, makes no sense . Acts don't just happen .

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 04:53 PM

I think you're reading from the wrong end of the bible, Pap...

I don't understand why we won't allow homosexuals to marry, or "have the same protections under the..." whatever...

Who gets hurt if gay people want to be married? Or enter into civil union, if "marriage" is a word that, by definition, cannot apply. So freakin' what?

If two people declare their love for each other, why should I care if it's two dudes or two chicks? They're both consenting adults, then WHO CARES?

I don't get this at all...

As for the biblical argument, the bible says a LOT of things we should and shouldn't do... As for me, I go with what the Big Guy said- "There is no greater law than this: Love one another as I love you."

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 04:53 PM

Hahahahaha... What an oxymoron.

Join the KKK. I think they'r still opposed to change of any sort.

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Is this the way you look at child molesting killers too ? Or people who like animals ? It shouldv'e been kept out of society . Lots of people like drugs and can't change , some will do anything for money too, but this is no reason for society to have to bare it .

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 04:56 PM

Is this the way you look at child molesting killers too ? Or people who like animals ? It shouldv'e been kept out of society . Lots of people like drugs and can't change , some will do anything for money too, but this is no reason for society to have to bare it .

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 05:31 PM

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

So be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. .....

How dare you imply that he might not know that simply because he's gay. And how dare you imply that, by virtue of homosexualitly, one might not be willing or able to make the leap of faith into a marriage that heterosexuals are free to make. How dare you patronize the gay community in that way. Shame, shame on you!

And, yes! I am wagging my finger at you!

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 05:40 PM

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?! Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

better douche bag than enema .

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 05:43 PM

Well then the gays will all go to Hell when they're done. Fantastic. Meanwhile, during their 60/70/80 years on earth, the man-made institution of government can treat them like anyone else who pays taxes to said institution and walks up to the courthouse for a marriage license: give it to them so that in their time on earth they can be certain that their legal guarantor/heir/etc is the person they want in that role. It has no bearing, as you've said, on how God decides their fate, so let's not lay the smackdown on 'em twice.

where will you draw the line ? Or is there a line ?

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 05:52 PM

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Meh. I seriously think theirs just a filter in their brain that blocks out the entire 'consenting' thingy when discussing things they dont like. They view being gay as wrong, so they compare it to other things they think is wrong. The only problem is, they take it to far, citing things like murder, child molestation, rapers, crack heads, etc etc... The only problem is, being gay, while done safely (just like heterosexuality) has no negative effects on society (unless you consider Society what is, should always be). You see, homosexuality imposes wrong will on no one. It is love between two men or women. Not a catholic priest molesting an unconsenting naive child, who's told if he doesnt do what the priest says, he's going to hell... But oh yes, lets not discuss nastiness such as this... The catholic church is good for allowing 1,000+ of these men to exist... On the other hand, Gay people, who'v never done **** to 99.99999999% of the people who oppose homosexuality, get criticed to high hell. I love society.

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 05:53 PM

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once they have stepped over the line , everuthing else is easier. Most homos like children for sex . Thats why they call little boys,' chicken '. Lesbos aren't quiet as bad . But they protect the males 'choice'. Watch how many gather at NAMBLA functions. How can one pervert correct anothers lifestyle ?

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 05:57 PM

Once they have stepped over the line , everuthing else is easier. Most homos like children for sex . Thats why they call little boys,' chicken '. Lesbos aren't quiet as bad . But they protect the males 'choice'. Watch how many gather at NAMBLA functions. How can one pervert correct anothers lifestyle ?

*sigh*

First off, your claim of 'most homos like children for sex' is perhaps the most baseless stupid claim iv heard in quite a while. It just stamps 'baseless prejudice' on your forehead for you.

You do of course realize theres far more raping of underage females in this country then boys, dont you? Not to mention far more underage porn sites focusing on females.

Somebody

07-04-2005, 06:03 PM

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Pedophiles + small children = erection

Pedophiles + adults = no erection

I bet they'd say they were born that way too.

Same thing as homosexuals, something in their upbringing made them that way.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 06:09 PM

Pedophiles + small children = erection

Pedophiles + adults = no erection

I bet they'd say they were born that way too.

And Im born with the urge to sleep with women. This doesnt mean I go around raping girls i find attractive. Mature consent with knowledge of what your doing is required by both parties.

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 06:09 PM

Wonder if anybody would notice if I type it like this...

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CON-FREAKING-SENTING ADULTS!!!

lily

07-04-2005, 06:10 PM

Wonder if anybody would notice if I type it like this...

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CON-FREAKING-SENTING ADULTS!!!

Is everything between two consenting adults right?

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 06:14 PM

Is everything between two consenting adults right?
I'm hard pressed to think of an example where it might not. (don't get me wrong, there is plently that adults do to/with each other that make me go, "ewwww"), but to characterize any of it as "wrong". I'm thinking no.

The opperative words there, of course, being, "adult", and "consenting".

lily

07-04-2005, 06:18 PM

I'm hard pressed to think of an example where it might not. (don't get me wrong, there is plently that adults do to/with each other that make me go, "ewwww"), but to characterize any of it as "wrong". I'm thinking no.

So adultery is ok?

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

(just asking)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 06:18 PM

Is everything between two consenting adults right?

While I can't think of anything in particular right now, I get the feeling you're going to give me an example... ;)

Anyway, my point is in drawing a distinction between two guys (or two chicks) shacking up and the sexual abuse of a child. In fact, just in typing that I realize what a horrible, horrible thing it is for someone to even make that comparison.

Two guys filing jointly = child abuse? It's absurd, and it diminishes the vileness of child abuse.

lily

07-04-2005, 06:26 PM

Love the person, hate the act.

I agree with you, and I think that could be said about 50 million times, and it still wouldn't be enough times for some people.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 06:30 PM

So adultery is ok?

not to me, but in terms of two adults who are in agreement with that action? Who am I to tell them that they're wrong simply because they don't meet the ideals that I've set up for myself?

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

Again, to me, that's wrong. And in the society that we have today, incest is wrong, but that wasn't always the case. So, again, heavy on the "ewwww" factor, and, thank God, by the laws of the land that we live in, such a relationship would not flourish, but who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

We were speaking only of sexual matters, but if you really want to go there, then is it illegal for one person to shoot another? Yes. Is it immoral? If I'm in the last stages of N-stage cancer and I simply can not bear the pain, and I ask my best friend, the person who, above all in the world, loves me, to end my suffering, is that immoral? Is that wrong? And who are you, or who am I, to say it's wrong?

There are plenty of things in this world with which I don't agree, but I'm really reticent to hand out judgement. (but then again, that's just me)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 06:31 PM

So adultery is ok?

The problem with adultery is that someone DOES get hurt- The spouse of the adulterer.

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

If I reply here that "no mother and son in their right minds wouldhave consensual sex", but I'm thinking that you might reply that no two men would, either... My dilemma becomes, admit to that, or point out that the relationship between a mother and a son is quite different than that between two men, i.e.- nurturing a child from birth, through infancy, into chidhood, adolescence and into adulthood. In fact, in this light, one might assume that any son who would do such a thing would have been manipulated...

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

(just asking)

Assisted suicide... not sure how I feel about this, but I tend toward the "all life is sacred" side. But then I also believe that if a person wishes to end their suffering, or wish not to be sustained, they should have that freedom.

You make interesting points, but I ask you this one simple question: What is wrong with two members of the same sex loving each other?

lily

07-04-2005, 06:42 PM

not to me, but in terms of two adults who are in agreement with that action? Who am I to tell them that they're wrong simply because they don't meet the ideals that I've set up for myself?

Again, to me, that's wrong. And in the society that we have today, incest is wrong, but that wasn't always the case. So, again, heavy on the "ewwww" factor, and, thank God, by the laws of the land that we live in, such a relationship would not flourish, but who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

We were speaking only of sexual matters, but if you really want to go there, then is it illegal for one person to shoot another? Yes. Is it immoral? If I'm in the last stages of N-stage cancer and I simply can not bear the pain, and I ask my best friend, the person who, above all in the world, loves me, to end my suffering, is that immoral? Is that wrong? And who are you, or who am I, to say it's wrong?

There are plenty of things in this world with which I don't agree, but I'm really reticent to hand out judgement. (but then again, that's just me)

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

The problem with adultery is that someone DOES get hurt- The spouse of the adulterer.

If I reply here that "no mother and son in their right minds wouldhave consensual sex", but I'm thinking that you might reply that no two men would, either... My dilemma becomes, admit to that, or point out that the relationship between a mother and a son is quite different than that between two men, i.e.- nurturing a child from birth, through infancy, into chidhood, adolescence and into adulthood. In fact, in this light, one might assume that any son who would do such a thing would have been manipulated...

Assisted suicide... not sure how I feel about this, but I tend toward the "all life is sacred" side. But then I also believe that if a person wishes to end their suffering, or wish not to be sustained, they should have that freedom.

You make interesting points, but I ask you this one simple question: What is wrong with two members of the same sex loving each other?

Thanks. I don't think there is anything wrong with 2 people of the same sex loving eachother. But homosexual sex is against my religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I hate gays at all. I don't, in fact I can love them just as I would love anyone.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 06:50 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

You know what? You are absolutely right. If I wag my finger at you and say, "bad" and "wrong", then I am just as guilty of that which I despise the most. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I'll still arm-wrestle you over the idea of homosexuals being allowed to legalize their union, but I won't tell you that you're wrong or bad or a bigot, simply because you don't subscribe to my beliefs.

Stigger

07-04-2005, 06:50 PM

Which is what, precisely?

The kind of thinking that dictates that ideals damaging to the West as an entity, are not merely tolerated but forced into acceptance. I actually believe homosexual marriage to be relatively benign when compared to some of the absurd ideals that are paraded as fact by the intellectual and financial elite of this country.

I would have voted to allow same sex unions, had the people even been given a choice in the matter. Unfortunately we were not given a choice. We had the decision made for us, just as it is every time our choice would have possibly interfered with the ideals of our intellectual elites.

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 06:58 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

Thanks. I don't think there is anything wrong with 2 people of the same sex loving eachother. But homosexual sex is against my religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I hate gays at all. I don't, in fact I can love them just as I would love anyone.

I can certainly respect that.

I have no problem with folks who find homosexuality "icky". To be honest, I kinda do to, but that's why I'm not gay (tho' that's not to say that I find they "themselves" icky... just the act). My problem begins when folks want to legislate against it, or deny equal rights (no more, or less, than those enjoyed by the rest of us).

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 08:03 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives.You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

You can dislike gays as much as you like. But the fact is, your rules shouldnt apply to them, if what their doing doesnt effect anyone who's not consenting.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 08:19 PM

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives. ]You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

You can dislike gays as much as you like. But the fact is, your rules shouldnt apply to them, if what their doing doesnt effect anyone who's not consenting.

Well, now that's an excellent point. As I said before, I wouldn't try to tell someone what they might or might not feel or believe, but when it comes down to a question of legislation, in my opinion, feeling has less to do with it. I can see no earthly reason, under the law, to limit or exclude the union of two people, not matter their gender.

lily

07-04-2005, 09:19 PM

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives.You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

First of all, all laws are an imposition of someone's beliefs on someone else. I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definiton of marriage is. Others disagree. The fact that you are so vocal about this, and then deny that you're trying to impose your beliefs on anyone, is laughable.

You can dislike gays as much as you like....

That is a flat out lie. Once again, you twist and misrepresent. I just finished saying that I don't dislike gays and that I love gays as I'd love anyone. And the next thing that comes out of your mouth is, "you can dislike gays all you want..." Can you read? Or is it that you purposely like to twist the words of others? Which is it, SS?

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 09:25 PM

I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definiton of marriage is.

Currently law does not allow gays to enjoy the same priviledges as straight people. This is an imposition on their rights. Changing the law does not make any imposition on the rights of straight people.*

*(Unless of course we take into consideration the cabal of rabid militant homosexuals bent on world domination and eradicating the entire straight population of the planet. ;) )

lily

07-04-2005, 09:32 PM

Currently law does not allow gays to enjoy the same priviledges as straight people. This is an imposition on their rights. Changing the law does not make any imposition on the rights of straight people.*

*(Unless of course we take into consideration the cabal of rabid militant homosexuals bent on world domination and eradicating the entire straight population of the planet. ;) )

Well, whether marriage is a "right" or not is debatable. Second, it will definitely be an imposition on everyone else, if the government puts a stamp of approval on it, because then schools will be teaching that homosexuality is perfectly normal, natural and healthy...and the fact is, there are MANY people in this country who do not agree, and would rather not have the goverment tell their kids something that they do not agree with. That's called forcing a belief.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 09:33 PM

buttercup, just out of curiosity, would you have less of a problem with this whole issue if the argument were for civil unions as opposed to marriage?

Personally, I would be satisfied with the idea of a civil union, and I think it would side-step the issue of the whole Christian ideal of "marriage"

(and obviously, I'm not a homosexual, so maybe I shouldn't try to speak for them)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 09:40 PM

I would say that the government has no business in "marriage". However, when I got married, I signed a marriage license that entitled my wife to all the rights and priviledges therein.

Schools don't teach that heterosexual behavior is normal and healthy... why would they teach that homosexual behavior is?

In my opinion, nothing more than basic sexuality should be taught to students. Matters of heterosexuality and homosexuality should only be brought up in philosophy classes... Or maybe not. Not sure about that...

I agree that I don't want the government to tell kids that it's okay to be gay, but then I also don't want the government to tell kids that it's okay to be straight.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 10:29 PM

First of all, all laws are an imposition of someone's beliefs on someone else. I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definition of marriage is. Others disagree. The fact that you are so vocal about this, and then deny that you're trying to impose your beliefs on anyone, is laughable.

Umm.... When the laws of this land were written, and as time has passed, for the most part there have been no real people for gay marriage to be allowed. This is why it’s not a law. Not because it’s bad, but because nobody wanted it, because their weren’t that many gays. But now with over 1.3 million gays and many of them wanting this right, I think they should be allowed to have it. Our laws are, generally, based on an ideal--That your physical actions don’t impose on those without consent. You don’t take from those who don’t want to be taken from, you don’t kill those who don’t want to die, you don’t sleep with those who don’t want to sleep with you, you don’t force people to do things they don’t want to do. Now, the idea of gay activities or marriage for that matter falls under none of these. It is merely two consenting adults who choose to express their love in a way that you don’t see fit. That is fine. But their is no legal valid reason to deny them the right to be married.

Just because it hasn’t been added yet, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to begin with. You think they threw every law down in our books the moment they began writing them? No. Laws are progressive, being added, changed, so forth. Trying to invoke change for good is hardly invoking my personal preference on others. On the abortion issue, BC, do you not claim you fight for the rights of those who can’t fight for others? Then why do you speak out against gay households, when it should be their right? B/C You like one cause, and dislike another? Your political ideology appears very based on personal prejudices and inconsistent at best.

That is a flat out lie. Once again, you twist and misrepresent. I just finished saying that I don't dislike gays and that I love gays as I'd love anyone. And the next thing that comes out of your mouth is, "you can dislike gays all you want..." Can you read? Or is it that you purposely like to twist the words of others? Which is it, SS?

Oh, alright... You love gay people. You just hate what they do, and compare them to rapists, child molesters, and those who commit adultery... but you still like them. You love the people, you just don’t think they deserve the rights that you have.

Della April

07-04-2005, 11:32 PM

Meh. I seriously think theirs just a filter in their brain that blocks out the entire 'consenting' thingy when discussing things they dont like. They view being gay as wrong, so they compare it to other things they think is wrong. The only problem is, they take it to far, citing things like murder, child molestation, rapers, crack heads, etc etc... The only problem is, being gay, while done safely (just like heterosexuality) has no negative effects on society (unless you consider Society what is, should always be). You see, homosexuality imposes wrong will on no one. It is love between two men or women. Not a catholic priest molesting an unconsenting naive child, who's told if he doesnt do what the priest says, he's going to hell... But oh yes, lets not discuss nastiness such as this... The catholic church is good for allowing 1,000+ of these men to exist... On the other hand, Gay people, who'v never done **** to 99.99999999% of the people who oppose homosexuality, get criticed to high hell. I love society.
I wondered when someone would bring up the old 'child-molesting Catholic priests' red-herring! And that's all it is. Fewer than 1% of Catholic priests have even been accused, much less convicted of pedophilia - compare that to Boy Scout leaders, sports coaches and school teachers!
As for what homosexuals may have done - get real! A friend of mine was kidnapped and assaulted by a homosexual on his way home from school in the 1970s, and when I met him in the 1980s, he was a wreck, with hospitalisations all over the show. He was one of many treated the same way, by homosexual men, at least one of which became a 'famous homosexual' because his molester told him "well, you must be one, or I couldn't have done it to you".

Della April

07-04-2005, 11:38 PM

We were speaking only of sexual matters, but if you really want to go therthen is it illegal for one person to shoot another? Yes. Is it immoral? If I'm in the last stages of N-stage cancer and I simply can not bear the pain, and I ask my best friend, the person who, above all in the world, loves me, to end my suffering, is that immoral? Is that wrong? And who are you, or who am I, to say it's wrong?

This reminds me of the recent cases in Germany of homosexual cannibalism/murder. One man has already been convicted, as the court decided that the consent of the victim is no defence.

BTW, there are no verified non-fictional cases of mother-son incest.

Della April

07-04-2005, 11:42 PM

The problem with adultery is that someone DOES get hurt- The spouse of the adulterer.
Spot on, Pints.

You make interesting points, but I ask you this one simple question: What is wrong with two members of the same sex loving each other?

Love, nothing. Sex, there's a lot wrong. It's as disordered as fetishism or necrophilia, and usually exploitative in practice.

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 11:59 PM

Love, nothing. Sex, there's a lot wrong. It's as disordered as fetishism or necrophilia, and usually exploitative in practice.

I guess I'm going to need this explained to me. I guess I can see that homosexuality is abnormal (Def. being "outside of the norm", since heterosexuality is much more prevalent). But then so are lefthanded people (making me "abnormal" :p ). Fetishism is pretty broad, and I'd suspect that we all have our little "fetishes" (let's just leave this alone, shall we? ;) ). Necrophilia... This is the first time I've heard homosexuality compared to necrophilia. Not sure what to do with that...

I guess I just can't see what harm will come to society if two people of the same sex roll around together naked... Worked for the janissaries... worked for the Greeks (Uh oh... can of worms, can opener... yep, I did it...).

Della April

07-05-2005, 12:46 AM

I guess I'm going to need this explained to me. I guess I can see that homosexuality is abnormal (Def. being "outside of the norm", since heterosexuality is much more prevalent). But then so are lefthanded people (making me "abnormal" :p ). Fetishism is pretty broad, and I'd suspect that we all have our little "fetishes" (let's just leave this alone, shall we? ;) ). Necrophilia... This is the first time I've heard homosexuality compared to necrophilia. Not sure what to do with that...

I guess I just can't see what harm will come to society if two people of the same sex roll around together naked... Worked for the janissaries... worked for the Greeks (Uh oh... can of worms, can opener... yep, I did it...).
Like many women in developed countries, I went through a '*** hag' stage when I was in my late twenties/early 30s. I thought gay men were so sensitive, charming etc - then I really got to know what kind of people they are! Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest - mostly, to a man. I also met men who as boys had been victims of homosexuals and their 'lifestyle'... In my opinion and experience, homosexuality is a disorder, resulting from issues of socialisation - it's not inborn at all. I knew a couple, she was 15 and he was 16, and they'd run away from bad families, and they both worked on the streets, him as a transvestite prostitute. Looking back, I am desperately sorry for them, and I feel guilt that I didn't steer them in the way of social services instead of winking at their way of life. She made a pass at me once - I didn't realise then, that it was because she was exploring lesbianism as a way of getting away from the exploitation she was getting from men (other than her boyfriend of course.)
Plus which, like Buttercup, I have religious objections.
Then, there's the middle-aged wealthy homosexual, and the threats he made against me for resisting his seduction of the straight boyfriend I had at the time.
So, all in all, I regard homosexuals as being every bit as fundamentally disordered as the current Pope called them.
(As far as I know, the girl, 'Bubs' as she was known, did get her life straightened out, but I don't know what became of the boy.)

Bear Stories

07-05-2005, 01:00 AM

.....I thought gay men were so sensitive, charming etc - then I really got to know what kind of people they are! Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest - mostly, to a man. I also met men who as boys had been victims of homosexuals and their 'lifestyle'... In my opinion and experience, homosexuality is a disorder, resulting from issues of socialisation - it's not inborn at all......

I just can't even begin to understand what is wrong with this post. Are there really still people in the world who believe these things? Really?

Della, you seem like a nice enough person, but really, my God, can you honestly believe this garbage?

Della April

07-05-2005, 01:17 AM

I just can't even begin to understand what is wrong with this post. Are there really still people in the world who believe these things? Really?

Della, you seem like a nice enough person, but really, my God, can you honestly believe this garbage?
Yes, absolutely I do... and I gave some of the reasons why. I am a nice person, but the trouble I've had and seen other people have with homosexuals has confirmed what I already believed about them. (It's unaesthetic as well.)

Bear Stories

07-05-2005, 01:24 AM

You and I will have to agree to disagree, then,

And fyi? all sex is unaesthetic. (I mean, if you're doing it right.)

Della April

07-05-2005, 01:28 AM

You and I will have to agree to disagree, then,

And fyi? all sex is unaesthetic. (I mean, if you're doing it right.)
True, that... but hetero sex is usually emotional and bonding, not recreational...Let's agree to disagree then! :D

TheLateGreat

07-05-2005, 02:25 AM

I wondered when someone would bring up the old 'child-molesting Catholic priests' red-herring! And that's all it is. Fewer than 1% of Catholic priests have even been accused, much less convicted of pedophilia - compare that to Boy Scout leaders, sports coaches and school teachers!
As for what homosexuals may have done - get real! A friend of mine was kidnapped and assaulted by a homosexual on his way home from school in the 1970s, and when I met him in the 1980s, he was a wreck, with hospitalisations all over the show. He was one of many treated the same way, by homosexual men, at least one of which became a 'famous homosexual' because his molester told him "well, you must be one, or I couldn't have done it to you".

My gosh. Amazing that you chew someone out for a so-called red herring and then proceed head first into a paragraph-long red herring of your own. ANECTODAL EVIDENCE IS JUST THAT.

TheLateGreat

07-05-2005, 02:34 AM

Like many women in developed countries, I went through a '*** hag' stage when I was in my late twenties/early 30s. I thought gay men were so sensitive, charming etc - then I really got to know what kind of people they are! Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest - mostly, to a man. I also met men who as boys had been victims of homosexuals and their 'lifestyle'... In my opinion and experience, homosexuality is a disorder, resulting from issues of socialisation - it's not inborn at all

I assure you, my upbringing was as close to the ideal of "all-American" as you can get. Gays emerge from the entire gamut of socialization experiences, from broken homes to happy families, in all races, all socio-economic levels, etc etc. From what I understand, a larger percentage of people who experienced sexual abuse as a child turn out gay, so it seems rather undeniable that socialization can play some role. But the vast majority of gays came from as healthy, happy an upbringing as one can imagine, and they have plenty of straight siblings who went through virtually identical experiences. (I do, personally.)

As for your ridiculous generalization of gays as "Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest," it's amazing that our "agenda" has enjoyed so much "success" when we are apparently categorically unable to focus on anything but sex and being mean-spirited. Lady, I put my family above all else. I have sacrificed big chunks out of my life to care for ailing relatives. I donate my time to charity. I have achieved a lot in school; I'm a National Merit Scholar. I hold doors open for people when I'm at the store. I have plenty of straight friends who would tell you I'm at least a decent guy. It's so frustrating and appalling to me to see someone write such baseless drivel as your insulting generalization. You said you went through a "*** hag" period before. Well I hope some day you can move past your myopic vision and not denegrate an entire group of people based on a few anectodal instances. I am an okay guy. I know plenty of other gays who are as well. Grow up.

Malcolm Wright

07-05-2005, 02:39 AM

Well, whether marriage is a "right" or not is debatable.

What is not debatable is that citizens have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

Second, it will definitely be an imposition on everyone else, if the government puts a stamp of approval on it, because then schools will be teaching that homosexuality is perfectly normal, natural and healthy...and the fact is, there are MANY people in this country who do not agree, and would rather not have the goverment tell their kids something that they do not agree with. That's called forcing a belief.

Your claim that schools will start teaching anything about homosexuality is undemonstrated, and probably unfounded. You use this chimera to build your false accusation of the 'forcing a belief'.

M.

Malcolm Wright

07-05-2005, 02:42 AM

True, that... but hetero sex is usually emotional and bonding, not recreational...Let's agree to disagree then! :D

I don't think hetero sex is usually emotional and bonding. If it were, how do you explain one night stands, flings... And unarguably, hetero sex is very VERY often recreational.

M.

CCC

07-05-2005, 02:47 AM

From what I understand, a larger percentage of people who experienced sexual abuse as a child turn out gay, so it seems rather undeniable that socialization can play some role.

Perhaps this could be a topic for another thread, but I'm curious as to why this phenomenon occurs.

It would seem molestation by an uncle, father, male counselor, priest, etc on a male would logically scare one away from any future homosexual desires and contacts, to the point of (using a homosexual advocate's denunciation term) homophobia. Yet, many take that negative experience and engage in a same-sex relationship. What are your thoughts on that?

TheLateGreat

07-05-2005, 02:52 AM

What are your thoughts on that?

I have no clue, as I've never known anyone who (to my knowledge) was sexually abused as a child. In my non-expert opinion, it seems that such a terrible thing to suffer through can mess you up in a lot of ways, and your sexual wiring is just one of them.

But regardless of the origins of one's sexuality, I to this day have not heard word one of any convincing argument on why gays should be denied equal rights, once they're "there."

X3nos

07-05-2005, 04:38 AM

I assure you, my upbringing was as close to the ideal of "all-American" as you can get. Gays emerge from the entire gamut of socialization experiences, from broken homes to happy families, in all races, all socio-economic levels, etc etc. From what I understand, a larger percentage of people who experienced sexual abuse as a child turn out gay, so it seems rather undeniable that socialization can play some role. But the vast majority of gays came from as healthy, happy an upbringing as one can imagine, and they have plenty of straight siblings who went through virtually identical experiences. (I do, personally.)

As for your ridiculous generalization of gays as "Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest," it's amazing that our "agenda" has enjoyed so much "success" when we are apparently categorically unable to focus on anything but sex and being mean-spirited. Lady, I put my family above all else. I have sacrificed big chunks out of my life to care for ailing relatives. I donate my time to charity. I have achieved a lot in school; I'm a National Merit Scholar. I hold doors open for people when I'm at the store. I have plenty of straight friends who would tell you I'm at least a decent guy. It's so frustrating and appalling to me to see someone write such baseless drivel as your insulting generalization. You said you went through a "*** hag" period before. Well I hope some day you can move past your myopic vision and not denegrate an entire group of people based on a few anectodal instances. I am an okay guy. I know plenty of other gays who are as well. Grow up.

PWNED!!

OMG, michele is in love...http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/soulive/wub.gif

-michele :D

Pints with Plato

07-05-2005, 06:33 AM

Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest

First of all, these characteristics are hardly exclusive to homosexuals.

Second of all, this is highly anectdotal... Look, it's human nature to make broad generalizations about "groups" of people based on the observation of a few. But the fact of the matter is, our inclusion in any of the many "groups" that each one of us belongs to does not constitute the sum of our personalities.

I lived for a time in a neighborhood with a large Jewish population. Very often at the local shops, I'd find the Jewish folks to be pushy, in a hurry, inconsiderate, etc. But then I would realize that many factors were at play, and that the simple fact that many of the folks whom I was observing were Jewish did not necessarily predict their behavior. For instance: the city was a very large one. Perhaps many of these folks were in stressful jobs. Perhaps many of them were annoyed by their commute. Perhaps many were not Jewish at all. Perhaps I was irritated and more sensitive. Perhaps I hadn't acculturated myself fully. It would have been simple for me to just blankly assume that "Jewish people are pushy, inconsiderate, etc."

I don't know the circumstances under which you made your observations, but I'd guess that the number of folks you observed, and the circumstances under which you made your observations (and your own perspective) played a role in the determination you make.

But that's just me...

Malcolm Wright

07-05-2005, 07:57 AM

PWNED!!

OMG, michele is in love...http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/soulive/wub.gif

-michele :D

Hehe!

I thought that post was pretty awesome too!
I think LateGreat and Pints are too fantastic additions to the crew! Now is as good a time as any to welcome them :)

M.

jmarley60

07-05-2005, 09:34 AM

The path is already set.
This world is in a downward decent.
No one is against the people that commit homosexual acts.
The acts are abnormal.
They are against God.
We're still here for one reason,
for as many souls as possible to be saved,
before the world is deemed hopeless.

Marriage between homosexuals ia a farce.
God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real. :not:

Certainly, we are each entitled to our opinion. My question was sincere and was based on the comment to which I replied to ...

TheLateGreat

07-05-2005, 09:40 AM

Now is as good a time as any to welcome them

Thank you. It seems there are a great number of y'all whose posts I quite enjoy reading. :)

SwiftSloth

07-05-2005, 09:42 AM

I wondered when someone would bring up the old 'child-molesting Catholic priests' red-herring! And that's all it is. Fewer than 1% of Catholic priests have even been accused, much less convicted of pedophilia - compare that to Boy Scout leaders, sports coaches and school teachers!

Wow. Ignorance on this has been proven. Please post where you got this data. You see, the catholic church itself begs to differ with your 1% claim. Im more then happy to let you back up your claim first though, before I post reports compiled by the catholic church itself. So please, do provide your source that is, appearintly, more valid then the catholic church itself.

As for what homosexuals may have done - get real! A friend of mine was kidnapped and assaulted by a homosexual on his way home from school in the 1970s, and when I met him in the 1980s, he was a wreck, with hospitalisations all over the show. He was one of many treated the same way, by homosexual men, at least one of which became a 'famous homosexual' because his molester told him "well, you must be one, or I couldn't have done it to you".

Great. Youv cited one incident of homosexual abuse. Now, dare you compare the amounts of homosexual abuse, to heterosexual abuse?

TheLateGreat

07-05-2005, 09:53 AM

Great. Youv cited one incident of homosexual abuse. Now, dare you compare the amounts of homosexual abuse, to heterosexual abuse?

This train of thought irks me. Even if gays have a higher incidence of x and y than straights, should relevant government policy be founded on this? If it turns out that left-handed people get in 5% more car wrecks than right-handed people, should we ban them from driving? If it turns out people whose last names start with 'S' drink to excess 4% more than others, should they be banned from alcohol? If it turns out Asians commit arson 6% more than others, should we not sell them matches?

It's troubling to me that there's such an eagerness in this country to say "You are part of Group A, which commits this behavior X% more than Group B, so we're going to hoist this control on you based on your affiliation with that group." As far as I'm concerned, the solutions to those problems are enforcing traffic laws, public drunkenness laws, and punishing arson. It's an illegitimate use of government power to apply laws to singled-out groups rather than individuals. So even if Della comes with some "study" that shows that....97% of gays rape little boys, you don't ban being gay. You continue to ban rape and sexually abusing minors, you punish that with vigor, and you don't persecute those 3% who aren't hurting anyone.

SecretSamadhi

07-05-2005, 10:37 AM

Misteria

07-05-2005, 04:18 PM

i agree with Swiftsloth good answers! :nice:

lily

07-05-2005, 04:26 PM

Actually, I think SwiftSloth's posts have been a bit thick, and myopic. But definitely good sound bites! :nice:

There have been some interesting posts on this thread from those I disagree with, I just think they were from other people. :)

X3nos

07-05-2005, 07:23 PM

Pints with Plato

07-05-2005, 08:51 PM

Hehe!

I thought that post was pretty awesome too!
I think LateGreat and Pints are too fantastic additions to the crew! Now is as good a time as any to welcome them :)

M.

:D welcomes to both from Michele! :nice:

-michele

:o :D

Much appreciated, guys...

I enjoy a good conversation and debate, and I've enjoyed posting here. I try to be open-minded and considerate of other people, especially those with whom I disagree... So much here has been thought-provoking and I like to think that I've learned a lot about my own positions from being here.

Thanks again!

SwiftSloth

07-05-2005, 09:25 PM

Actually, I think SwiftSloth's posts have been a bit thick,
and myopic. But definitely good sound bites! :nice:

I think most of your posted views on this subject are dogmatic, prejudice and hate filled. But, you’re certainly entitled to such thoughts in a free country, just as homosexuals are entitled to their rights, such as the right to wed. Or is your train of free thinking allowed, but not the type that would allow homosexuals to be wed? Let’s see... Your train of thought oppresses others. Theirs gains millions of people their individual rights, and imposes not a thing on anyone else's rights or lives...

lily

07-05-2005, 09:38 PM

I think most of your posted views on this subject are dogmatic, prejudice and hate filled. But, you’re certainly entitled to such thoughts in a free country, just as homosexuals are entitled to their rights, such as the right to wed. Or is your train of free thinking allowed, but not the type that would allow homosexuals to be wed? Let’s see... Your train of thought oppresses others. Theirs gains millions of people their individual rights, and imposes not a thing on anyone else's rights or lives...

I don't hate gays at all. You got the wrong person, bubba. But the fact that you keep lying, tells me something about you.

SwiftSloth

07-05-2005, 10:14 PM

I don't hate gays at all. You got the wrong person, bubba. But the fact that you keep lying, tells me something about you.

Please, by all means point to me where I said in that post that you hate gays. Yes, I said 'hate filled', which is what I consider any type of prejudice towards a group of people who haven’t harmed you, or racism in all its forms.

Oh, and as for if you do hate gays... IDK, typically you don’t compare people you like to rapists, child molesters, and murderers as you’ve done.

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:33 AM

I assure you, my upbringing was as close to the ideal of "all-American" as you can get. Gays emerge from the entire gamut of socialization experiences, from broken homes to happy families, in all races, all socio-economic levels, etc etc. From what I understand, a larger percentage of people who experienced sexual abuse as a child turn out gay, so it seems rather undeniable that socialization can play some role. But the vast majority of gays came from as healthy, happy an upbringing as one can imagine, and they have plenty of straight siblings who went through virtually identical experiences. (I do, personally.)

As for your ridiculous generalization of gays as "Promiscuous, vicious, bitter, hostile, resentful, dishonest," it's amazing that our "agenda" has enjoyed so much "success" when we are apparently categorically unable to focus on anything but sex and being mean-spirited. Lady, I put my family above all else. I have sacrificed big chunks out of my life to care for ailing relatives. I donate my time to charity. I have achieved a lot in school; I'm a National Merit Scholar. I hold doors open for people when I'm at the store. I have plenty of straight friends who would tell you I'm at least a decent guy. It's so frustrating and appalling to me to see someone write such baseless drivel as your insulting generalization. You said you went through a "*** hag" period before. Well I hope some day you can move past your myopic vision and not denegrate an entire group of people based on a few anectodal instances. I am an okay guy. I know plenty of other gays who are as well. Grow up.
You may snap at me to "grow up", but I speak from my own experience, as valid as anyone else's in forming views.

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:36 AM

I don't think hetero sex is usually emotional and bonding. If it were, how do you explain one night stands, flings... And unarguably, hetero sex is very VERY often recreational.

M.
I've come across hetero people who indulge in one night stands, flings etc. But in my experience, they're a tiny minority, and no less "disordered" than homosexuals who act similarly.

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:39 AM

Perhaps this could be a topic for another thread, but I'm curious as to why this phenomenon occurs.

It would seem molestation by an uncle, father, male counselor, priest, etc on a male would logically scare one away from any future homosexual desires and contacts, to the point of (using a homosexual advocate's denunciation term) homophobia. Yet, many take that negative experience and engage in a same-sex relationship. What are your thoughts on that?
The question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answser with what I have heard about the "famous homosexual" I mentioned. It's simoly that he was told that he must have liked it/allowed it - and that therefore he must he innately homosexual, and therefore there was no point in him trying heterosexuality.. It's analogous to an abused girl becoming promiscuous, as some do - because she feels she's ruined for a normal monogamous relationship anyway. (Other abused girls avoid sex altogether - it's down to the individual.)

CowPunk

07-06-2005, 12:46 AM

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:46 AM

First of all, these characteristics are hardly exclusive to homosexuals.

I don't know the circumstances under which you made your observations, but I'd guess that the number of folks you observed, and the circumstances under which you made your observations (and your own perspective) played a role in the determination you make.

But that's just me...

No, of course those characteristics aren't limited to homosexuals - but 100% of homosexuals I knew showed them. (Oddly, not the lesbians to the same extent - possibly because the lesbians I knew were less rigid about their identification - whereas the men tended to put it first - "Hi, I'm Gavin and I'm a homosexual insurance salesman" etc.

My perspective was initially, that I was biased in favour of homosexual people - a *** hag, although experience shows that despite that being a common saying for a woman who socialises preferentially with gay men, the nannyware doesn't like it, though it lets the much ruder Britishism "b*ll*cks" through
:D )

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:48 AM

Wow. Ignorance on this has been proven. Please post where you got this data. You see, the catholic church itself begs to differ with your 1% claim. Im more then happy to let you back up your claim first though, before I post reports compiled by the catholic church itself. So please, do provide your source that is, appearintly, more valid then the catholic church itself.

Great. Youv cited one incident of homosexual abuse. Now, dare you compare the amounts of homosexual abuse, to heterosexual abuse?
Huh? I wasn't doing any such thing!

I got my figures from a Jewish site, oddly. Virtual Jerusalem, that is.

Della April

07-06-2005, 12:51 AM

- In the US, most people have engaged in one night stands and flings, particularly when they're young and single.
Most people? Really? (Skepticismsmiley)

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 01:42 AM

Most people? Really? (Skepticismsmiley)

The 'most' rings true to me too.
I grew up in France, and through high school, most of us who could (as in were popular enough) 'fornicated' (hehe), usually with only recreation in mind.

This leads me to think that if everyone was desirable and popular, most people would have one night stands and flings for at least a period of their lives.

Gay sex is still taboo to a degree, and I see this as the primary factor for its promiscuous tendancies. If you establishing yourself with a long term partner is hindered by a lack of formal recognition of the union and the difficulty of family and friends being brought to accept it, the tendancy will naturally be to seek informal and transient relationships. This reasoning seems natural to me.

I agree that lesbians tend to be more low key (although I've never met anyone who introduced themselves as gay, male or female). This also appears perfectly natural to me. This is a male-dominated society, hence the pressure for gay men to conform to the image of masculinity projected by society is somewhat stronger than for women. We value strength and aggression more than we value sensitivity and gentleness, so there is more disapproval for a man who deviates towards sensitivity and gentleness than there is for a woman who deviates towards strength and aggression.
A gay man feels he has more to rebel against, and thus will naturally be more in our faces when he comes out of the closet.

I'm black, and I know well the natural desire to infict myself upon people who do not tolerate the color of my skin and wish to negatively influence my life. Alienate someone, and they get up in your face when they get a chance... Human nature.

M.

SwiftSloth

07-06-2005, 09:46 AM

Huh? I wasn't doing any such thing!

What werent you doing?

I got my figures from a Jewish site, oddly. Virtual Jerusalem, that is.

Feel free to link. Unless youd like to go ahead and admit you were very off, and must have picked up some really bad partisan BS info (perhaps outdated by 5 years or more), I'm pretty amazed you actually believe 'Less then 1% have been accused of it'. You see, a much, much higher percent of priests in the church have admitted to it, then 1%. Little less, been accused of it, in the Catholic Church. But again, before I drop intel from the RCC and other Clergy officials, Im willing to let you explain what a 'red harring' or what have you my argument was... The entire recent and historical scandel of catholic priests and child molestation.

X3nos

07-06-2005, 02:45 PM

Please, by all means point to me where I said in that post that you hate gays. Yes, I said 'hate filled', which is what I consider any type of prejudice towards a group of people who haven’t harmed you, or racism in all its forms.

Oh, and as for if you do hate gays... IDK, typically you don’t compare people you like to rapists, child molesters, and murderers as you’ve done.

I agree, and as far as your view being narrow, etc, I think you're very opened minded unlike some.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGICAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT SOCIAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

Some are born homosexual, some are born heterosexual, but we all have both in us. Just as both men and women have estrogen and testosterone—just in radically different amounts.

If it's all in the mind, then we should have been able to find the psychological cause of homosexuality by now (i.e. being nurtured too much as a child or not having a father figure—common myths surrounding the cause of homosexuality). Now, homosexuals come from all walks of life: rich, poor, white, black, conservative, liberal—all different sorts. And here some are trying to pass judgement on something they 1) know little about 2) want to hate and 3) are so close minded about that they resort to using "what ifs" to justify their argument against gays.

-michele

lily

07-06-2005, 03:49 PM

Oh, and as for if you do hate gays... IDK, typically you don’t compare people you like to rapists, child molesters, and murderers as you’ve done.

I forgot to say, when I posted yesterday... That is another lie. I don't know if your lies are coming from a sincere misunderstanding, or if they are intentional. But I have never said that gays are just like rapists, child molesters, and murderers. Perhaps you're not able to grasp the concept that if a person believes something to be a sin (say, homosexual sex) that doesn't mean that all sins are on the same level. Lying is also considered a sin in Christianity... so is coveting. So (now stay with me here, this isn't too hard) the only similiarity between someone who lies, or covets, and someone who is a rapist or murderer is that they are both sinners, from a christian perspective. (and for that matter, we ALL are... although some people have asked for forgiveness) That isn't saying that lying is as bad as murder.... or that homosexuality is as bad as rapists and murderers. Or putting someone who gets drunk on the same level as a rapist or murderer. Are you starting to get this now? Can we grasp the idea that the only reason people have brought up things like child molestation is NOT TO EQUATE that with homosexuality, but simply to say that according to their beliefs both things are not right. Do we get it now? If you're gonna keep lying, I'll just not post to you anymore, I don't like having to correct your misrepresentations every freakin 10 minutes.

SecretSamadhi

07-06-2005, 03:54 PM

I agree, and as far as your view being narrow, etc, I think you're very opened minded unlike some.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGICAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT SOCIAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

Some are born homosexual, some are born heterosexual, but we all have both in us. Just as both men and women have estrogen and testosterone—just in radically different amounts.

If it's all in the mind, then we should have been able to find the psychological cause of homosexuality by now (i.e. being nurtured too much as a child or not having a father figure—common myths surrounding the cause of homosexuality). Now, homosexuals come from all walks of life: rich, poor, white, black, conservative, liberal—all different sorts. And here some are trying to pass judgement on something they 1) know little about 2) want to hate and 3) are so close minded about that they resort to using "what ifs" to justify their argument against gays.

-michele

Great facts - now if only someone would believe you... I do!

Also, I am SO sick of hearing the comparison to child molesters and rapists and beatiality - NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL!!!!! :rolleyes:

SecretSamadhi

07-06-2005, 03:56 PM

Most people? Really? (Skepticismsmiley)

Uh, yes... Della, he's correct.

Spend some time here, you'll see! ;)

lily

07-06-2005, 03:58 PM

*tap tap* Is thing on?

Great facts - now if only someone would believe you... I do!

Also, I am SO sick of hearing the comparison to child molesters and rapists and beatiality - NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL!!!!! :rolleyes:

Please read post #168. Thank you.

lily

07-06-2005, 04:53 PM

And I'm sorry for the heavy sarcasm a few posts up. I tried to edit, but the site was down for a while. I just don't like when people say things about what I believe that are not true.

CCC

07-06-2005, 06:13 PM

Great facts

No, not facts. Just opinion.

I agree, and as far as your view being narrow, etc, I think you're very opened minded unlike some.

Naw, Buttercup and I and a few others here are the open-minded ones. We don't buy into the pro-homosexual propaganda.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGICAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT SOCIAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

Some are born homosexual, some are born heterosexual, but we all have both in us.

Opinion, not fact.

If it's all in the mind, then we should have been able to find the psychological cause of homosexuality by now (i.e. being nurtured too much as a child or not having a father figure—common myths surrounding the cause of homosexuality).

If shrinks were so quick as to causes and remedies of various neuroses, you wouldn't see so much time and money being spent. :p Different people have different paths.

It's the homosexuality-from-nature argument that has yet to be proven.

Now, homosexuals come from all walks of life: rich, poor, white, black, conservative, liberal—all different sorts.

Smokers come from all walks of life too. But they weren't born smokers (though some have justified they have a supposed predisposition to it).

It is a learned trait.

And here some are trying to pass judgement on something they 1) know little about

Hardly.

2) want to hate

Nonsense. Just like with smokers, we want homosexuals to cease their self-destructive habit which threatens to severely shorten their lives. We do this out of love. If they (smokers or homosexuals) resign themselves to thinking they can never change, then they won't no matter what I say, and that is their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences of that choice. But there are avenues for people to deal with their problems. There are ex-smokers and there are ex-homosexuals. But homosexual activists will do what they can to deny information from ex-homosexual groups such as P-FOX from reaching those living a homosexual lifestyle. That is close-mindedness.

and 3) are so close minded about that they resort to using "what ifs" to justify their argument against gays.

We are the open-minded ones. They don't have to live they way they do. If you were open-minded, you'd allow them a chance at changing.

CCC

07-06-2005, 06:14 PM

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answser

No problemo. It was an open-ended question and anybody can feel free to tackle it. :nice:

X3nos

07-06-2005, 07:13 PM

No, not facts. Just opinion.

Oh really, so, let me ask you this: can you all of a sudden up and "choose" to become gay? Why or why not? (and please leave your religion out of your answer)

-michele

CCC

07-06-2005, 07:26 PM

Oh really, so, let me ask you this: can you all of a sudden up and "choose" to become gay? Why or why not? (and please leave your religion out of your answer)

-michele

What religion?

Anyway, it's not like you flick a switch. It's something that entices one in. Like with pornography or any kind of fetish. You let something play with your mind long enough and you just might get hooked, an obsession. You become conformable in your deviance. It's all in your head. It's your choice when you decide to start, continue, and stop, though you may feel (or try to justify) like you have no choice.

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 07:26 PM

It's the homosexuality-from-nature argument that has yet to be proven.

Umm, doesn't the fact that homosexuality appears in other mammalian species give you a bit of a hint towards this?

M.

CCC

07-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Umm, doesn't the fact that homosexuality appears in other mammalian species give you a bit of a hint towards this?

M.

Nope. Don't humans have a stronger willpower, or are we no different from animals? Animals also kill each other. Should we not also resist this primal urge? Animals will eat their own feces. Does this mean a human who does this is born with this trait?

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 08:01 PM

Nope. Don't humans have a stronger willpower, or are we no different from animals? Animals also kill each other. Should we not also resist this primal urge? Animals will eat their own feces. Does this mean a human who does this is born with this trait?

Hey, I'll quote you again:

"It's the homosexuality-from-nature argument that has yet to be proven."

That is all my comment addresses: homosexuality does indeed occur naturally.
Your ensuing comments are irrelevant to this fact.

I will address them anyway though: I think the only valid reason to resist any urge, primal or other, is if it is detrimental. And if resisting it is more detrimental than not resisting it, then it should not be resisted.

Homosexuals often try to 'cure' themselves through years of therapy, and abstinence, because society exerts so much pressure on them. I do not know of any cases in which this has succeeded, and I do not know of any cases in which this has brought the lasting happiness that gays achieve when they fully embrace their sexual orientation. Trying to be something you are not only brings sorrow, CCC.

M.

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 08:13 PM

As for homosexuality and its origins in humans, I believe it to be a mixture of nature and nurture, just as everything else.

Some homosexuals have liked their own sex for as far back as they can remember (just as heterosexuals like the opposite sex as far back as they can remember). Others become homosexual at a certain stage in their lives, and this can generally be attributed to negative experiences with the opposite sex, coupled with the pre-existant bisexuality (expressed or not, conscious or not) of the individual.

These facts point towards human sexuality being fluid and dynamic to a certain degree. The object of sexual desire is not either male or female, but has many shades of grey that lie in between, and indeed along other axis' entirely when you consider sexual fetishes of various kinds. At the end of the day, I believe in the pursuit of happiness and growth. To this end, exploring your identity is more important than conforming it to the desires of human institutions. If your sexual identity allows you to develop meaningful relationships with another human being: it fulfills an important role your existance.

Should a woman marry a man and have children even though she is unable to fully love him, unable to fully enjoy the sexual act with him, and unable lose the resentment of what her marriage has robed her of (a resentment which husband and children will suffer from)? Or should she live a fulfilling life with another woman in which she is able to give her all sincerely? The answer is obvious to me.

M.

SwiftSloth

07-06-2005, 08:38 PM

Nope. Don't humans have a stronger willpower, or are we no different from animals? Animals also kill each other.

Humans kill eachother on unbelievable massive scales that animals couldnt comprehend for a second. But as long as it is in the name of good, you are ok with it (you are a backer of starting a war with Iraq, correct?). Im confused... Killing in the name of good = Good.... Allowing homosexuals to wed = Horrible sin that shows the downside of humanity?

WTF??!?!

Spazola

07-06-2005, 09:52 PM

Naw, Buttercup and I and a few others here are the open-minded ones. We don't buy into the pro-homosexual propaganda.
But you do, however, by into the lets-butt-into-other-people's-relationships propaganda.

(propaganda.....NEW WORD!!! :D :D :D )

Smokers come from all walks of life too. But they weren't born smokers (though some have justified they have a supposed predisposition to it).
So your saying being in love with someone of the same sex is an addiction?

Hardly.
Are saying you know everything about homosexuality?

Nonsense. Just like with smokers, we want homosexuals to cease their self-destructive habit which threatens to severely shorten their lives.
Not having sex with the opposite sex shortens your life as dramaticly as smoking ciggerets, eh? :p
We do this out of love.
Of course you do! Forbidding females that have a female mate from living happy lives just because you disagree with them is a great way to say "we LOVE you!!!".

We are the open-minded ones. They don't have to live they way they do. If you were open-minded, you'd allow them a chance at changing.

Homosexuals should only change if they want to. Dont you think its a bit close-minded to assume that every homosexual should have to change, whether they like it or not?

CowPunk

07-06-2005, 09:56 PM

But you do, however, by into the lets-butt-into-other-people's-relationships propaganda.

(propaganda.....NEW WORD!!! :D :D :D )
- And it's companion "agit-prop," or the use of the arts to spread a political message.

CowPunk

07-06-2005, 10:01 PM

Homosexuals should only change if they want to. Dont you think its a bit close-minded to assume that every homosexual should have to change, whether they like it or not?
- Tough to argue with narrow-minded religious dogma, huh?

Pints with Plato

07-06-2005, 10:02 PM

It's the homosexuality-from-nature argument that has yet to be proven.

Actually, I don't believe a "source" for homosexuality has been identified either way.

Nonsense. Just like with smokers, we want homosexuals to cease their self-destructive habit which threatens to severely shorten their lives. We do this out of love. If they (smokers or homosexuals) resign themselves to thinking they can never change, then they won't no matter what I say, and that is their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences of that choice. But there are avenues for people to deal with their problems. There are ex-smokers and there are ex-homosexuals. But homosexual activists will do what they can to deny information from ex-homosexual groups such as P-FOX from reaching those living a homosexual lifestyle. That is close-mindedness.

Gee, I thought open-mindedness was acknowledging that a "source" (be it biological or social) for homosexuality has not been identified, then respecting the freedom of other people to do what they wish with their lives. My bad.

We are the open-minded ones. They don't have to live they way they do. If you were open-minded, you'd allow them a chance at changing.

Who's denying anybody a chance to do anything? Maybe those folks who say, "No, it's a choice, and a bad one at that." Maybe being open minded is realizing that most rational folks don't "opt in" to a lifestyle that has been marginalized by most people, and one that attracts negative attention at best, violence at worst?

And finally, why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home? (Here comes the inevitable "bands of fairies parading through the streets" speech).

Pints with Plato

07-06-2005, 10:05 PM

I forgot to say, when I posted yesterday... That is another lie. I don't know if your lies are coming from a sincere misunderstanding, or if they are intentional. But I have never said that gays are just like rapists, child molesters, and murderers. Perhaps you're not able to grasp the concept that if a person believes something to be a sin (say, homosexual sex) that doesn't mean that all sins are on the same level. Lying is also considered a sin in Christianity... so is coveting. So (now stay with me here, this isn't too hard) the only similiarity between someone who lies, or covets, and someone who is a rapist or murderer is that they are both sinners, from a christian perspective. (and for that matter, we ALL are... although some people have asked for forgiveness) That isn't saying that lying is as bad as murder.... or that homosexuality is as bad as rapists and murderers. Or putting someone who gets drunk on the same level as a rapist or murderer. Are you starting to get this now? Can we grasp the idea that the only reason people have brought up things like child molestation is NOT TO EQUATE that with homosexuality, but simply to say that according to their beliefs both things are not right. Do we get it now? If you're gonna keep lying, I'll just not post to you anymore, I don't like having to correct your misrepresentations every freakin 10 minutes.

I appreciate your ethics, Buttercup, so please don't take this as a sarcastic comment, but an honest one...

If there is a hierarchy of sins, then where are the threads about coveting? Why does homosexuality seem to rank so high as to deserve such commentary? It would seem to me that coveting is a much more common, and probably destructive, sin.

Della April

07-06-2005, 10:36 PM

What werent you doing?

Feel free to link. Unless youd like to go ahead and admit you were very off, and must have picked up some really bad partisan BS info (perhaps outdated by 5 years or more), I'm pretty amazed you actually believe 'Less then 1% have been accused of it'. You see, a much, much higher percent of priests in the church have admitted to it, then 1%. Little less, been accused of it, in the Catholic Church. But again, before I drop intel from the RCC and other Clergy officials, Im willing to let you explain what a 'red harring' or what have you my argument was... The entire recent and historical scandel of catholic priests and child molestation.

Okay, I'll find the information I got - saved to a CD as I've had similar arguments before... First, let me tell you a story about something that happened last year. A priest had been accused of diddling little boys and the RC church here paid compensation to the two men who made the accusation. That was in 2002. Then, in 2004, one of the men was convicted of, and imprisoned for fraud - he'd made the whole thing up, for the sake of the $10,000 or so he received. The case never went to court, the church paid as part of its policy (in NZ at least) of taking accusers at their word, and not requiring any proof. Well, at least one accuser lied big time, and was proven to the satisfaction of the police and the courts to have done so.
Here is the piece I copied from www.virtualjerusalem.com/forums (http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/forums)

"From Virtual Jerusalem
" don't agree that the Catholic church is derelict in religious duties, they take a lot of flack for no reason.

I read a while back that less than 1% of priests have been accused of any crimes, few being sexual crimes. I saw the other night a Catholic lay expert saying it's about 4% which is more reasonable, 3% to 5% of humans are mentally challenged, psychopathic or alcoholic. Some of us are all three, not mentioning names. I don't include drug addiction because it's more and more an accidental feel-good slippery slope for unsupervised juveniles.

In addition to that view, the Church has taken care of the problem with zero-tolerance rules for some kinds of behaviour, changes in accepting new priests into school, and reporting sexual deviation has always been done by many bishops and is required now by all of them.

So as usual the Church is ahead of every other organised Christian religion in addition to all the schools, hospitals, refuges, political and secular activities in every country in the world, Maryknoll Fathers still, I know, still go where they're not wanted and leave when they're not needed.

The Catholic orders that do political stuff should take the heat for the stuff they do, but to make life difficult for good priests is probably not a Jewish thing, don't you think? "

Further - that link I posted above doesn't work, try this one...I don't know how easy it'll be to find the exact convo, but here's the general area.
Virtual Jerusalem (http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=19c47620ab6cc7973758aa3e2c4547bc)
Hope it works!

Della April

07-06-2005, 10:42 PM

Della April

07-06-2005, 10:55 PM

Homosexuals often try to 'cure' themselves through years of therapy, and abstinence, because society exerts so much pressure on them. I do not know of any cases in which this has succeeded, and I do not know of any cases in which this has brought the lasting happiness that gays achieve when they fully embrace their sexual orientation. Trying to be something you are not only brings sorrow, CCC.

M.
I do know of cases where a 'cure' has succeeded - just last year, there was a big story in one of our national Sunday papers featuring several families founded by ex-gays, both male and female. With support from friends and family, it succeeds more of then than not, as far as I know.

I see your point about colour, Malcolm, but I don't agree. Discrimiation on the grounds of colour is immoral, illegal and unethical. But I believe very strongly, that being homosexual is not innate, it can be changed, and is a matter of choice. That being so, the situations are not analogous.

lily

07-06-2005, 10:57 PM

I appreciate your ethics, Buttercup, so please don't take this as a sarcastic comment, but an honest one...

If there is a hierarchy of sins, then where are the threads about coveting? Why does homosexuality seem to rank so high as to deserve such commentary? It would seem to me that coveting is a much more common, and probably destructive, sin.

Coveting is more common... but maybe the difference is this. I don't think there are that many people who are out there saying "coveting is a good thing!" I don't think there are many people out there saying lying is a good thing. So, those things aren't controversial, because most (not all) people agree that those things are not good. With homosexuality, there isn't that agreement. There are many people who think it is either unnatural, unhealthy or some people have the belief that it is morally wrong. They have the right to believe that, whether or not others agree. So I think the problem is, there is a big push, by some people, that "Homosexuality is healthy, perfectly normal and a good thing!" "And if you don't agree, you're a bigot and you're hateful!"

I think most people do have tolerance for homosexuality, but tolerant does not mean condoning it... it's more like, "I don't agree with your choice but as long as you're not forcing it on me, it's your thing... I can still think you're a valuable person but not agree with or condone your actions."

The problem arises when there is a push to force acceptance, or to intimidate people into thinking a certain way, and if they DON'T think that way, they're a "narrow-minded bigot", or "hateful", etc, etc. That is why homosexuality is a much more hot-button issue than say, coveting or lying. Because the fact is, there are people who want more than just tolerance. They want others to accept and approve of something, they want all of society to agree. It aint gonna happen. You can't force people to think a certain way, that is being the Thought Police.

CCC

07-06-2005, 11:02 PM

Hey, I'll quote you again:

"It's the homosexuality-from-nature argument that has yet to be proven."

That is all my comment addresses: homosexuality does indeed occur naturally.
Your ensuing comments are irrelevant to this fact.

Snicker. Nice try though. But please keep quoting me. You might learn something from my wisdom.

I will address them anyway though: I think the only valid reason to resist any urge, primal or other, is if it is detrimental. And if resisting it is more detrimental than not resisting it, then it should not be resisted.

Yeah, go take a tour of an AIDS ward and get back to me on which is worse. :rolleyes:

Homosexuals often try to 'cure' themselves through years of therapy, and abstinence, because society exerts so much pressure on them.

There is more pressure on children to lose their virginity, and yet the government schools are enabling the problem, a problem that can be fatal in the "safe-sex" Russian Roulette scenario. A responsible person would do something to reduce that pressure.

A responsible person will try to help somebody overcome their homosexual neuroses, not enable them.

What we have is a rebellious mentality in our youth (nothing new, I know) where homosexuality is the new goth (or stoner or whatever fringe rebellion clique you want to use). You can deny it all you want, but it's there, because it's acceptable to the counterculture.

I do not know of any cases in which this has succeeded, and I do not know of any cases in which this has brought the lasting happiness that gays achieve when they fully embrace their sexual orientation.

Go to P-FOX (http://www.pfox.org/).

Trying to be something you are not only brings sorrow, CCC.

Does that include people who chop off their penis or have an "addadictome?" :p

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:05 PM

You may snap at me to "grow up", but I speak from my own experience, as valid as anyone else's in forming views.

Your experience, in the grand scheme of things, is so miniscule that to make the kinds of statements you've made is utterly ridiculous. There are good, friendly gay people and rude gay people. Same with straights. That you categorically equate gays with the qualities you did is insulting and inaccurate.

Pints with Plato

07-06-2005, 11:09 PM

The problem arises when there is a push to force acceptance, or to intimidate people into thinking a certain way, and if they DON'T think that way, they're a "narrow-minded bigot", or "hateful", etc, etc. That is why homosexuality is a much more hot-button issue than say, coveting or lying. Because the fact is, there are people who want more than just tolerance. They want others to accept and approve of something, they want all of society to agree. It aint gonna happen. You can't force people to think a certain way, that is being the Thought Police.

Well put...

But I think it works both ways, too- at one end of the spectrum there are those who want no tolerance for homosexuality regardless of any circumstances. At the other end are those who are openly hostile and violent toward homosexuals (I'm not suggesting you're either, by the way).

The "other side" of the debate can be just as guilty as intimidating people into thinking, and even acting, in a certain way.

I would also say that there are those who proclaim other sins as "good things". They may not openly declare it, but take greed for example. American society, quite frankly, is built around it...

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:10 PM

I've come across hetero people who indulge in one night stands, flings etc. But in my experience, they're a tiny minority, and no less "disordered" than homosexuals who act similarly.

EVEN if that "tiny minority" figure was right (it's not), and EVEN if the gay population's figure was significantly higher (which probably depends on your definition of "significant"), why is that any reason to condemn "gays" as "disordered"? It seems it's perfectly okay to condemn PROMISCUOUS PEOPLE, irrespective of sexual orientation.

If only 5% of whites smoke, but 85% of blacks do, is that a reason to condemn blacks? No, you can condemn PEOPLE WHO SMOKE irrespective of race and stop insulting the 15% of blacks who don't smoke. Just like black=black and NOT black=smoker, gay=gay and NOT gay=promiscuous.

This is of course acting under the assumption that being promiscuous is reprehensible, which I don't think it is if all parties are safe, sane, and honest about their intentions, but for the sake of argument, I'll play.

CCC

07-06-2005, 11:15 PM

Humans kill eachother on unbelievable massive scales that animals couldnt comprehend for a second. But as long as it is in the name of good, you are ok with it (you are a backer of starting a war with Iraq, correct?). Im confused... Killing in the name of good = Good.... Allowing homosexuals to wed = Horrible sin that shows the downside of humanity?

WTF??!?!

Ah, now to deal with your hypocrisy.

Yes, abortion kills on an unbelievably massive scale, and your peeps are cool with that. Got it. (oh, wait, here comes that "I'm personally against it, but..." line)

Yes, Bush liberating Iraq is bad, Saddam's mass graves, toirture chambers and political prisoners, no biggie.
Yes, Reagan liberating Granada et al. bad, Che Guevara (marxist hero, icon of your Zach de la Rochas) starting bloody wars, no biggie.

Flip-side now... Milosevic (aka, the Baltic Hussain) bad, Clinton bombing Kosovo (to distract from Monica-gate) Okie-dokie. (oh, wait, I suppose here comes that "I'm more of a Green Party..." line)

Got it. Spare me your fake outrage.

Oh, yes, the homosexuals are sooooooo oppressed. :rolleyes:

You have an agenda and will gladly exploit the homosexuals to reach your goals, whatever twisted ones they are.

Della April

07-06-2005, 11:19 PM

Your experience, in the grand scheme of things, is so miniscule that to make the kinds of statements you've made is utterly ridiculous. There are good, friendly gay people and rude gay people. Same with straights. That you categorically equate gays with the qualities you did is insulting and inaccurate.
And as I said, those qualities are not limited to gay people... and indeed I never claimed they were.

Della April

07-06-2005, 11:22 PM

Well, LateGreat, it'd seem that it doesn't matter much what I say about any sexual subject, does it? I've stated my case, I am not going to change my mind - and you don't agree.
I can't agree with you, so that's where we have to leave it.

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:23 PM

Nonsense. Just like with smokers, we want homosexuals to cease their self-destructive habit which threatens to severely shorten their lives. We do this out of love. If they (smokers or homosexuals) resign themselves to thinking they can never change, then they won't no matter what I say, and that is their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences of that choice. But there are avenues for people to deal with their problems. There are ex-smokers and there are ex-homosexuals. But homosexual activists will do what they can to deny information from ex-homosexual groups such as P-FOX from reaching those living a homosexual lifestyle. That is close-mindedness.

With regard to gays' ability to "change," I believe Malcom's eloquent post is quite relevant: sexuality is a more fluid thing in mankind in general than we have been conditioned to think. Are there people who have "switched over" back to a heterosexual life, enjoyed it, and never looked back? I'm sure there are. Is this ability universal to gays, and simply a mind-over-matter situation? No. I could stare at a naked female supermodel all day long. Guess what? Nothin' happenin' down there. At all. EVER. I'd get it up if I could. But looking at the female form is as stimulating to me as looking at a mailbox. Put Brad Pitt in that model's place, and boy howdy, I need a fan. It's a biological response that goes back as far as I can remember (which is age 4, personally), though other people have other stories. And that response is what makes me gay. Not promiscuity. Not pink feather boas. Not disco music. My lard gets hard at the sight of hot guys. Period.

And that's what makes the whole "destructive lifestyle" argument so frustrating. I go on dates with guys. With a few men in my life, I have enjoyed time in the bedroom. All in private. I don't need or want anyone else involved in my relationship matters. I plan on becoming a dentist, on living a long, healthy, happy life. There is nothing innately "destructive" about the biological response that constitutes homosexuality. If it truly is "morally wrong" and I go to hell for it, so be it. But that's a choice for each individual to make, just as smoking is. You can condemn it, try to change it, whatever. Fine. But to enshrine that intolerance in law through institutions (government) that is supposed to protect the rights of ALL citizens under its umbrella is illegitimate. I don't care one way or another how much you don't approve. Just live and let live, government-wise.

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:26 PM

Anyway, it's not like you flick a switch. It's something that entices one in. Like with pornography or any kind of fetish. You let something play with your mind long enough and you just might get hooked, an obsession. You become conformable in your deviance. It's all in your head. It's your choice when you decide to start, continue, and stop, though you may feel (or try to justify) like you have no choice.

Be it biological OR a straight up-and-down choice, ought that matter to government policy toward gays? The government policy is all I'm concerned with in the end; I don't care about approval from any individual. But this debate over homosexuality's origins...does it matter to what government policy as far as anti-sodomy laws and marriage license issuance should be? I don't see how.

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:28 PM

I see your point about colour, Malcolm, but I don't agree. Discrimiation on the grounds of colour is immoral, illegal and unethical. But I believe very strongly, that being homosexual is not innate, it can be changed, and is a matter of choice. That being so, the situations are not analogous.

So it's not innate. So it's against nature/the Bible/whatever. Does it harm anyone but the consenting adults involved in the act? If the answer is no (which it is), is their a legitimate interest in anti-gay legislation?

Della April

07-06-2005, 11:28 PM

With regard to gays' ability to "change," I believe Malcom's eloquent post is quite relevant: sexuality is a more fluid thing in mankind in general than we have been conditioned to think. Are there people who have "switched over" back to a heterosexual life, enjoyed it, and never looked back? I'm sure there are. Is this ability universal to gays, and simply a mind-over-matter situation? No. I could stare at a naked female supermodel all day long. Guess what? Nothin' happenin' down there. At all. EVER. I'd get it up if I could. But looking at the female form is as stimulating to me as looking at a mailbox. Put Brad Pitt in that model's place, and boy howdy, I need a fan. It's a biological response that goes back as far as I can remember (which is age 4, personally), though other people have other stories. And that response is what makes me gay. Not promiscuity. Not pink feather boas. Not disco music. My lard gets hard at the sight of hot guys. Period.

And that's what makes the whole "destructive lifestyle" argument so frustrating. I go on dates with guys. With a few men in my life, I have enjoyed time in the bedroom. All in private. I don't need or want anyone else involved in my relationship matters. I plan on becoming a dentist, on living a long, healthy, happy life. There is nothing innately "destructive" about the biological response that constitutes homosexuality. If it truly is "morally wrong" and I go to hell for it, so be it. But that's a choice for each individual to make, just as smoking is. You can condemn it, try to change it, whatever. Fine. But to enshrine that intolerance in law through institutions (government) that is supposed to protect the rights of ALL citizens under its umbrella is illegitimate. I don't care one way or another how much you don't approve. Just live and let live, government-wise.

I wasn't going to answer, but I simply have to... Homosexuality is not illegal in the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and afaik, all of Europe. So, what is your problem? You can come here and have a civil union, go to Spain and get married it seems - so whence all the talk about being oppressed by the law?
From what I am reading of the P-Fox site someone (CCC?) linked to - it's the ex-gays who have to worry about the law!

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:32 PM

I think most people do have tolerance for homosexuality, but tolerant does not mean condoning it... it's more like, "I don't agree with your choice but as long as you're not forcing it on me, it's your thing... I can still think you're a valuable person but not agree with or condone your actions."

What is "forcing it on you"? Do you mean rape? Well that's illegal, and it should be. I don't need or want you or any other person besides the man I love to be involved in my relationship. Most gays I know are the same way. End of problem, or what?

The problem arises when there is a push to force acceptance, or to intimidate people into thinking a certain way, and if they DON'T think that way, they're a "narrow-minded bigot", or "hateful", etc, etc. That is why homosexuality is a much more hot-button issue than say, coveting or lying. Because the fact is, there are people who want more than just tolerance. They want others to accept and approve of something, they want all of society to agree. It aint gonna happen. You can't force people to think a certain way, that is being the Thought Police.

DON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDO N'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON' TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TC AREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAR EABOUTACCEPTANCE. Everyone is different. But there is a large number of gays who don't give two sh*ts about convincing anyone out of their position on homosexuality. All that matters is that that position not be enshrined in law in the form of anti-sodomy laws, denying gays marriage licenses, etc, because their relationships in no way impact the public. It is a private, two-person matter.

Pints with Plato

07-06-2005, 11:35 PM

TheLateGreat

07-06-2005, 11:40 PM

I wasn't going to answer, but I simply have to... Homosexuality is not illegal in the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and afaik, all of Europe. So, what is your problem? You can come here and have a civil union, go to Spain and get married it seems - so whence all the talk about being oppressed by the law?

A) In America, in several states, homosexual sodomy was illegal until just 2 years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. B) In America, where I am--specifically Oklahoma--I cannot get married. The denial of a marriage license to me here is as wrong as it would be at any other geographic location, so the "move" argument (which wasn't even possible until very recently) is moot. I'm arguing the innate rightness/wrongness of denying gays marriage licenses, a wrong which recognizes no geographical bounds.

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 11:40 PM

I do know of cases where a 'cure' has succeeded - just last year, there was a big story in one of our national Sunday papers featuring several families founded by ex-gays, both male and female. With support from friends and family, it succeeds more of then than not, as far as I know.

Like I said, there are any amount of shades between straight and gay. Most people are bi-sexual to a degree, if not all - some being closest to heterosexuality, and some being closest to being purely homosexual.
These 'cures' are no doubt examples of people whose natural tendancy was not strongly homosexual. They had the desire to conform, so they felt they needed to be 'cured', and they managed to focus on their attraction for the opposite sex.
Reading the headlines of a newspaper does not tell you anything about what the family's life is like. There is a lot of silent misery in the families of this world, in which one partner has sacrificed his or her natural inclinations and desires to conform to the wishes of others - a silent misery that only psychiatrists and very observant people will perceive.

I hate to take a movie as an example, but since you and I do not have any real life people as common references, remember the gay marine father in American Beauty. Remember his wife. Remember their son. Homosexuals who found families are fairly common: it does not mean they are 'cured': it means they are pretending to be what others have caused them to believe they should be. The greater the gap between their actual sexuality and the sexuality they lead in life, the greater the hidden pain.
It is also possible for them to pretend so hard that they convince themselves that they have become heterosexual, but the part of themselves that they have closed a door on will continue to exist... and that which is not expressed festers.

I see your point about colour, Malcolm, but I don't agree. Discrimiation on the grounds of colour is immoral, illegal and unethical. But I believe very strongly, that being homosexual is not innate, it can be changed, and is a matter of choice. That being so, the situations are not analogous.

I'm sorry but I did not mean the situations to be analagous. I used the two situations to a very specific end, not to equivocate them on all levels.

Regardless, you seem to be inferring that although discrimination on the basis of color is wrong because color can't be changed, discrimination on the basis of sexuality is ok because you believe it can be changed. That does not sit well with me...

M.

CCC

07-06-2005, 11:45 PM

Actually, I don't believe a "source" for homosexuality has been identified either way.

Right. Source could be one or more of many different causes from one person to another. But to claim it's biological when it is really all in the head is absurd of them. They're reaching to justify their bahavior.

It may seem perfectly natural for a 5-year old to have a temper tantrum. Hopefully that child will be guided and grow out of such childish behavior. Imagine a 30 year old having the temper tantrum of a 5-year old. People can change.

But that's why the teachers' unions want to indocrinate children that young, as it fits into their deviant far-left agenda. "Heather Has Two Mommies?" Oh yes, there's an agenda. Don't be fooled by claims of "tolerance."

Gee, I thought open-mindedness was acknowledging that a "source" (be it biological or social) for homosexuality has not been identified, then respecting the freedom of other people to do what they wish with their lives. My bad.

They can do what they want with their chosen lifestyles. They don't deserve my approval. But I do generally live and let live and I have worked and socialized with homosexuals. But again, I'm not going to sanction or approve of what they do. I can help them steer into a different direction if they want to change. But the close-minded don't want me to proselytize the homosexual seeking to change, since it doesn't fit their agenda.

Who's denying anybody a chance to do anything?

When groups like P-FOX try to get recognition in government schools, they are generally shunned while PFLAG and other homosexual advocacy groups are welcomed with open arms. There are people who don't want homosexuals to know that there are people who wish to help those who wish to change. They recognize strength in numbers and it fits their leftist agenda.

And finally, why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home? (Here comes the inevitable "bands of fairies parading through the streets" speech).

Yes, the bands of fairies parading through the streets. Ick. :p Homosexuals should realize what a bad message those things send if they want more acceptance (advice free of charge from CCC)

Look, I don't want to know what goes on in somebody's bedroom, whether homosexual or heterosexual or three-way. Got it? But to have government endorsement of such twisted acts is something I will oppose. They deserve better.

Pints with Plato

07-06-2005, 11:53 PM

Right. Source could be one or more of many different causes from one person to another. But to claim it's biological when it is really all in the head is absurd of them. They're reaching to justify their bahavior.

You didn't seriously just do that, did you? You're joking around, right? You acknowledged in the first sentence that "source" hasn't been determined, then turned around in the second and say "it is really all in the head" on purpose, right?

But that's why the teachers' unions want to indocrinate children that young, as it fits into their deviant far-left agenda. "Heather Has Two Mommies?" Oh yes, there's an agenda. Don't be fooled by claims of "tolerance."

Wow... I've never read that literature from the teacher's union. Actually, most of the teachers I know (I know many teachers) are pretty centrist. This isn't Hannity talking, is it?

Look, I don't want to know what goes on in somebody's bedroom, whether homosexual or heterosexual or three-way. Got it? But to have government endorsement of such twisted acts is something I will oppose. They deserve better.

Let me ask this- Are you in any way harmed by two men or women enjoying the priviledges of civil union any moreso than by a man and a woman?

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 11:53 PM

But that's why the teachers' unions want to indocrinate children that young, as it fits into their deviant far-left agenda. "Heather Has Two Mommies?" Oh yes, there's an agenda. Don't be fooled by claims of "tolerance."

What is this far-left agenda? What are they trying to accomplish apart from tolerance?

M.

Malcolm Wright

07-06-2005, 11:53 PM

CCC

07-06-2005, 11:57 PM

(propaganda.....NEW WORD!!! :D :D :D )

I should start charging for tutorial services. :D

So your saying being in love with someone of the same sex is an addiction?

In a way it is. "Sexual addiction" became a popular term in the Clinton 90s for awhile. But perhaps "fetish" is a better term to use.

Are saying you know everything about homosexuality?

Nobody knows everything about homosexuality.

Not having sex with the opposite sex shortens your life as dramaticly as smoking ciggerets, eh? :p

Er, "not having sex?" No. Some smokers will reach a 100 years and some homosexuals will reach a 100 years, but statistics show a much shorter life-expectancy for a homosexual or for a smoker. And there are a lot of homosexuals who smoke... lots of destructive lifestyle choices!

Of course you do! Forbidding females that have a female mate from living happy lives just because you disagree with them is a great way to say "we LOVE you!!!".

Yes, it is.

Homosexuals should only change if they want to. Dont you think its a bit close-minded to assume that every homosexual should have to change, whether they like it or not?

Close-minded? Not at all. It would be beneficial for the homosexuals to not engage in homosexual sex and smokers should not smoke. It's in their best health interest. Not to mention their spiritual interest, but that opens up the anti-Christian bigots to attack me for saying that. Oh well. :D

lily

07-07-2005, 12:05 AM

What is "forcing it on you"? Do you mean rape? Well that's illegal, and it should be. I don't need or want you or any other person besides the man I love to be involved in my relationship. Most gays I know are the same way. End of problem, or what?

DON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDO N'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON' TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TC AREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAREABOUTACCEPTANCEDON'TCAR EABOUTACCEPTANCE. Everyone is different. But there is a large number of gays who don't give two sh*ts about convincing anyone out of their position on homosexuality. All that matters is that that position not be enshrined in law in the form of anti-sodomy laws, denying gays marriage licenses, etc, because their relationships in no way impact the public. It is a private, two-person matter.

When the government gets into it, this whole issue becomes more than just a matter between two people. When the government puts a stamp of approval on something, then it has an effect on all society.

Marriage is more than just a contract between two individuals. We're talking about a building block of society. If you didn't realize that, then you are naive or short-sighted.

When I said "force", of course I was not talking about rape. I am talking about the changing of the law, and all that goes along with that. I brought up a couple pages back on the thread, how one of the issues is that schools will inevitably have to bring up homosexuality in a way that MANY people... in fact, I'd say the majority, disagree with. (again, tolerating something is not the same as accepting or condoning it) Because once the government puts a stamp of approval on something, it will be presented in a way that it wouldn't be, if it didn't have that stamp of approval.

There are many other issues I can bring up, but I wasn't planning on getting into a debate about this. I just wanted to answer your misleading (or maybe just naive) claim that it is something that only affects 2 people.

CCC

07-07-2005, 12:20 AM

It's a biological response that goes back as far as I can remember (which is age 4, personally), though other people have other stories.

I find having a sexual response at 4 as rather bizarre, no matter what sexual orientation.

Not disco music.

As much disco as I've listened to, I wasn't worried about that. :)

But to enshrine that intolerance in law through institutions (government) that is supposed to protect the rights of ALL citizens under its umbrella is illegitimate. I don't care one way or another how much you don't approve. Just live and let live, government-wise.

Sorry. No can do. Relating "homosexual rights" to real civil rights doesn't cut it for me.

Does it harm anyone but the consenting adults involved in the act? If the answer is no (which it is), is their a legitimate interest in anti-gay legislation?

Just curious... do you favor legalization of prostitution?

Malcolm Wright

07-07-2005, 12:21 AM

When the government gets into it, this whole issue becomes more than just a matter between two people. When the government puts a stamp of approval on something, then it has an effect on all society.

...

There are many other issues I can bring up, but I wasn't planning on getting into a debate about this. I just wanted to answer your misleading (or maybe just naive) claim that it is something that only affects 2 people.

Well then what is that effect on all society, Buttercup? The world is there for you to investigate precisely what those effects are. There are are nations that have legalized gay unions: can you go ahead and find out whether it had any adverse effects or not? Challenge your pre-conceived notions! Your youth is partly wasted if you do not! The mind tends to harden with passing years: the more you question, the more it will remain young and flexible.

M.

Della April

07-07-2005, 12:22 AM

The problem here in the US is that two men cannot have a civil union. That's the point.
I thought you could in Hawaii, or Vermont, or both... is that incorrect? You could always come to New Zealand! :)

Della April

07-07-2005, 12:28 AM

I hate to take a movie as an example, but since you and I do not have any real life people as common references, remember the gay marine father in American Beauty. Remember his wife. Remember their son....

....It is also possible for them to pretend so hard that they convince themselves that they have become heterosexual, but the part of themselves that they have closed a door on will continue to exist... and that which is not expressed festers....

....I'm sorry but I did not mean the situations to be analagous. I used the two situations to a very specific end, not to equivocate them on all levels.

Regardless, you seem to be inferring that although discrimination on the basis of color is wrong because color can't be changed, discrimination on the basis of sexuality is ok because you believe it can be changed. That does not sit well with me...

M.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen that film. But I am reading some of the stories on the site linked to, P-Fox. very interesting!

TheLateGreat

07-07-2005, 12:43 AM

I find having a sexual response at 4 as rather bizarre, no matter what sexual orientation.

Not sexual. But I noticed guys as being goodlooking. I can tell a woman is attractive/unattractive, theoretically, but have never had any "wow, she's cute" feeling."

Just curious... do you favor legalization of prostitution?

Yes. Maybe the Bible is right. Maybe it's a sin. Maybe they'll go to hell. So prosleytize (sp?) all you want to them about it. But God's Law will reign supreme whether or not this institution called the U.S. (or state) government mimics His law's during our time here on earth. His judgment will fall upon them, regardless of what the government law is, so it should be one that lives and lets live with respect to actions between sane, consenting adults.

CCC

07-07-2005, 12:59 AM

You didn't seriously just do that, did you? You're joking around, right? You acknowledged in the first sentence that "source" hasn't been determined, then turned around in the second and say "it is really all in the head" on purpose, right?

Yes, it's mental. The only question is what life experiences caused this phenomenon in each person afflicted with SSAD.

Wow... I've never read that literature from the teacher's union. Actually, most of the teachers I know (I know many teachers) are pretty centrist. This isn't Hannity talking, is it?

Oh, I know there are some decent teachers out there, but the teachers unions (NEA nationally, CTA in California, etc) have a far-left agenda. Promote acceptance and curiosity of homosexuality, promote abortion rights, promote the United Nations and a global government, promote bilingualism (meaning that immigrants aren't rushed into learning English which is so important if you want a chance to succeed), promote environmental extremism, promote the "peace" movement, support racist affirmative action programs, etc. They opposed teacher testing, they support tenure which virtually guarantees bad teachers will keep employment.

The teacher unions have latched on to Vladimir Ilich Lenin's doctrine. "Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."

And, no, this is not Hannitty. I can't post here and do my little dance with Alan Colmes every night. :p

Let me ask this- Are you in any way harmed by two men or women enjoying the priviledges of civil union any moreso than by a man and a woman?

No, it doesn't directly affect me, but it's not about me. You don't do them any favors by having the government sanctioning something they should not be doing, whether it be homosexuality or smoking (that the military got many of the enlisted to smoke back in the day is absolutely appalling to me)

Malcolm Wright

07-07-2005, 01:09 AM

No, it doesn't directly affect me, but it's not about me. You don't do them any favors by having the government sanctioning something they should not be doing, whether it be homosexuality or smoking (that the military got many of the enlisted to smoke back in the day is absolutely appalling to me)

CCC, your entire position boils down to you believing that not only do you know better what is good for other adults, but that you should have the right to exert your belief on them. Not only can I not agree: I cannot respect such a position.

M.

lily

07-07-2005, 01:11 AM

Oh, I know there are some decent teachers out there, but the teachers unions (NEA nationally, CTA in California, etc) have a far-left agenda. Promote acceptance and curiosity of homosexuality, promote abortion rights, promote the United Nations and a global government, promote bilingualism (meaning that immigrants aren't rushed into learning English which is so important if you want a chance to succeed), promote environmental extremism, promote the "peace" movement, support racist affirmative action programs, etc. They opposed teacher testing, they support tenure which virtually guarantees bad teachers will keep employment.

I think you're probably going to have to clarify things for some people, because I know some people are going to be wondering 'what's so wrong with bilingualism*... or a world government', etc. Oh, and the peace movement probably willl throw off people too. :p (I can hear it now, total misunderstanding)

*There's nothing at all wrong with bilingualism, it's a good thing to teach other languagues... I think what is being talked about here is kids who don't speak english being taught in Spanish or their native language, instead of English immersion, which has proven to be way more effective in teaching English.

CCC

07-07-2005, 01:39 AM

CCC, your entire position boils down to you believing that not only do you know better what is good for other adults, but that you should have the right to exert your belief on them. Not only can I not agree: I cannot respect such a position.

M.

Oh well, I'd rather be right than popular.

Some would rather let the San Francisco gay bathhouses remain open in the 80s and let GRIDS/AIDS spread even farther than it has, all in the misguided name of "tolerance" and "choice." Randy Shilts (who would later die of the disease) was called a traitor and worse for doing that. Shame on him for "forcing his morality" on others. < /sarcasm > There are many homosexuals who should have thanked him for that.

And the band played on.

Corporate Avenger

07-07-2005, 02:18 AM

Peace and free will is bad, what a stance...

Corporate Avenger

07-07-2005, 02:28 AM

I agree, and as far as your view being narrow, etc, I think you're very opened minded unlike some.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS BIOLOGICAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT SOCIAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

Some are born homosexual, some are born heterosexual, but we all have both in us. Just as both men and women have estrogen and testosterone—just in radically different amounts.

If it's all in the mind, then we should have been able to find the psychological cause of homosexuality by now (i.e. being nurtured too much as a child or not having a father figure—common myths surrounding the cause of homosexuality). Now, homosexuals come from all walks of life: rich, poor, white, black, conservative, liberal—all different sorts. And here some are trying to pass judgement on something they 1) know little about 2) want to hate and 3) are so close minded about that they resort to using "what ifs" to justify their argument against gays.

-michele

You are 100% correct, it's both amazing and sad that we are even having this debate in 2005. But I guess some people are still stuck in the past..

lily

07-07-2005, 02:30 AM

Peace and free will is bad, what a stance...

lol, i knew it:

Oh, and the peace movement probably willl throw off people too. :p (I can hear it now, total misunderstanding)

Corporate Avenger

07-07-2005, 02:39 AM

lol, i knew it:

Well sorry if some of us are bewildered by those who find war and authoritarianism to be good things..

lily

07-07-2005, 02:53 AM

Well sorry if some of us are bewildered by those who find war and authoritarianism to be good things..

I don't find those things good at all, in fact they're very bad.

As far as war goes... I usually stay out of those debates, especially the war we're in now... I don't have enough info to know for sure either way, so I have just stayed out of it. But (and maybe CCC would be better at answering this) I'm not naive enough to think that there is NEVER a time when war is necessary. What he probably meant by the "peace movement" is that it is code, or a nice way of saying accepting terrorism. (or worse)

Malcolm Wright

07-07-2005, 02:57 AM

Oh well, I'd rather be right than popular.

Some would rather let the San Francisco gay bathhouses remain open in the 80s and let GRIDS/AIDS spread even farther than it has, all in the misguided name of "tolerance" and "choice." Randy Shilts (who would later die of the disease) was called a traitor and worse for doing that. Shame on him for "forcing his morality" on others. < /sarcasm > There are many homosexuals who should have thanked him for that.

And the band played on.

Why are you mixing in an isue of public health with issues of morality?
Allowing official gay unions would arguably be in the interest of public health as it will most likely decrease promiscuity in gay circles.

M.

CCC

07-07-2005, 04:22 AM

Well sorry if some of us are bewildered by those who find war and authoritarianism to be good things..

I hope you're not wearing your Che Guevera shirt when you say that. ;)

I don't find those things good at all, in fact they're very bad.

Same here. :nice:
I don't care much for anarchy or libertinism either.

What he probably meant by the "peace movement" is that it is code, or a nice way of saying accepting terrorism. (or worse)

Banky once coined the term "Peace Nazi" :nice:

Here's an interesting link from the California Teachers Association
http://www.cta.org/InsideCTA/TrainingHR/DayOfPeace.htm

Purpose
The International Day of Peace was originated in 1981 by the United Nations to focus on peace issues in the world. On September 7, 2001, the UN Assembly decided that, beginning 2002, the International Day of Peace shall be observed on September 21st of each year, with this date to be brought to the attention of all people for the celebration and observance of peace.

"CTA believes in the Interdependence of all people. Peace is superior to war and, in this nuclear age, is basic to the survival of civilization.

Its members should promote the ideals of peace, freedom, and human dignity based upon genuine respect for an understanding of individual and cultural diversity. The development of educational programs to promote these ideals is essential.

Establishing relationships with educators from other nations will help promote human rights and international peace and understanding."

"If we are to reach real peace in the world, we shall have to begin with children."
--Gandhi

This quotation is taken from the CTA Organizational Handbook containing policies adopted by the CTA State Council of Education. Like Gandhi, we believe that we should begin with the children. That is why CTA voted to celebrate the International Day of Peace in Education.

We can celebrate with hope for a peaceful future. What better way to reinforce the ideals of peace and dignity than to ask our students to celebrate a peaceful future for themselves and their own children.

Suggested Activities

"A society is exactly as great as the educational preparation we give to the next generation. And the world will be exactly as good and peaceful a place in which to live as the understanding we give to that generation of the world as a global village."
--Zarathustra
Organize a Peace Walk.
Raise the UN flag and flags of the countries of the world.
Sing a peace song.
Compile a class library of biographies of peacemakers. Read and discuss their lives.
Create, draw, write stories, poems, word puzzles, and articles about peace.
Create pictures, posters, toys, murals, and puppets to show feelings of peace and friendship.
Create a peaceful classroom environment using such activities as cooperative learning and conflict resolution techniques.
Select a country with which students will share letters, art, tapes, and pictures of themselves with other student.
Promote environmental activities. Start a peace garden or plant a tree.
Begin a peer conflict resolution program.
Practice individual and group listening, sharing, and decision-making skills.
Share music which reflects multicultural diversity.
Take an imaginary trip to a peace galaxy. Create a time capsule for a future of peace; e.g., use Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream..."
Acceptance of diversity, community-building, peace and justice.
Have a group meeting.
Visit a hospital or nursing home.
Volunteer at a recycling center.
Create a "good news" newspaper.
Collect news articles on global topics such as the nuclear arms race, disarmament, hunger, famine, trade, ethnic, religious and political struggles. Discuss peaceful solutions to conflicts.
Play cooperative games.
Sponsor a multicultural fair. Invite guests from diverse cultures.
Study and display examples of traditions which represent friendship and peacemaking.
Make a scrapbook of peaceful scenes or happenings in your community.
Make a peaceful solution folder. Show a picture of a conflict on one side and show a peaceful solution on the other side.
Study the Peace Corps, Nobel Peace Prize, UNICEF, peace treaties, etc., to learn how they promote peace.
Obtain names of local, state, and national elected officials. Write to them with questions and solutions to concerns and issues.
Set up a place where students can write down peaceful and friendly deeds they observe. Display them in your classroom.
Study cultural artifacts and have students create their own; e.g. chinese lanterns.
Plant a tree.
Make a new friend.
Design a peace flag.
Teach Tolerance.
Put accurate Islamic materials in all public libraries.
Write letters of appreciation to your family, students, teachers, politicians, civic leaders, and others who have contributed to peace, community understanding, and social issues.
Rewrite fairytales, movie and television plots, and children's storybooks to create positive "win - win" solutions.
Collect, analyze, and compare lyrics from contemporary songs which have peace and global friendship themes.
Study and discuss the universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Covenants related to human rights.
Create a Declaration of Human Rights to be included in a school handbook. Participate in the Student Government Assembly to ratify the Declaration.
Work on a First Amendment project and the rights of students.

So that's what they're doing instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Getting back to homosexuality promotion...

http://www.cta.org/InsideCTA/TrainingHR/Workshop/WorkshopsGLBT.htm

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Development Program

This program was developed to assist gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members develop leadership skills at all levels within the Association. The program consists of four components:

Understanding the System
This component presents an overview of the National and State Association governance and program structures with a focus on accessing power and programs.

Communication for Effective Leadership
This component deals with the importance of good communication skills for leaders. Included is a survey of communication types.

Obstacles to Association Involvement
This training session examines difficulties experienced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members in becoming involved in association activities and programs.

Empowerment for Leaders
This component focuses on empowering gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members for leadership in the Association and their responsibility as local Association leaders.

CCC

07-07-2005, 04:27 AM

Why are you mixing in an isue of public health with issues of morality?
Allowing official gay unions would arguably be in the interest of public health as it will most likely decrease promiscuity in gay circles.

M.

Homosexuals need a guv'mint-stamped paper to not be promiscuous? Mmmm-kay.

CowPunk

07-07-2005, 05:08 AM

As if heterosexual marriage as an institution doesn't decrease straight promiscuity? It's one of the reason it exists.

Malcolm Wright

07-07-2005, 06:23 AM

As if heterosexual marriage as an institution doesn't decrease straight promiscuity? It's one of the reason it exists.

Thank you.

M.

SwiftSloth

07-07-2005, 08:46 AM

Ah, now to deal with your hypocrisy.

Hm. So we both view eachothers arguments as hypocrisy. Whats new in the political idealogy ring?

Yes, abortion kills on an unbelievably massive scale, and your peeps are cool with that. Got it. (oh, wait, here comes that "I'm personally against it, but..." line)

And I am. I am extremely anti-abortion. If I ever found out someone I know had one, I would never talk to them again.

Yes, Bush liberating Iraq is bad, Saddam's mass graves, toirture chambers and political prisoners, no biggie.

K, Good. You didnt mention the 20,000 dead Iraqi's (Oh well.. Its only 20,000 killed by US troops), the 2,000 dead US troops, you didnt mention that Saddam, although evil, is no worse then the leaders of Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. You didnt mention the US and pappy Bush were major backers of Saddam, even knowing he was an evil twisted basterd back in the day. You missed that the reason wasnt liberation, as that is completly against everything the US stands for, as our very constitution states we may only go to war in Self-defense, or an unavoidable attack is appearant. Which is why Bush had to creat his case for WMD. No other reason would possibly do. Now that we are there, he may switch his stances and say 'liberation!', but it was still a complete lie, whether you like the ends or not. So, now that Iv filled in the gaps you left out, we may move on.

Flip-side now... Milosevic (aka, the Baltic Hussain) bad, Clinton bombing Kosovo (to distract from Monica-gate) Okie-dokie. (oh, wait, I suppose here comes that "I'm more of a Green Party..." line)

Im not familiar with the Green Party's position on that I suppose, but I certainly opposed many of Clintons tactics in regards to foreign nations, as well as his obvious lack of interaction in the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to US sanctions in Iraq.

Got it. Spare me your fake outrage.

Pfft. Your the one sparing an honest full-on look at the situations. You want to degrade everything into the optimal situation for your argument, but it never is. Also, if I were BC I would absolutly be flipping out at you presuming my positions, but I understand how you could presume such things (as I dont flip out when people presume what I might have made appearintly obvious), so Im merely leaving it at what I said.

Oh, yes, the homosexuals are sooooooo oppressed. :rolleyes:

Tell me, how are the homosexuals not oppressed in comparison to Heterosexuals?

You have an agenda and will gladly exploit the homosexuals to reach your goals, whatever twisted ones they are.

LOL. I Have an agenda? Not at all. I simply lack your dogmatic installed prejudice, as does most of my generation. Which is why im absolutly positive, short of Neocons setting up a PNAC regulated dictatorship, Gay marriage will be impliminted within the US shortly.

Spazola

07-07-2005, 11:53 AM

I should start charging for tutorial services. :D
Well, you cant expect to debate with a 13-year-old and not teach her something new :shrug: :D :D :D :D

In a way it is. "Sexual addiction" became a popular term in the Clinton 90s for awhile. But perhaps "fetish" is a better term to use.
There are millions of heterosexuals that have sex with many partners all the time (one night stands, ect.). Should having sex be made illegal, too?

Nobody knows everything about homosexuality.
Except for maybe a homosexual?

Er, "not having sex?" No. Some smokers will reach a 100 years and some homosexuals will reach a 100 years, but statistics show a much shorter life-expectancy for a homosexual or for a smoker. And there are a lot of homosexuals who smoke... lots of destructive lifestyle choices!
If having homosexual sex is no worse than smoking, and smoking is legal, why should homosexuality be any different?

Yes, it is.
Making people miserable because you love them.....never heard of that before! :rolleyes:

Close-minded? Not at all.
How is it NOT close-minded to assume that YOUR way is the RIGHT way?
It would be beneficial for the homosexuals to not engage in homosexual sex and smokers should not smoke.
Of course. But the government shouldnt be able to control who people have sex with (aside from when some 40 year old dude rapes a 15 year old).
It's in their best health interest. Not to mention their spiritual interest, but that opens up the anti-Christian bigots to attack me for saying that. Oh well. :D
You dont know whats in everyones spiritual interest.

CCC

07-07-2005, 12:20 PM

You didnt mention the 20,000 dead Iraqi's (Oh well.. Its only 20,000 killed by US troops), the 2,000 dead US troops,

Direct your fake outrage at the terrorists.

you didnt mention that Saddam, although evil, is no worse then the leaders of Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

I could mention each and every despot and dictator and fill up pages on this thread if I saw a need for it. So you're trying to point a finger at all these thugs and, what, saying that America is a hypocrite for not going to war against each and every thug? You and I know that could not be possible. So save your A.N.S.W.E.R. talking points, 'k?

You didnt mention the US and pappy Bush were major backers of Saddam, even knowing he was an evil twisted basterd back in the day.

I could have mentioned it if I thought it was relevant. We've wheeled and dealed with tyrants in the past, obviously WW2 we were buddy-buddies with the Soviets in the campaign against the bigger threat at the time, Nazi Germany. Oh, and maybe you have a problem with all the civilian deaths inflicted by those nasty imperialistic Americans during WW2.

Personally, I'd rather avoid working and dealing with any tyrant if it can be avoided, whether they be from Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.

as our very constitution states we may only go to war in Self-defense, or an unavoidable attack is appearant.

Where does it state that?

Im not familiar with the Green Party's position on that I suppose, but I certainly opposed many of Clintons tactics in regards to foreign nations, as well as his obvious lack of interaction in the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to US sanctions in Iraq.

Not familiar with Green Party's positions? I thought you were well-versed in American politics. You sure know what a "neo-con" is and all about PNAC (I've never been invited to any of their reindeer games) and are tuned in with the anti-war propaganda.

Pfft. Your the one sparing an honest full-on look at the situations. You want to degrade everything into the optimal situation for your argument, but it never is. Also, if I were BC I would absolutly be flipping out at you presuming my positions, but I understand how you could presume such things (as I dont flip out when people presume what I might have made appearintly obvious), so Im merely leaving it at what I said.

Yeah, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. :nice:

I can see the whole picture quite well. It is people like you who are short-sighted.

Tell me, how are the homosexuals not oppressed in comparison to Heterosexuals?

LOL. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry somebody of the opposite sex. :nice:

Their drama queen antics are best left on stage.

LOL. I Have an agenda?

Clearly.

I simply lack your dogmatic installed prejudice, as does most of my generation.

LOL. Dogmatic? Prejudice? Moi? Nonsense. I do enjoy exposing the dogmatic installed prejudice of you and your ilk.

My concerns revolve around (but not limited to) truth, love, compassion, civil rights and justice for all.

CCC

07-07-2005, 12:47 PM

There are millions of heterosexuals that have sex with many partners all the time (one night stands, ect.). Should having sex be made illegal, too?

I have never said sex should be illegal, homo or otherwise. I don't think the gov'mint should give a document of approval for one night stands, etc either.

Originally Posted by CCC
Nobody knows everything about homosexuality.
Except for maybe a homosexual?

They don't know why they are the way they are. You can even see testimony right here on this thread.

If having homosexual sex is no worse than smoking, and smoking is legal, why should homosexuality be any different?

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if smoking was illegal. :shrug:

Making people miserable because you love them.....never heard of that before! :rolleyes:

They make themselves miserable with their chosen S.S.A.D. lifestyle.

How is it NOT close-minded to assume that YOUR way is the RIGHT way?

I've examined the issues with an open mind, without bias. I don't want to go around wanting to hate homosexuals and I don't hate them. I'm the kind of guy who wants to get along with everybody and have everybody love me. That said, I'd rather be right than popular. Being popular and wrong would make me feel hollow.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me close-minded. Unless you think that all opinion is automatically close-minded. :eek7:

Originally Posted by CCC
It would be beneficial for the homosexuals to not engage in homosexual sex and smokers should not smoke.

Of course.

Good. I'm glad somebody admitted it. And you're not close-minded for agreeing with me on that point. :D

You dont know whats in everyones spiritual interest.

God is ultimately the best judge for that. However, I am aware how self-destructive that lifestyle is and that affects the spirituality of a person. Enabling a neurosis isn't the answer.

TheLateGreat

07-07-2005, 01:43 PM

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if smoking was illegal.

I don't think we're going to reach any sort of compromise, so long as one camp functions with a "live and let live" mentality re: government action and the other camp functions with the mentality that using legislation to direct adults' behavior when it doesn't affect others is perfectly acceptable. I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANYONE on earth who hates smoking as much as I do, but I could never bring myself to support the government making it illegal for adults to choose to do.

God is ultimately the best judge for that. However, I am aware how self-destructive that lifestyle is and that affects the spirituality of a person. Enabling a neurosis isn't the answer.

Okay. God's judgment will fall upon each and every one of us, regardless. Why the need for redundancy of His laws, in government legislation? We are each born without asking for it somewhere inside the borders of this country. The government is the institution entrusted to serve and protect each of those people--100% of them--irrespective of faith. It can intervene in your actions if they impose upon an unwilling individual (see: murder, rape, arson). Beyond that, it is supposed to build our roads and schools and stock our military. How can it legitimately try to direct the behavior of consenting adults in private? To me, it can't. So I can hate smoking. I can hate prostitution. I can hate homosexuality (though that one I don't). But in each, I can't say the government has the authority to intervene. God's judgment will still fall upon each of us. There is no need for secular institutional redundancy, imposing it here on earth for those who choose not to follow His doctrine, and thousands of such people are born (without asking for it) within these borders every day.

Spazola

07-07-2005, 01:50 PM

I have never said sex should be illegal, homo or otherwise. I don't think the gov'mint should give a document of approval for one night stands, etc either.
Heres one thing we DO agree on :nice:

They don't know why they are the way they are. You can even see testimony right here on this thread.
True, but do you know why your heterosexual? Because "thats what feels right", correct? Maybe this is what homosexuals feel as well. They feel that it is the right path for them.

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if smoking was illegal. :shrug:
I wouldnt mind, either. Smoking is gross :P

But the point is, alot of things that arent healthy for you are legal. Why should homosexuality be any different?

They make themselves miserable with their chosen S.S.A.D. lifestyle.
I'm sorry....what does S.S.A.D. stand for? :confused:

I've examined the issues with an open mind, without bias.
So then you understand why I think that someone else's love life should be none of anyone elses bussiness.
I don't want to go around wanting to hate homosexuals and I don't hate them.
Thats good. :D
I'm the kind of guy who wants to get along with everybody and have everybody love me. That said, I'd rather be right than popular. Being popular and wrong would make me feel hollow.
Understandable.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me close-minded. Unless you think that all opinion is automatically close-minded. :eek7:
Of course not. You just didnt seem to want to consider that not all homosexuals want to change :shrug:

Good. I'm glad somebody admitted it. And you're not close-minded for agreeing with me on that point. :D
:nice:

God is ultimately the best judge for that. However, I am aware how self-destructive that lifestyle is and that affects the spirituality of a person. Enabling a neurosis isn't the answer.
But, as many people have different religions, God cant play a role in the argument.Unless we are going to turn this into a religious debate.

Della April

07-07-2005, 08:46 PM

I think you're probably going to have to clarify things for some people, because I know some people are going to be wondering 'what's so wrong with bilingualism*... or a world government', etc. Oh, and the peace movement probably willl throw off people too. :p (I can hear it now, total misunderstanding)

*There's nothing at all wrong with bilingualism, it's a good thing to teach other languagues... I think what is being talked about here is kids who don't speak english being taught in Spanish or their native language, instead of English immersion, which has proven to be way more effective in teaching English.

I know some Americans fear "one world government", but I don't think that's ever going to happen! Also, try as I might, I can't see anything wrong with pacifism.As for bilingual teaching, I am an ESOL teacher (English as a second or other language.)

Della April

07-07-2005, 08:50 PM

I don't find those things good at all, in fact they're very bad.

As far as war goes... I usually stay out of those debates, especially the war we're in now... I don't have enough info to know for sure either way, so I have just stayed out of it. But (and maybe CCC would be better at answering this) I'm not naive enough to think that there is NEVER a time when war is necessary. What he probably meant by the "peace movement" is that it is code, or a nice way of saying accepting terrorism. (or worse)
I have to say that I on the other do think there is NEVER a time when war is necessary - but I know I am a minority even among Christian pacifists..

SwiftSloth

07-08-2005, 01:12 AM

Direct your fake outrage at the terrorists.

The terrorists bombed 20,000 Iraqi's? You blame Terrorists for our invasion of Iraq, and our killing tens of thousands of innocent people? And fake outrage? And what persay would 'real outrage' be? Would I have to go out and march in the streets? Then im a "Leftwing hippy freak" or what have you. Write my senator? he's a conservative basterd, who doesnt read letters nor is he ever free to answer his phone. So what exactly would make my outrage over 20,000 dead Iraqi's and 2,000 dead US soldiers real to you? Nothing? Thats what I thought. Youll believe what you want to believe about my feelings. Which is to disregard them in the name of your personal beliefs: Just like you do about gays and others you dont agree with. Free speech, and equal rights for all... As long as its your speech and your version of rights.

I could mention each and every despot and dictator and fill up pages on this thread if I saw a need for it. So you're trying to point a finger at all these thugs and, what, saying that America is a hypocrite for not going to war against each and every thug? You and I know that could not be possible. So save your A.N.S.W.E.R. talking points, 'k?

The reason I listed as such, is because claiming we went to war to liberate Iraq is bull****. If we wanted to be liberators, we could liberate far more opressed nations. Iraq, bad as it was, was not so bad as the situation in other countrys to this day, which we just sit by and dont care about, nor do we hardly even discuss.

Oh, and maybe you have a problem with all the civilian deaths inflicted by those nasty imperialistic Americans during WW2.

OK. Perhaps the dumbest analogy, you could ever come up with, ever is comparing our invasion of Iraq, to the Axis's attempt for world domination, and our attempt to deflect them. Iraq didnt even set a god damn foot out of its own land, and we invaded. It didnt make a threat, and we invaded. HITLER WAS ROLLING OVER OUR ALLIES, AND DECLARED WAR AGAINST US. Please, for the love of all logic, never try comparing 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' to WW Part 2.

Not familiar with Green Party's positions? I thought you were well-versed in American politics. You sure know what a "neo-con" is and all about PNAC (I've never been invited to any of their reindeer games) and are tuned in with the anti-war propaganda.

Um... I know enough about the main body and sub-parties of the green party. What im not familiar is all members held a strong position on Clinton's bombing tacits.

Yeah, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. :nice:

I can see the whole picture quite well. It is people like you who are short-sighted.

Wow. Ignorance is proven the moment your debating an argument based on opinion and you degrade it to 'Its people like you who dont know what your talking about.' Thinking there are absolutes in the ring of political idealogy, in the regards to what we are debating right now, is absolutly absurd.

LOL. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry somebody of the opposite sex. :nice:

Most Heterosexuals want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Most Homosexuals want to marry someone of the same sex. Heterosexuals have the right to marry as they would like. Homosexuals do not have the right. Mmmmk?

LOL. Dogmatic? Prejudice? Moi? Nonsense. I do enjoy exposing the dogmatic installed prejudice of you and your ilk.

Our 'dogmatic installed prejudice ilk' is the base for your liberty and freedom . You just dont like it when the beliefs we hold dont single you out as special, which is unfortenetly the truth of liberty in the rights of social issues.

And by the way, your views are most certainly nothing more then dogmatic and prejudice. You dont like it, therefor its wrong. Sorry, liberty doesnt breath under those circumstances.

My concerns revolve around (but not limited to) truth, love, compassion, civil rights and justice for all.

Except those you dont like or agree with. Then that **** gets kicked out the window.

Misteria

07-08-2005, 09:43 AM

There are famous tv presenters here who were bashed by straight male tv interviewers and the homosexuall interviewer said to the straight ones.......
"you guys have had a few relationships and also are divorced and i have been with my partner forever and am marrying him, tell me how can you criticise me when your personal life is a shambles?"
I also know of partners who are living together since over 20 years and age together as well as look after each other, how many straight couples can say the same?
I shall say this once more, i see absolutelly nothing wrong with same sex marriages as well as same laws for them.
Let each live in peace and harmony and lets each MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS.
Why the hell should i care wether a persons sexuall preferences are different to mine?
I detest paedophiles as well as sexuall offenders and i cant put them in same boat as gays....
its wrong! there are enough rapists and paedophiles out there who are straight and sick and whom lust for the innocence of innocent children and harming women of all ages no ways can i blame or even compare this to homosexualls :nonono:

X3nos

07-08-2005, 02:44 PM

What religion?

Anyway, it's not like you flick a switch. It's something that entices one in. Like with pornography or any kind of fetish. You let something play with your mind long enough and you just might get hooked, an obsession. You become conformable in your deviance. It's all in your head. It's your choice when you decide to start, continue, and stop, though you may feel (or try to justify) like you have no choice.

I was just saying if you were religious don't use that as reason why or why not..

And you never answered the question... you just said a bunch of crap further proving you don't know what you're talking about. :nice:

-michele

CCC

07-09-2005, 12:36 AM

True, but do you know why your heterosexual? Because "thats what feels right", correct? Maybe this is what homosexuals feel as well. They feel that it is the right path for them.

It may "feel right" and I am thankful for that feeling (well, there's a lot of unrequited love that's painful, but that's for another thread). But some want to argue that because somebody feels a certain way now, that must have been the way they were born. Can you see how that argument doesn't jibe? People go through different feelings over the years.

Remember the old taunt "Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, boys are snips n snails and puppy dog tails" and conversely boys thought girls had "cooties." Attitudes change through a child's development, guided by parents, teachers, peers, ministers, whoever is an influence in the young child. There are some today who want to steer and influential child into experimenting with different sexualities.

I'm sorry....what does S.S.A.D. stand for? :confused:

Same-sex attraction disorder

So then you understand why I think that someone else's love life should be none of anyone elses bussiness.

And as I said before, I do not want to hear about their love life. I don't want to hear about heteros' sexual activities either. Please, do keep it in the bedroom. I promise not to peek.

You just didnt seem to want to consider that not all homosexuals want to change :shrug:

And I've said before, homosexuals that don't want to change aren't going to change. But some do and they need not be kept in the dark about ways to change.

But, as many people have different religions, God cant play a role in the argument.Unless we are going to turn this into a religious debate.

Naw, I've tried to steer away from religion in my arguments. Just gives one side a reason to discard everything I have to say.

And you never answered the question... you just said a bunch of crap further proving you don't know what you're talking about. :nice:

Hee-hee. You thought you'd trap me into an answer that you could attack and when I answered your question and expanded on that answer, you couldn't reason against it. Har! :nice: