Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
You know, there was a time when being left-handed was called "wrong". I`ll just say, preaching love and hating a certain variation of love, even though one does not even need to be concerned with it, that`s hypocrisy.However - to the thinking man, hypocrisy has always been a blazing medal of religion.
And besides, if "god" didn`t intend us to be gay, why did he make us gay?
Love isn`t all about sexuality, but sexuality is (often) a part of love.
Especially when you are being denied the right to express your love because of that sexuality, as far too many people are. Let me make this clear; it is not gay people who made sexuality an issue. It`s everyone who denies them (I should say "us" really, but I`m lucky, and grateful, to be living somewhere where my sexuality isn`t used against me) equality with straight people who have done that.
Gay people are left with no choice but to fight their corner. And for that they are accused of "rubbing their sexuality in people`s faces". Hardly fair.
Are you then suggesting that infertile straight couples and straight couples who do not want to have children should not be allowed to marry?
To sum it all up:
1: There is plenty of documented evidence of homosexual behavior in other species. You just don`t want to find it (and the simple fact that the one species you HAVE looked at DOES have homosexual behavior proves that it DOES appear in nature, doesn`t it hot shot?).
2: Having children isn`t a requirement for getting married, not in your country or in mine, so the idea that marriage exists for children to be raised is simply incorrect.
3: Marriage is nothing to do with religion in either of our countries. Proof: I am part of no religion in any way, shape or form, yet I can perfectly legally go and marry any woman I like (or have a civil partnership with any man I like), without the involvement of any church or religion whatsoever. You cannot then apply religious homophobic morality to marriage.
I`ve said this before and I`ll say it again. Pink Flamingo. Theres a reason its considered a symbol for homosexuality (hint: its not because its pink)
There are hundreds of species that practice bisexuality and homosexuality.
Although gay people don`t need your support. You`re too stupid to be of any use to the gay community.
lets just say libertarians and american constitutionalists have a lot in common
So when a man naturally (meaning no surgery, ie sex changes) gives birth, or when a woman can naturally (meaning no surgery, ie sex changes) spill her seed, only then will I support same sex marriage.
Human seem to be the only species who have homosexual tendencies, then again I haven`t looked at any animals, besides the banana slug, that have sex with the same gender.If homosexuality isn`t natural, which it isn`t, then what is it?
And I hate the word homophobia, and the like. Homo means same, and phobia means fear of. Fear of the same? Makes as much sense as gay marriage.
So, you say that we should look to religion when reviewing current and future laws? This country was founded on religious freedom, mind you, which includes freedom FROM religion. If people want to live in a country where they do not want to be restricted by the laws of a certain religion, they are entitled by the constitution to do so. If you want to live in a country where your own relgion dictates what laws are passed, go start your own and get out of this one. You`re being incredibly selfish.
Well, in any case it certaintly doesn`t mean that we`re supposed to steralize government by hiding religion under the floorboards and pretending it doesn`t exist.
really? cause that`s not what it sounds like to me
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Facts are facts, and the fact stands that nothing good has come out of homosexuality.
"But they love each other!" the liberals cry.
Oh, nay, nay! If they "love" each other, why is the rate of domestic violence among the gay couples so high?
Also, you have grossly misconstrued the concept of seperation of church and state. It simply means that the United States has no official religion. Remember, our national motto is "In God We Trust."
I discuss all of the following forms of "natural" and "unnatural"
I The Descriptive laws of Nature2 The Artificial as a Form of the Unnatural3 Anything Uncommon or Abnormal is Unnatural4 Any Use of an Organ or an Instrument That Is Contrary toIts Principal Purpose or Function Is Unnatural5 That Which Is Natural is Good, and Whatever is Unnatural is Bad
..to all of which I give plenty of examples to show it`s normality and/or ambiguity in society. If you want, I can point you in the direction to a paper I have written on the subject.
What are your personal morals based on? Scripture? What is `natural` and `unnatural`? Your own personal beliefs or what is right and what is wrong?
Unfortunately for you, you can`t use any of the above to discredit gay marriage. The moment you use religion as the backbone of your argument about laws in a state not founded on any specific relgion, you become extremely insulting. Also, you can`t stop other people from doing something just because you wouldn`t do it yourself.
Finally, you most definitely can`t stop someone from doing something because it`s `unnatural.` The "unnaturalness" of homosexuality raises the question of the meaning of nature, natural, and similar terms. The word nature has a built-in ambiguity that can lead to serious misunderstandings.
Mostly for legal reasons, however.
After the super simple/cheap ceremony that serves this purpose, however, and once I make a little more money, I`m having a second (bigger) wedding on a ship, pirate themed for the rum, sea shanties, and many scantily clad women with their breasts up to their chins. :D THAT`S my kind of wedding <3
I`d just like to ask one core question: Why do we need to get married?
It is not a biological necessity. Nor is it a social need either. Cultural, yes.
So eh, why *do* people get married?
You have no idea how badly I want to smack you for that.
Also, regarding your "Everything is for sex" argument, human minds have gone past the point of obeying our instincts. We have enough brain and willpower to branch out. I mean hell, how does one take a gun to their head if instinct screams at us to survive? We can now bury Instinct`s head under the gravel and let it breathe dirt thanks to evolution....Or God... *Looks around* Yeaaah...God...
floggerton:That`s not even an argument; insults don`t qualify as counter-points.
thesandwich:Why yes, I have read the book. And I won`t quiz your knowledge because I`m not out for arguments, I do debates. And gay marrige was never banned, it was simply never heard of or allowed until recent years, when specific laws were in place that defined marriage as a legal binding. THEN the whole conflict started. I personally believe that marriage in its current form is wrong, because the federal government has no business interfering with the loving (or unloving) unions of man and woman. That said, if marriage was left alone, there would be no issue because being gay is a sin in Christianity and therefore no loyal minister would perform the ceremony. And if so, I don`t give a crap, because politics wouldn`t be involved an
What if they don`t have hands?!? You`re so mean.
Imagine if people stopped paying attention to other people`s bedrooms... if two people could start a life together just because they loved each other, and believed in their ability to build a life together. That, my friends, would be paradise. Most of the people I know from "traditional" homes, like mine, come from "traditional" divorces. Enough bigotry already.
Now tell me, if Ray Bradbury painted a picture that banning things was bad. How does that justify banning gay marriage as good. And do feel free to test my knowledge of the book, I have the script sitting in front of me.
Do the right thing. Dont start a flame war.
Best. Post. Ever.
Whats these weird crap?
I love lamp.
In reality though, who cares if two guys want to sleep together or two girls want to. It`s not like it`s affecting *your* ability to be heterosexual. Piss off and leave them alone. And if your relationship is so fragile that it can`t stand the sight of gay people, then it`s doomed regardless and may as well be nipped in the bud.
I have yet to see a compelling argument from the anti-gay side about why they shouldn`t be allowed to marry. So far it`s all been religion... and that works well enough... or would, if we were a mono-religious society. However, being an atheist kind of makes the bible arguments flat.
"Homosexuality is NOT about the sexual act...although that`s the main part of it that opponents of equal rights cannot look past."
homoSEXUALITY is by definition about the sexual act. homosexuality is not loving the same sex and heterosexuality is not loving the opposite sex. you can love both. the sexual act is the only thing that makes a homosexual a homosexual.
I suppose it is one of the benefits of not living my life based on the laws on some ancient document, but instead on my own conscience.
My thoughts exactly. I tolerate homosexuals, but I do not accept them. Liberal society is attempting to FORCE acceptance of homosexuality, not tolerance of it. Doing so will only end in violence of some sort.
"It does affect me."
How does it affect you?
well of course, that is the same as saying acceptable anit-homosexuality under the cover of personal morality. that`s how i view it. a butt`s made for pooping, sodomy is unnatural confusion. and before anyone bites my head off go back and read what i posted earlier about homosexuality in general.
Said another conservative Christian. Exactly my point from earlier. Acceptable anti-homosexuality under cover of religious dogma.
...or was that a transgender or transexual man marrying the two gay priests?
Or maybe there is no God, we have no souls, marraige is really just a sexual desire for the good endorphine release we have during sexual acts, brought forth by evolutionary needs, because reproduction is something a species needs, and if a positive chemical release is given, then it will encourage higher sexual activity, thus causing a higher reproductive rate.
In the end, I think bro rape is a horrible thing but I do play gamecube with my pants off.
and by the way i think that guy who was saying that homosexuality is a disease is an idiot. not trying to make a personal attack though just stating that my opinion is anti-homosexuality but i disagree with that guy`s opinion
Rape and murder hurt people....who does homosexuality hurt? Rape and murder definately aren`t consensual. An act of love between two people of the same sex is totally consensual. Love hurts people? How?!?!?
as are rape and murder
The APA may not state that`s it`s a normal human behavior, but scientists have been saying it`s a normal animal behavior. Last i checked....scientifically, aren`t humans animals too? On top of that...research keeps showing more and more that homosexuality is biological. Seriously people, who wakes up one day and decides to be part of a viciously hated minority?
wow, thanks for the good laugh.
you mean the viar of dibley was a lie!?
Adult consentual love can`t be wrong.
Biologically or socially, gender is not binary.
So why should marriage be held to those same binary convictions?
I`m done, it`s going to ruin my day to get all worked up in here.
It hasn`t caused any problems by legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada, and I`m glad I have the opportunity to marry my girlfriend if I so chose.
APA states that homosexuality is not a mental or emotional illness, but it does not state that it is a normal human behaviour ... they are offering a diplomatic answer to a delicate problem. I would avoid the problem too if I were a public person/institute for political reasons.
And yes, you are discriminating against homosexuals. From Wikipedia, "Discrimination is the act of distinguishing two things, or differentiating between them. It may also have the added connotation of making a value judgment about this distinction."
"According to research which was linked to on I-A-B, homosexual brains react to stimuli almost identically to how heterosexual brains of the opposite gender do. Link", this would make it an illness similar to cleft lip for example.
"Homophobia: An irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or culture. (sic)"
So don`t anyone claim,non-homophobia b/c their not "scared." The topic is much broader than that.
@ FlameOfUdun; According to research which was linked to on I-A-B, homosexual brains react to stimuli almost identically to how heterosexual brains of the opposite gender do. Link
First, note that we`re talking about the governmental definition of marriage, and not the religious one.
1) By the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal," and in the modern context, "men" means "mankind," which includes women. 2) Then women and men should have the same rights. 3) Men have the right to marry women. 4) By 2 and 3, women should have the right to marry women. 5) By 4, women have the right to same sex marriage. So by 2, men have the right to marry men. 6) Any two people should be allowed to be married, regardless of gender, race, creed or color.
Now for those who argue that there should be a different name; Consider the case that all of the rights of marriage are conferred to homosexual couples, though under the name of "narrage" (not very creative). Then the situation might be described as "separate, but equal." However, "separate but
I`m not homophobic since I tolerate same sex couples. I just don`t agree that for a same sex couple the same language words should be used as for normal couples. Same sex couples are not normal from either biological, religious or moral reasons. As for homosexuality being a mental illness... give me a sane reason for why an individual would chose to spend the rest of his days having sex only with a partner of his same sex.
PS Flameofudon, don`t be ignorant. I`m gay and guess what, there is no way you would confuse me with a woman. Maybe a straight guy though.
I hear ya sixclaws. I`m not suggesting that for a second, nor am I attacking religious people as a whole, rather a subset. Not all Christians are homophobes, but (nearly) all homophobes are conservative Christians.
Likewise, I could point to the Catholic Church preaching against condom use is AIDs-stricken Africa where millions are HIV+. Or to the disgusting degradation of women across large swathes of the Muslim world. Yet it remains somehow taboo to speak up against these heinous bronze-age mentalities because they are "religious views".
I respect people`s rights to practice whatever religion they choose, but when it comes down to retarding societal progress, whether that be in basic civil rights or the science classroom, then I`m speaking up. Every time.
In sum, that argument makes you look like a hillbilly.
Bullpucky Early Christian Example
Ohh early Christianity, I weep for your loss and the tolerance you embodied...
It`s obvious that you see and are angered by how people are wrongly prejudiced against gay people because they only see incorrect and inaccurate stereotypes, which is very sad. So I ask you, please don`t judge religious people based on the stereotypes that ignorant jerks like razvanpat create.
Christianity teaches that people are supposed to love and accept everyone, and to leave the judging of others to God. It is not the religion that is bad. The bad comes in when people are stupid and choose to ignore those parts. I think this stuff can be chalked up to human stupidity rather than religion.
1) Blatant disgusting homophobia - Check.2) Declaring homosexuality a mental disease - Check.3) *looks up user profile* Religion: Christian - Check.
It`s great that we live in a 21st-century society where demonization of minority groups is stil acceptable as long as it`s under the cover of "religious views".
Religion. Sh*t it.
Umm, wait, what? Says who? Same-sex marriages have been legal in Europe for years. Who exacty is this "society" that you or your father represent, Rick_S?
Also, nice to see that you plant a flame seed and then declare that "you won`t be back on this thread".
Tell me, was your father a seagull? Because you seem to have inherited his penchant of flying in, sh*tting all over everything and then flying off again...
I can`t say that I agree. I think it makes perfect sense. I think he put it quite clearly.Yes it would very likely lead to "headache-inducing debates", that much I do agree with.
That, by the way, is a rhetorical question. Meaning, I`m not out to start a flame war, or a moral discussion on this issue. Just offering it up as what my father said.
So, now I`m going to say that I won`t be looking back on this thread to follow up this post. Sorry folks.
Now let`s see what homophobes have to say