It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republicans Hate Gays/Want To Commit Genocide on Them

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by paulthefourth
People are afraid of what they don't 'get' - enough fear leads to hate - that's the reason for racism, sexism, war, religious persecution etc. . .


I can't say I was 'born' gay - I don't know if anything 'happened' to me growing up that 'turned' me gay. I can't say I was raised to beleive that being gay was 'ok'. I had no gay role-models, I didn't know anyone that was gay and decided I wanted to be like them - All I know is I've NEVER been attracted to girls

and, finally...

And contrary to popular belief, it's not JUST about SEX - just because those three letters are in the words "homoSEXual and SEXual orientation" does not mean it's all about the sex - is being straight "all about the sex"?

Three very poignant and, what should be, insightful quotes from someone who, because of his knowledge on the subject, should be listened to and commented upon, rather than ignored.

If it does come to be as initial title of this thread threatens it might, it is his life that is in the balance. And yet, paulthefourth calmly argues his case, without anger and slinging no insults.

You get a WATS from me...not because of who or what you are, but because of the way you are...admirable.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by masqua]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:46 AM
I've got mixed feelings on the issue. I realize this opens up all kinds of puns about me being confused or in the closet about my real position, but I'm not quite homophobic enough to fear such jabs.

Anyway first for my view on homosexuals:

Homosexuality, in evolutionary terms, is definately a weakness. It's not natural, and it defeats the natural instinct of procreation. That's not to say that it's morally wrong, or that homosexuals should be persecuted, I'm just acknolwedging that I can't, with any level of intellectual honesty, say 'homosexuality is normal' or any such thing.

On the other side of the evolutionary coin, I realize that if I were the kind of person who placed a higher value on "feelings" and the like, I'd probably then have to suggest that homosexuality, in social terms, could actually be seen as an evolution whereby animal instinct did not illogically dictate the way in which one sought pleasure. As much as Christians hate to admit it, love and sex are very very fun, and they are the most fun when done with the person you are most compatible with. In that light, to be heterosexual when you related better to men would be no more admirable than marrying a woman who you absolutely COULD NOT STAND just because she had an amazing set of breasts.

Then there is the religious aspect of homosexuality:
On one hand, people, including fundementalist christians (at least in the loose sense of the word "people") are not obligated to associate with or even refrain from having and even expressing negative opinions about people of whose conduct they do not approve.

On the other hand, homophobia is a clear equivocation of Christian doctrine. There is no more biblical basis for shunning homosexuals than there is for shunning someone who fails to honor his parents. As a matter of fact, the bible says that if you offend one commandement, you offend them all. The bible also tells us that no man is without sin. Therefore we can deduce that all Christians are guilty of sodomy. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone gents.

Society and Homosexuals:
Homosexuals bring a lot of their trouble on themselves by flaunting their sexuality to people who don't want to hear about it. If a straight man constantly talked about his sex life to a lesbian woman who didn't want to hear it, perhaps even made inuendos, and was constantly sexually suggestive and even aggressive in his speech and body language, such as -makes a deep, suggestive voice- "you know, baby..." That would be sexual harrassment.
Some "openly gay" people do the same thing- they sexually harrass virtually everyone they deal with. That kind of behavior has stigmatized the entire homosexual community in the eyes of those who have encountered it in much the same way that chauvanistic men have stigmatized their gender in the eyes of some women.

Again on the other hand, this does not give anyone the right to sexually harrass homosexuals. You can't call a homosexual a "queer" anymore than you can call a woman a "skank'. It's not acceptible- it's sexual harrassment and verbal assualt. It's "fighting words", in the legal sense- speech which is designed to precipitate violence.

"Curing" homosexuals:
It is axiomatic that the freedom to swing your arms is absolute at all points short of contact with something which is not yours to touch (according to the cliche, "another person's nose"). If no one is directly and materially affected without making a choice which leads to their being affected, it is not to be forcibly prevented. Homosexuality, short of the sexually harrassing conduct of some homosexuals, does not affect unwilling participants. The idea of AIDS spreading to straights because of bisexuals doesn't hold any water because having sex, especially unprotected sex, is a CHOICE which makes the affected people willing participants- they could have prevented themselves from being affected by the consequences of other people's actions if they had chosen.
This is a one sided issue- there simply is no justification for any attempt to "fix" or exterminate homosexuals.

Gay Marriage:
This is an easy one. There is no logical reason that a religious institution should have legal implications- Period. Legal Marriage is a matter of contract law which should not be denied to same sex couples or even incestuous couples, or whatever other kind of couple for that matter. Financial interdependence, cohabitation, the cooperative rearing of children, rather conceived or adopted, etc are all tangible circumstances that deserve recognition in law, and there should be uncomplicated ways to enter the relevant contractual relationships without having to enter the religious/sexual institution of marriage. Tax breaks shouldn't go to married couples who aren't going to raise a family simply because they've entered a religious institution. Christians shouldn't oppose the right of people to enter community property contracts simply because they do not qualify for a religious institution.

Suppose that two straight men decided to be room-mates, agreed that one would work to help put the first through college, and then it would be the other one's turn, decided to share finances, and even one day decided that they should adopt a child together, because they both wanted to be fathers but never met the right girl. Now, as incredibly wierd and co-dependent as those two men would have to be, can anyone give me one legitimate reason why they are without the right to enter such a contractual relationship, or one legitimate reason why their circumstances would not warrant virtually every legal distinction which is currently reserved for people who sleep together and enter the religious institution of marriage?

Separate Marriage and Sex from the legal definition of marriage and the only people who won't have a reason to be satisfied are the people who have been hiding behind their poorly-thought-out arguments against gay marriage to mask the fact that they are simply intollerant and want to impose their religious values on others.

Last but not least, RANT had a very good point. Homosexuals aren't doing anything with their sexuality that religious homophobes aren't doing with their religion. If Christians are going to say keep it in the bedroom, the obvious retort is "OK, we'll make them do that right after you agree to keep it in the church".

<< 1  2   >>

log in