Sexual Preferences

Originally posted by James the Lesser
So Hinuism and Buddism are hocus pocus religons? Wicca is a hocus pocus religon even though it is based on a religon thousands of years old? The oldest religon in the world? Indian religon is hocus pocus? Since you don't like the religon it is hocus pocus? It only a religon if it has one all mighty powerful invisable male person that lives in the clouds? If it female, more than one, or doesn't live in the clouds it not a real religon? Sorry, millions, actually billions will disagree with you. Hinduism is the main religon in China, usually the only one allowed.

Sorry, just cause you don't think it a religon, doesn't mean it isn't. Hindus have marriges, buddists do to. Wiccans have marriges, aka hand fastings. Indians have marriges. Of course, I think only Wicca, Buddism and Indians allow gays to exist. Unlike christianity, jews, or mauslims who believe in death to anyone who doesn't agree with our belief. But we don't allow that in this country, we believe in freedom of religon.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You gave the suggestion about gays being married in the "Church of the Gay Union".

This is the hocus pocus religion I was talking about.

Geez, so quick to assume boys. Perhaps you should look at what someone is responding to before you jump to conclusions.

No, it was not James that suggested the "Church of the Gay Union". It was me. So what?

The Episcopalian faith has an openly gay bishop.

To have to defend one religion over another is just your way of deflecting the argument.

You're still hypocritical and intolerant.

jsobecky

_____________________________________________

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, it was not James that suggested the "Church of the Gay Union". It was me. So what?

The Episcopalian faith has an openly gay bishop.

To have to defend one religion over another is just your way of deflecting the argument.

You're still hypocritical and intolerant.

jsobecky

_____________________________________________

'

Deflecting the arguement from what?

Remember that all this sillyness came from the statement I made in regards to being married is not a right, but rather a recognition.

I made no claims other than that.

SO, when you brought something up, I clarified. Where's the deflection considering YOU brough it up?

As for the Episcopalian faith, they have degrated the faith of Christianity in that homosexuality is not allowed.

There is nothing hypocritical or intolerant about any of what I said, so why don't you try backing up your claims while you make them.

Originally posted by CSRules
iF YOU CONDONE GAY MARRIAGE, THEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR TO A WHOLE LOT OF UNPLEASENT THINGS! Being GAY is a CHOICE against the norm....It is nothing less than looking for your 15 min of fame! IF BEING GAY WAS CORRECT, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD HAVE DIED OFF A LONG TIME AGO!!!! tO CALL IT A CIVIL RIGHT IS TO OFFEND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY!!!!!! Being GAY is a choice!!! Something to go against the establishment! IT IS A MINORITY OF SOCIETY SEEKING ATTENTION!!!!! They have the same right as I do........MARRY A MAN OR A WOMEN........NOT MAN MARRY MAN, WOMEN MARRY WOMEN!!!!!!

Quit shouting. That's about irritating as hell. Obviously, you have some real issues with other peoples' sexual preferences. I disagree. I don't think people choose to be gay, I think they just are. Do you like girls (assuming you're a male) because you choose to, or because that's just what you're attracted to? I like girls because the thought of having sex with a man sickens me, and I just get aroused by women, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with other people doing it. That's their business, and it has nothing to do with me. Now, what does annoy me, are those gay men that talk in that puny little fag voice. That really gets on my nerves. But, I've heard people who aren't gay who tend to have a more feminine voice. They annoy me just as much. It has nothing to do with their sexual preference. I think you have some real insecurities about your own sexuality.

Now, what does annoy me, are those gay men that talk in that puny little fag voice. That really gets on my nerves. But, I've heard people who aren't gay who tend to have a more feminine voice. They annoy me just as much. It has nothing to do with their sexual preference. I think you have some real insecurities about your own sexuality.

I know quite a few "fellas" that do this. Alot of the time, I think they do it just because they're gay and they think it's the way that they should talk. I get annoyed with them just as much also. Most gay men do not do this though. I am a man who likes other men......not some sissyfied "Just Jack" wannabe.

Edit: I took out the last comment. After thinking about it, it was a little harsh and I definately don't want to offend any of the women here...cause sometimes they make the best of friends. Sorry if I did offend.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by MacMerdin]

Still nothing from JSO.

Oh well, guess there was nothing to pin the "intolerant" wrap on.

My very good friend is gay.

He absolutely LOATHES mincing lisping queens.

He agrees that many of them are either trying too hard or are just plain weirdos.

In reference to gay guys lisping, I have a good friend thats gay. When he first came to my school he acted like a normal guy, you prbly couldnt tell that he was gay.

Now he has a lisp, wears rainbows, and is a total flamer! I think He does that now because it gains him attention. Hes like the token gay guy. I know that deep down hes not really like that. I dont like talking to him anymore, because I know hes just putting on a facade.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Howard Brown]

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
In reference to gay guys lisping, I have a good friend thats gay. When he first came to my school he acted like a normal guy, you prbly couldnt tell that he was gay.

Now he has a lisp, wears rainbows, and is a total flamer! I think He does that now because it gains him attention. Hes like the token gay guy. I know that deep down hes not really like that. I dont like talking to him anymore, because I know hes just putting on a facade.

I guess they use that as if they're waving their "gay flag", so other gays will have no doubt about their sexuality. However, it's about as rude as if I went around farting as loud as I could all the time, IMO. I don't need a constant reminder that you like to take it up the ass, thank you.

Who cares how a person dresses or talks?

As long as they are not hurting anybody or being disrespectful, so be it.

If a guy wants to talk in a lisp or wear different clothing, that is his business. Just like a girl wanting to wear mini-skirts and low cut tops is her business. Who cares??

As the old cliche' says, "It's a free country."

I'll second that, it's hardly the worst thing if a man is/acts effeminate. That's like me being offended because a man who acts straight is a constant reminder to me that he likes chucking it up a womans hoop.

Personally I don't like queens who think that being camp and bitchy automatically makes them interesting, witty people. Camp and bitchy needs a certain amount of style to carry it off otherwise they look like embittered old poofs.

Originally posted by ubermunche
I'll second that, it's hardly the worst thing if a man is/acts effeminate. That's like me being offended because a man who acts straight is a constant reminder to me that he likes chucking it up a womans hoop.

That's just it. Most civilized men don't act like they're starved for sex, or try extra hard to show that they like women. That's pretty much a given. There's no need to show anyone, but a woman, that kind of behavior, IMO. Straight men who go around acting as if they have to prove that they're "players" also annoy me. Similarly, some married couples I've known try sickeningly hard to prove to all their friends that they're still in love after too many years. It's fake to me. I hate fake.

I can understand what you mean in as much that anyone gay/straight, male/female who does that big oohh lookie here comes nookie routine is a bit boring but I think it cuts 50/50 through straight and gay men and worse even woman are starting to get in on the act now. I think that kind of camp double entendre style humour a lot of gay men use is just that, a joke and doesn't really indicate rampant lust. Still have to say though that I don't neccessarily 100% equate effeminate men with that behaviour, some of the fairiest queens I know are not very sexual in that way at all.

To AMUCK:
YOU GOT IT RIGHT!!!! Yes, if you agree that a democratic culture has the right to set boundaries for itself to both distinguish and identify itself....then they could say YES or NO to any given issue.

WHAT IF THIS CULTURE SAYS NO?
I feel we will be labled all sorts of bigoted things if the overall answer for the USA is NO to gay marriage..even if only for this generation....mabey things will keep evolving on this, but then again, they may not.

I would be concerned if my culture was adopting something that was affecting me, but would ACCEPT that this is the way that cultureis designed to work.
would i be dissapointed, yes....would i still strive for a reversal or accodomations under my society, sure.

But i would as a CITIZEN understand this was not a conspiracy, or biggotry, but the natural evolution of a cultural idea. (this is a democratic republic, as we the people do not get to vote on EVERYTHING, our elected reps do it for us.)

ps....there were laws that affected the commoners marriages even back then....(Hmm a culture that had some definitions on marriage??? Imagine that)

ubermunche

WOW, IM INSIDEOUS in my argument!!!! Why is that?
Is it because i dont cling to religious or other very subjective (and lame) ways to hit this point? Is this because ive focused the argument down to its basics and stripped away the fluf stuff?

The basic issue here IS a cultures rights to self determination, not acceptance of gay marriage.

Or are you willing to throw a sociological definition of how a culture works out the window too? (like the marriage deffinition?)

Im NOT for gay marriage and DUBIOUS on civil union (as ive seen no plan for the legal changes thruought our laws that need addressing FIRST before adopting this plan....

I am not into arbitrary changes to cultural mores that have evolved over thousands of years....I am not opposed to them either....

Trying to rip away the crap arguments and get down to the real basis of this argument...
The fact that my argument seems"insideous" or threatening to you is good...it means im hitting REALLY close to the actual point in debate here...

JSOBECKY
Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?

There is no homosexuality or lesbianism. It's called immorality.

Plus marriage is custom from the judaism, which makes it moral for man and woman to be together.

When two woman are to marrie? what the hell is that?

Firstly woman and woman is immoral, plus geting married makes it ungodly, devlish and evil..

Originally posted by Thinker
There is no homosexuality or lesbianism. It's called immorality.

Plus marriage is custom from the judaism, which makes it moral for man and woman to be together.

When two woman are to marrie? what the hell is that?

Firstly woman and woman is immoral, plus geting married makes it ungodly, devlish and evil..

That's what's wrong with religion. It attempts to define morals, and wrongfully so, many times. When it comes to prohibiting things that aren't harmful to anyone else, just because certain people don't like it, religion is evil.

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Thinker
There is no homosexuality or lesbianism. It's called immorality.

Plus marriage is custom from the judaism, which makes it moral for man and woman to be together.

When two woman are to marrie? what the hell is that?

Firstly woman and woman is immoral, plus geting married makes it ungodly, devlish and evil..

That's what's wrong with religion. It attempts to define morals, and wrongfully so, many times. When it comes to prohibiting things that aren't harmful to anyone else, just because certain people don't like it, religion is evil.

Agreed. When was the last time there was a Gay Inquisition or The Gay Crusades or a Gay Jihaad? Religious hyporisy has got to go....

Live and let live people.


BTW, I am straight and a recovering Catholic who is a Diest.

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Facefirst]

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Facefirst]

In the debate I point out that only 3 years ago Alabama had a law stopping interracial marriages

As a resident of said State I guess I should point out that this is one of those laws that was just "left on the books" its not like anyone was prosecuted for interracial marriage...it was kind of like these I found from DumbLaws.Com from New York State:

A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.

While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.

Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 P.M.


[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Todeskopf]

Originally posted by Todeskopf

In the debate I point out that only 3 years ago Alabama had a law stopping interracial marriages

As a resident of said State I guess I should point out that this is one of those laws that was just "left on the books" its not like anyone was prosecuted for interracial marriage...it was kind of like these I found from DumbLaws.Com from New York State:

A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.

While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.

Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 P.M.


[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Todeskopf]

You forgot one:

Marriage is a union of only a man and a woman.