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.


Gays Ya or Na

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 07:49 AM
:: yawn :: let me jump into this, when I wake up a bit. Some people do have to sleep ya know.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:03 AM
We dont know for sure if it's a sin. Some kids at an early age show signs, mainly boys. If they were forced to be in a hetero. relationship they wouldn't be happy because they still have feelings for whoever.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:18 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah...thats all i hear with these debates now. Its all the same damn arguments, both of which do not hold up at all. You'll never convince anyone of your own crazy reason of why to hate or love gay people. The arguments are almost always based in religion or lack has little to do with the actual issue.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by specialasianX
i would like to point out though i can see so many budding homosexuals here and none of them realise that they are displaying the signs of denial and well i'd love to see how many of you gay bashers aremt in bed with george michaels this time next decade

I hope this comment isn't directed towards me. I don't want to be giving off the idea that I hate homosexuals, or I'm a gay basher, or what have you. That's very far from the truth. I know this isn't really furthering the argument but I felt the need to defend myself because I don't want to be giving off that kind of idea, I hope I'm not.

I would never and have never hate or bash homosexuals. It's their choice of life, I just choose to disagree with it. I wouldn't bash homosexuals because I know how it feels to be "made fun of" when people think you're gay. I was a male cheerleader for cryin' out loud, you think I didn't get my fair share of people calling me gay. I know it's not the same level as someone who actually is gay, but I can get a good idea of some of what they go through. Thru cheering I met a couple of gay guys, and they were cool guys; I have nothing wrong with them as people.

In the end, I want to apologize if I come off as a gay-hater because that is very far from the truth. Specialasian, if you could reply to this and let me know if you were referring to me or other people (you don't have to put names) just to put my mind at ease. I try my best to come off as accepting and tolerant; I just do not agree with homosexuality.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:36 AM
1.) Yes. They have a right to pursue happiness in any way that does not harm another persons well being.

2.) If the point of marriage is just procreation, then there should be a law which forbids anyone who is unable to have children to ever get married. If you are unable to have children, they you are a burden on society and should not be allowed to "waste" a marriage that could otherwise produce offspring. If the ability to have children is a gift from god, then those without are lesser beings in the eyes of god.

See how bad that sounds? It's wrong to pull the procreation card when debating the hetero/homo case.
Face it, you don't like them because they are different. They are the "new" blacks. (I don't mean "you", meaning the original poster...I meant you in a broad sense)

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:52 AM

Ok, I don't have any religious argument for this "per-say". I do not see how there could be a gay gene. At least not in the way people would want me to believe. If it was a genetic traight, then it must have been passed down from generation to generation. I know traights can skip generations in some cases, depending on certain issues. I just don't see how over thousands and thousands of years, that this gene managed to survive without reproduction. If they just come out of straight people randomly, then so be it. People with schizophrenia do too. Down syndrome is genetic too. Does that mean that it is normal?

If someone is gay, so be it. Don't push it down my throat through politically forced integration. Deal with it on your own. I DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE OR LIKE IT. Do we not try to treat as best we can people with schizophrenia or down syndrome? Maybe we should take that stand with homosexuals. Treat the mental condition that exists as best we can. They can function in society just fine, so if they don't want treatment, so what. Just don't make me look at it. Don't force these crazy ideas into this country's youth like "it is normal".

It is not normal. I am not the one who is sick. Its so funny how they portray anyone with my views as having a phobia. Im not afraid of gay people. I think they are mentally retarded. And I dont think that we should be forced to accept an idea like homosexuality as normal. They are the ones with the problem. They are the ones who are sick.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 08:54 AM
cazmedia very good points, sorry at the time i was posting it was late, now its morning so i hope i can make a few more thought out statements instead of rash...these are not towards you just had to state your name and praise you on your great non-religious ideas as to why you might not want gaymarriages

before i go any further lets seperate man-made ideas and nature ideas.

Nature: man and woman are a must in the order for a species to survive, if the whole species was gay, the species would first not exist, and second would die off in ONE GENERATION, so how is it right to be gay in a total species standpoint? nature whats to continue life not make it stagnat and die off because of gay relationships....

Man: marriage is a idea brought about in the earliest of times through religion, why? because in religion it was considered a honor to contest publicly thourgh celebration about a man/woman relationship, because on the order of the gods or God no other union or so sacried....why? because it ensures the species will live on for better or worse

in our modern time of seperation of church and state, marriage which was originally in our country done on the basis of a christian or like style, how can we not say that marriage as we know it is not defined by where it came from? a religious ideal....not a nature ideal, and since its orgin is of religion why cant religion have the final say that gays cannot marry? but they can have civil union for the fact that a civil union is not noticed in the churchs eyes for being married, and neither is a divorce, in fact to get divorced in the church you have to get in anulled*, and to do that is one very very daunting task...why? because its death due you part....

so basically its almost as if religion has a copyright on the word marriage and the ideals it is founded on.

marriage does not ensure the population will survive, although you twist the idea to think that is the only reason its there, marriage exists because religion says so, its religion that made up the idea of celebrating what? the union of two people

i love my friends another way....should i get special marriage rights with them because i 'love' them differently?

and to force a idea on a society that for 250yrs has been straight is like going into china and saying they are wrong and trying to change the religion and idea of a society of 2billion people, because you the selfish minority want it that way....

and there are also certain laws that pertain to STRAIGHT ONLY MARRIAGE, for in a gay marriage, who is going to get the woman treatment? there are many laws that protect the WOMAN species in a civil/marriage union, they notice that in some ways the majority of woman and in other ways are different than men, and visa versa there are laws to protect both sides.....

also the law about the child of a family go with the woman in 90% of the time because of the nuturing care they give, in a gay lez marriage who is the man or woman of the relationship and how can the laws that are defined for a woman be twisted for a man?

so if gay marriages do exist, what happens to the laws and how they apply when they break up? for there is no man or woman in a gay relationship marriage just same where do these law stand?

and actually the ideas of gays or homosexuallity goes back to trojan greek times were they were sometimes encouraged in the military to take act on sexual urges so as to stay fathfull to their familys in long leaves of war 6yrs plus usually, and they figured if you plugged him in the year you would die for him...

but how can you tell me that sticking your rod down a sht hole were more diseases exist than any where on the human body consider it NATURES WAY? there are other man inflicted diseases, but how is it natures way to purposelly put you at risk in catching a wierd fcked up disease because of sticking your rod in sht, its no better than going up to a elephant dung pile and mating with it, nothing good comes from it just plain old explain once again how gay is naturally ok

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 09:16 AM
I think they should be let do whatever they want, but they also have to know to respect other people's choices and likes. I am not saying they are all like this, but I have seen some that they think they can do whatever they want even if the other person is not gay/lesbian.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 09:35 AM
When you or I become god then we can dictate to others what they should or should not do. Until then people need to get off their massive egos and STFU!

You guessed it! I am having one of those days.:bash:

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 11:32 AM
Let me just start on this one most of the others I have covered on a hundred other threads........

Id really love some examples of "legitimized cultural homosexuality" Not just examples showing there were gays around? Im talking about specific examples of institutionalized homosexuality?

How about Greece? How about Rome? Most Indian cultures thought it as bit strange but basicaly harmless, which by the way is my thoughts exactly.

The Greeks thought it WAS the norm and that women were ONLY to reproduce. The Romans werent much different although it was sometimes discouraged depending on the empirer.

BOTH were considered the begining of western culture and civilation.

The attitude toward gays throughtout history has came and went some giving the death penilty for it some encouraging it and most pretty much ignoring it.

Watch the history of sex on the history channel for a lot of examples

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 11:43 AM
Yes, in ancient times many people accepted that way of life. Most romans treated women like dogs and even thou most men were married to a woman, they had sexual relations with men. There have been cases of greek philosophers who were also gay. That's not the point. In the past existed that kind of lifestyle. i still think that they should be left alone whoever they want to be with, but "everyone" i mean everyone heterosexuals, straight people, gays, lesbians should all respect each other's choices.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 11:45 AM
Hercules himself is said to have fancied the company and sexual pleasures of young men. Romans or Greeks also had sex with dolphins. I can't remember exactly how it went since it has been a long time since i studied this. i think Romans and others went a bit too far with sex, but that was their choice back then.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:22 PM
Just saying there were gays in greece and rome, was the exact BROAD BRUSH i knew would be offered in defense...

I asked for specific examples of INSTITUTIONALIZED gay actions/rights....such as laws, religious doctrine, or social incorporations by official means....not just..."there were gays back then, and those cultures were ok with it."

They might have tolorated or enjoyed aspects of being gay, BUT they have never institutionalized or made official any gay policies, rituals, fact the ones that have come up have been to restrict this behaivior.

So thru out human history, there have been gays, but why then have they not (until recently) instituted them more "officially" into their cultures?

If for centuries, cultures have defined themselves by not integrating gays "officially", Why would it not be their cultural right to determine if they want to do this now or not? (as a society)

posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by CazMedia
Just saying there were gays in greece and rome, was the exact BROAD BRUSH i knew would be offered in defense...

I asked for specific examples of INSTITUTIONALIZED gay actions/rights....such as laws, religious doctrine, or social incorporations by official means....not just..."there were gays back then, and those cultures were ok with it."

They might have tolorated or enjoyed aspects of being gay, BUT they have never institutionalized or made official any gay policies, rituals, fact the ones that have come up have been to restrict this behaivior.

So thru out human history, there have been gays, but why then have they not (until recently) instituted them more "officially" into their cultures?

If for centuries, cultures have defined themselves by not integrating gays "officially", Why would it not be their cultural right to determine if they want to do this now or not? (as a society)

How about Sparta's 'army of lovers' as an institutionalised body, sorry to be glib but I think whatever examples might be presented would be met with yet more disingenious objections. The fact is homosexuality was not only tolerated but accepted and assimilated among many cultures to the point that it needed no institutions to legitimise it, it just was and therefore felt no need to redress or correct things which has not been the case in our society for many a year. You know this is an unwinnable debate, we are accused of being outside the bounds of decent society yet when we try to legitimise our position we're accused of undermining it's values. Catch22!

posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 11:08 PM
The sword brothers of greece the meanest SOBs in the valley. Gay couples that would fight to the death for each other and were feared everywhere. I damn sure wouldnt want to be captured......LOL

Alexander the greats Champions
his crack troops if you pardon the pun

It was custom in several cultures including Greece, Rome and Japan for an older man to take a younger man as lover and teach him the ways of the world when he died the old younger man would take a new younger man and the cycle would start all over again

If you think homosexuality was not a part of everyday life in greece and rome not to mention many other soceitys than you are not up on your history or have just read the edited version.

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Amuk]

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 04:00 AM
Just because you can cite one example of where using gay sex was a TACTIC used to keep people in the army, does NOT mean this was institutionalized as law or was not manditory for millitary service, in fact not every soldier engaged in this.

Just because societies didnt hunt down and eradicate gay behaivior does NOT mean it was totally accepted either...

How about some historical examples from greek studies eh?

In Xenophon's MEMORIBILIA, he writes about Socrates views on;
Socrates' description of himself as "experienced in the pursuit of men".
Of sensual passion he would say: “Avoid it resolutely: it is not easy to control yourself once you meddle with that sort of thing.” Thus, on hearing that Critobulus had kissed Alcibiades' pretty boy, he put this question to Xenophon before Critobulus: [9] “Tell me, Xenophon, did you not suppose Critobulus to be a sober person, and by no means rash; prudent, and not thoughtless or adventurous?”

“Certainly,” said Xenophon.

“Then you are to look on him henceforth as utterly hot-headed and reckless: the man would do a somersault into a ring of knives; he would jump into fire.”

[10] “What on earth has he done to make you think so badly of him?” asked Xenophon.

“What has the man done? He dared to kiss Alcibiades' son, and the boy is very good-looking and attractive.”

“Oh, if that is the sort of adventure you mean, I think I might make that venture myself.”

“Poor fellow! [11] What do you think will happen to you through kissing a pretty face? Won't you lose your liberty in a trice and become a slave, begin spending large sums on harmful pleasures, have no time to give to anything fit for a gentleman, be forced to concern yourself with things that no madman even would care about?”

[12] “Heracles! what alarming power in a kiss!” cried Xenophon.

“What? Does that surprise you?” continued Socrates. “Don't you know that the scorpion, though smaller than a farthing, if it but fasten on the tongue, inflicts excruciating and maddening pain?”

“Yes, to be sure; for the scorpion injects something by its bite.”

[13] “And do you think, you foolish fellow, that the fair inject nothing when they kiss, just because you don't see it? Don't you know that this creature called ‘fair and young’ is more dangerous than the scorpion, seeing that it need not even come in contact, like the insect, but at any distance can inject a maddening poison into anyone who only looks at it?

“Maybe, too, the loves are called archers for this reason, that the fair can wound even at a distance.

“Nay, I advise you, Xenophon, as soon as you see a pretty face to take to your heels and fly: and you, Critobulus, I advise to spend a year abroad. It will certainly take you at least as long as that to recover from the bite.”

This does not sound like blanket acceptance of gays in greek society, and this comming from one of the most influential Scholors and philosophers of all time.

Lets try this bit of greek lore out

Aeschine's speech Against Timarchus of 346 BCE is one of the most valuable sources we have about Athenian attitudes to homosexuality. Unlike Plato, whose views were highly distinctive and not necessarily shared by his fellow Athenians, Aeschines was appealing directly to the members of an Athenian jury, and so it may be expected that he was appealing to current popular opinion. It is by far the longest text addressing homosexual behavior we have from the Classical Greek world.

The circumstance of the speech are complex. Basically it was an attempt to save the lives of the Athenian envoys to Philip II of Macedon. Demosthenes had lead an attack on them, and, it seems, Timarchus, one of Demosthenes' allies, was to lead the prosecution. The beleaguered envoys, facing death, responded by prosecuting Timarchus, charging that under Athenian law he could hold not public office. The prosecution was successful. Timarchus was excluded from office [Dem. Xix. 284] and Demosthenes suffered a major setback in his resistance to Philip II.

For an extended discussion of this text and its implication see Kenneth J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, (London: Duckworth, 1978, or a later edition), Chapter II: "The Prosecution of Timarkhos".

Basically, Aeschines was throwing mudd onto the prosecutor, by calling into question his MORAL CHARECTER as well as questioning the law about if Timarchas was fit to serve as council as he had committed acts of questionable moral charecter under the law.

here's Aeschines talking about who the lawgivers deny public service to under the laws;

Whom does he specify in the third place? "Or the man," he says, "who has debauched or prostituted himself." For the man who has made traffic of the shame of his own body, he thought would be ready to sell the common interests of the city also.

While gays were around, (and apparently this Tiamarchas was getting around) these two examples from greek texts indicate that while the greeks acknowledged gay behaivior, they didnt seem to be in total cultural acceptance of it fact it seems that one could be DENIED the right to hold a public office if one had committed acts considered IMMORAL, and against the this specific case, Aeschines uses timarches sexual promiscuity with men as the "IMMORAL" qualifier under their laws.

Please note that the lawgivers dont just say things are immoral because their gods said so, but tried to use logical reasoning about questions of lifestyle and charecter to judge their fellow countrymen.

Tiamarchas WAS removed from this case and denied the right to be a prosecutor because of this...
Yet gays were accepted in greek society eh?

Now that ive shot down the gays ok in greece/rome argument,

yes or no,
Does a democratic society have the right to self determination; the right to set boundaries on behaivior in order to define itself, and its laws?

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 06:40 AM
You have hardly shot down my arguement.......LOL

The first example NEVER mention homosexuality as the problem but chasing someone elses boy seems to be the issue here.

The second seems to be more concerened with thwe man being a "slut" than who he was having sex with.

As for homosexualty not being acceptyed in greece I just have to say youve got to be kidding.

This are the people whose very name "GREEK" means sodamy. But any example I give you are just gonna say that one doesnt count.

It was CUSTOM which in most cultures was the same as law, some even had laws concerning inheratince and such between the gay couples.

They were not "married" in todays sense but regaurdless of what most think throughout most of history and a large amount of the world "marriage" consisted, at least among the common people, as simply moving in togather and starting a family. Only the richest had ANY form of ceremony to it.

And dosent this country susposed to allow freedom to all that are not harming someone else? Would you be so quick to say democries, which this country is a republic by the way, have a right to limit your freedoms if it was YOUR life that was being affected?

Gays do not bother me if two people can find happiness in this world togather more power to them but I can understand the nerviousness of those who the thought of gays brings out strange long repressed urges

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:15 AM
I'm afraid Cazmedia you could substitute the word promiscuous or even indiscreet and it would still be in context, and therefore the argument follows that we should not allow the promiscuous or indiscreet to be married, accepted or attain prominent positions within our current society. Are you/were you a virgin before you married, ever had more than one sexual partner...strip this person of there rights immediately (but not working and paying taxes of course, this exclusion thing is not a two way street). Come off it this is petty and getting a little too pedantic. You obviously don't believe that I'm entitled to the same rights and priveledges or even their comparitive alternatives, that's your basic stance. The more extreme idiots who spout off about 'your choice, your fault', 'there sick/mentally disturbed' and the obligatory 'tis written in scripture' objections while irritating at least provide some laughs, but this 'oh so reasonable but I hate to say it' approach is far more insidious.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in