Let's clear up the ignorance about homosexuality - I hope to never hear these arguments again

Hi I read all the reply to my last post
I will reply mentioning three main points that seemed to stand out and we don't seem to agree
I will try to keep this short

1) I think grouping people opposed to gays and racists is not a fair generalization.
maybe it is with the extreme homophobes but for the most part I think that there are key differences.
I believe I talked about this earlier.

2) I'm familiar with the math behind studies. I know that for the most part peer reviewed studies should be considered legitimate but I also know that data is more often bent and/or omitted to find a pattern. This is not done for an "agenda" but usually just done to present a study that actually show some meaningless results.
It is very hard to obtain "correct" results even if the study has all types of controls, I can't imagine how hard it would be when the study involves peoples lives with so many variables. Another problem with trying to do social studies on behavior, how do you measure what you are trying to find? for example if you want to do a study showing that children of gay parents are not any less happy than children with hetero parents, how do you measure happiness? social studies of this nature are really a hit and miss by pure chance.
that's why I said that I don't take studies (social studies with behavior) seriously
and no one should take these studies as the absolute truth

3) I think all three of you that replied back to me think that religious marriage is a right. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this is truth but I thought it was not. But the point is that once anything given by the government to hetero and gay couples is called "civil union" then the couples are free to go to their churches and religiously "marry"
if the gay couples find a church that will "marry" them then good for them, no one can prohibit the church from doing what they believe is right. This obviously has and will create separation of churches.
this was my idea when I talked about calling marriage licenses "civil unions", I never said that there should be a laws that prohibits any religious institution from marrying gays. That would be infringing on the rights of religious organizations or basically the government telling a religion what is right and what is wrong.

reply to post by quietlearner


I don't really have any more to say to you, except that change is coming, so you should just get ready for it.

Originally posted by quietlearner
3) I think all three of you that replied back to me think that religious marriage is a right.

How in any way did I give this impression?

I said churches had the right to refuse to marry a gay couple. It is their constitutional right.

I said nothing about religious marriage being a right. I do not in any way support Civil Union.

Its Marriage for all.

Originally posted by quietlearner
if the gay couples find a church that will "marry" them then good for them, no one can prohibit the church from doing what they believe is right. This obviously has and will create separation of churches.

I don't really think it matter that it creates a "separation of churches" that's already going on without gay marriage. Christians for example, all believe in The Bible but there are so many interpretations that it creates separations between them...

I don't think all churches will ever NOT be separated people will always have their own interpretation of their religion....

But yeah, if they don't want to marry gays because they think it's right - fine. That is their belief and they have freedom of religion. Gays can just go to another one to get married.

I'm starting to think that homosexuality is Mother Nature's solution to the overpopulation of humans.

It's quite clever really, on the old lady's part...

Thing is though, whether you like it or not, more and more people seem to be coming out as homosexuals, and as with any such influx of a group in society, society will change....whether you like it or not.

I may be physically repulsed by seeing two guys kiss each other, but I do respect their rights to love who they wish. Then again, I don't really want to see a hetero couple going at it in public either...(time and a place, and all that)...

As for marriage, well, I've seen how difficult things can be for same sex couples. My mother in law was a lesbian (obviously not always), and her partner of 26 years found it difficult to do a lot of things to wrap up the details when she died....because legally, she really didn't have much say so, even with power of attorney (something they were smart enough to do). Luckily, my wife respected her wishes and position, and certainly didn't try to interfere, but the point is, legally, there are other couples out there who aren't as fortunate, and even find things like benefits and normal family paperwork a challenge when in such a relationship.

No matter how much the religious fundies fight it, society will change. Sure, they'll slow down that change somewhat, but the mass media has already accepted homosexuality, so the mainstream population pretty much has as well. Personally, I'm of the live and let live variety.

reply to post by Gazrok

I don't think homosexuality will affect population.

The more especially male homosexuality is labelled as a political entity, the more it is contained.

The quaint secrecy of the past, and the open radicalism of he 1970s will dwindle.

What remains will be a homosexual couple that will be forced into the mold of monogamy and "quality rather than quantity" reproduction that already governs straight Western expectations.

The age of the "Stepford Queers" is approaching, with a nice kitchen, and 2.5 children through adoption, a glitch, or insemination.

There will be no more excuses soon.

The rights demanded by some have made us all "sick" again if we will not comply...

We must share not only what made heterosexuals happy, but also what made them miserable.
Then we might be accepted.

Originally posted by halfoldman
The age of the "Stepford Queers" is approaching, with a nice kitchen, and 2.5 children through adoption, a glitch, or insemination.

Oh I hope not.

I lived in the 50s - - that was enough "Stepford" for my lifetime - - the Hetero version.

Society needs diversity.

reply to post by Annee

Sure, my friend, I wasn't quite serious anyway.
However ... a bit serious.
I got old people around me now saying I should hurry and get hitched already, because lots of gay people are doing it nowadays.
With equal rights come equal hopes and demands.
Sometimes I think devastatingly fast.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Annee

 

Sure, my friend, I wasn't quite serious anyway.
However ... a bit serious.
I got old people around me now saying I should hurry and get hitched already, because lots of gay people are doing it nowadays.
With equal rights come equal hopes and demands.
Sometimes I think devastatingly fast.

Oh - - as a woman I know all about the hurry up an get married.

And I've read a couple articles about "Losing Gay Culture".

A major problem today is - - gays are losing their safe havens. As they become main stream - - so are the areas they developed.

AMEN SISTER/BROTHER! However I have one dispute:

* But they also eat their own feces and/or children...


Yes, and that is natural too, which is why it is stupid to label something "right" or "wrong" based on whether it is "natural" or not... There are things that are natural that are good and there are things that are natural that are bad (in a human's point of view)...

I have never met a gay man that eats/ate feces/ children...
Ever.

I mean sure, if you dig enough on the internet you can find it, but you can also find things like kids playing in a sandbox, and several woman drinking out of the same cup, and food dye in waffles.

Star if you know what im talkin' about fellow internet citizens~!

[Edit] Im from vegas AGAIN for a couple of weeks so im gonna be active (Again) [Edit]

Originally posted by darkredfish
AMEN SISTER/BROTHER! However I have one dispute:

* But they also eat their own feces and/or children...


Yes, and that is natural too, which is why it is stupid to label something "right" or "wrong" based on whether it is "natural" or not... There are things that are natural that are good and there are things that are natural that are bad (in a human's point of view)...

I have never met a gay man that eats/ate feces/ children...
Ever.

Where did I say that gay men eat their own feces or children?

I said this: as for those species who engage in homosexuality AND eat their own feces and children, then for them it is natural. Homosexuality is something that is natural for humans about 10% of humans are always gay, for example, and gay people have existed all throughout human history...

Now, there have been humans that eat their own children and feces too, but that is very rare. Also dangerous to the human body because it wasn't made to do that.

reply to post by arpgme


Not you, the OP is what im talking about when I say that.
To be honest, I read like 5 posts out of this entire argument.

Im planning on engaging in any future ones thoug

reply to post by darkredfish


I am the OP which is why I was responding to that. Thank you for pointing that out though, I guess I needed to clarify what I meant more.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by darkredfish

 

I am the OP which is why I was responding to that. Thank you for pointing that out though, I guess I needed to clarify what I meant more.

Oh god...
I made a mistake...
THE TROLLS WILL EAT ME ALIVE!