It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 25
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Last I checked the research:

1. the brain anomalies associated with homosexuality--which came first--the behavior and then the brain conformed to the behaviors, thoughts, inclinations or vice versa. Research has yet to sort that out, imho.

2. Even counting all the POSSIBLE indications of hormonal, genetic etc. PREDISPOSING FACTORS toward homosexuality--all together those factors only account--at most--for 20% of the variance (some researchers say only 10%) resulting in homosexuality. If you are going to throw the issues out in such a discussion--in the name of science, [color=CC9966]then PLEASE AT LEAST GET THE SCIENCE CORRECT! Sheesh.




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenEars123

Yes, i have spoken to many. Why would anyone 'choose' to be frowned upon and even hated by millions?
edit on 29/5/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)


INDEED. As have I.

I have a lot of compassion for such blokes wanting to create a warm fuzzy accepting home supportive of their feelings, inclinations, activities etc. Who wouldn't.

However, in my experience of many such folks . . . they have more or less given up trying to forsake their orientation and decided to go full bore the other way as the only option left to them. That's pretty sad, to me.

It's as though they are trying to recreate an Ozzie and Harriet nest . . . yet the 'marital bed' is a revolving door.

Such contradictions just do not work--and certainly not well.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


In my experience and observations over my 66+ years . . .

the homosexual community has become--at least a significant proportion have become--greatly more hate-filled, hostile, aggressive, proselytizing, mean-spirited, haughtily indignant, lobbied for legal restrictions on Christians etc. than the Christian communities I've been a part of have ever even attempted or usually even thought of trying re the homosexual community.

Sooooooo, your assertions come across as EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL and clueless about the social realities.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by OpenEars123

Yes, i have spoken to many. Why would anyone 'choose' to be frowned upon and even hated by millions?
edit on 29/5/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)


INDEED. As have I.

I have a lot of compassion for such blokes wanting to create a warm fuzzy accepting home supportive of their feelings, inclinations, activities etc. Who wouldn't.

However, in my experience of many such folks . . . they have more or less given up trying to forsake their orientation and decided to go full bore the other way as the only option left to them. That's pretty sad, to me.


It's as though they are trying to recreate an Ozzie and Harriet nest . . . yet the 'marital bed' is a revolving door.

Such contradictions just do not work--and certainly not well.


I agree to some extent. Although i wouldn't say that gay people 'give up' trying to be straight, it's more about accepting who they are.

Unfortunately due to how society/religion frown upon homosexuality, a lot of gay people are unable to accept.
So yes it is sad.
edit on 29/5/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconV

You're funny... So you will acknowledge, by your religious beliefs/standards, the marriage between any male and female at face value, as being a covenant between them and god for the purpose of procreation ? That's stand up comedy for atheists and people getting married past the age of being able to procreate. People I know get married to have a life together regardless of each other's religious beliefs yet more for the fact that it legitimizes their relationship within society and gives legal rights to the individuals involved.
Too often Gay people get labeled as promiscuous by judgemental religious people yet there they are... gay couples attempting to validate their relationships within the framework of the term 'marriage' and still the god folk want to deny them that credibility. As I see it since we live in a democratic society... views that represent oppression, bigotry and intolerance based on fundamental religious beliefs would be perfectly suited within an Islamic state like Iran.

Sorry but your beliefs have little to do with the reasons many people chose to unite their lives under the term of marriage.




I actually agree with you that today the majority of people do not get married primarily for the purpose of offspring(though some still do)... Rather it is Companionship, love, or lust that most are seeking.

I do not discount the other reasons, in fact God created the female gender as a perfect companion to the male gender yet also specifically gifted with the ability to bear and nurture offspring, hence the unique body functions of the womb and breasts.

It is the joining together of 2 individuals as 1 flesh through the seal of the marriage covenant which God calls a marriage, this is impossible for two individuals of the same gender to accomplish.

Perhaps if people paid more attention in biology class there would be less confusion.

But again, as i have said before, call marriage whatever you want, disregard my claims of its origins or purpose if you like.

The purpose of creating offspring is the reason for choosing the act of procreation as the SEAL of the marriage covenant. It does not mean that you must actually produce offspring to enter into a marriage, just that the two individuals getting married must be physically able to consummate. A seal is symbolic, not an effectual action. In other words it is not about actually creating a child with that first act of possible procreation, but rather a sign and a symbol.

Thus it is a reminder of Gods initial decree to be fruitful and multiply.

What i am talking about is a legal Covenant relationship established by God which can only be entered into according to Gods stipulations.

Any other union which disregards those stipulations is just that, a union which falls outside Gods decree, you can call it whatever you want, but I am not forced to share in your confusion or delusion, which ever it may be.

It is impossible for two individuals of the same gender to be married according to my understanding of the marriage covenant. It is not a matter of rights or regulations granted by humans to humans, but rather physical inability to "Seal" the covenant before God.

It is in fact directly related to the distinct physical differences between the two genders. differences which exist for good reason and should not be ignored unless you truly desire to be blind and ignorant of reality.

Soul



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenEars123
... Although i wouldn't say that gay people 'give up' trying to be straight, it's more about accepting who they are.


Accepting 'who they ARE' . . . or

--who they have bought into as who they are?
--accepting a layered on externally as well as an internal set of dopamine enhanced conditioned reflexes defining "who they are?"

--accepting a political, propagandized and propagandizing lobbying group defining who they are based on their dopamine enhanced reflex set?

imho, it still boils down to trying to set up an Ozzie and Harriet home life . . .

--without Harriet
--without monogamy
--without stability
--with health hazardous habits
--with a list of other hindrances to long term fulfilling stable relationships.

And then pretending ALL THAT IS THE SAME as Ozzie and Harriet--when it's anything but.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by OpenEars123
... Although i wouldn't say that gay people 'give up' trying to be straight, it's more about accepting who they are.


Accepting 'who they ARE' . . . or

--who they have bought into as who they are?
--accepting a layered on externally as well as an internal set of dopamine enhanced conditioned reflexes defining "who they are?"

--accepting a political, propagandized and propagandizing lobbying group defining who they are based on their dopamine enhanced reflex set?


imho, it still boils down to trying to set up an Ozzie and Harriet home life . . .

--without Harriet
--without monogamy
--without stability
--with health hazardous habits
--with a list of other hindrances to long term fulfilling stable relationships.

And then pretending ALL THAT IS THE SAME as Ozzie and Harriet--when it's anything but.


To answer your question, i meant accepting 'who they are' - You do not 'choose' to be gay, you follow what turns you on sexually, and avoid what turns you off. Just like straight people do.

I have an honest question and would appreciate an honest answer;
Are you a religious person?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
There are some posts above that assert that the Bible is a fairy tale.

The Bible is a book that is unlike any other. It is unique. It cannot be classed as history. Neither can it be classed as myth. It has a special quality in that the supernatural stories are quite unlike the Greek myth stories, for example. When Odysseus returns home the first thing he does is not to greet his wife but to slay her suiters in a blood bath while his wife sleeps upstairs. Then he cleans up and makes love to his wife. This story mixes love and violence. This story is unlike Bible stories. This story can easily be classed as mythology.

When Jesus started his ministry, he did not go to the leaders and officials. Because he knew they were corrupt and beyond redemption. No he preached to the common people he called “the salt of the earth”. He became their champion and promised them and us a better life free of the oppression of the corrupt.

The corrupt leaders are the champions of the lie. Jesus is the champion of the truth.

The leaders killed Jesus. The liars tried to kill the truth. It did not work. The corrupt liars overestimated themselves. The Truth lives on.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by OpenEars123
... Although i wouldn't say that gay people 'give up' trying to be straight, it's more about accepting who they are.


Accepting 'who they ARE' . . . or

--who they have bought into as who they are?
--accepting a layered on externally as well as an internal set of dopamine enhanced conditioned reflexes defining "who they are?"

--accepting a political, propagandized and propagandizing lobbying group defining who they are based on their dopamine enhanced reflex set?



Yes accepting who they are. Homosexuality is not a belief system it is a physical and mental state of being as is being straight and it has been around since long before your "political propaganda infused lobbying groups" ever existed

Do you accept who you are?

A person who has made "The Choice" to base their life and skewed moral stance on a few thousand pages written centuries ago (not millions of years) about a man that never physically existed and his magical "son"...

Tell me who needs to accept themselves as unnatural?
edit on 29-5-2013 by Truth_Hz because: Poor grammar corrected..



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


There are well over 3000 deities to chose from across the globe and hundreds of sub branches of Christianity with a variety of interpretations of the word of god... So if you think you have the ultimate justification for gay people not to use the term 'marriage' then clearly you are presenting your own confusion/delusion. Many Churches have been or now are performing 'gay marriages' as the focus is on the rights of the individuals as opposed to the bigoted ideas percolating from selectively interpreting passages from antiquated jewish scripts.
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to scribes by God. It has nothing to do with God. The Bible was voted to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century. Its now the 21st century and the majority of the covenants have already hit the wall of unacceptability or are completely ignored in the modern age.
So to speak of others as having confusion/delusions is very amusing because as I see it.... you're referencing Hebrew and Roman Catholic beliefs regarding a conceptual deity from the dark ages, and that is the ultimate delusion.
If gay people are unable to utilize their selected church due to a bigoted and discriminating belief system based on covenants aimed at the moral illegitimacy of genital incompatibility, then Churches are no longer providing a service to the extended public and need to be taxed accordingly. If religious institutions were taxed I'm very sure they would have a complete turn around on masse as money talks the loudest within these pseudo religious corporate institutions. I very much doubt they would ever use genital incompatibility as an excuse again.... but you probably still would.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Very simple question here. It is simple logic that gay marriage cannot and will not effect any person outside of that particular relationship. It cannot effect my marriage. It cannot effect yours.

With that in mind, I have to ask:

What is so scary about gay marriage? Fear is literally the only reason that people are against it (whether it be religious fear, social fear, etc). There is no other logical reason.

So, again, I ask: What is so scary about gay marriage?


people are ignorant.. they live in a bubble..

gays marrying should be a non issue.. civil union is not marriage and is not the same.. equal rights for all..



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Last I checked the research:

1. the brain anomalies associated with homosexuality--which came first--the behavior and then the brain conformed to the behaviors, thoughts, inclinations or vice versa. Research has yet to sort that out, imho.

2. Even counting all the POSSIBLE indications of hormonal, genetic etc. PREDISPOSING FACTORS toward homosexuality--all together those factors only account--at most--for 20% of the variance (some researchers say only 10%) resulting in homosexuality. If you are going to throw the issues out in such a discussion--in the name of science, [color=CC9966]then PLEASE AT LEAST GET THE SCIENCE CORRECT! Sheesh.
\

Ask any gay person why they think they are gay and they will tell you that they don't really care.

Why not? Because It's not our fault

The only people who are really interested in finding out why are those with the caveman view that we are ill and we need a cure.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

imho, it still boils down to trying to set up an Ozzie and Harriet home life . . .

--without Harriet
--without monogamy
--without stability
--with health hazardous habits
--with a list of other hindrances to long term fulfilling stable relationships.

And then pretending ALL THAT IS THE SAME as Ozzie and Harriet--when it's anything but.


im gay and that is a very distorted view on what a gay family, home life is like.. you are serious, thats what so scary..

generally, gay couples having children are monogamous,, not all gay men have sex with 100 guys a day.. i dont.. i only do monogamy.. the lesbian couple i have a child with, only do monogamy.. i know lots of gay households and they are no different to a heterosexual family.. stable, happy and very, very loving.. with extremely happy and well adjusted children..

health hazards? please..

sorry if i appear rude, but all you have shown in your post is how little you know about gay families.. its a distorted, christian sounding view on it.. you most likely have never even met or spent quality time with a gay family..



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
The word has meant alot to many on a high level. To them its about family and kids. If you marry to not have kids it's just the tittle but to many it's not. Make up a word for gay marriage that means gay marriage or call it just that "gay marriage" but don't try to change the meaning of a specific word that has meant so much to so many. Why should hundreds of millions of people change a long standing/spiritual word to suit a group outside that word. Invent "gay marriage" you gays and enjoy, just like we invented marriage for a women and man relationship. Call me a bigot, yeah right, you gays are more bigoted towards me. I love you but you hate me, which seems to be the way alot of the time with minorities as the have a shield up from all the crap the take from the bigger population. Just for laughs, i've been heckled as an arrow at several mardi gras because i'm straight, so we can't come to your party which is a "public gathering" but you get upset we don't change the meaning and definition of a long standing word. Come on stop hating and not so guarded please.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Preserving the sanctity of marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman has to be THE flimsiest argument I have ever heard.

To begin with, like the OP stats: Any equality in law doesn't have any effect on your marriage or anyone elses - your marriage is still a religious union, nothing is changing that.

Secondly - Millions of people get married without any hint of it being a religious concept, they just want to get married, end of story - they want a wedding, then want a honeymoon, they want CAKE! They want their spotlight in the Sun for a day when they are the special people amongst their loved ones. People get married every day - even in churches! - when they are not religious, or are simply paying lipservice to being religious in order to get it done in a particular venue.

Stop hiding your baseless fears behind flimsy excuses.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kickstart
The word has meant alot to many on a high level. To them its about family and kids. If you marry to not have kids it's just the tittle but to many it's not. Make up a word for gay marriage that means gay marriage or call it just that "gay marriage" but don't try to change the meaning of a specific word that has meant so much to so many. Why should hundreds of millions of people change a long standing/spiritual word to suit a group outside that word.

Nothing is changing for you - your marriage will not change, at all. And as for not having kids, so many gay men and women have children - they're not infertile you know!

On the subject of: By your reasoning, I assume you would also like infertile heterosexual people to either a) not be allowed to marry, or b) have their marriage called something else like "a barren marriage" so as to preserve your holy union of a breedable man/woman pairing.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by VelvetSplash
 


You keep believing that and i hope its just an opinion and your not emotionally attached to the subject. I know better and have no interest debating. I love all homosexuals and heterosexuals and anyone else the same. Don't let opinion get to you, everyone free to do and believe and not be judged or forced.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash

Originally posted by kickstart
The word has meant alot to many on a high level. To them its about family and kids. If you marry to not have kids it's just the tittle but to many it's not. Make up a word for gay marriage that means gay marriage or call it just that "gay marriage" but don't try to change the meaning of a specific word that has meant so much to so many. Why should hundreds of millions of people change a long standing/spiritual word to suit a group outside that word.

Nothing is changing for you - your marriage will not change, at all. And as for not having kids, so many gay men and women have children - they're not infertile you know!

On the subject of: By your reasoning, I assume you would also like infertile heterosexual people to either a) not be allowed to marry, or b) have their marriage called something else like "a barren marriage" so as to preserve your holy union of a breedable man/woman pairing.


our marriage will not change? no, but the meaning of a long standing word and the beliefs people put into the would. We should respect your opinion yes? and the opinion of the people who created the word yes? or just you. Your wordsmithing and story relating is poor. infertile, barren breedable pairing. i'm sorry mate you have a lot of work to do on yourself internally. In respecting everyone we leave something thats not broken alone and we do exactly what was done for the straight religious comunity so long ago. Put forward a celebration with a meaning and call it what you like. BINGO. Why do you want their word, is it the word or the meaning your after. The word has no meaning to you as it doesn't apply to you. so you don't want the word. The meaning can be put to any new word/phrase, You want the meaning and the word, off i wish everyone was gay so marriage would have originally been only gays and we could all have it. Sorry heterosexual couples made it up first.. If you married a man and called it "jkdfh" it would be the same as marriage in everyway to me, why can't you see that.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kickstart
 


marriage is not a heterosexual word, for the heterosexual community.. its a universal word for a deeper commitment to a relationship..



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 

What i dont understand is there are more important things going on in the world the majority of people dont care what homosexuals and lesbians get up to thats there life why should there be a big deal over what sexuality people are



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join