Simple question re: homosexuality

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
I do believe in GOD, which is this planet. Giving me direct contact to the creator.

Second of all, Christianity is based on a fairy tale, can someone please answer me why we don't recognise that as insanity?

Okay, it is official. We are all evenly screwed here.

LOL why you say that?

I thought it was funny when you went all Captain Planet there in the first paragraph and then called Christianity a fairy tail. I just think none of us know what we are doing, that's all. Don't worry it made me laugh.

Originally posted by SoulReaper

Originally posted by Darth_Prime


Do What thou Wilt Shall be the whole of the law'

Are you aware of the origin of this little statement of yours?

Soul

Quite Fluent actually,

why do you ask?

Originally posted by Helious
Put your thinking cap on, pull it down real tight and think hard about why some people may have an issue with it

My cap is on Tight.
As to "thinking hard why some people have a issue with it"

Sorry dude, I can't Dumb myself down that far.

I have a habit of seeing all People as People, and as Equal.

I cant understand why that is so hard for others.

reply to post by Idonttouchmethere

Dear Idonttouchmethere,

Interesting post.

How about, change marriage so millions of people can express love as they see fit?

Of course, it's a non sequitor, but interesting nonetheless.

Everybody in the country can express love as they see fit. Granted, for some acts, it should be behind closed doors with the shades drawn. But nobody is stopping anybody from expressing love anywhere. Changing marriage laws doesn't affect that.

"Hey, Bill, I'd really like to sleep with you tonight, but they haven't changed the marriage laws." Yeah, Tom, you're right, that's a bummer. (giggle, giggle)" "I mean, that really sucks. (Giggle, giggle, guffaw.)"

I have to assume you're saying that the government should be in the business of regulating marriage, and they should change the rules, dating from before the start of the country, because there would be such a huge benefit to society if they did. Ok, what's the huge benefit to society?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Morgenstern89
reply to post by Helious

 

How is it a religious witch hunt to point out that Christians are the main voice in trying to keep the gays from getting married?

All I'm saying is we live in a country where there is a separation of church and state, and that the opinions of religious groups shouldn't influence whether or not someone can get a marriage license. Don't want to let them have a ceremony in a church? Fine. They can get married elsewhere. It in no way affects them, or invalidates their own beliefs. There are people of many faiths, and no faith in this country - Christian (or any other religion) beliefs and traditions should not dictate those of others.

"Gay people can not expect everyone to accept them, they can only ask that people respect them as people, with the same human rights as everyone else has."

Every other consenting adult in this country can get married. Gays have sketchy civil unions, and only in what, 9 states? They don't have the same rights in those regards.

The argument in question is clearly based on semantics from both sides. What is astounding but also very true is what a word or group of words actually mean to some people.

There is validity to both sides but for extremely different reasons and I reject any argument that this has become, for the gay community, completely about equal rights under the law. This has become a crusade against religion itself, that is why most people who champion the argument to call it marriage fight tooth and nail to undermine the tradition and philosophy of what the word means and how it originated.

Meaning and origin aside, it's practice throughout history is quite clear. The continued assault on religion by the gay activist community is in fact persecution, oddly enough, the same type of persecution they claim to be a victim of. If what is wanted is equality, largely, it is being recognized and granted. slowly but surely.

If what is wanted is equality and acceptance then the battle is already lost no matter how loud you scream. You can insist on certain things, you can insist on your basic human rights, you can insist on your Constitutional rights and you can insist that people treat you on an individual basis because of who you are and not because of what you believe in or choose to do in the bedroom.

You can not demand that everyone on Earth dispose of their religious or personal beliefs to reinforce your self assurance that you are normal and everyone elses concept of reality is outdated and irrelevant. Acceptance is not one sided.

Christians telling homosexuals that they are devil spawn and homosexuals telling Christians there is no religion, they are dinosaurs and marriage belongs to everyone. It's madness from both sides and quite appalling from a reasonable perspective.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Helious
Put your thinking cap on, pull it down real tight and think hard about why some people may have an issue with it

My cap is on Tight.
As to "thinking hard why some people have a issue with it"

Sorry dude, I can't Dumb myself down that far.

I have a habit of seeing all People as People, and as Equal.

I cant understand why that is so hard for others.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)

You can't dumb yourself down enough to realize that we are all of us subject to human nature? I guess you are also completely sure we live in a utopian society that values everyone the same, rainbows every day, no rain, everyone is treated equal and there is no hunger or death?

I guess you can't dumb yourself down to step outside of our own ridiculous rhetoric and ideology and realize we all don't live in a perfect world. To have a real conversation about the subject instead of just pretending we should all ride ponies while eating ice cream and everyone in the world should just think like you do.

I wonder why that's so hard? That's dishonest sentiment Tw0sides, it's dishonest because in my opinion you don't believe it, it's just really easy to say.

My only concern is the 99.9% divorce rate that I'm sure is an accurate future homosexual divorce rate.Yes I am aware of the heterosexual divorce rate.You want a scary realistic outcome...there you go.

Originally posted by Greyskull
My only concern is the 99.9% divorce rate that I'm sure is an accurate future homosexual divorce rate.Yes I am aware of the heterosexual divorce rate.You want a scary realistic outcome...there you go.

why is the Homosexual divorce rate at 99.9%?

it's a misconception that we are all slags who refuse to be in a committed relationship

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

So many sad ignorant/brainwashed/bigoted people in this thread, it's good to see the nice/caring/open minded/loving people coming out on top.

You must be talking about stars or something.

Meh….I've got plenty!

Nobody is going to come out on top in US with abortions, gay marriage, legalized drugs, etc.


We all lose!

Enjoy the stars!

Ummmmm any idea how hypocritical you sound???

I don't give a toss about stars but obviously you do?

Also i wasn't talking about the US, abortion or drugs. So that comment was also pointless.

I was talking about this thread, the hate, and the decent people not backing down.

Enjoy your stars!

reply to post by Helious


Just because the church created a monopoly on marriage, however long ago, does not validate you denying people rights.

Get out of the illusion that something you disagree with is something you have a right to deny. You have no right to deny people civil rights based on some notion that marriage is owned by the church.

Hellooo! It isn't.

Your perception is skewed because in the mainstream you generally only see church weddings, because they make lots of money.

Here's something interesting for you to digest...

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Some clergy think churches should divorce themselves from the wedding business.

articles.southbendtribune.com...

Note the church considers weddings a business. Of course it is, and they have had a monopoly on it for too long. They reel you in with all the attention and glitz, make you feel so special. A woman gets no more attention than she does on her wedding day, eh?

But it's Cali, all weirdo's out there eh?

reply to post by Greyskull


99.9%... Now there's a figure, and where did you pluck that from?

Ah! It must be because "The Gays" are so promiscuous... "I once heard that they have at least 100 partners per night EACH!"

OR

Perhaps your homophobic, outdated and bigoted view was spewed out by some backwater Pastor and it was drummed and drummed and drummed into your head until you saw it as "Gospel"

OR

You are just completely ignorant about human nature, the people around you, society as a whole... Look at the breakdown of "straight" marriages in your culture Why do you think that is happening.. is it.. "The Gays"?

Originally posted by Greyskull
My only concern is the 99.9% divorce rate that I'm sure is an accurate future homosexual divorce rate.Yes I am aware of the heterosexual divorce rate.You want a scary realistic outcome...there you go.

I must have missed it, but where did you get that figure from?

How can there even be a statistic when gay marriage is still illegal in most place, and those where it is has only been in the last couple of years?

There are no reliable gay divorce rates worldwide, as not all counties keep track of which divorce filings are from heterosexual and homosexual couples. In Massachusetts, when couples applied for divorce two months after gay marriage was legalized, opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not suited to marriage. One group stated that the gay men were too 'promiscuous' to make a marriage work.

The national divorce rate in the US is near 50 percent. Gay rights groups argue that mentioning gay divorce is a cheap shot. The gay divorce rate has little to do with gay marriage, as gay divorce is another rights issue.

www.loveandpride.com...

Another issue that is no ones business.

Hi Charles, sorry for my late reply. I've been at work all day and I presume we are on very different time zones.

Now, to the points you have raised

Few people would support pedophilia, but there are some. There are even more people who support polygamy, and a few who are looking for bestiality. I even remember one woman who married a tree she had become fond of, not legally of course.

I would agree with you re pedophilia. I have already stated in another thread my almost militant dislike of it, due to the fact my own mother was sexually abused as a child .

What does all that have to do with anything? Well, my next question, which is even more fundamental for me, is not where the line should be drawn, but why should it be drawn there? And can we get rock solid assurance that it will stay there?

The debate at this point in our history is whether gays should be married. If the reason is only that the relationship does no harm, and the people involved want to do it, I run into a problem. Can't that argument be applied to every form of sexuality (except rape)? Other countries allow children to be married, the US believes 13 year olds are old enough to decide to have an abortion without any parental notification, why not allow pedophilia?

Let's start with pedophilia. Sadly my life has been littered with victims of it. Luckily I myself was never a victim, but the people I have known were mostly broken, self doubting and really emotionally messed up people.

I was the rather unfortunate victim of revenge for someone else's crimes - For 9 months of my life I had a violent stalker in my life who was after me to take out all the pain that a man who looked very similar to me had done to him. It was weird, horrible, undeserved on my part and a real eye opener as to how much being molested can affect a person. I hope nobody else has to ever live that scenario, but anyone who tries to tell me pedophilia is a victimless crime had better not be standing too close to my fists.

The 13 year old abortion law alarms me. But then a 13 year old having consenting sex alarms me too (as does non consenting even more) This is what I term as a moralistic nightmare. There are so many things wrong with the scenario of a 13 year old needing an abortion in the first place. Puberty does not equate to maturity and one needs maturity to be properly ready to enter the sexual realm.

What's wrong with polygamy? Consenting adults, after all. It does occur in other countries, and who does it harm?

I am not into it myself. I live in a monogamous relationship with my partner, in spite of the fact that I am gay. I know that from a religious point of view that there is nothing wrong with it, but my (as with your) social conditioning and my own moral compass steer me away from the idea.

Beastiality? We don't have any problem turning sheep into lamb chops, isn't that worse? Certainly no harm in that relationship.

Having grown up on a farm and having gone to school with a very troubled boy who got caught and was jailed for bestiality, I can you tell that it is NASTY and it is WRONG. I won't go into detail as it makes me ill to think of it, but the animals he violated had to be put down because of internal injury. Quite simply the 'physical' mechanics of it does not work most of the time. The larger animals that it 'might' work with are big enough to run away or severely injure the person. And if the animal did injure them, well it would serve them right.

And I don't want to even think about those few tortured souls with necrophilia.

Well, one can only marry the living because a rotting corpse bride (or groom) relationship is not going to last anyway.

I'm willing to allow any form of sexuality if someone can come up with a reason for doing so that avoids my problems. Oh, and the reason for doing so should be greater than the reason not to do so.

Apart from polygamy, I can reasonably argue against all of the above without having to resort to scientific studies.

For me it's a tough problem. I don't use the religious argument, but I'm still looking for reasons why it's better to change marriage than leave it the way it is. I'm hoping you, or some other poster can help me with that.

Quite simply, a gay relationship is 2 adults of the same sex that are of legal age living in a committed relationship. All of the other examples except polygamy and incest (relatives marrying) do not involve 2 adults.
I can argue against incest on grounds of birth defects in the children.

And that is why I argue for gay marriage, because the others except polygamy can be reasonably dismissed.

reply to post by Sigismundus


The last I read . . .

9% or 10% is simply not true.

The most accurate statistics place the percentage of homosexuals in the general population at close to 2%.

Perhaps all the propagandizing has increased that somewhat but I'm still quite skeptical that it's 9 or 10%.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Sigismundus

 

The last I read . . .

9% or 10% is simply not true.

The most accurate statistics place the percentage of homosexuals in the general population at close to 2%.

Perhaps all the propagandizing has increased that somewhat but I'm still quite skeptical that it's 9 or 10%.

So you have wasted how many posts now trying to convince the world that homosexuals are a rising multiplying force that are trying to take over the world?

You do realise that you have now derailed all of your own arguments by saying that you think we are a smaller minority than we say we are don't you.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by seabag

Gay marriage MOST CERTAINLY takes away from the meaning of marriage.

. . .

If you stop putting the word GAY before the word Marriage, then there is no Taking Away.

Marriage is just Marriage.

Simple.

Once upon a time in a multiverse long ago and far away . . .

On the planet WAFC (Warm And Fuzzy Civility)

Covenants reigned supreme.

There were various kinds of Covenants.

--Covenants between MOTH and WOTH (Man Of The House and Woman Of The House);
--Covenants between parents and children
--Covenants between employer and employee
--Covenants between government and citizens
--Covenants between farmers and their animals
--Covenants between families and their pets
--Covenants between citizens and the land, the environment

There were occasional rumors that some citizens violated covenants and rearranged the particulars. Some felt the rearrangement mocked the hallowed Covenants and the Warm and Fuzzy Stability and Civility of the planet. Others just felt the rebels were more heavily into personal expression and preferred to just let them be. After all, they were fringe elements and in the shadows. They weren't parading down Main Street or taking over the government.

Some felt they were particularly dangerous agents of the very dangerous Darth--Dark Counter-Lord of the Multi-verse. They warned that ignoring the pernicious fringe poison at all would result in the downfall of the warm and fuzzy stability and civility. Most thought such warnings were a bit extreme and gave lip-service agreement about them but mostly ignored the warnings and went merrily on their way.

After a few centuries and many decades . . . some High Gate-keepers of the hallowed doctrines of the Warm and Fuzzy Stability and Civility began to notice that the media and government social stars were subtly championing the fringe elements and their doings. It wasn't anything greatly shocking--just some doubts thrown in about the wonderousness of the Warm and Fuzzy Stability and Civility and some titillating exciting framing of the costumes and doings of the fringe elements.

But mostly, not too many paid much attention. Some of the High Gate-keepers of the hallowed doctrines wrote more and more stridently about the looming fractures in the culture, in their view. Some even managed to get a few sound-bites on the well controlled media. But mostly, the populace just yawned.

Then one day, one of the particularly wise High Gate-Keepers noticed his 6 year old daughter's school book: "Zuzy has two Mommies." Because the High Gate-Keeper was particularly supportive of adoption for those who's parents were killed in auto accidents, he picked up the book with keen curiosity.

He was quickly aghast. The book had nothing to do with adoption. The book was glorifying the fringe perspectives and behaviors of the Covenant modifiers and Covenant trashers.

Fast-forward several decades later . . .

Now the 2% or so of the populace who indulged in brazen Covenant breaking, mangling, modifying and trashing were gaining up to 8-10% of the media time, themes, memes, lobbying, spot-lights, fashions, stories, articles . . .

Even some homes of the High Gate-Keepers were invaded by such rebelliousness. Of course, such homes undoubtedly were led by HGKs (High Gate Keepers) who were extrinsic in their values--wearing them like a coat vs living them like their life-blood. Discipline without Relationship always led to rebellion. But still everyone pretended that the HGKs were still quite kosher keepers of the faith of the Covenants.

Nevertheless, more and more children came home from more and more classes, sports games, sleep-overs, camp-outs, debates, dates, sensitivity sessions, focus groups, Delphi sessions and internships gloriously going on and on about how wonderful it was that the old Covenants were being modified, trashed, falling by the wayside. . . . and how wonderful it was that now young people could make Home and Family Covenants men with men; women with women; men with dogs; women with goats; two men with a tree; two women with a very roundly pointed, carefully carved obsidian rock; two women with a ferret; two men with a carefully crafted "sacred" stick; . . .

The HGKs got ever more shrill about the downfall of the culture . . . about how the WAFS&Civility was crashing down around their ankles. But most folks under 30 just yawned and partied on.

Increasingly there were more and more parades down Main street where various types of couples marched in unison with their partners or their 'Covenant Animals" or their "Covenant Objects' obviously glorifying in their wonderous expansion of the meaning of the term "Covenant."

to be continued . . .

The fear probably comes from things like the Bible, giving the impression gays were evil.

"If a man lies with another man, they should be stoned".

Fortunately, we now know the Bible had been interpreted incorrectly. That's why New Zealand legalised gay marriage and cannibis on the same day.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Wow. If you think the America of the past was a picture of warm fuzzy civility you are indeed a fan of fiction.

reply to post by SQUEALER

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
Gay marriage...human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Put me in the "I don't get why it's a big deal" camp. It's only fair...I can marry "Jane" then you can marry "Jane", if you can marry "John" then I can too.

I can have sex with Jane, and conceive Bob, who will grow up and become a productive member of society.

It's unfair, that I can't have sex with John, and conceive too.

What can we do about this?

I know God or Nature, whichever you prefer, designed thing this way, but we are men, and don't have to accept God's plan or Nature's design, we are creative and inventive, and can write our own law. So, let's "fix this problem".


Let's have a law that says straight couples are not allowed to conceive, because gay couples naturally can't. We need this law, to get real "equal rights".


The whole objective behind the movement to call "gay unions" a "marriage" is to destroy the traditional concept of "marriage" by denying heterosexuals the right to conceive.

Let no man be deceived, the goal is the total destruction of marriage.

edit on 29-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)

You can't be serious? Are people that dumb and I just missed it...

Originally posted by SQUEALER
The whole objective behind the movement to call "gay unions" a "marriage" is to destroy the traditional concept of "marriage" by denying heterosexuals the right to conceive.

Let no man be deceived, the goal is the total destruction of marriage.

You make it sound like they're going to make gay marriage compulsory or something.