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.

 

The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by grover
 

Like that priest told Galileo when he was offered to see through the telescope for himself, to confirm what Galileo was claiming "I dare not lest I become like you."


You didn't even read what I wrote at all... and don't you dare use that lest I become like you crap... it stinks of arrogance... I suppose you forgot what Jesus said about the arrogant and self righteous.

Back to ignore you go.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
I don't pick and choose. I quoted specific scriptures in the interest of saving space, but it won't matter. You folks won't open a Bible and read it for yourself.

And yet you're so certain that I'm selective.


No? Then why do not even attempt to address the scripture that I post?


Review my posts, write down the selections, get out your Bible and read them in context for yourself.

But you won't.


I've said, YET AGAIN, that I've read the WHOLE bible many times. Am I typing English here?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 




Like that priest told Galileo when he was offered to see through the telescope for himself, to confirm what Galileo was claiming "I dare not lest I become like you."


you mean smart? :-)

putting aside for a moment all the scripture - because frankly - I just can't compete in that category - I have a question for you - a real question

OK - more than one

is it Christian to treat people differently than you would have yourself or those you love be treated?

we've just been warned to stay on topic - and not get personal - and I suppose it's too late for that now maybe

but, trying to move forward...

I'm not a Christian - but that doesn't mean I can't respect you or your faith

It also doesn't mean that I can't understand it - or even agree with much of it

if the topic is about making a religious case FOR gay marriage - I can't - precisely because I don't know the bible well enough to make even a half witted attempt

but - I get Christ

I understand the basics

let's just pretend for a minute that I agree with you - that homosexuality is an abomination - wrong, wrong, wrong - JUST wrong - no two ways about it

where did God - or Jesus - give us the authority to judge or punish?

judge not lest ye be judged - who shall cast the first stone - hate the sin - not the sinner, etc., etc.

even if it is wrong - is it also wrong to treat them with respect - compassion - love them even?

would God actually be more pleased with our hatred and intolerance than with our tolerance and compassion?

would it kill anybody to let them live their lives as they please - and just assume that all the really naughty things we do in this life will ultimately be judged by God himself - and not by us?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Many things are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Using a self interpreted Bible as a guide becomes dangerous and prone to error in many cases.

"A man clings to his wife and the two become one".

"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

Didn't have to do with the idea of rape. It had to do with the disorder of the action.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Very clear here.

another:

Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'


and another:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Oh dear, do not think that this translates into a modern context. Civil law of ancient Jews. Not moral law of the 21st century/.

and yet another:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

That's Romans. Written by Paul of Tarsis

"It is not good that man should be alone" God made a "suitable partner" Eve, a woman. To defy this is to defy the natural order of things. Do not come to me about dolphins and bonabos and the hundreds of animals that engage in homosexuality. For humans, we try to transcend the animal. We see what some would call mundane as "gifts" because as Christians we realize that it is all part of a remarkable plan. To deny this plan is to be unnatural. Our sexuality is above that of the animals and for a higher purpose, the perpetuation of the human race. We express restraint in other ways that separates us from animals. Why not in the case of homosexuality. It can be done. However, I am not so naive as to imagine all gays would want to stop their lifestyle because the Christians say it is wrong. There are very compelling arguments on their side. They are good people and deserve dignity.

As for me, I cannot endorse homosexual marraige. However, I do not hate them and they have my support and love as individuals. I am aware that it is not always an easy thing to live with at all and that there are evil people out there who are cruel to gays and get our society nowhere with their message of hate. It is a difficult situation.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sty
 

i don't believe that the government has the right to force churches to wed gays. Especially since that church doesn't view it as right. I would feel disgusted if my church had to allow gays to marry there that is bring homosexually too close to my life. I am fine if they keep it to themselves. I also, personally, can't really see how a homosexual person can be religious when there are so many religious people who think gay marriage by the church is morally wrong. I am ok for gays to be given civil rights to be together and get those government benefits since they will be together in love regardless.
I do believe that you aren't gay by choice, it is how you are born. So, we can not blame and condemn homosexuals for something that they can't control. There are so many people who get married legally but don't celebrate religiously in anyway. So i think homosexuals should be happy to have their unions legalized and not force churches to wed them.
There were major set backs on election day and I am sad to say it did not bother me so much. I do feel bad, I know they so many people have a rough time. I just know that if we all just listen to our hearts and pray that we can get through our lives in peace
We shouldn't cause others pain or take away their rights so I hope things can work out.
I am just glad to live here in Texas so maybe I won't have to worry about this topic for a little while more. (yea i know that sounds bad)

Any state that you live in will have a place where you can live doing what makes you happy. Everyone can be happy



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by skeptic1
 
It's not healthy, it's abberant, hell, it's just twisted. And through their damned nastiness, a lot of innocent folks, including chldren caught a terrible disease and died. It appears it will practically wipe out Africa before it's over. Tell me it isn't nasty.


This, of course, is your opinion. Which, your allowed to have, at least here in America. But, that doesn't make it right. In you're mind it's twisted, in you're mind it's aberrant. Now I could postulate some reasons as to why that is, as to why your hiding behind scripture, but that would probably get me booted off of ATS. I like how religious nutters talk out of both sides of their mouths [/sarcasm]. "Cause God loves you, as long as you do what he says..."

Chrono



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Wow, I read these posts, and I thought I would try to inject some knowledge and facts into it. I can't say I blame the Forum Moderator, because it seems to be turning into a bad newsgroup thing. Well, I'm probably making a mistake and this thread is probably dead already, but here goes:
---------------------------------------------
www.newsweek.com...
Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists

[My comment: none of those polygamist relationships were successful, and polygamy started with the descendants of Cain, go figger...]

Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

[My comment: Paul believed that the coming of the Messiah was imminent, therefore he made the statement that it was best to remain single. However, he preceded the comment above by saying he had no guidance from the holy spirit on this, and it was his opinion.]

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
[My comment: Genesis, Adam and Eve, they *twain* shall be one flesh. And he blessed them. Also, the restriction on a bishop in the NT shows he must have only one wife.]
--------------------------------------------
Spiramirabilis
since we supposedly have a separation of church and state going on here -
[My comment: see the thread ongoing now about separation of church and state called "Separation of church and state is *not* what you think it is." It is not in the Constitution, nor is it a law. It is a minor note made in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church that he was reassuring them that in his opinion the government should stay out of the businesses of the church (not the other way around).
--------------------------------------------

"reply to post by intrepid

Christ preached for over 3 years, don't you think if he had wanted to say that homosexuality was an abomination he would have taken a few minutes to do so?"
[My comment: Sodom is mentioned derogatorily by Jesus five times: Mt 10:15, 11:23,11:24,Mk 6:11, Lk 10:12. The sin of Sodom was both homosexuality and beastiality, and the others mentioned. For beastiality, see biblical references to lying with strange flesh in Jude 7. For homosexuality, refer to the original text in Genesis where the *men* wanted the *men* brought out so they could *know (have sex with) them*.
--------------------------------------------
reply to post by grover
What?
NO WHERE in the Bible does it say that... in fact nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the sins of the cities of the plain (as they have been called) were homosexual in nature.
[My comment: Genesis 19:4-5: But before they lay down, the *men* of the city, even the *men* of Sodom, compassed the house round, bothold and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where ae the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may *know* them.
-----------------------------
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
we are each of us guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (promising actual happiness is beyond the powers of even our beloved constitution)
[My comment: The words you quote are not in the Constitution, and therefore do not "constitute" part of our legal system. They are found in the Declaration of Independence. You have no rights unless they are established by law. There is no law in the Constitution or any federal document giving you those rights. That is the reason the gay activists are pushing for the laws to be changed, so you have those rights.
-------------------------------
reply to post by intrepid
As far as the law goes, beastiality, pedophilia and incest are against the law. Being gay isn't. So why not allow same sex marriage?
www.sodomylaws.org...
[My comment: homosexuality is against the law in some states even now. The laws are not being enforced. Homosexuality was a mental disorder until 1974 when the APA reversed their decision on it. The APA reversed their decision because the gay activists were violently protesting and threatening the members of the APA board. They reacted out of fear, IMHO.
----------------------------------
"reply to post by intrepid
ReallY? Do you believe in the Trinity? All Christians don't."

[My comment:] By definition, all Christians must believe in the Christian God to be Christians. If they do not, they are not Christians. They are some other belief. For example, Mormons are not Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ, but the definition of Jesus Christ is far different than the actual Jesus Christ in the Bible. Calling a god the same name doesn't make you a Christian. I could call Zeus the name Jesus Christ and call myself a Christian. The Mormon god is a created being, a former man now exalted, and so forth. Jesus Christ is God and uncreated. He is the creator.
The Bible is replete with the Trinity, with numerous examples. Therefore, if a Christian uses the Bible for the foundation of his faith, he thereby believes in the Trinity.

First, let's look at a few Trinity examples:

Who raised Jesus from the dead?
The Father (Rom 6:4, Acts 3:26, I Thes 1:10) The Son (John 2:19-21, 10:17-18), The Spirit (ROm 8:11) or God (Heb 13:20,Acts13:30,17:31)

Who is God?
The Father (Eph 4:6) The Son (Tit 2:13, John 1:1, 20:28, 9:35-37) The Spirit (Gen 1:2, Ps 104:30) or God (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3)

Who saves mankind?
The Father (I Pet 1:3) The Son (John 5:21, 4:14) The Spirit (John 3:6, Tit 3:5) or God (I John 3:9)

Who justifies man?
The Father (Jer 23:6, II Cor 5:19)
The Son (Rom 5:9, 10:4, II Cor 5:19,21) The Spirit (I Cor 6:11, Gal 5:5) or God (Rom 45:6, 9:33)

Who sanctifies man?
The Father (Jude 1), The Son (Tit 2:14), The Spirit (I Pet 1:2) or God (Ex 31:13)

The Trinity is shown clearly. The functions of each person of the godhead are shown in I Cor 8:6 and John 15:26: Of the Father, by the Son, through the Spirit.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Jim Scott]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Continuing to answer questions and comments:

----------------------------------
skeptic1
And, no. What is it with people like you??? You are free to believe what you want to believe, but you are not free to force other people to live their lives according to your beliefs.
[My comment:] Actually, we are. We enact laws based on our beliefs, and you must follow those laws.
--------------------
mystiq
Well, I hate to tell you, Mother Nature made 25% (and thats a conservative estimate) of all humans on earth, a variant sexuality naturally.
[My comment:] Homosexuality, the basis of this thread, is less than 10%, some studies showing as low as 4%. Hardly anything near a majority to be concerned with.
www.familyresearchinst.org...
----------------------------------------
mystiq
Sty, no group of people have the right to deprive another of their rights.
[My comment, as above:] You do not have rights until they are given to you by law.

skeptic1
However, governments are public institutions and they should not be able to deny rights to any two consenting adults based upon their sexual orientation
[My comment, as above:] You do not have rights until they are given to you by law.

---------------------------------------
skeptic1
You have no right to judge anyone else. Your God, His Son, and their religion specifically admonishes against judging others. But, hey, only the teachings that you think prove your point of view count, right??

[My comment: Actually, there is quite a bit about using sound or "righteous" judgment, and most folks pick up on the one statement Jesus made and ignore the many others. His context was about making you aware that the judgment you use on others will likely be used on you(Matt 7:2), so be careful. Similar to "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" in the Lord's Prayer. Churches would not be able to follow the scripture concerning excommunication, for example, unless they were able to judge. It states the saints shall judge the world (I Cor 6:2) and angels (6:3), and to use righteous judgment not just appearances (John 7:24).

So, you must judge. Jesus will come again to judge, but this first time he came to teach and die, not to condemn or judge.
---------------------------------------
Good luck.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


homosexuality used to be illegal about 50 odd years ago. so with the apparent rise in the number of paedophiles, what if in 20 years time or more, paedophilia becomes legal? what if age of consent is reduced to 10 years old? will that then be ok? could it be that as an old person by then you will be considered a bigot by the new generation who don't see what the fuss is about? If you think that will never happen you are kidding yourself.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 




Spiramirabilis since we supposedly have a separation of church and state going on here - [My comment: see the thread ongoing now about separation of church and state called "Separation of church and state is *not* what you think it is." It is not in the Constitution, nor is it a law. It is a minor note made in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church that he was reassuring them that in his opinion the government should stay out of the businesses of the church (not the other way around). --------------------------------------------


:-)

I guess I really do live in a world of make believe - sigh

if that's right - there have been many legal arguments made in this country - argued as if it were law - it's taken for granted for the most part by most of us

so, where does that put us? Legally?

is it accepted and taken for granted maybe because it's created as a sort of byproduct of the mix of our other rights?

thanks for the link

I'll check it out - I'll bet I can find out there

edit to add: Thomas Jefferson rocks

even when I don't pay close enough attention :-)


[edit on 12/8/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hi there,

it could be a complicated issue but for the question - what is wrong with homosexuality?

Does it hurt anyone?

Will it cause social mayhem?

Do you start categorising love like a rabid judge?

Do you know what love, kndness and mercy are? There are a lot of homosexual couples better qualified to bring up children than are heterosexual e.g. homosexual couples don't have crack babies.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hi there,

it could be a complicated issue but for the question - what is wrong with homosexuality?

Does it hurt anyone?

Will it cause social mayhem?

Do you start categorising love like a rabid judge?

Do you know what love, kndness and mercy are? There are a lot of homosexual couples better qualified to bring up children than are heterosexual e.g. homosexual couples don't have crack babies.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ripleykatzzzzz
Hi there,

it could be a complicated issue but for the question - what is wrong with homosexuality?

Does it hurt anyone?

Will it cause social mayhem?

Do you start categorizing love like a rabid judge?

Do you know what love, kindness and mercy are? There are a lot of homosexual couples better qualified to bring up children than are heterosexual e.g. homosexual couples don't have crack babies.


Yes, yes, no, and yes.

Homosexuals are twice as likely to develop depression that leads to suicide. www.onenewsnow.com...

You get a chance to see the new diseases created or spread by homosexuals in your generation like I saw HIV in the 80's. A frenchman (wouldn't you know it) was traveling across the US, and made sexual contact with numerous other homosexuals, initiating the spread of HIV in the US. Now we have a new one:
www.wvwnews.net...
You probably don't think this is going to hurt anyone but homosexuals at this point. Like HIV, it hasn't left SF yet, I suppose. The homosexual bath houses in SF were nearly all shut down in the 80s after the HIV was spreading like wildfire from community contact and promiscuity.

Social mayhem. Well, the attention-getting methods of the sad movement (sad = sexual affinity disorder) seems to be causing mayhem.
Def. of mayhem: the crime of willfully inflicting bodily injury on another so as to make him less able to defend himself or, under modern statutes, so as to cripple or mutilate him. The most recent example would be the little old lady that was pushed around and blocked from her news interview, then when she returned with a cross, the homosexuals/resisters of Prop 8 pushed the large cardboard cross out of her hands and stomped on it. Close enough?

Categorizing love like a rabid judge. Well, we don't have any rabid judges. Homosexuality is not defined as love:
Def. of homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

Def. of sexual: of or pertaining to sex. Def. of sex: either the male or female division of a species; instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another. According to that definition, homosexuals do not have sex, since they are not drawn toward another sex. Last def: coitus. Def. of coitus: the acto f sexual intercourse, esp. between human beings. Def. of sexual intercourse: genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by ejaculation. See, it's a bit of a stretch in that definition to call homosexual sex love.

Def. of love: profoundly tender, passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex. Sexual passion or desire, or its gratification. (Probably better to go with the definition sexual passion or desire, since it is not about the opposite sex).

So, in a roundabout way, it is about love. It is sexual passion or desire, but it is homosexual love. Homosexuality is not love, as shown by definition. So, it would be better to say "categorizing homosexual love" rather than "categorizing love", as there is a defined difference. In keeping with the definition, it is homosexual sexual passion or desire.

Refs from Random House College Dictionary.

Homosexuals do have crack babies if the homosexuals are on crack, assuming you are referring to the drug crack and not the feminine opening of the body.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The country I know is of no religion and cannot define religious laws. Religious laws are defined by the religion itself.

Ultimately what does it matter to have a piece of paper recognizing your marriage? You make a stink about gay marriage, but in the end when you win or lose your fight it doesn't matter because you still have the freedom to love.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Categorizing love like a rabid judge. Well, we don't have any rabid judges. Homosexuality is not defined as love:
Def. of homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

Def. of sexual: of or pertaining to sex. Def. of sex: either the male or female division of a species; instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another. According to that definition, homosexuals do not have sex, since they are not drawn toward another sex. Last def: coitus. Def. of coitus: the acto f sexual intercourse, esp. between human beings. Def. of sexual intercourse: genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by ejaculation. See, it's a bit of a stretch in that definition to call homosexual sex love.

Def. of love: profoundly tender, passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex. Sexual passion or desire, or its gratification. (Probably better to go with the definition sexual passion or desire, since it is not about the opposite sex).

So, in a roundabout way, it is about love. It is sexual passion or desire, but it is homosexual love. Homosexuality is not love, as shown by definition. So, it would be better to say "categorizing homosexual love" rather than "categorizing love", as there is a defined difference. In keeping with the definition, it is homosexual sexual passion or desire.




Just to point out the defn. of Heterosexual


# a person who romantically desire

s a person of the opposite sex.
www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/winter02-glossary.cfm

# sexually oriented to the opposite sex
www.gay-rehab.com/drug-treatment-definitions.html

# A person who is sexually attracted primarily to members of the other gender.
www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary/Glossaryh.htm

# preference for sexual activity with people of the _________ gender.
www.holliston.k12.ma.us/high/davanzo/handouts/relatesex/11vocabularyblank.doc

# a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Heterosexuality is sexual or romantic attraction between opposite sexes, and is the most common sexual orientation among humans. The current use of the term has its roots in the broader 19th century tradition of personality taxonomy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual

# A heterosexual organism, especially a human; Sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heterosexual

# A person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
www.thebody.com/content/art33046.html



So by your logic heterosexuality is not love either. Though I support your other statements.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




I am against homosexuality
I believe in freedom though, so to each his own

however gay couples should not be allowed to adopt
I am super strongly against that



I am against straights, and I think straight should not adopt. Due to their drinking too much, and too much child abuse, and straight people doing drugs, too many straight fathers rapping their little boys, and girls, too many divorces, causing only one parent to raise a child. Too many straight child molesters, to many parents beating their children.

I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM THOUGH, SO TO EACH HIS OWN!

You know! Some people really know how to show their ignorants!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


No one is being denied any rights here. Gays have the same rights to marry as straights do... to a member of the opposite sex! And for that matter, straights are denied the right to marry the same sex as well, so we all still have equal rights. This isn't like the pre-civil rights era when blacks or women couldn't vote just because of race or gender. That was a flat out violation of rights. We all have equal rights when it comes to marriage.
I am a christian man and I agree for the most part with grover's post. Jesus taught us not to judge one another. He wouldn't judge gays for being gay. In fact, he probably would have sat down to dinner with them, right after the thieves and liars. We are all sinners and the Bible regards sodomy as a sin. God hates sodomy, (Lev. 18:22) but he loves the sodomer the same as the rest of us. I think it is a sad state of affair when people who claim to be christian condemn others for their sins instead of showing them the love of Christ. It only makes christianity appear hateful from the outside.
All I can say to those who look down on christianity based on those who misrepresent it is that a true christian would accept anyone in their chuch regardless of background. A true christian will see you as a brother or sister equal with anyone else, just as Christ would. My prayer is that you find Him.

P.S. To the fellow who said that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sodom acknowledged sodomy, I urge you to read Genesis 19:4-5 here:4"Before they had gone to bed all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
I think the fact that all the men in the whole city of Sodom wanted to have sex with the men who came to Lot is more than enough acknowledgement of homosexuality.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Right, because there are no gay alcoholics, drug users, or other less than savory gay criminals out there. All gays are perfect and Utopian in nature. Sorry, but I think we all fall under the human category here, gay or straight. That doesn't make any of that right, but gays are not immune to being criminal. IMHO, your arguement holds no water.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   


So by your logic heterosexuality is not love either. Though I support your other statements.

Quite right, not about love. It's about gender preference. Hence, I prefer to stand with the pre-1974 ruling of the APA in calling homosexuality a disorder.
So, to coin a term, I like to make it the opposite of gay, and I call it sad. Sad stands for sexual affinity disorder.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join