Homosexuality / Gay Marriage New Debate Topic
#1
Posted 15 May 2007 - 07:53 PM
That said, it definitely was a heated topic of choice, and I think it's worth reviving it (among other debate topics).
Just remember - we all have our views on it, so don't criticize, flame anyone, etc.
Now, let's get to that healthy debating!
---
I'll begin by simply stating my views - I am against both Homosexuality and *** Marriage. I believe the former is a crime on humanity (at the very least being an unnatural phenomenon), and more importantly, I believe that Homosexuality and *** Marriage are the product of the "liberal mindset" of today's society, that seeks to try and push the definition of being "human" in new, and very twisted ways.
#3
Posted 16 May 2007 - 05:37 AM
Golden Legacy, on May 16 2007, 03:53 AM, said:
GL is ***. j/k! :unsure:
I remember everyones views on this from the last Homosexuality topic. I'll state my views again...
I'm not against homosexuality. I actually find that homosexuality is far more natural than many other human traits, such as greed and the love for destroying, killing and war.
Now I'll just copy and paste my post from the old topic, and hope that Toasty doesn't go on with the stupid 'If I hide behind a bush does that mean I'm not there' Here goes:
I'm not really against it, but not really for it either. I think that a normal man-to-woman marriage is well... more normal than a ghay marriage, but I have nothing against them and it's their job what they do.
Whoever says "I am against it because it goes against Christianity" is... wrong. Christianity, and all religion for that matter, is much more "unnatural" than this. Religion was made up by people, whilst this is truly what they feel and that can't be changed. What someone feels is far more "natural" than some made up rules of how to please a powerful, unforgiving force that no one has even seen.
#4
Posted 16 May 2007 - 09:07 AM
I think that people are free to make their own choices, and live their life the way they want. If they want to be ***, thats how they choose to live.
I know or know of at least 3 *** christians, so there is no point in argueing that point
#5
Posted 16 May 2007 - 11:27 AM
#6
Posted 16 May 2007 - 04:44 PM
As for g*y marriage...I can't say for sure, but I'm more against it than for it. Marriage is a sacred event, and g*ys getting married just violates that sanctimony.
#7
Posted 16 May 2007 - 05:20 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 15 2007, 09:53 PM, said:
Nope.
Anyways, I'm for and for. I don't mind y'all having your religious beliefs, but don't force them on me. Individual soverignty*, I say, at least in situations like this.
And before you ask, no, I'm not ***, but I know several people who are. All of whom are perfectly decent people.
*That's a NationStates reference by the way.
#8
Posted 16 May 2007 - 05:26 PM
I don't actually think homosexuality is wrong. Although I said before I couldn't say if homosexuality is right, I don't think it is, by any means, totally wrong. If people want to be g*y, let them be g*y. We have no right to trespass.
#10
Posted 16 May 2007 - 05:36 PM
Nyktos, on May 16 2007, 04:31 PM, said:
Actually, just stating it isn't forcing it. Actually doing it and/or trying to keep convincing someone constantly is forcing the belief. My simple opinion is that marriage should be kept for the man and woman couples. If you believe otherwise, I'll respect your opinion nonetheless.
#11
Posted 16 May 2007 - 07:18 PM
#12
Posted 16 May 2007 - 10:30 PM
Well first off, I think that *** marriage completely fair and completely natural. I mean, it's a personal preference. For example, I like guys with brown hair and blue eyes. Why? It's just my preference. Does it mean I'm flawed? No. Liking the same gender is the same way.
Also, marriage is a personal thing. Kinda like using the bathroom. If the government interfered on when we could use the bathroom, it'd be a really stinky, messy situation. Same with marriage. I mean, we have a policy on the separation of church and state here in the US. I know that many people don't agree with *** marriage because of their religion, and that's fine, they don't have to agree with it, but they shouldn't force their views on other people, and I think that's what it all boils down to.
I have spoken. :unsure:
#13
Posted 17 May 2007 - 02:04 AM
Nyktos, on May 17 2007, 02:18 AM, said:
Well in that case you should also stop forcing your beliefs on us, as your stating that "*** Marriage should be allowed", and therefore apparantley 'forcing that belief' on us.
Its not forcing your beliefs on someone, its simply stating them. I could say "I believe Nyktos should be sent to jail" (I don't but its just an example :unsure:), Just saying it isn't forcing my beliefs. Acting upon in and actually trying to get you sent to jail would be 'forcing my beliefs on you'
As for *** Marriage, I'm all for it. IMO theres little if no difference between saying "No marriage for *** people" and "No marriage for Black people" or "No Marriage for Jews" or anything like that.
#14
Posted 17 May 2007 - 09:37 AM
O noez i will be smitten!
I'm a strong Aetheist, and I think people who follow everything that a book they cannot prove is correct is stupid. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, it's all bullcrap. Religion is the main cause of conflict. Most wars are caused by religion, politics are picked apart by what we can and cant do as it was 'the lord's will' and the Ethics of Scientific discoveries.
Why is this relevant?
Religion decides a lot of what happens in the world, and it's stupid. Two non-christians are ghay and want to get married, yet some stupid christian bishes stop them as it's 'immoral'
Surely, God created free will if the christians are gonna go about that attitude. Free will allows you to speak your mind and choose you actions. The two *** people spoke their mind, and their actions are to get married.
Now the christians are disobeying their beloved god, as they are interfering with other people's free will, which as far as I know, is a sin of some kind.
So why make such a big deal out of it?
Surely, if their ' God' didn't want ghays, then he would have made us only attracted to the opposite sex, but he didn't, he gave us free will which must mean he would have known there were some ***s.
So if christians cant look at it in a logical way, then there is no point in them even trying to prevent it.
#15
Posted 17 May 2007 - 02:01 PM
Caael, on May 17 2007, 05:37 PM, said:
O noez i will be smitten!
I'm a strong Aetheist, and I think people who follow everything that a book they cannot prove is correct is stupid. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, it's all bullcrap. Religion is the main cause of conflict. Most wars are caused by religion, politics are picked apart by what we can and cant do as it was 'the lord's will' and the Ethics of Scientific discoveries.
Couldn't agree with you more, Caael my boy. Smartest thing I've heard in a month.
#16
Posted 17 May 2007 - 03:12 PM
Wiflewood, on May 17 2007, 04:04 AM, said:
Fine, I shouldn't have said "on me" either. What I meant was, people who try to ban *** marriage are trying to force their beliefes on *** people. That better?
#17
Posted 17 May 2007 - 03:55 PM
Fair enough some of you guys don't like *** people, thats your opinion and your allowed to think its weird, but how is taking away their freedoms a benefit to you or anyone else? Is it some sick pleasure that you get for making other people suffer just because you don't like something about them?
#18
Posted 17 May 2007 - 06:25 PM
That's my input. Take it or leave it.
#19
Posted 17 May 2007 - 06:42 PM
Caael, on May 17 2007, 08:37 AM, said:
O noez i will be smitten!
I'm a strong Aetheist, and I think people who follow everything that a book they cannot prove is correct is stupid. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, it's all bullcrap. Religion is the main cause of conflict. Most wars are caused by religion, politics are picked apart by what we can and cant do as it was 'the lord's will' and the Ethics of Scientific discoveries.
Why is this relevant?
Religion decides a lot of what happens in the world, and it's stupid. Two non-christians are ghay and want to get married, yet some stupid christian bishes stop them as it's 'immoral'
Surely, God created free will if the christians are gonna go about that attitude. Free will allows you to speak your mind and choose you actions. The two *** people spoke their mind, and their actions are to get married.
Now the christians are disobeying their beloved god, as they are interfering with other people's free will, which as far as I know, is a sin of some kind.
So why make such a big deal out of it?
Surely, if their ' God' didn't want ghays, then he would have made us only attracted to the opposite sex, but he didn't, he gave us free will which must mean he would have known there were some ***s.
So if christians cant look at it in a logical way, then there is no point in them even trying to prevent it.
*acough...*
Now, I may not be christian, but damn, even to a non-christian that was a little rude. Where the hell did Christians come into this? We were talking about ***s. Yeah, christian's have problems with it, but I know a lot of Athiests that do too. Why? 'Cause people don't like what they don't understand. Sure, maybe you understand it Caael, and I know I do too.
But to say that it's all the religious peoples fault and they should just burn in hell is a little excessive. I'm referencing to when you said "stupid christian bishes" (Which oddly enough reminds me of "bishies" which means "beautiful male" in japanese XD) I repeat, I AM NOT CHRISTIAN, but I find the numerous times you repeatedly bashed religion in an innapropriate manner flawed in itself. If you want a religious debate, debate in the religion topic. Otherwise, state your opinion with RESPECT.
Thank you n.n
#20
Posted 17 May 2007 - 08:50 PM
Still, I need to say it isn't only some Christians that bash g*ys, Caael. People from other religions bash g*ys, too. Homosexuality/G*y marriage is something that should be kept far and away from religious debate, nonnetheless, as I doubt they'll burn in Hell or anything. @.@
#21
Posted 17 May 2007 - 10:52 PM
Homosexuality is something we have to live with, and because our world is imperfect, we cannot stop homosexuality and the beliefs of many people. We cannot make other believe what we believe. We can only influence them. Since we have the power to influence people, people can join a side because of their influencing words. Therefore, I believe that homosexuality is something we cannot control and something we cannot love or hate.
Some people were BORNED to be *** or lesbian. It's just the way their mind works. I agree with Cael that if God didn't want ***s and lesbians in this world, then he wouldn't have made their mind work like this. It may hint in the Bible that God does not want this, but it's seriously the people who read it and make judgements about what they are seeing.
However, I disagree with Cael on how religion decides what happens in the world. Religion is part of many peoples' lives. Religion helps people gain confidence and teach humans how to be a wonderful person. It is the people who believe in this religion that cause this. It is the people with different perspectives that cause the wars and all the debates. IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF RELIGION BUT THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THE RELIGION.
The Bible is written by human beings. It may come from the word of God but it was made by HUMAN BEINGS. Human beings make mistakes and may even change what they see because they are driven by their emotions.
It does not mean that God really did want this to be put in or whatever.
Cael, you showed signs that it was the Christians' fault that they hate homosexuality, but you could have just said that more clearly instead of blaming religion. <<;
Just because the Bible states how ***s and lesbians defy God does NOT CHANGE THE TEACHINGS OF THE RELIGION. You may bash religion as long as you want but that does not change what the religion teaches you.
kthxbai
#22
Posted 18 May 2007 - 03:59 AM
Aquamarine, on May 16 2007, 09:37 PM, said:
I'm not really against it, but not really for it either. I think that a normal man-to-woman marriage is well... more normal than a ghay marriage, but I have nothing against them and it's their job what they do.
Whoever says "I am against it because it goes against Christianity" is... wrong. Christianity, and all religion for that matter, is much more "unnatural" than this. Religion was made up by people, whilst this is truly what they feel and that can't be changed. What someone feels is far more "natural" than some made up rules of how to please a powerful, unforgiving force that no one has even seen.
Being *** is more natural then religion? which is the pimarily reason we are here. And no one has seen God? Even you if do/don't believe in the trinity that statement is so false it almost made me consider typing I laughed. But this is not a religion topic. Thankfully.
Kitz. People were not born wanting to...sleep with the same sex. People who support ***s always come up with the same crappy statement. Just like the whole god doesn't exist becuase I haven't seen him.
I completely lost my train of thought since reading this topic, it's been a good 30 minutes since I opened this to reply. But really that poll's results are so bad.
5 people saying it is completely natural and correct and 6 supporting them to be allowed to be married. What is wrong with the youth of today.
Please state who voted option 4 and 3. I sure as hell did.
#23
Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:22 AM
Religion doesnt control the world, but it does make changes to things. I am very, strongly anti-religion, so I would think that anybody who devotes their lives to it is just pathetic. If people will really let themselves be controlled into believeing something, then they are beyond help. Religion will always be there to get in the way of science, such as the ethics of cloning and how the universe began. It's getting stupid, and it's getting annoying.
Who's to say that no two people of the same gender cannot love each other?
No religion can justfully prove that. If they gather all the teachings, they will eventually find some flaw in their arguement. You can say that it's not moral, you can say it's not right, but you cannot prove it. Free will, how the mind works, how people think.
The main point is that if the gods of any religion didn't want homosexulity, then they wouldn't have made out minds like that. No person can justify that.
#24
Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:28 AM
THERE NOTHANG WRONG WITH *** MARRIAGE OR *** GUYZ.
I dislike how the polls are so one sided.
The second question is like, "I'M A BIBLE THUMPER," or, "I'M SUCH A GOD HATER, I'D BE *** JUST TO SPITE THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE."
#25
Posted 18 May 2007 - 10:47 AM
watch, on May 18 2007, 11:59 AM, said:
Kitz. People were not born wanting to...sleep with the same sex. People who support ***s always come up with the same crappy statement. Just like the whole god doesn't exist becuase I haven't seen him.
I completely lost my train of thought since reading this topic, it's been a good 30 minutes since I opened this to reply. But really that poll's results are so bad.
5 people saying it is completely natural and correct and 6 supporting them to be allowed to be married. What is wrong with the youth of today.
Please state who voted option 4 and 3. I sure as hell did.
Well you should have typed you laughed then. It's your opinion and I respect it. But I stand by what I said.
Also, I wanted to say that people aren't born wanting to sleep with ANY sex, opposite or the same. Saying someone wanted to shag the second he/she was born is just... silly.
#26
Posted 18 May 2007 - 02:42 PM
watch, on May 18 2007, 05:59 AM, said:
Did you even look at the link I posted? There are *** INSECTS! We're talking one of the lowest forms of intelligent life here! Do you seriously believe it's unnatural? Because if you do, you are beyond help.
#27
Posted 18 May 2007 - 04:33 PM
The people influenced to become homosexual is a different story, but isn't that the same concept as to like a video game because of the influences around you?
===
Cael, you are bashing religion alot and I am very curious on to how you believe what you believe. Did you research about religion? Did you even TRY to understand what stuff a religion believes? Were you just INFLUENCED by what other people told you to believe what you believe?
You say that religion just gets in the way of science, but seeing your example about the formation of the universe just makes me wonder. Wasn't the creation of the universe a bunch of theories? Do we really know for sure how the galaxies and planets were formed? From your example, how can you be so sure that religion is interfering with science?
#28
Posted 19 May 2007 - 02:07 AM
Kitz, on May 18 2007, 02:52 PM, said:
Kitz, on May 19 2007, 08:33 AM, said:
Caael, on May 19 2007, 02:22 AM, said:
No religion can justfully prove that. If they gather all the teachings, they will eventually find some flaw in their arguement. You can say that it's not moral, you can say it's not right, but you cannot prove it. Free will, how the mind works, how people think.
The main point is that if the gods of any religion didn't want homosexulity, then they wouldn't have made out minds like that. No person can justify that.
I'm just going to ignore the bible bashing in that post.
Who's to say that no two people of the same gender cannot love each other
You really consider that love? You really truly consider the feelings of a man for a man and a women for a women love.
The main point is that if the gods of any religion didn't want homosexulity, then they wouldn't have made out minds like that. No person can justify that.
So the fact that God choose Christ instead of Lucifer to come to earth just because Lucifer wanted to restrict free agency and make people obey has nothing to do with anything. Stop being so anti-religion for one second. Christ was chosen because he had the same idea in mind as god, free agency, the ability to makes you own choices, which includes the ...choice to be ***. If he wanted to restrict us for a peaceful world there would be no war famine or ***ness.
Aquamarine, on May 19 2007, 02:47 AM, said:
Also, I wanted to say that people aren't born wanting to sleep with ANY sex, opposite or the same. Saying someone wanted to shag the second he/she was born is just... silly.
1. Yea I was abit worried after I had a email saying I recieved a comment from you.
2. Exactly.
Nyktos, on May 19 2007, 06:42 AM, said:
No I didn't, not sure if I even saw a link anywhere.
Yes there are *** insects, and fish and animals. So? Would you be here if your ancestors had sex with the same sex? Really no one would. How would human life continue if we didn't breed. What, are Hetrosexuals the outcasts and ones who pratice horrible acts? Really.
#29
Posted 19 May 2007 - 11:18 AM
Quote
Yes, yes I do.
Quote
So then why do you want to restrict peoples' choices?
Quote
Let that sink in. We're talking about creatures that barely have anything that could be considered brains here. Creatures of instinct. You know, if the least intelligent species on animals can be ***, I'd call that natural. This doesn't necessarily mean it's right (rape is natural too) but it is natural.
#31
Posted 19 May 2007 - 10:29 PM
Nyktos, on May 20 2007, 03:18 AM, said:
Let that sink in. We're talking about creatures that barely have anything that could be considered brains here. Creatures of instinct. You know, if the least intelligent species on animals can be ***, I'd call that natural. This doesn't necessarily mean it's right (rape is natural too) but it is natural.
Why don't you display the whole of the quote and not try to be a smart ass by using only the parts that
1. Have no realation to you
2. Realate to an entirely different part of the topic.
And I never even said I was going to restrict people's choices.
if the least intelligent species on animals can be ***, I'd call that natural
If all animals (including Humans) were ***, the world wouldn't have living beings.
#33
Posted 20 May 2007 - 02:24 AM
I personally think whizzing hormones are to blame for homosexuality. People either mistake strong friendship for love, or they just want to experiment. I'm not saying it's a mental disorder, but if you're prepared to be different, I say go for it.
As for gay marriage, that gets a big Christian no from me.
#34
Posted 20 May 2007 - 09:22 AM
#37
Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:08 PM
(that is a rhetorical question)
#38
Posted 21 May 2007 - 12:24 AM
Kitz, on May 20 2007, 05:20 PM, said:
It was a typo. I meant wouldn't
Pretty much just echo GL's post.
Nyktos- If I am arguing againest *** marriage etc would I really have meant what you interepeted. Use common sense.
#39
Posted 22 May 2007 - 12:21 AM
Quote
You say that religion just gets in the way of science, but seeing your example about the formation of the universe just makes me wonder. Wasn't the creation of the universe a bunch of theories? Do we really know for sure how the galaxies and planets were formed? From your example, how can you be so sure that religion is interfering with science?
It's Caael, and I know more about religion than I show. Religion is a way for people to communicate with another realm, a peaceful act, or to beg for forgiveness. It's not just a cult that people are bound to by, people arent always too strict about it. I'm not bashing them; the casual worshippers.
I'm bashing the twats who devote their lives to religion and preaching to anybody they can find to try and spread the word of god, and do everything that is unsinful, and repent for everybody.
It's a modern world, there are better means of understanding the world.
My opinion on God(s): They find something unexplainable, so they blame it on a religion. That's what happened hundreds of years ago.
Yes, there is only a bunch of theories around the universe, but we have gathered evidence, and it seems apparant that the big bang is the most likely solution. I hardly think it possible for a super-being to create a universe.
Heh, yup. ***ness is definately genetic.
#40
Posted 22 May 2007 - 01:11 AM
As for those Twats, some people find peace and hope in religion. Why else do you think so many find god before death. Apart from the fact it's actually true...
And the god for everything? They were pagan gods and gods for the Egyptians and such. That was hundreds of years ago, i wish people would just let go of it. And BS that a correct number of molecules and atom's and gases conspiried together to make a perfect universe, what are the odd's of a big bang creating a perfect world to sustain life, really.
#41
Posted 22 May 2007 - 12:15 PM
What's more likely, Watch?
Some guy who has lived for ever, that made the universe with his hands, and it took 7 days, or a massive explosion the fused different atoms to create elements?
I really hope you chose what I thought. Plus the Bible contradicts science; Adam and Eve were apparantly the first living humans, and that was at the beginning of time. Where are the Dinosaurs? We have evidence that Dinosaurs exist, and we have yet to find human remains from the dinosaur age.
#42
Posted 22 May 2007 - 03:23 PM
As for that, going back on topic, please give me more conclusive evidence; where, and how specifically, has any form of homosexuality been documented in the genome?
#43
Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:49 AM
At this point I am going to follow Riad for the full 100%. I am an atheist myself, so at the point of religion I cannot say anything. But I do know, and believe, that homosexuality is, simply said, plain wrong. It defies the rules of nature, and although this happens a lot with more kinds of subjects, it doesn't change the fact that it is not meant to be. Two men cannot reproduce, that alone is reason anough to believe it is not right.
***-men are usually known for their woman-like behaviour. Is that because they feel like a woman trapped in a man's body? No, as they recognise themselves as men, and ***. This makes me ask; why act like that? Why would one act different or live different? Maybe just because he can say: "I do not follow the crowd. I am unique!" Well congratulations, you're unique now, but you're still wrong.
My parents went to a lesbian wedding some time ago, as one of the "happy brides" was a collegue of my father. The next morning, during breakfast, I was suprised of how my parents were talking about that evening. They talked about how many lesbian or *** people they had seen, and how people were acting or talking. At that point I was happy I was not at that wedding.
Now what I have said may be very controversial, and yes, I know that what I have said is very biased and that it is my very own opinion. Debate it, go against it, and I simply don't care and I will repeat what I have said a thousand times. *** marriages, and lesbian marriages for that matter, must be forbidden.
Then we come to the point whether it is a natural malfunction or something one has decided to become. It's not natural, but it's certainly not one's choice! Let that be clear, I know that one man cannot make the choice between being *** or straight. Some people are attracted to redheads, others to blondes, maybe latinas, and some simply are attracted to men. If you still marry a women, it's called denyal, but at least it's better then *** marriage.
Then you would ask me; but then those people become misserable, they cannot be open about their nature, and they cannot marry the ones they love! How can you be so cruel? Natural selection, my friends. They are, simply said, inferior to other living creatures of the human race. If that means they have to bow to our wills, so let it be.
I'm probably going to be marked as a hater, discriminator and racist? Fine, be my guest. Just know that I have my own opinion, whether it is good or wrong. Whenever people make remarks about my opinion (which does happen!), I just look at my girlfriend and think; Thank God i'm not *** (funny to think that, since I'm an atheist).
Though, a funny fact; although I am against lesbian marriages and relationships, seeing two of them kissing right in front of your nose, when they're hot as hell, surely looks nice!
Well, let's summarize my story in one simple sentence;
***/lesbian marriage should be illegal and forbidden, end of story.
#44
Posted 29 May 2007 - 04:21 AM
I don't think any less of you now, since most.. Scratch that, all of my friends hate homosexuals. It's just impossible to avoid the ***-haters in life.
#45
Posted 29 May 2007 - 10:13 AM
That doesn't means that *** marriages should be forbidden, cause afterall... Weddings aren't natural either. =/ Weddings are just plain and simple an evening where two people that love each other say 'Yes' to a couple of bull **** 'rules' that one of them most likely is gonna break anyway. Why does it has to be with a man and a woman? Unless ofcoarse it's against one of the two's religion, otherwise I can't think of any reason.
But even though, I'm still against *** men adopting childeren.
#46
Posted 29 May 2007 - 10:25 AM
Like religion. Except that makes life only worse.
#48
Posted 29 May 2007 - 07:12 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 22 2007, 05:23 PM, said:
I schizophrenia in the genome? Is autism in the genome? (Note: These are not rhetorical questions.) What makes homosexuality different from any other mental disorder?
Also, I keep saying the word "natural" popping up. For the love of life, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL. This has no bearing on whether it is right or not, but it is natural so stop using that as an argument.
#49
Posted 30 May 2007 - 04:20 AM
DiddyKong, on May 30 2007, 02:13 AM, said:
That doesn't means that *** marriages should be forbidden, cause afterall... Weddings aren't natural either. =/ Weddings are just plain and simple an evening where two people that love each other say 'Yes' to a couple of bull **** 'rules' that one of them most likely is gonna break anyway. Why does it has to be with a man and a woman? Unless ofcoarse it's against one of the two's religion, otherwise I can't think of any reason.
But even though, I'm still against *** men adopting childeren.
Just as a personal question. Is anyone here actually againest marriage? I only bring it up because of my friends (he's 16) is a *******, literal, and his parents never ever wanted to get married. They said it complicated things and they didn't want that. They have 3 kids, joint bank account etc etc etc.
Nyktos, on May 30 2007, 11:12 AM, said:
Also, I keep saying the word "natural" popping up. For the love of life, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL. This has no bearing on whether it is right or not, but it is natural so stop using that as an argument.
Some mental 'diseases' are actually biological and inherited(sp?) so cut the crap.
How is Homesexualty natural? How many times has it been brought up, even for you evolutionary supporters, natural selection!
#51
Posted 30 May 2007 - 10:31 AM
watch, on May 30 2007, 12:20 PM, said:
My parents aren't married either, and they got 4 kids and joint bank accounts. =/ Whats so bad with no wanting to get married?
#52
Posted 30 May 2007 - 01:58 PM
...
Right?
#53
Posted 30 May 2007 - 02:39 PM
Anyway, I discussed this to death in the old topic, so I'll just summarise my view here (and mind you, this debate will go on forever...)
I think homosexuality isn't natural, mainly because I was grown up in a culture which dislikes homosexuality (fyi, in other Caribbean countries eg. Jamaica, homosexuals are killed. Don't agree with it, but you get a picture to the extent to which homosexuals are accepted. They're not. I personally think this is caveman actions, so I firmly disagree with the killing.
Grown up in a Christian family, but now I'm leaning away from Christianity, and becoming more 'spiritual' (eg. I read the Buddhists teachings, and I'm more accepted to different point of views, eg Agnostics (I can see why they are so)). My religious beliefs makes me disprove of it even more.
Maybe if I go to a country which supports *** rights, and I *talk* to some *** people, maybe I'll change my opinion. But now, it's the norm here, and I've conform to it.
#54
Posted 30 May 2007 - 07:20 PM
That said, I have not budged at all from my original views. In fact, Robin's (Neo_Genesis') post is pretty much what I wanted to say, except phrased better than I could ever say it. I'll quote it at the end of this post, but for now, just to respond to one of the "points" people have made...
What on Earth is the significance of saying that homosexuality is found in animals? Do you really degrade all of humanity to beasts, are you really intent on having us follow the example established by animals (and a select minority of them too)?
We are humans, we know what is right and what is wrong. More importantly, we have choices. Now, like Neo said, it may not be 100% a *** or lesbian's choice about the people they are attracted to. At the same time, that does not justify compromising the rest of the human race just to make room for them.
Neo's post follows:
Neo_Genesis, on May 29 2007, 05:49 AM, said:
At this point I am going to follow Riad for the full 100%. I am an atheist myself, so at the point of religion I cannot say anything. But I do know, and believe, that homosexuality is, simply said, plain wrong. It defies the rules of nature, and although this happens a lot with more kinds of subjects, it doesn't change the fact that it is not meant to be. Two men cannot reproduce, that alone is reason anough to believe it is not right.
***-men are usually known for their woman-like behaviour. Is that because they feel like a woman trapped in a man's body? No, as they recognise themselves as men, and ***. This makes me ask; why act like that? Why would one act different or live different? Maybe just because he can say: "I do not follow the crowd. I am unique!" Well congratulations, you're unique now, but you're still wrong.
My parents went to a lesbian wedding some time ago, as one of the "happy brides" was a collegue of my father. The next morning, during breakfast, I was suprised of how my parents were talking about that evening. They talked about how many lesbian or *** people they had seen, and how people were acting or talking. At that point I was happy I was not at that wedding.
Now what I have said may be very controversial, and yes, I know that what I have said is very biased and that it is my very own opinion. Debate it, go against it, and I simply don't care and I will repeat what I have said a thousand times. *** marriages, and lesbian marriages for that matter, must be forbidden.
Then we come to the point whether it is a natural malfunction or something one has decided to become. It's not natural, but it's certainly not one's choice! Let that be clear, I know that one man cannot make the choice between being *** or straight. Some people are attracted to redheads, others to blondes, maybe latinas, and some simply are attracted to men. If you still marry a women, it's called denyal, but at least it's better then *** marriage.
Then you would ask me; but then those people become misserable, they cannot be open about their nature, and they cannot marry the ones they love! How can you be so cruel? Natural selection, my friends. They are, simply said, inferior to other living creatures of the human race. If that means they have to bow to our wills, so let it be.
I'm probably going to be marked as a hater, discriminator and racist? Fine, be my guest. Just know that I have my own opinion, whether it is good or wrong. Whenever people make remarks about my opinion (which does happen!), I just look at my girlfriend and think; Thank God i'm not *** (funny to think that, since I'm an atheist).
Though, a funny fact; although I am against lesbian marriages and relationships, seeing two of them kissing right in front of your nose, when they're hot as hell, surely looks nice!
Well, let's summarize my story in one simple sentence;
***/lesbian marriage should be illegal and forbidden, end of story.
~3113~
#55
Posted 30 May 2007 - 08:59 PM
Caael, on May 17 2007, 10:37 AM, said:
Caael, on May 17 2007, 10:37 AM, said:
Caael, on May 18 2007, 11:22 AM, said:
First you say that religion is the main cause of conflict, but isn't that the same as religion controlling the world? CONTRADICTION!
Eugine, that's completely biased then. You cannot say something about someone or a topic if you haven't done research of some sort or experienced being a *** or something.
#56
Posted 30 May 2007 - 09:08 PM
If one of my good friends turns out ghey or lesbian, I doubt I'll reject them. But honestly, if someone is openly ghey, it'll limit my interactions with them because of expected behaviour.
But hey, why is ghey censored here? I guess the admins thinks it's bad P: (they're indirectly showing their stance in this topic ^^)
It should be uncensored.
#57
Posted 31 May 2007 - 03:48 AM
Because to be honest, I can't see why it being right/wrong should take away someone's rights.
Theres loads of religions, political viewpoints, disabilities, other human phenomena that are un-natural, wrong, disgusting, and that a lot of people are against, but does this mean we should take away their rights?
Your all saying that ghey marriage shouldn't be allowed because its wrong/un-natural, but what about people with dangerous political viewpoints, or weird disabilites that people would say are "wrong"? should we take away their right to marriage as well?
I can't see any possible explanation at all that would explain how taking away ghey peoples rights would benefit you. Perhaps it makes you feel superior to them? Perhaps it is because they're different to you? Maybe we should take away disabled people's rights to marriage as well, after all, if you think being ghey is 'Un-natural' and 'wrong' why not disbaled people or people who don't get married at all?
Why should you decide what is 'wrong'? I think that you lot being very homophobic is 'wrong', so why shouldn't we take your right to marriage away?
As for all the religious viewpoints, you say that because the bible teaches that it is wrong, then they should be punished. How about other religions? The bible says that other religions are wrong, so why aren't you activley punsihing other religions as well?
#58
Posted 31 May 2007 - 03:55 AM
Wiflewood said:
Wiflewood said:
Well, as far as I know, marriage is about being in love. *** people who want to marry are in love, but we think it's wrong for them to marry because they are not supposed to marry. Politicians or disabled people fall into a whole different catagory. *** or lesbian falls within "love", which, eventually reached the point of "marriage". What the hell does a politician or disabled has to do with marriage? It's kind of mixed up, IMO.
#59
Posted 31 May 2007 - 04:49 AM
#60
Posted 31 May 2007 - 06:11 AM
Anyhow, good going Wifle, that was beutifully said.
#61
Posted 31 May 2007 - 08:28 AM
watch, on May 30 2007, 06:20 AM, said:
Keyword: some. Homosexual is clearly not inherited, that doesn't stop it from being natural.
Quote
Natural selection has 0% relevence to this argument, as we aren't talking about genetic traits.
#62
Posted 31 May 2007 - 03:52 PM
Kitz, on May 31 2007, 03:59 AM, said:
Um, no. I said it controls a lot of what happens. I never said it controls the world.
Lemontime, on May 31 2007, 11:49 AM, said:
Hilarious little ****, isn't he >_>. Anybody who uses homosexual as an insult doesn't deserve to live.
#64
Posted 01 June 2007 - 01:24 AM
Wiflewood, on May 31 2007, 07:48 PM, said:
Because I am right.
Nyktos, on Jun 1 2007, 12:28 AM, said:
Natural selection has 0% relevence to this argument, as we aren't talking about genetic traits.
We are discussing whether or not *** Marriage should be allowed. I say no. I state the points as to why I say no. One of the points is that it is unatural and if it continued the human race would not exist, natural selection. Those weak or inable don't make it, aka, if homosexuality was rampant.
Caael, on Jun 1 2007, 07:52 AM, said:
Hilarious little ****, isn't he >_>. Anybody who uses homosexual as an insult doesn't deserve to live.
You've never bagged out someone by calling them a f*g or g*y or anything?
#65
Posted 01 June 2007 - 09:51 PM
watch, on Jun 1 2007, 03:24 AM, said:
You fail. Please learn science and try again.
#66
Posted 02 June 2007 - 04:42 AM
#67
Posted 02 June 2007 - 05:24 AM
watch, on Jun 1 2007, 08:24 AM, said:
We are discussing whether or not *** Marriage should be allowed. I say no. I state the points as to why I say no. One of the points is that it is unatural and if it continued the human race would not exist, natural selection. Those weak or inable don't make it, aka, if homosexuality was rampant.
You've never bagged out someone by calling them a f*g or g*y or anything?
No, I use insults that make sense and make fun of the person, not the ***s.
#68
Posted 02 June 2007 - 06:13 AM
e.g: "The trip to the theme park is cancelled"
"awww, thats well ghay!"
Do you think its a coincidence that the word ghay is censored on the board?
#69
Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:34 AM
#70
Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:38 PM
I think Homosexualality is wrong. I don't hate them though. Its wrong to hate them, but I think that it's a sin and against nature. If it was suppose to be, then we would all be built to be able to have sex with the same sex. Our bodies are built the way they are.
#71
Posted 06 June 2007 - 04:27 AM
#72
Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:19 AM
Blue, on Jun 6 2007, 12:38 AM, said:
Against nature?
#73
Posted 07 June 2007 - 01:17 AM
Really, if it were natural then why are they the minority? If it were natural and right than most people would be ***.
There's a reason Human's are top of the food chain.
#75
Posted 07 June 2007 - 08:47 AM
As for g*y marriage, like I said before, I don't think it's right at all. Read the first page of this topic to see why.
#76
Posted 07 June 2007 - 11:43 AM
#77
Posted 07 June 2007 - 02:29 PM
#78
Posted 07 June 2007 - 02:39 PM
#79
Posted 07 June 2007 - 02:50 PM
#80
Posted 07 June 2007 - 06:15 PM
Why the hypocrisy then?
And also, going back to the point of allowing ***/lesbian marriage - it shouldn't be allowed because it would mean equating normal (yes, normal) marriage with that of ***s and lesbians. They aren't the same. You can't in anyway say that the marriage in bonding together two homosexuals is the same as the one that brought our parents together, and the marriage that we may have one day.
#81
Posted 07 June 2007 - 07:30 PM
watch, on Jun 7 2007, 03:17 AM, said:
Therefore multiple births and genetic diseases are unnatural?
Seriously, no offense but that's the dumbest statement I've seen in my life.
Golden Legacy, on Jun 7 2007, 08:15 PM, said:
My aunt is lesbian, my best friend is ***, and I have a couple other *** and bi friends as well. Nobody I know is unwilling "accept that", including the parents of said individuals.
#82
Posted 07 June 2007 - 08:03 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jun 7 2007, 05:15 PM, said:
That's one of my main thoughts against g*y marriage. You put it in good words, GL. :blink:
#83
Posted 08 June 2007 - 05:49 AM
Spam King, on Jun 7 2007, 06:05 PM, said:
Well surely not physically and probably not mentally, but morally? Sure why not.
Caael, on Jun 8 2007, 03:43 AM, said:
Well it's hard to imagine my brother since he is married but... my sister? Well I would still love her and she'd still be the same person, I just wouldn't approve of her actions.
Nyktos, on Jun 8 2007, 11:30 AM, said:
Seriously, no offense but that's the dumbest statement I've seen in my life.
Well speaking from my point of view yes. If someone is mutilated at birth, and that shouldn't have happened, that right there is unnatural.
#84
Posted 08 June 2007 - 09:14 AM
Being *** happens. It's natural.
#85
Posted 08 June 2007 - 02:40 PM
watch, on Jun 8 2007, 07:49 AM, said:
Straw man. I said nothing about mutilation. I said multiple births (you know, twins) and genetic diseases (such as haemochromatosis). You also missed the point. Both of those have been proven to be natural, and yet they affect the minority of people.
#86
Posted 20 June 2007 - 01:55 PM
#87
Posted 20 June 2007 - 04:28 PM
#88
Posted 20 June 2007 - 09:46 PM
#89
Posted 21 June 2007 - 05:27 AM
#90
Posted 21 June 2007 - 11:13 AM
#91
Posted 21 June 2007 - 12:25 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jun 21 2007, 01:13 PM, said:
Counter sarcasm is not necessary because that is exactly what I believe.
Golden Legacy, on Jun 21 2007, 01:13 PM, said:
And that is the question that you will have to answer in order to convince me of anything.
#92
Posted 21 June 2007 - 01:01 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jun 7 2007, 05:15 PM, said:
I like this topic about "socially unacceptable" things. ;) I also like how fellow human beings are being regarded as animals as that's what religion tells us to do.
#93
Posted 21 June 2007 - 03:40 PM
Drop the religious aspect of this arguement. Is that all you people have? All homophobes are not religious. At least they're right about something. ;)
#94
Posted 21 June 2007 - 03:45 PM
" RUN, THE ***'S ARE COMING! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!"
#95
Posted 21 June 2007 - 04:08 PM
watch, on Jun 21 2007, 02:40 PM, said:
Drop the religious aspect of this arguement. Is that all you people have? All homophobes are not religious. At least they're right about something. ;)
I also feel you're being a little ignorant. The only thing you have to say about 2 dudes being married is that it's "bloody wrong". I don't think it's bloody wrong if they actually love each other, so I'd like to hear you justify it being bloody wrong.
#96
Posted 21 June 2007 - 04:21 PM
Wind Dude, on Jun 21 2007, 06:08 PM, said:
Are you kidding me? Have you seen me quote any religious texts? Have you seen me even make the slightest reference to religion or God or any of the sort? I'm not using religion to back up my arguments; as Watch said, I'm basing it on secular morals, and universal morals at that.
#97
Posted 22 June 2007 - 01:09 AM
Wind Dude, on Jun 22 2007, 08:08 AM, said:
I also feel you're being a little ignorant. The only thing you have to say about 2 dudes being married is that it's "bloody wrong". I don't think it's bloody wrong if they actually love each other, so I'd like to hear you justify it being bloody wrong.
That is why I am trying to use references and example that cannot be interpreted as religious, because as soon as people can say (however wrong they may be) I'm using 'religion' then they get a smug look and think they're top ****.
Why am I being ignorant WD? Because I don't feel it's right for Men to be allowed the same right to perform probably our most sacred act of marriage? To raise family? It's wrong. Just like the Holocaust, just like Rwanda. But back then not every citizen and his cousin had an opinion, what did the masses do about those events? Nothing. Well, eventually the Nazi's were overthrown etc but hopefully you get the drift.
#98
Posted 22 June 2007 - 08:41 PM
#99
Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:42 AM
watch, on Jun 22 2007, 12:09 AM, said:
Need I remind you all that it has been proven that animals can be *** too? And as far as I'm concerned, animals are about as natural as you get. I don't know if homosexuality is a "disorder", or a mutation, or simply your choice but whatever it is, it just happens. So, just live and let ***. As long as it doesn't kill you, I don't what the big deal is.
And, it's not like people are going to just magically stop being *** because watch and GL think it's wrong. I really wonder what people like you are trying to accomplish.
#100
Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:56 AM
My comparsion to the Nazis was that, back then no one wanted to intervene and cause a fuss. No one wanted to be invovled, where as with this topic. Every person has an opinion. Why the change? Why care more about the *** living in the studio apartment then the Jew on the train to Bergen-Belson (Look it up)
Escout- Your age would help.
#101
Posted 23 June 2007 - 11:09 AM
#102
Posted 23 June 2007 - 11:10 AM
And I don't want you're talking about. People have had their own opinions for years. That's why all throughout history, there have been revolutions and rebellions and wars and fighting. The difference with the Nazis is that Hitler was a dictator who he and his followers could hurt you if you openly admitted to being anti-Nazi. Plus, people who were smart (like my German ancestors) left the country before Hitler got into a big place with power.
That's why no one intervened. Nowadays with Freedom of Speech as one of our human rights you can admit to being fine with homosexuality all you want, and I think letting people have their orientation any which should be one of those human rights.
#103
Posted 23 June 2007 - 11:38 AM
#104
Posted 23 June 2007 - 04:43 PM
Nyktos- Bigots still exist, there are way too many people to class people today. Just run through a few common sterotypes to save me listing them. There are still Neo-Nazis, Communists, Racists etc etc etc. And I don't think I'm a bigot, just to save you asking. I am open to rational opinions.
#105
Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:34 PM
watch, on Jun 23 2007, 06:43 PM, said:
Did I say bigots no longer exist? Basically, your argument is "nothing was done to help <insert group> when theyr were discriminated against in the past, therefore we shouldn't do anything to help people". Which is ****ing stupid. And I never said you were a bigot, I said that your argument implied bigotry was okay.
#106
Posted 23 June 2007 - 09:48 PM
watch, on Jun 23 2007, 06:43 PM, said:
Yet nothing was done against Alquita (sp?) untill after 9/11. But back to topic. Stop ripping on ***s. Like I said, I have a friend who is ***, and I know of several others who are. Does that stop me from like those individuals, no. Its not fair to hold someones choises and feelings against them. Prohibiting the right for ***s to get married is discrimnation. It is just like deniging someone a job or promotion because of their orintaion. Seriously, as long as boths persons are concenting adults, who gives a flying **** whether they are *** or not.
#107
Posted 23 June 2007 - 10:37 PM
escout, on Jun 24 2007, 01:48 PM, said:
Yes it is discrimination, your point? We live in a hateful angry racist fearfilled world, why appeal that to me?
It's Al Qaeda, and nothing was done before Sep 11 because they were not, and are still not a threat. Don't bring up 9/11 here. Kind of hard for Osama to plan the worlds most precise attack seeing as he has kidney dialaysis and was in a American hospital (In the Middle East) in the weeks preceeding the attack.
I may as well come out and say this, since nothing else seems to work, that also appiles to dancing around the subject.
They are ***, because of that wrong choice they have made, why should they get the most scared right to Marry and be considered a family? In some things it's not the thought that counts.
#108
Posted 24 June 2007 - 06:02 AM
escout, on Jun 24 2007, 05:48 AM, said:
You make sence. Best post in this topic, I fully agree with you.
#109
Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:19 PM
Question to watch:
If *** person A wants to get married to *** person B. Does this action affect you negatively in any way whatsoever? No. Does it affect you at all in any way whatsoever? No. Your argument, no matter how good it is, still has the affect of you just discriminating against ***s and taking away their rights just because you disagree with them.
You're welcome to disagree with homosexuality all you want. Its free speech, you have your opinion, and I'm sure a lot of people enjoy would enjoy the debate. Its when you decide to act upon it that your taking a step too far. Perhaps if you had a good reason to act on it, (Somehow *** marriage has destroyed your life?) then I would understand, but as it doesn't affect you, and you're not even bloody christian so I can't see how you think that the 'Sacred' right of marriage is somehow being defiled, I can only conclude that your arguing for it simply for amusement/because it makes you feel superior, and whilst you think that it should be banned simply because you think its wrong, that act is going to harm millions of people.
I can even stretch to see your opinion (even support it), if we were arguing for banning marriage rights to murderers, rapists, terrorists etc etc, but since ***s have caused you no harm whatsoever, I can see no way in which you gain anything by banning *** marriage and as I said before, harming millions of people.
IMO, its one step (and not the first) on the road to Nazism and Eugenics.
#110
Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:23 AM
Wiflewood, on Jun 26 2007, 07:19 AM, said:
Question to watch:
If *** person A wants to get married to *** person B. Does this action affect you negatively in any way whatsoever? No. Does it affect you at all in any way whatsoever? No. Your argument, no matter how good it is, still has the affect of you just discriminating against ***s and taking away their rights just because you disagree with them.
You're welcome to disagree with homosexuality all you want. Its free speech, you have your opinion, and I'm sure a lot of people enjoy would enjoy the debate. Its when you decide to act upon it that your taking a step too far. Perhaps if you had a good reason to act on it, (Somehow *** marriage has destroyed your life?) then I would understand, but as it doesn't affect you, and you're not even bloody christian so I can't see how you think that the 'Sacred' right of marriage is somehow being defiled, I can only conclude that your arguing for it simply for amusement/because it makes you feel superior, and whilst you think that it should be banned simply because you think its wrong, that act is going to harm millions of people.
I can even stretch to see your opinion (even support it), if we were arguing for banning
marriage rights to murderers, rapists, terrorists etc etc, but since ***s have caused you no harm whatsoever, I can see no way in which you gain anything by banning *** marriage and as I said before, harming millions of people.
IMO, its one step (and not the first) on the road to Nazism and Eugenics.
The steps to Genocide, how Ironic, I'm currently studying that in History.
First Paragraph:
No it does not directly affect me in a negative way. Then again, neither does the war in Iraq or Stem cell research.
. Your argument, no matter how good it is, still has the affect of you just discriminating against ***s and taking away their rights just because you disagree with them.
Agreed. Point being?
Second Paragraph:
Before we go anywhere, I am Mormon, I have stated this numerous times over the years, That is Christain, where did you pull the you're not even bloody christian so I can't see how you think that the 'Sacred' right of marriage is somehow being defiled
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
I actually only just realised this after re-reading that. I think my religion does have an influence on my opinion. I had only been arguing for the personal side of me.
What have I acted upon?
And I don't feel superior to anyone, (This is going to be a massive contradiction) I'm actually quite possible one of the most humblest people you've met. Either that or just really low self esteem.
Nice post, speaking of Nazism, Wikipedia
Scroll down to the Concentration Camps bit.
#112
Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia....me-sex_marriage
Sorry watch, I didn't realise you're a Mormon, I guess that entitles you to use your religious views for this argument then :agitated:
I still think that you should approach this from a moral standpoint however. I'm a Catholic; and so even if my religion says against it, from a moral standpoint I see no reason why ***s shouldn't be allowed to get married. (I have no problem with homosexuality at all btw, my best friend is bi)
#113
Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:34 PM
I Believe that all people were orignally straight, but somewhere along the line something went wrong, kinda like the Orgininal Sin story in the Bible. Now Im NOT saying that ***'s are sinful people who are doomed. *** People are just like regular people, they have feelings. But I do believe the *** Marriage does take away some of the splender of Marriage. In Marriage, there are difficulties the couple has to overcome, but those difficulties might not be the same in *** marriage. In a way i see *** marriage as an insult to those who are rightfully married with the opposite sex.
This is a good topic, i do think it needs to be talked about.
(I apologize if any1 has taken offense about what i have said)
#114
Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:51 PM
Someone point out to me any points in this vow which cannot be applied to a homosexual couple:
"I _____, take you ______, to be my wedded [spouse]. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness."
Replaced 'wife' with 'spouse'. Which part of the actual vows can't be applied to any couple?
#115
Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:56 PM
Mysterious Adept, on Jun 26 2007, 04:34 PM, said:
But at the same time, two non*** couples will not always face the same difficulties either.
#116
Posted 26 June 2007 - 10:44 PM
Wiflewood, on Jun 27 2007, 04:21 AM, said:
http://en.wikipedia....me-sex_marriage
Sorry watch, I didn't realise you're a Mormon, I guess that entitles you to use your religious views for this argument then :agitated:
I still think that you should approach this from a moral standpoint however. I'm a Catholic; and so even if my religion says against it, from a moral standpoint I see no reason why ***s shouldn't be allowed to get married. (I have no problem with homosexuality at all btw, my best friend is bi)
Yea but that's what I'm trying not to do. People get pissed if I use religion and they're all like 'You only think that cos that's what your told'.
Mysterious Adept, nice post.
~!1700!~
#117
Posted 06 July 2007 - 09:27 PM
Tell me, how is the child going to be affected by being raised by a *** couple, as opposed to a straight one? I'm not implying anything bad by the question, I'm just curious about the answer.
#118
Posted 07 July 2007 - 01:29 PM
#119
Posted 07 July 2007 - 02:52 PM
#120
Posted 07 July 2007 - 06:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia....ki/The_Birdcage
Read the plot, it might be a little hard to follow because of the names. Good movie, those of you who aren't homophobic will probably get a good laugh at it and should watch it.
Anyway, as you can see one of the key characters is raised by his father and his *** lover. He's a normal guy. I know it's just a story, but I don't think any of us can really answer GL's question, especially since *** marriage is still so OMFG controversial.
#121
Posted 07 July 2007 - 08:31 PM
#122
Posted 05 September 2007 - 10:14 AM
Of course, anyone can tell that gey marriage is not really supposed to be happening, according to a lot of scientists' beliefs, one of our main goals in life is to REPRODUCE o_O;;; Of course, a man can't really have (you know what) with another man... so thank god for adoption...
#123
Posted 05 September 2007 - 11:18 AM
~Piers~, on Sep 5 2007, 06:14 PM, said:
Of course, anyone can tell that gey marriage is not really supposed to be happening, according to a lot of scientists' beliefs, one of our main goals in life is to REPRODUCE o_O;;; Of course, a man can't really have (you know what) with another man... so thank god for adoption...
You know what? Sex damnit, SEX! SAY IT! It's not an evil word!
And technically they CAN have (you know what). Just use your imagination.
#124
Posted 05 September 2007 - 02:29 PM
#125
Posted 05 September 2007 - 02:34 PM
#127
Posted 05 September 2007 - 06:42 PM
Seriously though, how can you say homosexuality is unnatural if people are just born that way? I mean, its not like people could just choose their own sexual orientation.
I personally dont really care about *** marriages or *** rights though. I'm just totally neutral with it.
#128
Posted 05 September 2007 - 10:18 PM
#129
Posted 06 September 2007 - 12:57 AM
Julian, on Sep 6 2007, 10:42 AM, said:
Seriously though, how can you say homosexuality is unnatural if people are just born that way? I mean, its not like people could just choose their own sexual orientation.
How are people born like that? How can a person not choose to like men or women, you aren't born liking BMW over Audi or something like that.
Wind Dude, on Sep 6 2007, 02:18 PM, said:
:o
#130
Posted 06 September 2007 - 09:09 AM
watch, on Sep 5 2007, 11:57 PM, said:
That's spoken from pure ignorance right there my friend. I mean honestly, why would people "choose" a lifestyle that would cause so many hardships for them? Your family could disown you for god sakes! Its just like how a straight person cant choose to be with another man or woman. The attraction is just not there. I dont know if has anything to do with selection-bias (or whatever its called)... like how i only like asian girls o__0? Does that tie in with this stuff?
#131
Posted 06 September 2007 - 10:07 AM
#132
Posted 06 September 2007 - 02:08 PM
#133
Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:41 PM
Julian, on Sep 7 2007, 01:09 AM, said:
Muslim's, Jew's. Do we want to get started on that track?
I do not believe that this can be blamed on science. Whether you daddy touched you when you were little, or you had no dad or mum, maybe then that will affect you mentally and change you gender preferance, but being born gay? Come on.
#134
Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:44 PM
#135
Posted 07 September 2007 - 06:10 PM
Glenn Quagmire said:
Thought i'd bring up the opinion of some...cartoon character.
#136
Posted 07 September 2007 - 06:19 PM
#137
Posted 07 September 2007 - 06:25 PM
#138
Posted 07 September 2007 - 06:48 PM
But seriously, who cares. Unless some guys hitting on you it doesn't even effect you. But, somehow I doubt a gey guy is going to hit on you if you all act as homophobic as you do on the internet, so there you go.
#140
Posted 07 September 2007 - 09:04 PM
watch, on Sep 6 2007, 02:41 PM, said:
I do not believe that this can be blamed on science. Whether you daddy touched you when you were little, or you had no dad or mum, maybe then that will affect you mentally and change you gender preferance, but being born ***? Come on.
First of all, I know for a fact that *** people today have to live with a LOT more hardships and problems than Jews and Muslims. Perhaps the reason that some of these hardships often go under the radar and unnoticed is because they lurk on a much more personal level. Imagine if you're *** and you're born into a homophobic family (lmao)? Seriously, what does it matter if you're not well accepted in society when your entire family is literally repulsed by who you are?! I mean, if you're Jewish or Muslim, there's pretty much a good chance that your family is too. ***s however, have a risk of jeopardizing their family and friends for something that they just cant control.
I'm not going to try to convince you that people are naturally "born" ***. Whether or not you're going to look past beyond this barrier of ignorance you've contstructed is beyond me. I'll ask you this again, can you "choose" to love another man? Because I sure cant. Your attraction towards another human being is something that you CANNOT control. If everybody was able to control these feelings, im sure i wouldnt find difficulty being with the ugliest girl in the world.
#141
Posted 08 September 2007 - 04:56 AM
Julian, on Sep 8 2007, 01:04 PM, said:
I'm not going to try to convince you that people are naturally "born" ***. Whether or not you're going to look past beyond this barrier of ignorance you've contstructed is beyond me. I'll ask you this again, can you "choose" to love another man? Because I sure cant. Your attraction towards another human being is something that you CANNOT control. If everybody was able to control these feelings, im sure i wouldnt find difficulty being with the ugliest girl in the world.
Oh Bullshit gay's have to live with more then Muslim's. How many Gay terrorists are there? How many Gay's take off their shoes at the airport? There's always some pro-gay propaganda on the News, then we switch to Beruit or Spain where there's been more terrorist bombings.
And really, how many Arab countries try to sweep all the Gay's into the ocean?
How many families are repulsed by their gay childern? I'm not really keen on kid's at the moment but if my kid were gay, I would stick by them no matter their choice, kind of like knocking a girl up and then marrying her. It's the right thing to do.
You can't try to convince me people are born the way they are because you have no proof to your claim.
Screw nature, there's a reason why we run and own the world. I don't see Elephants on aeroplanes and in space.
If a priest can forsake a lifetime of fornication, go against one of our most instinctive natures, then someone can choose whom they love.
#142
Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:25 AM
#143
Posted 08 September 2007 - 01:05 PM
But i dont think this argument is worth my time if im talking to a brick wall.
#144
Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:49 PM
I have no proof Gay's are born gay, you have no proof they aren't. Yet I'm the one who is supposed to feel bad inside, because talking to me is like, "talking to a brick wall."
#145
Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:51 PM
#146
Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:59 PM
#147
Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:59 PM
Edit- Split beat me, my post is directed at DS.
This post has been edited by watch: 08 September 2007 - 11:59 PM
#148
Posted 09 September 2007 - 12:06 AM
#149
Posted 09 September 2007 - 06:35 AM
watch, on Sep 9 2007, 07:49 AM, said:
I have no proof Gay's are born gay, you have no proof they aren't. Yet I'm the one who is supposed to feel bad inside, because talking to me is like, "talking to a brick wall."
Feel bad. I SAID FEEL BAD DAMNIT!
#151
Posted 09 October 2007 - 05:05 PM
(This is for you guys to laugh at, but I have to admit it is a good point) o.o
#152
Posted 09 October 2007 - 11:48 PM
#153
Posted 10 October 2007 - 05:36 AM
Well, the mouth is also used for sex...
[spoiler]I wonder how many people will think that what I said is grotesque. xD
#154
Posted 10 October 2007 - 05:36 AM
#155
Posted 10 October 2007 - 10:21 PM
#158
Posted 28 October 2007 - 02:49 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 15 2007, 07:53 PM, said:
That said, it definitely was a heated topic of choice, and I think it's worth reviving it (among other debate topics).
Just remember - we all have our views on it, so don't criticize, flame anyone, etc.
Now, let's get to that healthy debating!
---
I'll begin by simply stating my views - I am against both Homosexuality and *** Marriage. I believe the former is a crime on humanity (at the very least being an unnatural phenomenon), and more importantly, I believe that Homosexuality and *** Marriage are the product of the "liberal mindset" of today's society, that seeks to try and push the definition of being "human" in new, and very twisted ways.
wow i'm dissapointed , homophobio is derivative to caveman times , where
if it was new or different the would try to kill or harm it.
i ...did respect you but i can't if you're homophobic.
in my eyes homophobio is as bad as homosexuality in your eyes.
who's too say if christ existed that he was not ***!
it doesn't say "thou shalt not be *** elst thou shall die in hell"
also it doesnt say "christ was not duth to be-eth ***"!
who's too say if christ existed that he was not ***!
it doesn't say "thou shalt not be *** elst thou shall die in hell"
also it doesnt say "christ was not duth to be-eth ***"!
Nyktos, on May 16 2007, 05:20 PM, said:
Anyways, I'm for and for. I don't mind y'all having your religious beliefs, but don't force them on me. Individual soverignty*, I say, at least in situations like this.
And before you ask, no, I'm not ***, but I know several people who are. All of whom are perfectly decent people.
*That's a NationStates reference by the way.
wooooooooooooo-hoooooooooooooooo finaly someone who shares my beliefs
i hAVE at least 10 g*y friends whom all like you said decent people
probably better than some of my hetrasexual friends
if i was religious i would be a new religion called "anti homophobia"
ok maybe i was a bit rash in my reply
i should have listened to your views first , i am just very unsettled by homophobio
or homophobic people , sorry and as for double postings , sorry again i just have a
big gob and alot to say lol.
This post has been edited by golden tla owner: 28 October 2007 - 03:12 PM
#159
Posted 28 October 2007 - 03:02 PM
At any rate, yes I won't deny that I'm slightly uncomfortable about homosexuality as a whole - there's nothing that obligates me to perfectly feel normal about it. In fact, I would expect to be uncomfortable, considering I'm hetero. That said, I don't cringe or purposely remove myself in the presence of *** or lesbians - in fact one of my good friends is homosexual and we're perfectly all right as it is.
#160
Posted 28 October 2007 - 03:09 PM
Kitz, on May 18 2007, 04:33 PM, said:
The people influenced to become homosexual is a different story, but isn't that the same concept as to like a video game because of the influences around you?
===
Cael, you are bashing religion alot and I am very curious on to how you believe what you believe. Did you research about religion? Did you even TRY to understand what stuff a religion believes? Were you just INFLUENCED by what other people told you to believe what you believe?
You say that religion just gets in the way of science, but seeing your example about the formation of the universe just makes me wonder. Wasn't the creation of the universe a bunch of theories? Do we really know for sure how the galaxies and planets were formed? From your example, how can you be so sure that religion is interfering with science?
as many know or should know i am for g*ys and g*y marriage im not *** but
do support them.
if you are anti semitic , you're just as bad as a homophobic
#161
Posted 29 October 2007 - 12:08 AM
Dude, back up your arguement, I'm not getting into another flame war with a
I wish people would stop reviving the *** and Religion threads thinking it's a good idea to do so.
#162
Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:35 AM
#163
Posted 29 October 2007 - 12:07 PM
#165
Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:17 PM
Golden Legacy, on May 15 2007, 06:53 PM, said:
GL, you and I couldn't have a more similar opinion. If it was natural to be ghey, then why arent we all ghey?
#166
Posted 29 October 2007 - 10:35 PM
If we ever meet though, surely I would not exibit any form of discrimination. I admit, that's middle age behaviour.
I am still undecided (yet leaning to no) whether people are born ***. Most scientific research shows that childhood plays an important role in determining one's sexual orientation.
For example, usually when a male takes a female role, his chances of being *** increases.
Also, when a male has no (or poor) father figure, his chances of being *** increases.
In my opinion honestly, being *** is a choice, maybe subconscious, but still a choice.
And please, remove ghey from the filter. It's pretty annoying, and not insulting in anyway...
#167
Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:50 PM
People are not born Gay. I'm sorry. People are born with physical characteristics, but not emotional ones. (Mental conditions are a different story).
#168
Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:51 AM
.eugine, on Oct 30 2007, 05:35 AM, said:
If we ever meet though, surely I would not exibit any form of discrimination. I admit, that's middle age behaviour.
It shouldn't be like that Eugine. Anti-*** sentiment is quite high here in Serbia, and it's always been like that. It's that way because Serbs tend to think of themselves as overly macho men(even if they're not). However, I don't dislike *** people, and I've stated before in this topic that I'm not against homosexuality. Although I've stopped now, I've been going to some English lesson for the past two months, and my teacher there was ***. Glancing at him it was hard to tell so, and he very rarely acted just slightly more feminine that a heterosexual dude would have. And he's a cool guy, so why would I have anything against his sexual orientation?
#169
Posted 30 October 2007 - 12:58 PM
#170
Posted 30 October 2007 - 02:51 PM
#171
Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:24 PM
Basically if you're against homosexuality you're either overly religious or homophobic. that simple.
#172
Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:32 PM
#174
Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:09 PM
#177
Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:14 PM
#178
Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:35 PM
Also, just to rebuke watch's argument:
(watch said: "People are born with physical characteristics, but not emotional ones.")
Error. If you're saying that homosexuality is unatural, then you are implying that heterosexuality is natural. As in, people are naturally born heterosexuals. Therefore, there must be a part of our genetic make-up/DNA that is programmed to make us attracted to members of the opposite sex, wouldn't you agree? Basic survival instinct in every animal, seek out a mate, reproduce, keep your species alive.
Since genetic defects can occur in any part of our makeup, is it so far-fetched to assume that homosexuality is a defect in this part of the DNA that makes us attracted to the opposite sex?
#179
Posted 31 October 2007 - 08:43 PM
Wiflewood, on Oct 31 2007, 06:35 PM, said:
Maybe heterosexuality is unnatural and homosexuality is natural and a lot of people have the heterosexuality defect. (Do you know why this sounds stupid? Because you cant imagine homosexuals being the same as heterosexuals)
#181
Posted 31 October 2007 - 09:45 PM
killercoz, on Oct 31 2007, 07:43 PM, said:
No, it sounds stupid because thats just stupid. I hope you were joking. Because if you werent, then let me explain to you that humanity reproduces with a man and a woman. Or have you not had that talk yet?
#182
Posted 01 November 2007 - 12:47 AM
Wiflewood, on Nov 1 2007, 09:35 AM, said:
Error. If you're saying that homosexuality is unatural, then you are implying that heterosexuality is natural. As in, people are naturally born heterosexuals. Therefore, there must be a part of our genetic make-up/DNA that is programmed to make us attracted to members of the opposite sex, wouldn't you agree? Basic survival instinct in every animal, seek out a mate, reproduce, keep your species alive.
Since genetic defects can occur in any part of our makeup, is it so far-fetched to assume that homosexuality is a defect in this part of the DNA that makes us attracted to the opposite sex?
What an awsome post. I might print it out and spoon with it.
What I love about it.
1. Heterosexuality is natural.
2. Liking the opposite sex is natural.
3. Homosexuality is a defect in humans.
God what awsome points, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Whose side are you on Wifle?
But yea no. Homosexuality is not natural. I did state that Emotional characteristics are not coded into you. Let's use Emo's as an example. Are you born depressed? (Aside from those with Manic Depression) Do factors in your life contribute to your mood? Can happiness/sadness be triggered by hormones? Can people affect your mood? Can you yourself decide whether or not you are happy? No, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. Just supplement Depression for Gay
#183
Posted 01 November 2007 - 09:43 AM
#184
Posted 01 November 2007 - 10:03 AM
watch, on Nov 1 2007, 06:47 AM, said:
What I love about it.
1. Heterosexuality is natural.
2. Liking the opposite sex is natural.
3. Homosexuality is a defect in humans.
God what awsome points, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Whose side are you on Wifle?
But yea no. Homosexuality is not natural. I did state that Emotional characteristics are not coded into you. Let's use Emo's as an example. Are you born depressed? (Aside from those with Manic Depression) Do factors in your life contribute to your mood? Can happiness/sadness be triggered by hormones? Can people affect your mood? Can you yourself decide whether or not you are happy? No, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. Just supplement Depression for Gay
:P
I'm on the gay's side, but also the 'Homosexuality is a natural thing' side.
And you make a good point in that homosexuality could be an acquired emotional characteristic, but I wanted to point out its not beyond the bounds of possibility that its natural (In the sense that it could be gene/DNA related)
The question is, with things like depression and other emotional characteristics, people develop them for a reason, or in response to someting, and what might be the reason for developing an attraction to the same sex? (an answer that also applies to the animal kingdom)
Oh and I guess the word 'defect' isn't very politically correct. I suppose we should call it the 'Variation' of the heterosexuality gene.
@killercoz: As darksword says, since the dawn of time reproduction has, in most cases, required a male and a female. Having the survival of your species depend on being born defective is not promising for evolution. And yes, I know thats what happens normally in evolution (a variation of the gene survives better and evolves the species), but since homosexuality is not passed on through generations it doesn't count.
Well, I assume its not passed on through generations. Since not that many *** people will have kids I guess we might never know :P
@Caael: Why not?
#185
Posted 01 November 2007 - 05:02 PM
Wiflewood, on Nov 2 2007, 03:03 AM, said:
The question is, with things like depression and other emotional characteristics, people develop them for a reason, or in response to someting, and what might be the reason for developing an attraction to the same sex? (an answer that also applies to the animal kingdom)
Oh and I guess the word 'defect' isn't very politically correct. I suppose we should call it the 'Variation' of the heterosexuality gene.
I'll meet you halfway and say that there could possibly, maybe, slightly be a chance of a certain group of people with a tendency for Homosexuality. But I will not use the word natural to describe it.
Attraction to the same sex? Bad relationship with a family member, being abused as a child, maybe having a stepdad or stepmum. (Constantly having a non-blood member of the oppositte sex around can do something with Hormones or some crap. Did it in Biology at school.)
#186
Posted 01 November 2007 - 09:42 PM
watch, on Nov 1 2007, 07:02 PM, said:
Attraction to the same sex? Bad relationship with a family member, being abused as a child, maybe having a stepdad or stepmum. (Constantly having a non-blood member of the oppositte sex around can do something with Hormones or some crap. Did it in Biology at school.)
Im sorry but youre simply an idiot. Im not *** because Ive been abused or anyone of yopur other ridiculous reasons. Oh as for naturality maybe when humans first existed everyone was ***, but people realized that they needed a man and a woman to have offspring so it became costumary for men and women to be together. As time went on more people became born straight and homosexuality was being realized only in a small percent of the actual amount that were homosexual. It doesnt sound stupid because its stupid it sounds stupid when youre being questioned instead of questioning someone else.
#187
Posted 01 November 2007 - 10:32 PM
Lets hope we get a firm answer from scientists soon .
#188
Posted 01 November 2007 - 11:19 PM
killercoz, on Nov 1 2007, 08:42 PM, said:
Once again, your just throwing random stuff out there. The first Men and Women were instinct driven Neanderthals. What does instinct tell animals to do? Eat. Hide. And Reproduce with the opposite gender, like nature intended. And you cant call people idiots. You can call people's theories idiotic, but not the people. Next time I hope your theories will have some kind of research in them, rather than stuff you made up at the last minute.
#189
Posted 02 November 2007 - 12:35 AM
I'm not getting banned over this.
I will say this though. Humans are born to eat, ****, and breed. THAT is natural.
#190
Posted 02 November 2007 - 01:52 AM
Wiflewood, on Nov 1 2007, 05:03 PM, said:
I'm on the ***'s side, but also the 'Homosexuality is a natural thing' side.
And you make a good point in that homosexuality could be an acquired emotional characteristic, but I wanted to point out its not beyond the bounds of possibility that its natural (In the sense that it could be gene/DNA related)
The question is, with things like depression and other emotional characteristics, people develop them for a reason, or in response to someting, and what might be the reason for developing an attraction to the same sex? (an answer that also applies to the animal kingdom)
Oh and I guess the word 'defect' isn't very politically correct. I suppose we should call it the 'Variation' of the heterosexuality gene.
@killercoz: As darksword says, since the dawn of time reproduction has, in most cases, required a male and a female. Having the survival of your species depend on being born defective is not promising for evolution. And yes, I know thats what happens normally in evolution (a variation of the gene survives better and evolves the species), but since homosexuality is not passed on through generations it doesn't count.
Well, I assume its not passed on through generations. Since not that many *** people will have kids I guess we might never know :P
@Caael: Why not?
Well because they cant reproduce and pass their genes onto somebody else, so it's impossible for ***ness to be genetic.
#192
Posted 02 November 2007 - 03:15 PM
watch, on Nov 2 2007, 02:35 AM, said:
I agree these things are natural, but so is homosexuality. If people werent born *** then how did they become ***. Also *** isnt a birth defect because doctors know when a patient's offspring is a defect. I understand why some people are freaked out by ***s(religion, different, afraid of them "looking at you"(which is ridiculous) etc.) but saying its unnatural just isnt true.
#193
Posted 02 November 2007 - 04:49 PM
#194
Posted 02 November 2007 - 07:11 PM
#195
Posted 02 November 2007 - 07:20 PM
killercoz, on Nov 3 2007, 08:15 AM, said:
So you agree that breeding is natural (Having sex with a girl/guy) but also claim that being Homo is natural. How does that work?
#196
Posted 02 November 2007 - 07:20 PM
killercoz, on Nov 2 2007, 02:15 PM, said:
Doctors can't tell all the time. I know for sure that there are birth defects out there that only begin to appear when the subject begins to mature.
#197
Posted 02 November 2007 - 08:46 PM
watch, on Nov 2 2007, 09:20 PM, said:
Being born male and being born female are both natural. Same with looks and personalities. Just because everyone doesnt have the same qualities, it doesnt mean the qualities arent natural.
DarkSword, on Nov 2 2007, 09:20 PM, said:
So they miss this defect every time? What science are you getting your data from?
#198
Posted 02 November 2007 - 09:55 PM
#199
Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:03 PM
Mutations are natural. Maybe I'm crazy-- no wait, I am crazy, so never mind, let's assume that perhaps some part of your brain is mutated so that you find the same sex attractive. Therefore, homosexuality can in some cases be a natural occurrence.
Same thing to be said about mental "disorders" or "variation". Disorders happen naturally, so with that said, what's wrong about homosexuality if the person can't help it? Do you expect them to be alone? Humans are social beings and they like having somebody around them. The exception is me, where all human beings, both male and female, are not worth my time. :P
#200
Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:07 PM