[Platinum Sun]

Well nothing really brought this on other than the fact that it's one of few hot-button mega-issues that don't have a topic yet. Personally, I'm in favor. I don't think that it has all the God-angering society-destroying potential a lot of people ascribe to it. My definition of marriage is between two people that love eachother.
What's yours?

[Golden Legacy]

Took care of it, PS. It says "***/Lesbian Marriage" now.

I'm against it, for the simple reason that I feel it's against nature and opposed to how God intended it to be.

[Eugine]

I just feel disgusted when I see two men kissing. I'm against it.

[Golden Legacy]

Well, there's definitely that too. You can't deny that it's... unorthodox and rather... well, just not right.

But to be fair, I've always felt a little more justification is needed than that.

Now, to the age-old question (at least in this context): Nature vs. Nurture? I personally feel homosexuality is "nurture". I refuse to accept the notion that people are just simply born homosexual.

[Toasty]

I am entirely against it. Not only does it go against Christianity, it's just, wrong. And disgusting. And if it were "natural" , then that means that they would have been *** from birth. And a lot of people who are ***, turned to that mid-life. Like teenage years and up. It's just sickening.

[Lemontime]

I don't really care. I mean.. If someone prefers to stick their thing in another guy.. That's their problem. If someone loves someone else, they should be alowed to marry. I don't really care, though..

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 12 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

I refuse to accept the notion that people are just simply born homosexual.

And the fact people think they are a certain gender in the other gender's body. "I'm a girl in a mans body! "

WTF!!!

***/Lesbian Marriage= No.

[Bexie]

GO *** RIGHTS! *jumps up and down*

Even though I'm straight, I would bloody march in a *** pride parade if I knew when there was one. xD

*** marriage is legal over here as over about a year ago. ^_______^ Elton John was one of the first to do it. x3

EDIT: ARGH stop blocking the word ghey! >.<

[Mindpatch]

I'm in favor of it. I don't like it but hey, it's sort of discriminating if you just don't allow them to marry. Besides, if God didn't want it to happen, why is it possible then.

[Platinum Sun]

Lol @^

Yeah, if Got hates it, why isn't there any smting going on? He's never had reservations about smiting the wicked before. *cough*Katrina

[Golden Legacy]

God has already punished them. Ever heard of AIDS?

[Platinum Sun]

That was so stupid it actually caused me physical pain.
What the heck are you talking about? Heterosexual sex is five times more likely to spread AIDS than ga.y sex! The idea that AIDS is ga.y related was disproven decades ago, a few months after the HIV virus was discovered! Anyone can get AIDS from any sharing of body fluids.

[Eugine]

I don't agree with that either GL.

But anyway, science shows opposite attracts and likes repel. Plus, why are we the only specie to have same sex relationships? It just shows how unnatural it is.

[Golden Legacy]

For woman/woman relationships, the risk is lower. But for male/male, the risk is higher.

I understand that ANYONE can get AIDS, but AIDS itself is concentrated in populations with homosexuals.

I should have been more clear; AIDS can, and obviosuly does, occur to anyone who has unprotected sex, but it's prominent in same gender relationships.

There is even a class of homosexuals who purposely attempt to get AIDS, so that they can live "without worry".

[Eugine]

Now, I agree with that. Anyone can see why it's more prominent in male/male relationships.

[Platinum Sun]

Ok you got me there, but that's a lifestyle thing. There's no predisposition of the actual virus to one preference or the other.

[Sea of Time]

I say, whatever makes you happy, go ahead. As long as I don't have to watch you make out. I realize that prejudicing against ***s and lesbians are wrong, so if they want to get married, go ahead.

[Enjealousy]

I'm not a *** activist or anything like that, but I think everyone deserves their rights (to an extent). Just because it's not natural doesn't mean we should ban it and whatnot. Why make a whole group of people hide who they are just so we can feel like "Hey, everyone's straight." They're going to be *** whether we like it or not... so let them be *** legally if it makes them feel better.

[Eugine]

Well, I agree with that to an extent. Everyone deserves to live how they want as long as it doesn't hamper with other peoples happiness.

[Bexie]

I think that if ghey people want to get married, they should be able to. I don't think anyone has the right to tell them what they can or cannot do.

And it's stupid. Loads of guys I know are all "ONGZZZ ghey relationships are disgusting and unnatural!" but as soon as they see two girls getting it on, they can't take their eyes off them and are all "Damn that's hot!".
Hypocrites much? xD

[Enjealousy]

Bexie, on Aug 12 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

And it's stupid. Loads of guys I know are all "ONGZZZ ghey relationships are disgusting and unnatural!" but as soon as they see two girls getting it on, they can't take their eyes off them and are all "Damn that's hot!".
Hypocrites much? xD

Amen.

Please add more depth to your posts. - MD

This post has been edited by Mars Djinni: 12 August 2006 - 03:51 PM

[Sea of Time]

Let me just say that real-world lesbians are not the same as what is portrayed on porn. In real life, I see no difference in ***s or lesbians, they are the same.

[Bexie]

So? Makes no difference. Still hypocritical.

[pHantOm]

ummm

Lesbians in porn are alot different....For starters there isnt anything hot about Rosie O'Donald making out...

Im for it, I dont care.

[Mindpatch]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 12 2006, 05:17 PM, said:

God has already punished them. Ever heard of AIDS?

**** that GL, that is just ****up, you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You're a real ****** for saying that.
Deseases aren't punishment, the best people in the world die of deseases.
Man, you even dared trying to say that AIDS is a punishment.

You're an OK guy for the rest, but thinking that is just sóóóóóóó wrong.

[My Best Wishes]

And you should stfu and think before you talk. Maybe people should abstain from one night stands or just wear a fricken condom to prevent aids.

It is wrong. A simple fact to support my arguement. Aside from wanting to be equal and all that, whats the number one thing all homosexual couples want? A child. What can a hetrosexual, but not a homosexual couple have? A child.


Can I just ask, why do you people support this? I'm sure you'd rather see a man and a women kiss in public then two people of your gender make out.

[Mindpatch]

Watch, there are other ways to get aids then just having sex.
I support this because if I didn't i'd find myself a discriminating person.
You don't allow people to be different. Who are you to decide these people can't be who they are. I feel that if you are against any kind of racism or discrimination that you should be against discriminating homosexual people as well. If you don't then what is the point in being against discrimination if you in fact are saying that you are against homosexuals.

EDIT: And, why would you think homosexuals would like to have a child.
The guy who apparently wants nothing to do with them knows their deepest feelings of wanting a child.
A guess: Most people just want to live a nice life. I'm pretty sure there are enough *** couples that don't want kids.

[Golden Legacy]

Mindpatch, on Aug 13 2006, 05:16 AM, said:

**** that GL, that is just ****up, you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You're a real ****** for saying that.
Deseases aren't punishment, the best people in the world die of deseases.
Man, you even dared trying to say that AIDS is a punishment.

You're an OK guy for the rest, but thinking that is just sóóóóóóó wrong.

And why is it so hard to accept that disease might be a punishment, if you believe in God? Anyone can die of disease; but it can originate with people who originally abuse or misuse there bodies in some way, no? And now, it is a global pandemic.

Yes, I dare to say that AIDS is punishment; a disease that never existed until the late twentieth century, that spreads through (mostly) incompetence and being irresponsible?

[Mindpatch]

Then howcome innocent kids die because they get it via their parents... God's technique has a little flaw then, guess it's still in the alfa stage.

[Golden Legacy]

You're taking this out of perspective; innocent children with AIDS is a result of what? Their parent's incompetance, among other possibilities.

And now, I will ask you; since ANYONE can be a victim, why can't people have the little common sense to protect themselves, or better yet, not risk it at all? People are ignorant and foolish in that sense.

watch, on Aug 13 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

And you should stfu and think before you talk. Maybe people should abstain from one night stands or just wear a fricken condom to prevent aids.

It is wrong. A simple fact to support my arguement. Aside from wanting to be equal and all that, whats the number one thing all homosexual couples want? A child. What can a hetrosexual, but not a homosexual couple have? A child.
Can I just ask, why do you people support this? I'm sure you'd rather see a man and a women kiss in public then two people of your gender make out.

Agree here. People should not risk having irresponsible and random sex (especially if they're off sinning and cheating against their spouses...), or at least have the decency to wear protection.

And yes, another good point here by Watch; homosexuality can't result in children. I just don't know how people can support this either.

[Mindpatch]

You talk about responsible people using protection, now isn't that what the church doesn't want?

[Bexie]

Only the Catholic church. Catholics seem to hate everything... abortion, gheys, contraceptive methods... bah.

What I don't get is that the Pope, who never has any sex, is telling everyone else how to have sex. xD He said "Homosexuality is unnatural", but, as I've heard people say, surely the most unnatural thing in the world is to not have any kind of sex ever? xD

[Someone Else]

OMFG GOD NOOO TWO GIRLS MAKING OUT AND 2 GUYS HOLDING HANDS IS A SIN!!!!!!!!

:)

That's bull. I am not gay, and I like to stay a football field away from any guy who IS gay, but I think all the controversy about gay/lesbian marriage is insane. Hey, if a guy wants to get hitched to another guy, let him. It's not hurting anyone else is it?

Oh, and by the way, homosexuality is natural in a sense. There is such a thing as gay animals (remember those gay penguins?) but it's rare. I don't know why it's fairly common amongst humans.

I'm saying that I'm not AGAINST it, gay people can do whatever the heck they want as long as they stay out of MY pants.



EDIT: AIDs has been around FOREVER. All the way back before Egyptian times, to boot. What merciful "God" out there would spread a disease that could harm perfectly innocent people?

[Toasty]

Unfortunately, that's one of the excuses people use to reject God. I don't have a good answer to that, but my Pastor does. I just can't remember it. The thing is, they're there. It doesn't matter what happens, it happens for a reason. And no matter how disguised it is, there is ALWAYS a good thing in every outcome. Even if someone close to you dies, mabey you and someone else close to you become closer. See what I mean? Sure, when something horribly terrible happens, you think "What kind of God lets this happen?" The truth is, it happens for a good reason. Mabey to test your faith if you believe, mabey to steer you in a different direction if you don't. It's never clear, but there's always a good thing in every situation. Just look for it.

[Golden Legacy]

Exactly. Now, as a result of AIDS, there is an entire movement dedicated to improving conditions in third world countries, and a growing concern about how they lack some of the necessary resources or education. These countries are now receiving aid from all over, and conditions have certainly improved.


I still refuse to accept homosexuality is a part of nature. I believe that some people who claim they are homosexual aren't doing so necessarily because they are, but doing so to say, "I can exercise my right to be anything I want, etc. etc.".

And since homosexuality is opposed by many, that becomes the perfect target, since people choose it as a way of demonstrating how free they are.

Just an idea, but it holds relevance (there are a few ***s/lesbians in my school, which is mostly extremely liberal; I'm one of the few conservatives there).

[Toasty]

I'm a conservative Republican, not registered (duh) but that's the side I'm on. A lot of people blame Bush for stupid things, and the things that aren't stupid, aren't his fault. Like the deficate thingy. That was carried over from Clinton's administration, and didn't show up 'till now. Things like that take time to show up, so when someone in a previous administration screws up like that, it reflects on the next person's. And missle threat in the far east might have been avoided if Clinton hadn't sold nuke plans to China. But that's all for another topic.

Anyway, I'm strongly against ***ness, not only because of my religion, but because I think it's just nasty (as I said earlier).

[My Best Wishes]

Mindpatch, on Aug 13 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

You don't allow people to be different. Who are you to decide these people can't be who they are. I feel that if you are against any kind of racism or discrimination that you should be against discriminating homosexual people as well. If you don't then what is the point in being against discrimination if you in fact are saying that you are against homosexuals.

EDIT: And, why would you think homosexuals would like to have a child.
The guy who apparently wants nothing to do with them knows their deepest feelings of wanting a child.
A guess: Most people just want to live a nice life. I'm pretty sure there are enough *** couples that don't want kids.

Because I live in the world. I go to school with these people. I have to put up with thier **** on national tv saying 'WE want to get married, WE want childern, WHY is John Howard oppressing us?'

The answer- YOU PEOPLE ARE HO-MO-SEX-UAL'S!

[Mindpatch]

T, and GL, were just giving normal answers... now I'm getting the feeling you are seriously the guy who'd beat up these people just because they're ***, watch...

[Aquamarine]

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.

[My Best Wishes]

Mindpatch, on Aug 14 2006, 05:23 PM, said:

T, and GL, were just giving normal answers... now I'm getting the feeling you are seriously the guy who'd beat up these people just because they're ***, watch...

No, becuase I am not that type of person. I am just so sick of their **** about how they want to be equal when they deserve to be detained. It.Is.Not.Right.And.Justified.By.Any.Reason.

[Someone Else]

You're so homophobic that it's not right or justified. :rolleyes:

I still don't get what your deal is. You're only argument is simply that you think it's "wrong".

[Toasty]

Aquamarine, on Aug 14 2006, 11:33 AM, 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.

Just because you haven't seen him doesn't mean he's not there. If I was hiding behind a bush and you couldn't see me, that doesn't mean I'm not there. But that's for a different topic.

[Joshua Johnson]

Dudes, there's nothing "wrong" about homosexuality. And like Aquamarine stated, they can't simply change their feelings, they're there for a reason. If God didn't want homosexuals, why are there homosexuals? Because he wanted to test them? Impossible. You're BORN homosexual, and you absolutely CANNOT change that. They're there, and they ALWAYS will be. I'm for marriage. I know plenty of Homosexuals, and they;re all very nice people, most actually nicer than "straight" people. Now, I personally am not homosexual, but they're people. Think about it. If you had a friend, a best friend, wouldn't you want him or her to be happy? Say you've known him or her forever, and he or she reveals he or she is homosexual, and that they were going to get married with another of the same gender. Would you oppose him or her, and break all contact? Is it so wrong?

[Platinum Sun]

Agreed. If God hates homosexuals so much, why did he make them?

[MysticWarrior]

God DIDN'T make homosexuals. Homosexuality does not exist in DNA.

[Toasty]

^True. God didn't. Somewhere in their life, a homosexual person was exposed to feromones of the same gender, that screwed up their thinking, and turned them homosexual. That's what happens when someone turns ***, believe it or not. Now I know that *** people do tend to be nicer, and I'm not about to turn on my friend, or beat somone up because they are ***, but I will never support it. It's wrong, and just unnatural.

[Platinum Sun]

Don't act like you have any idea what the heck you're talking about ever again. You can't even spell pheramones!

[MysticWarrior]

It's spelled pheromones. Please, I don't like it when people incorrectly correct someone else.

[Joshua Johnson]

Exactly. If it were a real life situation, and if you were a true friend, you'd support him/her rather than ignore the fact he/she's being dinscriminized... Rather than ignore the fact the just because he/she prefers a different gender than you. It's like saying that you like red and he/she likes green, and you not liking the fact he/she likes green.

[Toasty]

Platinum Sun, on Aug 14 2006, 06:39 PM, said:

Don't act like you have eny idea what the heck you're talking about ever again. You can't even spell pheramones!

I'm not acting like anything. What I say is true. And if it wasn't, you would've been able to come back with an argument by now. And obviously, you can't even spell it right either.

[Joshua Johnson]

Which is why I'm backing him up. Read my post before this to see exactly how silly this argument really is.

[Mindpatch]

Yeah, Joshua Jackson all the way!
Seriously though, what if you guys were raised by non-religous parents.
You would probably be atheist yourself too, your parents influence these kind of things a lot because in your case christianity was thought to you since you were capable of learning these things.

[My Best Wishes]

Wind Dude, on Aug 15 2006, 07:57 AM, said:

You're so homophobic that it's not right or justified. :rolleyes:

I still don't get what your deal is. You're only argument is simply that you think it's "wrong".

Yes I am a homophob. I don't not feel comfortable in a situation where it is just me and a *** guy. And I've been in that situation a number of times.

Joshua Johnson, on Aug 15 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

You're BORN homosexual, and you absolutely CANNOT change that.

You are not born anything. Even the pigment colour of your skin can change. And homo's are not born liking the same sex.

Mindpatch, on Aug 15 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

Seriously though, what if you guys were raised by non-religous parents.
You would probably be atheist yourself too, your parents influence these kind of things a lot because in your case christianity was thought to you since you were capable of learning these things.

Agatio is an atheist and he hates ***'s more then I do.

[Mindpatch]

My post was more of a question watch,
Agatio is an atheist and hates ***s because he thinks it's gross?
But if you think away your religion, would you still hate ***s?

[My Best Wishes]

Let me set something straight before personal attacks start.

I do not hate the person, I hate the choice they make and the actions they preform behind closed doors.

I don't know why Agatio hates ***s, I just think Aussies aren't like that, since our government refuses to pass any laws giving them the legal chance to get married.

[Enjealousy]

People were saying something about "Why'd God make homosexuals if he didn't like them?"

Well, God made a lot of things, right? And we ruin them with free will and all the sin and crap he told us not to do. Man, if I was God I would have killed you all already. :rolleyes:

[Joshua Johnson]

What's the point? If he didn't WANT them, why'd he MAKE them? That'd make life meaningless for those who were Homosexual.

[My Best Wishes]

Joshua Johnson, on Aug 16 2006, 05:09 AM, said:

What's the point? If he didn't WANT them, why'd he MAKE them? That'd make life meaningless for those who were Homosexual.

Because the whole idea of Christ coming to Earth instead of Lucifer was the fact that god wants us to have free agency. that’s the whole point of life.

`~1400~`

[Bexie]

Joshua Johnson, on Aug 15 2006, 01:39 AM, said:

Dudes, there's nothing "wrong" about homosexuality. And like Aquamarine stated, they can't simply change their feelings, they're there for a reason. If God didn't want homosexuals, why are there homosexuals? Because he wanted to test them? Impossible. You're BORN homosexual, and you absolutely CANNOT change that. They're there, and they ALWAYS will be. I'm for marriage. I know plenty of Homosexuals, and they;re all very nice people, most actually nicer than "straight" people. Now, I personally am not homosexual, but they're people. Think about it. If you had a friend, a best friend, wouldn't you want him or her to be happy? Say you've known him or her forever, and he or she reveals he or she is homosexual, and that they were going to get married with another of the same gender. Would you oppose him or her, and break all contact? Is it so wrong?

A-frickin'-men.

I also know a few homosexuals, and a lot of bi guys. They're a lot nicer than most straight people I know. Actually I think pretty much all of my friends are bi... except about five. *shrugs*

[FlamingDuck]

I personally don't really care about the issue, it is not likely to affect me anytime in the future. Although I do find s a little...perturbing. It just goes against what I've been taught while I was being raised. I suppose people should be able to get married if they really love each other, but I'm not so for it to be called "for" it. And I'm not really against it as long as they don't start hitting on me. I'm just sort of indifferent.

One of my friends is a little metro ...or maybe he's bi. I don't know.

[Toasty]

Mindpatch, on Aug 15 2006, 01:41 AM, said:

Yeah, Joshua Jackson all the way!
Seriously though, what if you guys were raised by non-religous parents.
You would probably be atheist yourself too, your parents influence these kind of things a lot because in your case christianity was thought to you since you were capable of learning these things.

I can honestly say that I could never be athiest. God hasn't ever done anything to me that I couldn't find a good outcome in. I'm mostly optimistic. But I might not have been a christian for as long, or yet, if I didn't have Christian parents, but I would eventually. Right now, I attend church by my own descision, and I have chosen to be christian. I havn't been brainwashed, or forced, or anything like that. And there have been many things in life that I have experienced on my own that have strengthened my faith.

watch, on Aug 15 2006, 05:28 AM, said:

Let me set something straight before personal attacks start.

I do not hate the person, I hate the choice they make and the actions they preform behind closed doors.

I don't know why Agatio hates ***s, I just think Aussies aren't like that, since our government refuses to pass any laws giving them the legal chance to get married.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :rolleyes:

[Mindpatch]

T, you can't be sure that that would've happened, you never can answer a what if question without testing which in this case is impossible. You would've been raised in a totally different society. Your point of view would probably be different from what it is now.

[Toasty]

If I was raised by the same parents, who had the same morals, and I had the same attitude I have now, but just weren't christian, I can accurately predict what could've happened. But the same goes for your statement, how can you say that without testing either?

[Mindpatch]

What I meant to say was, morals are heavily affected by religion.
Your right about the society part though..that should be part of the question too.

[Toasty]

I understand that, but what I mean, is that regardless of religion, I would still be opposed to ***s. Whether I'm Atheist or Catholic, I'll still think it's just wrong. I'd rather have a normal life with a family.

[Wiflewood]

Well this is certainley an interesting topic. Its had a political slant, a religious slant, what next?

Anyway, My point of view is perfectley clear. I am 100% FOR it.

I'm not going to disclose my sexual preferences, but I'm not ***.

Anyway, there are 3 things that annoy me about some of your arguments.

Firstly:

watch, on Aug 13 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

It is wrong. A simple fact to support my arguement. Aside from wanting to be equal and all that, whats the number one thing all homosexual couples want? A child. What can a hetrosexual, but not a homosexual couple have? A child.

W.T.F? Is all I can say to this. Are you ***? No. What possible evidence can you give to support your statement that "All *** couples want children more than anything else"? Perhaps they just want to have a life with each other? Not ALL married couples (of different genders) want children, and not all *** couples want children.

The other thing that annoys me about this statement (and Eugine said it as well I think) is when you say "It is Wrong". What do you mean by that? Are you saying that because "God didn't want it to happen" it's wrong? Well I'm pretty sure that God didn't want the Nuclear bomb invented, or firearms etc, but it doesn't mean they are 'wrong'. In fact "Wrong" is just a point of view.

Secondly:

watch, on Aug 15 2006, 09:46 AM, said:

I don't not feel comfortable in a situation where it is just me and a *** guy. And I've been in that situation a number of times.

THIS is my number one pet peeve EVER (on this subject anyway). Do you really think you're so attractive that some *** guy is going to fall in love with you and try to get in your pants? Or perhaps you think that all *** people are sexually insecure (for want of a better phrase) and try to go with all the guys they see that look somewhat attractive? If you perhaps were friends with a ***/bi person you'd know that they have 'standards' too, and are attracted to people that they want to be with, not just random strangers. I know a lot of people who use the argument you said, and in my opinion, its just stupid.

Thirdly:

I won't bother with a quote for this one, but its basically discounting the whole 'God hates ***s' thing, for me. I am a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't stop me from being friends with people who aren't straight, or wearing contraception, or anything like that, so any arguments saying that 'God didn't make it so it's wrong' are wasted on me, so don't even try :).

[My Best Wishes]

Wiflewood, on Aug 20 2006, 03:56 AM, said:

Well this is certainley an interesting topic. Its had a political slant, a religious slant, what next?

Anyway, My point of view is perfectley clear. I am 100% FOR it.

I'm not going to disclose my sexual preferences, but I'm not ***.

Anyway, there are 3 things that annoy me about some of your arguments.

Firstly:
W.T.F? Is all I can say to this. Are you ***? No. What possible evidence can you give to support your statement that "All *** couples want children more than anything else"? Perhaps they just want to have a life with each other? Not ALL married couples (of different genders) want children, and not all *** couples want children.

The other thing that annoys me about this statement (and Eugine said it as well I think) is when you say "It is Wrong". What do you mean by that? Are you saying that because "God didn't want it to happen" it's wrong? Well I'm pretty sure that God didn't want the Nuclear bomb invented, or firearms etc, but it doesn't mean they are 'wrong'. In fact "Wrong" is just a point of view.

Secondly:
THIS is my number one pet peeve EVER (on this subject anyway). Do you really think you're so attractive that some *** guy is going to fall in love with you and try to get in your pants? Or perhaps you think that all *** people are sexually insecure (for want of a better phrase) and try to go with all the guys they see that look somewhat attractive? If you perhaps were friends with a ***/bi person you'd know that they have 'standards' too, and are attracted to people that they want to be with, not just random strangers. I know a lot of people who use the argument you said, and in my opinion, its just stupid.

Thirdly:

I won't bother with a quote for this one, but its basically discounting the whole 'God hates ***s' thing, for me. I am a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't stop me from being friends with people who aren't straight, or wearing contraception, or anything like that, so any arguments saying that 'God didn't make it so it's wrong' are wasted on me, so don't even try :).

Wonderful, all the quotes are of me.

1st. If so many *** couples don't want childern, then why are there so many cases IRL and Movies were a *** couple want a surragote mother, or to adopte?
And it's called FREE AGENCY. This was the whole reason that Satan was kicked out of heaven, because he wanted to restrict free agency!

2nd. No I do not expect the homo to come on to me, I'm not up myself, I was just saying I was not comfortable. And it doesn't help that theres a BI at my school who has asked his best, male, friend for sex.

3rd.
LEVITICUS
CHAPTER 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Mars Djinni]

The way I see it, as people said before, GOD gave us free will. What we do with out free will is up to us. Homosexuality is against what I beleive in, so I choose not to live that way. I am against it in my own lifestyle, but everyone is free to do as they please and I respect their right. I am not the kind of person that forces people to stop being a certain way.

[Eugine]

HMM.

I guess I'm kinda' fidgety around ghey people because I was grown up (and still is) among straight people.
So far, I haven't been friends with a ghey person IRL but have met on the internet. He's nice yeah, but when he puts up bishounen DP with two men kissing it just doesn't digest properly in my head...
Yeah, I'd like to accept gheyness, but I just can't. I guess I can be friends with a ghey person as long as gheyness doesn't come into play.
Yeah, me and my friends make ghey jokes all the time, but we all know we're straight guys =)

[Wiflewood]

watch, on Aug 20 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

Wonderful, all the quotes are of me.

:)

watch, on Aug 20 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

3rd.
LEVITICUS
CHAPTER 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yes, but that is a law from the Old Testament. There are many other laws in the old testament that don't apply today. Not everyone is circumcised, or keeps the sabbath holy, or makes animal sacrifices to God.

[My Best Wishes]

Yea and I know that. Just you mentioned you were religious so I thought maybe a scripture refernce might help.
Just as a side note, wasn't the animal sacrifice done away with after Jesus was crucified?(sp?)

And I'm sorry if I sound/ed like a jackass. I just don't agree with homosexualty, I'm fine if someone likes thier own sex, but not if they practice sexual activities with the same sex.

[Mars Djinni]

Eugine, on Aug 20 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

HMM.

I guess I'm kinda' fidgety around ghey people because I was grown up (and still is) among straight people.
So far, I haven't been friends with a ghey person IRL but have met on the internet. He's nice yeah, but when he puts up bishounen DP with two men kissing it just doesn't digest properly in my head...
Yeah, I'd like to accept gheyness, but I just can't. I guess I can be friends with a ghey person as long as gheyness doesn't come into play.
Yeah, me and my friends make ghey jokes all the time, but we all know we're straight guys =)

That's how it is on my side, too. I beleive it's right to respect them, but it's a litte hard to swallow.

[Somia]

I personally have nothing against them. (*GAPS*) WAIT! lemme finish.

Don't worry, I'm not one of them. >.> But I think human beings have their rights, they can choose their own path. That's how it is isn't it? It might not be what "God" originally intended, but so is alot of other things.
Love is a phrase that can not be completed unless both side return their feelings, if two of the same gender feels that way so be it...
I might feel a bit weird around these people, but I respect their rights.

[Neon]

I just voted 'in favor', and i'm honestly surprised that my vote just put in on equal standing with 'against it'. wth people, it isn't our place to decide what is right or wrong, what people should or should not do. I don't see why being homosexual should mean that you are deprived the right to marry the person you love. It's as if everyone thinks that if we stop them from marrying eachother, maybe they will stop loving eachother and turn normal!
reality check people, it's never going to happen. Homosexual people will continue to be homosexual, and yes, they will continue to do so in the public eye. There is no need for them to hide their sexuality from the rest of the world like it's some horrible sickness.

[My Best Wishes]

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

That is an extract from 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not once does it state that marriage between a women and a women, or a man and a man is ordained by God, or that it is right.

"that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Neon, may I ask why? It's just no one else I know well that I can think of that is Australian would vote for it. I think that Australians, are at most, homophobic.

[Neon]

because I don't care if someone is *** or not, and I don't see why we should stop them from being married simply because we're affraid of them. Why should they have their rights removed just because they are sexually different?

[Golden Legacy]

Because there is a certain moral basis upon which these rights are given and allowed. Once that limit is reached, the rights are no longer justified (or as justified).

[My Best Wishes]

I agree it's not the right thing to do by removing their rights simply because of their sexual tendencies, but the Americans did something similar to the Blacks for centuries, just on the colour on their skin.

Answer me this, is it acceptable and just to bring up a child, and have that child say at school, 'what’s a mummy? I have two daddy's'. Think about high school, and the **** that kid will go through for having two dads or two mums. I hate the way this sounds but, Think of the children.

[Elliott]

Though I view myself as a fairly nihilistic individual, there has to be some reason as to why there are 2 species of human (male and female) and why we have the genitals, hormones etc. that we do. Therefore I see it as unnatural for same sex couples to exist. It's defying nature; it's attention seeking, and it's wrong. That said I don't mind if they piss off and do their own thing, that's not harming anyone. But when I see ***s and lesbians out and about it does sicken me, so I would take a negative standing on *** / lesbian marriage. Also, yes, think of the children. ***s and lesbians can’t naturally produce for a reason; their children would be ridiculed by the straight (natural) children. So why help them to with IVF and all that bull****? What are we gaining? Sometimes tolerance and equal rights go too far.

[Neon]

*** marriage is different to *** parenting. I believe *** people should be able to be legally married, but maybe not be allowed to have a child.

And yes, being homosexual is not natural, but it exists, and there is nothing these people can do about it.
You reminded me of one of the reasons I dislike homosexuals. They are very vocal about their sexuality. Honestly people, i don't care if you're *** or w/e, but don't go prancing around kissing eachother every few seconds to show it off or introduce yourself as a lesbian/*** when you talk to me. You don't see me walking aorund going 'hi, i'm straight' all the time do you?

[Split Infinity]

Despite the obvious distastefulness of it all, I still don't think we have the right to just tell these people how to live. We should just leave them alone, rather than discriminate them. You might as well be a sexist.

[My Best Wishes]

Split Infinity, on Aug 22 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

Despite the obvious distastefulness of it all, I still don't think we have the right to just tell these people how to live. We should just leave them alone, rather than discriminate them. You might as well be a sexist.

Ok Split. This isn't the greatest example ever but, Hitler.

I'm not going to inturrupt or tell him how to live, it was his life to go and kill millions of jews and bring a world to war. But you know, if i'd had stopped him I could of been classed as racist!

If ***'s would think about it, they would understand that we don't like it out in the open. Go **** each other but I don't want to hear or see it.

[Golden Legacy]

That is a flawed argument beyond reason.

A fact of life; having sex is necesssary to have children.

A prerequisite to having sex; opposite genders.

Exceptions are out there (if you include less life forms), but the human race specifically exists because of the opposite gender. Changing that, you tamper with a natural given, and there is no result from it.

[Bexie]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 21 2006, 05:01 AM, said:

Because there is a certain moral basis upon which these rights are given and allowed. Once that limit is reached, the rights are no longer justified (or as justified).

Moral basis my arse.

watch, on Aug 21 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

I agree it's not the right thing to do by removing their rights simply because of their sexual tendencies, but the Americans did something similar to the Blacks for centuries, just on the colour on their skin.

Answer me this, is it acceptable and just to bring up a child, and have that child say at school, 'what’s a mummy? I have two daddy's'. Think about high school, and the **** that kid will go through for having two dads or two mums. I hate the way this sounds but, Think of the children.

Oh, shut up. When I was at high school, there was a boy there who had two ghey dads. And he was really popular, so what you said is an over-generalisation.

[My Best Wishes]

Bexie, on Aug 23 2006, 07:23 AM, said:

Moral basis my arse.
Oh, shut up. When I was at high school, there was a boy there who had two ghey dads. And he was really popular, so what you said is an over-generalisation.

Poor Bugger...
And of course there are exceptions to what I said, mainly talking about primary (junior) school where childern haven't matured at all.

[I'm Always BROKE]

Love cant be stopped. Im for *** marriage, but here in the Netherlands *** people can already get married so... <_<

[Neon]

So what you're all trying to say is that *** people shouldn't exist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married?
I get it, so the disabled man down the street shouldn't be allowed to travel because he wasn't born with the ability to walk how we were intended. Or the mentally disabled child next door shouldn't be allowed to make decisions because they don't have the mental capacity humans are meant to have.

[Bexie]

Neon, on Aug 25 2006, 03:40 PM, said:

So what you're all trying to say is that *** people shouldn't exist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married?
I get it, so the disabled man down the street shouldn't be allowed to travel because he wasn't born with the ability to walk how we were intended. Or the mentally disabled child next door shouldn't be allowed to make decisions because they don't have the mental capacity humans are meant to have.

*claps* You rock. <_<

Post needs more depth. - MD

This post has been edited by Mars Djinni: 25 August 2006 - 06:14 PM

[Golden Legacy]

Neon is assuming that homosexuality is born naturally with some human beings.

Disabilities, disorders, etc. cannot be controlled. However, homosexuality (at least to an extent) is definitely due to a person's own discretion. Therefore, it can be counted against him or her.

[My Best Wishes]

Neon, on Aug 26 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

So what you're all trying to say is that *** people shouldn't exist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married?
I get it, so the disabled man down the street shouldn't be allowed to travel because he wasn't born with the ability to walk how we were intended. Or the mentally disabled child next door shouldn't be allowed to make decisions because they don't have the mental capacity humans are meant to have.

Well, no. I'm with GL on the Disabilities, disorders, etc. But homosexuality is not genetic, none of the bases in Dna code wether someone is *** or not. So I would say that if someone chose to be ***, then well why shouldn't they recieve the consequences to their actions?

They are people too, they just chose to live something that is not natural on any level.

[Eugine]

Honestly, you don't know if there's not a gene for ***... every year scientists finds LOTS of genes which people thought were acquired characteristics.

[Golden Legacy]

But why would there be a gene that directly affects a natural aspect of a person? This is quite unlike disorders/diseases, etc. which are the result of mutations in the DNA (i.e. addition/deletion/substitutions of codons and amino acids). ***/Lesbian attributes are psychological in nature.

[Platinum Sun]

Actually I'm with Eugine on this one. Your genes affect everything that is you; physical and psycological traits included. I won't say that upbringing doesn't play a part, but the nature vs. nurture argument has been going on for decades, so I doubt we'll solve it here.

[Bexie]

There has actually been quite a few scientific discoveries that point to genes or differences in the brain having an effect on a person's sexuality, I think.

I know for a fact that there have been such discoveries within transsexuals, although they are slightly different.

[Golden Legacy]

Reviving this topic, because I think it's another good topic to argue in.


To restart things, I'm going to say that I'm generally against ***/Lesbian Marriage.

[Lightning Star]

who harr, I haven't written in here lately! At my new school, I've been finding it a lot more prevelent, and I've been faced a lot with it outside of school too.

If you think about it, when you look for a person to date, you look for certain characteristics, like if they're funny, or honest, or all those good things. for some reason, some people just find the same sex appealing within those characteristics. Why do we find ourselves liking that funny brunette? It's just the way we are.

A person's personality, I believe, has a lot to do with their upbringing, also with the way they were taught. But most of all, I think it was who they were created to be in the womb. I believe all people were given souls when they were born, and within those souls they recieved a personality. Can we change that? No.

So why do we condemn something we can't change? Personally, I am totaly for ***/lesbian marriages; something you wouldn't hear me saying a year or so ago. If someone has a personality that includes being attracted to the same gender, let them be.

Also, who you are married to is your personal life. Kinda like when you gotta go to the bathroom. Imagine the government controlling that; Needless to say, it'd be a messy situation. And true for the laws against ***/lesbian marriages; look how much controversy has come of it.

[Zangetsu]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet but we are not the ONLY species that has *** secks. Dolphins make *** love as well. If a species has sex for pleasure instead of just reproduction then those species will have *** orgies. *shudders*

Personally I don't care but it goes against my beliefs. I'm one of those lazy hipocrite types. =P

[Twit]

I think its a persons right to be ***, as is their right to eat or sleep~

I mean, its their choice, why are we stepping in? Because we dont like it? Well they do, and its not our buisness~

I believe in the future, *** people will be more accepted, but right now, its like trying to give rights to African Americans back in the 1800s (Although not as bad...). Itll take some time :P

Im for *** marriage~ And sometimes, *** people can be cuuuutee :D

[Lightning Star]

Heh, same here. It goes againsts my religion as well, but then again, I'm starting to find it flawed. :x Did Icy just say something anti-christian? Where's agatio?! XD

Quote

Im for *** marriage~ And sometimes, *** people can be cuuuutee :D

I SO agree!

[Hotshot101]

To me its just not natural. You think I may not agree with it for religous idea, but this is more personal. Its not natural if it was you could have a child both ways. So really its against nature. Also its just disgusting.

[Zexion]

One thing I couldn't understand is this concept of nature

Why the hell does it matter?

Nature is a abstract concept with no will or purpose, it does not intend or design anything for a purpose.

Things that are natural aren't automatically good(smallpox, earthquakes, etc), while things that are unnatural aren't automatically bad.

So please explain to me, what's with this "it's wrong because it's unnatural" concept?

[Lightning Star]

Good point. It's also our warped conception of "normal" as well. What makes things normal? If you look in the media, Normal is something different every day.

At my school, it's normal for kids 13 and up to be drinking. Does that mean its good?

And "Love was never given a gender. Who are we to change that?". I think that quote there says it all.

[Aquamarine]

I agree with Zexion. Don't forget though that some people don't believe in nature, but in God, so they will think stuff is designed on purpose.

I find people's love of destroying and killing against nature and disgusting, so why isn't that considered "sick" like homosexualism is?

[Golden Legacy]

Twit, on Jan 20 2007, 12:54 AM, said:

I believe in the future, *** people will be more accepted, but right now, its like trying to give rights to African Americans back in the 1800s (Although not as bad...). Itll take some time :D

You'd better believe it's not as bad. In fact, I'm horrified that people would even dare compare the troubles that African Americans went through... they were seen as less than humans, as property to be traded or owned... they were discriminated in the worst ways possible.

You're trying to compare them to ***S? ***s, who at least have the right to vote, the right to own property... who have every right guaranteed to them by the Constitution, save for the fact that they think they're special enough to warrant an entire change to the meaning of marriage.

[Zexion]

The meaning of marriage? Excuse me?

Marriage is defined as a unionship with commercial and social benefits under the government. No longer can we equate the institution of marriage with the sanctity of society because it's a government institution. The denial of one minority to engage in practices they choose is an inequality. Our equality stems from the fact that everyone has an interest - we don't want to suffer, we want to eat, etc. - therefore, without providing legitimate access to marriage, a group is being denied.

The only justification is the "institution of marriage".... religions. However, marriage is NOT a religious institution, if it were, then why is the state even involved? Why do married couples have tax benefits and certification by the state? Why does the state honor those contracts, if they are nothing more than just religious edicts? If homosexual marriages are not allowed by the church, why does the state have any say in that?

As for the Bible's say on the matter:

1) So your specific church can forbid it, why does that mean the state has to follow the rules of your specific church? In case you didn't know- the state also performs marriage services.

2) The inclusion of the "opposite sex" is strictly a religious one- marriage does not necessarily mean "between a man and a woman".

3) Why is it a sin to be a homosexual? Why is homosexuality a lack of willpower?

4) It was also, man is better than woman, own slaves, and never go to the sea- but that changed a bit, didn't it?

[PDM]

Topic name change to homosexual marriage plox

[Golden Legacy]

My response will be the introduction to a FaceBook group online (encouraging people to join and vote for heterosexual marriage, only)

Quote

By joining this group voters affirm we'll vote yes concerning Ballot Question # 1. Below is my own reason for voting so (with an explanation of BQ#1), post yours on our wall.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. This situation isn't something new, it has been the case for as long as marriage has been. Previous generations had no necessity to make explicit that only a woman and a man can be bound together in holy matrimony; it was appropriate then to take this truth for granted. But, over recent years, people who have become sexually perverted, turning from sex with members of the opposite gender to seek sex with members of their own gender, have rallied with strong determination to make accepted as right their abominable practice.

Demands for sexual moral abandon have gone so steep as to question whether marriage's intended to be between a woman and a man or between two people of any gender. As a people, Americans have some say in how we will be governed. Ballot Question # 1, an amendment that makes explicit that marriage is between a man and a woman, offers all voting Virginians an opportunity to demonstrate an acceptance of reality: that only a woman and man can become one and this is to their good. But for man to say "these two women are married" or "these two men are married" he must make himself a liar, rejecting an intended order for evil of his own design.

[Zexion]

*Sigh*

Golden Legacy, on Jan 20 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. This situation isn't something new, it has been the case for as long as marriage has been. Previous generations had no necessity to make explicit that only a woman and a man can be bound together in holy matrimony; it was appropriate then to take this truth for granted.

So basically, traditations. Guess what? Tradition changes, is modified, so why should we stay in the dark ages all the time? We created our culture to do things for us, not the other way around.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 20 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

But, over recent years, people who have become sexually perverted, turning from sex with members of the opposite gender to seek sex with members of their own gender, have rallied with strong determination to make accepted as right their abominable practice.

A homosexual couple is perfectly capable to love each other the same way as a heterosexual couple, it's not about sex, it's not about lust, it's about love. You choose to label it as abominable, making poor assumption about it being simply people who seek sex with out any supporting fact. Is that itself not an "abominable" act towards them?

Why is there homosexuality despite its seeming evolutionary disadvantage? Homosexuality genes, when recessive, could be linked to some beneficial trait. Or perhaps homosexuals, lacking children of their own, helped out their immediate relatives, giving homosexuality carriers a distinct advantage over non-carriers.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 20 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

Demands for sexual moral abandon have gone so steep as to question whether marriage's intended to be between a woman and a man or between two people of any gender. As a people, Americans have some say in how we will be governed. Ballot Question # 1, an amendment that makes explicit that marriage is between a man and a woman, offers all voting Virginians an opportunity to demonstrate an acceptance of reality: that only a woman and man can become one and this is to their good. But for man to say "these two women are married" or "these two men are married" he must make himself a liar, rejecting an intended order for evil of his own design.

Intended? Who is to say what is intended or not, all you can do is guess, and form theories. There is no absolute answer for this. Some people simply can’t deny their attraction for people of the same sex So if this was so “wrong” or better yet not intended. Then why would such feelings exist in the first place?

The quote you gave me states no reason as for why *** marriage can't be allowed or even just an approval from the state or government that honours their partnership as legitimate so they can claim all the benefits that married hertrosexual couples can, so why the hell haven't they caved in and just allowed it? It wouldn't change society in any way, good or bad. It would just make a heap of people happy, is that so bad? There will always be *** people, so quit complaining and just give them what they want, as it isn't going to destroy you to do it .

Homosexuals are the way they are by chance, not design.

[My Best Wishes]

I didn't read any of the posts on this last page. Why debate it? Homosexuality is so wrong. Marriage is a union of a MAN and a WOMEN.

And sorry, Zexion, but homo genes? Please.

[Zexion]

ok, now I'll just save you the trouble of reading my previous post since you hate it so much.

Your statement of belief would be more acceptable if you presented a few reasons behind it. Otherwise, you are committing the fallacy of moralism. Everything is wrong for a reason, nothing is wrong because it is wrong. If you consider it wrong please present some reason as that is how debates works, other wise please do not post here.

Thank you and have a nice day :)

[My Best Wishes]

Who are you.

My basis for being anti-homo? It's wrong. How could we have possibly survived if we all turned around and screwed our same sex? You wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here.

[Elliott]

Twit, on Jan 20 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I mean, its their choice, why are we stepping in? Because we dont like it? Well they do, and its not our buisness~

I'd have to take that standpoint as well. I personally think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong as I feel it violates what nature has created (2 genders). Furthermore, I just can't help being disgusted when I see homosexuals out in public. But, it's not mine or anyone's place to legislate morality, as the law should be based on common interest. That's why homosexual marriage is becoming a big issue right now, because it's getting more support than it ever has before. So I suppose I am against homosexual marriage, and homosexuality all together, and in my perfect world they wouldn't exist, but in reality it's not mine or anyone's place to deny their right to marriage.

[Xelina]

Yes, that might be the cause, but compaired to a large percentage, Heterosexuals are way more then homosexuals. By saying it just wrong, you are believing with out a reason. Why? Why do you think it is wrong? Really, what you say is that EVERYONE would turn around and become homosexuals, but that will never happen, hence, it would be impossible. Like me, I support them, but I am heterosexual. Tell me, can you control who you love? can you choice who you want to be? No. So tell me, why is it so wrong to love somone of the same sex? It is love after all, so it shouldn't be rejected just cause it is 'not right'.

[Zexion]

No, I couldn't care less if you are anti-homo or what not, but, this is a debate, and I really don't appriciate you trying shove your belief into our face and claim this is "not worthy of debating"

If we ALL turned "turned around and screwed our same sex", that would have meant that technology had being made possible for homosexual reproduction. Any more questions? :)

Agatio, on Jan 20 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

I'd have to take that standpoint as well. I personally think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong as I feel it violates what nature has created (2 genders).

I don't believe genders are made to stop ***s from being together. Genders evolved for only one purpose, to protect individuals from parasites. Sexual reproduction is ridiculously inefficient, half the population is incapable of carrying children. The only reason that it exists at all is because it makes genotypes more diverse, which makes infection from diseases and parasites more difficult. That is also why male reproductive cells are so small, so parasites cannot stow away inside them the way malaria hides inside blood cells.

That is all :silence:

[My Best Wishes]

Xelina, on Jan 21 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

Yes, that might be the cause, but compaired to a large percentage, Heterosexuals are way more then homosexuals. By saying it just wrong, you are believing with out a reason. Why? Why do you think it is wrong? Really, what you say is that EVERYONE would turn around and become homosexuals, but that will never happen, hence, it would be impossible. Like me, I support them, but I am heterosexual. Tell me, can you control who you love? can you choice who you want to be? No. So tell me, why is it so wrong to love somone of the same sex? It is love after all, so it shouldn't be rejected just cause it is 'not right'.

Why do people really think that Homosexuality is a path set for them. They don't have to be ***, they have the right and the will to date the other sex, yet they hide behind some bull**** answer 'I can't help it.'

Zexion, on Jan 21 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

No, I couldn't care less if you are anti-homo or what not, but, this is a debate, and I really don't appriciate you trying shove your belief into our face and claim this is "not worthy of debating"

If we ALL turned "turned around and screwed our same sex", that would have meant that technology had being made possible for homosexual reproduction. Any more questions? :)

I don't believe genders are made to stop ***s from being together. Genders evolved for only one purpose, to protect individuals from parasites. Sexual reproduction is ridiculously inefficient, half the population is incapable of carrying children. The only reason that it exists at all is because it makes genotypes more diverse, which makes infection from diseases and parasites more difficult. That is also why male reproductive cells are so small, so parasites cannot stow away inside them the way malaria hides inside blood cells.

If we were *** to start with there would be no technology. I believe that Adam and Eve where the first people on Earth, what would of happened if Adam wanted a boy toy?

I'm off. I cannot be bothered today, I only came on to vote before it closed.

[Zexion]

watch, on Jan 20 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

Why do people really think that Homosexuality is a path set for them. They don't have to be ***, they have the right and the will to date the other sex, yet they hide behind some bull**** answer 'I can't help it.'

Because they can't, homosexuality is not a choice, is not a mental disfunction, it IS an alternative life style. And about they having the "will" to date the opposite sex...well, you really can't debate with pure assumptions. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex the same way you are attracted to the opposite. They don't have to let go of personal prefrences just because people like you have to be a whiny little brat on what other people do with their lives.

watch, on Jan 20 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

If we were *** to start with there would be no technology. I believe that Adam and Eve where the first people on Earth, what would of happened if Adam wanted a boy toy?

Then that would mean reproduction would be based on homosexuality, seeing your "god" made him a boytoy. I think that make perfect sense, huh?

[Xelina]

I'm sorry, but you are being disrespectful. Tell me, can you control what you feel? Can you? Can you contorl what is going around you? can be be god?

No, one have the right nor can do all of it above. Just cause you are against it, doesn't mean others are. So don't swear, and most of all, carry on the debate rather then bashing people who's idea you disagree with. Because what you are being is disrespectful to the parties on both side. You are only making yourself looking like a fool.

[PDM]

Zexion, on Jan 20 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

Because they can't, homosexuality is not a choice, is not a mental disfunction, it IS an alternative life style. And about they having the "will" to date the opposite sex...well, you really can't debate with pure assumptions. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex the same way you are attracted to the opposite. They don't have to let go of personal prefrences just because people like you have to be a whiny little brat on what other people do with their lives.

Then that would mean reproduction would be based on homosexuality, seeing your "god" made him a boytoy. I think that make perfect sense, huh?

Heh, you said to be homosexual was to be mentally retarded.

[Zexion]

Lifeform288, on Jan 20 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

Heh, you said to be homosexual was to be mentally retarded.

When did I say that?

[PDM]

You didn't, I lack comprehension skills.

[Zexion]

Lifeform288, on Jan 20 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

You didn't, I lack comprehension skills.

oh :) that happen to me too...sometime :silence:

[Elliott]

Zexion, on Jan 21 2007, 02:27 PM, said:

Because they can't, homosexuality is not a choice, is not a mental disfunction, it IS an alternative life style.

That is something that can never be proved as far as I'm concerned, and I will always view it as a choice.

[Zexion]

Agatio, on Jan 20 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

That is something that can never be proved as far as I'm concerned, and I will always view it as a choice.

I guess, sure, I can't really say anything about that.

But for me, the sexual prefrence is based on indivisual expectation and personal experiences. As they grow older there hormones kick in, and they start to identify what they do and no not find appealing. There may be a choice somewhere, but no I do not believe you control what you would find appealing.

[Eugine]

Of course you do.

Have you ever heard you don't 'fall' into love, but 'grow' into love. Do you not, choose to go to certain places, to like certain people, to hate certain people, to love certain games. Haven't you changed your opinion on something after analysing it? Or simply because of your friends opinion?
Homsexuality wasnt inprinted in man simply because many people who were ***, turned out to be straight eventually... People who thought they were straight turned out to be *** eventually... People even are bisexual. Homosexuality is choice. You do control who you like, because otherwise everyone would be on a rampage, having relationships with any and everyone they see, and if we weren't able to control it, WTF, we are animals like scientists try to lable us now.

So basically, if homosexuality was genetic, most would display homosexuality since toddler age, when you NEVER see children of the same sex kissing, it only happens when puberty kicks in.
And if puberty *unlocks* homosexuality, wouldn't it mean it wasn't the natural thing to do in the first place?

[Zexion]

Eugine, on Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

Have you ever heard you don't 'fall' into love, but 'grow' into love. Do you not, choose to go to certain places, to like certain people, to hate certain people, to love certain games. Haven't you changed your opinion on something after analysing it? Or simply because of your friends opinion?

So either it's your choice or your friends' opinion? Tell me, if you were to fell off a cliff, would you have fell to your death by choice, or would it be your friends opinion that you fell to your death? I agree you MAY choose to go to certain places. But as for liking and hating people, it's based on personal expectation and indivisual experiences, to like someone you'll have to consider things such as them on their personality, action, and how you can communicate with them, etc. Instead of saying "I don't care what the hell they are like, but I'll CHOOSE to like them." and so likes them. And same thing with hating.

Eugine, on Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

Homsexuality wasnt inprinted in man simply because many people who were ***, turned out to be straight eventually... People who thought they were straight turned out to be *** eventually... People even are bisexual.

I have alot of ***/bi/lesbian friends, and they all seem to be like that to begin with, or they are simply confused/denying their oritation, but either way they are all ***/bi/les. I'm not quite sure where you get the because they turn ***/straight eventually. Were you *** in the past?

Eugine, on Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

Homosexuality is choice. You do control who you like, because otherwise everyone would be on a rampage, having relationships with any and everyone they see, and if we weren't able to control it, WTF, we are animals like scientists try to lable us now.

Now then, I'll make one thing clear, being inlove, and having a relationship are different issue. Infact, I find them hardly related.

People can't just decide to truly love something, if they can, then its not true love. What makes love special is its evasiveness. You cannot be told to truly love something, nor can you decide to. If you simply choose to love something, THEN you'll be on rampage having relationships with any and everyone you CHOOSE to have relationship with, because they are not in love, they simply wanna have relationship. Because relationship is a choice, love isn't. I have seen a friend do this with over 13 other people in one year thinking he's inlove. But really you can't tarnish the meaning of to loving someone as something simple, it's not done by saying "I love you" to one and another, it's not done by kissing. As for what it is like to truly love someone, I haven't experienced it yet. But I've had a relationship.

Eugine, on Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

So basically, if homosexuality was genetic, most would display homosexuality since toddler age, when you NEVER see children of the same sex kissing, it only happens when puberty kicks in.

That's because they are children, love is something that is yet to be able to explain by professionals, you expect children to understand, and by simply kissing? Somthing is wrong with you.

Eugine, on Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

And if puberty *unlocks* homosexuality, wouldn't it mean it wasn't the natural thing to do in the first place?

So?

It's natural to get smallpox and have a high chance to die from it.
It's natural to have high infant mortality rate.
It's natural to die from an earthquake.
It's natural for mothers and and child to die while giving birth.

So? What about natural and why is it so important?

[Eugine]

Quote

That's because they are children, love is something that is yet to be able to explain by professionals, you expect children to understand, and by simply kissing? Somthing is wrong with you.

Yes, I used the wrong word. What I should have said was simply 'childesh' relationships.
When you ask a boy, 'so who do you like?', they always say a girl name. Eventually, they'd go fight with the boys, but when it comes to sharing, they ALWAYS prefer to give the girl. It simply shows the attraction between them.
Also, when a child begins to develop. Do you know who they bond with? Psychologists have proven they bond with the parent of the opposite sex, and even begin to envy the other for having this wonderful relationship with the person they admire. This simply shows how relationships were meant to be made for couples of the opposite sex.

Quote

I have alot of ***/bi/lesbian friends, and they all seem to be like that to begin with, or they are simply confused/denying their oritation, but either way they are all ***/bi/les. I'm not quite sure where you get the because they turn ***/straight eventually. Were you *** in the past?

No, there's alot of testimonies in my church, where past *** members turned straight after receiving Jesus. I didn't mention that, because I didn't want to put religion in my post. Actually, go pick up any Christian book and usually you'd see testimonies.

Quote

So?

It's natural to get smallpox and have a high chance to die from it.
It's natural to have high infant mortality rate.
It's natural to die from an earthquake.
It's natural for mothers and and child to die while giving birth.

So? What about natural and why is it so important?

The only thing what's natural there is dieing from an earthquake. All the others are influenced by human decisions and conditions, so therefore it isn't natural. Natural is anything of nature, and those really can't be classified with nature.
It's natural to die from an earthquake because scientifically, nature has checks. That's the same for relationships. Nature made us attracted to the opposite sex because we need to reproduce.

... And, I don't know how to reply to the others cuz I don't really understand.

[Zexion]

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

Yes, I used the wrong word. What I should have said was simply 'childesh' relationships.
When you ask a boy, 'so who do you like?', they always say a girl name. Eventually, they'd go fight with the boys, but when it comes to sharing, they ALWAYS prefer to give the girl. It simply shows the attraction between them.

No they don't, they say "no one" most of the time I ask them. There are guys I know who said boys names also. And I really don't understand what you meant by fighting or sharing, or what ever the hell shows the attraction between them.

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

Also, when a child begins to develop. Do you know who they bond with? Psychologists have proven they bond with the parent of the opposite sex, and even begin to envy the other for having this wonderful relationship with the person they admire. This simply shows how relationships were meant to be made for couples of the opposite sex.

No it doesn't, it simply shows relationship between the person they admire, how did opposite sex get in there?Those who are *** often come from a straight family, while study shows having same-sex parents doesn't affect the sexual orintation of the kid. So I have no idea what your talking about.

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

No, there's alot of testimonies in my church, where past *** members turned straight after receiving Jesus. I didn't mention that, because I didn't want to put religion in my post. Actually, go pick up any Christian book and usually you'd see testimonies.

If you are ***, then you become straight, then you're bisexual, that's the proper terminology for it having attracted both sex. Bisexuals have a percentage for liking both sex, so it's possible to convert from one to another. But for them to like it naturally is a totally different concept, since I don't know the situtation of your church, I won't get into that.

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

The only thing what's natural there is dieing from an earthquake. All the others are influenced by human decisions and conditions, so therefore it isn't natural. Natural is anything of nature, and those really can't be classified with nature.
It's natural to die from an earthquake because scientifically, nature has checks. That's the same for relationships. Nature made us attracted to the opposite sex because we need to reproduce.

To reproduce, that's the whole purpose of opposite sex you say. Well then if a woman or man is barren and thus could not reproduce or can but choose not to, are they still allowed to attract to one and another?

With that aside, you seem to have missed the main point of that part. I asked why is it so important for things to be natural?

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

... And, I don't know how to reply to the others cuz I don't really understand.

...uh...huh...interesting.

[Eugine]

OK. I can't argue this again. It's like religion... there's never a true winner.

Anyway, I'd sum up my new opinion on homosexuality now (yup, this topic made my opinion change a bit).
My religion (Christian - Protestant), is naturally against homsexuality, so naturally I'll be against it too. I admit, we can't remove homosexuality from our lives, and definetly as the years go by it'll become more and more of an alternative lifestyle.
We can comply with it, but how can our religion comply. Most, if not all religions are against homosexuality. And that's something that'll be hard to change, we can't edit the Bible, and ignoring it will not curb the problem.
That's why homosexuality will always be a problem. Like it or not.

I'd talk to a homosexual though, I hate to be prejudice really... maybe down in my life I'd meet one which changes my opinion.
So basically, although I honestly don't agree on their lifestyle, I'd speak to them, of course they'd have to know I'm naturally against their lifestyle.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, please don't let these leftists propagate your beliefs. You should stand by your own, don't let it change just because of one person insisting that he is correct.

When a child is asked who his parents are, his instinct is to say a "mom" and a "dad". Try explaining the concept of homosexuality to a child, or young teen even, etc. and they'll either be confused or offended by it.

Instinctively, it's to have parents of the opposite gender.


Now, you're going to argue that, "well, they're children, they're young, they don't understand". So you're telling me that when they are older, that we should be willing to expose them to these different ideas.

You asked, "why is it so important for things to be natural"? I ask, "why do you insist that things SHOULDN'T be natural"? What do you hope to gain by defying nature, by supporting a chance to one of the basic tenets of all life?


*** "marriage" does not just extend marriage benefits to self-identified homosexual individuals: it redefines the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman, being natural and benefiting society with the continuation of another generation. Homosexual behavior violates the laws of nature and of nature's God. It was considered a "crime against nature" and is not a constitutional "right". To say that marriage between two men or two women is okay, the people (or the courts) are saying that a society of 100% homosexuals would be just fine, due to them being equally beneficial.. Unfortunately it is not. A society of homosexuals would last 1 generation since it cannot reproduce.

If *** "marriage" was really about "equality for all", then the same argument could be used for a 20 year old who would like to marry a 14 year old. Using the same logic as used for *** "marriage", why should they be denied the equal "right" to marry? By redefining marriage, we allow a number of other perverted behavior-groups a similar argument as to why their actions are justified and why they should be able to be married as well.

Many *** activist groups support man-boy love, with NAMBLA being the main supporter. In other words, the same groups pushing for *** marriage, are also pushing for decriminalization of pedophiles, making children become the next homosexual target. Is this what we want to give our children? All of the main homosexual organizations push for LGBT 'rights'. The T in LGBT means "transgender", Transgenderism is a psychiatric disorder called by the APA, “Gender Identity Dysphoria”, it is defined as: “Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member the opposite sex.” - Something homosexual groups support.

The fight for homosexual rights has been compared to the fight for minority rights such as the black civil rights movement. This comparison here is flawed, since homosexuality is merely a behavior, and is self-identified. Those who identify themselves as homosexual, cannot prove that they are innately homosexual, unlike persons of different skin color. Skin color is a visible, defining characteristic that cannot change. Homosexual behavior is something that can be copied, or changed, a person cannot be viewed as homosexual unless self-identified as such. This is why many of these self-identified homosexuals are now happily married in a heterosexual relationship, it is merely a behavior. Have you ever heard of a former African-American? or Hispanic?

This shows that the main argument that homosexual advocates affirm is not valid---being “***” is not an immutable characteristic such as race. Thus, they should not have special privileges/protections under minority status, since they are not a legitimate minority, but rather, a special interest group. There are now many ex-*** groups forming, of which even the N.E.A. now recognizes ex-***s . Other groups like PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-***s have sprung up. (NARTH specializes in helping homosexuals change from their lifestyle, and was founded by an ex-***) The Bible supports this claim in Romans 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"


Bah. No doubt you're going to try and make up some random argument defending homosexuality. Such a sick thing to do, and even sicker that you accept it as being equal with normal sexuality.

[Eugine]

Quote

A society of homosexuals would last 1 generation since it cannot reproduce.

Exactly. This simple sentence shows how unnatural it is. Even if we debate homosexuality scientifically, you'd see it's abnormal.

If you're familiar with natural selection, you'd see it's impossible for homosexual to be natural, or ingrained in us because it inhibits reproduction. That leads homosexuality to being pure choice.

[Golden Legacy]

And that leads to the question, why on earth would these people choose Homosexuality, when it completely undermines nature?

[Neo]

At this point I am going to follow Riad and Eugine 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 man, 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 marriage yesterday, as one of the "happy brides" was a collegue of my father. This 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. It simply disgusted me.

*** marriage should be illegal, end of story.

[Saturos S.]

Men have estogens in their body. The amount kind of varies between men. Some *** men are known to have an alarming high estrogen percentage in their body. So that they might have some... women-like itches or even grow a sort of mini-breasts.

Same's the other way round. If women have really high testosteron rates, they can grow beards.

But it will never be that big that you were meant to be a female when being a man. There are known half-halfies, but those tend to evolve further to one sex later on.

So as a man you could be more female then others, but never be totally female. Another point for *** being naturally wrong.

[Twit]

I think that it was unbelievable how disabled people were shunned and hated because of them not being normal, and being different than others.

I think that it was appalling that African Americans were segregated because of their "unnatural" skin color, different from the majority.

I always wondered: how could this happen? Why would they be treated so differently, just because normality was different for others.

Now I'm staring at this topic, and the reason is unquestionable.

[Platinum Sun]

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

Exactly. This simple sentence shows how unnatural it is. Even if we debate homosexuality scientifically, you'd see it's abnormal.

If you're familiar with natural selection, you'd see it's impossible for homosexual to be natural, or ingrained in us because it inhibits reproduction. That leads homosexuality to being pure choice.

I am familiar with natural selection. Especially the part of the theory that states the vital role that mutation and variation play in the development of a species. You can talk crime against nature all you want, but being *** is chemically in the nature of a person's phenotype.

[Eugine]

Platinum Sun, on Jan 21 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

I am familiar with natural selection. Especially the part of the theory that states the vital role that mutation and variation play in the development of a species. You can talk crime against nature all you want, but being *** is chemically in the nature of a person's phenotype.

I'm going to use Wikipedia to present my point.
Natural selection is the biological theory that explains why living creatures seem to match their environmental niches so well - the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.
If homosexuality ever was embedded in our genes, natural selection would have made sure it didn't survive because it's an 'unfovourable trait' to the specie survival. The heterosexual gene would have reproduced, while the homosexual gene wouldn't. But the thrend is obviously different. More, and more people are proclaiming to be ***, which is completely against the natural selection theory.
This simply states (like I said before), homosexuality is based on choice, and is not natural. So when *** people say 'I was born this way', it's a wrong statement.
They should say, 'I choose to live this lifestyle', or something to this extent.

Being unnatural, and against our human survival, I pose GL question again.
Why on earth would these people choose Homosexuality, when it completely undermines nature?

[Twit]

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Being unnatural, and against our human survival, I pose GL question again.
Why on earth would these people choose Homosexuality, when it completely undermines nature?

Who are we to decide what is natural or not?

[Zexion]

I will destory you :silence:

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

You asked, "why is it so important for things to be natural"? I ask, "why do you insist that things SHOULDN'T be natural"? What do you hope to gain by defying nature, by supporting a chance to one of the basic tenets of all life?

First off, don't answer my question with another, I consider that quite rude and annoying.
Second, since when did I insist things shouldn't be natural? Since when did I say it is wrong? I asked why it is important, this would mean I believe it makes no difference wheither things are natural. And you have yet to answer my question.
Lastly, human defying nature shouldn't be something new I believe, unless you can somehow convince me it's natural for us to fly in giant metal boxes we call airplanes.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

*** "marriage" does not just extend marriage benefits to self-identified homosexual individuals: it redefines the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman, being natural and benefiting society with the continuation of another generation. Homosexual behavior violates the laws of nature and of nature's God. It was considered a "crime against nature" and is not a constitutional "right". To say that marriage between two men or two women is okay, the people (or the courts) are saying that a society of 100% homosexuals would be just fine, due to them being equally beneficial.. Unfortunately it is not. A society of homosexuals would last 1 generation since it cannot reproduce.

I've told you before, Marriage is a goverment instituation, it is defined as a unionship with commercial and social benefits under the government. The inclusion of the "opposite sex" is strictly a religious one- marriage does not necessarily mean "between a man and a woman".As for violating the law of nature, or against the will of god, nature is an abstract concept. It has no will and purpose, and does not "intend" anything or "design" anything for a "purpose."

Here's something interesting. Go to Google and type the words "fascism, organic, nature." You'll find sites that explain how the belief that humans should be coerced into acting naturally is one of fascism's keystones.

As for the part about a society of 100% homosexuality, that's not an arguement against homosexuality, that's an arguement against an 100% homosexual society which obviously doesn't exist. This arguement is too specific to be valid against homosexuality in general.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

If *** "marriage" was really about "equality for all", then the same argument could be used for a 20 year old who would like to marry a 14 year old. Using the same logic as used for *** "marriage", why should they be denied the equal "right" to marry? By redefining marriage, we allow a number of other perverted behavior-groups a similar argument as to why their actions are justified and why they should be able to be married as well.

Because there is a certain age limit and the age of 14 is considered underage, I think you'd know that without me having to tell you. Using the same logic for *** marriage, you suddenly change from 14 to 18? I really don't get that, please explain. Marriage is a goverment instituation, and it's NOT equal to everyone. There are certain requirements, if you do not meet these requirement you can not get married.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

Many *** activist groups support man-boy love, with NAMBLA being the main supporter. In other words, the same groups pushing for *** marriage, are also pushing for decriminalization of pedophiles, making children become the next homosexual target. Is this what we want to give our children? All of the main homosexual organizations push for LGBT 'rights'. The T in LGBT means "transgender", Transgenderism is a psychiatric disorder called by the APA, “Gender Identity Dysphoria”, it is defined as: “Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member the opposite sex.” - Something homosexual groups support.

What's your point? They have the right to support what they believe is right, just like you being against homosexuality. We all have our own beliefs, I don't quite understand why you bring them up.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

The fight for homosexual rights has been compared to the fight for minority rights such as the black civil rights movement. This comparison here is flawed, since homosexuality is merely a behavior, and is self-identified. Those who identify themselves as homosexual, cannot prove that they are innately homosexual, unlike persons of different skin color. Skin color is a visible, defining characteristic that cannot change. Homosexual behavior is something that can be copied, or changed, a person cannot be viewed as homosexual unless self-identified as such. This is why many of these self-identified homosexuals are now happily married in a heterosexual relationship, it is merely a behavior. Have you ever heard of a former African-American? or Hispanic?
This shows that the main argument that homosexual advocates affirm is not valid---being “***” is not an immutable characteristic such as race. Thus, they should not have special privileges/protections under minority status, since they are not a legitimate minority, but rather, a special interest group. There are now many ex-*** groups forming, of which even the N.E.A. now recognizes ex-***s . Other groups like PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-***s have sprung up. (NARTH specializes in helping homosexuals change from their lifestyle, and was founded by an ex-***)

Ok then, let's talk about people with disability. There are two types of disabilities, physical and mental. While physical involves missing a body parts such as arm, leg, sight etc. it's a visible defining characteristic that cannot be changed. While the mental involves behavior, learning problems, urges, things such as mild intellegence and autism, these things are not as visible and defining and for really mild ones like asperger syndrome, it could change gradually over time. Does this mean they are not considered as a disability? Of course you may argue that these are not always self identified, but to tell you the truth, homosexuality isn't either. Most of my homosexual friends told me that they were quite unaware of it, it was identified by their friends.

As for "happily" married in heterosexual relationships, I know someone who claim to be that. Though He have a webpage put up stating that he is ***, and he is unhappily married in a heterosexual relationship due pressures from society. This is the real reason for these "happily" married heterosexual relationships.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

The Bible supports this claim in Romans 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"

Ever heard of hypocrisy? As in your opinions aren't really yours, as opposed to you mentally copy/pasting ideals from the bible and adapting them as your own. Nothing wrong with that (actually there is but let's pretend it isn't). But don't dare attempt to crap on someone elses opinions because they are based on a living person who just happens to be maybe 40-60 years old instead of 4000 year old teachings that no one feels like challenging.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 21 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

Bah. No doubt you're going to try and make up some random argument defending homosexuality. Such a sick thing to do, and even sicker that you accept it as being equal with normal sexuality.

Priceless.

At the begining of this post, you were just telling eugine that he should stand by his own belief. Now you are telling me it's sick I stand by and support my belief, and it's even sicker that I have my own beliefs. :)

[Nyktos]

I've been seeing the word "natural" pop up a couple of times, and I would like to clear something up: homosexuality is natural. Many species of animals do it. This has nothing to do with whether it is right, but it it natural. (Rape is natural too, so clearly natural and right are not the same thing.)

[Eugine]

Zexion, I'll leave GL to debate his points, but I can simply say that arguement was flawed because of one reason.

Marriage was originally NOT a 'goverment instituation'. Actually in some countries it still isn't. The government simply gives benefits and recognise couples. Marriage was there much, much longer than any government. And really, only recently in our generation married couples were given benefits by the governmnet, religion provided all of it. It was there since the existence of documented history, long before the government had any substancial power over couples.
Who created marriage? Religion.

[Zexion]

Fact: Marriage was a civil institution in nations until about the mid 5th century AD. Around that time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it.

Do your research, before replying next time, thank you.

[Eugine]

Marriage was there since the Hebrew civilization. Which is far before your statement. Even if you don't believe in the Bible, it's historic accounts are relevant and proven by many historians.
So you say marriage was AD? I say marriage was there BC...

Do your research, before replying next time, thank you.

[Zexion]

What? do you suck at reading or something?

"Marriage was a civil institution in nations until about the mid 5th century AD."

I'm saying 5 AD is the time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it.

Clearly I did not say it started in AD.

On a side note, I've done fairly enough research to make that statement.

[Twit]

Definitions change. Marriage may be defined as one thing, but in time, it can be defined as another. Just because at 1000 BC marriage was between man and woman, doesn't mean marriage will always be between man and woman forever.

[Zexion]

Well said, cultures are made by human for human, not the way around.

[Eugine]

But like I said before, that's incorrect because marriage was there long before that and was definetly not a civil union.
The church isn't religion. The church was created after religion yes, but the Bible (which is the first documented text as far as I know to define marriage) defined it looooong before any government institution. Which leads to my statement, religion created marriage.

Religion created marriage and the state has no right to define marriage, or rewrite it in their own image.

[Twit]

So under your presumption, everyone follows a set religion and must follow its principles, even if they are in a "free country"? That country cannot define marriage because religion is set even though not everyone believes it?

[Eugine]

The state has no rights to change the meaning of something it infact didn't create.

[Zexion]

pfft, well fine, since you say it's documented and all that, can you at least present some proof for it, like the actual date in which it was created?

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

The state has no rights to change the meaning of something it infact didn't create.

Really? If I remember correctly, the bible was written based on the words of god, and it had being edited so many times. So tiell me why do who ever is editing it have the right to change what is supposely god's words?

[Xelina]

Yes, but who have the right to take total contorl of marriage? No one, thus, no one should contorl who we should marry, if you want to merry a oppiside gender, fine, and if you want to merry your own gender, then that should be fine too. This is that person's own choice and no one should have the right to take that away. True you can reinforce rules and laws on it, but it doesn't have the right to out right saying that it is wrong because religen said so.

[Eugine]

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
That's from the Bible, which is very very old, Genesis was the first book written in the Bible. I'm unsure who wrote the book, but I believe it's moses.
The majority of civilizations used this as the stepping stone to marriage. Plus IIRC, the quaran (muslim holy texts) has a similar account on marriage.

Quote

Really? If I remember correctly, the bible was written based on the words of god, and it had being edited so many times. So tiell me why do who ever is editing it have the right to change what is supposely god's words?

No one has the right to edit the Bible as far as I know, and basically to edit the true meaning of marriage you need to edit the Bible, and that aint gonna' happen.

[Golden Legacy]

Updated with a new poll, please vote.

Zexion, I'm working on my counter-argument. It'll be posted sometime tomorrow, as I have better things to be doing at the moment.

[Twit]

Eugine, on Jan 21 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

No one has the right to edit the Bible as far as I know, and basically to edit the true meaning of marriage you need to edit the Bible, and that aint gonna' happen.

Isn't that statement under the unproven assumption that marriage is based solely off of religion?

I still don't have hard proof that it is based off religion.

[Xelina]

Just like religion no one know really when exactly when marriage had started, there for we should not assume that it started with religion, because for all we know, some person back in the days decides one day to 'merry' someone, and everyone just feel suit. However, I don't think religion give a very good explination of marriage. I firmily believe that marriage can not achieved with out love. And love is a human emotion that no one can contorl because you can not force yourself to love someone forever, just as you can not force youself to marry someone you hate without reason. Thus, the bible is only to set the basic rules of marrage, made by what they think it is right and what is wrong.

[Luna]

I've never really seen why all of this is such a big deal ): To me, this is like Abortion. Pro-choice. Cause really, it's nobody's business who you want to make babies with or spend the rest of your life with.

[Golden Legacy]

Sheba, on Jan 21 2007, 09:37 PM, said:

I've never really seen why all of this is such a big deal ): To me, this is like Abortion. Pro-choice. Cause really, it's nobody's business who you want to make babies with or spend the rest of your life with.

I've never really seen why all of this is such a big deal ): To me, this is like Abortion. Pro-Life. Cause really, it's nobody's business to decide which babies should live or not, or to decide that they can change the meaning of marriage for their own sake.

[Luna]

Wooow, I pissed Riad off.

[Xelina]

Lots of peole get ticked off if any one goes against their thoughts.

Thought Sheba summons up what I was trying to say. No one should care if the babies should live or die nor who to merry, after all, it is that person's choice.

[Ravenblade]

Sheba, on Jan 22 2007, 04:17 AM, said:

Wooow, I pissed Riad off.

You did? x.x? I think he was just responding..

Anyhoo, since you're all dying to know what i think...ahem...

Homosexuality - wrong but no one but God has the right to judge anyone for it. People are born homosexual, thats allowed - the only clause is that you arent allowed to have sex with anyone. I think the Bible makes this sound about as bad as adultery though - and in that sense, no worse than adultery - which is pretty common nowadays...

From a none religious point of view, its not like it really serves evolutionary needs either...

Anyway, no, homosexual couples shouldnt be treated in the same way as heterosexual ones with regards to marriage. I think this for two reasons, niether of them especially religious. Firstly, homosexual couples have a tendency not to remain together very long. I know thats a sweeping statement, but seriously, the first homosexual couple to be granted a civil partnership in Britain split after a couple of years. For whatever reason, homosexual relationships cant seem to be as committed as hetero ones. Now, in keeping with the fact that i believe anyone who gets married should make very sure they want to be, and then make a phenomonally large effort to remain together, i dont think marriage licenses should really be granted for this kind of thing.

Secondly, would i want to be a child growing up with two dads/mums? Hell no. I would get the crap kicked out of me every day of my school life and emerge with very severe emotional problems.

With all that said, i have a lot of homosexual friends - i live with two currently - and it doesnt bother me at all. Purely cos of the first thing i said - it may be wrong, but the Bible rather explicitly says that no one on earth has the right to judge anyone else (Not even Christians =O)

"Before you take the splinter out of somoene elses eye, take the plank out of your own"

u.u! acknowledge the profoundess children, acknowledge o.o!!

EDIT - why the hell is the word g-a-y not allowed on this forum x.x its not a rude word! ._.

[Aquamarine]

I voted Unsure for both of the new polls up there, since I don't really care. I'm not against ***s, but I'm not really for them either. I've been defending them here though because there are some things that are far worse and "abnormal" than being ***, but many people think Homosexuality is the worse thing of all. EVER.

[Saturos S.]

I don't find it the worst thing... I'm not a *** friend, not a hater either. Though if you here some of things that happen at their parties. It's just sick. The things that happen at those 'parties' are a big reason of the growth of AIDS.

[Ravenblade]

Xelina, on Jan 22 2007, 04:21 AM, said:

Thought Sheba summons up what I was trying to say. No one should care if the babies should live or die nor who to merry, after all, it is that person's choice.

Um, can i just stress - thats possibly the single most disturbing way ive ever seen the pro-choice argument written down...

I kinda sit on the fence with abortion but im inclined to go Pro-Life after reading that..

BTW - if i wanted to kill someone - the argument put forward by Sheba et al is that i could do so and that no one should care. Cos thats more or less what you're saying. Its my business. Why should anyone care. Of course, its only the fact that you're saying "if someone wants to kill a baby, they should be allowed to" that means my argument holds any weight.

The reason people have to care, and meddle, is cos a lot of people are freaking psychos, and a lot of people are gravely misguided about life. You could say thats just my perception, but its actually the perception of society at large in a lot of instances, so um...if we arent going to go off our societies codes then what the damn hell are we going to go off?

EDIT - sorry just read the previous page and this debate is deeper than i thought.

@Zexion - can you actually prove that marriage has been going longer than religion? Until you do, that whole argument is null.

Hey and while we're at this, its pretty undeniable that homosexuality is of no benefit to any species, and so, even without religion, it should be discouraged in order to further the species..I mean, come on, if everyone was homosexual we'd be extinct in a couple of generations =/

[Wiflewood]

Ravenblade, on Jan 22 2007, 07:02 PM, said:

Hey and while we're at this, its pretty undeniable that homosexuality is of no benefit to any species, and so, even without religion, it should be discouraged in order to further the species..I mean, come on, if everyone was homosexual we'd be extinct in a couple of generations =/

That can be said about loads of things though. Smoking, Drinking, Obesity, Poverty, Global Warming, Nuclear Warfare, Cancer, Diseases, Natural Disasters etc etc. The list could go on forever of 'things that have no benefit to the species and should be discouraged to further the species'. I don't want to turn this into a big political debate, but I think that issues such as global warming and nuclear warfare are a greater threat to the human race than homosexuality, and I would like to think that we should be worrying about those things.

[Zexion]

^_^ I am so not in the mood for this right now..

Ravenblade, on Jan 22 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

Homosexuality - wrong but no one but God has the right to judge anyone for it. People are born homosexual, thats allowed - the only clause is that you arent allowed to have sex with anyone. I think the Bible makes this sound about as bad as adultery though - and in that sense, no worse than adultery - which is pretty common nowadays...

It's interesting, really, to see what parts of the Bible we should take seriously. For instance, should we take into full context God flooding the Earth because He was quote-unquote "displeased" with the way humans were living? That He ordered the mass genocides of entire tribes ranging from the elderly to the newborn? Set up legislation that requires non-virgin brides, homosexuals, and persons who practiced minority religions to be stoned to death? If this really has taken place, biases are blatantly apparent, and we have the Council of Nicea to constantly thank for their human intervention.

Ravenblade, on Jan 22 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

From a none religious point of view, its not like it really serves evolutionary needs either...
Anyway, no, homosexual couples shouldnt be treated in the same way as heterosexual ones with regards to marriage. I think this for two reasons, niether of them especially religious. Firstly, homosexual couples have a tendency not to remain together very long. I know thats a sweeping statement, but seriously, the first homosexual couple to be granted a civil partnership in Britain split after a couple of years. For whatever reason, homosexual relationships cant seem to be as committed as hetero ones. Now, in keeping with the fact that i believe anyone who gets married should make very sure they want to be, and then make a phenomonally large effort to remain together, i dont think marriage licenses should really be granted for this kind of thing.

You are really complicating the systems, Homosexuality has been around for ages, and isn't leaving anytime soon. ***s are people too, and they should deserve the same rights as their straight counterparts.

Same rights equals good. 'Special rights' equals bad. Situations like being treated differently in regards to marriage coincide with that of 'Minority Only' programs regarding race or color, such as creating schools for only homosexual children and creating special scholarship programs specifically for homosexuals. Yes, it has been brought to the table, and homosexual-only elemtarys have sprung up. Which, I really don't get.

Ravenblade, on Jan 22 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

Secondly, would i want to be a child growing up with two dads/mums? Hell no. I would get the crap kicked out of me every day of my school life and emerge with very severe emotional problems.

So you would rather have them stuck in an underfunded orphanage where they could get physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse on daily basis? How kind of you[/sarcasm].

Really, if you think being raised by two parents of the same gender is bad for children, imagine how bad being raised in a commune-like environment with no set parents is.

Ravenblade, on Jan 22 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

Hey and while we're at this, its pretty undeniable that homosexuality is of no benefit to any species, and so, even without religion, it should be discouraged in order to further the species..I mean, come on, if everyone was homosexual we'd be extinct in a couple of generations =/

For us human, as I said before one of the benefit is that since they could not reproduce, they would have to adopt if they wanted children. On the other hand, we need as many children as possible to be adopted, and hopefully legalizing *** marriage will result in more of this.

As for everyone being homosexual, that's an arguement against a 100% homosexuality society(which clearly doesn't exist), rather than homosexuality in general. It's like saying we should get rid of all men because a society of 100% men won't survive, or something along the line of that.

[Xelina]

Sorry, I should rewrite that.

No one have the chice of choosing if their babies lives or die unless you are it's parents. They have the sole choice on the matter. If the situation requires them to let the baby die then it is their choice, same with living. So sorry if I disguested you in any other way, I just kinda type what I was thinking and didn't see what I really typed unless I re-read my work. ^_^

My mistake and I am sorry about that.

[My Best Wishes]

This topic is alive! I'm staying away...
Hopefully my last post in this topic, I am not against ***'s, but I am against their choice to be homosexual, and I am against what they do behind closed doors, and out in public.

[Saturos S.]

Zexion, on Jan 22 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

Same rights equals good. 'Special rights' equals bad. Situations like being treated differently in regards to marriage coincide with that of 'Minority Only' programs regarding race or color, such as creating schools for only homosexual children and creating special scholarship programs specifically for homosexuals. Yes, it has been brought to the table, and homosexual-only elemtarys have sprung up. Which, I really don't get.So you would rather have them stuck in an underfunded orphanage where they could get physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse on daily basis? How kind of you[/sarcasm].

Yes, all orphans are raped on a daily basis. Just like the childrens choir and the scouting boys. >_>

Zexion, on Jan 22 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

Really, if you think being raised by two parents of the same gender is bad for children, imagine how bad being raised in a commune-like environment with no set parents is.
For us human, as I said before one of the benefit is that since they could not reproduce, they would have to adopt if they wanted children. On the other hand, we need as many children as possible to be adopted, and hopefully legalizing *** marriage will result in more of this.

Since Holland was one of the first countries in the world to accept *** marriages. We've got quite a few *** couples. I even know a few, nice guys, bit wierd in their own manner, only 32 and already have had 3-4 divorces and 3 children out of two different marriages.

They have there own kids, and if they don't they won't adopt them. Nice idea, won't happen though, not effectively.

Another effect of the growing *** community is a growing amount of this

[Zexion]

Saturos Striker, on Jan 23 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Yes, all orphans are raped on a daily basis. Just like the childrens choir and the scouting boys. >_>

Please don't put words in my mouth, I said could, not would, and it's not as if this never happened before. If you wanted to make an arguement against something someone said, at least quote it properly, not exaggerate it to suit your arguement.

Saturos Striker, on Jan 23 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Since Holland was one of the first countries in the world to accept *** marriages. We've got quite a few *** couples. I even know a few, nice guys, bit wierd in their own manner, only 32 and already have had 3-4 divorces and 3 children out of two different marriages.

As documented, the marriage rate actually increased and the divorce rate declined after Denmark adopted its same-sex registered partnership law in 1989.

Saturos Striker, on Jan 23 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

They have there own kids, and if they don't they won't adopt them. Nice idea, won't happen though, not effectively.

.....what? I've being reading that out loud for 10 times now, could you please elabroate?

Saturos Striker, on Jan 23 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Another effect of the growing *** community is a growing amount of this

ok..? is there a connection between legalizing *** marriage and male rape?

[Ravenblade]

I think he was referring to children that may come under the guardianship of *** couples - a point to which the article concerning male rape is obviously very relevant. Therefore its another sound reason as to why it shouldnt be allowed.

Obviously if the marriage element gets legalised then adopting children would be the obvious next step.

Furthermore the point about Denmark - firstly, you are aware statistics can be bent to prove anything right? In this case, its worth taking into account that the marriage rate in Scandinavia in general is so catastrophically low that although the marriage rate may well have risen, it did this largely because of divorced couples remarrying. The divorce rate declined cos less people were getting married =D!

Source: Link

The statistics mean nothing, especially if you cant prove there's any direct link between the figures and the same sex marriage act being passed.

[Zexion]

Ravenblade, on Jan 23 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

I think he was referring to children that may come under the guardianship of *** couples - a point to which the article concerning male rape is obviously very relevant. Therefore its another sound reason as to why it shouldnt be allowed.

Here we have the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC) of the Administration for Children & Families writes in their "*** and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents" published in 2000:

Quote

"There is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.... In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be *** or lesbian.... The conclusion was found that 'a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual.'

The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by *** and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals....

The studies conclude that children of *** or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In 'Children of Lesbian and *** Parents,' a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, 'Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of *** or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.'"

Ok, I agree with you on everything else though ;) you really got me there hahhah

[Jai]

*fan girls screams as Jai enters the room* Hmm well I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in kindly get on with my life.

1st: I would like to say I think that agitho (or however his/her name is splled) and watch are going to hell. (and thats all I'm choosing to say on the matter so, good luck with that. :blink:)

and I'm also gonna say that your beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid.

*think hard about that* *edit....really hard espically you two.*


Thank you and good night ladies and gentalmen you been a great aduience. :blink:

*fan girls chases Jai out of the thread.* ;)


Ps: I'll replay to any of your comment about this whenever, so don't epect an often answer or an answer at all for that matter. ;)

[PDM]

What a god damn hypocrite.

"Your beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid."

[Elliott]

Jai, on Jan 25 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

*fan girls screams as Jai enters the room* Hmm well I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in kindly get on with my life.

1st: I would like to say I think that agitho (or however his/her name is splled) and watch are going to hell. (and thats all I'm choosing to say on the matter so, good luck with that. :blink:)

and I'm also gonna say that your beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid.

*think hard about that* *edit....really hard espically you two.*
Thank you and good night ladies and gentalmen you been a great aduience. :blink:

*fan girls chases Jai out of the thread.* ;)
Ps: I'll replay to any of your comment about this whenever, so don't epect an often answer or an answer at all for that matter. ;)

Care to elaborate perhaps? Because right now I have no ****ing clue what the hell you're talking about, and you're the one coming across as a complete tool. I mean what kind of ****ing moron posts in a thread only to say that 2 members are "going to hell" and to "think hard about it"?

[Wiflewood]

Jai, on Jan 25 2007, 07:08 AM, said:

and I'm also gonna say that your beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid.

Rules you out of this topic then. Really, I couldn't understand that post at all. It seems to apply that your Pro-***, as your against watch and Agatio, but apart from that I don't see any reasoning or anything that could be considered a good argument.

I stand by my previous statement that there are more important things in the world than worrying about homosexuality, and as it doesn't concern straight people then you should let them get on with it.

[My Best Wishes]

Jai, on Jan 25 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

*fan girls screams as Jai enters the room* Hmm well I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in kindly get on with my life.

1st: I would like to say I think that agitho (or however his/her name is splled) and watch are going to hell. (and thats all I'm choosing to say on the matter so, good luck with that. :blink:)

and I'm also gonna say that your beliefs don't mean anything if you're stupid.

*think hard about that* *edit....really hard espically you two.*
Thank you and good night ladies and gentalmen you been a great aduience. :lol:

*fan girls chases Jai out of the thread.* :D
Ps: I'll replay to any of your comment about this whenever, so don't epect an often answer or an answer at all for that matter. :)

I'm going to hell because I believe that a couple consists of a guy and a girl...and that I am against homosexuality, but not the homo's.

I want to call you a ****-wit, but it wouldn't be worth it.

[Twit]

Can we strike that post and stay on the discussion of homosexuality rather than who can fry Jai the best?

[My Best Wishes]

I don't even want to post here, but I came to look and saw I've been flamed for no reason. I want to know why he thinks I deserve to go to hell.

[Zexion]

Jai, shut up! This is a debate, if you can't stand other people having opinion, go to the play ground or something.

Oh, and watch, this is the third time you came here, and the third time you claim not touching this topic. Please stop doing that.

[My Best Wishes]

I've realised that.

And I only said I wasn't coming back once. But I wasn't planning on looking at a debate and seeing a flame directed towards me.

[Golden Legacy]

Get back on track now. One more post like that by anyone, and they will be immediately warned.

[Sun Saber]

I am against it first thing I am Catholic and second its discusting and it is not right.

[Zexion]

As far as I can tell the 2 main reasons most people in this topic have against is 1) pointing at the bible and say "cause it said so"(or along the line of that). And 2) because it's "disgusting and wrong".

For the part about the bible, I have no saying towards your belief, you are obligated to have your own opinion and belief. However I don't believe religion alone can be used to justify this, as while the Bible is be used, any final outcome would affect people of various religions, so I see using the Christian God's word as unfair.

As for it being "wrong and disgusting and shouldn't be allowed". I can throw a thousand arguement against that, but instead I'll say this.

I think that most people forget what they mean when they talk about whether or not something should be "allowed."

Not allowing something is not a decision that should be undertaken lightly. The only reason people respect the government's decisions to not allow something is because it is backed up by a police force. When you say something "shouldn't be allowed" you are talking about sending people with guns to forcefully seize dissenters and put them in prison!

That's not a power you should throw around lightly. Even if you don't agree with homosexuality, violence is not the solution.

[Golden Legacy]

Whoever said that we are combating homosexuality with violence? You are making that implication. I see where you're coming from, but the short answer is no.

Homosexuality is a conscious, active lifestyle - say what you will about it, but it's different than the oppression of say, black people before the Civil Right's movement (I've seen some pro-*** supporters use that argument, that *** people are being oppressed just like the minorities were).

Skin color is not something that can be controlled.
This can be.

It doesn't need to be enforced with guns and military means. It is a mutual cultural aspect, and a humane one too.

[Zangetsu]

Not allowing *** marriage is unconstitutional technically but the law is currently written as a man and a woman. Because of the slight fact that back when the not so perfect constitution was written you didn't have *** issues.

[Wiflewood]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2007, 04:05 AM, said:

Whoever said that we are combating homosexuality with violence?

OK, so if you were to decide that homosexuality should not be allowed, then how would you go about enforcing this law? Fine them? Tax them? Arrest them and throw them in prison,(where there is enough homosexuality already), Give them a criminal record? Set up a Homosexuals list? (much like a Sex Offenders list),

None of them seem like sensible ideas to me.

[Someone Else]

Now I haven't bothered to read most of this topic. But anyways, have you guys ever noticed that most of the time when people complain about homosexuality, they target *** men and not lesbians?

I guess they figured out that no homosexuality at all would mean no more "hot lesbians", and we just couldn't have that! :)

[Golden Legacy]

Wiflewood, on Jan 28 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

OK, so if you were to decide that homosexuality should not be allowed, then how would you go about enforcing this law? Fine them? Tax them? Arrest them and throw them in prison,(where there is enough homosexuality already), Give them a criminal record? Set up a Homosexuals list? (much like a Sex Offenders list),

None of them seem like sensible ideas to me.

All right, first of all.

There is a difference between suppressing homosexuals, and homosexual marriage.

As is the current situation in most countries, ***/lesbian marriage IS NOT officially recognized.

And that's it. That's all that needs to be done. You don't (and can't) actually enforce suppression homosexuality, but what CAN be done is to not recognize the merits of marriage between homosexuals.

That, at the very least, is the first step.

[Caael]

You guys are just a bunch of homophobes. I personally see nothing wrong with homosexuals. They make their choices, and I dont believe in religion at all so I dont care what a book says you can and cant do. And surely, wouldnt a god want people to make their own choices?

[Golden Legacy]

Caael, on Jan 29 2007, 03:40 PM, said:

And surely, wouldnt a god want people to make their own choices?

Of course. God is accepting of all our decisions. Including the decision to murder and to rape because hey, it's OUR choice, isn't it?

[/sarcasm]

[Caael]

I dont know a lot about this religious stuff, but if he's up there and he didnt want us to make our own decisions, then surely he would stop us from raping and murdering people

Being ga.y isnt a crime like murder and rape, so I have nothing against it.

[Golden Legacy]

Caael, on Jan 29 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

I dont know a lot about this religious stuff, but if he's up there and he didnt want us to make our own decisions, then surely he would stop us from raping and murdering people

Being ga.y isnt a crime like murder and rape, so I have nothing against it.

I wasn't trying to make a religious argument. I was pointing out the flaw in your own argument, when you said that basically, "if it's our own decision, it must be right!"


And the answer to the second part of the post; does it have to be a crime in the same context as murder and rape for it to be wrong? If it goes against nature, goes against one of the most fundamental tenets of humanity, then surely isn't that enough to say that, at the very least, it's unnatural?

[Caael]

I didnt say it was natural, and nor did I say that if people made the decision, it must be right. I'll rephrase what I said

People can chose to do what they want, but whether it is accepted by society is not their choice


There's only 1 known cure for ***ness: Strip Club =D

[Zexion]

wait, most fundimental tentet of humanity?

As opposed to doing other things like gee I don't know, philanthropy, curing diseases, creating new technologies and low-brow stiff like that. Yep, just make babies and call it a life. I guess that's why Jesus had so many kids.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't even know what the hell you're trying to argue.

By fundamental tenet of humanity, it means one of the basic aspects of life, of what makes you and I human beings. A male, a female - together, they reproduce. They create life.

That's natural, as is the desire to further protect ourselves and advance ourselves, which includes technological advancements and curing diseases.

[Caael]

People make mistakes. Thats life. People dont always do whats right. Thats life.

My point is that ***s should be allowed to live as normal people, even if it isnt natural. Are computers natural? Are cars natural? No, but we still use them in daily life.

Not that we use ***s in daily life o_o

[Jai]

hey I just want to apologise for they last post made in this topic by my user name, It wasn't wasn't me who typed that comment and I am very sorry if It offended anyone...............I've been oversees for the past few months and I guess my roomate was able to log on to my profile using the "remeber me" feature and automatically gained acess to my password.


But besides that I just want to tell you guys im really sorry for anything he said.

[Caael]

There are a lot of famous ***s around, but yuo still give them the same respect, like Sir Ian Mckellen, he's ***, and so is John Barrowman yet you cant just hate them because they are ***.

[Valistrix]

Just as WindDude said, It's a long topic, I won't go through the whole thing. The first and last pages are pretty much the same in any case.

Regardless whether you believe homosexuality is wrong/right, people live, make their own decisions, they fall in love. Now, personally, I don't mind the whole thing, because if they're in love, and with a person they wish to devote time to, then that's fine by me, good for them

If you believe this behaviour as un-natural, that's tough luck. People have the right to make their own choices, they can live their own lifestyles. I happen to know a homosexual couple, should they be treated differently because they're in love with each other? They're just the same as everybody else. Different sexual lifestyles aren't limited by religon, and frankly, I don't see any good reason why homosexuals should be 'un-natural'.

[gsninja]

Homosexuality isn't really wrong. I personally don't care if a man decides to have relations with another man, or if a woman has relations with another woman. Homosexuality is something I really don't find a problem with, since it doesn't harm anyone and it comes as totally natural.

[My Best Wishes]

"it comes as totally natural."

How. How is being attracted to the wrong sex natural is any circumstance?