NationStates Jolt Archive

My country is questioning gay/ lesbians bi's and any other types of togetherness. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. I support letting people be what they want to be. Yes these people should be able to have the same jobs and roles in soceity as straight people. We are not talking about religion here we are talking about human life, and feeling ashamed of being who you are.
Please consider this in voting They are people too they have feelings too!
The Country Of Laimbo

My country is questioning gay/ special rights. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. Please help me by supporting this issue!
The Country of Laimbo

I think the problems are:
A: I have no idea what your saying. Are you for or against gay rights.
B: I'm going to assume by "special" you mean those people with mental disordars and such. If so then why are you grouping homosexuals with them.
C: Do you want them to have the same rights and jobs or do you not.
Please clairify these issuses.

My country is questioning gay/ special rights. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. Please help me by supporting this issue!
The Country of Laimbo

I think the problems are:
A: I have no idea what your saying. Are you for or against gay rights.
B: I'm going to assume by "special" you mean those people with mental disordars and such. If so then why are you grouping homosexuals with them.
C: Do you want them to have the same rights and jobs or do you not.
Please clairify these issuses.

Agreed, the question is very poorly written.

My country is questioning gay/ special rights. I think this is a problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. Please help me by supporting this issue!
The Country of Laimbo

I edited it though I'm not sure if it is how the author meant it. If so then I have to say gays aren't special people, deserve nor need special rights but the same ones granted to everyone else. Aside from the marriage thing all that is needed is simple respect. The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

well if they keep it to themselves nobody can find out can they?

This is a local social issue and should not be included on the UN forum.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

well if they keep it to themselves nobody can find out can they?

Suppose someone does find them out and why should they hide to please people who aren't affected by it? :?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.

Ursoria did legalise gay marriages, and (I have to admit) we did catch quite a firestorm from the Catholic church for doing so. There were even threats of excommunication for various public officials (including our King). But after a while things quieted down, and we are all on more or less a friendly basis as I write.

Our position is that the Church has a right to set criteria for religious marriages among its members, but that civil marriages have to follow a different set of standards. Passing judgement on sexual relationships is not a proper function of government.

As soon as Heian-Edo can do so, homosexual marriage will be law :).

I also intend to allow gay rights as soon as possible. I intend to make Omni-Palonie (look up polari on google) a paradise for my fellow men (lesbians welcome too!)

:shock:
gays and lesbos are so messed up dont even consider homosexuality

In the real world, we have gay marriages in Ontario, Canada. Last time I checked (This morning) the country hadn't collapsed.

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

As a member of the homosexual community in real life, I have to say, some of the opinions here, consititute as slightly offensive. However, at the same time, I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and if a group (say for example a government or church) wishes to oppose Gay Rights movements, that is their own choice - however, that being said, I support equal rights for homosexuals, and all other minority groups (sexuality, cultural, religious).

Do we qualify as 'special?' No. Definitely not. Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgenders, are no different from heterosexual members of society. Yes, we live a different life-style behind closed doors, but that does not mean we are any worse or better then our neighbours. I am glad that a resolution has passed concerning Gay Rights, and intend to support it in my own nation in the future.

United Nations Rep.,
The Allied States of Mizani

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

I have to disagree.

ALL people deserve the same rights and freedoms under the law, no matter their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation,or ability.

It IS a basic Civil Rights issue. Whether in the real world or this virtual one, we all have the same basic dignity and humanity.

Yes--the same rights under the law.

There's no such thing as a right to a job. Private entities, on the other hand, enjoy property rights. It is their right to decide who they want on their property.

Yes--the same rights under the law.

There's no such thing as a right to a job. Private entities, on the other hand, enjoy property rights. It is their right to decide who they want on their property.

But this really only extends into private homes,under Common Law. Stores,clubs,restaurants,etc., tend to under Common Law be considered Public Accomadations (i.e. non-religious commercial groups).
I am sure here in the real world USA a lot businesses would ban people of color,etc. if allowed to legally do so. Legally it would be right,but morally wrong.
There are limits on property rights such as zoning laws and Eminent Domain laws.

All though now adays the way homosexuals are treated they are members of the region i think they should be included in what ever they please but i do not aggree on homosexual marriage

All though now adays the way homosexuals are treated they are members of the region i think they should be included in what ever they please but i do not aggree on homosexual marriage

A bit of time is requested by the observer nation of Novakistan on this issue.

In Novakistan, homosexuals as people are granted the same "rights" as non-homosexuals. That is, they can wield firearms, can obtain jobs, freedom of non-seditious speech, and can purchase stocks.

However, the point at which Novakistan denies something to homosexuals is the PRIVILEDGE of a legal marriage. And that is just what it is. Marriage is a state-recognized union between a man and a woman based upon the morals of Novakistan's people.

To those who slander the Judeo-Christian religion, I simply ask them this question: From where do our modern day, western morals derive? I think the answer can be found in the holy texts and techings of Judaism and Christianity. By attacking these religions and any reasoning and morality stemming from them, you are condemning and attacking your own morality.

Novakistan's people have the right to determine the morality of the society they live in. To do this, they have outlawed sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, animal torture, etc. Sex is not a right protected by Novakistan's founding document. Therefore, the legislatures of our nation vote on the issue and have deemed sodomy and other immoral acts to be inappropriate in our society and cannot condone them.

For these reasons, Novakistan urges fellow nations to draw a line in the sand so that we as a global community do not take steps backwards into the times of the barbarians. With vague claims of "rights" which homosexuals already have, an attack is being made on the cultures of the vast majority of humanity. This attack must end here.

To those who slander the Judeo-Christian religion, I simply ask them this question: From where do our modern day, western morals derive? I think the answer can be found in the holy texts and techings of Judaism and Christianity. By attacking these religions and any reasoning and morality stemming from them, you are condemning and attacking your own morality.


It's that same moral code that caused homosexuals to be strangled and publicly burned in England centuries ago too. Same moral code that created this whole homosexual discrimination issue. Same moral code that provokes conservative religious folks from slandering homosexuals right down to calling for the reintroduction of anti-sodomy laws into the criminal code of their respetive countries and hence, the imprisonment of homosexuals.

If it could be said that things are improving for homosexuals and other minorities, it is due to that this great holy grail of false and egocentric morality is steadily being eroded from governance while the politically religious seek to get back to good old fashioned Judeo-Christian morals and zealotous barbarism.


Signed
The Right-Honourable Scott Williams, Prime Minister of the Federation of Stumblebums. A proudly sovereign non-UN member nation.

The Great Nation of Putergeeks believes that gay/lesbian/transgendered people should have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals, with no discrimination of any kind.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

We absolutely deplore homosexuality, however, some have entered the most glorious Holy Empire of Isochronous. They are tolerated, as long as they refrain from stupidly flaunting their gayness, whinging, causing public disturbance or pulling off any of their other typical crap. We also do not allow gay marriages, or adoption of kids by gays.

The firestorm from the Catholic Church you recieved after allowing homosexual marriage is because this game as a biased archaic(sp?) view of the Church based on an overly conservative minority within our religion, despite refusing to allow gay marriage, most of us follow Christ's message of tolerance, although a few take the "infallable word of God" far too seriously on at least this matter (cough Of portugal cough cough).

I am as apalled at this stereotype of my religion as some people are that gay rights should even need to be discussed. My religion shares many beliefs with hundreds of other religions out there, yet I only see Catholics getting a bad rep. Anglicans practically copied Roman Catholicism, when was the last time anyone insulted them in one of these forums? Many other Protestants are very similar to Catholics, but I don't see them insulted ever.

No, I'm afraid you do our Bishop an injustice. He was merely following the teaching of the Vatican. In regard to similar legislation proposed in the Netherlands, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family said that legislators "and especially Catholic parliamentarians, should not vote to support this type of legislation as it goes against the common good and the truth of man and, as a result, is in reality iniquitous. The council said the resolution was a "serious and sustained attack on the marriage-based family, a union of love and life between a man and a woman from which life naturally results...Upon this matrimonial link, a necessary good, all societies are solidly based. To deny this fundamental and elemental anthropological truth would lead to the destruction of the social fabric."

By the way, we are Catholic and will remain so until the day we die, even if we get excommunicated along the way.

[/quote]
If it could be said that things are improving for homosexuals and other minorities, it is due to that this great holy grail of false and egocentric morality is steadily being eroded from governance while the politically religious seek to get back to good old fashioned Judeo-Christian morals and zealotous barbarism.
[/quote]

Barbarism is the exact place that you would see this world taken with your obsession with radical individualism. If homosexuality is legalized, then there is no reason that by logical extent, child pornography, bestiality, and bestiality all could not be legalized.


Your choice of words is quite simply, amazing when you refer to Judeo-Christian values as "egocentric morality". I find this interesting when the morality is based off of a several thousand year old tradition that humans have generally accepted again and again. I fail to see the egocentrism here.

With your baseless attack on Christian morals, I would ask what morals YOU propose, seeing as ALL Christian morality is "barbarous" and "egocentric". It appears that the only "erosion" occuring in this world is the style of thought in which society is allowed to decide what it feels to be immoral behavior. This sytem is replaced with your radical indivicualism in which anyone is allowed to do whatever they please regardless of its social impact.

As for the blatant red herring of the persecution homosexuals experienced in England, I would simply say that our nations allow homosexual PEOPLE the EXAXCT same RIGHTS as all others. Also, I would point you to places in the world lacking Judeo-Christian morals whose value systems (even in the 20th century) propagate endless warfare on the continent of Africa. That continent of hedons takes part in daily butchering of eachother as a society dedicated to tribalisms that you would seek to instill in the rest of this world. Only in Africa could half a million people be slaughtered at the hand of a machete for the simple crime of belonging to another tribal group.

What exactly IS wrong with anti-sodomy laws anyways? It is more of a symbolic gesture than a practical one. The cases of arrest because of the act were a rarity beyond the imagination and societies simply chose to ban the act of homosexual sex as a symbol of the direction their morality led them to. No matter how you wish to phrase it, ALL of our modern values in the civilized world are a result of the Judeo-Christian religion and I would love to hear a counter-system. Please do explain why every item on the ten commandments is wrong, I am sure the members of this body would love to hear it.

The first four Commandments were solely about ceremonial matters (i.e. monotheism, using the name of the Jewish God as an oath,the Sabbath, no graven images). These four were not mentioned by Christ in the story in Matthew about which Commandments to keep.

Of the other 6, why honor your parents if they were abusive of you? Also,outside of religious extemist states there are no laws banning adultry or wanting things (coveting). So 3 are relevant today,the ones against stealing,killing,and nearing false witness.

Also,in Old Testament times, some of their values included marriage by force (in Leviticus IIRC,if you raped a virgin and payed her father 50 shekels,she was forced to marry you),as well as polygamy. You also had bizarre things like Levirate marriages (if a man should die without issue, his wife had to marry his brother to produce the deceased's heir).

Also,the idea of only the Decalogue as law in effect criminalizes all other faith systems (Islam, which foir the most part is similar to JudeoChristian ways,Buddhism,Tao,Hinduism,etc. as well as Neo-Pagan religion).

So why should a diverse society be bound only to the JudeoChristian Commandments or Bible?

you mean gays have rights?

:P let them (us?) marry, what the hell harm will it do -.- not like straight people will suddenly disappear and marry other people of the same sex -.-

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Barbarism is the exact place that you would see this world taken with your obsession with radical individualism. If homosexuality is legalized, then there is no reason that by logical extent, child pornography, bestiality, and bestiality all could not be legalized.
Slippery slopes are not a very logical method of argument. As well, homosexuality is between adults capable of legally consenting. Children and animals are not capable of giving informed consent and so there are laws to protect them. Why would those protective laws change simply because we are allowing consenting adults freedom?


Your choice of words is quite simply, amazing when you refer to Judeo-Christian values as "egocentric morality". I find this interesting when the morality is based off of a several thousand year old tradition that humans have generally accepted again and again. I fail to see the egocentrism here.
"We ought to believe because our forefathers believed. But these ancestors of ours were far more ignorant than we are. They believed in things we could not possibly accept today; and the possibility occurs to us that the doctrines of religion may belong to that class too. The proofs they have left us are set down in writings which themselves bear every mark of untrustworthiness. They are full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications, and where they speak of factual confirmations they are themselves unconfirmed. It does not help much to have it asserted that their wording, or even their content only, originates from divine revelation; for this assertion is itself one of the doctrines whose authenticity is under examination, and no proposition can be a proof of itself." (Freud "The Future of an Illusion")
(for the most part I do not agree with a lot of Freud's theory, but this short novel was surprisingly apt in some places)


This sytem is replaced with your radical indivicualism in which anyone is allowed to do whatever they please regardless of its social impact.
That is not what individualism proposes. Individualism means pursue your happiness (or ruin) in whatever way you choose, as long as your actions have no impact on anyone other than yourself then you should not be hindered (if they do then the government or society should censor, stop or punish you).


Only in Africa could half a million people be slaughtered at the hand of a machete for the simple crime of belonging to another tribal group.
Are you attempting to say that 'civilized judo-christian societies' do not and have not ever killed people because they were from different societies? Mass murder doesn't happen anywhere but Africa? Or is it just worse because they don't use more advanced killing technologies?


What exactly IS wrong with anti-sodomy laws anyways? It is more of a symbolic gesture than a practical one.
Sumbolic of what? The fact that two consenting adults are engaging in 'abnormal' activity that they should be ashamed of? Sorry, homosexuality is no longer defined as deviant, perverse or a mental illness. Our understanding of human sexuality has broadened and keeping remnants of our uninformed past is nothing but discrimination.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.

Please back up your statements with something more than intolerance and hatred.

Homosexuality is defined as a natural form of sexuality, and if you personally are not interested in queer sexuality there is no one forcing you to be.

Please explain how homosexuality is suicidal. Is that statement because of AIDS? Fact: AIDS rates are dropping in homosexuals and rising in heterosexuals.

to me it would appear that the issue is "what bussiness does government have dictating the form of domestic defacto pooling of resources and shairing of life?"

and my own feeling would be that it has absolutely none whatsoever

=^^=
.../\...

Please back up your statements with something more than intolerance and hatred.

Homosexuality is defined as a natural form of sexuality, and if you personally are not interested in queer sexuality there is no one forcing you to be.

Please explain how homosexuality is suicidal. Is that statement because of AIDS? Fact: AIDS rates are dropping in homosexuals and rising in heterosexuals.

It is not reproductive, thus suicidal.

I just made that outburst because of the frequent verbal diarrhoea from PC nuts who put words into the mouths of conservatives, and label us bigots, ignorant and intolerant just because we don't accept their hypocritical position.

I think we should look at some research on the subject to arrive at more salient conclusions:


First to dispell some conservative myths concerning homosexuality:


* Some people speculate that homosexuality as a disease, like alcoholism. But this seems doubtful, because "Homosexuality exists without external impetus; it exists without the introduction of foreign chemicals and without the infliction of external actions by others."


* Some conservative Christians believe that people become homosexuality because it is taught to them as children. 10 This motivates religious conservatives to oppose education classes which discuss sexual orientation, and to campaign against gays and lesbians having the right to adopt children. However, it is doubtful that the childhood environment can convince a person to become gay or lesbian. If it could, then one would expect a greater incidence of homosexuality among individuals who were brought up by gay parents, in comparison to those raised in heterosexual homes. No such difference is observed.


* Some conservative Christians believe that people make a conscious choice to become gay or lesbian at puberty. 10 Again, this is doubtful, because child psychologists can accurately identify which pre-school children will grow up to be homosexual. Also, it has been argued that nobody in their right mind would choose to become gay or lesbian and subject themselves to immense amounts of homophobia, discrimination, physical abuse, and emotional-spiritual abuse.



* The most common belief of human sexuality researchers is that homosexual orientation is caused by a pre-existent genetic makeup which is established at conception. This is then triggered early in life by an unknown factor in the environment. If the factor is not present, the gene or genes causing homosexuality will not be triggered, and the person will grow up heterosexual.



Now on the causes of homosexuality and why it is not likely a "choice":

Studies on monozygotic twins: These are twins that resulted from the splitting of a single fertilized egg -- the zygote -- into two separate zygotes with identical genetic structure. They are commonly called "identical twins." Studies have been made which involve identical twins who were separated at birth and have not been in contact since. Studies consistently show that male homosexual orientation is mainly (perhaps entirely) determined at conception by a person's genes. This is such an important and definitive study that we describe it in more detail in another essay.

A link to the essay can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm


Suicide implications: The National Institute of Health (a US Federal Government agency) reported that as many as 30% of youth suicides are by gays and lesbians. That is, homosexual young people commit suicide at a rate as high as six times the normal value. These are committed by youth who are certain that they are stuck being gay or lesbian for the rest of their lives. These young people who commit suicide may have been taught by their families, religious institutions, schools etc to hate or reject homosexuality. If they had any hope of changing their orientation, they probably would seek counseling instead of killing themselves. Most probably believe that their sexual orientation was genetically caused and is unchangeable.


Hearing: A group of researchers at the University of Texas found structural differences in the inner ears between lesbians and heterosexual women. On average, women have more sensitive cochlea amplifiers than men; they are able to detect softer sounds in a very quiet room. The researchers found that lesbians had inner ear characteristics that were more like those of men. The structure of the inner ear forms before birth and is affected during pregnancy by androgens. 7 These findings indicate that sexual orientation is at least partly decided before birth -- perhaps at conception.

Incidence: Gays and lesbians do not appear to be any less common in societies which condemn and suppress homosexuals; they do not seem to be any more common in accepting societies. This would argue against sexual orientation being learned from the environment.


Parenting: Almost all children raised in families headed by two gays or two lesbians grow up heterosexual. The sexual orientation of one's parents appear to have little or no influence over the orientation of their children.


Now it is important to note here that gays and lesbians do tend to have worse relationships with their fathers then straights. So do atheists.

* Most conservative Christians speculate that homosexual behavior is caused by poor parenting skills in the homosexual's family of origin. Reparative therapy is based on this belief. Many surveys conducted by conservative Christians find that gays did not bond closely to their fathers, and lesbians did not bond well with their mothers. But other studies show no such parenting problem.


This however is not a cause, it is instead an example of reverse causation (confusing cause with effect). I mean, what gay kid or kid that expressed gay qualities would be quickly accepted by their fathers or families?


The link to the above statements can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus1.htm

Now I will list some of the barbaric practices used to try and "cure" gays and their success rate:

A number of techniques have been used to try to suppress homosexual feelings and/or create heterosexual feelings in gays and lesbians: 1

--- lesbians had their breasts amputated

--- lesbians had their perfectly healthy uteri removed

--- gays were given aversion therapy; e.g. clients were shown pictures of naked men and simultaneously shocked with electricity

--- brain surgery in the form of frontal lobotomies

--- castration

--- counseling and psychotherapy

--- drug therapy: e.g. animal-organ extracts, cocaine, estrogen, testosterone

--- positive therapy: e.g. men were asked to masturbate and then were shown pictures of women just before orgasm

--- prayer and spiritual counseling

--- therapy by tedium: men were shown homoerotic pictures until they became totally bored

--- During the Nazi regime in Germany, Himmler attempted to "cure" gays by requiring them to visit the camp brothel at Flossenburg. "Ten Ravensbruck women provided the services with little success. The women [were later]...shipped to Auschwitz" for execution.

--- During the recent apartheid regime in South Africa, gays and lesbians were considered deviants. They were sent to a special ward of a military hospital and "rehabilitated." This involved electric shock treatments and chemical castration. Those who could not be "cured" were given sex-change operations. A number of "patients" died.

The success rate of these therapies has been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. Some of these "therapies" can persuade homosexuals to be celibate, either through terror or guilt. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But they do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings (one's sexual orientation). 20




Some more studies to indicate homosexuality is established at birth:

Scientific studies:
[bullet] Detection of homosexual propensity in children: Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA has compared effeminate with "masculine" boys.2 Children who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in early childhood. 1, Page 116-7 "'Feminine' boys played about four times as much with the doll...a third as much with the truck." By interviewing their child subjects later in life when they were in their teens and early twenties, the researchers found that 75% of the effeminate boys had become gay adult males. It is obvious that these boys were not taught this behavior. They did not copy their behavior from other children in the family; they were often under harsh and severe pressure from their parents to change. One reasonable conclusion is that that they are driven to this type of behavior by an innate trait which is outside of their control and consciousness.
[bullet] Cross-cultural study: Whitham and Mathy studied 375 homosexual men in Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States. 3 They consistently found that 25% of homosexual men display highly gender atypical behavior, while 50% showed marked gender atypical behavior as young children. They played with what are normally considered girls' toys and were regarded as sissies. These studies also find the same effect among adult lesbians; however, the percentages are much lower.

These types of studies indicate that the factor(s) which determines sexual orientation often effect very early in a child's life (perhaps before birth).


The above should show that cultural approval or condmenation has little to do with being gay. But common sense should tell you that. I mean, would any heterosexual here choose to be "gay" just cause it's accepted? I sure wouldn't.


So is homosexuality natural or abnormal? Research indicates its about as normal as being left-handed or ambidexturous. Meaning that it is not common but it is also not something absent from nature.


Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. An Amazon.com reviewer commented: "Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show 'the love that dare not bark its name' in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity." 7 The reviews of this book are well worth reading for their own value.

Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. 8,9

Another source states that "Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs." 8



So are gays good or bad for society? Again studies say the former.


Is Homosexuality (and its suppression) an advantage or disadvantage to Society?

One source points out that in past Native American societies, homosexuals were valued members of the tribe and were given specific responsibilities. 8 By not having children of their own, "they brought to their kinship groups an increased capacity for the production of food and other essentials....while at the same time they did not increase the load on the vital supplies of the group..." He argues that since homosexuals tend to have fewer children, they have more energy to contribute to the advancement of society. This is seen historically, in the apparent over-representation of gay and lesbian philosophers, artists, and other creative individuals in western society.

Other ancient civilizations, like that of the ancient Israelites, were motivated to exterminate homosexuals because they tended to have few children. One writer states:

"Religious objections to homosexuality spring from two sources. One is the ancient patriarchal warrior-clan religion on which several modern religions are based. In their clans it was every male's duty to breed, to produce more soldiers, and any who didn't were violating cult taboo: it was taken as a sign of non-male weakness, of "sin" against their warrior Father. 8

The chances of survival of the tribe, when surrounded by enemy societies, is augmented if the birth rate is kept high. The more babies that are produced, the more future warriors will be available to fight the battles. However, in the present time, our high birthrate is causing major stress on the environment. The human race is breeding itself to death. Thus, homosexuality may currently have a beneficial influence on the survivability of the human race.

The same writer continues:

The other source of these condemnations has been the need of religious and political leaders, who, in trying to force their religion and its observance on the peoples of their communities, have created mythic polemics that attempt to denigrate and destroy the religious beliefs and practices of others. This is the origin of the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the opprobrious dicta of Saul/Paul." 8

We see this dynamic in some of religious groups which concentrate on anti-gay rhetoric. While this may build cohesion within their group, it increases the level of hatred and mistrust in society, and lowers our ability to cooperate. These effects are counter productive.



Accepting gays helps promote a more tolerant, and freedom instilled atmosphere. Gay men and women who don't have children can also help society become more productive as they can concentrate more time on activities other then child rearing.

In the past high birth rates were of such huge advantage though that the need to outlaw homosexuality contributed a great degree of value for society. This is no longer the case now at days.

In these days such behavior merely promotes hatred and devotes rescources to suppressing a group of people for no real gain.

The link to all the above claims can be found here:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm


So to summarize being gay is not a choice. It is a biological condition. Allowing gay or lesbians rights then would not make a difference in regards to our culture. In all probability it will have no impact at all on everyone else, other then the fact that homosexuality may become more visible. But making the behavior visible will likely not alter another person's sexual orientation. Common sense should tell one this: I and no straight guy I know of would choose to be gay just because I could, and the choice would make no sense in our society where gays are looked down upon. The fear of some "homosexual epidemic" arising from giving gays equal rights is totally without foundation.

Being gay then is like being left-handed. It was a rare behavior that scared people in the past because it was rare (there were therapies and punishments in the past for being left-handed) by tribes who needed to keep a high birth-rate in order to survive. Now at days we know that this fear was unfounded and we don't need to maintain a high birth rate to survive. In fact, many may argue that our birth-rate is too high.


Thus since being gay is like being left-handed, any prejudice, discrimination or restrictive laws directed at gay men or lesbian women makes about as much sense as laws directed at being left-handed in the past. It doesn't.

The US is a democracy founded upon the principles of liberty, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness. Anti-gay laws are anathema to these kinds of values and democracy.

I just made that outburst because of the frequent verbal diarrhoea from PC nuts who put words into the mouths of conservatives, and label us bigots, ignorant and intolerant just because we don't accept their hypocritical position.

Oh deary me, wherever did we get that idea from?

This is another issue that should be dealt with on a nation-by-nation basis rather than in the international theatre. Personally, my citizens can marry their pets for all I care.

Barbarism is the exact place that you would see this world taken with your obsession with radical individualism. If homosexuality is legalized, then there is no reason that by logical extent, child pornography, bestiality, and bestiality all could not be legalized.


Your choice of words is quite simply, amazing when you refer to Judeo-Christian values as "egocentric morality". I find this interesting when the morality is based off of a several thousand year old tradition that humans have generally accepted again and again. I fail to see the egocentrism here.

With your baseless attack on Christian morals, I would ask what morals YOU propose, seeing as ALL Christian morality is "barbarous" and "egocentric". It appears that the only "erosion" occuring in this world is the style of thought in which society is allowed to decide what it feels to be immoral behavior. This sytem is replaced with your radical indivicualism in which anyone is allowed to do whatever they please regardless of its social impact.

As for the blatant red herring of the persecution homosexuals experienced in England, I would simply say that our nations allow homosexual PEOPLE the EXAXCT same RIGHTS as all others. Also, I would point you to places in the world lacking Judeo-Christian morals whose value systems (even in the 20th century) propagate endless warfare on the continent of Africa. That continent of hedons takes part in daily butchering of eachother as a society dedicated to tribalisms that you would seek to instill in the rest of this world. Only in Africa could half a million people be slaughtered at the hand of a machete for the simple crime of belonging to another tribal group.

What exactly IS wrong with anti-sodomy laws anyways? It is more of a symbolic gesture than a practical one. The cases of arrest because of the act were a rarity beyond the imagination and societies simply chose to ban the act of homosexual sex as a symbol of the direction their morality led them to. No matter how you wish to phrase it, ALL of our modern values in the civilized world are a result of the Judeo-Christian religion and I would love to hear a counter-system. Please do explain why every item on the ten commandments is wrong, I am sure the members of this body would love to hear it.

Perhaps I should have stated it as heterosexist religioegocentrism. As for your religion's glorious reign of its invented morality one needs only to look through history to see it is as the one-sided farce it is. My condemnation of Judeo-Christian morals is deservedly placed at its feet.

As for what morals I propose? How about basing it in science, fact compassion, undertanding, not just a one sided phobic mysticism. If you want to view that perpective as a radical invidualism and a slippery slope to legalising or normalizing what you see as immoral behavior you are righteously blind. What the other things you seem to claim have to do with homosexuality speaks volumes of your egocentrism and goofy moral relativism.

As for the red herring which you speak of, that was directly the result of your morality taken to a literal extreme.

Anyhoo I'm in rush but I will say before I leave that a child with delsuions of being Deity could write the ten commandments.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.

Not according to Science.....

It is not reproductive, thus suicidal.
But this logic, sexual activity between sterile heterosexuals is suicidal. This rests on the belief that the purpose of sex (and life) is reproduction, there are many people who do not believe that nor live that way. You may think that is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that a vast majority of people accept it.

For something to be 'suicidal' it would have to actually cause death to someone, and don't start on AIDS here, that is a disease that affects the entire human population. As well, homosexuality is not found in enough of the worldwide population to threaten human population so that is another way it cannot be considered suicidal. To say non-reproductive sex is suicidal makes a whole lot of heterosexual activity also suicidal. Unless you are willing to classify sterile heteros, people who use condoms and other birth control in the same area as suicidal homosexual activity, you cannot make the claim that if something is not reproductive it is suicidal. Can you make a claim that exclusively shows homosexual activity to be suicidal?


I just made that outburst because of the frequent verbal diarrhoea from PC nuts who put words into the mouths of conservatives, and label us bigots, ignorant and intolerant just because we don't accept their hypocritical position.
I call people intolerant who show intolerance, you showed such against both homosexuals and liberal thinkers. I do not call people ignorant or intolerant solely because they disagree with me, but when they are being so I will point it out (I will even point it out to people who are 'on the same side as me' so to speak, insults are not the way to have a respectful conversation). I can have a perfectly respectful and pleasant conversation with a person who has the entirely opposite belief from mine, and though I will probably not accept their position as right I will listen to their points and respect their right to form their own opinion. All that is required for such a discussion is an equal respect for my views, by slinging insults against the position my thoughts have placed me and against the subject of the debate you fail to show respect for my thoughts and for humanity at large. If you have any reason why homosexuals should not have equal rights that does not involve an insult (against me or them) or a belief based on contradictory thoughts with no evidence whatsoever, perhaps I may respond.



Personally, my citizens can marry their pets for all I care.
Personally, I think since animals cannot give informed consent to sexual activity with a human they should be protected against such abuse. But perhaps the vast differences between our thinking here is a reason why this topic shouldn't be dealt with on an international basis.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

By Novakistan on Nov. 27th:

"ALL of our modern values in the civilized world are a result of the Judeo-Christian religion and I would love to hear a counter-system. "

The significant majority of people from Dolwyddelan are Christian (Baptist is the largest denomination), yet they believe that 1. Jesus instructed them to love their neighbors as themselves and 2. theocracy leads to oppression and a corruption of the values on which it is based. Therefore, they support the full affirmation of the gay and lesbian communities within the nation.

As to the above quote, the writings of Epictetus (a Roman pagan philosopher) propose a system of morality wholly divorced from the concpet of a personified, divine savior while maintaining the same ethical principles espoused in the New Testament.

In addition, by your statement, I am forced to assume that by "civilized world" you mean Western Civilization, or perhaps just America. There are several interesting points of note in that assumption that Western Civilization comprizes the whole of "modern values in the civilized world."

1. You are, by implication, labeling Asian cultures as uncivilized, despite their millenia of existence as formal societies that predate comparable institutions in the West.

2. In your notable zeal to confirm our faith as the foundation of "ALL" morality, you are disregarding several key figures in the development of the concept of "good" in Western Civilization. Among them Plato, who advocated distincly unChristian values as the basis of morality; Socrates, arguably the single most influential contributor to Western thought; and the system of values, from which most American political ideas descend, of the Roman Republic, Principate, and a majority of the Dominate as well (pre-Constantine).

3. You are disregarding Capitalism as an essential component of Western , again, primarily American, Civilization. Envy of one's neighbor and his possession is the driving force of Capitalism, which completely contradicts the Ten Commandments. This disdain for economic and political values as relevant to what constitutes "civilized" reveals an ethnocentric view in which your religious ideology has prevented you from acknowledging the worth of other systems of thought.

4. The majority of the selected entry embodies a theology of hate. Your apparent inability to love you neighbor in action leads me to the conclusion that perhaps our faiths are in diametric conflict, revealing that ultimate values of individuals, no matter their textual basis, are a matter of interpretation, first and foremost.

It is my experience, and Nietzche's (as expressed in the Anti-Christ, which is actually better translated the Anti-Christian), that it is the inability of Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, to live up to their doctrine of love that is the source of conflict between political and religious institutions.

Remember Novakistan, "All have fallen short of the glory of God" and that we, as Christians are instructed to "let him without sin cast the first stone."

Admittedly, by this very composition, I am failing to fully embody the teachings of my faith. I am taking the speck from my neighbor's eye, while disregarding the plank in mine. However, I feel the expression and debate of ideas to be of sufficient weight to merit this overly-lengthy commentary.

One-sided phobic mysticism? Catholic morals are not one-sided. They are based on an appreciation for the dignity held by all human beings, regardless of ethnicity, monetary standings, beliefs, sexual preferences, etc. Most of us still value tolerance. There are just those few overly conservative people within our religion giving us a bad reputation among the people out there in NS land. We have not lost the message of tolerance. You said it yourself, the problems were when these conservative Catholics took their beliefs to a horrible extreme, Similar to Hitler's extermination of the Jews, or the KKK. They were victims of a group of people with basically good intentions (in a very flawed way, ie "purifying Europe" or "Protecting white womanhood") They just took their beliefs to a horrible extreme. We aren't all zealous Hitlers bent on the condemnation of homosexuals. We promote tolerance. We believed homosexuality was a sin back when we didn't know it was genetic. Somewhere along the line, after that discovery was made, I am sure the pope at the time apologized, or at least he should have. I apologize for whatever my fellow Christians have done to any of you, and I beg you to stop insulting my beliefs.

Yes I am aware catholicism is latin or somethign for universality. However, if you look through the bible there are many passages which refer to homosexuals in not so kind ways. Leviticus, Corinthians, etc come to mind. You may value tolerance as an individual but the belief system puts certain persons as being inherently more sinful and an object of hate. Oh sure we are all born sinners but some more so than others. Hate the behavior, not the person, and all sorts of other idiotic garbage. Type the word homosexuality in your www search and see how many religious sites you will bring up filled with vitriolic mindless hate hiding behind religion.

Case in point, the Pope himself issued some decree or something recently condemning homosexuality as an immoral "lifestyle" :roll: and I've yet to see any apology come from any church for its centuries long campaign of psychological terrorism. You know who gets hurt the most by this? Kids, barely teenagers. Got any idea the suffering endured by gay youth who have religious backgrounds? It is tough enough to deal wiht but when religions are against you at a fundamental level, how'd you feel? A lot commit suicide due to this (3-5 times higher than average). What is ironic some with no previous religious background seek God, like I did, to help them cope wiht it then realize they are staring the devil in the face who threatens them with damnation.

Lastly I am not insulting your beleifs overall but on this issue they are simply corrupt and stink to high heaven and it makes me sick ot my stomach seeing people get up on a holier than thou moralistic pedestal. I am not against all christians or all of christianity, just some of them and some parts of it.

One-sided phobic mysticism? Catholic morals are not one-sided. They are based on an appreciation for the dignity held by all human beings, regardless of ethnicity, monetary standings, beliefs, sexual preferences, etc. Most of us still value tolerance. There are just those few overly conservative people within our religion giving us a bad reputation among the people out there in NS land. We have not lost the message of tolerance. You said it yourself, the problems were when these conservative Catholics took their beliefs to a horrible extreme, Similar to Hitler's extermination of the Jews, or the KKK. They were victims of a group of people with basically good intentions (in a very flawed way, ie "purifying Europe" or "Protecting white womanhood") They just took their beliefs to a horrible extreme. We aren't all zealous Hitlers bent on the condemnation of homosexuals. We promote tolerance. We believed homosexuality was a sin back when we didn't know it was genetic. Somewhere along the line, after that discovery was made, I am sure the pope at the time apologized, or at least he should have. I apologize for whatever my fellow Christians have done to any of you, and I beg you to stop insulting my beliefs.

Yes I am aware catholicism is latin or somethign for universality. However, if you look through the bible there are many passages which refer to homosexuals in not so kind ways. Leviticus, Corinthians, etc come to mind. You may value tolerance as an individual but the belief system puts certain persons as being inherently more sinful and an object of hate. Oh sure we are all born sinners but some more so than others. Hate the behavior, not the person, and all sorts of other idiotic garbage. Type the word homosexuality in your www search and see how many religious sites you will bring up filled with vitriolic mindless hate hiding behind religion.

Case in point, the Pope himself issued some decree or something recently condemning homosexuality as an immoral "lifestyle" :roll: and I've yet to see any apology come from any church for its centuries long campaign of psychological terrorism. You know who gets hurt the most by this? Kids, barely teenagers. Got any idea the suffering endured by gay youth who have religious backgrounds? It is tough enough to deal wiht but when religions are against you at a fundamental level, how'd you feel? A lot commit suicide due to this (3-5 times higher than average). What is ironic some with no previous religious background seek God, like I did, to help them cope wiht it then realize they are staring the devil in the face who threatens them with damnation.

Lastly I am not insulting your beleifs overall but on this issue they are simply corrupt and stink to high heaven and it makes me sick ot my stomach seeing people get up on a holier than thou moralistic pedestal. I am not against all christians or all of christianity, just some of them and some parts of it.

In similar fashion, I am not condemning your beliefs about Christianity. I believe it is far more common for Christian faith to become an advocate of hate than one of tolerance.

I recognize that you are not attacking my beliefs, but my God is love. Pure and simple. It is perhaps the greatest tragedy of my experience that Christians persecute those outside the traditional definition of mainstream culture. Please make the distinction that INDIVIDUALS hold a faith that embodies hate, not the entirety of the religion.

And this is jsut a snippet where they are getting this 'hate' from. The word of God.

"If a man; also lie will 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."
Leviticus 20:13 KJV

"Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind.: it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 KJV

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shaft not Inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterer, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards. nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Corinthians 6:9,10 NASV

Doesn't seem like a very lovey dovey guy to me, more like a nut. Who wrote this book? Was rabies pandemic back then?

People should recall that the bible was written by people living in specific cultural situations. Whether you believe that they were inspired by god or not it was ultimately written by people who possessed a particular set of ideological positions which probably seeped into those writings. Those change over time and religions also adapt to those changes (if they want to survive and be accepted by people), there are people who call themselves christians or catholics who fully support gay rights and marriage and tend to look at the bible more in those terms, as god 'inspired' rather than dictated and don't take every sentence literally. The fundamentalists who take the whole book in literal terms are the ones who use religion to fuel their hatred.

Sifting through a religious holy book to find literal sentences to justify hate is a wasteful expenditure, god did not say "homosexuality is wrong" an old old book written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by a god did. Even if you believe it was inspired by god, it is still a good idea to pay attention to the ideological situation they were written in and compare that with the one that exists around us now (our understanding of human nature has drastically changed, because a book written during a very different situation doesn't agree that means our current understanding is wrong? Think of the things that science has discovered/proved that the church ultimately had to accept...). The bible is not a literal rulebook and I would like to believe that most people don't take it as such.

The bible is not a literal rulebook and I would like to believe that most people don't take it as such.

Except maybe for that raving lunatic Dr. Laura :lol:

Except maybe for that raving lunatic Dr. Laura :lol:
I try to forget that she exists.

Except maybe for that raving lunatic Dr. Laura :lol:
I try to forget that she exists.

I'd like to do something to end her existence :twisted: . On the other hand I get kick out of watching her make a total fool out of herself. Just keep in mind she's a doctor of physiology, not psychology. She is truly and utterly an idiot for treading on the ground she does becuase she just doesn't have the background. Let her bang on her bible all she wants. That's all she has to go by and even then the bible is pretty ambiguous with respect to this issue.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shaft not Inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterer, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards. nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.?
Corinthians 6:9,10 NASV


"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual. Oh, and on that note that brings me to my favorite "The West Wing" episode.. ..

http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25letter.html
^^ Letter to Dr. Laura

http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00569.htm
^^ Part of the script from the west wing episode regarding Dr. Laura ;)

I regret that I go to a Private Christian school. I am an openly gay, 16 yo male and the amount of hypocrisy I see on a day-to-day basis at this school is insane! I recently watched the DVD "Trembling before G-D". It was on Judaism and Homosexuality. I literally cried during it, but then I cry whenever I hear stories about what homosexual youth are put through daily.

Here is something I wrote on homosexuality -> My Article (http://www.geocities.com/gaizme/article.html)

The main problem with Christianity in this debate is the number of hate groups etc.,that label themselves Christian(Christian Identity,etc.), or are simply appaling (Fred Phelps with his godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com sites-for those who don't know,he runs a Baptist church in Topeka.KS, and goes to the funerals of gay people to hold up signs saying that the deceased are in Hell.).

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shaft not Inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterer, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards. nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.?
Corinthians 6:9,10 NASV


"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual. Oh, and on that note that brings me to my favorite "The West Wing" episode.. ..

http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25letter.html
^^ Letter to Dr. Laura

http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00569.htm
^^ Part of the script from the west wing episode regarding Dr. Laura ;)

I regret that I go to a Private Christian school. I am an openly gay, 16 yo male and the amount of hypocrisy I see on a day-to-day basis at this school is insane! I recently watched the DVD "Trembling before G-D". It was on Judaism and Homosexuality. I literally cried during it, but then I cry whenever I hear stories about what homosexual youth are put through daily.

Here is something I wrote on homosexuality -> My Article (http://www.geocities.com/gaizme/article.html)

Yeah I am aware of the mistranslation etc... my point was it is there and people are using it to sanctify their hatred. Sad really.

At any rate, hang in there kiddo. Hold your head high and don't let them break you. :)

In my country Gays are shot on sight or beaten into men!!!!!!!!!

God this guy must be funny to watch



Fred Phelps with his godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com sites-for those who don't know,he runs a Baptist church in Topeka.KS, and goes to the funerals of gay people to hold up signs saying that the deceased are in Hell.).

God this guy must be funny to watch



Fred Phelps with his godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com sites-for those who don't know,he runs a Baptist church in Topeka.KS, and goes to the funerals of gay people to hold up signs saying that the deceased are in Hell.).

Yep, he's a real hoot that guy. If he pulled that sort of stunt in Canada he could face substantial fines and a prison term of up to 5 years as might some members here if they were a bit too outspoken about their idiocy.^^

Reverend Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church - Topeka, Ks.

He runs GodHatesFags.com and is most definatly not a Christian.

The Family Research Council - claims to be a Christan group but is an extremely right wing religious organization, and they do not follow normal Christian teachings.

Focus on the Family - same as the Family Research Council

Womens Council on BlahBLahbLah - same thing as the previous two, except it is a womens organization.

anyway, yea life sucks :|

Reverend Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church - Topeka, Ks.

He runs GodHatesFags.com and is most definatly not a Christian.

The Family Research Council - claims to be a Christan group but is an extremely right wing religious organization, and they do not follow normal Christian teachings.

Focus on the Family - same as the Family Research Council

Womens Council on BlahBLahbLah - same thing as the previous two, except it is a womens organization.

anyway, yea life sucks :|

LOL, the FRC and FOtF don't even follow scientic methodolgy let alone this religion they hide behind and most of all, intellectual honesty. Phelps is a vociferous closet queer anyways. :lol:
These so called research groups are pretty much dismissed as frauds by the mainstream, by real researchers. They parade around their degrees to pull the wool over the eyes of the yokels stupid enuogh to slurp up their nonsense. Dr. Laura LOL, Dr. Dobson, Dr Satinover, the list goes on and on. ALl of them far right-wing conservative "Christians"

Stumble I just want to say one thing.

Ultima Online sucks.

Stratics sucks.

Thank you.

:twisted:

Stumble I just want to say one thing.

Ultima Online sucks.

Stratics sucks.

Thank you.

:twisted:

I agree, UO does suck. It's swirling the drain as we speak. I actually quit playing in July after three years. I remained at stratics though... but funny you mentioned it coz I just gave up on stratics site a few minutes ago. To many ignorant asses there adn I've finally had enough...been a long time comnig...

now ot find a new region ..*sigh*

hey join gay :p

homosexuals are only viewed "different" "wrong" and "odd" by those that are intimidated by these people. those that do not exept them are biggots and do not have common decency to support ones neighbour and to allow these people to live free from discrimination and marjinalisation.

All though now adays the way homosexuals are treated they are members of the region i think they should be included in what ever they please but i do not aggree on homosexual marriage

Booyard insists that gays and lesbians should have equal rights as any other person. To deny someone of their human rights because of their sexual orientation is immoral. Gay/lesbian marriages will be legalised in Booyard as soon as possible under a parliamentary vote.

In Nomadic Peoples of Galuau we think sexual orientation is not identity itself, we support everybody. Gender (choosen or not!), sexual orientation (you need to feel it!) or sex are subjects we consider natural and therefore it's unecessary to make an issue out of them! Freedom is a concept we feel in our eyes, hands, buns, feet,...it's alive and theories about this stinks, and burocratic lobbies too!

Here runs a rumor about Santa's sex life, is he overtly queer, or not??

All though now adays the way homosexuals are treated they are members of the region i think they should be included in what ever they please but i do not aggree on homosexual marriage

Booyard insists that gays and lesbians should have equal rights as any other person. To deny someone of their human rights because of their sexual orientation is immoral. Gay/lesbian marriages will be legalised in Booyard as soon as possible under a parliamentary vote.

And you know what? Once homosexual marriage is legal, people will still be equal!
Straight people will be just as able to marry someone of their own gender as gays would be. :P

We in Heian-Edo have never seen any good reason why gays and lesbian should not marry. It will not affect the institution of marriage.

i said yes with rules because there's nothing wrong with them working with straights but their job freedom should be semi-limited.

meara doesn't like the idea of having homo's in our nation we should not let them in that is mearas decision. :roll:

Homosexuality a matter of consenting adults - Government does not need to get involved in this it's a matter of individual choice.

its not what their doing that is the bother its the jobs they work, dont take me wrong there is nothing bad about thoes people working with others but along the lines sexual harrassment suits are some what hard to file on some one of the same sex if the prossacuted denies it and lies about their sexuality to keep them safe.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.


I'm assuming you couldn't find anything other then barbs to back up your opinion? I don't understand how being homosexual is suicidal. Something else i don't understand is how loving someone is wrong--no matter what the orientation. Yes the bible says "Lie not with a man as you would a woman", but the bible has undergone 2000 years of interpretations and rewrites by mere mortals with their own opinions---and it makes no mention of woman "lying" together. I am a woman married to a man--but i see nothing wrong w/ same sex marriage--marriage is practical. I work w/ a gay man, he and his fiance are getting ready to get married and intend on adopting children. while i'm still debating internally the issues w/ adopting children I completly understand why he would want to marry. He wants to protect his and his partners rights if either were to die. Not to mention the tax reasons. as a side note--their marriage doesn't hurt me in anyway so who am i to deny their happiness??

So, Meara, are going to deport the homosexuals born there? You going to force them to live closeted lives that is flat out wrong? Drive them to suicide? Wether you like it or not, it isn't our choice to be attracted to men. So, tell me - what would you after you find homosexual men and lesbians, because they will be born in your nation there is no stopping that as of now.

My country is questioning gay/ lesbians bi's and any other types of togetherness. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. I support letting people be what they want to be. Yes these people should be able to have the same jobs and roles in soceity as straight people. We are not talking about religion here we are talking about human life, and feeling ashamed of being who you are.
Please consider this in voting They are people too they have feelings too!
The Country Of Laimbo

Do I think that G/L should have "more" rights than the average citizen? NO, they are not disabled, impared or limited in any way, mentally or physically.
Do I think that G/L should have the current rights enforced based on what is defined as descrimination? YES, the same equality of human/civil rights should be enforced.

Homosexuality is a choice, being black is not.

jmo

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.


I'm assuming you couldn't find anything other then barbs to back up your opinion? I don't understand how being homosexual is suicidal. Something else i don't understand is how loving someone is wrong--no matter what the orientation. Yes the bible says "Lie not with a man as you would a woman", but the bible has undergone 2000 years of interpretations and rewrites by mere mortals with their own opinions---and it makes no mention of woman "lying" together. I am a woman married to a man--but i see nothing wrong w/ same sex marriage--marriage is practical. I work w/ a gay man, he and his fiance are getting ready to get married and intend on adopting children. while i'm still debating internally the issues w/ adopting children I completly understand why he would want to marry. He wants to protect his and his partners rights if either were to die. Not to mention the tax reasons. as a side note--their marriage doesn't hurt me in anyway so who am i to deny their happiness??

You make a wonderful point on why there there is nothing wrong with homosexuals. Natrual or not, it's happening today. Sexuality is something that Governments and politicians should not be forcing upon us - it is our decision to whom our partners are. Booyard Government plans to make sure sexuality is not a political issue, therefore gay and lesbian marriages shall be legal to marry and express their sexuality as they please. This is a case where common sense prevails.

Homosexuality is a choice, being black is not.

jmo

Rotfl OK... let's see.. I dont recall ever choosing to be 'homosexual' in fact I spent ohh..12-13 years trying to undo this choice I never made. Maybe it ewas coz I wore boxers on sundays or something...

But let's try something here. I just decided to be heterosexual. OK now IM str8...hmm..*looks at naked girly pic*...*sees something about as inviting as a bag of potatoes*..*thinks about getting it on with this female*...* is slightly put off by the idea and would rather watch tv or soemthing*

Now let's try the other side...*looks at pic of Phyrric* ...*oh my :twisted: *...something not right here....* :P

There is as much choice invovled in being gay as there is choice in becoming sexually mature, changing voice, sprouting hair in funny places etc. coz thats when one's brain "decides" unconciously by means of biological substrate, not free will, that the person will or wil not be homosexual.

A bit of time is requested by the observer nation of Novakistan on this issue.

In Novakistan, homosexuals as people are granted the same "rights" as non-homosexuals. That is, they can wield firearms, can obtain jobs, freedom of non-seditious speech, and can purchase stocks.

However, the point at which Novakistan denies something to homosexuals is the PRIVILEDGE of a legal marriage. And that is just what it is. Marriage is a state-recognized union between a man and a woman based upon the morals of Novakistan's people.

To those who slander the Judeo-Christian religion, I simply ask them this question: From where do our modern day, western morals derive? I think the answer can be found in the holy texts and techings of Judaism and Christianity. By attacking these religions and any reasoning and morality stemming from them, you are condemning and attacking your own morality.

Novakistan's people have the right to determine the morality of the society they live in. To do this, they have outlawed sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, animal torture, etc. Sex is not a right protected by Novakistan's founding document. Therefore, the legislatures of our nation vote on the issue and have deemed sodomy and other immoral acts to be inappropriate in our society and cannot condone them.

For these reasons, Novakistan urges fellow nations to draw a line in the sand so that we as a global community do not take steps backwards into the times of the barbarians. With vague claims of "rights" which homosexuals already have, an attack is being made on the cultures of the vast majority of humanity. This attack must end here.

Maybe you haven't noticed how the bible is usually interpreted in accordance with contemporary culture. I'm sure the current Christian interpretation of the bible in both Britain and America, differs greatly with that which caused the declaration of holy wars in medieval times. Religion does not shape our beliefs concerning morality, in fact it is the other way around.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.

Well I'm sorry you didn't receive a better education then.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.

Well I'm sorry you didn't receive a better education then.

Please back up your statements with something more than intolerance and hatred.

Homosexuality is defined as a natural form of sexuality, and if you personally are not interested in queer sexuality there is no one forcing you to be.

Please explain how homosexuality is suicidal. Is that statement because of AIDS? Fact: AIDS rates are dropping in homosexuals and rising in heterosexuals.

It is not reproductive, thus suicidal.

I just made that outburst because of the frequent verbal diarrhoea from PC nuts who put words into the mouths of conservatives, and label us bigots, ignorant and intolerant just because we don't accept their hypocritical position.

Well there are lots of things which don't lead to reproductive. Things like washing the dishes, playing a sport or even just generally acting like a complete dumbass. Yet we do not label these things suicidal.
I don't think human life is on the verge of dying out due to the scourge of homosexuality just yet so we needn't panic really.

A lot of people are bashing Christianity, calling it ignorant, archaic, and bigoted. First of all, it's equally 'ignorant' to stereotype Christians as ignorant etc.
Some people think that homosexuality is not a choice while others claim that it is entirely a choice. Both are wrong. Science has proven that there is a genetic tendency to same-sex attraction. However, there is also a genetic tendency in some people to be more aggressive. If we allow people with the homosexual genetic tendency to respond to their urges, shouldn't we allow the genetically more aggressive people to follow their urges and beat or kill people?
Some non-Christians claim that Christians are hypocritical in their discouragement of homosexuality. They seem to think that Christians hate gays while loving everyone else. Think about it like this:
Let's compare the act of being gay to the act of murder (although obviously murder is far worse than homosexuality). A person who does gay things is classified as a 'gay' (or some other name) and someone who kills is classified as a murderer. Any Christian (and most non-Christians) would agree that murder is a sin and the murderer a sinner. However, we should also love the murderer, just like we love thieves, false witnessers, coveters, and everyone else. The same is true (or is supposed to be true) of gays; we should love them just like everyone else. Just because a few (or many) Christians don't love gays and kill/abuse/etc. them doesn't mean that Christianity is hypocritical or anything. Some Christians are just really dumb and annoying, so ignore them.

I beleive there are several arguments for ang agaisnt homosexuality. The 2 main are:
1. People should have the right to do what they want in their privatelives and be treated the same publicly.
2. People have he right to live in a secure enviornment. We cant kill people, and homosexuality interferes with societies order.
These are both right. And 2 rights make a right (I hope so at least). So we need to come to some balance.
A way to give everyone something they want.

On something different I am very mad at the media for stereotyping the role of gays and lesbians. Many shows use them as comical relief. Every homosexualIve seen on TV has been shown in a negative manner. If I based my opinions even slightly on that, I would be quite hesitent to live with someone like that.

Why does NS have to be infested with so many left-wing dickheads?

Being homo is not natural. It's disgusting. And its suicidal.


Since we are discussing this, why does NS have to be 'infested' with so many right-wing pricks? The language of course of your opening statement was crude at best, so I felt the need to reply in the same tone of voice.

Now then, by your standards, if such a thing is not natural, so be it. It was at some point to others, so they began grouping together and enjoying happy, productive lives. Oddly enough, those very same individuals have very likely served your food, cleaned your house, and go figure, defended whatever nation you currently reside in.

Whether you find someone with vastly differing sexual practices than your own, the fact remains that they are there, you are there, and if you DON'T want to sleep with them, they probably didn't want to sleep with you either. No harm, no foul.

Homosexuality may be suicidal, but that's only because those not tolerant of it choose to inform those at the crux of an important decision to be who they are or conform to the masses, wish young or older homosexuals to leave or die even better. From the opinions of those here, perhaps that's not the wisest choice. But you, like other people are entitle to your own opinion.

Gay people for the most part don't want MORE rights. They only want the SAME rights that are given to anyone. These are basic human rights.

IF a business wants to discriminate against anyone or anything that doesn't fit within the parameters of their corporate charter, then that particular business probably won't last long. Everyone, from the lowest depraved homeless person that just ran into a bit of bad luck...to the richest caucasian tycoon (straight, gay, or somewhere in between), has worth. And money.

It is financial suicide to say that a business won't sell its products to an individual or group of individuals simply because of who those people sleep with.

Flaunting one's sexual preference is probably not the wisest decision. But I vaguely recall being peppered with advertisements for 1-900-see a busty babe on almost a daily basis. Who is flaunting there? It matters not.

Heterosexual couples do their thing. Homosexual couples (male & female and mixes thereof), do their own thing. All are functioning members of society. Marriage, by the terms of most governments, is basically a cash cow. By recognizing marriage between two consenting adults, oddly enough there would be more cash available.


...go figure.

-Nex

If we allow people with the homosexual genetic tendency to respond to their urges, shouldn't we allow the genetically more aggressive people to follow their urges and beat or kill people?
Some non-Christians claim that Christians are hypocritical in their discouragement of homosexuality. They seem to think that Christians hate gays while loving everyone else. Think about it like this:
Let's compare the act of being gay to the act of murder (although obviously murder is far worse than homosexuality). .

Firstly, I have to ask what connects homosexuality to violent behavior? And how does allowing the fomer to act on his or her urges have to do the permitting actions of the latter group? A lot of behaviors have genetic origin so why not say that murder is far worse than maternal instincts, or intellect, or creativity? Seems to have a lot do with the human tendency to be fearful or uncomforable with sexual activity, especially by normpohiles (and I use that term very loosely here). Seems to a bit of egocentric moral relativism going on here as well. It's all pretty telling on human behavior in general. :wink:

Also homosexuality is a funny word, it has many meanings. It can refer to an act committed by a predominantly heterosexual person, be it consentual intragenerational activity or consentual adn or non-consentual intergenerational actvity (homosexual pedophilia). In short, homosexuality is a term often used to describe acts outside what is viewed as the norm with repsect to heterosexual behavior. I rarely if ever see the term heterosexuality used in such a blanketing manner.

Homosexuality, in the context of describing sexual orientation is the opposite of heterosexuality. It is a mirror image of it, though without the existence within the indivdual, internal "heterophobia" as presented as homophobia in homosexuals and heterosexuals alike predisposing both against the sexual orientation. Hompohobia also manifests itself in many ways, extending to beleif systems for example (institutional homophobia). Internal homophobia is inherent to most if not all humans but some display the behavior externally (violence, projection, vocalisation,even intermixed with their mysticism/religion).

Regardless of what one believes of it boiling down to choice it should be noted that inherent sexual behavior (orientation) is determined and driven by the most primitive structures of the brain, which is better known as the abstraction in psycholanalytic theory the unconcious partition known as the id. Simply put, if it is possible that homosexuals chose theire sexual orientation they should then be able to control at will such things as body temperature, heart rate adn so on. Further citing the genetic evidence surrounding deermination of sexual orientation and various factors in human reproductive ecology and reproductive behavior, homsexuality is most certainly an evolved adaptation or it simply would not occur to the level it does. It fits too well into gene theory to be simply a defect. Why it has survived so long adn is so prevalent in humans, especially when we consider that the behavior is a non-reproductive variant is extremely important to keep in mind. :idea:

If we allow people with the homosexual genetic tendency to respond to their urges, shouldn't we allow the genetically more aggressive people to follow their urges and beat or kill people?

Minor detail: Killing people, well, kills people. Gay sex doesn't, in case you never noticed.

We cant kill people, and homosexuality interferes with societies order.

Okay. Once you establish that all gays constantly run around stabbing people to death, you may have an argument. Until then, I fail to see the connection.

Homosexuality is a choice, being black is not.

jmo

Rotfl OK... let's see.. I dont recall ever choosing to be 'homosexual' in fact I spent ohh..12-13 years trying to undo this choice I never made. Maybe it ewas coz I wore boxers on sundays or something...

But let's try something here. I just decided to be heterosexual. OK now IM str8...hmm..*looks at naked girly pic*...*sees something about as inviting as a bag of potatoes*..*thinks about getting it on with this female*...* is slightly put off by the idea and would rather watch tv or soemthing*

Now let's try the other side...*looks at pic of Phyrric* ...*oh my :twisted: *...something not right here....* :P

There is as much choice invovled in being gay as there is choice in becoming sexually mature, changing voice, sprouting hair in funny places etc. coz thats when one's brain "decides" unconciously by means of biological substrate, not free will, that the person will or wil not be homosexual.

This is where I have to agree with Andrew Dice Clay:

To suck a d**k or not to suck a d**k. That sounds like a choice to me.

To suck a d**k or not to suck a d**k. That sounds like a choice to me.
All actions of sexual behaviour are chosen, people do not choose who they are sexually attracted to.

Homosexuality, in the context of describing sexual orientation is the opposite of heterosexuality. It is a mirror image of it, though without the existence within the indivdual, internal "heterophobia" as presented as homophobia in homosexuals and heterosexuals alike predisposing both against the sexual orientation. Hompohobia also manifests itself in many ways, extending to beleif systems for example (institutional homophobia). Internal homophobia is inherent to most if not all humans but some display the behavior externally (violence, projection, vocalisation,even intermixed with their mysticism/religion).
I think by the internal homophobia you are talking about here, you mean heterosexism. Using homophobia here is misleading as it signifies a fearful response to homosexuality. Heterosexism is the internal belief that heterosexuality is 'normal', which would be the part that predisposes against homosexuality. (really just a semantic disagreement, I agree with you on the rest)

If we allow people with the homosexual genetic tendency to respond to their urges, shouldn't we allow the genetically more aggressive people to follow their urges and beat or kill people?

Minor detail: Killing people, well, kills people. Gay sex doesn't, in case you never noticed.

We cant kill people, and homosexuality interferes with societies order.

Okay. Once you establish that all gays constantly run around stabbing people to death, you may have an argument. Until then, I fail to see the connection.
Im not, im trying to give an example of restraint.

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

I have to disagree.

ALL people deserve the same rights and freedoms under the law, no matter their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation,or ability.

It IS a basic Civil Rights issue. Whether in the real world or this virtual one, we all have the same basic dignity and humanity.

Exactly. All people have the same rights under the law. Believe it or not, that includes the freedom of association.

Homosexuality is a choice, being black is not.

jmo

Rotfl OK... let's see.. I dont recall ever choosing to be 'homosexual' in fact I spent ohh..12-13 years trying to undo this choice I never made. Maybe it ewas coz I wore boxers on sundays or something...

But let's try something here. I just decided to be heterosexual. OK now IM str8...hmm..*looks at naked girly pic*...*sees something about as inviting as a bag of potatoes*..*thinks about getting it on with this female*...* is slightly put off by the idea and would rather watch tv or soemthing*

Now let's try the other side...*looks at pic of Phyrric* ...*oh my :twisted: *...something not right here....* :P

There is as much choice invovled in being gay as there is choice in becoming sexually mature, changing voice, sprouting hair in funny places etc. coz thats when one's brain "decides" unconciously by means of biological substrate, not free will, that the person will or wil not be homosexual.

This is where I have to agree with Andrew Dice Clay:

To suck a d**k or not to suck a d**k. That sounds like a choice to me.

If you need to resort to quoting that moronic piece of gutter trash to bolster your arguement, you have absolutely nothing to contribute here. Sayonara.

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

I have to disagree.

ALL people deserve the same rights and freedoms under the law, no matter their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation,or ability.

It IS a basic Civil Rights issue. Whether in the real world or this virtual one, we all have the same basic dignity and humanity.

Exactly. All people have the same rights under the law. Believe it or not, that includes the freedom of association.

there is a flaw though. If companies wont hire gays, then why would they say their gay. Thus, you either get people firing people because they might be something, or huge amount of secrecy which wont help anyone.

Hmm... I can't imagine any negative consequences about homosexuals being allowed equal privleges, except that some people are unhappy with the concept of two men being placed on an equal footing to a man with a woman.

I consider heterosexual and homosexual activities pretty disgusting, and in equal amounts - I don't care which hole it goes in, they're both icky. Frankly, the whole point of a government is to enforce or facilitate the propagation of certain principles. The principles are arbitrarily chosen, whether they be the 'will of the people' or a religious agenda.

Marriage is two things. Firstly, it is a religious institution, which entitles two - or sometimes more - people (the religion can choose their own moral statutes) to join together, in the eyes of the church. Secondly, it is an artificial legal contract binding two people together to confer certain rights. We have two choices, which are (a) to disregard the concept of freedom, and debase the sanctity of religious affairs by sullying them with secular triviaties, or (b) to emphasise the rights of individuals to make choices, and the separateness of the spiritual from the things of this world.

Otherwise, you might as well stick the label 'Theocracy' or 'Dictatorship' on your government (because there is no - and I repeat, NO - logical or scientific objection to homosexuality) and enforce whicever principles you wish.

Archaeus will support freedom of choice.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Homosexuality, in the context of describing sexual orientation is the opposite of heterosexuality. It is a mirror image of it, though without the existence within the indivdual, internal "heterophobia" as presented as homophobia in homosexuals and heterosexuals alike predisposing both against the sexual orientation. Hompohobia also manifests itself in many ways, extending to beleif systems for example (institutional homophobia). Internal homophobia is inherent to most if not all humans but some display the behavior externally (violence, projection, vocalisation,even intermixed with their mysticism/religion).
I think by the internal homophobia you are talking about here, you mean heterosexism. Using homophobia here is misleading as it signifies a fearful response to homosexuality. Heterosexism is the internal belief that heterosexuality is 'normal', which would be the part that predisposes against homosexuality. (really just a semantic disagreement, I agree with you on the rest)

I'm not sure either way. Heterosexism is more or less conditioned. Homophobia I think, though not sure, goes quite a bit deeper. It may be innate for all I know (i'll skip the very long comlicated explanation coz im burtn out lol). Anyhoo, for all intents and purposes they are much the same thing. So we are essentialy still in agreement.

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

I have to disagree.

ALL people deserve the same rights and freedoms under the law, no matter their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation,or ability.

It IS a basic Civil Rights issue. Whether in the real world or this virtual one, we all have the same basic dignity and humanity.

Exactly. All people have the same rights under the law. Believe it or not, that includes the freedom of association.

there is a flaw though. If companies wont hire gays, then why would they say their gay. Thus, you either get people firing people because they might be something, or huge amount of secrecy which wont help anyone.

Those companies that fire compulsively tend to go out of business.

Companies should not be restricted from discriminating against homosexuals. It's a private entity; therefore, it gets to decide who to allow on its property.

I have to disagree.

ALL people deserve the same rights and freedoms under the law, no matter their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation,or ability.

It IS a basic Civil Rights issue. Whether in the real world or this virtual one, we all have the same basic dignity and humanity.

Exactly. All people have the same rights under the law. Believe it or not, that includes the freedom of association.

there is a flaw though. If companies wont hire gays, then why would they say their gay. Thus, you either get people firing people because they might be something, or huge amount of secrecy which wont help anyone.

Those companies that fire compulsively tend to go out of business.

Actualy no. If you go to any news source and look up anti descrimination lawsuits, you will ge pages and pages. There are too many but still, disrcimination wont force a company out of businesst every consumer will look up their legal record.

Homosexuality, in the context of describing sexual orientation is the opposite of heterosexuality. It is a mirror image of it, though without the existence within the indivdual, internal "heterophobia" as presented as homophobia in homosexuals and heterosexuals alike predisposing both against the sexual orientation. Hompohobia also manifests itself in many ways, extending to beleif systems for example (institutional homophobia). Internal homophobia is inherent to most if not all humans but some display the behavior externally (violence, projection, vocalisation,even intermixed with their mysticism/religion).
I think by the internal homophobia you are talking about here, you mean heterosexism. Using homophobia here is misleading as it signifies a fearful response to homosexuality. Heterosexism is the internal belief that heterosexuality is 'normal', which would be the part that predisposes against homosexuality. (really just a semantic disagreement, I agree with you on the rest)

I'm not sure either way. Heterosexism is more or less conditioned. Homophobia I think, though not sure, goes quite a bit deeper. It may be innate for all I know (i'll skip the very long comlicated explanation coz im burtn out lol). Anyhoo, for all intents and purposes they are much the same thing. So we are essentialy still in agreement.
Yes we do agree. I would just call it heterosexism instead of internal homophobia. Homophobia is a response to exposure to homosexuality (either an actual exposure or an exposure to the concept) and heterosexism is the conditioned belief in many people in Western culture that heterosexuality is the norm (that's how I would distinguish them, but I agree with your premise regardless of your word choice). I think it's possible to uncondition heterosexism or to not condition it into people at all, I suppose I'm an optimist in some ways.

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

And exactly what equal rights do they not have?

the right to marry. and im sure there are dismised hate crimes out there.

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

And exactly what equal rights do they not have?

Actually we have more than most people :)

We have the right to sexually based harassment. Workplace, schools, etc.
We have the right to physical assault based simply on sexual orientation.
We have the right to be denied employment or accomodations in some cases.
We have the right to being slandered by most mainstream religions and most of their followers.
We have the right to be told we shoud be killed in some cases.
We have the right to be not considered a minority.
We have the right to have no say in legalities surrounding our relationships. Community property, estate issues, pension/survivor benefits (govt and private) etc.
We have the right to far higher rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse.

Merely a few examples. Join us! You too can live the high lifestyle we 'choose' to partake in such luxuries! :D

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

And exactly what equal rights do they not have?

Actually we have more than most people :)

We have the right to sexually based harassment. Workplace, schools, etc.
We have the right to physical assault based simply on sexual orientation.
We have the right to be denied employment or accomodations in some cases.
We have the right to being slandered by most mainstream religions and most of their followers.
We have the right to be told we shoud be killed in some cases.
We have the right to be not considered a minority.
We have the right to have no say in legalities surrounding our relationships. Community property, estate issues, pension/survivor benefits (govt and private) etc.
We have the right to far higher rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse.

Merely a few examples. Join us! You too can live the high lifestyle we 'choose' to partake in such luxuries! :D

An oft true, if rather wry, summation.

Most 'problems' with homosexuality, it seems, stem from the inaccurate, biased perception which people have of the practice and practitioners. It is puzzling that so many people care what other people do in bed, especially when they would strongly resent such intrusions on their own private lives.

However, it is important to some individuals. So long as they do not actually encourage or commit violations of civil rights (as opposed to changes in civil rights legislation), they must be permitted to continue to express their views.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I fully agree with Archaeus.

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

And exactly what equal rights do they not have?

This post is numerologically appropriate, since you are certainly playing the devil's advocate.

They lack the rights to a civil union in many countries, and thus to have their relationship with their partner considered on a level footing with distinct-sex couples.

They can be removed from their jobs in some countries, and (as in Africa) severe civil rights violations are often ignored, or encouraged, by those in charge.

Moreover, there has been a drive to exclued homosexuals from relevent sex education - the publicly acknowledged aim of section 28.

Differential ages of consent are also an intriguing feature of the law in many states and countries, and in Kansas (as I recall) such legislation as the 'Romeo and Juliet' law (as it is commonly referred to) mean that whilst young heterosexuals receive diminutive sentencing (of only 15 months, with no criminal record) for age-of-consent violations, young gay lovers can be given 17 year prison sentences along with a criminal record for sexual relations with a minor.

This strikes me as a clear example where homosexuals do not have equal rights.

Were you really asking, or were you implying that you do not consider the rights of homosexuals or heterosexuals inequal?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

(scrolling through an online US Constitution)

I still cannot find anything specific that claims homosexuals have less rights.

As far as 'other countries', who are you to throw your own personal practices and desires upon them? Do they not have the right of sovereignty and self government?

Sexual relations with a minor as a justification of equality. I think that stems far beyond the homosexual theater, what is more glaring than that is child rape, child molestation, the Catholic church (mind you all religions molest their children, just that the Catholic church is the wealthiest with the deepest pockets), child pronography, etc etc etc.

Why would ones own sexual prefences ive someone minority standing? Why are homosexual CHOICES considered the same as someone BIRTH characteristics. I have never awaken and decided to be black, white, asian, woman, deformed, retarded, old, young, etc etc etc. I chose to have sex with women, I chose to have sex with women my age, I chose to have sex with women that are under 200 pounds, I chose not to have sex with men, would I be considered a minority now because my choices that I have just stated??? Why is your sexual preference better than mine and more deserving of government fundings, protection and protocol?

The violations that were listed by Stumblebum are no different that what others have endured that CHOSE not to be homosexual.

We have the right to sexually based harassment. Workplace, schools, etc.
sexual harassment works two way
We have the right to physical assault based simply on sexual orientation.
prison rape
We have the right to be denied employment or accomodations in some cases.
Everyone has suffered this at one time or another
We have the right to being slandered by most mainstream religions and most of their followers.
Ireland
We have the right to be told we shoud be killed in some cases.
9/11
We have the right to be not considered a minority.
Asians taken off the minority list in the US
We have the right to far higher rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse.
Wrong, the young african-american male still ranks the highest.

The only one I would agree with is gay marriage which I would agree with and support. They should be entitled the same benefits, but not 'special priviledges' that would be above what any other is entitled to.

its probably fine print. Also remember things can be interpretted diferently. Such as all men are created equal, not including blacks at first

This thread is getting too funny.

"Honey, get a look at this. The Johnsons are sodomites!"

"Well there goes the neighborhood."

Now, I could be wrong...

I could be VERY wrong.

But it's my personal belief that all these people who say "it's a choice" are having to restrain themselves with all of their willpower from making that choice every day.

(scrolling through an online US Constitution)

I still cannot find anything specific that claims homosexuals have less rights.


(I hope I'm using this BBCode correctly! Also, apologies for the delay in posting, I consider what I write very carefully before I post it - though never carefully enough, I inevitably decide on rereading it - and it is hard to read in this resolution.)

I beg that you note that there is no specific provision that homosexuals must be given equal rights. This may seem like I am picking straws, but in fact, this is precisely the point raised to legitimise differential rights! In the case in point (Kansas' 'Romeo and Juliet' law) the judge raised this very point to justify his decision to give the defendant a sentence 1360% longer than that which could applied to a heterosexual offender. It is unfortunate that people are so specific about the letter of the law at the expense of its spirit.

As far as 'other countries', who are you to throw your own personal practices and desires upon them? Do they not have the right of sovereignty and self government?


May I ask, please, what do you mean? I live in the United Kingdom. This is, as far as America is concerned, one of those 'other countries'. I believed that I was entitled to comment on any country on an equal basis, rather than restrict my voiced opinions to those in the British Empire.

Sexual relations with a minor as a justification of equality. I think that stems far beyond the homosexual theater, what is more glaring than that is child rape, child molestation, the Catholic church (mind you all religions molest their children, just that the Catholic church is the wealthiest with the deepest pockets), child pronography, etc etc etc.


I'm terribly sorry to ask again, but once more - what do you mean by this? The law treated (I am reciting from memory) that consensual sexual relations between someone aged 14-16 and someone else aged under 19 were considered leniently - but only, as the judge went to great pains to point out, if those involved were of distinct sex. I was deploring nit-picking, not advocating the sexual abuse of minors. I can't quite tell what you think I was alluding to, but it wasn't the legitimacy of non-consensual sex!

Why would ones own sexual prefences ive someone minority standing?


I thought this was self-evident - because they are in a minority with respect to sexual preference, and further to this are at risk of extreme, tangible prejudice on that basis. If it is considered important enough by its opponents to constitute negative differential treatment, then surely we have reason to safeguard their rights?

Besides, I don't support 'minority status' - I support anti-discrimination. What precisely are you referring to with this term, anyway? Note that although I use this phrase, I do so uncertainly.

Why are homosexual CHOICES considered the same as someone BIRTH characteristics. I have never awaken and decided to be black, white, asian, woman, deformed, retarded, old, young, etc etc etc. I chose to have sex with women, I chose to have sex with women my age, I chose to have sex with women that are under 200 pounds, I chose not to have sex with men, would I be considered a minority now because my choices that I have just stated??? Why is your sexual preference better than mine and more deserving of government fundings, protection and protocol?

I am asexual, thus I do not have sex with either men or women. This, however, is not the reason I call myself asexual - I choose to do so because I do not feel any inclination to have sex with individuals of either sex.

It is not homosexual choices that are generally considered, it is homosexual orientation. You did not choose to be attracted to women under two hundred pounds, I presume. (At least, the population in general does not, from my observations.) Why, therefore, should you be discriminated against?

I should also point out, at this juncture, that one can choose to be a Jew (no, you don't have to be born one, you can convert to Judaeism). Why should they not, then, be classed as a minority, and why should we not, therefore, count action taken against them on basis of their religious choice as unlawful discrimination, i.e. anti-Semitism?

This argument holds regardless of your interpretation of the scientific evidence. Incidentally, it shows that even in cases where gay individuals genuinely wish to change their orientation, they are seldom capable of doing so (and in the cases where they alledgedly can, there is much dispute over the validity of their claims). I ask you politely, if something takes sustained effort to overcome, and is not even guaranteed to change at that, can it really be called a 'choice'?

The violations that were listed by Stumblebum are no different that what others have endured that CHOSE not to be homosexual.

Can I ask, at which point did they make this choice? And on what basis? I venture that it was because they were not attracted to men - not much of a choice, more just 'going with the flow'.

We have the right to sexually based harassment. Workplace, schools, etc.
sexual harassment works two way
We have the right to physical assault based simply on sexual orientation.
prison rape
We have the right to be denied employment or accomodations in some cases.
Everyone has suffered this at one time or another
We have the right to being slandered by most mainstream religions and most of their followers.
Ireland
We have the right to be told we shoud be killed in some cases.
9/11
We have the right to be not considered a minority.
Asians taken off the minority list in the US
We have the right to far higher rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse.
Wrong, the young african-american male still ranks the highest.


Three things?

First, he was not pointing out the uniqueness of these violations. Other people have similar judgements carried out upon them - the big distinction is that, in this case, they come about solely on the basis of sexuality.

Second, you will note that in not one of these cases is the violation 'fair' or 'justified'. They should not be committed in the first place, and protective mechanisms should be put in place to prevent them happening. This should hold, I assume, whether or not the motivation is race, religious beliefs, nationality or sexual orientation.

The only one I would agree with is gay marriage which I would agree with and support. They should be entitled the same benefits, but not 'special priviledges' that would be above what any other is entitled to.

Totally correct. I was only pointing out that, in many contexts and countries, homosexuals are not accorded equal rights to heterosexuals, and that often they are the subjects of criminal damage, persecution or rights violations on the sole basis of who they go to bed with.

I see your point, however, and I think the difference lies in what you call 'privleges,' and what I call 'necessary protection'. Individuals deserve to be protected when their rights are violated, whether gay, straight or technicoloured, and if the rights of one group is infringed upon more than those of others, then a proportionally greater effort must be made to safeguard those rights.

Finally, an apology - my proofreading of this post is scanty, so maybe some errors went undetected, and it really is excessively long.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Oops!

Sorry, there's a mistake in the BBCode. You'll see it - where it says just 'Quote:' and goes straight into a quote box, that's actually me quoting - I missed out a [/quote] tag. If that's not clear, I can repost it - correctly formatted!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

Duh, the complete destruction of mankind off course. :wink:

an imprtant qestion is this:
What negative things could happen as a result of giving homsexuals equal rights?

Duh, the complete destruction of mankind off course. :wink:

I'm assuming that's a joke, but I'll answer it as a serious question, because the answer is simple, pleasant, and succinct, and leads to some interesting genetics.

Homosexuality will never lead to the destruction of mankind because there's no way the majority of mankind will ever become homosexual.

This is because the majority of men and women are naturally attracted to members of the other sex. Those who are not are unlikely to reproduce, and therefore will tend to diminish in numbers. This is a necessary consequence of the fundamental law of natural selection, which states that any genetic variation that does not contribute positively to the continuation of the species will die out pretty quickly.

That said, it can be pointed out that the existence of a significant number of people who are exclusively homosexual is in itself a challenge to Darwinian selection, inasmuch that the law dictates that it should never have grown to include such a large segment of the world's populace. There are two answers to this:

The first is that individuals who are predominantly homosexual would attempt to behave in socially normal ways - thus, they would have sexual relationships with women, in spite of whatever their natural inclinations are.

The second, which is more interesting, goes thus: a long time back, there was no homosexuality. The genes which now encourage such orientations were there, but they served a different purpose. Then, as society changed, so did the phenotypic (i.e. environmental) effects of the genes, so that what once were genes for something else are now expressed as a proclivity towards homosexual behaviour.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

(scrolling through an online US Constitution)

I still cannot find anything specific that claims homosexuals have less rights.

As far as 'other countries', who are you to throw your own personal practices and desires upon them? Do they not have the right of sovereignty and self government?

Sexual relations with a minor as a justification of equality. I think that stems far beyond the homosexual theater, what is more glaring than that is child rape, child molestation, the Catholic church (mind you all religions molest their children, just that the Catholic church is the wealthiest with the deepest pockets), child pronography, etc etc etc.

Why would ones own sexual prefences ive someone minority standing? Why are homosexual CHOICES considered the same as someone BIRTH characteristics. I have never awaken and decided to be black, white, asian, woman, deformed, retarded, old, young, etc etc etc. I chose to have sex with women, I chose to have sex with women my age, I chose to have sex with women that are under 200 pounds, I chose not to have sex with men, would I be considered a minority now because my choices that I have just stated??? Why is your sexual preference better than mine and more deserving of government fundings, protection and protocol?

The violations that were listed by Stumblebum are no different that what others have endured that CHOSE not to be homosexual.

We have the right to sexually based harassment. Workplace, schools, etc.
sexual harassment works two way
We have the right to physical assault based simply on sexual orientation.
prison rape
We have the right to be denied employment or accomodations in some cases.
Everyone has suffered this at one time or another
We have the right to being slandered by most mainstream religions and most of their followers.
Ireland
We have the right to be told we shoud be killed in some cases.
9/11
We have the right to be not considered a minority.
Asians taken off the minority list in the US
We have the right to far higher rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse.
Wrong, the young african-american male still ranks the highest.

The only one I would agree with is gay marriage which I would agree with and support. They should be entitled the same benefits, but not 'special priviledges' that would be above what any other is entitled to.

Here we go with the homosexual choices thing... that is completely absurd. I didnt wake up and decide ot be white or gay or have brown hair. Rather than dump riems of posts to dispel this idea you have I will jsut simply say it is absurd to say someone can choose sexual orientation. When I say sexual orientation, that includes revulsion to the sex opposite of that which is the object of desire. However. you may continue to drivel about choice because I find it quite funny from my perspective. If you 'chose' to be heterosexual adn not to have sex with men you are possibly bisexual or a latent homosexual. The only choice which factors into sexual orienatation (not to be confused with paraphilia - psychosexual disorders) is to act upon them and consdering that sexual orientation is a mutually exclusive behavior, one who opposes homosexuals seems to have deluded themself into being so self-important that they insist it is not acted upon adn therfore be insulated from the other's sexual activity. I hate str8's you chose it, don't have sex!!! Catch my drift?

At any rate the question of there being no choice or whatever is not the basis for the gay rights movement. It boils down to personal freedoms and the fact that homosexuals can and do live happily adn producitvely not harming others or posing a risk to society. We also have people wiht the background in this area (psychology), not the conservative peanut gallery, nicely on our side...http://www.apa.org/pi/statemen.html kind of a long read but you get the picture.

As for the special rights I pointed out which you then overly extended to isolated incidents, can you say that those examples you outlined are to the level experienced by homosexuals???? Is either justified?

sexual harassment: I dont know of that many cases where gays have sexually harassed str8' sbased on their sexuality. When I say sexual hrassment I mean harassment based on sexuality, not unwanted advances. Besides I've been propsotioned by quite a few str8 guys :/

phycial assault: you responded with prison rape???? WTF does that have to do with anything? That is mostly committed by str8 men to exert dominance. omfg lol :lol:

religious hatred: You responded with the Ireland question which actually has more to do with nationalism and Great Britain's annexation of N. Ireland. Religion factors in by the fact Irealnd is predomininatly Catholic and the UK is predominantly protestant. This interdenominational rivalry isn' t my probelm anyways. Besidse this is not a valid comparison to begin with. None of them are.

9/11: oh brother... mgiht surprise you many gay and lesbians were killed during this event also. One in fact was aboard the flight which crashed in Penn State and was one fo the passengers which retook the plane. I don't think a literal translation of hte Quran or Holy bible calls for the killling of Americans specifically.... :?

the asian minority: well out of all ethinc groups asians are generally the msot integrated anyways. At least they had the minority status at one time which I honestly dont want anyways, rather to see the ignorant douchebags which seem to abound here reduced to statistical minority one way or the other. :twisted:

depression/ substance abuse amongst black males: Hmm I never did say gays held first place here anyways. Then again, balcks are a visible minority. The group of homosexuals msot prone to destructive behavior brought on through societal attitudes are teens, not adults. Suicidologists pin the cause to inability to cope with the sexuality (ego dystonia) or rejection. It's very possible there is an uncounted number who end their lives wihtout ever being known.

The one thing I do agree wiht you on is that there is no need for special rights not already granted to average persons. If someone assaults me, they will eitehr get beaten themselve's or charged with assualt. Someone denies me a job or whatever based on sexual orientation they will have to deal with my lawyer or human rights commission. At any rate, in most cases, the protections are already there. Except in the case of hate crime legislation which recently became law in Canada.

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

A. "Affirmative Action"-you get the job because you prefer men? What would make the difference in that category from women in that instance? A woman (usually) prefers to be with men too.
B. You get the SBA loan because you are gay. We are looking at 'preferencial treatment' here. Being gay is not being disabled or a victim of past injustices outside what others have suffered IE slavery and the holocaust.
C. Scholarships and grants. I cannot go to college because I am straight, but if I chose to blow someone, the University of Michigan will admit me?
D. Special fundings and recognitions. National recognition of homosexuality. I thought the whole point was not to exploit it but to defend it.

This might be construed as nit-picking itself but are real legitimate concerns and go along with 'minority protections'. These are just 4 examples that minorities get 'priviledged'.

If I started the "United Caucasian College Fund", I would be sued into suicide and labeled a racist, but why can't I? Minority Rights, I cannot support 'my' brothers. I cannot promote 'my' ethnicity because I am a 'majority'.

There are many injustices in the world and being homosexual is just a slice of that massive pie. As I stated before, the only injustice that G/L endure above what every other human has/had to endure is the property/benefits issue. Case in point: I am a single father with 2 children at home (mother abandonment issue) and fighting for the God given right to see my third child. Because I have a penis, the child "automatically" goes to the woman and the only support a man can give is in the form of cold hard cash and told exactly what time that father can see his son. If there is no scheduled 'visitation' (convicts get visitation), I cannot see or talk to him, it is illegal and seen as 'harassment'. There is no greater sufferage. Should I now be a member of the minority class and get special priviledges and considerations? One might say that is comparing apples and oranges, but is homosexuality in the same category as 'slave', 'religious prosecution', or 'woman suffrage'? I do not see the connection and therefor, should not be 'entitled' to the same benefits.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

A. "Affirmative Action"-you get the job because you prefer men? What would make the difference in that category from women in that instance? A woman (usually) prefers to be with men too.
B. You get the SBA loan because you are gay. We are looking at 'preferencial treatment' here. Being gay is not being disabled or a victim of past injustices outside what others have suffered IE slavery and the holocaust.
C. Scholarships and grants. I cannot go to college because I am straight, but if I chose to blow someone, the University of Michigan will admit me?
D. Special fundings and recognitions. National recognition of homosexuality. I thought the whole point was not to exploit it but to defend it.

This might be construed as nit-picking itself but are real legitimate concerns and go along with 'minority protections'. These are just 4 examples that minorities get 'priviledged'.

If I started the "United Caucasian College Fund", I would be sued into suicide and labeled a racist, but why can't I? Minority Rights, I cannot support 'my' brothers. I cannot promote 'my' ethnicity because I am a 'majority'.


I agree, those things aren't fair. (Despite the flippant way you put them.) But, then again, there's no reason they should apply to anyone - why should someone get into college because they're Jewish, or black, or whatever?

Homosexuals are definitely a minority. In South Africa, we saw what happened when a white minority got special rights and privileges - the apartheid. Really, what you seem to be disputing is minority rights in general, since each of your arguments can just as easily be applied to any minority group.

The idea, I think, is to counter discrimination. I personally thin that's the wrong way to do it, but I'd say that if homosexuals aren't entitled to minority rights, then neither is any other minority!

Just one nit-pick: a preference is not a choice, in this context. Literally, homosexuals probably can't stand the thought of sex with someone of the other sex any more than you could stand blowing off another male. I don't call that a choice - you don't choose to dislike blowing other guys and instead go out with chicks, you just choose what you want to do. In this case, the 'preference' is a deep-set, genetic/psychological imperative. Not something consciously chosen. (I mean, who would choose to be part of a discriminated minority group?)

There are many injustices in the world and being homosexual is just a slice of that massive pie. As I stated before, the only injustice that G/L endure above what every other human has/had to endure is the property/benefits issue.


As I pointed out, that's definitely not the only injustice they face, even if you're only counting the States, and legal injustices at that.

Case in point: I am a single father with 2 children at home (mother abandonment issue) and fighting for the God given right to see my third child. Because I have a penis, the child "automatically" goes to the woman and the only support a man can give is in the form of cold hard cash and told exactly what time that father can see his son. If there is no scheduled 'visitation' (convicts get visitation), I cannot see or talk to him, it is illegal and seen as 'harassment'. There is no greater sufferage. Should I now be a member of the minority class and get special priviledges and considerations? One might say that is comparing apples and oranges, but is homosexuality in the same category as 'slave', 'religious prosecution', or 'woman suffrage'? I do not see the connection and therefor, should not be 'entitled' to the same benefits.

Yes, I'd say (if you're giving me all the facts) that fathers are discriminated against, and I don't like it any more than you do. However, the difference is, you chose to have a child with that woman, and accept the possible consequences of custody battles implicity through consensual sex. Homosexuals do not, and often they want nothing more than just to be 'normal' - in fact, many try going out with women for years before realising it's just not something that's going to change. The reason for battling their instincts is obvious - they are trying to avoid persecution. Case in point: my uncle is scared to kiss his boyfriend unless he is sure that no straight people are around, because he knows that straight people are likely to react badly to the sight of two men kissing. Is that fair? Should he be forced to watch them kiss wherever and whenever they please while he exercises extreme restraint for hours on end?

Religious persecution is even more a result of a choice. I am appalled when I hear someone say that they consider homosexuality a choice, which makes it OK to persecute it, while claiming that they are unfairly persecuted for their religion! Religious worship is a choice - just because it is constitutionally defended doesn't make it more important to defend people's right to free worship than to defend their right to have sex with whom they choose. 'Slave' and 'women suffrage'? I think they are irrelevent!

Honestly, this whole thing seems a bit negative, but I really think we agree as much as we disagree.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

"The problem is not in our stars, but in our selves" ~ Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

I'm sure you have all heard this quote in some way or another. In its original context, it was referring to the fact that there is no reason Caesar was better than the rest of Rome, but it can also refer to this debate. Okay, s***!! I just lost my train of thought. I know it had something to do with this:

We, as a people, do not hate homosexuals. Humanity has nothing against it. It is in the individual, whether they hate you or not. A legislation defining rights of homosexuals would look good on paper, but as long as people hold these ideas about gays, nothing will change. Take the southern United States for example. After the Civil War, the government passed many official documents, even amendments to the constitution, that "guaranteed" certain rights to African Americans, but do any of you know what it took to get people to actually take to heart these documents? Was it seeing millions of Africans, many of whom were intelligent and could hve been doctors or whatnot, constantly beaten and murdered and made victims of numerous other hate crimes? Was it the U.S. National guard having to escort nine black children into an all-white school? No! The turning point was when whites got involved, when whites got killed, for a belief that they shared with these opressed people. We saw nothing wrong with the violence until we saw "our" people in the "black's" situation. I'm not saying that we need straights to start getting murdered for gay rights. I am merely pointing out that reacknowledging your rights will not help you when faced with hatred. We can not tell homophobes not to hate you any more than we can tell you not to be gay. You must confront this hatred. You need to show people that you are as "normal" as they are. You need to show them that you aren't a bunch of cock-sucking fashion freaks. Homos and heteros can not be equal as long as we have these misconceptions about you, as I'm sure you do for us.

A valid point. As I pointed out earlier, most of the problems people have with homosexuals is that they don't actually know enough about them!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

SO then if hetersoexuality is a choice/prefernce then they don't have the right to marriage??


I'm really quite tired of this whole thread though this I have to say...
we're getting into semantics here. You jsut don't get it. Sexual orientation is not choice, period. Regardless how you wish to define the term, peference or orientation, choice has nothing to do with it. As I said before if it was choice, ex-gay therapy would not exist, and I could choose to become fully hetero at will or fully homo to suit the occasion.

Weren'yt you the one who quoted Andrew Dice Clay anyways? lol

I'll refrain from reading adn commenting on your posts form here.

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

SO then if hetersoexuality is a choice/prefernce then they don't have the right to marriage??


I'm really quite tired of this whole thread though this I have to say...
we're getting into semantics here. You jsut don't get it. Sexual orientation is not choice, period. Regardless how you wish to define the term, peference or orientation, choice has nothing to do with it. As I said before if it was choice, ex-gay therapy would not exist, and I could choose to become fully hetero at will or fully homo to suit the occasion.

Weren'yt you the one who quoted Andrew Dice Clay anyways? lol

I'll refrain from reading adn commenting on your posts form here.

This should clarify things for you, here is a question:

I am very attractive, carry around a large piece of meat, and many women claim I taste great.

Want to s**k my d**k?

If you answered yes, you have made a choice based on what you WANT to do and not what you HAVE to do.

If you answered no, then you have made a choice based on desireability and WANT because you claim you have no choice to be homosexual and if that is the case, you MUST do it, you have no choice.

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

SO then if hetersoexuality is a choice/prefernce then they don't have the right to marriage??


I'm really quite tired of this whole thread though this I have to say...
we're getting into semantics here. You jsut don't get it. Sexual orientation is not choice, period. Regardless how you wish to define the term, peference or orientation, choice has nothing to do with it. As I said before if it was choice, ex-gay therapy would not exist, and I could choose to become fully hetero at will or fully homo to suit the occasion.

Weren'yt you the one who quoted Andrew Dice Clay anyways? lol

I'll refrain from reading adn commenting on your posts form here.

This should clarify things for you, here is a question:

I am very attractive, carry around a large piece of meat, and many women claim I taste great.

Want to s**k my d**k?

If you answered yes, you have made a choice based on what you WANT to do and not what you HAVE to do.

If you answered no, then you have made a choice based on desireability and WANT because you claim you have no choice to be homosexual and if that is the case, you MUST do it, you have no choice.

Yo, dont mistake actions for desire (hypothalamic response - UNCONCIOUS PROCESS - ID (LIBIDO) DRIVEN BEHAVIOR). I can't choose to not have the desire, to not be atttracted to guys, and I didnt choose to have those desires in the first place, no one does, straight or gay. One can choose however, to NOT act on those impulses. This goes for hetereosexuals and homsoexuals.

Just because someone can stomach having sex wiht someoen of the gender whcih is opposite to the gender that is normally the one they are attracted to does not necessarily make them either fully homosexual (level 6) or fully heterosexual. It's all about visual and other stimuli. When I see a naked female in the most suggestive pose it does nothing for me, never has. I have no desire for them, at all adn I honstly do not understand what males see in them but I know they do see something ;) . Just as if you saw a male in a similar pose you would not experience the hypothalamic response (arousal) assuming you are fully heterosexual. That reponse is what motivates the sexual behavior and it is totally unconcious.

How someone can choose to wire a specific part of their brain that is laid out during embryonic development and early infancy so they wil be either homosexual or heterosexual is not only extremely unlikely but probably impossible. Unless you have a background in psych, adn Im thuroughly convinced you DO NOT, just drop the whole issue because you might as well tell me my eyes are brown when I know they're blue.

Case closed.

lol

There is nothing you can say to convince me that it is genetic or anything of that nature. A mental state is believable because that is what love is all about....mental and choices.

One phrase sums this all up on why homosexuals do not get thier 'special rights' as they desire.

Social Acceptability

The masses cannot stomach watching two men at an airlines gate making out and telling eachother "I love you". For the most part, it is against all morals and ethical teachings that parents pass onto their children and religion has a huge part in that. Until Christ reappears (or appears, whatever religious preference you have, ie a choice) and claims it is ok to be taking it in the hershey highway, I believe the masses will be opposed.

I personally do not care what people do with their lives, in or out of the bedroom, just do not try to impose on me that you are special and deserve "more" rights than I have and deserve compensation above and beyond what others are entitled to themselves for your own personal choices.

Case Closed.

I personally do not care what people do with their lives, in or out of the bedroom, just do not try to impose on me that you are special and deserve "more" rights than I have and deserve compensation above and beyond what others are entitled to themselves for your own personal choices.

Does this only apply to homosexuals, or to religious people, married hetero couples, and anything else I can think of too?

lol

There is nothing you can say to convince me that it is genetic or anything of that nature. A mental state is believable because that is what love is all about....mental and choices.

One phrase sums this all up on why homosexuals do not get thier 'special rights' as they desire.

Social Acceptability

The masses cannot stomach watching two men at an airlines gate making out and telling eachother "I love you". For the most part, it is against all morals and ethical teachings that parents pass onto their children and religion has a huge part in that. Until Christ reappears (or appears, whatever religious preference you have, ie a choice) and claims it is ok to be taking it in the hershey highway, I believe the masses will be opposed.

I personally do not care what people do with their lives, in or out of the bedroom, just do not try to impose on me that you are special and deserve "more" rights than I have and deserve compensation above and beyond what others are entitled to themselves for your own personal choices.

Case Closed.

The manner you are going on about all this choice crap is a telling indication you dont have the background to convince you of anything. You havent made much sense at alll anyhow and I've done a bit of psychoanalysis on you. *evil grin* Quoting Dice Clay was quite choice. :lol:

Why do you doubt my word and basic psych anyhow? Chsist almighty I knew it was not a 'choice' since i was 13. How does it affect you at all if it *is* predetermined?

As for your social accpetability/morals (HETEROSEXISM) and refernces to Christ, I now see that I'm wasting my time speaking to someone with particular religious beliefs that would he would begin to doubt if I am correct, adn I am, though relax. Most bible schools and religious scholars are dispensing false doctrine with resepct to what the bible says and homosexuals. :?

This should clarify things for you, here is a question:

I am very attractive, carry around a large piece of meat, and many women claim I taste great.

Want to s**k my d**k?

If you answered yes, you have made a choice based on what you WANT to do and not what you HAVE to do.

If you answered no, then you have made a choice based on desireability and WANT because you claim you have no choice to be homosexual and if that is the case, you MUST do it, you have no choice.
To try and give you an understanding of the difference between sexual orientation (or preference or whatever you want to call it) and sexual activity, let me ask you some questions.

1. Do you find women sexually attractive and want to have sex with them and find men unappealing?
2. Do you sleep with (or at least want to sleep with) every woman that you see? From the slim, large-breasted ones to the elderly, or overweight ones.

If you answered yes to 1. and 2., that means that the fact of your preference for females overrides your ability to choose who to engage in sexual activity with.

If you answered yes to 1. and no to 2., that means, despite your natural preference for women, you choose each and every time to either have sex or not.

Now, why would this be different for another human just because they happen to have a different preference? Because it is only natural to be attracted to the opposite sex? No. Just because you and many other people are solely attracted to the opposite sex does not mean that your way is the only natural option and everything else is somehow abnormal and consciously going against the norm. It is very egotistical to assume that because something is more common that means it is universally the way it is or should be.

And, unlike you, I do not think "the masses" need a God/religious-figure to come down and tell them that homosexuality is finally alright. I think "the masses" will eventually tell those people who teach outdated moral and ethical values that they need to realize that the world has changed and to accept they need to update their understanding on this issue (as has happened on other issues in the past).

forget him, I jsut realized he's apparently religious and indoctrinated if not defnitley right wing conservative. He simply cannot stand the idea homosexuals are naturally occurring, real, and not after anymore rights than anyone else despite his phobic paranoia that we're all out ot push our sexuality (morals) on everyone and whatever. Let him stew in his torment that will undoubtedly fester with each bit of gay 'rights' progress that will inevitrably come. Hopefully he will have a stroke some time down the road and in th emeantime we can all giggle like school girls as he pelts us with snitty quotes from andrew dice clay. :lol:

*begins to giggle and prances around in a kilt*

*chuckles*

I have Scots heritage but I'd be damned if I'd be caught dead wearing a tartan miniskirt. I'll stick to me stereotypical leather bondage gear. :twisted: *rowr*

Me in a kilt is schoolgirl not Scotsman, but I'm not one for skirts much either.

I am soooo not into skirts... :wink:

I have a pic of my dad in a kilt *shudder* adn I was traumatised in my youth during a high school hazing ritual. Imagine the whole grade 8 population (300 students or so) in drag lol *shriek*..adn that is the extent of my x-dressing experience lol

pyhrric,
I do get tired of the idea that laws to guarantee all have the same rights equals out to "more" rights for minorities. Are we to go back in a era where Blacks were good because they "knew their place"?
The era of us white male heterosexual Christians(I am a recovering Catholic/pagan now) being the top of the pyramid has ended.
You have to accept that we now have a mulitcultural society,and I see it as beter than the "good old days" when all had to lose their languages and customs to "become American".
I saw your remarks on U-M Law. For your information--the case thaty these people didn't get a place due to Affirmative Action is silly...for every student who gets accepted 34 get rejected,how can they prove it due to Affirmative Action? Also U-M Law has set-asides based on if the parents are alumni of U-M Law. Also residents of Michigan get preferential treatment in admissions.
More facts--a higher percentage of White students to the whole get admitted than applies, so how are Whites discriminated against?

i have come to the conclusion that society always picks on a minority group. Blacks nerds ect. Now, everyone is picking on the gays. And when that dies out (which hopefuly it will) everyone will start picking on someone else. Maybe people who where purple shoes. but no matter what people will be disrciminated by the masses.
I only hope that the people that get discriminated next are the liars. or the rich. and that im not one of them.

My country is questioning gay/ lesbians bi's and any other types of togetherness. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. I support letting people be what they want to be. Yes these people should be able to have the same jobs and roles in soceity as straight people. We are not talking about religion here we are talking about human life, and feeling ashamed of being who you are.
Please consider this in voting They are people too they have feelings too!
The Country Of Laimbo

THERE SHOULD BE NO GAY GUYS BUT WOMAN ARE ALLOWED TO BE BI IF THEY WANT
:lol:

THERE SHOULD BE NO GAY GUYS BUT WOMAN ARE ALLOWED TO BE BI IF THEY WANT
:lol:

Spot the populist homophobic drone....

This is where I start as 'minority rights' and should not be afforded sexual preferences. A preference is a choice and should not be granted priviledges. The priviledges I am in reference to is Laws/Statutes such as:

SO then if hetersoexuality is a choice/prefernce then they don't have the right to marriage??


I'm really quite tired of this whole thread though this I have to say...
we're getting into semantics here. You jsut don't get it. Sexual orientation is not choice, period. Regardless how you wish to define the term, peference or orientation, choice has nothing to do with it. As I said before if it was choice, ex-gay therapy would not exist, and I could choose to become fully hetero at will or fully homo to suit the occasion.

Weren'yt you the one who quoted Andrew Dice Clay anyways? lol

I'll refrain from reading adn commenting on your posts form here.

This should clarify things for you, here is a question:

I am very attractive, carry around a large piece of meat, and many women claim I taste great.

Want to s**k my d**k?

If you answered yes, you have made a choice based on what you WANT to do and not what you HAVE to do.

If you answered no, then you have made a choice based on desireability and WANT because you claim you have no choice to be homosexual and if that is the case, you MUST do it, you have no choice.

That is an extremely poor point, I feel.

Homosexuality is a state, not a behaviour. That is the distinction that we are trying to make. Whether it is a mental state, a genetic condition or a combination of the two does not matter, the fact is homosexuals are attracted to other people of the same sex, and should have the right to express this attraction every bit as much as straight people.

Your point specifically is flawed. The question was 'do you want to,' which means that you are not asking them to make a choice, but to report a mental state. I don't imagine most gay men would want to engage in oral sex with you merely on the basis that you are attractive, but it remains that even if it were so, there is no 'choice' in answering the question except that of answering it truthfully, or lying.

Homosexuals are simply being honest. Because they do not choose to lie about their preferences (and sometimes, because their preference is discovered) they are subjected to discriminatory behaviour.

I don't think they deserve 'more' rights either, but neither do I consider that any minority deserves more rights than another group.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I don't imagine most gay men would want to engage in oral sex with you merely on the basis that you are attractive, but it remains that even if it were so, there is no 'choice' in answering the question except that of answering it truthfully, or lying.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Actually, he's insinuating that, merely by being homosexual, you no longer have a choice whether to have sex with someone of your own gender.
"You're gay, so you *have* to have sex with me."
Which is, off course, a stupid argument.

lets put it like this, god made man and god made women. For reproduction purposes, God gave man and women different compatible sex organs. Now, when man has sex with man, it throws off the whole equation. This is why it is not natural to be gay....

here is a good quote for you to ponder, this is a


"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman."


if gay marriages were allowed to exist, why dont we allow marriages between man and goats as well. I mean, if this is how it is supposed to be and I can marry whoever I want, I want to marry a goat........

lets put it like this, god made man and god made women.

Prove "god" exists and that he made men and women.

For reproduction purposes, God gave man and women different compatible sex organs.

Did 'he'? It's funny that he also 'made' humans persistently sexually receptive and gave them a sexual behavior that is as much about socialization as it is reproduction. Interesting it is that the sexual organs of either sex, even gender itself is determined by genetics, separation of sexes is diffuse, in some idviduals it is downright ambiguous (gender identity), physically and psychologically. Even more curious is why or how homosexual orientation even occurs. Though it can also be said no one really knows how, on a biochemical level, heterosexual orientation occurs either, but we know why.

Now, when man has sex with man, it throws off the whole equation. This is why it is not natural to be gay....

Hmm, oh really? The sky will fall or something? What about those lesbians? That sorta thing has been going on for a very long time and the 'equation' appears to be balanced and intact.


here is a good quote for you to ponder, "this is a..."


"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman."


This is a what? I thought marriage was a religous institution so why the need for legal recognition if God recognises it?

*yawns* ..how original and profound. :roll:


if gay marriages were allowed to exist, why dont we allow marriages between man and goats as well. I mean, if this is how it is supposed to be and I can marry whoever I want, I want to marry a goat........

If you want to marry a goat, maybe you should become a goat, socialize with goats, and develop goat religion. Might be simpler to start a bestiality advocacy group. Last time I checked the fundamental ethic of the gay rights movement was free will based on the individual's sexual identity, not species, nor age, so here you will not find any room for legitimizing this psychosexual disorder you acquired.

Baa-a-aa-aahh!

i believe humanz should have all sorts of rightz which r not negatively influential to the otherz

I got to the third page before I got tired of the long winded responses.

Basically it comes down to this:

The Catholic church condemns homosexuality for the same reason it condemns condoms and other forms of birth control.

The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Anyone having sex who either knowingly cannot reproduce or takes such measures to prevent reproduction is committing a sin.

Hence, homosexual activity is sinful, since homosexual partners cannot reproduce with one another. However, if one is gay, he can certainly remain celibate for the rest of his life and avoid sin in that way.

This may not be what the majority of people want to hear (particularly regarding the purpose of sex), but it is what Catholics believe.

I personally would not interfere with a homosexual's lifestyle. What someone does with their life is their decision. Quite simply, though, I do not condone homosexual activity, as it's against my religion.

I'm expecting all sorts of replies to this message if this point hasn't already been made. Like I said, I stopped reading less than halfway through because it grew repetitve, and this point never surfaced. Anyway, the responses I would give to your expected replies stem straight from the Gospel. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, you might want to read through the four books just to have a better idea of what devoted Christians are talking about.

I got to the third page before I got tired of the long winded responses.

Basically it comes down to this:

The Catholic church condemns homosexuality for the same reason it condemns condoms and other forms of birth control.

The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Anyone having sex who either knowingly cannot reproduce or takes such measures to prevent reproduction is committing a sin.

Hence, homosexual activity is sinful, since homosexual partners cannot reproduce with one another. However, if one is gay, he can certainly remain celibate for the rest of his life and avoid sin in that way.

This may not be what the majority of people want to hear (particularly regarding the purpose of sex), but it is what Catholics believe.

I personally would not interfere with a homosexual's lifestyle. What someone does with their life is their decision. Quite simply, though, I do not condone homosexual activity, as it's against my religion.

I'm expecting all sorts of replies to this message if this point hasn't already been made. Like I said, I stopped reading less than halfway through because it grew repetitve, and this point never surfaced. Anyway, the responses I would give to your expected replies stem straight from the Gospel. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, you might want to read through the four books just to have a better idea of what devoted Christians are talking about.

The Catholic Church used to condemn Jews and all sorts of things. On this issue it goes quite a bit deeper than inabilty to reproduce. Who honestly cares what they think except of course Catholics therefore, don't assume everyone proscribes to this belief system or that it is even valid. Where it gets off poking its nose into people's lives in a such an intrusive manner is frankly quite comical and you better make sure every shot counts or you are commiting sin, 'abomination', and we will not recognise your marriage. At any rate I'm convinced devout Christians do not even know what they're talking about and reading the gospels just ain't gonna happen, honey.

so if the Catholic Church condemns condoms, then do they condemn stopping the spread of sexual diseases? At present, contraception is the only way to keep AIDS under control to stop it spreading.

Unfortunately, sometimes we have to bypass teachings in oder to progress. That is the way of life.

I got to the third page before I got tired of the long winded responses.

Basically it comes down to this:

The Catholic church condemns homosexuality for the same reason it condemns condoms and other forms of birth control.

The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Anyone having sex who either knowingly cannot reproduce or takes such measures to prevent reproduction is committing a sin.

Hence, homosexual activity is sinful, since homosexual partners cannot reproduce with one another. However, if one is gay, he can certainly remain celibate for the rest of his life and avoid sin in that way.

This may not be what the majority of people want to hear (particularly regarding the purpose of sex), but it is what Catholics believe.

I personally would not interfere with a homosexual's lifestyle. What someone does with their life is their decision. Quite simply, though, I do not condone homosexual activity, as it's against my religion.

I'm expecting all sorts of replies to this message if this point hasn't already been made. Like I said, I stopped reading less than halfway through because it grew repetitve, and this point never surfaced. Anyway, the responses I would give to your expected replies stem straight from the Gospel. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, you might want to read through the four books just to have a better idea of what devoted Christians are talking about.

You are not expected to condone homosexuality; you are expected to leave people to operate according to the dictates of their consciences, inasmuch as their actions do not intentionally restrict the rights of others.

I do not agree with the Catholic Church personally, but will not interfere in their actions if they do not attempt to limit those who choose to live outside their authority. And it seems to me, their position is the most biblically acceptable and logical, if one of the most distressing.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Anyone having sex who either knowingly cannot reproduce or takes such measures to prevent reproduction is committing a sin.

If an infertile man and woman have sex, are they committing sin? What about an old couple? They clearly can't have children. I've found that most people using that argument don't really support it when it is tested -- not that I can tell if you don't, I'm only speaking in general terms.

If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, so be it. If they don't want to allow gay members of their congregations, so be it. That's about where their authority stops, in my opinion.

The purpose of sex is to reproduce. Anyone having sex who either knowingly cannot reproduce or takes such measures to prevent reproduction is committing a sin.

If an infertile man and woman have sex, are they committing sin? What about an old couple? They clearly can't have children. I've found that most people using that argument don't really support it when it is tested -- not that I can tell if you don't, I'm only speaking in general terms.

If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, so be it. If they don't want to allow gay members of their congregations, so be it. That's about where their authority stops, in my opinion.

The Catholic Chuch's position, so I have it, is that sex must be licit - and define this through function and intent, not impulse or orientation. Thus, sex with a condom attempts to prevent insemination, and is not licit. Likewise masturbation.

Sex involving an infertile person is still natural if performed without contraception, because it does not attempt to prevent sperm from reaching the woman.

I recall this from reading a treatise on ethics, which debated licit methods of obtaining sperm for infertility testing - the conclusion was, a small amount of sperm must be obtained during sexual intercourse, through either use of a perforated contraceptive, or removal from the vagina post-ejaculation.

The Catholic Church use different axioms, but they are applied in a supremely logical manner, if not chosen thus.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus.

so if the Catholic Church condemns condoms, then do they condemn stopping the spread of sexual diseases? At present, contraception is the only way to keep AIDS under control to stop it spreading.

Unfortunately, sometimes we have to bypass teachings in oder to progress. That is the way of life.

The only reason sexual diseases spread is because people sleep around with more than one person, another thing the Catholic church - and all of Christianity, for that matter - frowns upon.

I don't agree with the church's interference with people's lives. A person makes his or her own decisions regarding his or her life. A true Christian would not enforce his or her beliefs on someone else, but rather encourage that person to adopt these beliefs. The church has no right to place judgement, and it says so in the gospel. (Being a Catholic myself, I will be the first to admit that the activities of the Pharissees of that time reflect strongly on the activities of the Catholic church over the past 2000 years... particularly during the dark and middle ages.)

If you're homosexual, and you have no problem sleeping around with other homosexuals, I'm going to tell you that it's wrong in the eyes of God. However, I'm not going to go any farther than that, since it's your choice whether you want to do that, not mine.

And to all who do not believe in God whatsoever, know this. While there may be no factual evidence that God exists in today's world, there is also no way to prove that He doesn't exist. And in the event that everything in the Bible (at least the New Testament) is true, and Heaven and Hell exist, you might not want to take your chances in this life. It's better to believe in God and love one another only to have no afterlife, than it is to disregard all teachings and suffer in Hell as a result.

Take this seriously. You don't know all the answers.

The only reason sexual diseases spread is because people sleep around with more than one person, another thing the Catholic church - and all of Christianity, for that matter - frowns upon.

With or without HIV/AIDS they'd be looking down their noses, at homosexuals especially.

I don't agree with the church's interference with people's lives. A person makes his or her own decisions regarding his or her life. A true Christian would not enforce his or her beliefs on someone else, but rather encourage that person to adopt these beliefs. The church has no right to place judgement, and it says so in the gospel. (Being a Catholic myself, I will be the first to admit that the activities of the Pharissees of that time reflect strongly on the activities of the Catholic church over the past 2000 years... particularly during the dark and middle ages.)

They have a very, very long way to go to clean up their act, imho.

If you're homosexual, and you have no problem sleeping around with other homosexuals, I'm going to tell you that it's wrong in the eyes of God. However, I'm not going to go any farther than that, since it's your choice whether you want to do that, not mine.

Strange that there is this social institution, a contract between two persons to be committed to one another, known as marriage (holy matrimony) is dominion of religion and is also a legal arrangement nearly exclusively restricted to heterosexual couples. That said there is a religious influence over law governing a social institution, and a whole lot of other things, extending to the homosexual population. Sure they have a right to legal marriage but in most cases to someone of the opposite sex. Assuming you are heterosexual, consider how uncomfortable you'd feel is a same-sex relationship. Then you'd see that this is not a viable, healthy alternative.

As for the promiscuity within the homsexual population, consider such things as society's patholgical view of it, the institution(s) (marriage/unions family etc) denied to them which keep heterosexuals generally less promiscuous. If you were a minor statistical fraction and shamed about your sexuality as being sin and denied legal and moral recogniton of ANY relationship you might have, you probably would be just as slutty. It might surprise people, but homosexuals can and do develop mongamous committed relationships despite having no vested interest in doing so other than commitment itself.


And to all who do not believe in God whatsoever, know this. While there may be no factual evidence that God exists in today's world, there is also no way to prove that He doesn't exist. And in the event that everything in the Bible (at least the New Testament) is true, and Heaven and Hell exist, you might not want to take your chances in this life. It's better to believe in God and love one another only to have no afterlife, than it is to disregard all teachings and suffer in Hell as a result.


1 Corinthians 6:9,10


9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Yee-hawww, so what then is to be lost?

Take this seriously. You don't know all the answers.

Being the seeing led by the blind gives one vision. 8)

Homosexual citizens of The Kingdom of Skullzz are oppressed just as much as any other citizen, no more, no less.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am soooo not into skirts... :wink:

I have a pic of my dad in a kilt *shudder* adn I was traumatised in my youth during a high school hazing ritual. Imagine the whole grade 8 population (300 students or so) in drag lol *shriek*..adn that is the extent of my x-dressing experience lol

Suddenly I am reminded that I am Scottish and have lived there most of my life, and yet have never worn a kilt. Ever. And I never will, if I'm lucky enough to miss even more weddings than I already have.

That said, if it's a choice between imminent embarassment and getting delicious wedding cake, I'm already ordering one a few sizes too big.

- Jordan

so if the Catholic Church condemns condoms, then do they condemn stopping the spread of sexual diseases? At present, contraception is the only way to keep AIDS under control to stop it spreading.

Unfortunately, sometimes we have to bypass teachings in oder to progress. That is the way of life.
An official Vatican statement has claimed that condoms increase the risk of getting AIDS, because the HIV virus can get through tiny holes in the latex or the condoms are actually laced with HIV. It's apparently safer to not use condoms than to use them.

Yes, that is entirely illogical. And the only people who are going to accept that are the poor, uneducated people in developing countries who are most suffering from AIDS and most in need of actual guidance and help. *sigh*.

And to all who do not believe in God whatsoever, know this. While there may be no factual evidence that God exists in today's world, there is also no way to prove that He doesn't exist. And in the event that everything in the Bible (at least the New Testament) is true, and Heaven and Hell exist, you might not want to take your chances in this life. It's better to believe in God and love one another only to have no afterlife, than it is to disregard all teachings and suffer in Hell as a result.

Take this seriously. You don't know all the answers.
Pascal's wager just isn't convincing enough for me.

I beleive there are several arguments for ang agaisnt homosexuality. The 2 main are:
1. People should have the right to do what they want in their privatelives and be treated the same publicly.
2. People have he right to live in a secure enviornment. We cant kill people, and homosexuality interferes with societies order.
These are both right. And 2 rights make a right (I hope so at least). So we need to come to some balance.
A way to give everyone something they want.

Obviously the example of murder is an extreme example. However, I recently heard about two people in Germany (I think). One of them killed the other and ate him. This would be considered murder. But, both were members of some cult or something, and the killed person, as an adult, consented to his being killed and eaten. So is this okay? A little cannabalism taking place between two consenting adults?

On a different topic, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, wouldn't it be subject to the laws of evolution? As a trait that in no way benefits the good of the species, wouldn't it have been wiped out long ago? Just like the short-necked giraffes and boneless chicken.

I beleive there are several arguments for ang agaisnt homosexuality. The 2 main are:
1. People should have the right to do what they want in their privatelives and be treated the same publicly.
2. People have he right to live in a secure enviornment. We cant kill people, and homosexuality interferes with societies order.
These are both right. And 2 rights make a right (I hope so at least). So we need to come to some balance.
A way to give everyone something they want.

Obviously the example of murder is an extreme example. However, I recently heard about two people in Germany (I think). One of them killed the other and ate him. This would be considered murder. But, both were members of some cult or something, and the killed person, as an adult, consented to his being killed and eaten. So is this okay? A little cannabalism taking place between two consenting adults?

On a different topic, if homosexuality is entirely genetic, wouldn't it be subject to the laws of evolution? As a trait that in no way benefits the good of the species, wouldn't it have been wiped out long ago? Just like the short-necked giraffes and boneless chicken.

Actually, I explained this not too long ago. If it isn't in the backlog, it was obviously in another thread - I'll post it again, sometime - if I get around to it.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Actually in LostParadise... we don't discriminate in anyway on the basis of sexual preference. Sex is sex... its *all* good...

Ursoria did legalise gay marriages, and (I have to admit) we did catch quite a firestorm from the Catholic church for doing so. There were even threats of excommunication for various public officials (including our King). But after a while things quieted down, and we are all on more or less a friendly basis as I write.

Our position is that the Church has a right to set criteria for religious marriages among its members, but that civil marriages have to follow a different set of standards. Passing judgement on sexual relationships is not a proper function of government.

That has to be the smartest thing I have heard from someone in a while. Church sets rules for church, not for government. We all have to remember that we're talking about human beings here, we're not talking about sexuality. Who is to say what humans are denied certain rights when in essence all humans are born equal? The government of Noda Jia would love to know if anyone has an answer. In Noda Jia we have a thing called "Mireku" or "Justice." Taking away someone's rights because of their sexuality is like taking away their rights because of their religion or political affiliations. It's just not justice.

i do not agree with homosexual relations but do as they need. as long as they live a private life in my country they shall not spread their beleifs in a attacking mannar and if and protestors come well i have resureccted Jesus and we will be kickin some ass, :twisted: :evil: :lol: :?

i do not agree with homosexual relations but do as they need. as long as they live a private life in my country they shall not spread their beleifs in a attacking mannar and if and protestors come well i have resureccted Jesus and we will be kickin some ass, :twisted: :evil: :lol: :?

i do not agree with homosexual relations but do as they need. as long as they live a private life in my country they shall not spread their beleifs in a attacking mannar and if and protestors come well i have resureccted Jesus and we will be kickin some ass, :twisted: :evil: :lol: :?

i do not agree with homosexual relations but do as they need. as long as they live a private life in my country they shall not spread their beleifs in a attacking mannar and if and protestors come well i have resureccted Jesus and we will be kickin some ass, :twisted: :evil: :lol: :?

Does the same apply to all other groupd of people?

I've got a question that I was hoping some of the particularly intelligent individuals on this forum (Archaeus, Stumblebums, Vivelo, and excuse me if I've forgotten someone) would be able to answer:

If a homosexual person wants to work for a private company but is denied a position simply because he is homosexual, whose rights (if anyone's) have been violated? Can the owner of the company be sued? And, is it morally permissible to hold the company owner responsible?

That depends on the country. One poster from the UK pointed out that an employer may fire a homosexual there if it is done from a religious belief but I'm not so sure if it is legal to fire someone for their religious beliefs, which is the logical counter position to that 'law' sicne the issue is then about conflict of beliefs, though homosexuality is sexual orientation, not a belief system. If the employment law there is as goofed as it seems to be, that would be my view and it would thus be ethical and perhaps even legal to fire persons for their religion as well it would be to seek legal action against employers who fire employees based on religion or sexual orientation... the lawyers there must love this law if it is faulty as it seems.

In Canada however, if someone, religious or not, fires a person simply for being homosexual they risk legal action or being brought before the Human Rights Commission as it would be a cut and dried case of discrimination and wrongful dismissal. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen but when it does the individual has the right to fight it. The question has nothing to do with religious morals though the employer may argue about morality. The law(s) of the land takes absolute precedence. Workplaces are not fiefdoms and must adhere to law to function within the law.

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

Hello, oh biblically challenged one of grade school literacy skills. Roman's 1 speaks of those who have gone against God and therefore he has given them up to unnatural desires. You should also be aware that there are many Christian homosexuals and they have neither gone against God nor their inherent sexuality. Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural desires but in case you haven't yet understood this, same sex attraction is the natural desire for homosexuals, so does Paul speak to them? It is ironic that certain persons, in the name of what they view as moral behavior, insist homosexuals (constitutional) go against their natural desires and settle for heterosexuality, which is to them, unnatural. At this point is where Christians tend to resort to viewing sex as only natural between a man and woman (heterosexism) for the purposes of reproduction and that men aren't built to have sex with men (and women on women). All homosexuals would disgree with this. Sex in humans is as much about socialization as it is reproduction, reagrdless of sexual orientation. Reread Roman 1 and think for a while just who Paul is talking about.^^

Reagrdless of what the bible says, it was written by men in a time which preceded the actual term 'homosexual' by many centuries as well as the fields of psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, behavioral genetics though and therefore you would have no luck convincing me this beleif system is valid as interpreted towards homosexuals or it even refers to them. Secondly not everyone cares what it says at all so if you want to come back and babble on about a moral code written by stone age Jews, I will use your own words and scripture along with scientific reasoning and blessed I would be for dashing your infantile rhetoric against the rocks. :twisted:

His Most Royal Highness, Dowager Prince Willwont the Wise, Supreme Ruler of Heraklaneum was greatly surprised to read this post.

For His Majesty was unaware such provincial nations were granted access to the UN, or even existed were electricty was obviously available as the internet could be accessed.

For those uncertain whether divergent elements in society should have equal access to services and rights, His Excellency suggests you try reading a book that does not begin with the words "Idiots Guide to..."

In addition, for those quoting passages from The Old Testament, His Royal Highness has nothing but pity, for those who base their understanding of life on a plagerised text deserve it...and nothing else.

His Majesty sincerely grants his favor his fellow members of the UN

Respectfully,
Eustace van der Mullen
First Painter to his Supreme Highness, Dowager Prince Willwont the Wise Absolute Ruler of the Grand Duchy of Heraklaneum

i do not agree with homosexual relations but do as they need. as long as they live a private life in my country they shall not spread their beleifs in a attacking mannar and if and protestors come well i have resureccted Jesus and we will be kickin some ass, :twisted: :evil: :lol: :?

Well geeze here in LostParadise there its no big thing for a man to kiss a woman... So we extend the same courtesy to same sex couples. After all if two people get of on each other what's the problem...

We have a saying in LostParadise... its *all* good!!

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

Hello, oh biblically challenged one of grade school literacy skills. Roman's 1 speaks of those who have gone against God and therefore he has given them up to unnatural desires. You should also be aware that there are many Christian homosexuals and they have neither gone against God nor their inherent sexuality. Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural desires but in case you haven't yet understood this, same sex attraction is the natural desire for homosexuals, so does Paul speak to them? It is ironic that certain persons, in the name of what they view as moral behavior, insist homosexuals (constitutional) go against their natural desires and settle for heterosexuality, which is to them, unnatural. At this point is where Christians tend to resort to viewing sex as only natural between a man and woman (heterosexism) for the purposes of reproduction and that men aren't built to have sex with men (and women on women). All homosexuals would disgree with this. Sex in humans is as much about socialization as it is reproduction, reagrdless of sexual orientation. Reread Roman 1 and think for a while just who Paul is talking about.^^

Reagrdless of what the bible says, it was written by men in a time which preceded the actual term 'homosexual' by many centuries as well as the fields of psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, behavioral genetics though and therefore you would have no luck convincing me this beleif system is valid as interpreted towards homosexuals or it even refers to them. Secondly not everyone cares what it says at all so if you want to come back and babble on about a moral code written by stone age Jews, I will use your own words and scripture along with scientific reasoning and blessed I would be for dashing your infantile rhetoric against the rocks. :twisted:

no he says they have gone against what is natural buddy! and what is natural a man and a woman in a relationship only! what bibel are you useing anyway the fags are us version?

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

of portugal, many people do not believe in your religion. This may suprise you, but it is true.

Furthermore, I have read many holy books, including the bible (almost all of it). I have an excellent long term memory, so I probably have every idea what I am talking about.

If you wish to discuss the biblical views on homosexuality, fine. I am aware that the bible is highly negative to homosexuals. (Who honestly thinks Paul meant anything different?) However, please do not assume that everyone believes that what is written in it is true.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

Hello, oh biblically challenged one of grade school literacy skills. Roman's 1 speaks of those who have gone against God and therefore he has given them up to unnatural desires. You should also be aware that there are many Christian homosexuals and they have neither gone against God nor their inherent sexuality. Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural desires but in case you haven't yet understood this, same sex attraction is the natural desire for homosexuals, so does Paul speak to them? It is ironic that certain persons, in the name of what they view as moral behavior, insist homosexuals (constitutional) go against their natural desires and settle for heterosexuality, which is to them, unnatural. At this point is where Christians tend to resort to viewing sex as only natural between a man and woman (heterosexism) for the purposes of reproduction and that men aren't built to have sex with men (and women on women). All homosexuals would disgree with this. Sex in humans is as much about socialization as it is reproduction, reagrdless of sexual orientation. Reread Roman 1 and think for a while just who Paul is talking about.^^

Reagrdless of what the bible says, it was written by men in a time which preceded the actual term 'homosexual' by many centuries as well as the fields of psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, behavioral genetics though and therefore you would have no luck convincing me this beleif system is valid as interpreted towards homosexuals or it even refers to them. Secondly not everyone cares what it says at all so if you want to come back and babble on about a moral code written by stone age Jews, I will use your own words and scripture along with scientific reasoning and blessed I would be for dashing your infantile rhetoric against the rocks. :twisted:

no he says they have gone against what is natural buddy! and what is natural a man and a woman in a relationship only! what bibel are you useing anyway the fags are us version?

of portugal: intelligent commentaries are produced and your responses are extremely illogical. Please can you try to make sense? I find it hard to read your sentences because of your bad spelling and grammar, but these are things I am willing to ignore if you will at least fill them with useful, thoughtful content.

If you are going to argue about what is natural and what is not, I have some advice: stop. I am extremely well-informed and intelligent, and I can systematically disprove any comments you make depending on 'natural,' i.e. scientifically observable, data. Simply take it that, when Paul said homosexuality was 'unnatural,' he was either mistranslated ('sinful' or 'unintended' might be more consistent adjectives) or wrong.

I don't want to do this, but if necessary, when I next log on, I will demonstrate conclusively that my position is superior.

- Jordan

[ I am extremely well-informed and intelligent

- Jordan[/quote]

that is arguable.ok, let me ask you this? are you an evolutionist? if so what caused man to "evolve", nature. therefore because of nature humanity evolved into two distinct sex's male and female. what for, reproduction. therefore it is unnatural to have a relationship between two people of the same sex. and please show me any huse spelling or grammatical errors in my last post that makes it hard to read.

of Portugal,
both Paul and Leviticus,in the contexts of the texts to my understanding, are more specific to Pagan Temple Prostitution.
Also,when that Leviticus verse is directly translated from Hebrew it says "If a man should lie with a man,in the bed of a woman,it is rituallistically unclean",a bit different from KJV,no? But then how much of the Bible is accurately translated?

In Luminari, the laws do not differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. To us, the issue is not worthy of discussion. There are far too many things wrong with the world to spend time criticizing something that is completely natural.

I am extremely well-informed and intelligent

- Jordan

that is arguable.ok, let me ask you this? are you an evolutionist? if so what caused man to "evolve", nature. therefore because of nature humanity evolved into two distinct sex's male and female. what for, reproduction. therefore it is unnatural to have a relationship between two people of the same sex. and please show me any huse spelling or grammatical errors in my last post that makes it hard to read.

Debatable? My verbal IQ score on the WAIS-III is 152, the highest possible score being 155, and I obtained perfect scores on many of the subtests. I am well-read and was offered a place by Trinity College in the University of Cambridge. And that's despite coming from an extremely low income background. Which elements of my intelligence or information are you questioning?

Two sexes did evolve, because it increases selective pressures through competition and natural diversity to have haploid gametes produced through meiosis which then fuse, in sexual reproduction, to form a new, unique diploid organism.

All this is irrelevent, because you confuse selective pressures with their phenotypic responses. Just because certain things are selected because they are used in one way doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one natural use for them. Take, for example, fingers. They evolved so that we could manipulate objects. I choose to play the piano. However, nature did not intend that I should play the piano, and indeed the piano is not an especially ergonomic or natural instrument to play - am I, therefore, performing an unnatural act? If I am, what uses of the fingers are natural?

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that only a limited set of phenotypic responses are natural. Homosexuality is the phenotypic result of the interaction of certain combinations of genes with the environment, and is, therefore, natural by definition. QED.

I wasn't talking about your last posting specifically, but of your last posting in general. Poor grammar and spelling make it harder for me to recall information accurately, because they distract from the content and interrupt natural language processing for many people. I generally understand such postings after a while and seldom comment on such features - I made an exception in the course of making a different point, which is of greater relevence. I'm not attacking your literacy, and I'm sorry if you feel this way.

- Jordan

I am extremely well-informed and intelligent

- Jordan

that is arguable.ok, let me ask you this? are you an evolutionist? if so what caused man to "evolve", nature. therefore because of nature humanity evolved into two distinct sex's male and female. what for, reproduction. therefore it is unnatural to have a relationship between two people of the same sex. and please show me any huse spelling or grammatical errors in my last post that makes it hard to read.

Debatable? My verbal IQ score on the WAIS-III is 152, the highest possible score being 155, and I obtained perfect scores on many of the subtests. I am well-read and was offered a place by Trinity College in the University of Cambridge. And that's despite coming from an extremely low income background. Which elements of my intelligence or information are you questioning?

Two sexes did evolve, because it increases selective pressures through competition and natural diversity to have haploid gametes produced through meiosis which then fuse, in sexual reproduction, to form a new, unique diploid organism.

All this is irrelevent, because you confuse selective pressures with their phenotypic responses. Just because certain things are selected because they are used in one way doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one natural use for them. Take, for example, fingers. They evolved so that we could manipulate objects. I choose to play the piano. However, nature did not intend that I should play the piano, and indeed the piano is not an especially ergonomic or natural instrument to play - am I, therefore, performing an unnatural act? If I am, what uses of the fingers are natural?

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that only a limited set of phenotypic responses are natural. Homosexuality is the phenotypic result of the interaction of certain combinations of genes with the environment, and is, therefore, natural by definition. QED.

I wasn't talking about your last posting specifically, but of your last posting in general. Poor grammar and spelling make it harder for me to recall information accurately, because they distract from the content and interrupt natural language processing for many people. I generally understand such postings after a while and seldom comment on such features - I made an exception in the course of making a different point, which is of greater relevence. I'm not attacking your literacy, and I'm sorry if you feel this way.

- Jordan

you cannot use your finger as an example because you would have them even if you didnt want to play the piano whereas you would not have homo sexuality if you were straight, normal, because it is natural for a man to be attracted to a woman. ohh dont worry i dont take any of this personal, i took an overal iq test i scorel a 143, and my fault was in grammer and spelling,i scored high in mathematics, literature, and science, but i have no history of grammer only one semester when I was 13. sorry for any mistakes.

I am extremely well-informed and intelligent

- Jordan

that is arguable.ok, let me ask you this? are you an evolutionist? if so what caused man to "evolve", nature. therefore because of nature humanity evolved into two distinct sex's male and female. what for, reproduction. therefore it is unnatural to have a relationship between two people of the same sex. and please show me any huse spelling or grammatical errors in my last post that makes it hard to read.

Debatable? My verbal IQ score on the WAIS-III is 152, the highest possible score being 155, and I obtained perfect scores on many of the subtests. I am well-read and was offered a place by Trinity College in the University of Cambridge. And that's despite coming from an extremely low income background. Which elements of my intelligence or information are you questioning?

Two sexes did evolve, because it increases selective pressures through competition and natural diversity to have haploid gametes produced through meiosis which then fuse, in sexual reproduction, to form a new, unique diploid organism.

All this is irrelevent, because you confuse selective pressures with their phenotypic responses. Just because certain things are selected because they are used in one way doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one natural use for them. Take, for example, fingers. They evolved so that we could manipulate objects. I choose to play the piano. However, nature did not intend that I should play the piano, and indeed the piano is not an especially ergonomic or natural instrument to play - am I, therefore, performing an unnatural act? If I am, what uses of the fingers are natural?

The flaw in your argument is in assuming that only a limited set of phenotypic responses are natural. Homosexuality is the phenotypic result of the interaction of certain combinations of genes with the environment, and is, therefore, natural by definition. QED.

I wasn't talking about your last posting specifically, but of your last posting in general. Poor grammar and spelling make it harder for me to recall information accurately, because they distract from the content and interrupt natural language processing for many people. I generally understand such postings after a while and seldom comment on such features - I made an exception in the course of making a different point, which is of greater relevence. I'm not attacking your literacy, and I'm sorry if you feel this way.

- Jordan

you cannot use your finger as an example because you would have them even if you didnt want to play the piano whereas you would not have homo sexuality if you were straight, normal, because it is natural for a man to be attracted to a woman. ohh dont worry i dont take any of this personal, i took an overal iq test i scorel a 143, and my fault was in grammer and spelling,i scored high in mathematics, literature, and science, but i have no history of grammer only one semester when I was 13. sorry for any mistakes.

Again, a problem.

Homosexuality refers to the condition of homosexuality, which can be defined by two aspects: the inclination, and the difference in behaviour due to that inclination.

The former is definitely natural - if you accept that heterosexual inclination is natural, it is impossible to declare that the homosexual inclination is unnatural without applying the same arguments to the earlier proposition. (And anyway, through the fact that homosexuals are at least as strongly oriented towards having sex with people of the same sex as heterosexuals are towards having sex with the opposite, we have more evidence to support this, entirely through using logical deduction.)

The difference in behaviour is more tricky. However, we have to remember that the difference follows directly from the differential impulses. Therefore, we know it is definitely the result of a natural process. We can add to this the knowledge that homosexual acts are no more 'phenotypically valid' than heterosexual acts - i.e. that no expression of genetic information is less valid than any other. Thus, homosexual behaviour is as natural as heterosexual behaviour.

This is directly analogous to playing the piano, which can be defined by the inclination towards playing and the actual playing itself. Thus, the analogy is (at this level) appropriate.

Which test did you take? I never studied grammar much, it just came to me instinctively - almost through osmosis. Anyway, there are plenty of people (some whom I know personally) who can't spell or write well to save their lives and yet are perfectly intelligent individuals.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

When followers of your religion shut up and wake up and smell the coffee they are all fair game. You are all coming from the same boorish standpoint. If your religion is telling you its a sin as said by certain prophets whereas the Messiah says to tolerate others then take your pick between hypocrtical and schizophrenic. I was kind by saying hypocritical. Is the bible not the word of God? It should therefore be infallible shouldn't it?

As for this name calling you confuse with an objective opinion, how does being called hypocritical compare to being labelled or made analoogous to those who engage in bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, adn on and on right down to being a threat to national security adn all sorts of other leaps of irrational foolishness purported by religious folks against homosexuals.

When they shut up, I'll shut up. Not one moment sooner and if you can't handle that, tough.


you have no idea what the hell you are talking about! if you read romans one it clearly explains the evils of homosexuality and how God has wrath towards these people! it says their minds are darkened! so dont go b.s.ing me about the bibel i will beat you in it so dont even try and i have more if you want!

Hello, oh biblically challenged one of grade school literacy skills. Roman's 1 speaks of those who have gone against God and therefore he has given them up to unnatural desires. You should also be aware that there are many Christian homosexuals and they have neither gone against God nor their inherent sexuality. Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural desires but in case you haven't yet understood this, same sex attraction is the natural desire for homosexuals, so does Paul speak to them? It is ironic that certain persons, in the name of what they view as moral behavior, insist homosexuals (constitutional) go against their natural desires and settle for heterosexuality, which is to them, unnatural. At this point is where Christians tend to resort to viewing sex as only natural between a man and woman (heterosexism) for the purposes of reproduction and that men aren't built to have sex with men (and women on women). All homosexuals would disgree with this. Sex in humans is as much about socialization as it is reproduction, reagrdless of sexual orientation. Reread Roman 1 and think for a while just who Paul is talking about.^^

Reagrdless of what the bible says, it was written by men in a time which preceded the actual term 'homosexual' by many centuries as well as the fields of psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, behavioral genetics though and therefore you would have no luck convincing me this beleif system is valid as interpreted towards homosexuals or it even refers to them. Secondly not everyone cares what it says at all so if you want to come back and babble on about a moral code written by stone age Jews, I will use your own words and scripture along with scientific reasoning and blessed I would be for dashing your infantile rhetoric against the rocks. :twisted:

no he says they have gone against what is natural buddy! and what is natural a man and a woman in a relationship only! what bibel are you useing anyway the fags are us version?

2. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

That reminds me of someone....^^

"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

That part reminds me of all those people who want to marry goats because homosexuals can get married.

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

You were saying?

ya know those toys for kids where they have to try and fit the cylinder into the circle, and the tri-angle block into the triangle? Hmmmm, well, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the cylinder block does not go with another cylider block; it goes into the circle....

Oh, and you'll never change my mind because it is my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell for it.

Well... thank you for the geometry exercise.


ya know those toys for kids where they have to try and fit the cylinder into the circle, and the tri-angle block into the triangle? Hmmmm, well, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the cylinder block does not go with another cylider block; it goes into the circle....

2. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

...I can marry whoever I want, I want to marry a goat........

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Oh, and you'll never change my mind because it is my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell for it.

I'll see ya there... muhahahha! :twisted:

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

And other people never do things like this?

people always say there uncomftable around it......how? if you dont like it either ignore it or say something to them about, perhaps your actually uncomftable as you are worried you somehow might enjoy and get all paranoid.....would serve you right, and most gays do not try to push the homosexuality onto others, why would we want to waste it on boring straight ppl (joke!) :wink:

In Jaru we have no laws about Marage..We do not even practice the custom..As I beleave it from what I understand this is a Beleif of the Xian religion. We have few Xians in Jaru and they usually do not stay long..
The consept of inhibiting Sexual liberties is forgin to the people of Jaru.The Grate Goodess Jarua has taught us that it is good and right and that it s how the Grate Father made t to be.. To do anything else is to go against nature..

ya know those toys for kids where they have to try and fit the cylinder into the circle, and the tri-angle block into the triangle? Hmmmm, well, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the cylinder block does not go with another cylider block; it goes into the circle....

The cylinder doesn't go with another cylinder - they just put it in another cylinder-shaped hole, as far as I remember. Not very different from oral sex among straight couples.

Besides which, you've simply expressed what 'Of portugal' said in different terms - you are confusing evolved utility with phenotypic effects.

If you're going to argue on the basis of the highly complex and specific feature of 'naturality,' go ahead. But if you have to resort to vague and ultimately flawed analogies, it's probably best that you keep your opinions to yourself, because they have nothing to do with science.

Oh, and you'll never change my mind because it is my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell for it.

In that case, you're only preaching to the converted. There's no way religious criticisms will change my opinion because I require facts. Your religious beliefs are, at their root, illogical and unscientific, therefore it is impossible to share them with people who do not share your basic beliefs.

And change your mind about what? I think there is plenty you don't know about this world and even about your religion, so I'd like to know what you are arguing about. If it's naturality, your beliefs are flawed. That's not to say the Bible is flawed, because it's entirely possible the Bible was mistranslated to read natural, and actually means something else. And even if it is, there's no reason they could just have got one thing wrong.

If it's about the morality of homosexuality, well, you just have to take it for granted that your beliefs are worth more than the beliefs of others. Most people do that, scientists and theists alike, so there's no shame in it.

Before I conclude I would like to point out that this posting in no way constitutes an attack on anyone's faith. The Catholic faith, alongside most others, admits that it is fundamentally irrational when it states that some things must be taken by faith. I don't want to turn this into a 'slagging match'. I try very hard to be totally honest while hiding my personal feelings. It's very hard to do when people attempt to argue that my uncle and many close friends are 'going to Hell,' but I think I do an admirable job, and in return I only request that reponses are kept as civil as possible.

I only said that because, in my experience, people can respond pretty... violently to what they see as an slur on their beliefs. And that includes people with no religious beliefs.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Oh, and you'll never change my mind because it is my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell for it.

Sence you dont give a damm what we think we dont give a damm what you think.But you will not harrass us for our way of life or else!!

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?

I find it hard to believe they are forcing you into it even so, it is not contagious or is it possible to 'learn' to be a constitutional homosexual (exclusive, level 6*). If in the extremely unlikely event they are, you might get an idea what it is like to be forced into a heterosexual lifestyle then you might want to think again who is not keeing their sexuality and faulted (religious) beliefs to themself.

Ya wanna know why they don't hide it? It is the one power they have over you, to take advantage of your fear.

As for the adoption issue, here is snippet for you...

At its September 1976 meeting, the Council adopted the following resolution, initiated by the Task Force on the Status of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists of the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP):
'The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases.'(Conger, 1977, p. 432).

Source: American Psychological Association (APA) Policy Statements on Lesbian and Gay Issues.

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...


What a confusing comment! I can't make head nor tail of it - what exactly are they doing that is so upsetting? Being gay? Telling people that they are gay? Not hiding that they are gay? Kissing? Hugging? Trying to turn other people gay? Making gay jokes?

Most of the gay people I know hide their homosexuality quite well - very few are 'out'. Some of them go to extremes. Let me respond to your story with one of my own.

One of my friends from Sixth Form is gay. He was quite a macho guy, definitely what they call 'straight acting'. He had a boyfriend for, what, ten months or so, and almost no one knew about it.

It so happens, one day I find him in the back of the library (there's a nice spot behind the bookshelves where my friends often hung out, because it was quiet and I was a bookworm) crying as quietly as he could. When I tried to ask him what was up, he said it was nothing. I pressured him a bit, and he got angry, then he started crying even more. I put an arm round his shoulders, and it all spilled out.

For a few months, things had been getting tense between him and his boyfriend. He was scared to kiss him or hug him, or hold hands in public, or even whisper his afffection for him in public because he was so terrified someone would find out. (It was hell when he tried to 'come out' to me, it was almost as hard for me to get him to tell me as it was for him to tell! And I was one of his best and least-homophobic friends...) Now, if you treated your girlfriend like that I imagine she would be pretty miffed, and his partner was getting very annoyed about it, and they had been rowing something terrible.

At the time I was talking to him, his relationship was in tatters, and they were basically putting it off until one of them said 'I've had enough.' Their sex life had been non-existent for a few weeks - imagine, he was suffering impotence at eighteen! - and demonstrations of affection were getting rarer and less certain between the two; they hadn't even hugged for a week. And why? Because he didn't want to offend anyone; because he was scared of how people react; because trying to keep it quite was stressing him out. He was 6'3" and could probably have taken anyone there in a fight, and yet he was scared!

It must have been something in the water, because every one of my friends at that time was pretty down - I was on SSRIs because I was going through a bout of bad depression, and the inter-group relationships (all straight) were being made and broken at an astonishing rate. But all the same, he was in an especially dire situation. It was completely heart-rending - I was horrified, because no one knew what was going on and he felt completely on his own while his life was falling apart. And all because he was afraid of people like you shunning him or insulting him, because he actually cared what other people thought.

We had to stop half way through and move to somewhere more private, because he started crying so hard he was worried someone might hear. They broke up the next day. The next few months he was a different person - he confided once or twice that he had already considered suicide quite seriously, because his life was so bad he just didn't want to face another day of it, and if it weren't for the support of his friends he wouldn't have the strength.

He's at university now, and still scared of what people might think. He's a lot better, though - he actually went to an LGB meeting, and he says he's been out to a few clubs. Just that small freedom of not having to hide who he is, even for a few hours, has made an enourmous impact on his life.

Perhaps that's why people form gay groups, and don't always try to hide how they feel. Perhaps you should remember that the reason you only know gay people who 'shout it out' is that you can't see the ones who keep it quiet. And if you knew what it does to them, you might not be so critical.

Or do you imagine that they don't have normal feelings because they go out with people of the same sex?

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?

I am. Once more, if you had any idea what a difference adoption (even gay adoption) makes to children, as compared to life in a children's home or institution, you would, too. Unless you're heartless enough to not care about the wellfare of children. (I say this from talking to people who were adopted or institutionalised, and from studies into it during my psychology course.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

homosexuals are very fine with me as long as they don't ask other then homosexuals out. If you look for a picture of kurama kissing hiei you will find it. so i'm representing a homosexual. that doesn't mean i'm one.
actually if it came down to two men having to save the world by having sex, and one was a homosexual and one was me, I would have sex with him.
I would do him right in his homosexual ass.of course that would never happen. well maybe. And i'm a teenaged white boy and I'm saying this. :twisted:

homosexuals are very fine with me as long as they don't ask other then homosexuals out. If you look for a picture of kurama kissing hiei you will find it. so i'm representing a homosexual. that doesn't mean i'm one.
actually if it came down to two men having to save the world by having sex, and one was a homosexual and one was me, I would have sex with him.
I would do him right in his homosexual ass.of course that would never happen. well maybe. And i'm a teenaged white boy and I'm saying this. :twisted:

It starts off mature, and finishes off funny. I love it.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...


What a confusing comment! I can't make head nor tail of it - what exactly are they doing that is so upsetting? Being gay? Telling people that they are gay? Not hiding that they are gay? Kissing? Hugging? Trying to turn other people gay? Making gay jokes?

Most of the gay people I know hide their homosexuality quite well - very few are 'out'. Some of them go to extremes. Let me respond to your story with one of my own.

One of my friends from Sixth Form is gay. He was quite a macho guy, definitely what they call 'straight acting'. He had a boyfriend for, what, ten months or so, and almost no one knew about it.

It so happens, one day I find him in the back of the library (there's a nice spot behind the bookshelves where my friends often hung out, because it was quiet and I was a bookworm) crying as quietly as he could. When I tried to ask him what was up, he said it was nothing. I pressured him a bit, and he got angry, then he started crying even more. I put an arm round his shoulders, and it all spilled out.

For a few months, things had been getting tense between him and his boyfriend. He was scared to kiss him or hug him, or hold hands in public, or even whisper his afffection for him in public because he was so terrified someone would find out. (It was hell when he tried to 'come out' to me, it was almost as hard for me to get him to tell me as it was for him to tell! And I was one of his best and least-homophobic friends...) Now, if you treated your girlfriend like that I imagine she would be pretty miffed, and his partner was getting very annoyed about it, and they had been rowing something terrible.

At the time I was talking to him, his relationship was in tatters, and they were basically putting it off until one of them said 'I've had enough.' Their sex life had been non-existent for a few weeks - imagine, he was suffering impotence at eighteen! - and demonstrations of affection were getting rarer and less certain between the two; they hadn't even hugged for a week. And why? Because he didn't want to offend anyone; because he was scared of how people react; because trying to keep it quite was stressing him out. He was 6'3" and could probably have taken anyone there in a fight, and yet he was scared!

It must have been something in the water, because every one of my friends at that time was pretty down - I was on SSRIs because I was going through a bout of bad depression, and the inter-group relationships (all straight) were being made and broken at an astonishing rate. But all the same, he was in an especially dire situation. It was completely heart-rending - I was horrified, because no one knew what was going on and he felt completely on his own while his life was falling apart. And all because he was afraid of people like you shunning him or insulting him, because he actually cared what other people thought.

We had to stop half way through and move to somewhere more private, because he started crying so hard he was worried someone might hear. They broke up the next day. The next few months he was a different person - he confided once or twice that he had already considered suicide quite seriously, because his life was so bad he just didn't want to face another day of it, and if it weren't for the support of his friends he wouldn't have the strength.

He's at university now, and still scared of what people might think. He's a lot better, though - he actually went to an LGB meeting, and he says he's been out to a few clubs. Just that small freedom of not having to hide who he is, even for a few hours, has made an enourmous impact on his life.

Perhaps that's why people form gay groups, and don't always try to hide how they feel. Perhaps you should remember that the reason you only know gay people who 'shout it out' is that you can't see the ones who keep it quiet. And if you knew what it does to them, you might not be so critical.

Or do you imagine that they don't have normal feelings because they go out with people of the same sex?

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?

I am. Once more, if you had any idea what a difference adoption (even gay adoption) makes to children, as compared to life in a children's home or institution, you would, too. Unless you're heartless enough to not care about the wellfare of children. (I say this from talking to people who were adopted or institutionalised, and from studies into it during my psychology course.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I was walking by once, and I had one of them grab me by the hand and ask me my name. I walked off, and he wrote his phone # on a piece of paper. Now WTF is that, it is probably that event that makes me so paranoid about them. I quit working on thursdays, cuz that is when they bowl.

You dont think a child needs the nurture from a mother and a father. Gay adoption poses to many problems. I can assure you that he will be made fun of his whole life at school if any kids find out his parents are gay... A boy with just a mother does not have the fatherly presence to make him a "man", and vice versa. A child needs what both parents have to offer, and if both parents are of the same sex, I dont think the child will develop right.

...

I was walking by once, and I had one of them grab me by the hand and ask me my name. I walked off, and he wrote his phone # on a piece of paper. Now WTF is that, it is probably that event that makes me so paranoid about them. I quit working on thursdays, cuz that is when they bowl.

Odd. But surely that's an isolated incident? I wouldn't like anyone grabbing my hand, but I'd just conclude that, gay or straight, the world has more than its fair share of scary people.

You dont think a child needs the nurture from a mother and a father. Gay adoption poses to many problems. I can assure you that he will be made fun of his whole life at school if any kids find out his parents are gay... A boy with just a mother does not have the fatherly presence to make him a "man", and vice versa. A child needs what both parents have to offer, and if both parents are of the same sex, I dont think the child will develop right.

I'm going to address each point here.

'Gay adoption poses too many problems...' - it only poses problems because some people have problems with gay people.

'...[he/she] will be made fun of at school if any kids find out [his/her] parents are gay...' - wouldn't a far easier solution be to simply educate children about gay families and rights? The kids who make fun of other children with gay parents are the ones with issues. And besides, people are getting easier with the concept of homosexuality.

'A boy with just a mother does not have the fatherly presence to make him a "man", and vice versa...' - completely untrue. This has been demonstrated several times, and conclusively (so we learned in psychology), since it was first formulated by Sigmund Freud. Plenty of children (including myself) are brought up in a single parent household. I have no problem with my gender, and resent the idea that I am less of a man because I only had a mother - and so would most male children in single-parent families, and vice versa. The real problem single parent families have is financial security - they are significantly worse off, because they are not living on a shared income and cannot afford to devote as much time to work. Gender identity issues don't even come into it. A gay couple, living together with shared marriage rights and a child, would have no such problems.

To summarise, children with parents of one sex only develop just fine, and the only problems come when people decide that they don't like the idea that gay people can look after kids just as well as they can.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

This world would be a better place if everyone just lived their own lives instead of trying to live everyone elses for them..
It dosnt matter who is taking care of the chilren just as long as they take care of them well.. Childern have their own minds and oppinons on things and can generally figure such things out for themselves.. Their not quite as stupid as conservitive society makes them out to be..

How does the fact that i sleep with another man affect you??? :?:

The Xians have the mistaken beleif that the U.S. is a Chritian Country.That they are the conroling majority of U.S.Society.
Or that they have some sort of God given right to be..
The fact that Homoexuality is Legal in the U.S. under the U.S. Constitution only gos to prove that they are indeed not the ones in majorityor even in constitutional legality.. That Chuch and Sate is seperate by constitutianal law..That is why they are trying to replace the Constitution with the Patriot act..

I seriously find no problem with this. I do not oppose, I think it's fine, as long as they don't get too uptight about it.

'...[he/she] will be made fun of at school if any kids find out [his/her] parents are gay...' - wouldn't a far easier solution be to simply educate children about gay families and rights? The kids who make fun of other children with gay parents are the ones with issues. And besides, people are getting easier with the concept of homosexuality.


You think it would be easy to educate every kid in the entire US about homosexuality? I think that we've been trying to do a similar thing with racism, and it obviously hasn't worked out "easily." Kids make fun of everyone else for any reason. To say that the ones who make fun of gay parents have issues means that all kids have issues, which is true.

"I was walking by once, and I had one of them grab me by the hand and ask me my name. I walked off, and he wrote his phone # on a piece of paper. Now WTF is that, it is probably that event that makes me so paranoid about them. I quit working on thursdays, cuz that is when they bowl."

Chenkow you complain that some guy gave you his number and held your hand. How many straight guys coming onto girls give them their number. I doubt women always appreciate that. It's not a gay issue it's a people issue.

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

I think most of them do this, so I am generalizing; there might be a few however, which do not...

and I suppose you are one of those people who believe in gays adopting babies as well?


Hmm...and I suppose that heterosexuals never force their version of sexuality on others?

In how many places is it still illegal, if only on paper, for two people who happen to be of the same gender to love one another? In how many places have homosexuals placed the same constraints upon heterosexual couples?

There are so many other things to be concerned about. War, famine, murder, rape (definitely a case of someone forcing their sexuality on someone else), etc... Why does something so small concern you? What exactly are you afraid of?

Regarding homosexuals adopting babies... Why would they be any worse parents than straight people? Heaven knows that there are thousands of abusive straight parents.

You became uncomfortable when a gay person asked you for your name and number.

I became a wee bit uncomfortable myself when a straight male sexually assaulted me, but that doesn't mean that I hold it against all straight men.

What else can be said to you? You are to be pitied for you ignorance.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage

I sorry but you have just offended me and my religion. Please, if you treat gays with respect then treat different religions with respect. I don't think it's that hard not to. And by the way there has been no proven scientific evidence homosexuality is genetic.

the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage

I sorry but you have just offended me and my religion. Please, if you treat gays with respect then treat different religions with respect. I don't think it's that hard not to. And by the way there has been no proven scientific evidence homosexuality is genetic. Plus I am Catholic-Presbyterian a half and half (don't ask it's a very long story) and I am not far right-winged but I don't belive homosexuals should be allowed to marry in our Bible it explictly says "...and a man shall not lie (as in to have sex with) another man as how a man lies with a woman"

Doesn't feel very nice now does it? How would you feel as a person having a fundamental core component of your identity insulted compared to a religious belief?

As for the "genetic proof" to put it simply, heterosexuality is genetic though the precise genes for this behavior are unknown. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are mutually exclusive in terms of desire, in other words a fully homosexual individual is fully not heterosexual and vice versa. It should also be known that gender is also genetic and in some individuals it is also at times very ambiguous. How homosexuality *could not * be genetic would be the same as saying heterosexuality or gender is learned and we know that is not true. Homosexuals are living evdience genes responsible for sexual orientation are independent and distinguishable from genes determining gender. Regarding genetic studies done on homsoexuality, it has been shown that there is a familial aggregation pattern (hereditary) and that in the case of homosexual males, the behavior appears to have maternal origins. Vice versa for females. I'd dig up links to a string of studies that strongly point to genetics but that is beside the point. Alzheimer's diease is genetic but does that mean it should not be treated??

Whether or not it is genetic or not is not the issue. The fundamental ethic of the gay rights movement is the free will of the individual based on his or her sexual identity, not to be confused with psychosexual disorders such as bestiality and pedophilia. This ethic already exists for heterosexuals. As for the legal matters surrounding marriage, why would people need both God and government (law) to recognise it when government is not religion and religion's case against homosexuals is weak. That said why should one group dictate the legal rights of the other?

It certainly appears as though people can't understand that homosexuality is both a sexual behavior, committed by not just homosexuals, but is also an inherent sexual orientation to some individuals. Certain people for varoius reasons will resort to this act just as exclusive homosexuals do but in most people's eyes, it' all homosexuality, and they cannot differentiate properly. When one refers to the rape of a woman by a man, they refer to it as rape and heterosexuality is not even mentioned. Same for pedophilia, etc. If one refers to the rape of a man by man, they see that as homosexuality first as with pedophilia.

Lastly, the abominations in Leviticus refer to tribal purity, not sin to the level of rape or murder. Eating pork is also mentoned in Leviticus too along with quite a few things. Leviticus uses the word 'mankind' (humanity) not 'man' so it could be said that the passage means heterosexuals should not go against their sexual orientatoin, as they often do. :wink:

How does the fact that i sleep with another man affect you??? :?:

Not unless that man is my boyfriend. :wink:

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Hmm, whatever about this sparkling forum nugget you've posted could possibly polarize people against you? :?

If this is the attitude you frequently are met with, we'd point to your approach rather than the people you encounter. Problems arise such as, for example, that you don't back up any of your opinions with facts and still seem to feel that everyone should accept them (note: the capslock key has an negative correlation to credibility); or, perhaps, that you refer to those who do not as "fundaloony-dickheads."

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Aww, someone needs a hug. :P :twisted:

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Guess what? I'm sick of all those conservatives who preach morality and loving and stuff like that, then beat down on anyone who's even slightly different.

And guess what, the morality police try to make up opinions for us too, and they want us to live a 'good' life like everyone else.

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Awwwwww, is someone feeling a little cranky? Maybe you should go for a nap.

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

We in LostParadise resent the implication that we are "left-wing fundaloony dickheads"!! :cry:

We simply believe that the human body is very beautiful and *very* sensual. Therefore, we have no taboos concerning consensual behavior. In fact you will often hear our citizens say, "Hey, sex is sex, its all good!!!

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Guess what? I'm sick of all those conservatives who preach morality and loving and stuff like that, then beat down on anyone who's even slightly different.

And guess what, the morality police try to make up opinions for us too, and they want us to live a 'good' life like everyone else.

You guys always whinge about conservatives, yet you cannot accept our opinion. Your group bring it on from the rest.

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Isosynchronous, I have proven systematically and conclusively that homosexuality is entirely natural. Do you understand the argument I formulated? If you wish to deny it, at least show me how my reasoning is flawed. If you can't do that, then you are in no position to make insulting, uninformed, sweeping statements such as the one you make above.

And, as any intelligent person should realise, naturalness has nothing to do with morality. Murder and rape are entirely natural behaviours, but our drive to commit such acts should be restricted. It is UNNATURAL to oppose our natural inclinations, but that's precisely what we have to do if we want to live in a civilised society.

I am not trying to make up opinions for you. YOU are the only one doing that - you are TELLING people what they should believe and do, and your accusation is hypocritical. I have constructed clear, coherent, logical arguments and you simply fire baseless, unsupported opinions.

If you're going to talk about something, why not talk about something you actually understand? And if you do understand it, why don't you demonstrate it?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Why is the Internet infested by so many left-wing fundaloony dickheads? Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. It is wrong. Let us oppose it and disencourage it.

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Isosynchronous, I have proven systematically and conclusively that homosexuality is entirely natural. Do you understand the argument I formulated? If you wish to deny it, at least show me how my reasoning is flawed. If you can't do that, then you are in no position to make insulting, uninformed, sweeping statements such as the one you make above.

And, as any intelligent person should realise, naturalness has nothing to do with morality. Murder and rape are entirely natural behaviours, but our drive to commit such acts should be restricted. It is UNNATURAL to oppose our natural inclinations, but that's precisely what we have to do if we want to live in a civilised society.

I am not trying to make up opinions for you. YOU are the only one doing that - you are TELLING people what they should believe and do, and your accusation is hypocritical. I have constructed clear, coherent, logical arguments and you simply fire baseless, unsupported opinions.

If you're going to talk about something, why not talk about something you actually understand? And if you do understand it, why don't you demonstrate it?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

It posted that four times for no apparent reason. And mozilla is funny about this site and I can't see the delete button - I could get rid of one, but the others remain mysteriously beyond my reach. Oh, and the website was really weird for a while there.

I wonder if I can ask a mod to delete the one above this one? I've edited one of them to make one less.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Guess what? I'm sick of all those conservatives who preach morality and loving and stuff like that, then beat down on anyone who's even slightly different.

And guess what, the morality police try to make up opinions for us too, and they want us to live a 'good' life like everyone else.

You guys always whinge about conservatives, yet you cannot accept our opinion. Your group bring it on from the rest.

What? What is the point with all that nonsense about 'left wing' and 'conservative' and... What?

I'm insulted that just because I deduced logically that homosexuality is entirely natural and doesn't hurt anyone any more than heterosexuality (in fact, less, because homosexuals aren't violently homosexualist) that you have assigned me my place on the political spectrum.

For your information, I choose not to be pigeonholed into either, because I prefer to make my own mind up about things, and I don't like to be the subject of sweeping and inaccurate generalisations made by people who only think of others as members of their own limiting categorisations.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You dont know what natural law is, do you? It is the conscience of every person and tells every SANE person the difference between right and wrong, murder and life, And you comared yourself the pshycho parent eating their kid in the wild!

If natural law is how you define it, as the person's conscience, then how can you use that to argue against homosexual rights? Their conscience would tell them that being gay is as right as ours tell us being straight is.

no that is not true no one is born gay! at one point they knew it was wrong but because of sin their minds were darkened and were no longer able to distinct the two. Our entire culture is blind to sin and i suggest to you vivelvo u spend some time learning your faith other wise the enemy will conqour you and you will become one of them. And when you die you will be judged more harshly than other because you were brought up in the faith and therefore have more culpability than others who's parents did not raise them correctly!

You dont know what natural law is, do you? It is the conscience of every person and tells every SANE person the difference between right and wrong, murder and life, And you comared yourself the pshycho parent eating their kid in the wild!

If natural law is how you define it, as the person's conscience, then how can you use that to argue against homosexual rights? Their conscience would tell them that being gay is as right as ours tell us being straight is.

no that is not true no one is born gay! at one point they knew it was wrong but because of sin their minds were darkened and were no longer able to distinct the two. Our entire culture is blind to sin and i suggest to you vivelvo u spend some time learning your faith other wise the enemy will conqour you and you will become one of them. And when you die you will be judged more harshly than other because you were brought up in the faith and therefore have more culpability than others who's parents did not raise them correctly!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You, my friend, are one of the overly conservative Catholics, I so often speak of. Your refusal to accept that as times change, so to does the faith, has gotten our entire religion a bad reputation, far from something we deserve. I admire your drive for holiness, but I think it is misplaced. Perhaps you don't realize Christ's main message was one of tolerance. Name one time when Jesus said homosexuality is a sin. It may not be the right thing to do. We may not like people being gay, but the point is we need to accept them as people.
These statements from Paul's epistles and the Old Testament that you seem to love quoting, are all from a time when the true nature of homosexuality was not understood. It was probably considered to be a demon or something like that, but the point is that now we know you are born homosexual. It is (usually) genetic. And genetics don't simply appear. Genes are something you are born with. It is not a choice. They are people too. So what if your archaic interpretation of Christ's will calls them sinners, the point is that you are but a small minority who thinks so. Even all Catholics aren't anti-fag. I normally agree with you but you are just wrong here.

you have no idea what you are talking about! you know what you maybe one of the most half ass catholics i know! i never said anthing about being anti fag i am disputing it is wrong and the people whopa re need to go through rehabilitation (not brainwash!) it is a mental disorder! ohh and have you ever read the bibel? it says in so many diffrent places homosexuality is wrong ill enlighten you soem time.and there is no concrete proof of homosexuality being genetic there are clues but that isnt fact. and faith does not change only disciplins can change and if you believe that faith changes you are not a true catholic. A DOCTINE IS A DOCTRINE! nothing changes that! and Christ message was not of tolerance where did you get that from??? a liberal catholic? sorry cant be both! and we accept them as people but we cant support there sinful acts! man you have noooo roots argue with me after you do some reasher vivelvo until then there is nothing to talk about.

A) Science has proven that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
B) Every instance I can think of where the Bible claims homosexuality to be a sin is in the Old Testament.
C) Explain to me Jesus' message if it was not one of tolerance.

You, my friend, are one of the overly conservative Catholics, I so often speak of. Your refusal to accept that as times change, so to does the faith, has gotten our entire religion a bad reputation, far from something we deserve. I admire your drive for holiness, but I think it is misplaced. Perhaps you don't realize Christ's main message was one of tolerance. Name one time when Jesus said homosexuality is a sin. It may not be the right thing to do. We may not like people being gay, but the point is we need to accept them as people.
These statements from Paul's epistles and the Old Testament that you seem to love quoting, are all from a time when the true nature of homosexuality was not understood. It was probably considered to be a demon or something like that, but the point is that now we know you are born homosexual. It is (usually) genetic. And genetics don't simply appear. Genes are something you are born with. It is not a choice. They are people too. So what if your archaic interpretation of Christ's will calls them sinners, the point is that you are but a small minority who thinks so. Even all Catholics aren't anti-fag. I normally agree with you but you are just wrong here.

you have no idea what you are talking about! you know what you maybe one of the most half ass catholics i know! i never said anthing about being anti fag i am disputing it is wrong and the people whopa re need to go through rehabilitation (not brainwash!)

Ohh, the irony.


"Reparative Therapy"
"Reparative therapy," also known as conversion therapy, is a term that is used to describe treatment attempts to change a person from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.
There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report,Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders(1989).

There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.

Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positivly are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

...

Homosexuality
Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health orgranizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. And further, the APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur. (December 1992)

Source: American Psychological Association Fact Sheet, September 1994.



it is a mental disorder! ohh and have you ever read the bibel? it says in so many diffrent places homosexuality is wrong ill enlighten you soem time.

Actually, wrong again, as the official mainstream position is that it is a naturally occurring variant of human sexuality. Unless you have a very extensive background in the field of psychology, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! As for what is said in the Bible about homosexuals versus the act homosexuality, which is also committed by heterosexuals (see 1 Romans), the Corintians verse which although names homosexuals outright despite this word not existing until roughly 300 years ago and the fact the context in which it is used in Corinthians refers to the practice of keeping young boys for sexual pleasure, and Leviticus which speaks of sins against tribal purity, not abomination against God, it would therefore seem the Bible says absolutely nothing directly against homosexuals though its followers read it as such. If you care to 'enlighten' us further about how you are reading into the word of God your own hatred and ignorance, please do.

Why does homosexuality occur? No one knows the why's and hows but it is real, has both genetic origins and functions, and has been real since the dawn of man, that said...

...and there is no concrete proof of homosexuality being genetic there are clues but that isnt fact. and faith does not change only disciplins can change and if you believe that faith changes you are not a true catholic. A DOCTINE IS A DOCTRINE! nothing changes that! and Christ message was not of tolerance where did you get that from??? a liberal catholic? sorry cant be both! and we accept them as people but we cant support there sinful acts! man you have noooo roots argue with me after you do some reasher vivelvo until then there is nothing to talk about.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

See UN proposal "ban on homosexuality" etc, etc, etc. :twisted:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me (idolatry). Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ez 16:49-50)

While we're at it, reminding you why Sodom was destroyed, let's re-evaluate the correct definition of Sodomy. It sounds an awful lot like greenback worshipping conservatism doesn't it?

Stumblebums, you are a god among toasters.
I don't know what that means, but I salute you for it!

Wanna join my Ministry? :twisted:

Your Ministry? Is that your region or sommat? I'm trying to manage my own region of Wrong Side for now. It needs more people. :(
...Saaaaay, do *you* wanna join Wrong Side? You can, its free! 8)

No, lol, not a region. I'm referring to my biblical interpretations. Heck I may even become a Christian now, umm, yeah sure. I just moved to a new region today. You can check which one that is yourself ;). Sadly, however, my time at NS is drawing to a quick close because my internet will be shut off soon and I'm 'running away to join the circus'...moving sucks. :( Won't be back for months and by then my countries will be dust.

Little-known fact: Saul was a raging asshole.

Read the shit he says about women... he was SO in denial, he makes Jerry Falwell look like a perfectly legitimate heterosexual.

Now, my country has recently decriminalised heterosexuality to boost the morale of our bisexual inhabitants. We discourage hetsex, as it is icky, but it is allowed, provided no one forces us to watch.

In real life, however, my beliefs are quite different to this. I do think hetsex is icky/boring to watch, but fun to participate in. I'm bisexual, but I'm in a committed, monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex... mostly by chance. I tend to emotionally prefer men and physically be more attracted to women. But even this changes frequently. I used to like feminine-looking men exclusively, but the man I'm seeing is hairy and masculine and barrel-chested, and I love it :twisted:

It's probably one of those things that has to do with getting older ;D Ever notice how the twinky boy bands are always girly-looking and have no hair on any part of their body? Notice how it's always little girls who are attracted to them? Yeah.

Anyway, my real-life position is that no one should interfere in anyone else's sex life, so long as it doesn't do any damage to anyone else. Yes, I think that people who are promiscuous should get frequent STD testing. Yes, I think that people with STD's should be celibate until they are clean, if their STD is curable.
Comparing homosexuality to being married to goats or children is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a goat that was a philosopher? Goats are not intelligent like humans are. Children's minds are still developing, and thus should not be held to the responsibility of choice dealing with sex, because they don't understand it, and if an authority figure tells them "You'll be a good little girl by letting me have sex with you," often they'll believe it. It's mostly about exploitation of trust for children. I think around age 15 or 16, children should have the ability to make their own choices in this arena, but hopefully they will have guidance from their parents on making responsible decisions.

I've heard that some animals willingly have sex with humans, and they somehow have consenting relationships. I have no clue as to the accuracy of these claims. If it's true, then so be it, as long as I don't have to watch. I would put it in the same categories as scat and "mature" porn. I will shudder at it, but it's not my place to tell people what to do, as long as it's not hurting someone. So yes, the jury is out on animal/human relationships... though bestiality, being animal rape, is clearly wrong.

I really think that people should try a lot harder to separate what they find icky from what is morally correct or incorrect. Like I said, I think watching hetero sex is icky and not arousing... but that doesn't mean I think straight porn should be banned. People, it's not that difficult... if an action infringes upon the rights of someone else, it should be illegal. If it DOESN'T, then SHUT THE F*CK UP! :D

This has been a public service announcement sponsored by the Queendom of Unrelenting Faeggotry.

As leader of my nation I feel it important to say where I stand. We are a very religious nation, and take offense at the attack on Christians and there stand on this issue :( . I realize that everyone is entitled to who they are and how they decide to run their lives, however there is no need for us to bad mouth anyone, for their opinion on things. Are energy can better be spent on coming together instead of pulling apart :D .

Little-known fact: Saul was a raging asshole.

Read the shit he says about women... he was SO in denial, he makes Jerry Falwell look like a perfectly legitimate heterosexual.

Now, my country has recently decriminalised heterosexuality to boost the morale of our bisexual inhabitants. We discourage hetsex, as it is icky, but it is allowed, provided no one forces us to watch.

In real life, however, my beliefs are quite different to this. I do think hetsex is icky/boring to watch, but fun to participate in. I'm bisexual, but I'm in a committed, monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex... mostly by chance. I tend to emotionally prefer men and physically be more attracted to women. But even this changes frequently. I used to like feminine-looking men exclusively, but the man I'm seeing is hairy and masculine and barrel-chested, and I love it :twisted:

It's probably one of those things that has to do with getting older ;D Ever notice how the twinky boy bands are always girly-looking and have no hair on any part of their body? Notice how it's always little girls who are attracted to them? Yeah.

Anyway, my real-life position is that no one should interfere in anyone else's sex life, so long as it doesn't do any damage to anyone else. Yes, I think that people who are promiscuous should get frequent STD testing. Yes, I think that people with STD's should be celibate until they are clean, if their STD is curable.
Comparing homosexuality to being married to goats or children is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a goat that was a philosopher? Goats are not intelligent like humans are. Children's minds are still developing, and thus should not be held to the responsibility of choice dealing with sex, because they don't understand it, and if an authority figure tells them "You'll be a good little girl by letting me have sex with you," often they'll believe it. It's mostly about exploitation of trust for children. I think around age 15 or 16, children should have the ability to make their own choices in this arena, but hopefully they will have guidance from their parents on making responsible decisions.

I've heard that some animals willingly have sex with humans, and they somehow have consenting relationships. I have no clue as to the accuracy of these claims. If it's true, then so be it, as long as I don't have to watch. I would put it in the same categories as scat and "mature" porn. I will shudder at it, but it's not my place to tell people what to do, as long as it's not hurting someone. So yes, the jury is out on animal/human relationships... though bestiality, being animal rape, is clearly wrong.

I really think that people should try a lot harder to separate what they find icky from what is morally correct or incorrect. Like I said, I think watching hetero sex is icky and not arousing... but that doesn't mean I think straight porn should be banned. People, it's not that difficult... if an action infringes upon the rights of someone else, it should be illegal. If it DOESN'T, then SHUT THE F*CK UP! :D

This has been a public service announcement sponsored by the Queendom of Unrelenting Faeggotry.

*applauds wildly*

I'm sick of the PC nuts trying to make up opinions for us and want us to like everyone, but they cannot like anyone who is remotely right-wing.

Guess what? I'm sick of all those conservatives who preach morality and loving and stuff like that, then beat down on anyone who's even slightly different.

And guess what, the morality police try to make up opinions for us too, and they want us to live a 'good' life like everyone else.

You guys always whinge about conservatives, yet you cannot accept our opinion. Your group bring it on from the rest.

So give me an example of me not accepting your opinion.

Or do you consider saying "I do not agree with you" and "you are incorrect" as intolerance/inacceptance?

You, my friend, are one of the overly conservative Catholics, I so often speak of. Your refusal to accept that as times change, so to does the faith, has gotten our entire religion a bad reputation, far from something we deserve. I admire your drive for holiness, but I think it is misplaced. Perhaps you don't realize Christ's main message was one of tolerance. Name one time when Jesus said homosexuality is a sin. It may not be the right thing to do. We may not like people being gay, but the point is we need to accept them as people.
These statements from Paul's epistles and the Old Testament that you seem to love quoting, are all from a time when the true nature of homosexuality was not understood. It was probably considered to be a demon or something like that, but the point is that now we know you are born homosexual. It is (usually) genetic. And genetics don't simply appear. Genes are something you are born with. It is not a choice. They are people too. So what if your archaic interpretation of Christ's will calls them sinners, the point is that you are but a small minority who thinks so. Even all Catholics aren't anti-fag. I normally agree with you but you are just wrong here.

you have no idea what you are talking about! you know what you maybe one of the most half ass catholics i know! i never said anthing about being anti fag i am disputing it is wrong and the people whopa re need to go through rehabilitation (not brainwash!) it is a mental disorder! ohh and have you ever read the bibel? it says in so many diffrent places homosexuality is wrong ill enlighten you soem time.and there is no concrete proof of homosexuality being genetic there are clues but that isnt fact. and faith does not change only disciplins can change and if you believe that faith changes you are not a true catholic. A DOCTINE IS A DOCTRINE! nothing changes that! and Christ message was not of tolerance where did you get that from??? a liberal catholic? sorry cant be both! and we accept them as people but we cant support there sinful acts! man you have noooo roots argue with me after you do some reasher vivelvo until then there is nothing to talk about.

OK, I am going to say this again, as carefully as I can.

You obviously know VERY LITTLE about this issue. Can you actually cite a single study? Have you ever even read a scientificl article about this? Where on the planet are you getting your data? I would venture two possibilities: either you are making it up and have no idea what you're talking about, or you have listened to someone else who has made it up, or got it from someone else who made it up, or...

If you haven't even bothered to research the issue, why are you even discussing it? Have you ever heard of a twin study? It's very simple, and it works like this: you take a pair of monozygotic twins, and a pair of, say, dizygotic twins, normal siblings, closely related individuals or such, and you see if there's a higher correlation between certain factors in the monozygotic twins than in the other pairs. If there is, and it's significant, you can say there's a good chance those factors are genetically influenced.

Twin studies have demonstrated that, if one of a pair of monozygotic twins is gay, there is a 50% chance that the other is gay as well. Remeber that there's only a 5% chance that any given individual is gay, and we see that there is certainly a significant genetic component to homosexuality.

Of course, it's not entirely genetic. However, it is significantly so. Sexuality, it seems, is finalised very early in life, and once it is IT DOES NOT CHANGE. There have been innumerable studies to demonstrate this. You cannot - I repeat, cannot - change sexual orientation. It simply can't be done. At least, not by any methods they've tried so far, and they've ranged from the gentle to the downright evil and brutal, chemical, physical, behavioral, psychoanalytic, Rogerian therapy... And all run by much cleverer people by you. They inevitably don't work. Do you propose we simply lobotomise them? That seems to be the only method that they haven't tried...

A few religious individuals claim to have changed. A number of them have later been studied, and it was discovered that they were still latently homosexual, and often still had homosexual fantasies or the like. Most claim not to have been changed miraculously, but simply to be stuggling with it continuously, and those few who do claim to be are not only incredibly few in number, but highly suspicious - they often had bisexual tendencies before the 'change,' and I'm aware that some were demonstrated to be lying.

If you're going to continue telling people that it's not genetic and can be changed, please refute this evidence - and not just by saying I'm wrong, because that's just rude and demostrates that you're incapable of addressing them. If you can't, then you have two options open to you: honesty, and ignorance. I suggest you take the former.

Once more, I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just very tired of repeating myself to people only to be completely ignored or misinterpreted.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I agree with him.

All you need to show homosexuality's genetic:

http://www.nmr.nl/DSA8-243.pdf

... and poof go the gay-bashers.

I think UN have already some statues for human rights or something.

People who belong in some sexual minorities should be treated like "normal" people. In here, Balilaba, we do like that.

oh, please.

For crying out loud, folks. This is ridiculous.

You, my friend, are one of the overly conservative Catholics, I so often speak of. Your refusal to accept that as times change, so to does the faith, has gotten our entire religion a bad reputation, far from something we deserve. I admire your drive for holiness, but I think it is misplaced. Perhaps you don't realize Christ's main message was one of tolerance. Name one time when Jesus said homosexuality is a sin. It may not be the right thing to do. We may not like people being gay, but the point is we need to accept them as people.
These statements from Paul's epistles and the Old Testament that you seem to love quoting, are all from a time when the true nature of homosexuality was not understood. It was probably considered to be a demon or something like that, but the point is that now we know you are born homosexual. It is (usually) genetic. And genetics don't simply appear. Genes are something you are born with. It is not a choice. They are people too. So what if your archaic interpretation of Christ's will calls them sinners, the point is that you are but a small minority who thinks so. Even all Catholics aren't anti-fag. I normally agree with you but you are just wrong here.

you have no idea what you are talking about! you know what you maybe one of the most half ass catholics i know! i never said anthing about being anti fag i am disputing it is wrong and the people whopa re need to go through rehabilitation (not brainwash!) it is a mental disorder! ohh and have you ever read the bibel? it says in so many diffrent places homosexuality is wrong ill enlighten you soem time.and there is no concrete proof of homosexuality being genetic there are clues but that isnt fact. and faith does not change only disciplins can change and if you believe that faith changes you are not a true catholic. A DOCTINE IS A DOCTRINE! nothing changes that! and Christ message was not of tolerance where did you get that from??? a liberal catholic? sorry cant be both! and we accept them as people but we cant support there sinful acts! man you have noooo roots argue with me after you do some reasher vivelvo until then there is nothing to talk about.

OK, I am going to say this again, as carefully as I can.

You obviously know VERY LITTLE about this issue. Can you actually cite a single study? Have you ever even read a scientificl article about this? Where on the planet are you getting your data? I would venture two possibilities: either you are making it up and have no idea what you're talking about, or you have listened to someone else who has made it up, or got it from someone else who made it up, or...

If you haven't even bothered to research the issue, why are you even discussing it? Have you ever heard of a twin study? It's very simple, and it works like this: you take a pair of monozygotic twins, and a pair of, say, dizygotic twins, normal siblings, closely related individuals or such, and you see if there's a higher correlation between certain factors in the monozygotic twins than in the other pairs. If there is, and it's significant, you can say there's a good chance those factors are genetically influenced.

Twin studies have demonstrated that, if one of a pair of monozygotic twins is gay, there is a 50% chance that the other is gay as well. Remeber that there's only a 5% chance that any given individual is gay, and we see that there is certainly a significant genetic component to homosexuality.

Of course, it's not entirely genetic. However, it is significantly so. Sexuality, it seems, is finalised very early in life, and once it is IT DOES NOT CHANGE. There have been innumerable studies to demonstrate this. You cannot - I repeat, cannot - change sexual orientation. It simply can't be done. At least, not by any methods they've tried so far, and they've ranged from the gentle to the downright evil and brutal, chemical, physical, behavioral, psychoanalytic, Rogerian therapy... And all run by much cleverer people by you. They inevitably don't work. Do you propose we simply lobotomise them? That seems to be the only method that they haven't tried...

A few religious individuals claim to have changed. A number of them have later been studied, and it was discovered that they were still latently homosexual, and often still had homosexual fantasies or the like. Most claim not to have been changed miraculously, but simply to be stuggling with it continuously, and those few who do claim to be are not only incredibly few in number, but highly suspicious - they often had bisexual tendencies before the 'change,' and I'm aware that some were demonstrated to be lying.

If you're going to continue telling people that it's not genetic and can be changed, please refute this evidence - and not just by saying I'm wrong, because that's just rude and demostrates that you're incapable of addressing them. If you can't, then you have two options open to you: honesty, and ignorance. I suggest you take the former.

Once more, I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just very tired of repeating myself to people only to be completely ignored or misinterpreted.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

i still dont see any concrete information in there. ohh and could it possibly be how they were brought up?! u show me the gene and ill believe you i want exactly what it is! ok until u dont hav any real prrof just some information that could be true but then again if you base your arguments on what could be true than you can say whatever you want about anything.

A) Science has proven that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
B) Every instance I can think of where the Bible claims homosexuality to be a sin is in the Old Testament.
C) Explain to me Jesus' message if it was not one of tolerance.

it is one of tolerance to a certain point! it is more of charity! we need to be kind and loveing towards our neighbor BUT we have to do all we can to turn them away from sin. and we cannot support sinful acts such as homosexuality in this instance and in romans one it clearly says it is a sin. ohh and since doesnt have any concrete evidence.

You are all crazy. You like gay rights but refuse to allow a person to have more than one marriage. What is the difference if you allow polgamy or gay rights? If you do not agree with polgamy than you are not for sexual rights. Enough said there. :roll:

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

People "turn" homosexual later in life because either
a) they were raised in a homophobic family environment and are in denial or
b) they were raised in a homophobic church environment and, again, are in denial.

Of course this is speculation, as you have already pointed out that this is all unproven.

*reads all above posts*
And this people is one of the reasons why never join online debates.
*Leaves and vows never to return*