NationStates Jolt Archive

Thuthmose- I hope this doesen't sound like I'm interfering in your private life, but at the moment you really don't sound like you should be in a relationship with ANYONE.

LOL Well I am not in a relationship and I never have been.

...I think I should just stay single forever if that is the way things are.

3. Ok so it is morally wrong to be gay, but also morally wrong to stay in the closet.
nah, not morally wrong to be gay, nor is it morally wrong to be in the closet. it's only wrong to lie to someone that you love. Or, to lie to someone by saying that you love them...

Thuthmose- I hope this doesen't sound like I'm interfering in your private life, but at the moment you really don't sound like you should be in a relationship with ANYONE.

LOL Well I am not in a relationship and I never have been.

...I think I should just stay single forever if that is the way things are.
I think you shouldn't decide today what you should do forever. Give yourself time to come to terms with your sexuality (whatever it may be)...and then you should decide what you want to do. I mean, hey, it doesn't seem like you should decide who you want to marry until you meet someone you might like to marry.

Thuthmose- I hope this doesen't sound like I'm interfering in your private life, but at the moment you really don't sound like you should be in a relationship with ANYONE.

LOL Well I am not in a relationship and I never have been.

...I think I should just stay single forever if that is the way things are.
I think you shouldn't decide today what you should do forever. Give yourself time to come to terms with your sexuality (whatever it may be)...and then you should decide what you want to do. I mean, hey, it doesn't seem like you should decide who you want to marry until you meet someone you might like to marry.

Well...since I do not hang around gay places or know any nice gay guys (I know some mean and rude ones) I will probably end up with a girl. Though I don't really want a relationship right now, most girls think I am a nice guy...I treat women with respect. I know a lot of guys who don't.

...by this, I don't mean to say all the girls want me. Far from it LOL.

I think you shouldn't decide today what you should do forever. Give yourself time to come to terms with your sexuality (whatever it may be)...and then you should decide what you want to do. I mean, hey, it doesn't seem like you should decide who you want to marry until you meet someone you might like to marry.

excellent advice, sliders.

The scariest thing is that the gay guys you do get to see (media etc) are really girly-like. <sprinkles pink glitter everywhere> LOL I know not all gays are like that, but you can't tell who is gay and who isn't unless they act like women (which is a real turn off to me).

But...back to gay marriage! Interesting I see how the Australian media showed very girly gays getting hitched in San Fransisco recently.

3. Ok so it is morally wrong to be gay, but also morally wrong to stay in the closet.

Whoever told you that hasn't bothered to read his Bible properly. Ever heard of the New Testament?

Funny how Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Ever. Funny how he barely ever mention sexuality period. I guess he didn't really care. What he cared about was that you should love your neighbour as you would like to be loved. But he nevers mentions homosexuality.

Those who condemn homosexuality as morally wrong base their assumptions about the old testament. A book 6000 years old that also says you should stone adulterers and that you have the right to sell your daughter as a slave(I'm really serious - look up the book of Leviticus sometimes). I hardly call that a reliable, objective, informed and modern source.

3. Ok so it is morally wrong to be gay, but also morally wrong to stay in the closet.

Whoever told you that hasn't bothered to read his Bible properly. Ever heard of the New Testament?

Funny how Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Ever. Funny how he barely ever mention sexuality period. I guess he didn't really care. What he cared about was that you should love your neighbour as you would like to be loved. But he nevers mentions homosexuality.

Those who condemn homosexuality as morally wrong base their assumptions about the old testament. A book 6000 years old that also says you should stone adulterers and that you have the right to sell your daughter as a slave(I'm really serious - look up the book of Leviticus sometimes). I hardly call that a reliable, objective, informed and modern source.

I fully agree with you. It's funny, yet sad when some of my friends say how morally wrong homosexuality is...but then declare they are in no way homophobic.

I've read my bible (i have no idea why...maybe I was really bored) and found many mistakes regarding historical events...so I'm not too confident of the bible's accuracy. If the bible is wrong on one thing, perhaps it is wrong on other things too.

Thuthmose- I hope this doesen't sound like I'm interfering in your private life, but at the moment you really don't sound like you should be in a relationship with ANYONE.

LOL Well I am not in a relationship and I never have been.

...I think I should just stay single forever if that is the way things are.
I think you shouldn't decide today what you should do forever. Give yourself time to come to terms with your sexuality (whatever it may be)...and then you should decide what you want to do. I mean, hey, it doesn't seem like you should decide who you want to marry until you meet someone you might like to marry.

Well...since I do not hang around gay places or know any nice gay guys (I know some mean and rude ones) I will probably end up with a girl. Though I don't really want a relationship right now, most girls think I am a nice guy...I treat women with respect. I know a lot of guys who don't.

...by this, I don't mean to say all the girls want me. Far from it LOL.
I'm just suggesting that you not get married because you want to be married...only get married to someone if you're truly in love with them. (if more people did that we'd certainly have fewer divorces)

you dont have to be effeminate just because youre gay. lots of men who are assumed to be straight are gay but no one thinks about it because they are very masculine

rock hudson
raymond burr

are those guys just too old and long dead for you to have heard of?

in any case, marriage is about love and committment and i found those gay couples rushing off to get married to be very inspiring. it is as if love really does still exist in this modern age where people have 3 kids together before they think of getting married.

I'm just suggesting that you not get married because you want to be married...only get married to someone if you're truly in love with them. (if more people did that we'd certainly have fewer divorces)

I would never marry for the sake of it. I agree, but people still make rash decisions. Australia's 55% divorce rate is scary...but what is worse is when couples have children and then divorce. Sadly there is nothing we can do to stop this sort of thing.

you dont have to be effeminate just because youre gay. lots of men who are assumed to be straight are gay but no one thinks about it because they are very masculine

rock hudson
raymond burr

are those guys just too old and long dead for you to have heard of?

in any case, marriage is about love and committment and i found those gay couples rushing off to get married to be very inspiring. it is as if love really does still exist in this modern age where people have 3 kids together before they think of getting married.

I am not girly as such...although I do try and dress nicely (normal, not freaky LOL) which could class me as metrosexual (a nice new PC word haha).

Yes...too old and long dead for young little me to know of :D

I admit that I have a very stereotypical view of families:

Husband, wife, 3 or 4 children, dog, spacious house with manicured lawn. I wish society was like that. I don't think I like where we are heading with all these big buildings and single parent families etc.

rock hudson
raymond burr

are those guys just too old and long dead for you to have heard of?
Rock Hudson's awesome. I have this deck of movie star cards and I invented a game called "celebrity war" that's played like war except instead of using the standard card values, you have to argue why your celebrity is better. Rock Hudson beats most of the deck with my "Hey Rock Hudson, he's gay, so he wins" argument. Though you will have the Lauren Bacalls and the Humphrey Bogarts and the Hepburns...
But he sometimes can even beat Liz Taylor- if I just remind my opponent of her current state. (which you'd think would be preferable to his, but whatever...)

Anyway, in summary, no, I do know of both of them, and Rock Hudson is awesome!

yes he is awsome
i find it very sad that with all his money and fame he still had to live a lie

if you watch his romantic comedies with doris day knowing that he is gay, it makes them very much funnier. the directors had a gay subplot that is only obvious when you look back at them.

yes he is awsome
i find it very sad that with all his money and fame he still had to live a lie

if you watch his romantic comedies with doris day knowing that he is gay, it makes them very much funnier. the directors had a gay subplot that is only obvious when you look back at them.
I'll definitely have to look into that...

Well...since I do not hang around gay places

Uh, homosexuals do not live in giant, walled off communes. They are regular people in regular places, not a bunch of club dwelling queens. I think a big part of your issues is that you don't have a very realistic image of gay people. Is it hard for you to recognize that, knowing that you yourself do not fit the negative stereotype you seem to have, the stereotype is wrong?

or know any nice gay guys (I know some mean and rude ones)

Would those be the gay guys that you are making an effort to avoid? That sounds pretty rude, and studies in social psych show that behavior is often reflected between people. If you think that they're mean and rude, perhaps there's a reason they behave that way around you...

That, and you admit that you can only tell a gay person if he acts effeminate (something you don't seem to like). Would you have a similar problem if, in casual conversation with a guy you thought was pretty cool, he mentioned a boyfriend he once had?

Or, are you so fearful that you avoid hanging out with any guys at all? (that sounds like an attack, take it as an honest question)

...I treat women with respect. I know a lot of guys who don't.

It's not very respectful to lie to someone else who thinks that they have an honest relationship with you. Sliders is right - you really ought to sort yourself out before making sweeping decisions for the rest of your life.

Would you have a similar problem if, in casual conversation with a guy you thought was pretty cool, he mentioned a boyfriend he once had?

I would be thrilled...yet that isn't likely to happen. :roll:

Well...since I do not hang around gay places

Uh, homosexuals do not live in giant, walled off communes. They are regular people in regular places, not a bunch of club dwelling queens. I think a big part of your issues is that you don't have a very realistic image of gay people. Is it hard for you to recognize that, knowing that you yourself do not fit the negative stereotype you seem to have, the stereotype is wrong?

I think he meant gay-bars and such.

Well...since I do not hang around gay places

Uh, homosexuals do not live in giant, walled off communes. They are regular people in regular places, not a bunch of club dwelling queens. I think a big part of your issues is that you don't have a very realistic image of gay people. Is it hard for you to recognize that, knowing that you yourself do not fit the negative stereotype you seem to have, the stereotype is wrong?

I think he meant gay-bars and such.

Damn straight I did <hides the glitter, baby oil and pink shirt>

On a sidenote, I, as a freethinking gay, human, european, male, am happy to see, that the majority of people here, support gay marriage. The furthering of human rights and civil rights for gays in particular, is neccessary and welcome. Thank you!

(Personally I'll not marry .. I think.. not sure.. maybe.. hehe.. but having the right to do it is always good to have.)

On a sidenote, I, as a freethinking gay, human, european, male, am happy to see, that the majority of people here, support gay marriage. The furthering of human rights and civil rights for gays in particular, is neccessary and welcome. Thank you!

(Personally I'll not marry .. I think.. not sure.. maybe.. hehe.. but having the right to do it is always good to have.)

Though I believe one day gays will be treated more humanely, I feel we are some time away from such an historic step.

...also...why do people persist in saying "straight acting gay man" LOL. I hear that a lot.

Because if gays are in the closet, they are straight acting. Women or Men, they usually act straight as to not arouse suspicion of their true sexual nature, which would, in severe cases, result in assault on their life.

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

Because if gays are in the closet, they are straight acting. Women or Men, they usually act straight as to not arouse suspicion of their true sexual nature, which would, in severe cases, result in assault on their life.

Uh...some gay guys are very girly and claim to be straight...even when they are not. It must be rough for them. I notice how girly guys are always the target of harassment in school.

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

*points and laughs at Fourth Reich SS*

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

[FRSS begins to whimper as a gang of gay guys encircle him, leaving no room to escape. "That's it" he thought "I'm done for". Throwing glitter everywhere, and singing Mariah Carey songs, the gays slowly began to take their revenge...]

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

[FRSS begins to whimper as a gang of gay guys encircle him, leaving no room to escape. "That's it" he thought "I'm done for". Throwing glitter everywhere, and singing Mariah Carey songs, the gays slowly began to take their revenge...]

Oh the humanity of it all! I cant' bear to watch!

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

[FRSS begins to whimper as a gang of gay guys encircle him, leaving no room to escape. "That's it" he thought "I'm done for". Throwing glitter everywhere, and singing Mariah Carey songs, the gays slowly began to take their revenge...]


NOOOoooooo. *Pulls out his 1928-A1 Thompson with 100 round drum and shoots them all*

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

[FRSS begins to whimper as a gang of gay guys encircle him, leaving no room to escape. "That's it" he thought "I'm done for". Throwing glitter everywhere, and singing Mariah Carey songs, the gays slowly began to take their revenge...]


NOOOoooooo. *Pulls out his 1928-A1 Thompson with 100 round drum and shoots them all*

Too late :lol: They got him good :lol:

*watches as FRSS gets raped by all gays of the world in the span of 24 hours, leaving him with a sore behind*

Honestly.. you have no idea how hard it is to be gay. Dumb idiots like you dont make it any easier. I wonder what you would say if the minority was heterosexual...

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.

[FRSS begins to whimper as a gang of gay guys encircle him, leaving no room to escape. "That's it" he thought "I'm done for". Throwing glitter everywhere, and singing Mariah Carey songs, the gays slowly began to take their revenge...]


NOOOoooooo. *Pulls out his 1928-A1 Thompson with 100 round drum and shoots them all*

Too late :lol: They got him good :lol:

Thuthmouse Dood...

*watches as FRSS gets raped by all gays of the world in the span of 24 hours, leaving him with a sore behind*

Honestly.. you have no idea how hard it is to be gay. Dumb idiots like you dont make it any easier. I wonder what you would say if the minority was heterosexual...

Thats not right, even God hates gays...but then again I don't believe in God.

And why be gay?

And why be gay?

Cause a guy knows what a guy wants. :lol: And there is some other stuff but there are some real young'uns on NS so I won't say the rest.

And why be gay?

Cause a guy knows what a guy wants. :lol: And there is some other stuff but there are some real young'uns on NS so I won't say the rest.

Sickness...

Pure sickness...

Prulely sickness...

And why be gay?

Cause a guy knows what a guy wants. :lol: And there is some other stuff but there are some real young'uns on NS so I won't say the rest.

Sickness...

Pure sickness...

Prulely sickness...

So heterosexual sex is not sick...but anything else is? Ok...this is very cliched, but...don't knock what you havn't tried.

*screams in horror*

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! not another Gay thread!

*runs*

You could aswell shout: "Nooo not another thread where anti-gay people get to spew their nonsensical idiotism!!!"

Actually a lot of vocal anti-gay people are often gay themselves or are confused about their sexuality.

For the homophobes:

http://www.lustydevil.com/keepers/agenda.html

For the homophobes:

http://www.lustydevil.com/keepers/agenda.html

Ahahahahaha!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!

For the homophobes:

http://www.lustydevil.com/keepers/agenda.html

Ahahahahaha!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!

It is great isn't it! LOL I liked it.

For the homophobes:

http://www.lustydevil.com/keepers/agenda.html

Ahahahahaha!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!

It is great isn't it! LOL I liked it.

You mean we don't really get to bulldoze churches?

*grumbles with disappointment*

:evil:

HAHA. It is a good thing I am a fairy (very un-PC of me) or I might get accused of inciting hatred!

I love that...gay people can make fun of themselves, but str8 people joking about gays constitutes homophobia :lol:

Wellllll, if they don't like the double standard they can always make a lifestyle choice. LOL!!! :P

Wellllll, if they don't like the double standard they can always make a lifestyle choice. LOL!!! :P

LMAO! :lol: :lol: :lol: <flicks wrist>

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. FRSS is so in the closet he's practically in Narnia. :lol:

:roll:

Not even going to bother reading any of this thread. However, I don't see the problem.. if they don't want us to have sex, why don't they just let us get married?

I see gay people.

Get rid of them.Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. FRSS is so in the closet he's practically in Narnia. :lol:
lol...awesome
TIII, you seem to have chilled out a bit since...earlier in the night- glad to see it. (but maybe it's just from sleepiness :wink: )
Anyway, I make fun of gays all the time, for being gay or, anything really....I never get called a homophobe. I think, for one, it depends on if you are teasing them or seriously insulting them. And about half of my firends are gay....so that helps...

edit: this is my way of saying "bump"

Not bothered to read the whole of this thread. Just thought I'd add my thoughts anyway, because I feel strongly about this.

Love is love. Don't be so uptight asbout it. Once you get past the physical, men and women really aren't that different.

Hum, Thuthmose III, I know it's none of my business, but I had to ask...

You wouldn't happen to be Lord Phoenix Benicius, would you? :shock: You sound awfully like him now, and you're Australian just like he is. I'm probably mistaken, but the baby oil, pink glitter and flicks of the wrist sounds a lot like his usual comments when he's making fun of himself...

As the dictator of my holy empire, I state that all homosexuals should be killed

As the dictator of my holy empire, I state that all homosexuals should be killedBartman, meet FRSS. FRSS meet Bartman. I hope the two of you are very happy together. :P

Does Bartman and FRSS combined make a FartMass?

As the dictator of my holy empire, I state that all homosexuals should be killedBartman, meet FRSS. FRSS meet Bartman. I hope the two of you are very happy together. :P

Are you suggesting they contract an homosexual vow of matrimony as a proof of their love and commitment? :lol: :twisted: :P :roll:

Well...since I do not hang around gay places

Uh, homosexuals do not live in giant, walled off communes. They are regular people in regular places, not a bunch of club dwelling queens. I think a big part of your issues is that you don't have a very realistic image of gay people. Is it hard for you to recognize that, knowing that you yourself do not fit the negative stereotype you seem to have, the stereotype is wrong?

I think he meant gay-bars and such.

Damn straight I did <hides the glitter, baby oil and pink shirt>

That's what I meant, though I was exaggerating. My point was that you needn't go to gay bars and such places to meet gay people, because they do have real lives just like everyone else. Between thinking that you have to go to "gay places" to meet gay people and actively avoiding them when he does find them in real life, I think it's pretty obvious why Th3 can't find anyone.

Th3, why is it that you don't think it's not likely to happen that some person you're just casually talking to could reveal in a non-chalant, non-flambouyant fashion that they are gay?

Th3, why is it that you don't think it's not likely to happen that some person you're just casually talking to could reveal in a non-chalant, non-flambouyant fashion that they are gay?

Trust me...they wouldn't. In the past I have been rather homophobic.

Th3, why is it that you don't think it's not likely to happen that some person you're just casually talking to could reveal in a non-chalant, non-flambouyant fashion that they are gay?

Trust me...they wouldn't. In the past I have been rather homophobic.

That's really too bad.

Trust me...they wouldn't. In the past I have been rather homophobic.Isn't it worth changing that in the future? I'm not suggesting that you suddenly go ultra camp, but at the moment it really doesen't sound like you're working in your own interests.

*cough*bump*cough*

Trust me...they wouldn't. In the past I have been rather homophobic.Isn't it worth changing that in the future? I'm not suggesting that you suddenly go ultra camp, but at the moment it really doesen't sound like you're working in your own interests.

But still...as I said...unless you are "ultra-camp" nobody notices. Besides, there is the question of what your friends would say if you began consorting with gay people. It's not to say gay people are bad, just some people jump to conclusions - that's how rumours start (whether they be true or untrue).

I rarely work for my own interests. Normally I work for the benefit of others and I like that. As for changing in the future...I do not know. I'd like to think so.

Many nations are facing DECLINING POPULATION DEVELOPMENTS even tody or in the near future.

Riiiiiight. Why don't you go into an orphanage in a third world country and tell them that? :roll: They'd probably laugh in your face. Even if birth rates are declining (which I have not heard, and I have quite a few eccentric conspiracy theorist friends), it's going to be a while before 6 billion people die out. It's definitely going to be a while before people in this world stop having unprotected sex and producing babies.

As for the chimpanzees, they're biologically our closest relatives and a helluva lot more like us than you'd like to think.

Many nations are facing DECLINING POPULATION DEVELOPMENTS even tody or in the near future.

Riiiiiight. Why don't you go into an orphanage in a third world country and tell them that? :roll: They'd probably laugh in your face. Even if birth rates are declining (which I have not heard, and I have quite a few eccentric conspiracy theorist friends), it's going to be a while before 6 billion people die out. It's definitely going to be a while before people in this world stop having unprotected sex and producing babies.

As for the chimpanzees, they're biologically our closest relatives and a helluva lot more like us than you'd like to think.

Uh...they mean western birth rates are falling. White civilisation is dying out. It is our own fault...people are greedy and would rather have money than a child.

Yeah, sure. They're our closest. And you know what has the nearest amount of chromosomes? The potato.

well shit. it appears the horse osnt dead quite yet!

Yeah, sure. They're our closest. And you know what has the nearest amount of chromosomes? The potato.

Let's see...

Humans: 24 chromosome pairs
Tobacco plant: 24
Dog: 39
Yeast: ~18
Cat: 19
Chicken: 39

I don't see what number of chromosomes has to do with anything, really... :?

!!! :shock: :shock: !!!

200 people think gays should marry? :shock: :shock:

...what's the bet they are all gay :lol:

At least I voted NO. Why? Because marriage is not something the government should be interefering in!

...that means you too GW! <smacks hand> ... no I told you NO...<slap> That's your last warning...put the bill away!

As long as people aren't hurting anyone they should be able to do more or less what they like... I certainly don't see a problem with homosexual marriage.

In my country we stone sodomists (homosexuals) to death, as the holy quoran says.
Allahu akbar.
Death to the those bastards and devils, who commit such a tremendous sin.

King Mohamed of Kerbala

i am totally against it! It's totally groce!

i am totally against it! It's totally groce!

your elementary-level spelling leads me to believe that the voting public won't have to care what you think for at least another 10 years.

In my country we stone sodomists (homosexuals) to death, as the holy quoran says.
Allahu akbar.
Death to the those bastards and devils, who commit such a tremendous sin.

King Mohamed of Kerbala

In my country we put poeple who commit murder in prison. We also throw in those who would restrain other poeple's freedoms and rights.



...Damn it must suck to be you. But hey, you can still move to Canada if you like, we welcome everyone. As long as they follow our secular, non-quoran, non-biblical laws, of course.

i am totally against it! It's totally groce!

Along with 'I think my invisible friend is against it.', this has got to be the #1 argument against homosexual marriage. Go figure.

@Harkatropia,


"In my country we put poeple who commit murder in prison."
And in my country they get chopped of their heads with a sword.

And those who commit rape and sodomy (unnatural homosexuality) are stoned to death.

That´s what the holy quoran - which are the words of god- is telling us to do.

Allah uakbar.

@Harkatropia,


"In my country we put poeple who commit murder in prison."
And in my country they get chopped of their heads with a sword.

And those who commit rape and sodomy (unnatural homosexuality) are stoned to death.

That´s what the holy quoran - which are the words of god- is telling us to do.

Allah uakbar.

I might not have been clear enough with my sarcasm: I was referring to you and your stoning part when talking about murder. I'm glad to live in Canada where death penalty is illegal. At least we realize that we can hardly say killing is wrong, and then kill you because of it. I call that being consistent.

As for the quoran part, unless I'm mistaken, it also tells you that all those who don't follow your religion are heretics, and that all heretics must be converted or put to death. Your neighbours must really appreciate your company.

Let's strike a deal: you stay home in your repressive, zealous and fundamentalist country, and I stay here in the civilized world where nobody gets stoned period.

@Harkatropia,


"In my country we put poeple who commit murder in prison."
And in my country they get chopped of their heads with a sword.

And those who commit rape and sodomy (unnatural homosexuality) are stoned to death.

That´s what the holy quoran - which are the words of god- is telling us to do.

Allah uakbar.

Yes, but if this is the case in your country, then your rulers are perverting the message of the Koran (apologies, not certain how this should be spelt).

Oh, you disbelievers. You don´t know anything about my religion except your stereotypes.
The holy quoran is clearly telling us how to life our live in a way that pleases god.
It also tells us to tolerate other book religions (Christians and jews) as long as they don´t raise against us. But in my country that isn´t a problem since 100% of the citizens are muslims.

You should rather shut up and stop your western arrogance. Stop trying to impose your way of live on the rest of the world. You have no right to so.
The colonial age is over. We are a free country and free to follow our believes: and that is the believe in Allah and in the messanger of Allah Mohamed and the holy book the quoran.

Oh, you disbelievers. You don´t know anything about my religion except your stereotypes.
The holy quoran is clearly telling us how to life our live in a way that pleases god.
It also tells us to tolerate other book religions (Christians and jews) as long as they don´t raise against us. But in my country that isn´t a problem since 100% of the citizens are muslims.

You should rather shut up and stop your western arrogance. Stop trying to impose your way of live on the rest of the world. You have no right to so.
The colonial age is over. We are a free country and free to follow our believes: and that is the believe in Allah and in the messanger of Allah Mohamed and the holy book the quoran.

Cry me a fucking river. If you wanted to be treated with the respect you think you deserve, try starting with yourself.

Oh, you disbelievers. You don´t know anything about my religion except your stereotypes.
The holy quoran is clearly telling us how to life our live in a way that pleases god.
It also tells us to tolerate other book religions (Christians and jews) as long as they don´t raise against us. But in my country that isn´t a problem since 100% of the citizens are muslims.

You should rather shut up and stop your western arrogance. Stop trying to impose your way of live on the rest of the world. You have no right to so.
The colonial age is over. We are a free country and free to follow our believes: and that is the believe in Allah and in the messanger of Allah Mohamed and the holy book the quoran.

Cry me a f--- river. If you wanted to be treated with the respect you think you deserve, try starting with yourself.

I think what we have here Hakartopia, is a 15 year old, attempting to play out the stereotype of the intolerant, blood-thirsty Muslim. IE: just for a lark, see if you can find anywhere in the Qu'ran where it states that homosexuals and sodomites should be stoned (I'll give you a quick hint, it's not in there), or where in the Qu'ran it teaches to chop off the heads of murderers (again, not there!!). Basically, he's just a poorly played stereotype (ie: troll). Also note, a Muslim unable to spell Qu'ran (OOKKAAYYYY!! right)

anyway have fun..l

dp...bloody server

Oh, you disbelievers. You don´t know anything about my religion except your stereotypes.
The holy quoran is clearly telling us how to life our live in a way that pleases god.
It also tells us to tolerate other book religions (Christians and jews) as long as they don´t raise against us. But in my country that isn´t a problem since 100% of the citizens are muslims.

You should rather shut up and stop your western arrogance. Stop trying to impose your way of live on the rest of the world. You have no right to so.
The colonial age is over. We are a free country and free to follow our believes: and that is the believe in Allah and in the messanger of Allah Mohamed and the holy book the quoran.

Cry me a f--- river. If you wanted to be treated with the respect you think you deserve, try starting with yourself.

I think what we have here Hakartopia, is a 15 year old, attempting to play out the stereotype of the intolerant, blood-thirsty Muslim. IE: just for a lark, see if you can find anywhere in the Qu'ran where it states that homosexuals and sodomites should be stoned (I'll give you a quick hint, it's not in there), or where in the Qu'ran it teaches to chop off the heads of murderers (again, not there!!). Basically, he's just a poorly played stereotype (ie: troll). Also note, a Muslim unable to spell Qu'ran (OOKKAAYYYY!! right)

anyway have fun..l

Ayup, I'm almost certain of the same fact.

...
I also agree with BoogieDown. I say we pass that motion to the government. *coughs*
I don't see why everyone is arguing about this. I have seen, 1st hand, the two conflicting sides in action debating, and have found that the answer's simple. Yes to gay marriage, BUT that's only a small part of it. This is a small topic we're disscussing, because it all basically comes down to whether we're against gays or not. It's a bit...no, a lot like racism. The only argument for the side denying gays/homosexuals their rights seems (correct me if I'm wrong) ...to be just coming down to religion. I was republican...but I've never really agreed fully with Republican principles. I am a Christian, but've been exposed to both sides and have had the chance to stop and think. In the next generation, instead of African-American racism and the Women's Rights thing, everyone will be thinking 'Well, I wouldn't do THAT! How could anyone treat people like that, putting them down in what should be a free country that gives EQUAL rights to all, JUST because they're different?'...and they'll be talking about homosexuals/gays. ...Unless, God forbid, it takes even longer for someone to give Americans a good hard slap in the face to bring them to their senses. ...Now I'm posed to argue, but I may drop it, because what's the point...Just think about it...It wouldn't kill U 2 be fair for a moment, nor would it kill you to think about it. ...I've met people before that were good-natured, had a great sense of humor, and were the type of person everyone seems to like. A while later, I found out that they were homosexual. Does that suddenly make them repulsive? What've they done to you? I know many 100's of people, and only 1 of them doesn't regularly put down gays/homosexuals. After the LONG process of squeezing info out of the vast majority, I found that none of them except the 1 had ever actually met and talked to a homosexual. Gays/homosexuals are jest like us. Even if you have met some1 in that category, they may be really horrible, but so may you. Being gay/homosexual doesn't make you horrible and grotesque, as some people tend to think nowadays. It's just a different way of loving. ...Even if it really does bother you, then you don't have to get involved in it. Just please don't go out and tell everyone else they shouldn't just because it bothers YOU. If you were the supreme ruler of the universe *shifts uncomfortably* and you hated spaghetti, would you outlaw spaghetti and declare it illegal to eat any, even for the people who liked it? (Hey, mabye not a good choice of symbology, but heck.) ...And about the reproducing issue, which is the only other argument 4 the 'down with gays!' way of thinking, I don't think it's worth discussing as an issue, because at some point, there'll have been TOO much reproduction, and everyone in the world will be crowding eachother out (unless we'll find a way to inhabit Mars in time *rolls eyes* though, hey, it could happen I guess...) and if there's anyone by then that is still clutching at this last straw against gays/ homos, they'll be quickly and painfully stamped upon by everyone else vying 4 room. Okay, okay I'll shut up. I think you get the point, people. *edges nervously offstage, to be replaced by the penguins everyone's been talking about...or was it chimpanzees?*
THE END
^Sorry, just had to write that. *looks guilty* Goodbye.

...
I also agree with BoogieDown. I say we pass that motion to the government. *coughs*
I don't see why everyone is arguing about this. I have seen, 1st hand, the two conflicting sides in action debating, and have found that the answer's simple. Yes to gay marriage, BUT that's only a small part of it. This is a small topic we're disscussing, because it all basically comes down to whether we're against gays or not. It's a bit...no, a lot like racism. The only argument for the side denying gays/homosexuals their rights seems (correct me if I'm wrong) ...to be just coming down to religion. I was republican...but I've never really agreed fully with Republican principles. I am a Christian, but've been exposed to both sides and have had the chance to stop and think. In the next generation, instead of African-American racism and the Women's Rights thing, everyone will be thinking 'Well, I wouldn't do THAT! How could anyone treat people like that, putting them down in what should be a free country that gives EQUAL rights to all, JUST because they're different?'...and they'll be talking about homosexuals/gays. ...Unless, God forbid, it takes even longer for someone to give Americans a good hard slap in the face to bring them to their senses. ...Now I'm posed to argue, but I may drop it, because what's the point...Just think about it...It wouldn't kill U 2 be fair for a moment, nor would it kill you to think about it. ...I've met people before that were good-natured, had a great sense of humor, and were the type of person everyone seems to like. A while later, I found out that they were homosexual. Does that suddenly make them repulsive? What've they done to you? I know many 100's of people, and only 1 of them doesn't regularly put down gays/homosexuals. After the LONG process of squeezing info out of the vast majority, I found that none of them except the 1 had ever actually met and talked to a homosexual. Gays/homosexuals are jest like us. Even if you have met some1 in that category, they may be really horrible, but so may you. Being gay/homosexual doesn't make you horrible and grotesque, as some people tend to think nowadays. It's just a different way of loving. ...Even if it really does bother you, then you don't have to get involved in it. Just please don't go out and tell everyone else they shouldn't just because it bothers YOU. If you were the supreme ruler of the universe *shifts uncomfortably* and you hated spaghetti, would you outlaw spaghetti and declare it illegal to eat any, even for the people who liked it? (Hey, mabye not a good choice of symbology, but heck.) ...And about the reproducing issue, which is the only other argument 4 the 'down with gays!' way of thinking, I don't think it's worth discussing as an issue, because at some point, there'll have been TOO much reproduction, and everyone in the world will be crowding eachother out (unless we'll find a way to inhabit Mars in time *rolls eyes* though, hey, it could happen I guess...) and if there's anyone by then that is still clutching at this last straw against gays/ homos, they'll be quickly and painfully stamped upon by everyone else vying 4 room. Okay, okay I'll shut up. I think you get the point, people. *edges nervously offstage, to be replaced by the penguins everyone's been talking about...or was it chimpanzees?*
THE END
^Sorry, just had to write that. *looks guilty* Goodbye.

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a Christian institution and must be preserved in its traditions.

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a Christian institution and must be preserved in its traditions.

We've had this so many times.

1. It is not a Christian Institution.
2. Many branches of Christianity have no beef with homosexuality. Take Quakers in the Uk. Can THEY marry gay people?
3. Even if originally a Christian institution (which it wasn't) it is now also a state union. Therefore unless State and Church are joined (as they are in my country) neither should interfere with each others affairs- Churches shouldn't HAVE to marry gay people, but they shouldn't be able to veto a state gay marriage.


There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a Christian institution and must be preserved in its traditions.

We've had this so many times.

1. It is not a Christian Institution.
2. Many branches of Christianity have no beef with homosexuality. Take Quakers in the Uk. Can THEY marry gay people?
3. Even if originally a Christian institution (which it wasn't) it is now also a state union. Therefore unless State and Church are joined (as they are in my country) neither should interfere with each others affairs- Churches shouldn't HAVE to marry gay people, but they shouldn't be able to veto a state gay marriage.


There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Thuthmose probably thinks pair bonding in lower animals is a Christian institution too.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.
We've already established you have many issues to do with hating your sexuality and those who share similar sexual desires. It's not impossible for a gay person to be homophobic, you know.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.
We've already established you have many issues to do with hating your sexuality and those who share similar sexual desires. It's not impossible for a gay person to be homophobic, you know.

But you assume that because a gay person opposes gay marriage there is something wrong with them.

That is the same absurdity as saying...if your a republican but dislike bush you are stupid.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.
We've already established you have many issues to do with hating your sexuality and those who share similar sexual desires. It's not impossible for a gay person to be homophobic, you know.

But you assume that because a gay person opposes gay marriage there is something wrong with them.

That is the same absurdity as saying...if your a republican but dislike bush you are stupid.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

... the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Because people wold want to start marrying their relatives, pets, appliances, and livestock. It's all the same thing! :roll:

... the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Because people wold want to start marrying their relatives, pets, appliances, and livestock. It's all the same thing! :roll:

No it's not. There are two defining factors- consent and incest. Incest is rightly illegal, so you can't marry your family. Whoever you marry must give consent. This rules out kitchen appliances, pets, livestock or children.

As long as your gay lover isn't your family member or your dog, you should be allowed to marry.


I think the fact you compare homosexuality with incest and bestiality rather disturbing.

THESE TYPE OF THREADS HAVE BEEN BANNED

... the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Because people wold want to start marrying their relatives, pets, appliances, and livestock. It's all the same thing! :roll:

No it's not. There are two defining factors- consent and incest. Incest is rightly illegal, so you can't marry your family. Whoever you marry must give consent. This rules out kitchen appliances, pets, livestock or children.

As long as your gay lover isn't your family member or your dog, you should be allowed to marry.


I think the fact you compare homosexuality with incest and bestiality rather disturbing.

I didn't see the emoticon at the end of your message. I now feel like such a twit. I'm not American, I do understand irony, honest guv!

I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.

I am not saying that same-sex couples cannot be recognised, just that they should not be recognised under the word "marriage".

Nobody is suggesting gays be treated poorly in terms of rights attained by married couples, just that they be joined in a civil union.

I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.

I am not saying that same-sex couples cannot be recognised, just that they should not be recognised under the word "marriage".

Nobody is suggesting gays be treated poorly in terms of rights attained by married couples, just that they be joined in a civil union.

Thumotose,
Homophobia does not mean just fear of homosexuals, as individuals, but also fear of the change the accepting homosexuality entails. I.e., accepting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would, in the views of many hardline religious persons, degrade society. These people fear the "change in values" or "demoralization" of society (as they see it anyway), that tolerating a gay lifestyle would entail. That fear is still part of homophobia.

PS, one thing I was wondering about, why is it that you tell everybody you are gay in one sentence, and then spout off blatant stereotypes about homosexuals in the next sentence, and then routinely speak about gays in 3rd person plural? (ie: as they, them..etc...). Reading much of what you've written the last little while, makes one wonder if you really are gay, or merely playing the part in an attempt to lend credence to an anti-gay message, you know, therough perpetuating intolerant stereotypes of the entire sub-culture.
Just an observation.

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.
If you're including other religions in your defination then how do you feel about non anti-gay religions such as paganism peforming gay marriages?

You have no knowledge about the holy Qu'ran.
I´m not English: I may do writing mistakes. Would you be able to spell Bible correctly in Arabic???????
I´m a muslim and a believer in Allah.
You are not and you know nothing about the true Islam. Read the Qu´ran and you will find that those who commit adultery (while that they are married) should be stoned to death, for the unmarried there should be a public flogging.
Rapists are stoned to death as well as sodomists.
And murders got their head chopped of as they deserved.
That´s the qu´ranian law: the Sharia. Inform yourself about it.
The Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia has the Qu´ran and the Sharia as THE ONLY SOURCE of their constituition and laws. It is the only truly islamic state.
Allah be praised for the teachings of Abdul Wahhab who guided us to the true meaning of Islam.
And for you: Hell is waiting for you. The only way to paradiese is through Allah. As you reject him you are going to be punished in hell for it.
And the worst punishment is waiting for the sodomist (homosexuals) who rejected Allahs will that man and woman should come together with their vicious and sinful activities

I have to say even though i have no problems at all with homosexuals, getting married is another thing altogether. Marrige is union of one MAN and one WOMEN not TWO men or TWO women.

I think this issue runs a bit deeper than a superficial title describing the legal status of a relationship, like the legalities that flow from it.

Wait, so it's unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship because of reproduction?

And you haven't proven it to be "unnatural," you just randomly pulled something out of your ass. Please direct me to where that comment came from (that is, link me up).

And if you could "decide" to be gay, then congratulations-you're part of the 0% of the human population that determines who he finds attractive based purely on your own willpower.

Okay, even in evolution gay is wrong. know how? evolution brought out both MALE and FEMALE. u know what that means? u need 2 species of different gender to make another of the species. also, survival of the fittest, right? well, that means being gay or being a lesbian means that you are going against evolution entirely because u are not going out as planned for eveolution, u r not spreading ur genetic material.

Now, lets say something about the creationalist's point of view. a supreme being, or god, made everybody. he or she means for everybody to reproduce, not elope with the same sex, otherwise it is going against the creator's point of creating 2 genders.

any arguments here?

Wait, so it's unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship because of reproduction?

And you haven't proven it to be "unnatural," you just randomly pulled something out of your ass. Please direct me to where that comment came from (that is, link me up).

And if you could "decide" to be gay, then congratulations-you're part of the 0% of the human population that determines who he finds attractive based purely on your own willpower.

Okay, even in evolution gay is wrong. know how? evolution brought out both MALE and FEMALE. u know what that means? u need 2 species of different gender to make another of the species. also, survival of the fittest, right? well, that means being gay or being a lesbian means that you are going against evolution entirely because u are not going out as planned for eveolution, u r not spreading ur genetic material.

Now, lets say something about the creationalist's point of view. a supreme being, or god, made everybody. he or she means for everybody to reproduce, not elope with the same sex, otherwise it is going against the creator's point of creating 2 genders.

any arguments here?

Funny though why did evolution (even creation) bring about such a high rate of occurrence of homosexual orientation in humans? Heterosexual orienation is for procreation, homosexuality obviously isn't though that does not mean it is not an adapted reproductive strategy. :idea:

...
I also agree with BoogieDown. I say we pass that motion to the government. *coughs*
I don't see why everyone is arguing about this. I have seen, 1st hand, the two conflicting sides in action debating, and have found that the answer's simple. Yes to gay marriage, BUT that's only a small part of it. This is a small topic we're disscussing, because it all basically comes down to whether we're against gays or not. It's a bit...no, a lot like racism. The only argument for the side denying gays/homosexuals their rights seems (correct me if I'm wrong) ...to be just coming down to religion. I was republican...but I've never really agreed fully with Republican principles. I am a Christian, but've been exposed to both sides and have had the chance to stop and think. In the next generation, instead of African-American racism and the Women's Rights thing, everyone will be thinking 'Well, I wouldn't do THAT! How could anyone treat people like that, putting them down in what should be a free country that gives EQUAL rights to all, JUST because they're different?'...and they'll be talking about homosexuals/gays. ...Unless, God forbid, it takes even longer for someone to give Americans a good hard slap in the face to bring them to their senses. ...Now I'm posed to argue, but I may drop it, because what's the point...Just think about it...It wouldn't kill U 2 be fair for a moment, nor would it kill you to think about it. ...I've met people before that were good-natured, had a great sense of humor, and were the type of person everyone seems to like. A while later, I found out that they were homosexual. Does that suddenly make them repulsive? What've they done to you? I know many 100's of people, and only 1 of them doesn't regularly put down gays/homosexuals. After the LONG process of squeezing info out of the vast majority, I found that none of them except the 1 had ever actually met and talked to a homosexual. Gays/homosexuals are jest like us. Even if you have met some1 in that category, they may be really horrible, but so may you. Being gay/homosexual doesn't make you horrible and grotesque, as some people tend to think nowadays. It's just a different way of loving. ...Even if it really does bother you, then you don't have to get involved in it. Just please don't go out and tell everyone else they shouldn't just because it bothers YOU. If you were the supreme ruler of the universe *shifts uncomfortably* and you hated spaghetti, would you outlaw spaghetti and declare it illegal to eat any, even for the people who liked it? (Hey, mabye not a good choice of symbology, but heck.) ...And about the reproducing issue, which is the only other argument 4 the 'down with gays!' way of thinking, I don't think it's worth discussing as an issue, because at some point, there'll have been TOO much reproduction, and everyone in the world will be crowding eachother out (unless we'll find a way to inhabit Mars in time *rolls eyes* though, hey, it could happen I guess...) and if there's anyone by then that is still clutching at this last straw against gays/ homos, they'll be quickly and painfully stamped upon by everyone else vying 4 room. Okay, okay I'll shut up. I think you get the point, people. *edges nervously offstage, to be replaced by the penguins everyone's been talking about...or was it chimpanzees?*
THE END
^Sorry, just had to write that. *looks guilty* Goodbye.

I'd kiss you, but I don't want to make you uncomfortable :-P

But yes, most of what you say is true. Us gays are pretty much in the same position black poeple and women were a few decades ago. We're fighting the same kind of battles. And we're judged by poeple who doesn't know us.

Don't worry though. It'll end out okay. The real question is how long it's gonna take, and how many young men and women will suffer from hatred and prejudice and bigotry until then.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.

Two words, Thutmose III : internalized homophobia.

And yes, from what I've read of some of your posts, you've got a slight case of it. Don't worry though, it's quite frequent and often takes a lot of time to be rid of. My boyfriend still gets on the defensive whenever he talks to someone who's rather camp(lisp, feminine behavior, likes typically "gay" music or whatnot). I overcame it not too long ago, myself.

I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.

I am not saying that same-sex couples cannot be recognised, just that they should not be recognised under the word "marriage".

Nobody is suggesting gays be treated poorly in terms of rights attained by married couples, just that they be joined in a civil union.


Let's suppose you were right about marriage being a religious issue, even if in my opinion it's not.


WHY in the name of all that is pink and holy couldn't the United Church of Canada, which is pro-gay and already bless gay unions, marry two persons of the same sex?According to your reasoning, a Church has the final say on what ,marriage is. UCC is a church. It wants to marry gays. Yet in some provinces it still cannot, because gay marriage is illegal.

If a particular church doesn't want to marry gays, it's fine, but if another church wants to, it doesn't work? :x

Sorry, your argument is not valid.

You cannot outlaw something on the basis of religion, especially not when religions disagree among themselves. The only valid way of respecting freedom of religion in this case is to ALLOW same sex marriage. That way homophobic churches can still refuse to give marriage licenses to gays, and non-homophobic churches can hand them out.

You have no knowledge about the holy Qu'ran.
I´m not English: I may do writing mistakes. Would you be able to spell Bible correctly in Arabic???????Rubbish. I don't believe that someone with your grasp of English would be unaware of the correct spelling of their holy book. It'd be one of the main things you'd learn when learning English.
I´m a muslim and a believer in Allah.
Capital 'M' on Muslim, troll. And why are you not using the correct form of address for the Prophet Mohammed (may blessings be upon him)?

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.

Two words, Thutmose III : internalized homophobia.

And yes, from what I've read of some of your posts, you've got a slight case of it. Don't worry though, it's quite frequent and often takes a lot of time to be rid of. My boyfriend still gets on the defensive whenever he talks to someone who's rather camp(lisp, feminine behavior, likes typically "gay" music or whatnot). I overcame it not too long ago, myself.

No, it is just that "camp" gays annoy me dreadfully. It is because of the fairy-like ones that all other gays are treated the same. People have a very stereotyped view of gays and frankly it impacts on the way they see people.

I am always very serious around camps gays (to be honest, I used to think their campness would rub off if I was nice to them)...as for non-camp gays, well I would not have a clue who they are LOL. So I doubt it matters really if you cannot tell.

I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.

I am not saying that same-sex couples cannot be recognised, just that they should not be recognised under the word "marriage".

Nobody is suggesting gays be treated poorly in terms of rights attained by married couples, just that they be joined in a civil union.


Let's suppose you were right about marriage being a religious issue, even if in my opinion it's not.


WHY in the name of all that is pink and holy couldn't the United Church of Canada, which is pro-gay and already bless gay unions, marry two persons of the same sex?According to your reasoning, a Church has the final say on what ,marriage is. UCC is a church. It wants to marry gays. Yet in some provinces it still cannot, because gay marriage is illegal.

If a particular church doesn't want to marry gays, it's fine, but if another church wants to, it doesn't work? :x

Sorry, your argument is not valid.

You cannot outlaw something on the basis of religion, especially not when religions disagree among themselves. The only valid way of respecting freedom of religion in this case is to ALLOW same sex marriage. That way homophobic churches can still refuse to give marriage licenses to gays, and non-homophobic churches can hand them out.

I never said the Church could not change their mind on same-sex marriage. I am all for the separation of church and state, and in other threads I had discussed at length as to why governments should keep out of the institution of marriage. I believe that governments should not legislate against or for religious institutions.

So...if a Church wants to accept gays, then more power to them. However, I know that most Churches are against same-sex marriage, so until such time they wish to change, gays will have to accept it. Governments should not interefere.

There is only one REAL reason that people oppose gay marriages- homophobia. All other reasons are flawed.

Explain then how a gay man opposes same-sex marriage? I believe that your argument is flawed.

Two words, Thutmose III : internalized homophobia.

And yes, from what I've read of some of your posts, you've got a slight case of it. Don't worry though, it's quite frequent and often takes a lot of time to be rid of. My boyfriend still gets on the defensive whenever he talks to someone who's rather camp(lisp, feminine behavior, likes typically "gay" music or whatnot). I overcame it not too long ago, myself.

No, it is just that "camp" gays annoy me dreadfully. It is because of the fairy-like ones that all other gays are treated the same. People have a very stereotyped view of gays and frankly it impacts on the way they see people.

I am always very serious around camps gays (to be honest, I used to think their campness would rub off if I was nice to them)...as for non-camp gays, well I would not have a clue who they are LOL. So I doubt it matters really if you cannot tell.

I said that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. There is no other logical, rational reason for opposing it. In my opinion.

Other than personal preference, why don't you want to let people marry?

Homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. Disallowing gay marriage is not homophobia. I say no to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage as we see it today is a Christian (and other religions) institution. I am all for civil unions, but the word marriage is strictly applied to one man and one woman only.

I am not saying that same-sex couples cannot be recognised, just that they should not be recognised under the word "marriage".

Nobody is suggesting gays be treated poorly in terms of rights attained by married couples, just that they be joined in a civil union.


Let's suppose you were right about marriage being a religious issue, even if in my opinion it's not.


WHY in the name of all that is pink and holy couldn't the United Church of Canada, which is pro-gay and already bless gay unions, marry two persons of the same sex?According to your reasoning, a Church has the final say on what ,marriage is. UCC is a church. It wants to marry gays. Yet in some provinces it still cannot, because gay marriage is illegal.

If a particular church doesn't want to marry gays, it's fine, but if another church wants to, it doesn't work? :x

Sorry, your argument is not valid.

You cannot outlaw something on the basis of religion, especially not when religions disagree among themselves. The only valid way of respecting freedom of religion in this case is to ALLOW same sex marriage. That way homophobic churches can still refuse to give marriage licenses to gays, and non-homophobic churches can hand them out.

I never said the Church could not change their mind on same-sex marriage. I am all for the separation of church and state, and in other threads I had discussed at length as to why governments should keep out of the institution of marriage. I believe that governments should not legislate against or for religious institutions.

So...if a Church wants to accept gays, then more power to them. However, I know that most Churches are against same-sex marriage, so until such time they wish to change, gays will have to accept it. Governments should not interefere.

Homophobia does not mean just fear of homosexuals, as individuals, but also fear of the change the accepting homosexuality entails. I.e., accepting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would, in the views of many hardline religious persons, degrade society. These people fear the "change in values" or "demoralization" of society (as they see it anyway), that tolerating a gay lifestyle would entail. That fear is still part of homophobia.

PS, one thing I was wondering about, why is it that you tell everybody you are gay in one sentence, and then spout off blatant stereotypes about homosexuals in the next sentence, and then routinely speak about gays in 3rd person plural? (ie: as they, them..etc...). Reading much of what you've written the last little while, makes one wonder if you really are gay, or merely playing the part in an attempt to lend credence to an anti-gay message, you know, therough perpetuating intolerant stereotypes of the entire sub-culture.
Just an observation.

1. Well homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. I was unaware of any change in meaning. I'll go by the dictionary rather than word-of-mouth.

2. As for "blatant stereotypes" - sometimes I am joking (I have in the past put a little smily face after it :wink: ) and sometimes I am serious. Frankly, the stereotype is there for a reason. A lot of gays are girly. About the 3rd person and your "observation" thing I will TG you.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Homophobia does not mean just fear of homosexuals, as individuals, but also fear of the change the accepting homosexuality entails. I.e., accepting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would, in the views of many hardline religious persons, degrade society. These people fear the "change in values" or "demoralization" of society (as they see it anyway), that tolerating a gay lifestyle would entail. That fear is still part of homophobia.

PS, one thing I was wondering about, why is it that you tell everybody you are gay in one sentence, and then spout off blatant stereotypes about homosexuals in the next sentence, and then routinely speak about gays in 3rd person plural? (ie: as they, them..etc...). Reading much of what you've written the last little while, makes one wonder if you really are gay, or merely playing the part in an attempt to lend credence to an anti-gay message, you know, therough perpetuating intolerant stereotypes of the entire sub-culture.
Just an observation.

1. Well homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. I was unaware of any change in meaning. I'll go by the dictionary rather than word-of-mouth.

2. As for "blatant stereotypes" - sometimes I am joking (I have in the past put a little smily face after it :wink: ) and sometimes I am serious. Frankly, the stereotype is there for a reason. A lot of gays are girly. About the 3rd person and your "observation" thing I will TG you.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Homophobia does not mean just fear of homosexuals, as individuals, but also fear of the change the accepting homosexuality entails. I.e., accepting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle would, in the views of many hardline religious persons, degrade society. These people fear the "change in values" or "demoralization" of society (as they see it anyway), that tolerating a gay lifestyle would entail. That fear is still part of homophobia.

PS, one thing I was wondering about, why is it that you tell everybody you are gay in one sentence, and then spout off blatant stereotypes about homosexuals in the next sentence, and then routinely speak about gays in 3rd person plural? (ie: as they, them..etc...). Reading much of what you've written the last little while, makes one wonder if you really are gay, or merely playing the part in an attempt to lend credence to an anti-gay message, you know, therough perpetuating intolerant stereotypes of the entire sub-culture.
Just an observation.

1. Well homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. I was unaware of any change in meaning. I'll go by the dictionary rather than word-of-mouth.

2. As for "blatant stereotypes" - sometimes I am joking (I have in the past put a little smily face after it :wink: ) and sometimes I am serious. Frankly, the stereotype is there for a reason. A lot of gays are girly. About the 3rd person and your "observation" thing I will TG you.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

1. Well homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. I was unaware of any change in meaning. I'll go by the dictionary rather than word-of-mouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia


ho·mo·pho·bi·a P Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ?ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun ?ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

We created the internet. We did not create homosexuality.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

We created the internet. We did not create homosexuality.

We were not intended to create it.

gay....

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

We created the internet. We did not create homosexuality.

We were not intended to create it.

Not intended to create what exactly?

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

We created the internet. We did not create homosexuality.

We were not intended to create it.

Not intended to create what exactly?

The internet.

Al Gore defies intention.

The internet.

We were not intended to create the Internet? Prove it.

The internet.

We were not intended to create the Internet? Prove it.

Only if you first prove that marriage was originally intended to be between one man and one woman only.

Does it occur to anyone else that religion seems to be a deciding factor in people's decisions on this topic? I think it'd be better just to ban religion. At least that wouldn't discriminate. Does that piss you off? Well so denying others their natural rights pisses me off.

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, sex is for procreation, to continue a species. Sure, it feels good and we should feel no shame in enjoying it, but the reason for sex is the continuation of life. Therefore, homosexuality is not natural. Similarly, sex with children, animals and all other deviations serve no biological purpose.
The only 'normal' relationships are those between the same species and with the oposite sex.
Debating to prove otherwise is futile.

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, sex is for procreation, to continue a species. Sure, it feels good and we should feel no shame in enjoying it, but the reason for sex is the continuation of life. Therefore, homosexuality is not natural. Similarly, sex with children, animals and all other deviations serve no biological purpose.
The only 'normal' relationships are those between the same species and with the oposite sex.
Debating to prove otherwise is futile.

This is entirely incorrect. Sex, even of the homosexual nature, serves as a tool of social bonding not only in humans, but also in other species like chimps and dolphins. Without that social bonding, the group becomes less tightly-knit and the chances of survival drop.

Apparantly, debating isn't futile, since I just disproved your point. Unless your saying that your mind can't be changed no matter what facts are presented to you. If that's the case then your intelligence is questionable.

The issue of "natural" seems to come up again and again in this forum... as though anything that doesn't lead to continuation of the species is therefore evil. Well, let's make a list of non-evil human activites or creations that do not lead directly to the continuation of the species: rubiks cubes, football, vacations, little paper umbrellas, prom (well... I guess that one DOES lead to some procreation), sci-fi movies (those aren't getting ANYONE laid), the theatre, Scrabble, NationStates, pornography, the Church... the list goes on and on. Basically every leisure activity known to man.
So if all those things don't lead to procreation, and are not evil, then why would physical contact between two people of the same gender for the purpose of sexual gratification be so?
And then there is just the word "natural." What does that mean, in this context? That homosexuality doesn't occur in nature? Oh wait it does. For an interesting look at that phenomenon, check out the book Irrational Exuberance.
Or does "natural" mean using everything for its intended purpose? If so, not only homosexuality would be wrong, but also self-gratification, as well as heterosexual intercourse that aims to avoid pregnancy. Not to mention using flat-head screwdrivers to pry the lids off of paint cans, using newspapers for fireplace kindling, and wearing leather (which was intended for the cow, not you)...

There are compelling reasons to ban child molestation and bestiality that have nothing to do with being "unnatural." Mainly neither children nor animals are mentally qualified to give consent to the act of sexual intercourse, and so any instance of such sex is rape. THat is NOT true of homosexual sex between consenting adults.

It is a little shocking to me that Conservatives, so rarely concerned with the environment under any other circumstance, suddenly get so hung up on nature when homosexuality enters the picture.

[/quote]This is entirely incorrect. Sex, even of the homosexual nature, serves as a tool of social bonding not only in humans, but also in other species like chimps and dolphins. Without that social bonding, the group becomes less tightly-knit and the chances of survival drop.

Apparantly, debating isn't futile, since I just disproved your point. Unless your saying that your mind can't be changed no matter what facts are presented to you. If that's the case then your intelligence is questionable.[/quote]

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.
If your argument was in fact proof and you were confident in that, you wouldn't have found it necessary to resort to insults.

Sex is for making babies. End of story.
So you think infertile people should be banned from getting married?

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

Oh my god! You are so right! NOT! :lol:
This doesn't come down to a matter of opinion. I am right - you are wrong.
:twisted:

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

Oh my god! You are so right! NOT! :lol:
This doesn't come down to a matter of opinion. I am right - you are wrong.
:twisted:Answer my question please. And for the record, my opinion is that you are living proof of why some people shouldn't breed.

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

Oh my god! You are so right! NOT! :lol:
This doesn't come down to a matter of opinion. I am right - you are wrong.
:twisted:

unfortunately, you are not right. in fact, i'm hoping that you are just kidding with this whole line of discussion, but perhaps that is too much to expect. sex is for a whole lot more than babies, and (particularly in higher mammals) there is a whole lot more to successful procreation that simply having sex. the rearing of offspring to maturity is crucial for a mating to be fully successful, and in our closest animal relatives homosexual relations play an integral part in that process.

further, countless animal species have been found to use sex for non-procreative functions; these species include dolphins, rams, dozens of different birds, monkeys, and elephants, among others.

you can stamp your cute little foot and tell us you are right as many times as you please, but that won't make the sun orbit the earth or sex be purely for procreation. :)

No, it is just that "camp" gays annoy me dreadfully. It is because of the fairy-like ones that all other gays are treated the same. People have a very stereotyped view of gays and frankly it impacts on the way they see people.

So you would propose that we blame, ostracize and discriminate against camp gays only, but the others are okay? Sorry, doesn't work that way. I'm about as far as you can get from camp, but I have met camp gays and they're persons just like me and every other straight guy around. It's not okay to judge someone based on their sexual orientation, and it's not okay to judge and discriminate against someone based on their behavior, ways of speech of body language either.

This is a common form of homphobia: "straight" or "closet" gays harboring hatred or contempt against flaming queens and feminine gays and blaming them for the negative image society has of gays and lesbians. I find this a distasteful and hypocritical way of thinking: instead of blaming the oppressors and bigots, you find someone who's "worse" than yourself and then try to downplay your alleged "sins" by pointing them out. Putting others down has never made anyone better.

Besides, whether we like it or not, we're all in the same boat. We might as well have a little solidarity and compassion. You'll probably learn not to judge others(at all) without knowing them as you come to temr with your own personnal issues. I wish you luck.




I never said the Church could not change their mind on same-sex marriage. I am all for the separation of church and state, and in other threads I had discussed at length as to why governments should keep out of the institution of marriage. I believe that governments should not legislate against or for religious institutions.

So...if a Church wants to accept gays, then more power to them. However, I know that most Churches are against same-sex marriage, so until such time they wish to change, gays will have to accept it. Governments should not interefere.

No, what you're saying is that the majority of religion decides, and the minority of religions shuts up. The correct course for a government who doesn't want to interfere is the stance Canada has taken on the matter: to legalize gay marriage(because our constitution states that discrimination cannot be forced on behalf of sexual orientation), but adding a clause ensuring that every religion gets to accept or REFUSE to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own beliefs(because freedom of religion is also protected in our constitution). That means the Catholic Church can say "gays are bad" and not marry them while the United Church of Canada can say "gays are good" and marry them. That way NO PARTICULAR RELIGION holds sway over the state and can dictate its beliefs and value on the others.

No, it is just that "camp" gays annoy me dreadfully. It is because of the fairy-like ones that all other gays are treated the same. People have a very stereotyped view of gays and frankly it impacts on the way they see people.

So you would propose that we blame, ostracize and discriminate against camp gays only, but the others are okay? Sorry, doesn't work that way. I'm about as far as you can get from camp, but I have met camp gays and they're persons just like me and every other straight guy around. It's not okay to judge someone based on their sexual orientation, and it's not okay to judge and discriminate against someone based on their behavior, ways of speech of body language either.

This is a common form of homphobia: "straight" or "closet" gays harboring hatred or contempt against flaming queens and feminine gays and blaming them for the negative image society has of gays and lesbians. I find this a distasteful and hypocritical way of thinking: instead of blaming the oppressors and bigots, you find someone who's "worse" than yourself and then try to downplay your alleged "sins" by pointing them out. Putting others down has never made anyone better.

Besides, whether we like it or not, we're all in the same boat. We might as well have a little solidarity and compassion. You'll probably learn not to judge others(at all) without knowing them as you come to temr with your own personnal issues. I wish you luck.




I never said the Church could not change their mind on same-sex marriage. I am all for the separation of church and state, and in other threads I had discussed at length as to why governments should keep out of the institution of marriage. I believe that governments should not legislate against or for religious institutions.

So...if a Church wants to accept gays, then more power to them. However, I know that most Churches are against same-sex marriage, so until such time they wish to change, gays will have to accept it. Governments should not interefere.

No, what you're saying is that the majority of religion decides, and the minority of religions shuts up. The correct course for a government who doesn't want to interfere is the stance Canada has taken on the matter: to legalize gay marriage(because our constitution states that discrimination cannot be forced on behalf of sexual orientation), but adding a clause ensuring that every religion gets to accept or REFUSE to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own beliefs(because freedom of religion is also protected in our constitution). That means the Catholic Church can say "gays are bad" and not marry them while the United Church of Canada can say "gays are good" and marry them. That way NO PARTICULAR RELIGION holds sway over the state and can dictate its beliefs and value on the others.

The issue of "natural" seems to come up again and again in this forum... as though anything that doesn't lead to continuation of the species is therefore evil. Well, let's make a list of non-evil human activites or creations that do not lead directly to the continuation of the species: rubiks cubes, football, vacations, little paper umbrellas, prom (well... I guess that one DOES lead to some procreation), sci-fi movies (those aren't getting ANYONE laid), the theatre, Scrabble, NationStates, pornography, the Church... the list goes on and on. Basically every leisure activity known to man.
So if all those things don't lead to procreation, and are not evil, then why would physical contact between two people of the same gender for the purpose of sexual gratification be so?
And then there is just the word "natural." What does that mean, in this context? That homosexuality doesn't occur in nature? Oh wait it does. For an interesting look at that phenomenon, check out the book Irrational Exuberance.
Or does "natural" mean using everything for its intended purpose? If so, not only homosexuality would be wrong, but also self-gratification, as well as heterosexual intercourse that aims to avoid pregnancy. Not to mention using flat-head screwdrivers to pry the lids off of paint cans, using newspapers for fireplace kindling, and wearing leather (which was intended for the cow, not you)...

There are compelling reasons to ban child molestation and bestiality that have nothing to do with being "unnatural." Mainly neither children nor animals are mentally qualified to give consent to the act of sexual intercourse, and so any instance of such sex is rape. THat is NOT true of homosexual sex between consenting adults.

It is a little shocking to me that Conservatives, so rarely concerned with the environment under any other circumstance, suddenly get so hung up on nature when homosexuality enters the picture.

I feel an overwhelming urge this hug this person. I couldn't have said it better. :D

All heed the words of wise Ish-mael!

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

Oh my god! You are so right! NOT! :lol:
This doesn't come down to a matter of opinion. I am right - you are wrong.
:twisted:

So when you say something it's a fact, and when 'we' say something it's merely a matter of opinion? How... convenient... :roll:

I still say homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural...but before you jump on me for being a bigot, I also consider being lefthanded abnormal and unnatural. :P :wink:

I think that homosexual marriage is great. But let's take it a bit further. Some guys can't decide between two women sometimes, so lets allow polygamy. I mean, monogamy doesn't work for everyone. There's probably a gene or something that controls how faithful you can be or something...Or what if you can't find somethong at all? Why can't you marry yourself? Just for the tax reasons I mean...Or what if you have a pet cat that you really love? I mean...I want to marry my cat, but the government won't let me! Hm...so at what point did I destroy the sanctity(sp) of marriage?

Hmm, marry yourself for tax reasons...I like the sound of that!

Where can I subscribe to your newsletter? :P

I think that homosexual marriage is great. But let's take it a bit further. Some guys can't decide between two women sometimes, so lets allow polygamy. I mean, monogamy doesn't work for everyone. There's probably a gene or something that controls how faithful you can be or something...Or what if you can't find somethong at all? Why can't you marry yourself? Just for the tax reasons I mean...Or what if you have a pet cat that you really love? I mean...I want to marry my cat, but the government won't let me! Hm...so at what point did I destroy the sanctity(sp) of marriage?

I think you crossed the line at the cat. None of the others hurt anyone (and you forgot polyandry). But frankly, I think government ought to get out of the marriage biz all-together. It is time that we stop penalizing people who are either unwilling, uninterested, or unable to get married. Singles are the ones carrying the burden of the tax breaks for the legally wed. Tax rebate should NOT be a factor in the eternal joining of two souls. Nor should legal protection. If you are not 100% certain that the person you'd like to marry isn't going to love you and leave you and walk off with all your stuff, you shouldn't be marrying them, and the negatvie consequences are your problem if you do.
Marriage is private and intensely personal. If people need a formalization of their love, let them be married at whatever Church, Temple, Mosque, or civic institution is willing to marry them.

1. Well homophobia is defined as a fear of gays. I was unaware of any change in meaning. I'll go by the dictionary rather than word-of-mouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia


ho·mo·pho·bi·a P Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ?ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun ?ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

Any response to this btw?

No, it is just that "camp" gays annoy me dreadfully. It is because of the fairy-like ones that all other gays are treated the same. People have a very stereotyped view of gays and frankly it impacts on the way they see people.

So you would propose that we blame, ostracize and discriminate against camp gays only, but the others are okay? Sorry, doesn't work that way. I'm about as far as you can get from camp, but I have met camp gays and they're persons just like me and every other straight guy around. It's not okay to judge someone based on their sexual orientation, and it's not okay to judge and discriminate against someone based on their behavior, ways of speech of body language either.

This is a common form of homphobia: "straight" or "closet" gays harboring hatred or contempt against flaming queens and feminine gays and blaming them for the negative image society has of gays and lesbians. I find this a distasteful and hypocritical way of thinking: instead of blaming the oppressors and bigots, you find someone who's "worse" than yourself and then try to downplay your alleged "sins" by pointing them out. Putting others down has never made anyone better.

Besides, whether we like it or not, we're all in the same boat. We might as well have a little solidarity and compassion. You'll probably learn not to judge others(at all) without knowing them as you come to temr with your own personnal issues. I wish you luck.




I never said the Church could not change their mind on same-sex marriage. I am all for the separation of church and state, and in other threads I had discussed at length as to why governments should keep out of the institution of marriage. I believe that governments should not legislate against or for religious institutions.

So...if a Church wants to accept gays, then more power to them. However, I know that most Churches are against same-sex marriage, so until such time they wish to change, gays will have to accept it. Governments should not interefere.

No, what you're saying is that the majority of religion decides, and the minority of religions shuts up. The correct course for a government who doesn't want to interfere is the stance Canada has taken on the matter: to legalize gay marriage(because our constitution states that discrimination cannot be forced on behalf of sexual orientation), but adding a clause ensuring that every religion gets to accept or REFUSE to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own beliefs(because freedom of religion is also protected in our constitution). That means the Catholic Church can say "gays are bad" and not marry them while the United Church of Canada can say "gays are good" and marry them. That way NO PARTICULAR RELIGION holds sway over the state and can dictate its beliefs and value on the others.

You have a fair point. But, when church and state are not separate you tend to have difficulties there.

add on: I do not oppose gay marriage because it would degrade society. I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was us humans who created language, not the other way around.

Besides, from that reasoning, you should never log on to Nationstates again! Humans were never intended to use the internet.

We created the internet. We did not create homosexuality.

We were not intended to create it.

Not intended to create what exactly?

The internet.

"I oppose it because marriage was never intended for gays."

He has a point...originally, in the dim mists of time, marriage was a social construct designed to hold two people together, one a man and one a woman, and to provide a stable structure in which they could bring up children etc.

That was then. Times change and at least some of the needs of modern people are not the same as those of people millenia ago.

You may say stuff about marriage and the church but do remember that marriage has been around longer than Christianity. The two are closely linked in our minds now but it was not always so.

There seems to be some rigidity in the thinking of people which is why traditions hang around for a lot longer than they are directly useful.
There is also some muddy, confused thinking which i believe to be caused by this same rigidity of the thought processes.

Personally, i feel that if two people love each other they should be able to commit themselves to each other. The reasons behind the necessity for marriage seem no longer totally relevant. Women work and are allowed and capable of living on their own, bringing up kids on their own and being equal in intellectual ability with men. There is no longer the necessity for them to have protection in the way there was in the distant past.

Why is it wrong for 2 men to get married...or 2 women to marry if they truely love each other and want to make a formal committment to each other the way heterosexual couples do?

And re: the internet not being intended. Why the heck are you posting on it then? Careful...you might be struck down by lightning :wink:

What can I say? I am very traditional...do not ask me why...I just am. I am a conservative at heart (yes I realise this presents an oxymoron when compared to my previous posts here - I cannot explain it myself - I just love defying the politically correct stereotypes :wink: ).

Yes, Dezzan I understand the whole notion of love but I am willing to allow civil ceremonies, or, if the church approves, then marriage sor samep-sex couples. It is a dilemma for me. I recognise the love two men or two women share, but at the same time I wish to preserve various institutions...

But times are a chang'n...

What can I say? I am very traditional...do not ask me why...I just am. I am a conservative at heart (yes I realise this presents an oxymoron when compared to my previous posts here - I cannot explain it myself - I just love defying the politically correct stereotypes :wink: ).

Yes, Dezzan I understand the whole notion of love but I am willing to allow civil ceremonies, or, if the church approves, then marriage sor samep-sex couples. It is a dilemma for me. I recognise the love two men or two women share, but at the same time I wish to preserve various institutions...

But times are a chang'n...

What can I say? I am very traditional...do not ask me why...I just am. I am a conservative at heart (yes I realise this presents an oxymoron when compared to my previous posts here - I cannot explain it myself - I just love defying the politically correct stereotypes :wink: ).

Yes, Dezzan I understand the whole notion of love but I am willing to allow civil ceremonies, or, if the church approves, then marriage sor samep-sex couples. It is a dilemma for me. I recognise the love two men or two women share, but at the same time I wish to preserve various institutions...

But times are a chang'n...

I think that homosexual marriage is great. But let's take it a bit further. Some guys can't decide between two women sometimes, so lets allow polygamy. I mean, monogamy doesn't work for everyone. There's probably a gene or something that controls how faithful you can be or something...Or what if you can't find somethong at all? Why can't you marry yourself? Just for the tax reasons I mean...Or what if you have a pet cat that you really love? I mean...I want to marry my cat, but the government won't let me! Hm...so at what point did I destroy the sanctity(sp) of marriage?

Here, here!! Just because gays feel what they are is normal, doesn't make it normal. In some eastern countries, a man can have more than one wife - the same in some African tribes. It would never happen legally in the West - so we feel it's wrong. I bet only a tiny minority would want to marry their cat, but why shouldn't it be normal if they feel it is?!
The only normal marriage is between male and female.

I think that homosexual marriage is great. But let's take it a bit further. Some guys can't decide between two women sometimes, so lets allow polygamy. I mean, monogamy doesn't work for everyone. There's probably a gene or something that controls how faithful you can be or something...Or what if you can't find somethong at all? Why can't you marry yourself? Just for the tax reasons I mean...Or what if you have a pet cat that you really love? I mean...I want to marry my cat, but the government won't let me! Hm...so at what point did I destroy the sanctity(sp) of marriage?

Here, here!! Just because gays feel what they are is normal, doesn't make it normal. In some eastern countries, a man can have more than one wife - the same in some African tribes. It would never happen legally in the West - so we feel it's wrong. I bet only a tiny minority would want to marry their cat, but why shouldn't it be normal if they feel it is?!
The only normal marriage is between male and female.I thought you said sex and marriage was entirely about reproduction not 'normality'?

You haven't disproved anything - you've presented your point of view. You obviously think very highly of yourself if you expect people to take your word as 'proof' :!:
Sex is for making babies. End of story.

Dude. You're the one going on about how what you're saying is fact and that the discussion is meaningless. Don't start crying when someone else points out that your 'facts' are in fact less than that.

Oh my god! You are so right! NOT! :lol:
This doesn't come down to a matter of opinion. I am right - you are wrong.
:twisted:

So when you say something it's a fact, and when 'we' say something it's merely a matter of opinion? How... convenient... :roll:

Got it in one! :lol:

I think that homosexual marriage is great. But let's take it a bit further. Some guys can't decide between two women sometimes, so lets allow polygamy. I mean, monogamy doesn't work for everyone. There's probably a gene or something that controls how faithful you can be or something...Or what if you can't find somethong at all? Why can't you marry yourself? Just for the tax reasons I mean...Or what if you have a pet cat that you really love? I mean...I want to marry my cat, but the government won't let me! Hm...so at what point did I destroy the sanctity(sp) of marriage?

Here, here!! Just because gays feel what they are is normal, doesn't make it normal. In some eastern countries, a man can have more than one wife - the same in some African tribes. It would never happen legally in the West - so we feel it's wrong. I bet only a tiny minority would want to marry their cat, but why shouldn't it be normal if they feel it is?!
The only normal marriage is between male and female.

i would say that polygamy is totally reasonable, provided that women are also permitted multiple husbands if they so chose. provided that all parties are consenting adults, i don't think there's anything wrong with that.

animals are not able to give consent, therefore marriage to one's cat would not be reasonable. similarly, marriage to a child would not be because a child cannot give consent.

marriage is about a unification of separate parts, and since one human alone has perfect unity of their own self marriage would not be relavent. there would be no union taking place, since they are already "married" to themself. besides, the tax laws could be re-written very easily to deal with such tactics, so even if we did allow it i don't think it would make a difference.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am against any "couples" (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-animal) getting tax breaks that singles don't get: why should I have to foot the tax burden simply because I am single with no children? :( :evil:

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am against any "couples" (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-animal) getting tax breaks that singles don't get: why should I have to foot the tax burden simply because I am single with no children? :( :evil:

yeah, i would ideally like to see all government involvement in marriage done away with. however, so long as legal marital rights exist for straight people, i feel that gays deserve equal treatment under the law.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am against any "couples" (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-animal) getting tax breaks that singles don't get: why should I have to foot the tax burden simply because I am single with no children? :( :evil:

Of course, what about tax breaks based on the number of children? That would still have to be necessary...in most modern tax structures, it would be hard for a typical family to endure the financial burden of taxes AND raising children.

Unless we just gave everyone a tax break, but then it would result in a financial incentive to NOT have children, and thus a sort of implicit penalty on those people who DO have children.

:? Aiera

Those who have children should be rewarded. Those who remain single and enjoy higher disposable incomes should pay more tax. Having children is a duty.

Those who have children should be rewarded. Those who remain single and enjoy higher disposable incomes should pay more tax. Having children is a duty.
Given the exponentially growing human population on this planet, one could make the case that NOT having children is a duty.
That said, I see your point about disposable income. I happen to think that disposable income is what taxes ought to be based on anyway. And families with children will clearly have less disposable income than a couple with the same income and no children. So yes, a tax break for those with children seems appropriate, regardless of whether they are married or single.
That said, I don't think a childless couple should be rewarded above singles. Having a combined income and divided costs actually means they have a LARGER disposable income than two single people. So why are singles bearing the burden of tax breaks for couples?

There has never been any evidence to say that homosexuality is genetic. However, there IS loads of evidence to say that it's a part of an unhealthy development, and thus can be prevented. So homosexuals lie about it.

The thing that poofs say about "if you're a homophobe, you must secretly be gay" is complete and utter crap too. So they are lying about it.

They say "Uhh, we're just like heterosexuals but with different attractions" and then they dress up in stupid costumes, parade around in them, and do their best to make people dislike them. So they are lying about that.

"Statistics" say that 10-15% of humans are gay. But then we find that these "statistics" have just been made up by the homosexual lobby. The real rate is very low indeed. So the gay lobby has lied.

Another thing the gay lobby says is "it is not a choice to be gay". However, I once heard a homosexual (who got married to a woman before discovering he was gay all along) say that he "chose to live this lifestyle". Oops. Gay lobby lied again.

Some of the more militant homosexuals say that they would be better at marriage than heterosexuals. That we have "ruined it" and that homosexuals would somehow "repair marriage". But that's this I see? Lots of gay men were formerly part of heterosexual marriages. How could these poofs get married to a woman if he obviously didn't love her? Not very good marrying practices! How do we know these people wouldn't do the same with their same-sex sexual-partners?



Finally, They say they should be allowed to marry because they love eachother. Well, HOW THE HECK CAN WE BELIEVE THEM NOW?. The probability that they are telling the truth about this one thing is INFINITESTIMAL. (I'm sure I've spelt that wrong).

Has anyone here been called a "homophobe" because they've been even the slightest bit critical of any homosexual or the gay lobby? I have!* I know other people (formerly pro-gay) who have been as well. Should we give such unstable people the same rights we enjoy? It's your decision but until I see a homosexual behaving like a normal human being I will continue to be opposed to all things homosexual.



* I told some people that I supported gay rights but that if homosexuals didn't have that poofy Mardi Gras they would be accepted more readily into society. The next thing you know: "Homophobe!" "Religious bigot!" "It's people like you who..." etc.

1) Read Freud yourself: he did indeed have a penis obsession. Where do you think "phallic symbolism" comes from?

I'm going to pretend to be a homosexual now: "Freud had an obsession with penises! He must be gay!"

Okay, now I've gotten that out of my system. Let it be said that the phrases Freud used are still being used today in universities everywhere - and not just in psychology classes. He must still be well respected for his pioneering work if he gets as much air time.

As far as the "gay gene" discussion goes, is it also part of the gay gene that you will be abused as a child? Because it seems to me that an awful lot of homosexuals/lesbians/fence-sitters (bisexuals)/changelings (transexuals) are abused as kids or exposed to homosexuals from a young age.

Also, what part of the "gay gene" controls the likelihood that you will smoke? Lesos and fence-sitters are more likely to smoke than their straight counterparts. I can't provide a link to the study but I remember reading about it and being surprised because the study was attempting to prove that homosexuals were NO MORE LIKELY to smoke.

Finally, explain to me how the "gay gene" makes homosexuals behave like such little brats. Okay, so there are a handful who don't. But it's such a common character trait.

I'd like to conclude by saying that the "evidence" of homosexual animals is even shakier than the "evidence" that talcum powder causes cancer. Didn't Jules Verne say something about incompetant scientists? "Men of science who do not possess such." or something.

There has never been any evidence to say that homosexuality is genetic. However, there IS loads of evidence to say that it's a part of an unhealthy development, and thus can be prevented. So homosexuals lie about it.
I'd like to see that evidence. Preferably from a non-religious source, please.
The thing that poofs say about "if you're a homophobe, you must secretly be gay" is complete and utter crap too. So they are lying about it.

True, being homophobic doesn't necessarily mean you're gay. It does often happen, though. People often fight against what they don't like in themselves. But I'm not calling you gay, don't worry.
And you state the point as though all gays think and feel and say the same things, which is certainly not true. They're homosexuals, not clones.

They say "Uhh, we're just like heterosexuals but with different attractions" and then they dress up in stupid costumes, parade around in them, and do their best to make people dislike them. So they are lying about that.
You're making some pretty broad generalizations here. And I think this represents a pretty intolerant attitude towards people who at differently from yourself. I admit, I find a lot of "queeny" behavior obnoxious. I'm an actor, but if I have to listen to one more guy belt out Streisand showtunes... but the fact is, you don't have to like it, but you don't have the right to stop it.
And a lot of heterosexual folks sometimes wear stupid costumes, parade around, and act obnoxious too. Like in the stands of every football game ever. And again with the "they"... as if gays only have just one big voice.

"Statistics" say that 10-15% of humans are gay. But then we find that these "statistics" have just been made up by the homosexual lobby. The real rate is very low indeed. So the gay lobby has lied.
So now we have "they" and "we". Who is "we", in this case? And could you quote us a source for your evidence? Again, preferably a non-religious one, please.

Another thing the gay lobby says is "it is not a choice to be gay". However, I once heard a homosexual (who got married to a woman before discovering he was gay all along) say that he "chose to live this lifestyle". Oops. Gay lobby lied again.
Of course you choose your lifestyle. It is harder to choose your sexual preference. You said yourself... the guy married a woman, then realized he was gay. Do you think he would choose that?

Some of the more militant homosexuals say that they would be better at marriage than heterosexuals. That we have "ruined it" and that homosexuals would somehow "repair marriage". But that's this I see? Lots of gay men were formerly part of heterosexual marriages. How could these poofs get married to a woman if he obviously didn't love her? Not very good marrying practices! How do we know these people wouldn't do the same with their same-sex sexual-partners?
Gay people, in the long run, probably aren't going to be any better at marriage than hetero-sexuals. About that you are right. But did you ever think that maybe the reason these people ended up in loveless heterosexual marriages because they felt social pressure from people (maybe people like you?) who kept telling them it is wrong to feel how they feel?

Finally, They say they should be allowed to marry because they love eachother. Well, HOW THE HECK CAN WE BELIEVE THEM NOW?. The probability that they are telling the truth about this one thing is INFINITESTIMAL. (I'm sure I've spelt that wrong).
Again with the "them". Like they are one big gang. I've know some pretty shiftless, deceptive, backstabbing gays. I've also know a lot of very straightforward, honest, forthright gays. Same deal with straight people. And why would ANYONE marry, if not for love?

Has anyone here been called a "homophobe" because they've been even the slightest bit critical of any homosexual or the gay lobby? I have!* I know other people (formerly pro-gay) who have been as well. Should we give such unstable people the same rights we enjoy? It's your decision but until I see a homosexual behaving like a normal human being I will continue to be opposed to all things homosexual.
I think they may be calling you a homophobe because you do things like write long posts about why they are evil, and wrong, and unstable. Maybe because you like to use words like poof to describe them. You've been more than "slightly critical" of gays. You've been out and out hostile. What exactly have the ever done to you?

* I told some people that I supported gay rights but that if homosexuals didn't have that poofy Mardi Gras they would be accepted more readily into society. The next thing you know: "Homophobe!" "Religious bigot!" "It's people like you who..." etc.
Somehow I have a feeling you probably said more than that. But say you didn't. I won't tell you that there aren't militant gays out there. There are militant EVERYTHINGS out there. I'm inclined to call you militantly anti-gay. Would that be inaccurate? And like I said above, I can't fault you for being annoyed at Mardi Gras all the time. It is kind of obnoxious. But while that often coincides with homosexuality, they aren't the same thing. There are a lot of very ordinary, non-exhibitionist homosexuals out there that want nothing more than to be left alone, and to be allowed to love who they want to love. Why can't you give them that?

I don't condone prejudice of anyone, even though I don't really like the idea of homosexuality, I have a lot of gay friends and they're all fantastic guys. I wouldn't dream of saying anything against them, but, just as an arguement to throw around, marriage (officially) is not only legal, but religious. Understand this is not my personal opinion, I'm just giving you all cannon fodder. I also realise that there are people who get married who aren't religious (to me, marriage signifies an official declaration of love). However, if marriage can be construed as partly religious, those of you who may be 'Christian' or whatever else, are probably aware that Christianity is not very forgiving to the gay community. Surely homosexuals can't get married in a church, as the 'good lord' doesn't approve. So, maybe a church wedding is off the cards, but (as I believe they have in certain parts of the world) surely a more fitting ceremony would be a marriage at a registry office. Take out the religion, keep the legality.
Also, why would any self-respecting gay man want to get married in a church, where they have been persecuted for centuries?

Uh oh... double-postilious!

Who I love and/or have sexual relations with is your choice. Period. Your choice in mates is irrelavent to me and my life, so I see nothing wrong with standing aside and having people do as they wish with whomever they wish. I don't want someone saying I can't date this girl or that guy, so I'm not going to impose my will on another like that. Being bi is awesome. Everybody loves you. :twisted:


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

But the thread isn't about dating, it's about marriage.

But the thread isn't about dating, it's about marriage.

Marriage is just long-term, potentially indefinite, dating... with legal ties, of course (damn the law). So my answer remains the same. Go for it.


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

The reason why I say "us" and "them" is because it takes longer to constantly type "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals". Plus, those two words need to be read slowly to differentiate them (I read very quickly and any articles about "them" are a bottleneck for me).

My sources for statistics? Do you think I go around remembering link addresses or sources for every article which I read? I can assure you however that these are non-religious sources. The religious sources get on my nerves because they're too focused on the Bible. (I am not Christian... I'm more like an anti-Agnostic)

The incident I described happened as I said it did. This was on a forum where roughly 55% of the occupants were gay (sorry, I can't give a link for that statistic but it was a poll conducted by the forum's moderators). I've heard very very similar stories from others; including one where a student was called a "homophobe" because he said his school shouldn't officially support a pro-gay rally. The comment was said in the context of schools getting involved in any side of politics.

I used to be pro-gay. Yes, I did. From an early age, the homosexual propagandists started preaching to me. And hey, I couldn't see the fault in their logic. I was only a kid.

Until I actually met some homosexuals. I hate to repeat myself but they behaved like a bunch of spoilt brats. That's the only way I could describe it. Gradually I questioned what I'd always been taught, and now I question ALL propaganda. Since then I've seen homosexuals who don't behave like that, but these would make up 0.01% of the population.

I flunked Research And Evaluating Effective Communication, but I know a correlation when I see one. It seems like every time you turn on the TV or the Internet and see a homosexual talking about his/her life, they invariably mention their bad childhood.

Just yesterday, an angry woman replied to a topic I posted about consensual incest. Turns out she was abused by her family and forced to do unconsensual incestual things. She said (and I quote): "I am a survivor of incest, and I happen to be gay". *

Genetics? How could one's genetics determine how they would get treated? Another question is: How could someone be homosexual but not aware of it until they were 40? Even today when it's "okay to be gay", there are still future poofs getting married to women (I say the word "poof" because they keep calling me a "homophobe" and a "religious bigot" and "intolerant").

I accept that others have different opinions. I embrace that. Variety has always been the spice of life. But I encourage people to make judgements for themselves, and sadly I find that most pro-gay people are simply accepting the outcryings of others.

Don't take my word for my previous comments. Go and find out for yourself! It's a big world with many homosexuals. YOU go and find out if they are telling the truth, and whether they should get married. If, after that, you disagree with me, that is A-OK by me. Just don't call me a "homophobe". Although I am scared of many things, homosexuals are not among those.

If I see any more articles supporting my theories, I will make sure I get the URLs of them just for you. How does that sound?



* I can send you the e-mail if you would like.

But the thread isn't about dating, it's about marriage.

Marriage is just long-term, potentially indefinite, dating... with legal ties, of course (damn the law). So my answer remains the same. Go for it.


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

Exactly, that's part of the debate though, the legal stuff. And the ceremony itself. Church or otherwise?

weird, I know a lot of gay guys

few if any had bad childhoods

many had excellent fathers/parents

not even psychologists can find correlation between upbringing and homosexuality nor heterosexuality in males or females and there are a lot of hetero victims of childhood sexual abuse so is that to say there is a correlation?

*scratches head*

:?

Exactly, that's part of the debate though, the legal stuff. And the ceremony itself. Church or otherwise?

Don't treat same sex marriages any differently where the law is concerned. If the law isn't capable of handling such an act, then the law must be modified to deal with the situation. 8)


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

Exactly, that's part of the debate though, the legal stuff. And the ceremony itself. Church or otherwise?

Don't treat same sex marriages any differently where the law is concerned. If the law isn't capable of handling such an act, then the law must be modified to deal with the situation. 8)


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

Unfortunately politics is in the way and there are a lot of misinformed if not dense people who are regsitered voters. :P

Bolshevik-
I'm sorry if I rankle by asking for sources. I don't go around writing down urls in case I get into arguments either. But you are making some pretty strong points, and, as they sort of fly in the face of what I have found to be true, I'm not really prepared to take them on your say-so. I do appreciate that your sources aren't coming down the religious line. I'm curious about your definition of "anti-agnostic."
The thing that bothered me about "us" and "them" is not that you used them as substitutes for straight and gay. What bothered me is that you used those words to imply that gays are one big mob that all feel and think and behave the same way. "They" think this, "they" do this, "they" are lying to us. As though gays were all a part of some massive conspiracy.

I'll accept that you ran into some pretty intolerant pro-gay folks. They are out there, no less than the intolerant anti-gay folks. People on both sides of the fence are pretty touchy, and there are people who overstep the line. The fact that you were in a forum that was over 50% gay might indicate that the forum was attracting zealous, activist gay rights supporters. But it would be wrong to imply that because some gay people said these things, that all gay people necessarily agree with them.

I suspect that you may know or may have encountered more gays than you realize, but because they weren't the sort of gays that wore their orientation on their sleave, the issue would probably never come up. You're in sort of a Catch-22, here. You dislike gays because they act faggy and bratty, but what other criteria do you use? If they aren't faggy and bratty, how would you know they were gay? Do you ask everyone you meet if they are gay? Yeah, there are a lot of queeny, obnoxious, bratty gays out there. Believe me, I know. The theatre gets some of the worst of them. I'm totally cool with anyone being down on spoiled, bratty, obnoxious, catty behavior. But I (unlike you, it seems) have met a lot of nice, likable, even demure gay men and women.

I won't argue that some instances of homosexuality aren't connected to abuse. What the relationship between the two is, I don't claim to know. Nervous tics can also be incurred by physical abuse. Does that mean that everyone with a twitch was abused? Again going to anecdotal evidence, I know a number of gay people from ordinary, healthy homes, who are not mentally stunted in any way.

And in a lot of the country (and the world) it still isn't "ok to be gay." Intolerance runs rampant particularly (but not exclusively) in the Midwest and the South. The fact that gay marriage is NOT yet legal in most places should indicate that it has not become an accepted norm. As it becomes more accepted, I suspect you'll see a drop in the number of unknowingly gay men marrying women. Because without external pressure to be straight, those people might realize their orientation at a much earlier age.

I still dislike the word poof. Homophobe, religious bigot, and intolerant (whether accurate or not) are assessments of character. Not complimentary ones, (and they may or may not be accurate) but not the same as calling you a hick, or a nazi, or a godfreak. Poof is a derogatory term, pure and simple.

Your posts make me interested and curious about the place you live... what sort of people you are around, and what sort of things you are exposed to. Clearly, we have had different experiences with homosexuals, and I respect your right not to like them. But could you maybe just leave them alone? Homosexuality isn't doing you any harm.

I'm curious about your definition of "anti-agnostic."


I think it means believes in either one thing or the other as in "There is a God" or "there is not a God". The extremist religious point of view. That's just a guess.

Poof is a derogatory term, pure and simple.

Interesting. I have heard gay people call each other "poof" and many other words which you might deem derogatory. There seemed to be no problem there. Yet when a straight person says "poof" jokingly, all of a sudden they are a homophobe.

Let us not forget the rise in heterophobia either - yes the gay community has admitted this is a problem. I see nobody making much of an effort to speak out against it - at least no gay people.

Reverse discrimination will only make matters worse. Homosexuals are fighting a losing battle. Minorities simply do not win on their own. If gays continue to be portrayed the way they are by themselves and society, then homosexuality will be a mere joke to everyone else.

I'm curious about your definition of "anti-agnostic."


I think it means believes in either one thing or the other as in "There is a God" or "there is not a God". The extremist religious point of view. That's just a guess.

so basically people should take a stance on something without all the facts and not relent no matter how often their position is shown to have flaws?

that's a good idea, now isn't it.

wheres the I don't really think its my business option? I mean really folks why should we care if some one marries some one of the same gender its not like any one is getting hurt and its not even much of an eye sore becuase they mainly do it in private areas. I personally could care less if the gay marrage is banned or legalized it does not affect me in the least bit. Though it is unconstitutional last i checked. :?

Poof is a derogatory term, pure and simple.

Interesting. I have heard gay people call each other "poof" and many other words which you might deem derogatory. There seemed to be no problem there. Yet when a straight person says "poof" jokingly, all of a sudden they are a homophobe.

Let us not forget the rise in heterophobia either - yes the gay community has admitted this is a problem. I see nobody making much of an effort to speak out against it - at least no gay people.

Reverse discrimination will only make matters worse. Homosexuals are fighting a losing battle. Minorities simply do not win on their own. If gays continue to be portrayed the way they are by themselves and society, then homosexuality will be a mere joke to everyone else.

Gay people using the term poof is much like black people using the word (dare I write it out loud?) ******. When a group uses derogatory terms about itself, it is a way of disempowering the term, when others use it, it is still an insult. Besides which, given the context of Bolshevik's post, I personally suspect he wasn't using it jokingly.

As far as heterophobia... well, I've never run into gay people saying it is wrong to be straight. But if you start a thread about anti-straight discrimination, I promise I'll defend us straight folks from heterophobes with the same ferocity.