NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.

Because it means who-ever is around them will try and force their devilish ways onto the other fellow? Because a guy can't stand the thought of losing a hot girl to another hot girl unless he can watch? Because some people think that it's sadistic for a child to have same-sex parents?

Those all seem like "valid" reasons. None particularly relevant with my morals, but for other people it works fine.

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.
because:

a) It is icky
b) a book told them not to
c) it is unnatural
d) it is contagious
e) because all gays are really perverted rapists

Easiest question to answer of all time.

Because they're different.

It's something completely new and abnormal for them to deal with. They don't understand it and most don't really want to. They're weirded out by it and don't want to deal with it.



Yes, and the fact that it's so contagious. I mean... one gay guy sneezes on you and you'll be taking it in the ass within 24 hours.

It's something completely new and abnormal for them to deal with. They don't understand it and most don't really want to. They're weirded out by it and don't want to deal with it.



Yes, and the fact that it's so contagious. I mean... one gay guy sneezes on you and you'll be taking it in the ass within 24 hours.
If that were the truth, i'd be sneezing all over the world :)

I think real heterosexuals never give gays a second thought-its only gay heterosexuals who fear and obsess on gays cause theyre bashing their own inner gay child

Yes, and the fact that it's so contagious. I mean... one gay guy sneezes on you and you'll be taking it in the ass within 24 hours.
I think I feel a cold coming on...:D

its only gay heterosexuals who fear

Wow, I've never seen a gay heterosexual before. The world is a strange place.

Xenophobia. Personally, I think everyone on both sides of the issue needs to read Ender's Game.

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.
I am heterosexual, and I must say homophobia is an emotion I do not find myself capable of understanding.

Wow, I've never seen a gay heterosexual before. The world is a strange place.

I think MKULTRA, albeit in a deliberately odd way, is making the claim, to which I would credit a great deal of likelihood, that homosexuality is more a spectrum than a binary condition.

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.

Oh. Good. The Peanut Gallery is here.

Because it means who-ever is around them will try and force their devilish ways onto the other fellow? Because a guy can't stand the thought of losing a hot girl to another hot girl unless he can watch? Because some people think that it's sadistic for a child to have same-sex parents?

Those all seem like "valid" reasons. None particularly relevant with my morals, but for other people it works fine.


Lesbianism is disgusting and wrong no matter if you watch or not. It's an evil abomination and as bad as all forms of non-heterosexual sex. I hate how so many guys condemn the gays, but not the lesbians!

It's all evil! It's all wrong!

i think its because some people have the dark forboding that they could "go gay all of a sudden" (i love that phrase, its by cary grant in bringing up baby)
and they want to keep that day at bay for as long as possible

Nobody is "scared" of homosexuality. But it is truly not a normal thing. Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.

? "Inner homosexual". How typical of a gay advocate to say. "You just don't like it because you are really one yourself!". This is like telling someone who owns a Toyota that they own one because they are really covering up their pathological inner obsession to get a Honda.... come on, common sense is lacking there.

I'm sure there are people who have gay feelings who aren't gay, and I'm sure there are people who could be gay who either don't want to be or don't know, and WHY is this a problem? Being gay, living that lifestyle, is not for a lot of people. Even acknowledging that people have the right to choose either lifestyle is essentially assuming that being gay is very much more a sociological, and not entirely biological, issue. THERE ARE people with hormonal imbalances but it is a small percentage of the population, as there are sociologically influenced "gays".... and the gay rate in the population is from 3 to 5 percent... we can then assume that perhaps 1, 2 percent have this hormonal difference?




Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman! To change that definition, many forget, might just be a very drastic spin on a word that isn't just a word but a true meaning to a lot of people.

Some people tell me "you'd have to have kids to understand" and I can certainly see where they come from.

But the propagandizing gays who claim that those who dislike homosexual practices are "homophobic" or "in the closet, ignoring their 'inner gay'" are just trying to rationalize to themselves the sad reality that homosexuality is not something that people want to glorify. Marriage is a glorifying union.

A civil union can be too. But in a different context. This is why I support civil unions with mostly full hetero-marriage rights, and I think that states would do well to ratify civil unions.

States have the right to deal with gay marriage as they wish. Bush is doing something he feels is right, and to a vast majority of Americans it is, yet the Senate as usual is not representing America so it of course has little chance to get off the ground.

I support states deciding what to do with gay marriage. But an ideal situation would have the government not recognizing marriage anymore and instead civil unions, where then a religious institution could declare a social vow of MARRIAGE.

That would solve everyone's problems, I think, as I feel this is mostly a local social problem instead of a governmental, federal problem.

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.

Fear and ignorance, what else?

Lesbianism is disgusting and wrong no matter if you watch or not. It's an evil abomination and as bad as all forms of non-heterosexual sex. I hate how so many guys condemn the gays, but not the lesbians!

It's all evil! It's all wrong!

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.


what's evil/wrong/sick/nasty about it?

Fear and ignorance, what else?

How about you walk in someone with a different viewpoint's shoes before bashing them. Then maybe you yourself wouldn't be so fearful and ignorant of the other side of the issue, hm?

How about you walk in someone with a different viewpoint's shoes before bashing them. Then maybe you yourself wouldn't be so fearful and ignorant of the other side of the issue, hm?

So let's hear this 'other side' so it may be critiqued and debated.

Man I wish I had today off. :D

Btw, isn't there a law or something in the US that says that if a couple(or more for that matter) are married the state they are in have to recognize that whatever the states law says?

How about you walk in someone with a different viewpoint's shoes before bashing them. Then maybe you yourself wouldn't be so fearful and ignorant of the other side of the issue, hm?

How did I bash anyone, including you? Strange, I do not see it that way...Perhaps it is YOU, who is oversensitive...thinskinned, perhaps?

Besides, I can say that driving cars is unnatural, after all we have legs, don't we? From a biological perspective, we were ment to walk and run, not slouch like some soft weakling in a glorified baby carriage or phallus extention! I mean really! Have you forgotten your strength? Your humanity?

As for homosexuality being unnatural, how can it? It's existed since the the dawn of the apes! There is also evidence that the higher mammals also practise it. Have you ever seen chimpanzees in the wild state? Well I have, and yes, there are same sex copulations. In short, they have sex with each other.

Homosexuality trandsends time and space, it's existed in all times and is universal in all cultures. So tell me, what is so "unnatural" about it?

Homosexuality trandsends time and space

Oh come on. While I generally agree with your argument, wasn't that just a tad over the top?

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.
this is what I was talken about--Enodscopia is a gay heterosexual

Lesbianism is disgusting and wrong no matter if you watch or not. It's an evil abomination and as bad as all forms of non-heterosexual sex. I hate how so many guys condemn the gays, but not the lesbians!

It's all evil! It's all wrong!

No it's not! I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body!!!!

Oh come on. While I generally agree with your argument, wasn't that just a tad over the top?

Is it any more over the top as saying it is abomination to invisible sky friend?

I think MKULTRA, albeit in a deliberately odd way, is making the claim, to which I would credit a great deal of likelihood, that homosexuality is more a spectrum than a binary condition.
yeah thats it

Is it any more over the top as saying it is abomination to invisible sky friend?

Nope, both statements are equally silly.

I don't care who it's with or how good it is, it's just sex. Not cosmic truth.

How did I bash anyone, including you? Strange, I do not see it that way...Perhaps it is YOU, who is oversensitive...thinskinned, perhaps?

Besides, I can say that driving cars is unnatural, after all we have legs, don't we? From a biological perspective, we were ment to walk and run, not slouch like some soft weakling in a glorified baby carriage or phallus extention! I mean really! Have you forgotten your strength? Your humanity?

As for homosexuality being unnatural, how can it? It's existed since the the dawn of the apes! There is also evidence that the higher mammals also practise it. Have you ever seen chimpanzees in the wild state? Well I have, and yes, there are same sex copulations. In short, they have sex with each other.

Homosexuality trandsends time and space, it's existed in all times and is universal in all cultures. So tell me, what is so "unnatural" about it?

Funny how you so typically as in debating, take a single statement and expand your opinion and bashing upon it.

HOW ABOUT YOU RESPOND TO MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

Oh come on. While I generally agree with your argument, wasn't that just a tad over the top?

No, it wasn't, it is present in all cultures in one form or another. It may have not been recognized by a given culture, even denied, but it did exist. Because, in the end, we are all the same...

Lesbianism is disgusting and wrong no matter if you watch or not. It's an evil abomination and as bad as all forms of non-heterosexual sex. I hate how so many guys condemn the gays, but not the lesbians!

It's all evil! It's all wrong!
2 women having sex with each other is mad hot and concencual sex is never evil--your mind is damaged from religion

whether or not its yucky, or evil, or natural, or wrong. its HERE and its not gonna go away just because you think its pootinky.

*stand up and shouts*
"WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, DEAL WITH IT"
*remembers shes not gay*
nevermind

the thing is, isnt this better than the "old days" where gay people were in hiding and you could be best friends with one and NEVER EVEN KNOW IT?

isnt it better than forcing people to pretend to be straight so they get married and ruin some innocent persons life?

surely even gay haters can think that its better to know who is gay and who isnt.

even though you may hate the thought of homosexuality, you arent the kind of people who would attack a gay person either physically or verbally so why not just forget about it and let them live their lives?

some day when your brother or best friend or daughter has to confess to you that they are gay, your opinion will change in a second.

you will realize that gay people arent THEM they are US.

A civil union can be too. But in a different context. This is why I support civil unions with mostly full hetero-marriage rights, and I think that states would do well to ratify civil unions.



Mostly? Which ones would you reserve and on what basis?

Additionally, how is creating an entirely different system of laws and institutions for one section of the population "fair and equal?"

No, it wasn't, it is present in all cultures in one form or another. It may have not been recognized by a given culture, even denied, but it did exist. Because, in the end, we are all the same...

Yes, but being present in all cultures and "transcending space and time" like the Monolith from 2001 are entirely different things. Mind you, I'm not against homosexuality or homosexual marriages (well, I am sort of, but that's a different debate). Indeed, HotRodia just outed me in another thread on this board, so I fully expect to receive my membership card this weekend sometime and we'll have to see what comes of that.

I'm just saying that the rhetoric is getting pretty deep from both sides here.

Nobody is "scared" of homosexuality. But it is truly not a normal thing. Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.

? "Inner homosexual". How typical of a gay advocate to say. "You just don't like it because you are really one yourself!". This is like telling someone who owns a Toyota that they own one because they are really covering up their pathological inner obsession to get a Honda.... come on, common sense is lacking there.

I'm sure there are people who have gay feelings who aren't gay, and I'm sure there are people who could be gay who either don't want to be or don't know, and WHY is this a problem? Being gay, living that lifestyle, is not for a lot of people. Even acknowledging that people have the right to choose either lifestyle is essentially assuming that being gay is very much more a sociological, and not entirely biological, issue. THERE ARE people with hormonal imbalances but it is a small percentage of the population, as there are sociologically influenced "gays".... and the gay rate in the population is from 3 to 5 percent... we can then assume that perhaps 1, 2 percent have this hormonal difference?




Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman! To change that definition, many forget, might just be a very drastic spin on a word that isn't just a word but a true meaning to a lot of people.

Some people tell me "you'd have to have kids to understand" and I can certainly see where they come from.

But the propagandizing gays who claim that those who dislike homosexual practices are "homophobic" or "in the closet, ignoring their 'inner gay'" are just trying to rationalize to themselves the sad reality that homosexuality is not something that people want to glorify. Marriage is a glorifying union.

A civil union can be too. But in a different context. This is why I support civil unions with mostly full hetero-marriage rights, and I think that states would do well to ratify civil unions.

States have the right to deal with gay marriage as they wish. Bush is doing something he feels is right, and to a vast majority of Americans it is, yet the Senate as usual is not representing America so it of course has little chance to get off the ground.

I support states deciding what to do with gay marriage. But an ideal situation would have the government not recognizing marriage anymore and instead civil unions, where then a religious institution could declare a social vow of MARRIAGE.

That would solve everyone's problems, I think, as I feel this is mostly a local social problem instead of a governmental, federal problem.
your post is filled with too many wrongs to correct them all but how can you say homosexuality is against nature when it occurs in nature? how do you know also that homosexuality cant be a form of natures birth control? Btw peoples opposition to same sex marriage is based on nothing more then good old fashioned bigotry and not based on any rationality at all and laws arent made based on the tyranny of the majority but based on INDIVUDUAL rights

You know, the 'Thinking About Gay Sex Every Time Someone Mentions A Gay Person Grosses Me Out Therefore It's Evil' argument is kind of amusing.

I mean there's a lot of straight people you could imagine having sex, like your parents, or people you find unattractive, ....that doesn't make heterosexuality 'gross and evil.'

How about you walk in someone with a different viewpoint's shoes before bashing them. Then maybe you yourself wouldn't be so fearful and ignorant of the other side of the issue, hm?
why dont you ask your own side this question? gays arent the ones trying to deny rights for bigots

No it's not! I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body!!!!
LOL--im a male lesbian too :cool:

Funny how you so typically as in debating, take a single statement and expand your opinion and bashing upon it.

HOW ABOUT YOU RESPOND TO MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

You said it (homosexuality) was not a normal thing, did you not? And I responded to that by disagreeing with it. That to me that ***WAS THE ARGUMENT*** The rest was just legal or political crap!

Just give it some time. All of these bigots will gradually disappear, just like they did in the face of the civil rights movement. For a while there, lots of people thought interracial marriages were wrong. Now those poeple all live in a few certain states in a certain region of the country...

Mostly? Which ones would you reserve and on what basis?

Additionally, how is creating an entirely different system of laws and institutions for one section of the population "fair and equal?"

Mostly because the one I am unsure about is child adoption... it is yet to be seen(and it truly is, if you look at it in a nonpartisan, objective way) what the effects of homosexual parents on an adopted child are. "THAT'S WRONG THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO..." why can't you just wait for a study or two? That's what I'm doing. I'm totally objective about that one.


And by the logic of that second bit, how is affirmative action fair? How is welfare fair? How is... come on. People are not all the same, that would be socialism.

You said it (homosexuality) was not a normal thing, did you not? And I responded to that by disagreeing with it. That to me ***WAS THE ARGUMENT*** The rest was just legal or political crap!

LEGAL OR POLITICAL CRAP??!?

You mean the SUBSTANCE of my argument? About how it would be feasible and then unfeasible to make gay marriage/unions whatever legal, by state or federally?

You read the first sentence and "respond to it". You don't even think about how I back that up. What a dumbass, there's no point in even debating with you if you are going to pick my semantics apart.

Actually, I do believe studies have shown no negative affect on children who have homosexual parents.


Me? I love gay dudes. I mean, I think EVERYONE can agree with that one. It's ALWAYS a good thing when more people of your gender are gay ;)

Btw, isn't there a law or something in the US that says that if a couple(or more for that matter) are married the state they are in have to recognize that whatever the states law says?

Not since the protection of marriage act (or something along those lines) signed by Clinton. In a gay marriage, other states are not obligated to recognize it. This happened when hawaii temporally allowed gay marriage.

I have a few things to go into:
My personal experience with homophobia only happened when a male friend of mine asked me out. It became hard to maintain that friendship as I ended up getting more and more annoyed with him. However, I've spent time with other gay men and they're certainly different, but there's nothing fearful or disgusting about them.

Next, I have to ask where bisexuality fits in. My girlfriend and about 3 other friends are bisexual, and they are still affected by homosexual legislation, but never seem to be considered.

And last, what do y'all think of heterophobia? My girlfriend's roommate is uncomfortable with people who aren't gay or bisexual. I find it annoying, personally.

Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman!


WHAT?!?

King David and Jonathon - lovers ... read your Bible.

1 Samuel 18:1-3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

Sounds like marriage!

1 Samuel 18:4

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.

Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

Uh huh ... yeah ... but, hey, those are just some nutty Jews, right?

Okie ... so let's look at Christians:

St Serge and St Bacchus were married! More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.

Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual.

Yale Prof. John Boswell has discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

A 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Do some research, man!

your post is filled with too many wrongs to correct them all but how can you say homosexuality is against nature when it occurs in nature? how do you know also that homosexuality cant be a form of natures birth control? Btw peoples opposition to same sex marriage is based on nothing more then good old fashioned bigotry and not based on any rationality at all and laws arent made based on the tyranny of the majority but based on INDIVUDUAL rights

So by just skipping over telling me why you think my points were all wrong, you just say "I think they're wrong!" and feel you can get away with that? If you're going to debate, do so. If you're going to just say "YOU ARE WRONNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG" and then pick apart one thing I said, what is the point of even debating?

By the way, how can you assume bigotry has anything to do with disagreeing with homosexual marriage? What if someone felt uncomfortable redefining a term that means so much to them, perhaps their married children, their family life? Have you even thought about that? It seems that you are just spewing the "ALL WHO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE ARE BIGOTS" argument that I hear, believe me, all the time. And it never works because it is a wide assumption about people and their belief systems that you might not, or obviously in this case don't, understand. As I said, walk in their shoes... think about why they might be against it. Think.

As far as homosexuality being a form of nature's birth control, I'm glad you brought that up. I believe it might be as well, even though the population pecentage of gays isn't enough to make too much of a dent in the national birth rates. You see, I believe that nature works itself out socially, too.

This is why people who can't adapt to society fail. Insecure, introverted people, or way-too-outgoing, dangerous people, all fail because they just can't compete. Social homosexuality may be a part of this. I can't say so I don't, but I speculate it could be. Anything's possible.

How is getting rid of gay marriage going to stop this natural birth control if it is even real? Gays can still live together, have sex, etc.

And though it OCCURS in nature, so does special cannibalism, doesn't it? Would you say that's a natural thing? For a human to eat another human?

I'm not talking about that. I know about homosexuality in animals and such. I'm talking about, do you think(and graphic terms follow) that the penis was supposed to fit into the rectum? Do you think that the rectal lining, which is very delicate, was supposed to withstand the force of a penis?

They aren't. There's a reason a penis fits into a vagina. There's a reason, and that's because it is THE natural way. Other ways may occur, but the way that mankind made it this far was by reproducing, and you don't reproduce with other men/women.

Mostly because the one I am unsure about is child adoption... it is yet to be seen(and it truly is, if you look at it in a nonpartisan, objective way) what the effects of homosexual parents on an adopted child are. "THAT'S WRONG THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO..." why can't you just wait for a study or two? That's what I'm doing. I'm totally objective about that one.

The studies are out there and they assert that there is no inherant disadvantage to being raised by homosexual parents. I'll see if I can find you some links, but I'm a bit pressed for time. Look in the first 10 or so pages of the "Missouri Banned Gay Marriage" thread. They're somewhere around there.


And by the logic of that second bit, how is affirmative action fair? How is welfare fair? How is... come on. People are not all the same, that would be socialism.

I wasn't exactly arguing because I actually think that government should stay out of marriage completely and if it wishes to provide benefits for social contracts then it must develop it's own institution not based on any sort of religious doctrine.

WHAT?!?

King David and Jonathon - lovers ... read your Bible.

1 Samuel 18:1-3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

Sounds like marriage!

1 Samuel 18:4

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.

Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

Uh huh ... yeah ... but, hey, those are just some nutty Jews, right?

Okie ... so let's look at Christians:

St Serge and St Bacchus were married! More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.

Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual.

Yale Prof. John Boswell has discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

A 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Do some research, man!


I didn't say EVERYONE. I've done a lot of research, thank you. Those however are specific instances. For the lot of humankind, marriage has meant a man and a woman. To most people, also. Why do you specifically bring up Christianity? Do you assume I'm arguing this from a religious standpoint?

I'm provided objective, non-religious terms and arguments because that's how I see gay marriage being good and/or bad for society.

I suggest you do the same, with CURRENT arguments, and not just the past?

I wasn't exactly arguing because I actually think that government should stay out of marriage completely and if it wishes to provide benefits for social contracts then it must develop it's own institution not based on any sort of religious doctrine.

I'll look up those studies. I'm pressed for time also, though.


Did you not see that I said exactly what you are saying in the last bit of my longest argument a page or two back? I support the government getting out of marriage, and letting society do its thing.

Why must homosexuality always include anal sex? Plenty of straight couples engage in it, and I imagine there are plenty of gay men who don't practice it.

LEGAL OR POLITICAL CRAP??!?

You mean the SUBSTANCE of my argument? About how it would be feasible and then unfeasible to make gay marriage/unions whatever legal, by state or federally?

You read the first sentence and "respond to it". You don't even think about how I back that up. What a dumbass, there's no point in even debating with you if you are going to pick my semantics apart.

Well, well, well, now we stoop to persoanl insults. Well, I must say you've just destroyed your credibility here. A clear sign that you've lost here....

So you say the legal/political aspects was the substance of your argument? Well I think otherwise. From my standpoint it was just a lot of "gravy". I responded to the "meat" of your argument, and I repeat, "homosexuality is not a normal thing". Which of course I did not agree with, and stated it as such. That's the real point here! I dissected your post and through out or ignore the rest. The rest simply did not concern me.

Now in the future, do refrain from calling me a "dumbass"....

And if you really must now, I support gay rights regarding marriage. After all, they are not asking for PRIVILIGES here - only equality...

Why must homosexuality always include anal sex? Plenty of straight couples engage in it, and I imagine there are plenty of gay men who don't practice it.
I'm still a virgin kinda. And I dont like anal sex. But I am gay :)

Not since the protection of marriage act (or something along those lines) signed by Clinton. In a gay marriage, other states are not obligated to recognize it. This happened when hawaii temporally allowed gay marriage.

I have a few things to go into:
My personal experience with homophobia only happened when a male friend of mine asked me out. It became hard to maintain that friendship as I ended up getting more and more annoyed with him. However, I've spent time with other gay men and they're certainly different, but there's nothing fearful or disgusting about them.

Next, I have to ask where bisexuality fits in. My girlfriend and about 3 other friends are bisexual, and they are still affected by homosexual legislation, but never seem to be considered.

And last, what do y'all think of heterophobia? My girlfriend's roommate is uncomfortable with people who aren't gay or bisexual. I find it annoying, personally.

I believe that we should accept OTHER PEOPLE as people, but we shouldn't have to agree with their lifestyle, choices, or person.

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.

This is your typical homophobes hmmmmm no logic just pathetic uninteligable whine. Do you think he meant serial killers or paedophiles there musnt be a ban on them in his country.

Im glad i am a real hetrosexual whatever one of those is????

Why must homosexuality always include anal sex? Plenty of straight couples engage in it, and I imagine there are plenty of gay men who don't practice it.

Hey, I am not saying it's a staple of it. But can you imagine a gay doing anything else considered "sex"? Oral, perhaps? Real sex involves penetration of some sort, and anal fits in.

Heterosexual anal sex is risky too, it's the same basic rectum, and the same thing where a penis goes where it maybe should not.

It's been proven to be risky, and there have been studies on that. One of the possible effects is something called anal lesions. Nasty.

By the way, how can you assume bigotry has anything to do with disagreeing with homosexual marriage? What if someone felt uncomfortable redefining a term that means so much to them, perhaps their married children, their family life? Have you even thought about that? It seems that you are just spewing the "ALL WHO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE ARE BIGOTS" argument that I hear, believe me, all the time. And it never works because it is a wide assumption about people and their belief systems that you might not, or obviously in this case don't, understand. As I said, walk in their shoes... think about why they might be against it. Think.

I think it follows when someone thinks that a change in their legal (not religious) definition of marriage is bad (especially for the children!,) then they feel that the change is for the worse, and are therefore against gays.

Well, well, well, now we stoop to persoanl insults. Well, I must say you've just destroyed your credibility here. A clear sign that you've lost here....

So you say the legal/political aspects was the substance of your argument? Well I think otherwise. From my standpoint it was just a lot of "gravy". I responded to the "meat" of your argument, and I repeat, "homosexuality is not a normal thing". Which of course I did not agree with, and stated it as such. That's the real point here! I dissected your post and through out or ignore the rest. The rest simply did not concern me.

Now in the future, do refrain from calling me a "dumbass"....

And if you really must now, I support gay rights regarding marriage. After all, they are not asking for PRIVILIGES here - only equality...

You did respond to the first sentence of my argument. That is picking and choosing. Perhaps you agreed with others in the argument so you skipped over because you wanted to argue.

Now you try to "diminish credibility" and you fail at it. I wanted you to respond to what I put in my argument and not just one statement which was not the argument but a part of a whole.

You are backing up and trying to further this little tangent of yours. Go ahead, but you aren't getting much more out of me for your trivial arguments.

I think it follows when someone thinks that a change in their legal (not religious) definition of marriage is bad (especially for the children!,) then they feel that the change is for the worse, and are therefore against gays.

Maybe they are just accustomed to a current social order, or want to preserve a meaning?

Why must you all try to make it involve "HATRED OF THE GAYS" when that's not it at all? I have no problem with gay people but what they do.

This is your typical homophobes hmmmmm no logic just pathetic uninteligable whine. Do you think he meant serial killers or paedophiles there musnt be a ban on them in his country.

Im glad i am a real hetrosexual whatever one of those is????

Yeah, he made a pretty stupid statement there. I am sure some people arguing against me will associate me with his terse, ignorant statement. Oh, well.

Yeah, he made a pretty stupid statement there. I am sure some people arguing against me will associate me with his terse, ignorant statement. Oh, well.
you don't have to give your opinion on everything you know...

you don't have to give your opinion on everything you know...

I don't have to agree though with those who might agree with me. The way he said it was silly and baseless.

i never said you had to agree, you just say something about everything

Why must you all try to make it involve "HATRED OF THE GAYS" when that's not it at all? I have no problem with gay people but what they do.

Again, it's the problem that the majority seems to include homosexuality in the same line as anal sex. 'You want to stop anal sex? Well, first stop the gays.' If you want to crusade against sodomy, that's your own thing, but keep in mind the backlash it causes to homosexual couples.

i never said you had to agree, you just say something about everything

But have you seen those who are against me? I'm basically the only one on my side in this thread now. If I don't make myself perfectly clear, they will pick apart an even somewhat vague argument to make me look bad. I'm not one to find that acceptable.


By the way everyone, I'm going away now, so I can't respond to any responses for a while. I've got to go run some errands. Peace out, God Bless, happy debating.

Again, it's the problem that the majority seems to include homosexuality in the same line as anal sex. 'You want to stop anal sex? Well, first stop the gays.' If you want to crusade against sodomy, that's your own thing, but keep in mind the backlash it causes to homosexual couples.

That's not quite what I feel. I agree that the majority does, but only because it's basically how it is. Most sexually active gays will have anal sex. It's just the truth.

But that's not what I'm really arguing against, I'm still a virgin myself so I can't really speak about heterosexual or homosexual anal sex. All I know is that everything I've ever read says that while it may be pleasurable, it is very risky, bacterially and physically.

I'm still a virgin kinda. And I dont like anal sex. But I am gay :)
um
well
not to tell you something you already know but

you DO know that there are gay men who never engage in anal sex, eh?

That's not quite what I feel. I agree that the majority does, but only because it's basically how it is. Most sexually active gays will have anal sex. It's just the truth.

But that's not what I'm really arguing against, I'm still a virgin myself so I can't really speak about heterosexual or homosexual anal sex. All I know is that everything I've ever read says that while it may be pleasurable, it is very risky, bacterially and physically.

Sex in general is very risky, though. There are a whole host of conditions, diseases and parasites you can get through both unprotected and protected sex. Any time you place yourself in a position to swap fluids with another person, of either sex, you are at risk. The more you do this, the more promiscuous you are, the greater your risk. The more you practice safer sex, the lesser your risk. This is true for all sex across the board.

You've decided, though, to pick not only one sex act, but one specific group and use that act to judge them by, even when they're not having sex. The problem is, it's not the right one.

The biological imperative for sex is reproduction. The purpose behind reproduction is the propagation of one's genetic structure. To elevate one's role in the overall evolutionary scheme of things. But evolution doesn't intend anything. There is no overall evolutionary goal. In fact, evolution isn't even a thing, its just what happens when the frequency of certain alleles rise or drop, or when mutations occur and increase in frequency.

I guess the purpose of that whole biology rant was to explain why it really bugs me when people use words like unnatural to describe homosexuality. There is no natural, there is no unnatural. There is only what is, what people do. Besides, why do most heterosexual couples have sex most of the time? Because they're trying to have kids? No. Because it feels good, and its an expression of love to the person you're with. Well guess what, thats why we do it too. And if you have to exercise a little more imagination as to what fits, well then.... ;) .

Unfortunately, none of this answers the original question posted, and to that I have to concede that I honestly don't know. Or at least I don't understand. I've grown up in an area without alot of blatant homophobia, and I find the motivations for it rather mystifying.

Nobody is "scared" of homosexuality. But it is truly not a normal thing. Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.


This argument is bogus. Nature shows us that homosexuality is in fact "natural." And since norms change, saying it isn't "normal" doesn't fly either.


? "Inner homosexual". How typical of a gay advocate to say. "You just don't like it because you are really one yourself!". This is like telling someone who owns a Toyota that they own one because they are really covering up their pathological inner obsession to get a Honda.... come on, common sense is lacking there.


I agree, it's a silly thing to say, although it is realtively safe to say that people (or at least men, because I think this has to do with masculinity to some degree) with homosexual tendencies who are unable to acknowledge them are rather likely to "bash" gay people because it serves as further proof of their straightness.


I'm sure there are people who have gay feelings who aren't gay, and I'm sure there are people who could be gay who either don't want to be or don't know, and WHY is this a problem? Being gay, living that lifestyle, is not for a lot of people. Even acknowledging that people have the right to choose either lifestyle is essentially assuming that being gay is very much more a sociological, and not entirely biological, issue. THERE ARE people with hormonal imbalances but it is a small percentage of the population, as there are sociologically influenced "gays".... and the gay rate in the population is from 3 to 5 percent... we can then assume that perhaps 1, 2 percent have this hormonal difference?


Okay, so being gay is a "lifestyle" and it's "not for a lot of people." This gets into the ridiculous morass of "is it inherent or is it a social constructruction, and therefore a choice?" Arguing this issue is stupid right now, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove one way or the other without evidence, which we don't have. Also, will you post studies that conclusively link hormones to homosexuality instead of just making a blind claim? Also, the percentage of gays is definately up for debate. What about people who are bisexual? What counts as "gay?" How many closeted people don't reveal it on surveys, etc. Basically, I'm asking you to back up these claims with actual evidence, that's all.


Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman! To change that definition, many forget, might just be a very drastic spin on a word that isn't just a word but a true meaning to a lot of people.


You're right, it's not just a word. It's a social and religious institution that currently disenfranchises an entire population of people of legal benefits. You're right, this is because marriage is a social institution, and not just religious. But because such is the case, it is unfair to deny certain people to engage in this contract. If it were religious only, they could disenfranchise whoever they felt like. But the governement is supposed to protect the rights of ALL people, and not just the majority. That's what checks and balances are for. Where has marriage been defined as man and woman? Last I checked it was religion... thus the recent crop of legislation that declare this assumption as law. Making changes to things governed by the state because of religious beliefs falls under separation of church and state, last I checked.


Some people tell me "you'd have to have kids to understand" and I can certainly see where they come from.


But do you agree with them in this statement? Care to elaborate on "where they're coming from" instead of assuming we know what you're insinuating? I don't want to put words in your (or their) mouth.


But the propagandizing gays who claim that those who dislike homosexual practices are "homophobic" or "in the closet, ignoring their 'inner gay'" are just trying to rationalize to themselves the sad reality that homosexuality is not something that people want to glorify. Marriage is a glorifying union.


I think the term homophobic is a problematic one as well. I think heterosexist is a much better term, and more in line with what's really happening. Heterosexism is a system of oppression that favors hetersexuality over all other forms of sexuality, like racism favors "whites" and sexism favors males. Since it is systemic, it is not surprising that many people "dislike homosexual practices." This however, doens't mean it is justified for them to deny them a union that is governed by the STATE, just because they don't like it. Interracial marriages should not be banned because a majority of people "dislikes the practice." I also fail to see how a contract you can get without ever dealing with a religion "glorifies" your relationship. More accurately, it provides you with a bundle of legal benefits that make sense when you are in permanent residence with your partner.


A civil union can be too. But in a different context. This is why I support civil unions with mostly full hetero-marriage rights, and I think that states would do well to ratify civil unions.

States have the right to deal with gay marriage as they wish. Bush is doing something he feels is right, and to a vast majority of Americans it is, yet the Senate as usual is not representing America so it of course has little chance to get off the ground.


As I was saying above, until all non-religious unions are called "civil unions" and all religious unions are called "marriage" your argument is setting up a separate, but equal argument. Segregation used to justify oppression is unnaceptable.

Sometimes people in power need to think about what is just for EVERYONE, not just "the majority. I have yet to see any argument that shows something harmful that could come from non-heterosexuals getting married.

Also, based on your comment that you think studies should be done to prove that homosexual parents would not be harmful to their children. Why must we prove that we are not dangerous? What basis do you have for this assumption? Jus tbecause people have tacked pedophilia on to their stereotypical view of homosexuals (especially men) doesn't mean they are correct in this assumption.

Check out these statistics on child molestation... see what you find:

http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Resources/ResearchStudies/molestation.html
http://www.socal-glide.org/statistics.html#7
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11002

Overwhlemingly, it HAS been documented that gay men are less likely to molest children than heterosexual ones.

Another thought on adoption by gay parents... if ANYONE chooses to adopt a child, they are clearly dedicated to raising one. If the couple is financially secure, has no criminal history that would appear to endanger the child, then why exactly are you denying them the ability to adopt the child? Prove to me that homosexual parents leads to "bad kids."


I support states deciding what to do with gay marriage. But an ideal situation would have the government not recognizing marriage anymore and instead civil unions, where then a religious institution could declare a social vow of

That would solve everyone's problems, I think, as I feel this is mostly a local social problem instead of a governmental, federal problem.

That would be fine with me, as long as the "social vow of MARRAIGE" didn't impart any legal benefits. I don't however think that states should "decide what to do with gay marriage." It shouldn't be an issue as marriage exists now. If they separate legal benefits from the "glory" of marriage, go ahead. If they simply create a separate category of "marriage" for gay people or deny them marriage altogether, it is unjust and should not be tolerated.

It's all evil! It's all wrong!

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

SOrry, but homosexuality is wrong(ALL of it), and people are just going to have to accept that.

You did respond to the first sentence of my argument. That is picking and choosing. Perhaps you agreed with others in the argument so you skipped over because you wanted to argue.

I prefer the term "dissect" myself....My former employment in a slaughter house might have something to do with it...

Now you try to "diminish credibility" and you fail at it..

Did I now? Well, first off, I did not stoop to insults, and second, I saw WHAT I THOUGHT was the most important aspect of your post and adressed that!

I wanted you to respond to what I put in my argument and not just one statement which was not the argument but a part of a whole.

Wanted me? Quarka. Well we just can't get everything we want now, can we...

You are backing up and trying to further this little tangent of yours. Go ahead, but you aren't getting much more out of me for your trivial arguments.

Backing up? Trivial arguaments? Well at least I'm debated from logic, and not a lot of outdated religious dogma like another one of your posts. At worst, I presented my own views and opinion on the matter very concisely.

And quite frankly, I none of my damned affair, or anyone elses as to what "pat and mike" to behind closed doors. If it's between to concenting adults, I can say nothing against it. The essance of your post as I saw it was basically you stating that it was not "natural". Well look, alot of things on this Earth are not "natural". I gave one good clear example of that.

And I saw again! They are not asking for **priviliges**, but equality! There is a big difference here!

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

SOrry, but homosexuality is wrong(ALL of it), and people are just going to have to accept that.

Who the hell died and made you GOD? And just what makes it wrong? Because you say so doesn't cut it, you have to back up your claim.

I find it interesting that nobody educated has pointed out yet the simple, obvious reasons.

It's just as simple of an issue as drug use: a health one. Besides their rampant spread of disease (as evidence by the catastrophic impact of the AIDS virus upon the homosexual community at large) which far surpasses the disease spread caused by heroine users, here's the latest figures on the life expectencies of several groups of Americans:

Men, heterosexual married: 75 years, 80% age 65 or older
Men, heterosexual, unmarried: 57 years, 32% age 65 or older
Men, homosexual: 41 years, less than 1% age 65 or older

Women, heterosexual, married: 79 years, 85% age 65 or older
Women, heterosexual, unmarried: 71 years, 60% age 65 or older
Women, homosexual: 47 years, 7% age 65 or older

I would urge the informed reader to compare this to data concerning drug users. You'll find the numbers remarkably similar. Furthermore, it's noteworthy that the suicide rate among homosexuals is over three times higher than among heterosexuals. In recent studies, over 30% of homosexuals surveyed say they experienced sexual abuse at a young age (as opposed to under 10% for heterosexuals). There's convincing evidence that homosexuality is entirely unnatural and a product of low self-esteem, sexual abuse, and/or gender confusion. On the other hand, there's been no conclusive evidence at all that homosexuality is "natural"; studies of the adopted-out children of homosexuals have found that they display no unusual predisposition toward homosexuality (obviously, there's a bias when you talk about the ones raised with their homosexual parents). The idea of homosexuality being genetic has no basis in anything but idle speculation.

To encourage publically supported and acknowledged mental disorders is absurd. This is equivalent to saying suicide is okay, self-mutilation is okay, drug abuse is okay, and so on. They're not; that's bad social conditioning. Of course people will still choose that lifestyle. Does that mean society is obligated to support them? No. Society is obligated by its natural role to discourage unhealthy behavior. This isn't prejudice, fear, etc. It's one of the very basic functions of any rational society: self-preservation.

It's no coincidence that as homosexuality has gotten more and more socially accepted, more and more people claim to be "born" homosexual. The proportion of supposed homosexuals/bisexuals within America has been steadily increasing throughout the past several years. Is this because this gene has suddenly become mutated more? Is it because homosexuals have more children than heterosexual couples? No, it is because homosexuality is a behavioral and emotional disorder caused by bad social conditioning, not a "natural" tendency.

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

SOrry, but homosexuality is wrong(ALL of it), and people are just going to have to accept that.

I just love people who don't seem to be able to explain why it's wrong.

Just give it some time. All of these bigots will gradually disappear, just like they did in the face of the civil rights movement. For a while there, lots of people thought interracial marriages were wrong. Now those poeple all live in a few certain states in a certain region of the country...
I agree--the way these people act is prolly the same as the way whites acted at the start of equality for blacks. Rightwingers have a long history of opposing equality for all under the law

So by just skipping over telling me why you think my points were all wrong, you just say "I think they're wrong!" and feel you can get away with that? If you're going to debate, do so. If you're going to just say "YOU ARE WRONNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG" and then pick apart one thing I said, what is the point of even debating?

By the way, how can you assume bigotry has anything to do with disagreeing with homosexual marriage? What if someone felt uncomfortable redefining a term that means so much to them, perhaps their married children, their family life? Have you even thought about that? It seems that you are just spewing the "ALL WHO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE ARE BIGOTS" argument that I hear, believe me, all the time. And it never works because it is a wide assumption about people and their belief systems that you might not, or obviously in this case don't, understand. As I said, walk in their shoes... think about why they might be against it. Think.

As far as homosexuality being a form of nature's birth control, I'm glad you brought that up. I believe it might be as well, even though the population pecentage of gays isn't enough to make too much of a dent in the national birth rates. You see, I believe that nature works itself out socially, too.

This is why people who can't adapt to society fail. Insecure, introverted people, or way-too-outgoing, dangerous people, all fail because they just can't compete. Social homosexuality may be a part of this. I can't say so I don't, but I speculate it could be. Anything's possible.

How is getting rid of gay marriage going to stop this natural birth control if it is even real? Gays can still live together, have sex, etc.

And though it OCCURS in nature, so does special cannibalism, doesn't it? Would you say that's a natural thing? For a human to eat another human?

I'm not talking about that. I know about homosexuality in animals and such. I'm talking about, do you think(and graphic terms follow) that the penis was supposed to fit into the rectum? Do you think that the rectal lining, which is very delicate, was supposed to withstand the force of a penis?

They aren't. There's a reason a penis fits into a vagina. There's a reason, and that's because it is THE natural way. Other ways may occur, but the way that mankind made it this far was by reproducing, and you don't reproduce with other men/women.
for starters all sex isnt for reproduction only and secondly do you honestly think heterosexuals dont have anal sex too? heterosexuals do the exact same sex act as gays the only difference is the gender but you only condemn these sex acts only when its done in a gay context

Nobody is "scared" of homosexuality. But it is truly not a normal thing. Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.

red hair isn't normal and though red heads used to be persecuted (witch trials anyone) it isn't abnormal or horriffic to have red hair. being left handed isn't normal, should they be forced to write with their right hand?
oral sex doesn't produce children, kissing doesn't produce children, masturbation doesn't produce children, post menopausal women don't produce children, hell, the clitoris is useless for anything but pleasure. yet, it's normal and natural to masturbate, to kiss, to engage in oral stimulation, for women who can't have children to have a sexual drive.

? "Inner homosexual". How typical of a gay advocate to say. "You just don't like it because you are really one yourself!". This is like telling someone who owns a Toyota that they own one because they are really covering up their pathological inner obsession to get a Honda.... come on, common sense is lacking there.

not on the spectrum theory of sexuality. basically, imagine a chromatic scale. at one end, you have white and the other, dark blue. say white represents a person who is 100% heterosexual, no thoughts of the same gender whatsoever and at the other end, there is someone who is 100% homosexual. now in between, you have all these different shades of blue. the ones who are slightly light blue are those who are mostly straight, but have some homosexual tendencies, fantasies and whathave you. those are the people who might be afraid of their own tendencies (society isn't very accepting of beign gay, as you are demonstrating) and so rather than embrace them, they repress them and lash out against those who are so open about it. depending on environment, it's possible that even some of the mid-to dark blue people could act like this. maybe even someone at the completely homosexual end of the spectrum if given enough negative reinforcement.

Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman! To change that definition, many forget, might just be a very drastic spin on a word that isn't just a word but a true meaning to a lot of people.

it was a drastic thing for blacks and whites to get married.
it was a drastic thing for women to have equal status in a marriage.
it was a drastic thing to allow divorce.

and the thing is that for millenia, same sex marriage was accepted. it's only fairly recently that homosexuality has become a big issue with the church and thus, with the rest of society.

Some people tell me "you'd have to have kids to understand" and I can certainly see where they come from.

But the propagandizing gays who claim that those who dislike homosexual practices are "homophobic" or "in the closet, ignoring their 'inner gay'" are just trying to rationalize to themselves the sad reality that homosexuality is not something that people want to glorify. Marriage is a glorifying union.

but love is something to glorify. two men can love each other just as much as a man and a woman can. love is something that is truly precious and worth holding onto. we should be teaching our children that rather than to hate people for who they love.

States have the right to deal with gay marriage as they wish. Bush is doing something he feels is right, and to a vast majority of Americans it is, yet the Senate as usual is not representing America so it of course has little chance to get off the ground.

i read a poll that most americans oppose the banning of gay marriages. most americans don't want gay marriage, but most don't openly oppose it to the point of making it illegal everywhere.

Furthermore, it's noteworthy that the suicide rate among homosexuals is over three times higher than among heterosexuals.

There's convincing evidence that homosexuality is entirely unnatural and a product of low self-esteem, sexual abuse, and/or gender confusion.

On the other hand, there's been no conclusive evidence at all that homosexuality is "natural"; studies of the adopted-out children of homosexuals have found that they display no unusual predisposition toward homosexuality (obviously, there's a bias when you talk about the ones raised with their homosexual parents). The idea of homosexuality being genetic has no basis in anything but idle speculation.

To encourage publically supported and acknowledged mental disorders is absurd.

Geez, wonder why? It can't be that alot make them feel unwanted in the community...

oki, where is those evidence?

Maybe you should read up on this a bit. How stuff really works before you just say how you think it works as it was how it actually works.

Yes, I agree, but what evidence do you actually have to sugest that it would be a mental disorder?

Maybe they are just accustomed to a current social order, or want to preserve a meaning?

Why must you all try to make it involve "HATRED OF THE GAYS" when that's not it at all? I have no problem with gay people but what they do.
so you think you have the right to tell other people what kind of sex they can have? LOL

That's not quite what I feel. I agree that the majority does, but only because it's basically how it is. Most sexually active gays will have anal sex. It's just the truth.

even the lesbians? wow, that's a shocker.

But that's not what I'm really arguing against, I'm still a virgin myself so I can't really speak about heterosexual or homosexual anal sex. All I know is that everything I've ever read says that while it may be pleasurable, it is very risky, bacterially and physically.

actually, people are more likely to use lube and take care when engaging in anal sex than vaginal sex, going more slowly to prevent tears. also, use of a condom pretty much eliminates any risks of bacterial issues. anal sex can be done safely and comfortably. not that you would know, as you're basing your comments on a total lack of experience.

First of all, I'd like to thank Quarka for sticking around, since it's important and most interesting to have people discussing different viewpoints.

Secondly, is it true that when people think of homosexuality, many of them think of sex? I just heard that idea recently, and was surprised by it. When I think of a homosexual couple, I just think of a relationship. If people think of sex when they think of homosexuality, that may be why they are scared of it. ...there are a lot of people I wouldn't want to imagine having ...relations...

Also, I believe "homosexual" is a term for "sexual orientation," not "sexual behavior." This means someone who is attracted to people of the same gender. It doesn't mean they are having sex.

Okay, here, let's hold up a second.

There's people claiming being queer is an unnatural choice of lifestyle, and then they quote the *suicide rates of queer kids to *back this up?**

Let's hold up a second, here.

You're saying we should continue harrassing, discriminating against, slandering, and arrogantly speaking for their God to condemn them to Hell...
Telling their parents that they have to try to coerce them to change,
Deny them the chance to ever marry someone they could really love,

And you're saying that *they're killing themselves because there's something inherently suicidal about homosexuality...*

You're saying, that *kids* are choosing *death* rather than simply 'not being gay?'


Umm. That's not only a failure of logic,

It's a *massive* failure of compassion and common *decency.*

Because of generational biases and paranoia, as well as misconceptions that have prevailed over the centuries; because of the stigma attached to it because of misinformation.

Lesbianism is disgusting and wrong no matter if you watch or not. It's an evil abomination and as bad as all forms of non-heterosexual sex. I hate how so many guys condemn the gays, but not the lesbians!

It's all evil! It's all wrong!
Girl-on-girl: Its fun, its naked and I agree with them both.

Lesbianism pwns.

It's just as simple of an issue as drug use: a health one. Besides their rampant spread of disease (as evidence by the catastrophic impact of the AIDS virus upon the homosexual community at large) which far surpasses the disease spread caused by heroine users, here's the latest figures on the life expectencies of several groups of Americans...
Furthermore, it's noteworthy that the suicide rate among homosexuals is over three times higher than among heterosexuals. In recent studies, over 30% of homosexuals surveyed say they experienced sexual abuse at a young age (as opposed to under 10% for heterosexuals)....The idea of homosexuality being genetic has no basis in anything but idle speculation.
...It's no coincidence that as homosexuality has gotten more and more socially accepted, more and more people claim to be "born" homosexual. The proportion of supposed homosexuals/bisexuals within America has been steadily increasing throughout the past several years. Is this because this gene has suddenly become mutated more? Is it because homosexuals have more children than heterosexual couples? No, it is because homosexuality is a behavioral and emotional disorder caused by bad social conditioning, not a "natural" tendency.

First, people wore condoms to prevent pregnancy. This is before the discovery of AIDS. Homosexuals didn't have to worry about pregnancy, so they didn't have to worry about condoms. So, before the widespread scare for AIDS came out, many gay men were already infected. And it turns out that more homosexuals started wearing condoms for the sake of AIDS prevention than heterosexual couples. Currently, the highest rate of new AIDS cases are with young, straight women.

Note about falacious arguments: Comparing two unrelated subjects for the sake of shock value is a bias and is not condusive to a formal argument. In other words, heroine addiction is not relavent.

Next, discovering ones homosexuality is a stressful time considering the social climate. Families and friends often disown or ostracize people who 'come out.' I doubt straight people could handle that any better.

"studies of the adopted-out children of homosexuals have found that they display no unusual predisposition toward homosexuality (obviously, there's a bias when you talk about the ones raised with their homosexual parents)." I'm afraid you do not have more authority in the subject than the ones who conducted this study. If you wish to refute it, then you must find a study that says otherwise. As it is, it refutes a great deal of your claims.

I'm not talking about that. I know about homosexuality in animals and such. I'm talking about, do you think(and graphic terms follow) that the penis was supposed to fit into the rectum? Do you think that the rectal lining, which is very delicate, was supposed to withstand the force of a penis?

They aren't. There's a reason a penis fits into a vagina. There's a reason, and that's because it is THE natural way. Other ways may occur, but the way that mankind made it this far was by reproducing, and you don't reproduce with other men/women.
Look, if the only thing that you were allowed to do in the bedroom were things that were biologically natural for procreation, then me, the technical virgins and Bill Clinton would all be getting rather bored.

Hey, I am not saying it's a staple of it. But can you imagine a gay doing anything else considered "sex"? Oral, perhaps? Real sex involves penetration of some sort, and anal fits in.

Heterosexual anal sex is risky too, it's the same basic rectum, and the same thing where a penis goes where it maybe should not.

It's been proven to be risky, and there have been studies on that. One of the possible effects is something called anal lesions. Nasty.Thats not the point though, you don't have to engage in sex to be gay, in the same way that you can be straight while you're still a virgin.

Maybe they are just accustomed to a current social order, or want to preserve a meaning?

Why must you all try to make it involve "HATRED OF THE GAYS" when that's not it at all? I have no problem with gay people but what they do.
I have no problem with conservatives, it's just what they do and say that I take issue with.

That's not quite what I feel. I agree that the majority does, but only because it's basically how it is. Most sexually active gays will have anal sex. It's just the truth.

But that's not what I'm really arguing against, I'm still a virgin myself so I can't really speak about heterosexual or homosexual anal sex. All I know is that everything I've ever read says that while it may be pleasurable, it is very risky, bacterially and physically.
Condoms.. lube... there are basic precautions which reduce the risk to be comparable to the "dangers" of vaginal sex.

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

SOrry, but homosexuality is wrong(ALL of it), and people are just going to have to accept that.Right. Except that we don't. That might just prove to be a problem

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

I actually never understood that. I don't find it to be hot at all.

I actually never understood that. I don't find it to be hot at all.
Just check for me that you have a penis please :D

I might also note that something not being *genetic* doesn't mean it's not biologically-based, ...or that it's 'unnatural.'

The last thing these paternalistic control freaks listen to is the actual experience of actual gay people.

Which actually shows, in the vast majority, that it's *innate,* and immutable. Something inside.

No amount of insistence can change the reality of that.

But certain people don't really want to change it, they just want to *repress* it.

Is a virgin straight or gay?

But certain people don't really want to change it, they just want to *repress* it.
PRAY OUT THE GAY!!

Spoffin, maybe you should 'pray out the voyeur' first.

Yes, it is. I agree fully. But, being a guy, girl on girl is still hot. Even though it's wrong and I know it's wrong, it's still nice.

SOrry, but homosexuality is wrong(ALL of it), and people are just going to have to accept that.
we dont have to accept anything that you cant backup :)

Spoffin, maybe you should 'pray out the voyeur' first.
Lol.

Is a virgin straight or gay?
it depends how your using the word gay but usually theyre just virgins

I actually never understood that. I don't find it to be hot at all.
i think its the plethora of female body parts just waiting for a man to come along and finish the job

too bad the man wouldnt really be welcome.

I think it's partially because our society right now is still in a place where it's a difference that scares people, simply because most people don't see it as much.
Like back in the day when skin color mattered- the neighborhoods, the places, they were all seperate. The white people didn't know many, if any, people in the black community, only the biased reports on them.
Truth be told, now we know that skin color doesn't matter at all.

Also, I think homosexuality also scares people because it brings out their sexual insecurites.. I'm a firm believer that everyone is at least a tad bit homo, and since this clearly isn't accepted many places, people get scared when they hear about two guys making out.

Honestly, I feel like homophobia is this generation's human rights violation. I really hope that soon the anti-gay-marriage laws get thrown into the history books along side women's voting rights and racial rights...

Ecce hetero.

oh, and everyone should go to this site, regardless of your stance on the matter.

www.idoin30seconds.org

People are afraid of change, especially things that people cant imagine doing.

Personally, I think people tend to imagine *too much* about "what goes on in your bedroom."

Did I open up my bedroom for discussion in the first place?

People seem to think it's their business.

Unnatural sex is considered as sex that does not have a use besides for having kids. In the bible sex was to be between a man and a woman for one purpose to propagate the species. Thats why when people were highly religious they did things like in the fifties or whenever it was when they would have beds that were seperate but pushed together. Certain things were considered "unnatural" and "untalked about". They deffinetly never showed these things on t.v. Even during the eighties when they had that spin off tv version of animal house and they couldnt even show a guy and a girl sitting on the same bed together. Thats why that show sucked it was NOTHING like the movie.

Yeah, I consider the notion of having sex that's only good for having kids pretty unnatural, too.

They used to tell people to try not enjoy it...

Talk about unnatural. :)

(okay, I know it wasn't what he meant, but it's just random words at this point, isn't it?)

my words are random??

But honestly, what difference does it make to any one of you?
The world is overpopulated as it is, and people use contraceptives constantly!
So is using a condom or taking birth control also "unnatural"?
Sex in this case has no function but pleasure.

And honestly, it won't make a difference in any one of yall's lives except the people its affecting: the gay people who want to get married. And they are probably already having sex, so it doesn't matter there, even.

The issue is that legal marriage gives spouses legal rights. Inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. It's unjust and unnatural to NOT give these people the right.

Honestly, it's a sad day in the world when a country divides over love and marriage. Almost like love and marriage wasn't a family value. Oy.

I think it's amusing that, in every one of these threads, the heterosexists (I like that word, might use it more often) fail to actually put forward actual arguments against homosexuality.

Sure, they might say it's icky, but since when was that a reason to be against something. We don't ban people who eat anchovis from marrying right?

They might say it's un-natural. Even if it was, I don't see them living in a cave.

They say it's against tradition. But that is meaningless without saying why it's wrong.

It's a health-rish they say. No, certain forms of sexual activity might be, but that's not the issue here.

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.

That is the best response I have ever heard.

I think it's amusing that, in every one of these threads, the heterosexists (I like that word, might use it more often) fail to actually put forward actual arguments against homosexuality.

Sure, they might say it's icky, but since when was that a reason to be against something. We don't ban people who eat anchovis from marrying right?

They might say it's un-natural. Even if it was, I don't see them living in a cave.

They say it's against tradition. But that is meaningless without saying why it's wrong.

It's a health-rish they say. No, certain forms of sexual activity might be, but that's not the issue here.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is why this issue became such a religious hooplah. With God on our side we are without question and don't have to be logical.

That is the best response I have ever heard.


Really? I thought it was such ungrammatical gibberish that it earned Enod a big ol' *click*. :D

Wow, I'm really pleased to see so many responses. As you may have noticed I started this thread....

But I would like to put something in. I understand that nothing I say will change any minds, but I have to say this. You really can't understand what it's like to loathe who you are because of what society thinks. Gays can't just change, I tried. It's just how someone is, and the pain of knowing that people will hate you and treat you as subhumans is almost to much to take, so instead of treating them/us as a subject or an idea, try to think of them as people.

But honestly, what difference does it make to any one of you?
The world is overpopulated as it is, and people use contraceptives constantly!
So is using a condom or taking birth control also "unnatural"?
Sex in this case has no function but pleasure.

And honestly, it won't make a difference in any one of yall's lives except the people its affecting: the gay people who want to get married. And they are probably already having sex, so it doesn't matter there, even.

The issue is that legal marriage gives spouses legal rights. Inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. It's unjust and unnatural to NOT give these people the right.

Honestly, it's a sad day in the world when a country divides over love and marriage. Almost like love and marriage wasn't a family value. Oy.


No, there are old religious writings and guidelines that point out men must please their wives because women need sex and will go insane without sex on a regular basis. And most women are usually somewhere just on the border of insanity as it is. The amount of times you're supposed to do it varies directly with your occupation, if your job means you travel a lot, it's a lot less. I think farmers were urged to have sex with their wife at least once a day.

No, there are old religious writings and guidelines that point out men must please their wives because women need sex and will go insane without sex on a regular basis. And most women are usually somewhere just on the border of insanity as it is. The amount of times you're supposed to do it varies directly with your occupation, if your job means you travel a lot, it's a lot less. I think farmers were urged to have sex with their wife at least once a day.
I thought farmers did it with farm animals

And that, ladies and gentlemen is why this issue became such a religious hooplah. With God on our side we are without question and don't have to be logical.
But God isnt on your side

I thought farmers did it with farm animals

Leviticus 20:15-16

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



We need to start obeying God's laws lest we incur God's wrath.

Leviticus 20:15-16

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



We need to start obeying God's laws lest we incur God's wrath.
cleary the bible was written by primitives

But God isnt on your side

Why should one regard the opinion of another's imaginary friend?

*shrugs*

Leviticus 20:15-16

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



We need to start obeying God's laws lest we incur God's wrath.


I have yet to see him send his wrath down apun anywhere that's allowed homosexuality :rolleyes:

I have yet to see him send his wrath down apun anywhere that's allowed homosexuality :rolleyes:

Look at the Netherlands! They're being swamped by immigrants, nobody likes immigrants, also they're full of whores (and it's legalized) also they have drugs. Amsterdam is the modern day Sodom!

Maybe New York City is Gomorrah!


If you ask me, 9/11 occurred because America tolerates sinners and God is punishing us for our sin.

cleary the bible was written by primitives

You`re only saying that because you know he`s right

Look at the Netherlands! They're being swamped by immigrants, nobody likes immigrants, also they're full of whores (and it's legalized) also they have drugs. Amsterdam is the modern day Sodom!

Maybe New York City is Gomorrah!


If you ask me, 9/11 occurred because America tolerates sinners and God is punishing us for our sin.

Please, you can't be serious :p

What ABOUT the Netherlands? I know someone who lived there for a few years, his only complaint was their healthcare system. Other then that, he had no problems whatsoever xD

People are afraid of change, especially things that people cant imagine doing.
Whats so difficult to imagine there? Cant imagine having sex with someone of your gender? Dont know what it feels like if you have sex with "yourself"? Its really very easy to imagine it and even easier to enjoy it because it feels right. Most people just are afraid and too brainwashed to accept that due to social pressure. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be afraid of gays and there is no reason whatsoever to restrict our lives by denying us equality. I hope that one day, mankind will overcome this obsession with heterosexuality being the only "good" sexuality, because that is wrong.

Is a virgin straight or gay?
Depends on who they're attracted to.

Look at the Netherlands! They're being swamped by immigrants, nobody likes immigrants, also they're full of whores (and it's legalized) also they have drugs. Amsterdam is the modern day Sodom!

Maybe New York City is Gomorrah!


If you ask me, 9/11 occurred because America tolerates sinners and God is punishing us for our sin.
Hmm I am wondering.. is that a joke or meant seriously? If its seriously, you definitely need to get psychological aid. If its a joke, then its not really funny. Besides... if your "god" wanted to punish America, I am sure he'd have some more powerful ways of punishment - not just a few planes killing a few thousand. "God" is infinitely more powerful than that.

Look at the Netherlands! They're being swamped by immigrants, nobody likes immigrants, also they're full of whores (and it's legalized) also they have drugs. Amsterdam is the modern day Sodom!

Well not really as Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable and full of rapists wheras Amsterdam has no rapists because they can get whores easil;y and is very hospitible. :rolleyes: It is apparently full of mad people though, one of my sisters friends saw a man wearing christmas lights with a traffic cone tied around his face "pecking" people on the streets there. :D

If you ask me, 9/11 occurred because America tolerates sinners and God is punishing us for our sin.

OBL is God?

OBL is God?


Or Jesus MKII.

Or Jesus MKII.
I prefer Jesus 2.0

I prefer Jesus 2.0

Will Mel Gibson make a film about it? Jesus II: Second Coming? No that sounds like some sorta biblical porn film...

Jesus does Nazareth?

*thinks he's gonna burn in hell for that one*

Jesus does Nazareth?

*thinks he's gonna burn in hell for that one*

Oh your Satan's bum chum now fuglies...

If you ask me, 9/11 occurred because America tolerates sinners and God is punishing us for our sin.

Wow... I hope you're being sarcastic. It's hard to tell tone through cold text. So I apologise if you were actually being sarcastic.

But... damn. Doesn't that sound just like the kind of fanatical crap that Islamic fundamentalist zealots spout about 9/11? Very disturbing.

Edit: Edited for word omission!

As I read this....I kept coming across the same phrase....written many different ways. How can you sit there and disagree with homosexuality, you must be afraid of it. Finally, all these bigots will go away and homosexuality will be seen as good.
I'd like to say that is completely rediculous. To disagree with something is not to be scared of it. And guess what, just because someone you know is gay, doesn't mean you suddenly say "SHIT, I better jump on the bandwagon."
In my opinion, any argument that centers around.... "It's gonna happen whether you agree with it or not, so you might as well agree with it" is a bad arguement and shows just how weak your case is. And that's all I've seen here. And the idea that if it's been around for hundreds of years....well then it must be ok. There are things that far surpass homosexuality in the grand scale of human behavior. Murder, robbery, hatred.
Personally, I am against homosexuals being allowed to marry (it failed here in Missouri btw). I don't bible thump in my arguments...in fact I don't use the bible in my case at all. First off, let me ask you supporters of it, what good can come from it? Since I've not heard a single good argument to legalize it, I must assume no one in here has thought of one....in fact no one anywhere has really come up with much better than "We're here and we're queer, deal with it" or "We're gonna do it anyway, just legalize it."
Before I even start I'd like to say, I have homosexual friends. My position has remained unchanged. It does not mean I am homophobic, for I certainly am not afraid of it, nor am I in some secret way homosexual for disagreeing with it. As one person said earlier, I don't own a Honda because I want a Ford.
Next, there are lots of things that will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, pedophilia, all kinds of drug use, prostitution, murder, robbery. The list goes on. Notice, that homosexuality is no longer illegal in most states. Most straight people don't really give a damn about what you do behind closed doors. We see no logical purpose to locking you up for it. But on the same hand, just because we're not going to step forward and smack your hand for what a LOT of us find appaling, we're not just going to sit there and be told we HAVE to accept it. Every state I've heard of so far that's put it up to a vote (besides California), the vote has been against gay marriage. It's never been 51 to 49%, it's always like 89 to 11 or 78 to 22. The people who support it are in the vast minority.
Let's ask ourselves why. One, the gay community is so desperate for support that it does gay pride parades every year in almost every major city. There are gay pride shirts, and clothing of all kinds. The GLAC (or is it GALC, i forget) is always talking about the right to free expression and such. Yet, there have been numerous cases of gay rights groups, especially the GLAC have stepped up against the free speech of others. Several straight pride parades have been shut down, because they were offensive to homosexuals. I'veread of dozens of cases where straight students were expelled or suspended for wearing straight pride tee-shirts or openly anouncing their heterosexuality. This is not a single incident. It's a trend. I love to hear homosexual people talk about how they have the right to express themselves and their sexuality. Why then, are these same people, who are so adamant about their rights, equally as adamant about denying those rights to others. Is the gay community afraid of people hearing a second side?
Now, to why I personally am against gay marriage. Marriage is an institution dedicated to procreation. There are other purposes, but procreation is the main one. Homosexual marriages cannot produce children, therefore, the primary reason for the marriage is negated. I would say sex should be saved til marriage, yet I'm sure I'd get shot down as a religious fanatic or a prude zealot or some such nonsense. The truth is, rampant sexual behavior should not be idolised for either straight or gay peoples. Multiple sexual pairing spreads disease, among other things. It is destructive to the individual, and therefore distructive to society. And there is a much higher instance of this in the homosexual communities than the heterosexual communities. While I don't think that it's my duty to walk up and tell someone "No, no, this is bad for you", I'm actually offended that people are demanding that I commend this type of behavior. What was one comment? Oh yes, "How do you know this wasn't God's way of birth control?" What the f*** kind of stupid argument is that? If you want to not have a kid, do't have sex! If you're bound and determined you're going to have sex anyway....use a condom or get sterilized. The only reason I bring God up here is because of the quote. If it was meant to be God's method of birth control......there wouldn't be as much damage done to the anus (gay men only of course) from pentration. The tearing leads to easier spread of any diseases that either man has. So, something's obviously wrong with it, God or no God. The body is telling you, this isn't good for you. IF you're using it for sexual pleasure without pregnancy, there's other things you can do: i.e. masturbation, oral sex, or if you're just determined you've gotta have butt sex, have it with a woman. It's just as child free, and probably just as tight if not tighter.
I've gotta say, from what I read here, I have heard better arguments for making sex with minors legal than homosexuality.
And the final reason is financial. I don't want to have my tax dollars going to support homosexual marriage for dead soldiers homosexual lovers. Or tax relief for gay men or lesbian women who have recently gotten "married".
So though I have yet to hear a valid arument on why it should be legalized...other than a "If you don't agree you're a bigot" or "You just want it banned cause you're afraid of it" or "It's gonna happen anyway, so get over it", I have provided several valid reasons on why I'm against it. Nothing to do with God or religion. Almost no morality lecture. Real world answers. Real world concerns. I didn't even get into why I don't believe gays should be allowed to marry, tho it has nothing to do with the word icky. So someone prove me wrong. But with all the pushing and all the whining, gay marriage is still not legal. A homosexual couple gets married in California and it's not lergal anywhere but there and Vermont. So before you start talking about how the majority of the country is behind your side, or how they're so massively afraid of your opinions, remember that it is being voted down in massive numbers across the country and, tho the first image that comes to mind of an anti gay voter is gomer with four teeth who has sex with his sister, people of all religions, all creeds, all colors, and both sexes think it's wrong. It's not isolated to a region. It's much more widespread than the homosexuality itself. And a lot of heterosexual people are well informed and have good reasons for not wanting these bills to pass. The gay marriage case is horribly weak and really consists only of playing upon people's fear of being called a homophobe to get them to vote.

Why are people so scared of homosexuality?

Because according to the people in question, different = wrong.

This is amplified if they have homosexual tendencies themselves.

Egh, Quandal... that was a very lengthy post. I managed to read through it all, but some paragraphing would have made it easier.

Okay.. where to start...

First off, you say you have homosexual friends. Are they close friends, or they are simply acquaintances that you don't dislike? Is it like having a German friend, but you "don't talk about the war!" ?

The fact that the majority of people voted for the ban simply shows that a majority of people are allowed to decide on an issue of minority rights, where they should not be allowed dictate. Just because the the tyrant has majority support doesn't mean the minority he is oppressing should be allowed to suffer.

You've not heard a single good arguement to legalise it? Do you switch off your sense of hearing (or, sight, in the case of this forum) when something comes up you don't want to hear/see?
You ask what good can come of allowing homosexuals to marry? Well... firstly there is the good of the United States (which is the nation we're talking about here) actually practicing what it preaches and forces onto others (freedom, 'democracy'). How about the good of allowing a loving, committed relationship be recognised under the law where another loving, committed relationship already is?

You bring up the 'burden on the taxpayer'. Homosexuals are taxpayers too, you know. Why should your, as a heterosexual's tax dollars go to supporting homosexual marriages? Well... why should a homosexuals tax dollars go towards supporting a heterosexual marriage? Why should a homosexual's tax dollars go to supporting a dead soldier's heterosexual lover if they don't also go to supporting a different dead soldier's homosexual lover?

Frankly, your tax dollars already go to supporting many 'bad' things. A heterosexual doesn't pick and choose what things his or her tax dollars support, nor does a homosexual.

Also, the 'riskiness' of the actual sexual act between homosexual mean is a moot point. Heterosexuals also do just as many 'risky' sexual things as homosexuals do.

Egh... can somebody get the rest of this person's post for me? I've provided counter-arguements to these points so many times already, it's annoying having to repeat myself. Libertines? Kinsella?

As I read this....I kept coming across the same phrase....written many different ways. How can you sit there and disagree with homosexuality, you must be afraid of it. Finally, all these bigots will go away and homosexuality will be seen as good.
I'd like to say that is completely rediculous.
You're right, there's still racists.

To disagree with something is not to be scared of it. And guess what, just because someone you know is gay, doesn't mean you suddenly say "SHIT, I better jump on the bandwagon."
In my opinion, any argument that centers around.... "It's gonna happen whether you agree with it or not, so you might as well agree with it" is a bad arguement and shows just how weak your case is. And that's all I've seen here. And the idea that if it's been around for hundreds of years....well then it must be ok. There are things that far surpass homosexuality in the grand scale of human behavior. Murder, robbery, hatred.
Nice examples, but they don't hurt anyone. An it harm none, do as ye will. Furthermore, that same argument is used against homosexual marrige. "It's traditional for blah de blah blah talking out of my asshole."

Personally, I am against homosexuals being allowed to marry (it failed here in Missouri btw). I don't bible thump in my arguments...in fact I don't use the bible in my case at all. First off, let me ask you supporters of it, what good can come from it? Since I've not heard a single good argument to legalize it, I must assume no one in here has thought of one....in fact no one anywhere has really come up with much better than "We're here and we're queer, deal with it" or "We're gonna do it anyway, just legalize it."
Freedom for all. Equal rights. The ability to profess your love to the person you love, no matter what their gender is. So two consenting adults can further their relationship to the final step. Because seperate is never equal. Because they bleed red blood just like you do. Because of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Before I even start I'd like to say, I have homosexual friends. My position has remained unchanged. It does not mean I am homophobic, for I certainly am not afraid of it, nor am I in some secret way homosexual for disagreeing with it. As one person said earlier, I don't own a Honda because I want a Ford.
So you have gay friends. What's their opinion on this? I have christian friends, and I'm no friend to their religion.

Next, there are lots of things that will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, pedophilia, all kinds of drug use, prostitution, murder, robbery. The list goes on. Notice, that homosexuality is no longer illegal in most states. Most straight people don't really give a damn about what you do behind closed doors. We see no logical purpose to locking you up for it. But on the same hand, just because we're not going to step forward and smack your hand for what a LOT of us find appaling, we're not just going to sit there and be told we HAVE to accept it. Every state I've heard of so far that's put it up to a vote (besides California), the vote has been against gay marriage. It's never been 51 to 49%, it's always like 89 to 11 or 78 to 22. The people who support it are in the vast minority.
The majority should never be able to dictate the minority of their rights. That is tyranny. Furthermore, those exact same arguments were used against black people. They are not second rate citizens, they should not be treated as such.

Let's ask ourselves why. One, the gay community is so desperate for support that it does gay pride parades every year in almost every major city. There are gay pride shirts, and clothing of all kinds. The GLAC (or is it GALC, i forget) is always talking about the right to free expression and such. Yet, there have been numerous cases of gay rights groups, especially the GLAC have stepped up against the free speech of others. Several straight pride parades have been shut down, because they were offensive to homosexuals. I'veread of dozens of cases where straight students were expelled or suspended for wearing straight pride tee-shirts or openly anouncing their heterosexuality. This is not a single incident. It's a trend. I love to hear homosexual people talk about how they have the right to express themselves and their sexuality. Why then, are these same people, who are so adamant about their rights, equally as adamant about denying those rights to others. Is the gay community afraid of people hearing a second side?
I've never heard of this happening-NOT ONCE. Cite your sources, link me up, prove it to me.

Now, to why I personally am against gay marriage. Marriage is an institution dedicated to procreation. There are other purposes, but procreation is the main one. Homosexual marriages cannot produce children, therefore, the primary reason for the marriage is negated.
So do we ban marrige to: couples who do not wish to have children, women and men who cannot biologically have children, women and men who have been fixed, or old couples?

I would say sex should be saved til marriage, yet I'm sure I'd get shot down as a religious fanatic or a prude zealot or some such nonsense. The truth is, rampant sexual behavior should not be idolised for either straight or gay peoples. Multiple sexual pairing spreads disease, among other things. It is destructive to the individual, and therefore distructive to society. And there is a much higher instance of this in the homosexual communities than the heterosexual communities. While I don't think that it's my duty to walk up and tell someone "No, no, this is bad for you", I'm actually offended that people are demanding that I commend this type of behavior. What was one comment? Oh yes, "How do you know this wasn't God's way of birth control?" What the f*** kind of stupid argument is that? If you want to not have a kid, do't have sex! If you're bound and determined you're going to have sex anyway....use a condom or get sterilized. The only reason I bring God up here is because of the quote. If it was meant to be God's method of birth control......there wouldn't be as much damage done to the anus (gay men only of course) from pentration. The tearing leads to easier spread of any diseases that either man has. So, something's obviously wrong with it, God or no God. The body is telling you, this isn't good for you. IF you're using it for sexual pleasure without pregnancy, there's other things you can do: i.e. masturbation, oral sex, or if you're just determined you've gotta have butt sex, have it with a woman. It's just as child free, and probably just as tight if not tighter.
Actually, I'm not too into anal. If I were gay, I'd be strictly oral/jerking only. However, why say that they HAVE to have it with a woman? What's the difference?

As for your attitudes on sex before marrige, that's up to you. However, you can't simply say "homosexuals do it more then hetrosexuals." The fact is, it's rampant in BOTH groups, so you cannot use it as evidence against one of them.

I just want to add how funny it is that you want people to be fixed. If they did that, why, they couldn't get married according to your logic!

I've gotta say, from what I read here, I have heard better arguments for making sex with minors legal than homosexuality.
Do share. How is it better then two consenting adults deciding to please each other at the harm of none?

And the final reason is financial. I don't want to have my tax dollars going to support homosexual marriage for dead soldiers homosexual lovers. Or tax relief for gay men or lesbian women who have recently gotten "married".
Someone coined a rather clever phrase for this that envolved the word "fuck", but I don't remember what it was. It's somewhere on this board. Anyways, the basic giest was, that you don't care about others-because YOU have all your rights.

And why don't you want tax relief going to them? Straight people do the exact same thing, you know. And, interestingly enough, gay people help pay for it. So, why not let them get some bang for their buck and give them the same rights and privilages?

So though I have yet to hear a valid arument on why it should be legalized...other than a "If you don't agree you're a bigot" or "You just want it banned cause you're afraid of it" or "It's gonna happen anyway, so get over it", I have provided several valid reasons on why I'm against it. Nothing to do with God or religion. Almost no morality lecture. Real world answers. Real world concerns. I didn't even get into why I don't believe gays should be allowed to marry, tho it has nothing to do with the word icky. So someone prove me wrong.
I've been doing the best with what I've got ;)

But with all the pushing and all the whining, gay marriage is still not legal. A homosexual couple gets married in California and it's not lergal anywhere but there and Vermont. So before you start talking about how the majority of the country is behind your side, or how they're so massively afraid of your opinions, remember that it is being voted down in massive numbers across the country and, tho the first image that comes to mind of an anti gay voter is gomer with four teeth who has sex with his sister, people of all religions, all creeds, all colors, and both sexes think it's wrong. It's not isolated to a region. It's much more widespread than the homosexuality itself. And a lot of heterosexual people are well informed and have good reasons for not wanting these bills to pass. The gay marriage case is horribly weak and really consists only of playing upon people's fear of being called a homophobe to get them to vote.

You seem to enjoy making as many sweeping generalizations as the people you accuse. As for the gay marrige case being "horrible weak" and "playing on people fear," I do believe I've already answered that one.

But I'll say it againi.

They are people. Like you. And they only want to be treated equally.

Someone coined a rather clever phrase for this that envolved the word "fuck", but I don't remember what it was. It's somewhere on this board. Anyways, the basic giest was, that you don't care about others-because YOU have all your rights.

Ahh, Goed. Glad you're on our side!

I believe the phrase you speak of was "FYIGM" meaning, "Fuck You, I Got Mine!"

Ahh, Goed. Glad you're on our side!

I believe the phrase you speak of was "FYIGM" meaning, "Fuck You, I Got Mine!"

Yeaaaah, that's the one!

Hehehe...I love it :D

Many, Many different opinions points of view and thoughts. Well, All that I've read and I've read most of the 10 pages - yah I know boredom stinks - and I can easily see things from both a person who is straight and a person who is a GLB (Gay/Lesbian/Bi]'s point of view.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of life. Just as sin, crime, etc has. The reason in my opinion homosexuality is perceived as different, wrong, 'icky', etc is becuase its not something the person who doesnt approve of the 'art' of homosexuality is becuase it is not soemthing the other is familar or comfortable with.

Frankly, thats all good But, I get tired of listening to people bash others for their skin color, their income, their sexuality and every other thing. Its called racism.

Im not gonna get up in my personal business but I've dealt with this kinda thing all my life. My aunt is bi and she had a kid with a 'partner'. They arent together now but my cousin has turned out quite well if I do say so myself. Anyways, Point is no matter your lifestyle dont down someone else becuase of theirs.

Yes :) You can applaud now I've shut up

Many, Many different opinions points of view and thoughts. Well, All that I've read and I've read most of the 10 pages - yah I know boredom stinks - and I can easily see things from both a person who is straight and a person who is a GLB (Gay/Lesbian/Bi]'s point of view.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of life. Just as sin, crime, etc has. The reason in my opinion homosexuality is perceived as different, wrong, 'icky', etc is becuase its not something the person who doesnt approve of the 'art' of homosexuality is becuase it is not soemthing the other is familar or comfortable with.

Frankly, thats all good But, I get tired of listening to people bash others for their skin color, their income, their sexuality and every other thing. Its called racism.

Im not gonna get up in my personal business but I've dealt with this kinda thing all my life. My aunt is bi and she had a kid with a 'partner'. They arent together now but my cousin has turned out quite well if I do say so myself. Anyways, Point is no matter your lifestyle dont down someone else becuase of theirs.

Yes You can applaud now I've shut up

Nice post! Yep, discrimination sucks. I simply don't understand how people can endorse it, or practice it. What if they suddenly found themselves on the rough end of the discrimination stick? You can bet they'd be kicking and screaming for somebody to do something about it too.

As for homosexuality always exisiting as a crime or sin, well.. that's not really correct. For instance, in Ancient Greek culture (the cradle of Western civilisation, so to speak), it was not (as far as we can tell) even given a second thought. Some people were attracted to their own gender, and that was that. Heck, in Sparta, the greatest warrior nation of the time and region, it was actually pretty much expected of their warriors. Althought it was apparently also expected that they would have children too, for the good of the nation (they needed to replenish the soldiers they lost in their almost constant warfare).

Oh and above poster you ARE a homophobe. You believe that there are better arguments for paedophilia than homosexuality meaning you obviously dislike the practice and the modern day meaning of homophobe (or the phobe bit in paticular) is not in fact the literal translation of the Greek.

Oh and what the majority think on the matter is utterly irrevlivent, to libertines before me who were campaining to ban slavery/black marriage/suffrage for women/inter racial marriage/the civil rights movement the response was often something along the lines of "Oh but the majority are against it." Afraid that the majority have not had a good history of helping out the minority wheras the liberine minority has had an excellent one.

Also your anal tissue damage stuff is rubbish, the anal tissue is not penetrated with the same force as the vaginal so it does not tear unless your penetrator is a little too eager. Also roughly the same amount of hetros as homos are into bum sex.

Also the reason AIDs is easier to catch within the gay community is as we were unaware of AIDs during the early 80s and did not use condoms as same-sex couplings as you pointed out yourself have a tendancy not to result in babies so we thought we did not need them.

Finaly with your stupid opinion on marriage being about babies ( :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! It was never for that purpose, it was for monogomy) well what about infertile couples and post-menopausals? They can not make babies. And what about surrogacy between to gay men or a gay man that donates sperm? What about a lesbian couple who use donated sperm to make babies with? I think you may say something like "Homos can not raise babies properly" so if you are going to let me tell you in advance that numerous studies show you are wrong and ask: how comes you let child beaters, alchoholics and paedophiles marry then?

The answer to the topic question is simple. Tolerance requires thought/intelligence/open mind. Those that oppose gay marriage seem to lack this.

And the idea that if it's been around for hundreds of years....well then it must be ok. There are things that far surpass homosexuality in the grand scale of human behavior. Murder, robbery, hatred.
I don't own a Honda because I want a Ford.
. The truth is, rampant sexual behavior should not be idolised for either straight or gay peoples. Multiple sexual pairing spreads disease, among other things.

1)Paedophilia, rape, murder and genocide all hurt people.
2)You can CHOOSE between whether you want a Honda or a Ford you CAN NOT choose whether you want to be gay or strait you are born that way.
3)What else does promiscuity spread apart from diseases?

The answer to the topic question is simple. Tolerance requires thought/intelligence/open mind. Those that oppose gay marriage seem to lack this.

Actualy I think this si only true for MOST of them. Quan just seems alittle misguided rather than actualy stupid although his comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia and rape was alittle odd as well as his claim that he has heard better cases for legalising paedophilia (even rape hmm?) than homosexuality (yes, it should be up to the law what two consenting adults do with each other, sure that does not sound authoritarian at all...).

granted it might be in a few cases but in most cases it's not feared it's simply viewed as wrong at best and useless at least.

to paraphrase a better intellect than mine because the body has it's own language expressed through its form, a language of giving and receiving of self, a language of co-operation. This language is the only thing in the scientific world capable of an expression so complete that what is expressed actually has a life of its own. this partial giving and receiving of self only achieves its full harmonious potential as a part of a total gift of self and the total gift of self can only take place if the gift of self through the body is part of it. Two men cannot give themselves to eachother totally because neither has the ability to properly receive the other so that the expression can be complete. two women cannot receive eachother because neither can give herself in a way the other can receive. for either same sex couple it is not intercourse which has two interacting but simply mutual masturbation akin either to talking to one's self or straining one's ear to hear noise that isn't there.

1)Paedophilia, rape, murder and genocide all hurt people.
2)You can CHOOSE between whether you want a Honda or a Ford you CAN NOT choose whether you want to be gay or strait you are born that way.
3)What else does promiscuity spread apart from diseases?

Nicely said. Might I add: why is it that homophobes etc condemn gays for promiscuity when it so regularly occurs in heterosexual society, and more to the point: why then deny them a system that only encourages monogomous relationships?

Edit: true, I shouldn't make generalisations, especially when I criticise others for doing so. My bad

Nicely said. Might I add: why is it that homophobes etc condemn gays for promiscuity when it so regularly occurs in heterosexual society, and more to the point: why then deny them a system that only encourages monogomous relationships?

Edit: true, I shouldn't make generalisations, especially when I criticise others for doing so. My bad

I know I find the "Oh you are so horrible and promiscous" argument utterly void thanks to for homosexual marriaage. Funny how people so concerned about people sleeping around would so activly try and deny people monogomy...

granted it might be in a few cases but in most cases it's not feared it's simply viewed as wrong at best and useless at least.

to paraphrase a better intellect than mine because the body has it's own language expressed through its form, a language of giving and receiving of self, a language of co-operation. This language is the only thing in the scientific world capable of an expression so complete that what is expressed actually has a life of its own. this partial giving and receiving of self only achieves its full harmonious potential as a part of a total gift of self and the total gift of self can only take place if the gift of self through the body is part of it. Two men cannot give themselves to eachother totally because neither has the ability to properly receive the other so that the expression can be complete. two women cannot receive eachother because neither can give herself in a way the other can receive. for either same sex couple it is not intercourse which has two interacting but simply mutual masturbation akin either to talking to one's self or straining one's ear to hear noise that isn't there.

1)People deem something wrong often because they fear it happening to them and wish to restrict it.
2)Just mutual masturbation? have you ever actualy HAD same gender sex?
3)Well not I haven't either but I am 14 and ugly so I have an excuse.

to paraphrase a better intellect than mine because the body has it's own language expressed through its form, a language of giving and receiving of self, a language of co-operation. This language is the only thing in the scientific world capable of an expression so complete that what is expressed actually has a life of its own. this partial giving and receiving of self only achieves its full harmonious potential as a part of a total gift of self and the total gift of self can only take place if the gift of self through the body is part of it. Two men cannot give themselves to eachother totally because neither has the ability to properly receive the other so that the expression can be complete. two women cannot receive eachother because neither can give herself in a way the other can receive. for either same sex couple it is not intercourse which has two interacting but simply mutual masturbation akin either to talking to one's self or straining one's ear to hear noise that isn't there.
I could easily make the assertion that a man and a woman are not capable of fully receiving each other as they each would have two orifices that aren't receiving anything.

I could easily make the assertion that a man and a woman are not capable of fully receiving each other as they each would have two orifices that aren't receiving anything.

Yes, everyone knows that hetrosexuality is un natural. They should certainly not be allowed to marry.

Just imagine how bad you would feel if you found out that you could not marry the one you loved due to some people saying it was against their religion and others bringing out a crappy non-proven theory. You would be VERY annoyed. I guess this really is a case of FYIGMR as those people above said...

Two men cannot give themselves to eachother totally because neither has the ability to properly receive the other so that the expression can be complete. two women cannot receive eachother because neither can give herself in a way the other can receive. for either same sex couple it is not intercourse which has two interacting but simply mutual masturbation akin either to talking to one's self or straining one's ear to hear noise that isn't there.

Erm... This is highly opinionative. I'm sure homosexual men would have an entirely different opinion. As would homosexual women.

Men are afraid because it challanges their masculinity, I think. We come up with reasons against it as well for that reason. Women rarely have a problem with it.

Good Book is also against it...so I'm not too thrilled by it myself.

-R. S. of UC

Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.


The fact that homosexuality has existed in every human cilization in known history, I'm not so sure that it's not 'normal'. In fact, many animals show homosexual traits -- and not just displays of 'dominance', but members of the same sex treating each other as partners. It may be more normal than you think.

Being gay, living that lifestyle, is not for a lot of people.


What exactly is "that life style"?


and the gay rate in the population is from 3 to 5 percent... we can then assume that perhaps 1, 2 percent have this hormonal difference?


This is bad statistics. If, in ten years, the "gay rate" in population (you don't mention what population) was 20%, would that mean that 7-8% would have the "horomonal difference" you speak of?


Gay marriage is simply something that a lot of people don't want to associate with. And why not? Well, quite possibly.... *SHOCK!* a lot of people in this world have associated marriage for centuries, millenia, with a man and a woman! To change that definition, many forget, might just be a very drastic spin on a word that isn't just a word but a true meaning to a lot of people.


Not necessarily true. Many cultures have not only condones homosexuality but have allowed for homosexal unions and marriages (though marriage, in the way we use the term, did not always exist). In fact, most people don't care about gay marriage, it is only the fring on both sides of the spectrum that are really up in arms about it. Mot people realize that it has nothing to do with them and will not degrage their relationships at all.

Some people tell me "you'd have to have kids to understand" and I can certainly see where they come from.


A civil union can be too. But in a different context. This is why I support civil unions with mostly full hetero-marriage rights, and I think that states would do well to ratify civil unions.


which rights do you not want to allow homosexuals?


States have the right to deal with gay marriage as they wish. Bush is doing something he feels is right, and to a vast majority of Americans it is,


Not sure, a minority of Americans oppose homoseual marriage and only a minority of them approve a constitutional amendment to do so. I agree that states should choose, not the federal government.

Yes, everyone knows that hetrosexuality is un natural. They should certainly not be allowed to marry.

Just imagine how bad you would feel if you found out that you could not marry the one you loved due to some people saying it was against their religion and others bringing out a crappy non-proven theory. You would be VERY annoyed. I guess this really is a case of FYIGMR as those people above said...
Yes, I would be very annoyed, I find it rather odd that people are so up in arms against gay marriage. I also find it rather odd that some people feel that it should be left up to the voters. It doesn't concern the voters, why would they be asked? It's like asking the country whether or not I should put up a fence in my yard. It doesn't concern everyone, therefore everyone doesn't need to worry about it. Marriage is a contract between two people and the government, nothing more.

Yes, I would be very annoyed, I find it rather odd that people are so up in arms against gay marriage. I also find it rather odd that some people feel that it should be left up to the voters. It doesn't concern the voters, why would they be asked? It's like asking the country whether or not I should put up a fence in my yard. It doesn't concern everyone, therefore everyone doesn't need to worry about it. Marriage is a contract between two people and the government, nothing more.

So true. The tyranny of the majority over the minority on an issue that would not even effect them...

Yes, I would be very annoyed, I find it rather odd that people are so up in arms against gay marriage. I also find it rather odd that some people feel that it should be left up to the voters. It doesn't concern the voters, why would they be asked?

Well we do have a set of things called laws in the United States. Some of those laws have to do with marriage. We don't allow people to just make laws arbitraily, so we have a system set up to pass these laws.

It gets more complicated than this, but basically, it could be put to a vote because that's the way things are done. Most likely, lawmakers in certain states and districts will either be voted in or not depending on their stance on the issue and their willingness to act on the issue while in office.

Well we do have a set of things called laws in the United States. Some of those laws have to do with marriage. We don't allow people to just make laws arbitraily, so we have a system set up to pass these laws.

It gets more complicated than this, but basically, it could be put to a vote because that's the way things are done. Most likely, lawmakers in certain states and districts will either be voted in or not depending on their stance on the issue and their willingness to act on the issue while in office.

But this is precisly the problem. Your stance should not effect a law that affects people when making a law it should be what is fair and equal and legal.

look, if this was put to a vote it would not pass. let's face it, we live in a country where people who vote are generally more extreme in their opinions than people who do not vote, people who make up the real majority. this results in people who have the most extreme views making policy. it's actually one of the faults of a republic. i would also say that this is very much akin to segregation. if the american public of the 40's and 50's had voted on desegregating schools, if the state of alabama held a vote that would desegregate schools, it would have not passed and we would be living in a nation where people of a darker skin color aren't allowed to drink from the same water fountains as white people. the majority of people of that time period were against it, just like the majority of people are against bussing poorer minorities into their suburban schools. sometimes the courts are necessary to protect the individual civil rights of people, protecting them from the 'tyranny of the majority', so yes, this will need to go to the courts, and not just state courts, but the supreme court as it will need to cross all state boundaries, forcing people to accept same sex marriages, just like it forced people to accept desegregated schools and public spaces.

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.
SCARED???

I'm not scared of homos. In fact I love them! Not on an intimate level; I love them in the sense that the more homosexual men there are; the more women for me! Less competition you know? I would encourage homosexuality in men. I mean, what's the worst they can do, tell me I'm hot or something? Sounds like a compliment to me.

I also like lesbian women...what red blooded heterosexual man doesn't enjoy two girls getting it on?

I love bisexual women...every man's dream is getting it on with two (or more) girls.

I HATE bisexual men! They are contaminating my women with complete weirdness.

In closing 3 out of 4 isn't too bad:-D

If that were the truth, i'd be sneezing all over the world :)
lol. I think the SARS mask is going to come back in the form of an "Anti-homosexual mask."

2)Just mutual masturbation? have you ever actualy HAD same gender sex?


I know I have, and it's definately NOT just mutual masturbation. Although that can be fun, too :-D

I know I have, and it's definately NOT just mutual masturbation. Although that can be fun, too :-D

I thought it was more and it seems I was right.

As for homosexuality always exisiting as a crime or sin, well.. that's not really correct

I know what you mean but no I was referring to it as in its been around just as crime has just as sin has. The bottom line of this whole topic is who feels what about GLB's. You ether deal with em or you dont. Just dont be rude becuase your lifestyle clashs with mine or another persons GLB or not.

Tootlez

First off, let me ask you supporters of it, what good can come from it? Since I've not heard a single good argument to legalize it, I must assume no one in here has thought of one.

So far I've been giving moral arguments. I might as well get out a legal one. First of all, the right to marry for homosexuals is entirely a legal issue. The government can't force a church to marry gays. However weak, there's still the issue of separating church and state.

While I agree that a main purpose for marriage is to solidify a structure in which to raise children, I do not find it a necessary condition to allow marriage. Barren couples are allowed to be married, and non-married couples are allowed to have children. Now, your argument says that this is the main issue, and completely ignore any other reason for marriage. And here you are accusing us of fallacious arguments. Now, I shall address these further issues. First, the ones who want to get married are consenting adults who love eachother and want to solidify their relationship. The only difference to this from any straight couple is that they're of the same sex. And guess what? Sex discrimination is illegal.

Second, gay partners are not allowed hospital visitation, right of attorney, or any other of the 2000+ rights given to married couples. The only reason they are denied these rights are because they are not married (against their will). They have committed no crime and have not been deemed incompetent. What have they done to have rights denied to them? They have their partner's consent and love, which is all that can be said for family and straight married couples. Why are they different?

Next, you bring up sexual practices. Between consenting adults of legal age, straight couple can engage in any number of sexual acts. This includes prostitution in Nevada, bondage, anal sex, sex with multiple partners (simultaneously and otherwise), being video tapped, making money on said tapes, water sports, and likely others that don't come to mind right away. These are all legal, and since you only want a legal opinion, these are all moot points when considering gay marriage.

You say that you want an argument that doesn't say 'because you're a bigot,' and guess what? That's exactly what it boils down to. Gays are citizens who have all the rights as singles as their straight counterpart except for those granted by marriage. Marriage is only denied to them because they are gay -- discrimination is there. That can not be denied. And what good will come from it? You're giving citizens who have committed no crime rights that they should be entitled to.

So far I've been giving moral arguments. I might as well get out a legal one. First of all, the right to marry for homosexuals is entirely a legal issue. The government can't force a church to marry gays. However weak, there's still the issue of separating church and state.

While I agree that a main purpose for marriage is to solidify a structure in which to raise children, I do not find it a necessary condition to allow marriage. Barren couples are allowed to be married, and non-married couples are allowed to have children. Now, your argument says that this is the main issue, and completely ignore any other reason for marriage. And here you are accusing us of fallacious arguments. Now, I shall address these further issues. First, the ones who want to get married are consenting adults who love eachother and want to solidify their relationship. The only difference to this from any straight couple is that they're of the same sex. And guess what? Sex discrimination is illegal.

Second, gay partners are not allowed hospital visitation, right of attorney, or any other of the 2000+ rights given to married couples. The only reason they are denied these rights are because they are not married (against their will). They have committed no crime and have not been deemed incompetent. What have they done to have rights denied to them? They have their partner's consent and love, which is all that can be said for family and straight married couples. Why are they different?

Next, you bring up sexual practices. Between consenting adults of legal age, straight couple can engage in any number of sexual acts. This includes prostitution in Nevada, bondage, anal sex, sex with multiple partners (simultaneously and otherwise), being video tapped, making money on said tapes, water sports, and likely others that don't come to mind right away. These are all legal, and since you only want a legal opinion, these are all moot points when considering gay marriage.

You say that you want an argument that doesn't say 'because you're a bigot,' and guess what? That's exactly what it boils down to. Gays are citizens who have all the rights as singles as their straight counterpart except for those granted by marriage. Marriage is only denied to them because they are gay -- discrimination is there. That can not be denied. And what good will come from it? You're giving citizens who have committed no crime rights that they should be entitled to.

*applauds*

So far I've been giving moral arguments. I might as well get out a legal one. First of all, the right to marry for homosexuals is entirely a legal issue. The government can't force a church to marry gays. However weak, there's still the issue of separating church and state.

While I agree that a main purpose for marriage is to solidify a structure in which to raise children, I do not find it a necessary condition to allow marriage. Barren couples are allowed to be married, and non-married couples are allowed to have children. Now, your argument says that this is the main issue, and completely ignore any other reason for marriage. And here you are accusing us of fallacious arguments. Now, I shall address these further issues. First, the ones who want to get married are consenting adults who love eachother and want to solidify their relationship. The only difference to this from any straight couple is that they're of the same sex. And guess what? Sex discrimination is illegal.

Second, gay partners are not allowed hospital visitation, right of attorney, or any other of the 2000+ rights given to married couples. The only reason they are denied these rights are because they are not married (against their will). They have committed no crime and have not been deemed incompetent. What have they done to have rights denied to them? They have their partner's consent and love, which is all that can be said for family and straight married couples. Why are they different?

Next, you bring up sexual practices. Between consenting adults of legal age, straight couple can engage in any number of sexual acts. This includes prostitution in Nevada, bondage, anal sex, sex with multiple partners (simultaneously and otherwise), being video tapped, making money on said tapes, water sports, and likely others that don't come to mind right away. These are all legal, and since you only want a legal opinion, these are all moot points when considering gay marriage.

You say that you want an argument that doesn't say 'because you're a bigot,' and guess what? That's exactly what it boils down to. Gays are citizens who have all the rights as singles as their straight counterpart except for those granted by marriage. Marriage is only denied to them because they are gay -- discrimination is there. That can not be denied. And what good will come from it? You're giving citizens who have committed no crime rights that they should be entitled to.

very well said.

I agree.

very well said.

*wonders if Kyb will come back and read it*

*wonders if Kyb will come back and read it*

Don't jinx it, Libertines! This is, for the moment, a relatively civil discussion. Kyb seems to bring out the worst in everyone, including himself.

Don't jinx it, Libertines! This is, for the moment, a relatively civil discussion. Kyb seems to bring out the worst in everyone, including himself.

He does indeed but for some reason I find talking to idiots fun...But I really just wanted to see him read and respond to that though.

Where are the conservatives? They're so cute and I want to play.

There are people in this world who cannot embrace individuality. I think the reason why people are scared of homosexuality is because they do not understand it. The people who are scared of it do not see it as two people who love eachother, but two people who are living in sin, or rebelling against the norm. I think that as long as two people love eachother and treat eachother with respect; no matter if its two women or two men, then it should not be feared. It's just two people loving eachother. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's just two people loving eachother. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yeah! I mean so what if one is kept on a leash? :D

Personally, I'm not scared of homos,
I am scared of being anally raped,though.
Lesbians are fine,as long as I can watch

Personally, I'm not scared of homos,
I am scared of being anally raped,though.
Lesbians are fine,as long as I can watch

I'm scared of being anally raped too. But that has NOTHING to do with homosexuals.

Rape=Violence. Rape=/=Sex.

Many rapists target victims who they are not even sexually attracted to.

Let's see if I can't state my point of view in a logical manner, shall we?

I'm lazy and haven't read the past twelve God-awful pages of this argument. I will, and I'll edit this if it seems that I need to. Otherwise, I'm just replying because Kazi told me to. ;)

First of all, the right to marry for homosexuals is entirely a legal issue. The government can't force a church to marry gays. However weak, there's still the issue of separating church and state.


There's the statement. Tada. That's what I wish to focus on in this post. The Church, which is based upon Biblical reasons for not sanctifying unions between same-sex couples. Now, that's all well and good, but it has nothing (Or shouldn't, at least) to do with the Legal aspects of same-sex unions.

---------------------------
Taken from a website that advocates same-sex unions:On same-sex marriages (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=12534&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm)

Until this day becomes a reality, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people can take steps to protect themselves with some important legal documents, such as domestic partner agreements, durable powers of attorney, hospital visitation authorizations, last wills and testaments, living wills, and, if appropriate, co-parenting agreements.
----------------------------

Now... This website reflects my views on the entire 'rights' thing. However, I do not believe that such unions can be called marriages because of the predominatly Religion-based attitude of the United states. You can whine all you want about the seperation of Church and State, but it boils down to the fact that every dollar bill says 'In God we Trust.'

I don't care if they create a new name, like Zookirage or whatever, but the term Marriage itself carries connotations that it's picked up over the millenia. The reason we're having this problem now is because the United States has adopted a religious institution and given it a crapload of rights that should go to any commited pairing.

People create their own problems by imposing their expectations on other citizens. Now... this is what /should/ prevent atrocities against humanity. Alas, it does not. Because someone gets it backwards. Some people decide it's their God-Given right to force people to believe as they do. Hence Crusades and such. ( Did I mention that this kind of thing isn't a /new/ problem? )

But, to appease the idiot masses you can't use the term 'marriage.'

Here's to girls :fluffle:ing girls.

Until this day becomes a reality, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people can take steps to protect themselves with some important legal documents, such as domestic partner agreements, durable powers of attorney, hospital visitation authorizations, last wills and testaments, living wills, and, if appropriate, co-parenting agreements.


This is my main issue. I'm under a great impression that separate is not equal, and this is is a good example. Yes, all the same rights can be obtained, but is it fair that a straight couple needs only $10 to get a marriage license, but a gay couple needs to hire a lawyer and spend hundreds (or more, I'm unsure) in legal fees to get these papers drafted and signed? This is my main reason for supporting gay marriage.

I'm fairly neutral with the issue that they should not be called marriages, but there are still caveats. As it is, the legal union for straight couples is called marriage. Let's say that gays are allowed civil unions and are called civil unions. Then new legislation comes around. It will have to allow new rights to both civil unions and marriages in order to stay fair and equal. What scares me is one thing shown in Farenheight 9/11. A politician was quoted as saying that he does not read a great deal of the legislation brought before him. What if a legislator makes a bill that 'forgets' to include civil unions, or finds a reason not to include them. An example is one that it is a 'religious' affair of marriage, and doesn't include gays. This has potential for abuse, and I'm weary of it.

My solution? Call all legal marriages civil unions. Couples will still call themselves married, and it doesn't affect a church's definition of marriage. this way there is no separation between straight and gay civil unions. As long as there is a distinction between straight and gay unions legally, then there will still be risks of separate not being equal.

Works for me. *blinks* Of course... I'm probably an exeception to most of the rules.

Oh, yeah. Don't /ever/ cite that ridiculous Moore movie to me or I will have to come and smack you for being an idiot. *grins at Kazi*

Imagine that. A 13 page thread with maybe 3 pages of content worth reading. This is why I generally ignore these threads. o_O

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.

Many reasons that won't be adequately explained on a forum like this or in the media.

I would like to say that I am not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to start a fight, I simply want to know why it is that so many heterosexual people are intimidated but they thought of same sex realationships. Any imput (in realation to the question, please, no flaming) would be apprecatied.

Easy, there is a common myth that gay people can tell who is gay. Could you imagine a homosexual going up to you and thinking your gay. I know there is nothing wrong with being gay but most guys would not like it.
Also even if the gay guy in question is just one of the "guys" could you imagine him getting drunk and making a pass at you? (Not making a comment about promiscuity) just what any drunk guy would do in front of someone they like.

The Church, which is based upon Biblical reasons for not sanctifying unions between same-sex couples. Now, that's all well and good, but it has nothing (Or shouldn't, at least) to do with the Legal aspects of same-sex unions.

However, I do not believe that such unions can be called marriages because of the predominatly Religion-based attitude of the United states.
There are many many religions that will conduct marriage ceremonies for gays, including some sects of Christianity.

I believe in full equality whether your gay/straight/curious.
But maybe a better question, is how could homosexuals make themselves less threatening to heterosexuals. In the end the majority has the power to make life for the minority very unpleasant.
Not being anti anything, just a realist

Nobody is "scared" of homosexuality. But it is truly not a normal thing. Although normality is indeed subjective to the individual, homosexual practices are not what humans are made for... it does not produce children, and let's face it, it's not meant to... erm... fit that way.


wait wait wait, if humans aren't supposed to "fit that way" as you so eloquently stated, then why is it that a man will have an orgasm from being done in the ass, even if he is straight. In fact, rape counselors have to deal with this often- convincing a guy that he is straight despite the fact that he "went off" from that.

now to branch off. Why do we/they (i'm bisexual, i'm not sure how to refer to my more creative half) have to speak with those manufactured, stereotypical lisps? It's just annoying and overly dramatic. You can be gay, but there's no need to advertise, it's kinda like saying to a monkey "I'm Human and I'm proud!"

there's no pleasing everyone. but as far as i'm concerned, :fluffle: whoever you want. just don't push it on anyone, and that goes both ways.

Easy, there is a common myth that gay people can tell who is gay. Could you imagine a homosexual going up to you and thinking your gay. I know there is nothing wrong with being gay but most guys would not like it.
Also even if the gay guy in question is just one of the "guys" could you imagine him getting drunk and making a pass at you? (Not making a comment about promiscuity) just what any drunk guy would do in front of someone they like.

Oh boo hoo fucking hoo. You're a big boy aren't you? Deal with it.
And no, 'dealing with it' does not include 'throwing a hissy fit' or 'hitting him cus he is scareh'.

Quoted from: ..... someone, I forget

I think it's amusing that, in every one of these threads, the heterosexists (I like that word, might use it more often) fail to actually put forward actual arguments against homosexuality.

Sure, they might say it's icky, but since when was that a reason to be against something. We don't ban people who eat anchovis from marrying right?

They might say it's un-natural. Even if it was, I don't see them living in a cave.

They say it's against tradition. But that is meaningless without saying why it's wrong.

It's a health-rish they say. No, certain forms of sexual activity might be, but that's not the issue here.




Actually, I have heard quite a few good point for banning the marriage. But have yet to hear a SINGLE point for making it legal. It has nothing to do with it being icky. This idea however, that we have to accept any difference no matterwhat it is, put it on a pedistal and say "This is what we should all aspire to is also ludicrous.
I am against getting special rights just because you are different. Right now in America the worst thing to be is a single white heterosexual male, at least from a hiring stand point. We have little to no right to freely express ourselves, without being mobbed as a bigot or ignored. We fit no special "groupings" for employers to fill their quota. There are no all white college funds, no all straight college funds, no all male college funds. There are all black colleges, all female colleges, and even an all gay college organization out in Jeff County. So pardon me for being sick of hearing "If you don't agree with me, you're a bigot." Now, I'm sure by this point, more than a few of you are saying, well, what does this have to do with anything? It's to show that difference is NOT frowned on in America. The idea that it seems everyone is pushing here is that gays hide in the closet in shame and that America doesn't accept them. Yet when I turn on the TV, I see one of the most popular shows, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and realize that if it wasn't for the fact that these guys were gay, they wouldn't have a TV show.
So for those of you who must persist in tellig me the plight of the underprivledged "minorities", I'd like you to stop and think, there is a quota for gay workers (both male and female) that national jobs have to fill now. They have to prove a certain % of their workers are gay nation wide. Same with women, blacks, arabs, anyone of any color (other than white) and any creed (other than christian). The GALC has a lot of pull in Washinton and the ear of several senators and representatives. More than the Christians I'd like to add. I could go on and on, but the point is, unless you live in an extremely backwater redneck community, gays don't hide they're gay, and people don't stone them for it. Hell, they really don't stare anymore either, unless it's lesbians, then the guys flock to them like a moth to flame. And the issue of interracial babies....the white community accepts them a hell of a lot more than any other racial community. Moving on.

Contraceptive is rarely used. That's why there is such a rash of teenage pregnancies, and such a hige abortion rate in America. Almost all colleges nation wide give out condoms and birth control trying to keep as few of their students pregnant as possible. Ad most of what they give out, they find in the trash. People are careless with sex, anal as well. People (on the whole) take no more precautions with anal sex than they do with vaginal. People don't take precautions in general for the most part.

"If it's not meant to fit that way....as you so elogently put it, then why do men get off from it."
That's very simple, it would be the prostrate. Why is it women get off when they get raped, even if it's a violatio. Why do some people get off (literally) just by being peed on. People get off on strange things. The body looks for almost any excuse to get aroused.

But none of this is truely the point. I made a case earlier (tho I didn't wanna search through 14 pages to find it and read responses) as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Does marriage give you rights to inheritance, hospital visits, etc. No. Wills can negate spouses. Hell, since my mom is an accountant, I've heard of a lot of spouses getting negated in probate court without a will. So that's one shot down. Hospitals, for the most part, grant visits to anyone close to the patient. Family, excessively close friends, and oh yes, gay lovers. Already have it, not a reason.

The idea that 75% of the populations preconceived notions on marriage are wrong is stupid. Anyone who thinks that they're voice should be heard more than the majority is a moron. Quite frankly, I think statitory rape laws should be done away with, but I'm in the minority on that one.

Everyone is comparing this to interracial marriages, the black struggle for freedom, the oppression of the japanese, and so forth. There is one major difference however, and that is, from the beginning of slavery, there was a vast majority against it. There was a vast majority against what we did to the Japanese during World War II, and yet, our position has been unwavering on the issue of gay marriage, the majority is still against it. It says something. Perhaps, in some ways, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a balance of the equation, because, believe it or not, it doesn't matter, gay people have rights and advantages that straight people do not.

I for one don't believe that just because an idea is old that it is wrong. There is no produce, no productive nature, to a gay marriage. And something without produce is useless. You wanna have sex, live your lives together, fine. But I don't have to say that you're doing good, and I don't have to support you with my ta dollars.

i think its the plethora of female body parts just waiting for a man to come along and finish the job

too bad the man wouldnt really be welcome.
You're almost there-for me it is more their writhing naked bodies without some guys wang waving around,or the camera cutting to the guys face at the...*ahem*...."wrong time"
sometimes thats nice,you know?

Quoted from: ..... someone, I forget

Me.

Actually, I have heard quite a few good point for banning the marriage.

Such as?

But have yet to hear a SINGLE point for making it legal.

Because they want it and there's no reason not to give it to them? Because it's simply a damn inequality?

It has nothing to do with it being icky.

I'm sure it doesn't.

This idea however, that we have to accept any difference no matter what it is, put it on a pedistal and say "This is what we should all aspire to is also ludicrous.

Off course it is, which is why no-one is (seriously) suggesting it.

I am against getting special rights just because you are different.

What special rights?

Right now in America the worst thing to be is a single white heterosexual male, at least from a hiring stand point. We have little to no right to freely express ourselves, without being mobbed as a bigot or ignored.

Sure you do. Just don't be an asshole about it.

We fit no special "groupings" for employers to fill their quota. There are no all white college funds, no all straight college funds, no all male college funds. There are all black colleges, all female colleges, and even an all gay college organization out in Jeff County.

I guess this is strange. I'll grant you that. But then, maybe white college funds are just the finds that everyone can get into? (forgive me if I sound stupid here, but I have very little knowledge on 'funds')

So pardon me for being sick of hearing "If you don't agree with me, you're a bigot."

That depends on the manner of disagreement.
If you would say "All faqz are s1ck and go to hell!!``", I'm not surprised.
If you would say "I do not think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.", I can imagine some people getting upset about it, seeing as it's a very emotional issue. Still, only the loonies get abusive about it under normal circumstances.

Now, I'm sure by this point, more than a few of you are saying, well, what does this have to do with anything? It's to show that difference is NOT frowned on in America. The idea that it seems everyone is pushing here is that gays hide in the closet in shame and that America doesn't accept them.

Yet I constantly read American's posts on here stating that all gays are filth and should be killed, and I see pictures of Americans with signs reading "God hates fags".
Trust me, I know not all Americans are like this, and I'm very happy about that. But I hope you understand my side here.

Yet when I turn on the TV, I see one of the most popular shows, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and realize that if it wasn't for the fact that these guys were gay, they wouldn't have a TV show.

I must admit I have never seen the show, and probably never will as I do not watch tv.
But anyway, do you really think the popularity of the show has more to do with the character's sexuality than with the fact that they're different?
Unlike homosexuality (regardless of what some loonies might tell you), the show is probably a fad that'll blow over once people realise that, while gay, the characters are boring.

So for those of you who must persist in tellig me the plight of the underprivledged "minorities", I'd like you to stop and think, there is a quota for gay workers (both male and female) that national jobs have to fill now. They have to prove a certain % of their workers are gay nation wide. Same with women, blacks, arabs, anyone of any color (other than white) and any creed (other than christian). The GALC has a lot of pull in Washinton and the ear of several senators and representatives.

And affermative action is something I oppose completely, since it forces companies to hire potentially unfit employees.
I say give them the chance to take responsibility on their own, and select employees based on whether they are fit for the job, regardless of age, gender, religion, race or sexuality.

More than the Christians I'd like to add. I could go on and on, but the point is, unless you live in an extremely backwater redneck community, gays don't hide they're gay, and people don't stone them for it. Hell, they really don't stare anymore either, unless it's lesbians, then the guys flock to them like a moth to flame. And the issue of interracial babies....the white community accepts them a hell of a lot more than any other racial community. Moving on.

Great! Can we marry now? I mean, you accept us and all.

Contraceptive is rarely used. That's why there is such a rash of teenage pregnancies, and such a hige abortion rate in America. Almost all colleges nation wide give out condoms and birth control trying to keep as few of their students pregnant as possible. Ad most of what they give out, they find in the trash. People are careless with sex, anal as well. People (on the whole) take no more precautions with anal sex than they do with vaginal. People don't take precautions in general for the most part.

Um... ok? I'm sure you have a point, but without knowing what you're referring to, I can't comment.

"If it's not meant to fit that way....as you so elogently put it, then why do men get off from it."
That's very simple, it would be the prostrate. Why is it women get off when they get raped, even if it's a violatio. Why do some people get off (literally) just by being peed on. People get off on strange things. The body looks for almost any excuse to get aroused.

So in other words it does fit? I mean, why else would it work?

But none of this is truely the point. I made a case earlier (tho I didn't wanna search through 14 pages to find it and read responses) as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Does marriage give you rights to inheritance, hospital visits, etc. No. Wills can negate spouses. Hell, since my mom is an accountant, I've heard of a lot of spouses getting negated in probate court without a will. So that's one shot down. Hospitals, for the most part, grant visits to anyone close to the patient. Family, excessively close friends, and oh yes, gay lovers. Already have it, not a reason.

Since I lack the knowledge on this subject, I think it'd be best if I let someone else respond to this.

The idea that 75% of the populations preconceived notions on marriage are wrong is stupid. Anyone who thinks that they're voice should be heard more than the majority is a moron. Quite frankly, I think statitory rape laws should be done away with, but I'm in the minority on that one.

Obviously.

Everyone is comparing this to interracial marriages, the black struggle for freedom, the oppression of the japanese, and so forth. There is one major difference however, and that is, from the beginning of slavery, there was a vast majority against it. There was a vast majority against what we did to the Japanese during World War II, and yet, our position has been unwavering on the issue of gay marriage, the majority is still against it. It says something. Perhaps, in some ways, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a balance of the equation, because, believe it or not, it doesn't matter, gay people have rights and advantages that straight people do not.

Such as?

I for one don't believe that just because an idea is old that it is wrong.

Neither do I. But on the other hand, I do not believe that just because an idea is old, it's automaticallt good either.

There is no produce, no productive nature, to a gay marriage. And something without produce is useless.

Many things are not productive. Should those be banned?
I'm talking not only about marriages between infertile couples or couples who do not wish to have children, but also about art. No productive nature = get rid of it.

You wanna have sex, live your lives together, fine. But I don't have to say that you're doing good, and I don't have to support you with my ta dollars.

If you live in a country, you pay it's tax. Or are you saying that pacifists do not have to pay tax for the upkeep of the army? Or homeschoolers do not have to pay tax for schools?
Or that homosexuals do not have to pay tax for marriages?

Damn, once a thread starts, you can barely get a word in edgewise before its flooded with posts. As for the topic title- people are scared of it because its different. Thats the way it always has been and probably always will be, as sad as that fact is. Think back to racism in the 60s or whenever they started mixing blacks and whites in schools. After some time, the heated debates and widespread hatred of the idea dissipated. I think this will go about the same way, but thats just my opinion.

Actually, I have heard quite a few good point for banning the marriage. But have yet to hear a SINGLE point for making it legal.

I usually try to quote what I'm arguing against, but I don't want to fill half a page with what's a few posts above this one. I'll generally be addressing Quandal.

Now, if you look up like, a page, you'll see my argument on why it should be legal. I feel it's a good argument and I have support, so I feel you must address it and show that it does not have any points.

And what special rights to gays have? Queer eye for the straight guy exists because gay men are stereotypically fashion-oriented, and are seen as a novelty that will attract viewers (revenue). The station would not do these things if it weren't for financial gain. You also seem to be focusing on affirmative action. Your view on affirmativre action is outdated and uninformed. In colleges, the emphasis on minority status has been greatly reduced, and is only considered when a great deal of other criterium are matching. The gap between minority admittance qualificaitons and white admittance qualifications is 2-3% in most colleges. And it has been deemed discriminatory to have set-aside positions for minority students. We're not arguing affirmative action, and note that gays do not have special rights as outlined in my arguments above.

http://216.86.213.73/2pdfs/v3i70rate.pdf
This link is to the vital statistics of the past 20some years. Pregnancy of all but older women is falling, and abortion is falling over all age groups. You obviously get your impressions by watching the news. The news typically hypes teenage pregnancies and abortions for the sake of ratings. "Ad most of what they give out, they find in the trash." What are you smoking, by the way?

You're making huge generalizations and assumptions on gay rights. Every article I've read says that gays lack rights because they are not married. Read my post above for my argument concerning alternative methods to obtaining rights.

You're complaining about how people equate racism with homosexuality. And guess what? They're both about discriminating against a certain group for a quality they can not control. If it looks like a rabbit and smells like a rabbit...

"But have yet to hear a SINGLE point for making it legal."
" I made a case earlier (tho I didn't wanna search through 14 pages to find it and read responses) as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. "
Umm, yeah... I hope you see the problem here. There's a big difference between a lack of an argument and not making the freaking effort to read one.

Hmm, I think that's about it. I'd be interested to see any special gay rights you can come up with. I can't seem to find any.

I'm not prejiduce you will all die in equally horrible ways regardless of:Sexuality,race,creed,gender or genetic deformalities.

Having said that find one sane guy that has not taken up a creed of celibacy or is not a religious wacko that would not watch lesbian action?

I hate queers because they are sick and its nasty. So I support a total ban on it.
How is love "sick and nasty"?

Besides, even if you did ban it totally (not going to happen) do you really think that people would just stop being homosexual?

Something a lot of people don't realise is that same-sex couples actually love each other, just like straight couples do.

This LOVE we're talking about.

I think it scares a lot of people that no one is really more than about 99 44/100 % straight (or gay). Everybody has little impulses one way or the other all the time, and trying to classify human activities in binary ways seems futile.

The ickyness argument is stupid, since there are more than enough queers who find the idea of hetero sex nasty- even me, and I'm bisexual.

Imagine that. A 13 page thread with maybe 3 pages of content worth reading. This is why I generally ignore these threads. o_O

So why don't you make a meaningful, well thought out post here instead of trying to establish your intellectual superiority by condescending to those that do. :headbang:

The ickyness argument is stupid, since there are more than enough queers who find the idea of hetero sex nasty- even me, and I'm bisexual.
...err...

People are not all the same, that would be socialism.

Mate, whats wrong with socialism?

What's wrong with socialism....

Socialism makes the assumption that all humans are equal, or should be made equal.... I think. I would provide links/evidence/etc., but as I have the right to freedom of speech... I choose not to. Plus, Google does not appeal to me at this hour.

Anyway, all human beings are unique, in abilities and in personality. Socialism doesn't want people to be rewarded in a way that is equal to their action. So, therefore, in a socialist environment, I choose to sleep till 4 pm, and post spam on the internet. I earn, say 26000 dollars a year. My brother, on the other hand, works 80 hour weeks programming code vital to the society. He earns.... 26000 dollars a year. Seems unfair, right?

Right?

Oh, back to the topic..... I think I represent the majority of people when I say "MEH!"

or rather

meh

Here's an idea on the Gay Marriage issue:

Why not destroy all Federal recognition of marriage!

The Government does not interfere in any way, and people can marry each other no matter what!

Yes an overly simplistic explanation, but I have that right to do so.

Here's an idea on the Gay Marriage issue:

Why not destroy all Federal recognition of marriage!

The Government does not interfere in any way, and people can marry each other no matter what!

Yes an overly simplistic explanation, but I have that right to do so.

I think this sounds good.

Oh and Socialism simply states that those at the top have a responsibility to those at the bottom as they are better off.

What's wrong with socialism....

Anyway, all human beings are unique, in abilities and in personality. Socialism doesn't want people to be rewarded in a way that is equal to their action. So, therefore, in a socialist environment, I choose to sleep till 4 pm, and post spam on the internet. I earn, say 26000 dollars a year. My brother, on the other hand, works 80 hour weeks programming code vital to the society. He earns.... 26000 dollars a year. Seems unfair, right?

This is so wrong. You're thinking of communism.

This is so wrong. You're thinking of communism.

True. Communism is different and (as far as I know) has unlkike socialism never been voted into existance.

The ickyness argument is stupid, since there are more than enough queers who find the idea of hetero sex nasty- even me, and I'm bisexual.

You made me think of a great scene in a documentary about gay Orthodox Jews I saw:

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/tbg.html

Shlomo Ashkinazy, Orthodox Gay Psychotherapist: "One of my teachers at my Yeshiva decided to introduce me to his Rabbi who was one of the big Gadolim in Jerusalem, someone who was regarded worldwide as a Posek. When he talked about the specific prohibition in the Torah, you know, against anal sex, and he wanted to make it very clear to me, and when I told him that I did understand that, and that I did not have anal sex, he was a little perplexed, and he said, then what is the problem? So you don't have sex with men. And I said, well I do but we don't do that. And it was like, I mean, this is a Gadol, learned in Torah and so many worldly facts as well, but he suddenly was at a loss. That was gay sex as far as he knew. And he said, what else do men do? What else is there to do? And so I described kissing and hugging and mutual masturbation and oral sex, and he didn't know what that was. And when I explained that to him he was really confused, and he said, "why would a man want to put another man's shmekie in his mouth?" And I thought it was such a foolish question. I said, "why would a man want to put his penis in a woman's vagina?" And you should have seen his face light up. It was like I illuminated something new for him that he learned. And he said, "of course, of course". He said it's a tie'vah. He says a tie'vah doesn't have a reason. There is no reason for a tie'vah. A tie'vah is an urge. It's an illogical urge. That all of sex is a tie'vah, it doesn't have rhyme or reason to it. What a gay person does or what a straight person does, or wants to do, it isn't logical, it's something brought down from above."

The best part- "shmekie". :)

You made me think of a great scene in a documentary about gay Orthodox Jews I saw:

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/tbg.html



The best part- "shmekie". :)

For some reason that quote moved me, thanks for sharing I had heard of the film but I will have to get it out now...

For some reason that quote moved me, thanks for sharing I had heard of the film but I will have to get it out now...

I suppose it shows that every conversation you have can help you to grow.

I suppose it shows that every conversation you have can help you to grow.

Well it just also seemed to sum up my feeling of hope that ancient religion and modern life can go hand in hand.

This is just like the topic against Chrisianity. The Christians believe that they do not have to support their beliefs with facts and evidence, they just have to believe and trust. The same thing is happening here.

What is it that people find wrong about gay marriages, or gay couples? I'm a hetrosexual, but I don't find anything wrong about other people who choose to live this life. What will they do to me? How will they harm me? Easy - they won't. Every arguement agasint homosexuals can be dismissed with logic. The most common one is from the Christian perspective, where it is a sin, or prohibited in the Bible. Well, there are many other things wrong in there, so homosexual relationships is obviously a stupid topic to be bitching about in there as well. Other arguements are 'it's disgusting.' Show a child a picture of two people having sex and they will say it's disgusting. Everyone has different views on what is disgusting, so this is not really a problem either.

If you think about it, this isn't different at all from other historical events - giving women the vote, freeing the slaves, letting blacks become people instead of tools. Back when these topics were hot, there were two sides to the arguements, and many people say it was wrong. Well obviously we know what happened from there and now everyone thinks that of course women should have the vote, of course there should be no slave labour, of course black people should be free. I bet in 100 years they will be saying this about homosexuality.

To those who think it is wrong, and have no other reasons for this view then they don't like it - deal with it. It's not wrong. Perhaps it is going against the genetic code, but then we do so many things that are.

To those who believe that it is a sin because it says so in an old book, then answer the following question for me please - I would like to buy a slave. I KNOW that I can buy slaves, both male and female, as long as they are purchased from a neighbouring country, as it says in Liviticus 25:44. The problem is a friend of mine claims that I can get Abouriginies but not white Australians (I live in New Zealand). Can you clarify? Why can't I buy white Australians?

To those who are of the opinion that gays are wrong because they can intimidate you and want to get with you - get over it! Do you really think that EVERY gay person wants to get with you, specifically? NO! Just like every chick does not want to get with you. If you still have a problem about being intimidated by gays, and don't want their marriage to be legal or something like that, then why not ask for a law against ugly people of the opposite sex? I'm sure you don't want to be intimidated by ugly people either.

To those of you who claim that gays should not be given marriage rights because it is something special - well tell me EXACTLY what it is that they are getting that is just so special! They are only getting what YOU already have the right to get! If they got rights that are higher than a straight persons, well then I would not stop you complaining. But when all they want is EQUALITY - which, may I remind you, your CONSTITUTION promises - how can you possibly have a qualm with that?

As far as I can see, gay marriages would be a great thing. They would let people legally show everyone their expression of love and happiness, and how they want to spend the rest of their life together. There is nothing wrong with this. If you truely have a problem with two people getting together and sharing a legal, emotional and spiritual bond together - then what kind of a person are you?

sry, im lazy. could you sum that up for me please? you dont have to, just a request.

Ok, you lazy person; in short, it basically says that homosexuals should have the same rights as us, they aren't disgusting, wrong or wanting anything more special than we already have, and they should be allowed to show their values to this in a legal bond. If you read it it just explains why that is right.