NationStates Jolt Archive

Do conservatives have a reason why gay love is inferior to straight love that is not based on religion, the fact that they are scared of gays, or something their parents tell them?

Nope.

They base it on the events of Soddam and Gemora(spellings?).

There are other reasons such as listening to hate spewers like Pat Robertson....

Do conservatives have a reason why gay love is inferior to straight love that is not based on religion, the fact that they are scared of gays, or something their parents tell them?

Love is love. And the "flavor" should concern no one if those involved are consenting adults.

Btw, Johnistan....

Ewwwwwwwwwww.

What did he say? o_O

I'm heterosexual, so I see gay love as "not my thing," and lesbian love as "depressing-now TWO hot girls are out of my reach :("

...lol

The more gay males there are the fewer choices straight (and bisexual) females have. Therefore, I support homosexualism! More pickins for me!

What did he say? o_O

I'm heterosexual, so I see gay love as "not my thing," and lesbian love as "depressing-now TWO hot girls are out of my reach :("

...lol
Not all lesbians are hot...

Some poll said that married Christian Women have the best sex, but other than that I dunno.

I'm heterosexual, so I see gay love as "not my thing," and lesbian love as "depressing-now TWO hot girls are out of my reach :("

You know no matter what your gender or orientation, you are benefited if more of your own gender are gay?

WWJD? Would he deny the rights of a people just because a book tells him so? I'm atheist but wasn't Jesus accepting of everyone despite what he was told or their sexuality? what kind of a religion is it where ur told to discriminate?

Not all lesbians are hot...

True, but it still means that there's now two girls I'll never have :p.

And in some cases they are hot.

Therefore, it keeps hot girls out of my already lacking reach xD



And I agree, I'm all for more guys being gay :p

WHOAH

Why we be playa hatin on my post?

I come up in here and pop a cap in yo' ass.

something about children probably.


Who knows what goes on in someones mind when they pull out random hatred.

Some poll said that married Christian Women have the best sex, but other than that I dunno.

So we should let the lesbian Christians marry - that way they'll get to have some of that good sex too.

Oh f*** me, I'm running.

Do conservatives have a reason why gay love is inferior to straight love that is not based on religion, the fact that they are scared of gays, or something their parents tell them?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nope.

:D

The only advantage of a "striaght" Relationship is that you can have kids. However if you just clone yourself you can have kids that are full grown. No diaper changing for the cloners ;) :fluffle:

... Clones still need to be raised like normal children... :p

And they will die earlier.

Some poll said that married Christian Women have the best sex

...

Bwahahahahaha!

The Greeks have a very old tale that I feel's relevant. This is from memory, so pardon the fact that it's a brief version.

Once upon a time, during the Age of Titans, human beings existed as very different creatures. Each person had two heads, four arms, and four legs. And these humans thrived in their world because of their complete essence. Humans were whole and therefore mystically powerful. The Titans, fearing these humans, split them right in half. From that point on, these new half-humans spent nearly all of their time attempting to reconnect into one whole person.

The old humans came in three kinds: male-male, male-female, and female-female. It's a nice little tale, and it explains why a portion of the population is homosexual. In your "whole" state, your other half happened to be the same sex. Simple as that.

Well I don't know about 'inferior' but one might expect it to be different (and perhaps less condusive to a marriage as a result). Let me explain. One transgendered biologist has argued that homosexuality is natural because sex was used as a bonding activity that made sense when say groups of men or women would have to cooperate with each other for long periods of time. Assuming this is correct (which I'm not saying it is), then that leads me to two probable conclusions:

1. Homosexual relationships probably weren't exlusive between two individuals, simply because a group like that was more likely to contain more than two people.

2. They would inevitably end when one of the group found a mate of the opposite sex (and would then become tied down to raising and providing for a child).

So that suggests to me that 'homosexual love' may not last as long as 'heterosexual love', and may be less exlusive. Which suggests to me the idea of exclusivity of marriage may be less applicable.

Of course, I'm just speculating here.

Gay love = No unwanted pregancies = No abortions.

You'd think neocons would encourage more gay love.

Gay love = No unwanted pregancies = No abortions.

You'd think neocons would encourage more gay love.

Yeah, just like using several forms of contraception vasty decreases the chance of unwanted pregnancies too. But do they promote it? Noo.

On that note of the Greeks, they though that sex with men was far more chic than sex with women. Males were supirior in that society, in every way. Women were simply a childbirth unit.

So it's not like homosexuality is new to the century. (I should say past century, having entered a new one only four years ago and all.)

Yeah, just like using several forms of contraception vasty decreases the chance of unwanted pregnancies too. But do they promote it? Noo.

Sad that Republicans are self-defeating.

Anyway ....

I encourage gay love ... especially if I can video tape it and sell it on the internet! (but that's another story for another time)

Sad that Republicans are self-defeating.

Anyway ....

I encourage gay love ... especially if I can video tape it and sell it on the internet! (but that's another story for another time)
Yeah you know alot about that faggot. You go to bed with a queer reaming your ass every night. We all know you are the king of queers.

Yeah you know alot about that faggot. You go to bed with a queer reaming your ass every night. We all know you are the king of queers.

You're just jealous because I wouldn't give you the shot in the eye ... not the one that winks, but the one that stinks ... last night.

The family is the fundamental group unit of society. I can't stop you from living your private life, but I will not recognise homosexual marriage.

The family is the fundamental group unit of society. I can't stop you from living your private life, but I will not recognise homosexual marriage.

What about civil unions? (which is essentially what a marriage is, like it or not but lets not get into that) Shouldn't a stable gay couple have the right to make decisions for each other like married couples can?

The family is the fundamental group unit of society. I can't stop you from living your private life, but I will not recognise homosexual marriage.
Surely the individual would be the fundamental unit? And wouldn't a group unit be more fundamental with fewer people, ie: a couple?

They way I see it, if we ban homosexual marriage, in a sense we are infringing upon their freedom of thought (and Constitutional rights), because IMO homosexuality is something of a state of mind.

Actually, there's already something of a homosexuality thought police already happening - when I had a physical a few months ago, the doctor was like "So, do you like boys, girls, or both?" So then I'm like "Girls . . . . " And then my doctor said "Good - if you did happen to like anything else, we would be able to fix the problem." (I guess through conselling)

So that suggests to me that 'homosexual love' may not last as long as 'heterosexual love', and may be less exlusive. Which suggests to me the idea of exclusivity of marriage may be less applicable.

Of course, I'm just speculating here.

Keep reading up on homosexuality in animals. Homosexual relationships in many mammals and birds are either the same length or longer than heterosexual ones.

Actually, there's already something of a homosexuality thought police already happening - when I had a physical a few months ago, the doctor was like "So, do you like boys, girls, or both?" So then I'm like "Girls . . . . " And then my doctor said "Good - if you did happen to like anything else, we would be able to fix the problem." (I guess through conselling)

Your doctor should be removed from practice.

Keep reading up on homosexuality in animals. Homosexual relationships in many mammals and birds are either the same length or longer than heterosexual ones.
Bah! Why don't you provide me with evidence? I personally couldn't care less what people do, I don't even care if gays can get married, so frankly, it's not in my interests to search out information on it. In fact, I'm tired of hearing all this crap about marriage. It's not like there's anything special about marriage. Where I live, married people are actively discriminated against in terms of taxation, so why bother to get married?

Why do these vocal proponents of homosexual marriage demand so much recognition from the rest of society? Aren't they secure and happy with themselves? Do they need the rest of us to validate their lifestyles?

Yes, I'm ranting.

... Clones still need to be raised like normal children... :p

Not if you use maturation chambers :p

And they will die earlier.

Yes they will. But you can just clone more ;) ;)
see i just cloned the smily ;) ;)

Why do these vocal proponents of homosexual marriage demand so much recognition from the rest of society? Aren't they secure and happy with themselves? Do they need the rest of us to validate their lifestyles?




Why don't you ask those who claim it's a threat to the institution of marriage and family, population levels, national security etc. that they feel so vulnerable and so outspoken about the divine validation of their lifestyle?

Why don't you ask those who claim it's a threat to the institution of marriage and family, population levels, national security etc. that they feel so vulnerable and so outspoken about the divine validation of their lifestyle?
Yeah, they have issues too.

Why is love always equated with sex?

Do those who love Christ have sex with Him?


*necrophilia, incubi, I could go on*

Jim

Bah! Why do these vocal proponents of homosexual marriage demand so much recognition from the rest of society? Aren't they secure and happy with themselves? Do they need the rest of us to validate their lifestyles?

No more than heterosexual couples need to have their marriages validated, or you need to have your right to walk down the street without being harrassed in any way....

Why do we need to continue to discriminate against them by denying them what other couples have, just because Jack likes Fred and Jill likes Frieda?

Why is love always equated with sex?

Do those who love Christ have sex with Him?


*necrophilia, incubi, I could go on*

Jim


It could explain why so many people say "Oh God".....

*ducks*

It's really funny to see people who have no clue about the reasoning behind fundamentalist viewpoints bash them and act superior when they have no clue what they're even talking about.

Really, if you researched a bit you might find that the world isn't full of brainwashed idiots; most people in widely-accepted belief systems are fairly rational even if they have a few minor points where they disagree with you. Though I guess it's easier for you guys to think that those who disagree with you are unrational idiots. It worked for Hitler and the Japanese in their wars against America, after all, so of course it will work for you.

The fundamentalist perspective is different from the humanist perspective entirely. Humanism starts at the first assumption as "Man came about by chance or was simply cast onto earth without attachment to anything external; he lives for his own sake." Fundamentalists consider that to be completely false. The fundamentalist logic looks at many different aspects of the world: our sense of beauty, our sense of nobility, our sense of value for the life of others above ourself, our tendency toward commitment and social order that is completely unrivaled in the animal kingdom. It's not some closed-minded single-lensed view. There's a lot of good logic behind the idea of a Creator, especially since science currently offers no explanation which doesn't require more faith than most religions.

When you then assume that the Creator would have put aspects of Himself into His finest creation, we then see that these qualities that seperate us from animals are important. We see that, as we set up government and like to be ruled over and see justice prevail, this wasn't necessarily created just so we could serve earthly governments properly, but rather God created this feature in us so we could serve Him properly. Our sense of justice and law and order reflects the fact that God has divine law. Our sense of morality tells us that, when we do something wrong, even if nobody sees it, we will still face consequences. We are intuitively aware that God has instituted laws over us, and that when we disobey them there will be consequences.

Thus is established the idea that a divine, OBJECTIVE law from an OBJECTIVE and existant God is logical. The Bible reflects this; there's a back-and-forth supportiing between the Bible and this logic. There's a point at where faith and rationality meet in there and lock themselves together.

And the fact is, this logic demands (unless one is hypocritical to it) that one cannot accept that truth is subjective, be it physical or supernatural. Christians realize that just as we can objectively see the shoes on our feet, so equally is the objectivity of the existance of God. As much as many inexperienced young atheist liberals might say not, miracles do happen and quite frequently in religious circles, and not just "write-me-off" ones that they say do. People have justification for their faith; there are scentifically quantifiable effects of it. You can go into a given church and get twenty convincing testimonies with objective measurable experiences, and many of you would just write them off as lies or misinterpretations but the fact is most of them are not. To claim another's ignorance without proving it so is to be ignorant oneself.

Now then, if you have objective truth and objective morals, then the idea that "well he can live his life his way and I can live my life my way" is thrown out the door. It was a fine assumption for convenient social interactions but divine truth obviously would supercede something so mundane.

This is just a slight taste of the level of thinking that goes into fundamentalist viewpoints. I wouldn't consider myself necessarily a fundamentalist; I'm undecided on that. However, I do know that there's a huge deal of well-thought out logic behind fundamentalist thinking, a LOT more than the scratch-your-skull level logic of "don't piss other people off or they'll mess with you." That's why I suggest you people who go finger-pointing at fundamentalists do a little research before you go slamming a belief system that you don't have the slightest understanding of. You might find it bears the mark of a lot more education, research, and understanding than yours does. Of course, if you refuse to because you don't believe that's possible, then you're ascribing to the very ignorance that you accuse them of...so I'd suggest if you don't want to do the research, just be quiet before you make yourself look like a hypocritical flamer.