NationStates Jolt Archive

Between Operrsion and lack of reward for gays
here to sum it up, Being Gay is sin in the christain opoin but we aren't preventing gays from being gay we're attmepting to stop its encouragement like "we won't stop you from smoking, but we won't give money to you if you do"

The Christian faith is so shattered (as in there are so many sects) that there are few generalizations that work, and that's not one of them. Some divisions really don't care if you're gay.

Between Operrsion and lack of reward for gays
here to sum it up, Being Gay is sin in the christain opoin but we aren't preventing gays from being gay we're attmepting to stop its encouragement like "we won't stop you from smoking, but we won't give money to you if you do"
Except that gays have as much of a right to marry who they love as you do.

Between Operrsion and lack of reward for gays
here to sum it up, Being Gay is sin in the christain opoin but we aren't preventing gays from being gay we're attmepting to stop its encouragement like "we won't stop you from smoking, but we won't give money to you if you do"
wont work. why? becuase please explain to me why some one would choose to be gay and how people could then become gay in a household where they were neever exposed to homosexuality

k thanks bye

wont work. why? becuase please explain to me why some one would choose to be gay and how people could then become gay in a household where they were neever exposed to homosexuality

k thanks bye
kthxbi.

Except that gays have as much of a right to marry who they love as you do.
your right they do I am not old enough yet :)

your right they do I am not old enough yet :)
Never would have guessed that.

wont work. why? becuase please explain to me why some one would choose to be gay and how people could then become gay in a household where they were neever exposed to homosexuality

k thanks bye
chess choice is nothing being gay is being gay, I don't care if its genetic, I don't care if it pure chocice, I don't give a crap, I don't want my government support a sin Period ever.

chess choice is nothing being gay is being gay, I don't care if its genetic, I don't care if it pure chocice, I don't give a crap, I don't want my government support a sin Period ever.
Even if it is a 'sin' given by god?

Who made it a sin anyway?

Your argument would hold water if anyone was espousing that gays be given any different rights or privileges that a heterosexual person. No one is advocating that. All gays really want is a way to visit their loved one, hassle-free at the hospital. To have the same right to adopt a child. To be able to inherit. How are these promoting homosexuality. It's not like you're getting anything extra for being gay.

chess choice is nothing being gay is being gay, I don't care if its genetic, I don't care if it pure chocice, I don't give a crap, I don't want my government support a sin Period ever.
lets play a game!

first a scavenger hunt

find a walmart bag without any extra holes in it
find some clear scotch tape

now for the game

put the plastic bag over your head and tape it tightly at the neck.

see how long until you suffocate

lets play a game!

first a scavenger hunt

find a walmart bag without any extra holes in it
find some clear scotch tape

now for the game

put the plastic bag over your head and tape it tightly at the neck.

see how long until you suffocate
Chess, you're going to get warned for that.

Between Operrsion and lack of reward for gays
here to sum it up, Being Gay is sin in the christain opoin but we aren't preventing gays from being gay we're attmepting to stop its encouragement like "we won't stop you from smoking, but we won't give money to you if you do"

No, let me tell YOU the difference between oppression and lack of reward. Oppression is inequality. Lack of reward is equality. Gays never said they wanted any rewards for their homosexuality. They just want to be treated equally. And then you jump on them and whine that they want special treatment.

They're not asking for money dammit. They're not asking for encouragement. They're not asking for special treatment of ANY KIND.

They just want to be equal like the rest of us.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Even if it is a 'sin' given by god?

Who made it a sin anyway?
I have no idea about who makes something a sin but since it might be god its like a code of conduct , a god given sin is self contradictory.

I have no idea about who makes something a sin but since it might be god its like a code of conduct , a god given sin is self contradictory.
So then you admit that homosexuality is not a sin (because it is natural, and thus, god given)?

No, let me tell YOU the difference between oppression and lack of reward. Oppression is inequality. Lack of reward is equality. Gays never said they wanted any rewards for their homosexuality. They just want to be treated equally. And then you jump on them and whine that they want special treatment.

They're not asking for money dammit. They're not asking for encouragement. They're not asking for special treatment of ANY KIND.

They just want to be equal like the rest of us.

Why is that so hard to understand?
they have the same rights as straights do don't they :rolleyes: if not I will start the campigns right away.

they have the same rights as straights do don't they :rolleyes: if not I will start the campigns right away.
Nope, they don't have the right to marry who they choose.

they have the same rights as straights do don't they

What do you think? :)

if not I will start the campigns right away.

You're too late. The campaign has been going for some time and you've been whining about "ecouraging gayness".

Your argument would hold water if anyone was espousing that gays be given any different rights or privileges that a heterosexual person. No one is advocating that. All gays really want is a way to visit their loved one, hassle-free at the hospital. To have the same right to adopt a child. To be able to inherit. How are these promoting homosexuality. It's not like you're getting anything extra for being gay.
well lets see, gasp I have little sympathy all they have to do is ask if is so bad only family will be let in then the family aout to take the gay in with them, they can adopt a child as if the were single I don't think they would do a better or worse job of taking care of children, becasue their comptence differs from person to person, they can the family can race heckels but they always can anway.

Nope, they don't have the right to marry who they choose.
and neither do hetros this raises no argument hetros can't go out and marry like a homo.

I don't think the sin excuse should ever mean anything. Starshadow, how would you like it if the majority of the population was against something you stood for just because they followed a book that said they should be? Religion should be a means of enlightening oneself instead of pointing fingers at others.

What do you think? :)



You're too late. The campaign has been going for some time and you've been whining about "ecouraging gayness".
geez I don know they do they can go out and marry the other gender can't they.

I don't think the sin excuse should ever mean anything. Starshadow, how would you like it if the majority of the population was against something you stood for just because they followed a book that said they should be? Religion should be a means of enlightening oneself instead of pointing fingers at others.
matrys get a large heavenly reward I think.

and neither do hetros this raises no argument hetros can't go out and marry like a homo.
Wrong. Heterosexual men can marry any women that consents (minus a few exceptions). Homosexual men can't marry any male that consents. .

Wrong. Heterosexual men can marry any women that consents (minus a few exceptions). Homosexual men can't marry any male that consents. .
but can't homosexuals go out and marry a woman if they are a man.

geez I don know they do they can go out and marry the other gender can't they.

LMFAO.

LMFAO.
what does that mean

but can't homosexuals go out and marry a woman if they are a man.

NEWS FLASH!!! We've found the solution to homosexuality!!!

What is it doctor?!

Gays just marry the other gender!!!

Bloody brilliant!!!

I know!

But...what kind of marriage would that be?!

A good sexless marriage, just like mine...

HA HA HA HA HA!




and LMFAO means "laughing my fucking ass off." :)

Wrong. Heterosexual men can marry any women that consents (minus a few exceptions). Homosexual men can't marry any male that consents. .
Tell me, can a Heterosexual person marry another person of the same gender? No more than a Homosexual person can.

[I agree with you, but...]

but can't homosexuals go out and marry a woman if they are a man.
Defeats the purpose of marriage...

Chess, you're going to get warned for that.
i've done worse to get warned for, suck it up.

but can't homosexuals go out and marry a woman if they are a man.

By that logic I could say that a law making everyone be atheist doesn't discriminate just because it's in effect on the whole population. Discrimination doesn't just have to do with putting laws on specific people, it can be laws on everyone that favor specific people.

Tell me, can a Heterosexual person marry another person of the same gender? No more than a Homosexual person can.

[I agree with you, but...]
Not the point. Heterosexuals can marry who they wish to marry, homosexuals can not.

By that logic I could say that a law making everyone be atheist doesn't discriminate just because it's in effect on the whole population. Discrimination doesn't just have to do with putting laws on specific people, it can be laws on everyone that favor specific people.
Like I said matry's get big rewards

oh yeah and I don't advocate the control of belifes they can be gay till the ends of the earth but I REFUSE to encourage it.

Not the point. Heterosexuals can marry who they wish to marry, homosexuals can not.
But in a legal sense, they cannot marry whoever they wish to.

I definitely wouldn't advocate the control of beliefs. I think it would be awful if the government made everyone atheist, and I am not atheist myself. It was merely an example.

oh yeah and I don't advocate the control of belifes they can be gay till the ends of the earth but I REFUSE to encourage it.
How does letting them marry encourge it?


(A heterosexual man wouldn't marry another man by definition)

oh yeah and I don't advocate the control of belifes they can be gay till the ends of the earth but I REFUSE to encourage it.
oh cuz of course letting homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else is encouraging homosexuality

HELLO, cpt obvious here! making it legal or not isnt going to stop homosexuality

But in a legal sense, they cannot marry whoever they wish to.
Fine. Heterosexuals are able to marry as their sexual orientation dictates, while homosexuals are currently unable to. Legal jargon fixed.

Oh well if you believe homosexuality is a sin; you don't get to deny me the right to be free in this country, now do you?

It's funny how homosexuals can be persecuted yet if I say that all Christians are jackasses, I'll be the one who gets beat up, verbally abused, and otherwise slandered... :rolleyes:

oh cuz of course letting homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else is encouraging homosexuality

HELLO, cpt obvious here! making it legal or not isnt going to stop homosexuality
number of times I have seen this argument 1000000 am I unaware of their rights being oppressed are they not allowed any thing under the constution any other than marriage becasue they can marry the oppiste sex just like any other

Fine. Heterosexuals are able to marry as their sexual orientation dictates, while homosexuals are currently unable to. Legal jargon fixed.
This is technically not an inequality, as Heterosexuals and Heterosexuals have the same rights, although their desire to use those rights varies.

It's funny how homosexuals can be persecuted yet if I say that all Christians are jackasses, I'll be the one who gets beat up, verbally abused, and otherwise slandered... :rolleyes:
and this has already happend to me.

they have the same rights as straights do don't they :rolleyes: if not I will start the campigns right away.

They don't have the right to marry their life partner.

Start the campaigns.

This is technically not an inequality, as Heterosexuals and Heterosexuals have the same rights, although their desire to use those rights varies.
However, were gay marriage allowed heterosexuals and homosexuals would still also have the same rights, and both desires to use those rights would be satisfied.

number of times I have seen this argument 1000000 am I unaware of their rights being oppressed are they not allowed any thing under the constution any other than marriage becasue they can marry the oppiste sex just like any other
THEY CAN'T MARRY WHO THEY F*CKING WANT TO MARRY. GET IT?

number of times I have seen this argument 1000000 am I unaware of their rights being oppressed are they not allowed any thing under the constution any other than marriage becasue they can marry the oppiste sex just like any other
there is a nice long list of legal disabilities not being able to get married causes

THEY CAN'T MARRY WHO THEY F*CKING WANT TO MARRY. GET IT?

Doesn't get clearer than that.

However, were gay marriage allowed heterosexuals and homosexuals would still also have the same rights, and both desires to use those rights would be satisfied.
The point is that a lack of Homosexual marriage is not an inequality, not that I don't believe that it would be a good thing for said marriage to exist.

and this has already happend to me.

I'M THE VICTIM HERE!!! :p

LOOK AT ME, ALL THIS INTOLERANCE BECAUSE...I'M INTOLERANT!!! :D

I do not encourage homosexuality. I think gays should, like stop having so much buttsex. Yeah. And marry women, they should marry women.

wont work. why? becuase please explain to me why some one would choose to be gay and how people could then become gay in a household where they were neever exposed to homosexuality

That's some pretty flawed logic. You're basically suggesting that a person will only choose things that won't cause them to become a pariah. History (not to mention personal experience) shows otherwise.

As for the second statement:

a) Nobody said anyone learned about homosexuality at home. Most people don't even learn about sex at home. It's a big world.

b) Nobody said homosexuality had to be chosen as a child, the argument was solely that it was a choice.

I realize you people don't like those you qualify as 'homophobes', but honestly, if you're going to argue with them you could at least use arguments that make sense.

THEY CAN'T MARRY WHO THEY F*CKING WANT TO MARRY. GET IT?

He's right though. A straight person can't marry another man either, even if they wanted to. They are equal in that respect.

That's some pretty flawed logic. You're basically suggesting that a person will only choose things that won't cause them to become a pariah. History (not to mention personal experience) shows otherwise.

As for the second statement:

a) Nobody said anyone learned about homosexuality at home. Most people don't even learn about sex at home. It's a big world.

b) Nobody said homosexuality had to be chosen as a child, the argument was solely that it was a choice.

I realize you people don't like those you qualify as 'homophobes', but honestly, if you're going to argue with them you could at least use arguments that make sense.

oh of COURSE, millions of people to choose to be gay so they can make spectacles of themselves!

they surely do love that, thats why they dont get depressed and commit suicide

oh of COURSE, millions of people to choose to be gay so they can make spectacles of themselves!

they surely do love that, thats why they dont get depressed and commit suicide

And Jews were willingly tortured and slaughtered for their beliefs, when they simply could have forsaken their religion and lived. Unless you plan to suggest believing in a God isn't a choice?

oh of COURSE, millions of people to choose to be gay so they can make spectacles of themselves!

they surely do love that, thats why they dont get depressed and commit suicide
Mate, I'm on your side of this argument, but this is a slippery argument you are making. There are plenty of drama queens in the world who love to make spectacles of themselves.

However, the vast majority of research has pointed that homosexuality is natural and not chosen. You could be using that argument to much greater effect than this one.

He's right though. A straight person can't marry another man either, even if they wanted to. They are equal in that respect.

Yeah, you remember back 50, 60 years ago? A black guy wanted to marry a white girl. They were told, you have the right to marry whoever you want to of your own race. They said, we're being oppressed. They were told, no you aren't, you are both equal because you can both marry your own race. But that's it. Equal in that respect.

Why couldn't they marry? The usual reasons, it was perverted, unnatural, sinful, and threatened the sanctity of marriage.

He's right though. A straight person can't marry another man either, even if they wanted to. They are equal in that respect.
Except that you run the risk of saying that marriage is a right, and if it is a right, and marriage is defined as a union between those who love each other....

and this has already happend to me.

So then, we share the same penchance for intolerance, don't we?

Yeah, you remember back 50, 60 years ago? A black guy wanted to marry a white girl. They were told, you have the right to marry whoever you want to of your own race. They said, we're being oppressed. They were told, no you aren't, you are both equal because you can both marry your own race. But that's it. Equal in that respect.

Why couldn't they marry? The usual reasons, it was perverted, unnatural, sinful, and threatened the sanctity of marriage.

The question was never if gays not being allowed to marry the same gender was moral. It was a question of if it was equal. No man, straight or gay, is permitted to marry another man.

Yeah, you remember back 50, 60 years ago? A black guy wanted to marry a white girl. They were told, you have the right to marry whoever you want to of your own race. They said, we're being oppressed. They were told, no you aren't, you are both equal because you can both marry your own race. But that's it. Equal in that respect.

Why couldn't they marry? The usual reasons, it was perverted, unnatural, sinful, and threatened the sanctity of marriage.
Not technically inequal either. Like I said, I don't think it's a good thing that Homosexual marriages are banned, but it's not techically inequal.

Edit: Sheesh, this forum is fast. At least on other forums there isn't a reply every ten seconds. =/

CSW: No... the fact that it would be a right to marry those of the opposite gender does not make it a universal concept.

Except that you run the risk of saying that marriage is a right, and if it is a right, and marriage is defined as a union between those who love each other....

See, that's the beauty of it. I don't consider marriage a right. I never have. So I don't concern myself with that.

Could someone please explain to me where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is wrong? No one's ever been able to tell me. :confused:

I don't care how many times people use the argument that a straight man can't marry another man! If he truly wanted to, he'd be gay! You're trying to tell me a law isn't oppressive just because it applies the same to everyone. It can still favor a certain group.

Except that gays have as much of a right to marry who they love as you do.
Except that marriage began as a religious institution. A civil union is one thing, marriage is another.

matrys get a large heavenly reward I think.
Stop using that bloody argument. It means absolutely nothing. The 9/11 hijackers probably thought they were in for some major heavenly rewards from Allah, 72 virgins waiting for them or whatever it is. You know that quote "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Well, not allowing gays to marry is denying them their right to pursue happiness.
Also, gays aren't really completely equal, what about the military? They currently have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you are openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Also, it is perfectly legal in some states to be fired from your job (or not get hired in the first place) for being gay.

I don't care how many times people use the argument that a straight man can't marry another man! If he truly wanted to, he'd be gay! You're trying to tell me a law isn't oppressive just because it applies the same to everyone. It can still favor a certain group.

How do you figure?

Thousands - if not many more - marry for power, land, money, cultural reasons, etc. The idea that marrying someone means you love them is rather misguiding. And that is what homosexuality is, isn't it? Loving someone of the same gender?

No man, straight or gay, is permitted to marry another man.

Did you just miss my analogy? That same stupid argument was used 60 years ago to prevent interracial marriage.

Everyone had the right to marry their own race. There, equality! :D

Stop using that bloody argument. It means absolutely nothing. The 9/11 hijackers probably thought they were in for some major heavenly rewards from Allah, 72 virgins waiting for them or whatever it is. You know that quote "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Well, not allowing gays to marry is denying them their right to pursue happiness.
Also, gays aren't really completely equal, what about the military? They currently have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you are openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Also, it is perfectly legal in some states to be fired from your job (or not get hired in the first place) for being gay.
If I was in the military, I wouldn't want to know if a guy was gay either. Think about it, in the service the last thing you want is to know that when you shower your buddy is checking out your ass.

How do you figure?

Thousands - if not many more - marry for power, land, money, cultural reasons, etc. The idea that marrying someone means you love them is rather misguiding. And that is what homosexuality is, isn't it? Loving someone of the same gender?

Ok good point, scratch those first two sentences.

chess choice is nothing being gay is being gay, I don't care if its genetic, I don't care if it pure chocice, I don't give a crap, I don't want my government support a sin Period ever.


I wish my government would recognize the constitution and separate church and state. There is no reason for any religion to depict what freedoms the population should and should not have.

Stop using that bloody argument. It means absolutely nothing. The 9/11 hijackers probably thought they were in for some major heavenly rewards from Allah, 72 virgins waiting for them or whatever it is. You know that quote "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Well, not allowing gays to marry is denying them their right to pursue happiness.
Also, gays aren't really completely equal, what about the military? They currently have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you are openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Also, it is perfectly legal in some states to be fired from your job (or not get hired in the first place) for being gay.
snow board I already know who you are or should I say john kerry :D

Did you just miss my analogy? That same stupid argument was used 60 years ago to prevent interracial marriage.

Everyone had the right to marry their own race. There, equality! :D

Yes, you're right. It would be equal. You're trying to suggest morality is the same as equality: it isn't. Equality is simply the state of being equal. Equality doesn't even mean fair, forget right.

I don't care how many times people use the argument that a straight man can't marry another man! If he truly wanted to, he'd be gay! You're trying to tell me a law isn't oppressive just because it applies the same to everyone. It can still favor a certain group.
If he was homosexual, he still couldn't marry another man. And the law would not overtly favor another group, if it applies the same standard to everyone, because everyone is being oppressed in the same way.

Except that marriage began as a religious institution. A civil union is one thing, marriage is another.

Once the government stops endorsing marriage, I'll be happy to concede your institution back to your control. :)

The 9/11 hijackers probably thought they were in for some major heavenly rewards from Allah, 72 virgins waiting for them or whatever it is.

What they didn't know was that the 72 virgins were men!!!

Allah's a sneaky bastard. :p

I wish my government would recognize the constitution and separate church and state. There is no reason for any religion to depict what freedoms the population should and should not have.
and I wish you were a christain we don't always get what we want

Could someone please explain to me where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is wrong? No one's ever been able to tell me. :confused:

Here:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Except that marriage began as a religious institution. A civil union is one thing, marriage is another.

Began does not imply it still is. And it isn't. There is such a thing as civil marriage, and they occur all the time without religious input. It is a purely legal affair.

If he was homosexual, he still couldn't marry another man. And the law would not overtly favor another group, if it applies the same standard to everyone, because everyone is being oppressed in the same way.

But if there was a law making everyone eat meat, vegetarians would be oppressed while no one else would care, even though the standards being held to everyone.

and I wish you were a christain we don't always get what we want
Non sequitur comparison. His wish for the separation of church and state to be enforced does not harm anyone or diminish their rights. Furthermore, it is in compliance with US law.
Your wish goes against the first amendment and would take away his right to choose his own religion were this opinion enforced.

Thus you've made no point.

and I wish you were a christain we don't always get what we want
Except, the government has an obligation to uphold the thing that founded it. We, however, have no obligation to become Christian.

A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.

These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now.

Read the article:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

A couple of other quotes:
Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Here:Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Doesn't that just mean that a man can't have sex with a man in the same way he has sex with a woman? I don't take that to neccesarily mean that homosexuality is wrong.

Doesn't that just mean that a man can't have sex with a man in the same way he has sex with a woman? I don't take that to neccesarily mean that homosexuality is wrong.

homosexuality or gay sex? Both go hand in hand, much like heterosexuality and straight sex.

homosexuality or gay sex? Both go hand in hand, much like heterosexuality and straight sex.
Maybe so, but we have separation of Church and State in the US, which means that we cannot use the Bible to make laws. Look how that turns out when fundamentalist Islamists do that with the Koran (Taliban, anybody?).

Maybe so, but we have separation of Church and State in the US, which means that we cannot use the Bible to make laws. Look how that turns out when fundamentalist Islamists do that with the Koran (Taliban, anybody?).

Sadly, that is innaccurate. We SUPPOSEDLY have separation of church and state. But when at least three of the Supreme Court Justices deny this, the president denies this, countless Congressmen deny it, and numerous other officials deny it, it gets a little blurry.

Sadly, that is innaccurate. We SUPPOSEDLY have separation of church and state. But when at least three of the Supreme Court Justices deny this, the president denies this, countless Congressmen deny it, and numerous other officials deny it, it gets a little blurry.
Well, what I meant is that we're SUPPOSED to have the separation.

Ahh! The joys of equality.

I propose an ammendmant to the constitution that states that all people are required to kowtow to the president at the sight of him. Since this applies equally to all people (lets impose it on people in other countries to) it should be a law.

So when I can pass along all the rights granted in a marriage to my partner just as easily I don't care if you call it a Hobbesian Travesty I'll still accept it.