Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, when you try to argue that homosexuals are sexual deviants that like to go out and **** in the street, what else am I supposed to think?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I like the part where you're trying to portray me as a gay-hater.
i dont think you're a 'gay hater'. i just know that you need to rethink your logic in demanding that all gay people behave conservatively as some carrot on a stick...based on some completely asinine sweeping generalisation passed off as a valid point?
sluts are everywhere. why should you be repressed by law because other straight people are whores? and they are. for direct and final proof see the internets.
Originally posted by FeceMan
As I have stated before, I don't believe that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful. However, same-sex marriage was never practiced in Judaism, and thus I honestly cannot make a statement about how it affects the status of being sacred or not.
Once again - is Judaism the sole source of marriage? Or have numerous non-Judaic cultures/religions being getting married just as long or before Judaism? I mean honestly, who died and made Judaic derived marriage king?
Because allowing gay marriage wouldn't just be affecting "Christian/Judaic" marriage. If same-sex marriages are made legal then logically people of other religions, or no religion at all can also get married. I mentioned before - not all "marriages" are Christian, and it is certainly possible to have ones with no religious influence at all.
Then again, homosexuals are perfectly capable of loving one another. They are capable of sharing the same affections for one another that heterosexuals feel for their wives and husbands, respectively. To allow them to marry and be recognized before God would not violate the idea of marriage.
That is very sensible. Even you can see it.
1. Dragging marriage into the political arena certainly is degrading to it. (What is said..."Politics is the world's second oldest profession. It has remarkable similarities to the world's oldest profession."😉
Once again - when has there ever been a time when marriage wasn't influenced in some way by politics? And as long as marriage carries tangible social/legal benefits then government will have a say. And since not all marriage is Christian in nature it is somewhat out of step with the logic behind it.
2. Divorce rates are inexcusable. That, in my opinion, is the biggest detractor from sacredness.
And that has what to do with homosexual marriage? Nothing, as far as I can see. To be honest I don't see a problem with people getting divorced. People change, move on, grow apart or get married in haste. Far worse to stay in a marriage and be unhappy then to move on and start afresh.
3. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to start acting like it. Now, I'm not saying that all gays are promiscuous sluts, but when they are fornicating in the street, they set an example that says that they are far too base in their desires to be qualified for marriage. Quite frankly, a loss of self-control into physical pleasures like that--in public!--demonstrates and almost animalistic, bestial nature to them; they appear...unevolved. If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once.
That is... absurd. Australia has a fairly healthy and sizable gay community, and I have never seen a gay couple getting it on in the street. I have seen them kissing, hugging, holding hands - sure. Which is about the same as heterosexual couples, though less frequent then heterosexuals. Yet I have had the misfortune of seeing heterosexuals couples being sexually intiment in public, and certainly I don't think that is acceptable, yet once again - I have never seen a homosexual couple engaged in such things. Maybe they are just better at hiding it.
As such I think such a condition as "If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once" is a bit silly, unless the same apply to heterosexuals (including, or so I have heard, married couples who get a kick out of sex in public places.)
Originally posted by Grimm22No.
Then there is no point to marriage for them 😐Marriage is a bond made by religious beliefs
Originally posted by xmarksthespot..with associated legal benefits. Aside from the legal issues associated with marriage, "marriage" in itself is meaningless.
Marriage is an unnatural artificial societal construct with no real intrinsic value of its own.
I can marry for love.
I can marry to get a greencard.
I can marry because of parental arrangements.
I can marry into money.
I can marry because I'm on a bender.
I can marry a Russian bride ordered on teh interweb.
All while being completely non-religious.
The subjective "value" of a marriage is wholly dependent upon the individuals partaking in the ritual and their motivations for doing so.
Originally posted by FeceMan
No, I don't. I'm merely saying: if one is going to go out there and **** guys in the street, one needs to shut one's mouth about marriage.
I am fairly certain that the men who are "going out there and ****ing guys in the street" are not the same men who are "opening their mouths about marriage."
Originally posted by FeceMan
You ought to read the edited post.I have two populations who eat beans.
One is a group of 10,000 people. 8,000 of them eat beans.
The other is a group of 100,000 people. 30,000 of them eat beans.Which group is more likely to eat beans?
Imagine two groups of people who are interested in eating beans.
In the first group, 10,000 people are interested in eating beans, but only 8,000 of them are successful.
In the second group, 100,000 people are interested in eating beans, but only 30,000 of them are successful.
Which group is more interested in eating beans?
Which group is more likely to generalize the other group as gluttonous simply because the group in question more successful at eating beans?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It is not a matter of pointing to animals. Human beings are animals.It likely comes as zero suprise to you that a majority of the things you've said in this thread are pretty much exact quotes of posts by Whob. He was always quick to say that people who defend homosexuals are saying it's the same as a dog licking his ass or eating his own shit.
Tell me what you'd think if someone equated you to that kind of activity? Do you even stop for one second and consider how that would make you feel? Do you ever stop for one second and consider how in the hell you could call homosexuality a result of molestation or flighty neighbors? It's just not true. You know it's not true. You accused my father of molesting me in my crib when I was too young to remember. Do you honestly think that every homosexual in the world (and there are a hell of a lot more of us than you think) were molested by their parents or their childhood neighbors?
And you're right. Most people in this country have something against homosexuals. People like yourself want to pretend marriage is some sacred institution that exists in the shining light of god. But that's your delusion. The rest of the country doesn't give one good god damn about marriage. They just don't like ****. And neither do you. That's fine. I don't like you either. But you don't see me saying you don't have the right to exist or be happy.
How about every time you talk about how unnatural my existence is I call your wife a whore and your father a bastard?
Well I promised you a response today and here it is:
First, can't agree that human beings are animals. We are far different in areas of thinking, dreams, hopes, expression, education, etc...
Second, I may have sounded like Whob in a few places, but that was not my intent! I really didn't like his tone with people or his habit of posting needless smilies and crap.
But more importantly....I don't hate you. (or Adam or Draco or anybody else who is gay.) I don't want you to not exist or not find happiness.
Honestly, I don't. In the PM I sent you I told you that reading that gave me pause and made me think about things.
I see that my posts have been condescending and probably demeaning in that while I never outright insulted you, I made it plain that I felt your behavior/attractions/desires/ etc... were unhealthy, unnatural, and not normal.
I can see where that would make you feel like crap, and feel that I'm a jerk.
Again, I don't want that to be how you feel.
So, I see (and always did, mind you) that gay people are just people, like any other.
They laugh and dream and hope and fear and love.
I get that, and would never try to devalue you as a person.
So gay people are good people, perhaps better than straights at times for putting up with the TRUE bigots that want to beat you or ridicule you for something that you didn't choose, something that you have no control over (talking desires/attractions), and something that is part of who you are.
No more bashing or condescending talk to gay people, at least not from me. 🙂
So now, I have to think: Gay people are not any better or worse than I or anybody else is, they just do things different.
Now what you do different is not "normal" I guess, but then as I said in the PM, neither is my obsessive love of Starwars or coffee.
I wouldn't count any type of normality, or abnormality as being more significant than any other.
So, you don't use the sex organs as they "should" be used (pro-creation, etc..).... ok.
I know that you doing that, even you doing that in a committed relationship with another man.....will have absolutely NO EFFECT on my marriage, which will stand or fall on it's own.
I've always stated the opinion that I support civil unions, so that the gay couple is entitled to FULL tax breaks and benefits and has a commitment ceremony of their choosing if they wish.
I guess gay marriage itself isn't much different, other than to say that homosexuality is completely and totally just as natural and normal as a straight marriage.
And that's where the issue comes up for me, because I don't believe that it is.
I don't believe that we should tell our society and the next generation of kids coming up behind us that it is.
We tell them in sex ed. that men and women have sex, functions of the penis, scrotum, semen, and sperm and we tell them the functions of the vagina, it's natural lubrication, ovulation, menstrual cycles and of course.. conception.
That is human sexuality and what the human sex organs (at least by functions) seem to be designed for.
Then you should of course mention homosexuality, and I would say something like: "And there are many other people who don't feel that urge to mate with the opposite sex, who are drawn towards the same sex, and don't use their sexual organs for those functions. They are people and worthy of respect and love like any other, and just follow a different path for whatever undetermined reason."
Because as far as I can tell, it is (as of now) not known why some people are gay. Many theory's abound from choice, to developmental factors, to genetics, but none has been proven conclusively as to why some people don't feel like following the biological design for sex.
If you feel as I do, that development and influence and experiences play the biggest role, then it's hard to say that I want homosexuality taught as perfectly normal or have gay marriages, further reinforcing an unproven point.
I'll use my wife as an example. When she was 12-15, she wasn't very feminine. She dressed in big baggy jeans, hooded sweatshirts, and bandannas.
She was a total tomboy, interested in playing rough sports like football and soccer. She didn't want much to do with the girly-girls, who were into make up and boys. In fact, most of her friends were guys as she found more in common with them.
She has told me very clearly that she felt unattractive (her weight was part of this), and not desirable by boys. She didn't feel feminine and was unhappy.
(I have a few pics of her from this time, but on pain of death from her I can't post them.) 😛
Many of you have seen her pics now, and know that she is very pretty, very feminine, into fancy clothes and make-up and so on.
She got her confidence built up by family and friends, lost a little weight, developed through high-school..... and she's straight. (good for me.)
But in the culture that is being pushed forward now, she would have been told that she was gay.
That would have been the answer. "You know, there's a good chance that you don't feel pretty or desirable to boys and you don't like feminine things because you're meant to be with women. You should see if this is true, don't be afraid of it."
A seed is planted and grows in her mind. Maybe she seeks out a girl and trys it. Maybe it's different and she's not sure, but likes the acceptance and attention. Maybe she keeps trying it and it becomes her way of finding love, so she sticks with it and learns to like it.
At 14 or 15 it's not so hard to imagine that happening as her mind, emotions, beliefs, and of course body are still developing into the final result she will have as an adult.
Since she went to a private school and wasn't around the culture that supports those ideas I have my wife, but it's easy to say that it could have turned out much different.
As it is now, they are telling 12 year old boys that they are gay, without even waiting to see if a hormone growth in teenage years may have him start liking girls. I wasn't even seriously looking at girls until 14, so it's hard to say to a child that young that he's gay.
I guess I'm rambling here, but the point is to say that I don't want anything bad to happen to you, I want you to be happy, I don't want you to hate yourself or be hated for your alternative lifestyle.
But it is the alternative and not the designed path. That truth should always be present and not overlooked or discarded.
Originally posted by AllianceVery good, I'll PM you for the answers as to how I've misunderstood the genetics.
Addressing a personal point:Read my post. I kindly offered to ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS outside of this thread. I pointed out that your perception of genetics and how it related to homosexuality sucked.
A post in here explaining the genetics of homosexuality may be good as well, since it is the main point used to argue homosexuality is how a person "IS" versus the argument that homosexuality is how a person "has been formed into."
Originally posted by StrangeloveWill do.
Also, there are currently 26 states in the U.S. which ban same-sex marriage, currently.In addition, your math is horrible. 5 in 6 states banning gay marriage does not mean that 5 in 6 people disapprove of gay marriage. That's just ludicrous. At best, it's an assumption that's harmful to your position.
And recent polls suggest that only 40-53% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.
Do some research first 😬
As the Accountant/Operations Manager for a nation-wide fundraising supplier, dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars a day and many transactions and lines of credit on multiple accounts..... I'd hate to be off in my math. 😛
Originally posted by Adam_PoE... I know.
It is personal.
For what it's worth, I'm trying not to be disrespectful or condescending to any person of any persuasion since we all bleed the same red blood.
Peace.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No. ..with associated legal benefits. Aside from the legal issues associated with marriage, "marriage" in itself is meaningless.I can marry for love.
I can marry to get a greencard.
I can marry because of parental arrangements.
I can marry into money.
I can marry because I'm on a bender.
I can marry a Russian bride ordered on teh interweb.All while being completely non-religious.
The subjective "value" of a marriage is wholly dependent upon the individuals partaking in the ritual and their motivations for doing so.
You're right, marriage doesn't necessarily have to be about religion.
However, all of those other reasons aside from love are not true marriage.
Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue because, like I said before, it bastardizes the concept of marriage, which is that two people that love one another wish to create a bond between themselves.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Not in this magnitude, I'd wager.
How do you know ?
😬
You just said you never saw a gay public f*ck fest for yourself...how do you know gay people do that stuff more often than straight people ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
No, I don't. I'm merely saying: if one is going to go out there and **** guys in the street, one needs to shut one's mouth about marriage.
Yes, that individual person shouldn't be a hypocrite, I agree.
What about the other 90% of Gays and Lesbians ? Should we stop fighting for our right to marriage, because a select few of "us" ****ed someone on the street ?
Like I said...more straight people do that than Gay people....maybe straight couples should have thier marriages annulled now 🙄
Originally posted by FeceMan
That's precisely the point. Quantities, not ratios.
If Gays make up 10% of the population (not a reliable accuracy, this is only the gays who are "out"😉, then ratio does not matter.
There is more straight porn than gay porn- fact
There are more heterosexual "orgies", "outrageous sexual acts" than homosexual ones- fact
You know this...now you may argue, "but that's bcuz there are far more straight people than gay people, so ofcourse that's the case"
And i would respond: "so what?"[/b]
You are trying to argue that if Gay people want the right to marriage, then we as a [i]"collective community" should represent ourselves better...right ?
That's a flawed argument, simply because one gay person is in NO WAY responsible for what other gay people do.
You are a Christian right ?
Should I automatically assume that you are this hypocritical, judgemental, closed minded bigot, just because many other Christians happen to be that?
You would argue that was an UNFAIR generalization, wouldn't you ? 🙄
Should I call you a barbaric murderer, just because Christians in the past tortured and killed thousands of innocent people ?????
Should I clump you together with the other masses and masses of Christians who are nothing like you ?
If not....
Then why clump All gay people together, because of something you ASSUME occurs at a rapid rate among Gay people ? 😬
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But in the culture that is being pushed forward now, she would have been told that she was gay.That would have been the answer. "You know, there's a good chance that you don't feel pretty or desirable to boys and you don't like feminine things because you're meant to be with women. You should see if this is true, don't be afraid of it."
A seed is planted and grows in her mind. Maybe she seeks out a girl and trys it. Maybe it's different and she's not sure, but likes the acceptance and attention. Maybe she keeps trying it and it becomes her way of finding love, so she sticks with it and learns to like it.
This is probably one of the most naive arguments I ever heard.
1) A person cannot become attracted to someone of the same sex just because someone else suggested they might be. Homosexuality does not start as "an idea" or "let me try this"
Likewise, if a person is Gay/Bisexual, you cannot make them straight by telling them that they are straight...it doesn't work that way buddy.
2) your idea of a woman liking the attention from another woman is not too far fetched, but how can a straight woman orgasm over another woman if she's not Gay ?
I orgasm over the thought or feeling of other men, not because someone told me I should, but because I always thought men were hott.
I was Gay way before I had my first homosexual encounter ....how do you explain that ? What absurd little theory can you come up with to explain that ?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Since she went to a private school and wasn't around the culture that supports those ideas I have my wife, but it's easy to say that it could have turned out much different.
I went to Private School all my life....a conservative anti-gay private school...and guess what..
I'm Gay 😬
My incident is not isolated. There are lots of Gay people in Churches, in private schools, in sports, etc. They simply choose whether or not to TELL people....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
As it is now, they are telling 12 year old boys that they are gay, without even waiting to see if a hormone growth in teenage years may have him start liking girls. I wasn't even seriously looking at girls until 14, so it's hard to say to a child that young that he's gay.
WTF are you talking about ? 🤨
And you imagine that just because you weren't attracted to girls until age 14, that this means 14 is the age where EVERYONE becomes sexually oriented ?
Guess what buddy....I've been attracted to men since Age 9......
And NO, I wasn't molested or told that I was gay, i didn't even KNOW what the word Gay meant....however, I was always taught that men should be with women, yada yada, all the bullshit you are trying to preach here, i was never encouraged to be Gay...and woah...im gay....i have been since that age....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
For what it's worth, I'm trying not to be disrespectful or condescending to any person
But you ARE being disrespectful and condescending. You disregard the facts that prove your claims incorrect, and you continue to insist that Homosexuality is perverse and "unnatural" when what you are saying is unfactual.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well you're not really gay (according to you). So of course that would come up.
He means he's a bisexual who would be with a guy more often than not with a girl.
Most bisexuals attempt to define themselves in a 60/40 or 70/30 ratio between sexual attractions to either gender.
However most bisexuals I have encountered would say that they are predominantly more "straight" than "gay."