Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay. Why does it disturb me to see , IN public or anywhere, men kissing? Please dont just come back with I'm a homophobe or closet gay. I have a girlfriend and 2 children and I am very attracted to women. It just turns my stomach. Now some of you will just say I'm a NAZI and gay hater but I'm really not. Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed. So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ? I'm not arguing here. I would appreciate greatly if any one could explain this (scientifically as Chaos puts it) like they have on the other points i tried to make. Because i assumed, because of my personal reaction, that it was unnatural. Ive since been proved wrong and I would like to know what it is that makes it seem so wrong to me.(The seeing of it; not the being gay)
No, let's not say it isn't. I simply isn't. Period, en d of your stupidity. You have a girlf ried and 2 children, therefore you have already broken more of gods rules than have I. And if you want to ascribe the validity of your perspective to something other than god, then you are pissing down a dry well. You're not a Nazi. I'm much more a Nazi than you likely ever will be; especially since I know what it means to be a Nazi than you or anyone who professes to be a Nazi ever will. You are arguing,...actually. You assume it's unatural for ev ery reason you've used and assumed it was natural. You can't divorce the seeing it from the social conditioning you've spent your entire life subscribing to. As I said, there was a time when I felt guilty over the disgust I felt at seeing a man pray over his cup of Wendy's chilli. I felt conflicted about my reaction to that sight. The reason is that I felt he had every right to do so in the face of every emotion it illicited in me. I no longer feel that way. I still feel every bit as much sympathy for him as I'm sure his christian ideals tell him he's supposed to feel for me. But he doesn't. My sympathy and regret are only outweighed by his ignorant disgust of me and anyone like me who dares to be openly gay in his presence. I felt a twinge of guilt over hating him. He doesn't. That's the difference.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Does Devil King get disgusted by girls kissing?
That depends on if they're kissing me.
But even then; no, I don't. These days it's typically innocent. I might be ten flaming sheets to the wind when it comes to this forum, but I've gotten more chick ass than most of the members of this forum who actually seek it out.
Besides, wouldn't it be terribly hypocritical of me to react with disgust to two chicks kissing? I spend a lot of time passing an empty glass over two chicks kissing to get a refill on my drink at the bar than any straight man. In fact, that might be my only reason for disliking them; they hold up the line at the bar.
Originally posted by Captain REX
I agree, it shouldn't matter who is doing the grabbing (so long as its consensual!), but where.I for one feel that maybe certain things shouldn't be revealed to kids until they're "old enough." For example, telling kids about homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean saying 'They get their kicks through anal sex, my seven-year-old son! Let me explain with this diagram.'
You're assuming I'm talking about near-full-on making out. I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about location so much as I am the audacity of exclusivness. I like to see the odd straight couple kiss on the subway; good for them. But when a gay couple does it in Chicago or Dallas, it mustn't come with a measure of public outrage or disgust, and certainly without rebuke for the assumption of audacity. I'm not brave for leaning over and kissing my boyfriend; I'm typical of any two people in a relationship. The odd straight couple doesn't have to consider where they are before a moment of expression strikes, and such should be the case with gay couples. To say that one group should have that thought bubble over their head before they react is the problem. Maybe I just shared a moment or a perverse joke or a smart ass remark with my "significant other". The straight couple doesn't have to ask themselves where they are to react to it, but the gay couple might depending on their geography.
Basically, I'm saying that hate crimes should apply to gay's reaction to an event the same way it does now to a heterosexual's reaction to the opposite. Maybe a few caved in skulls on the other side of the asile, for no good reason, would serve as a warning to so many who cave in a skull for what is, esentially, the same reason in reverse.
Originally posted by Devil King
You're assuming I'm talking about near-full-on making out. I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about location so much as I am the audacity of exclusivness. I like to see the odd straight couple kiss on the subway; good for them. But when a gay couple does it in Chicago or Dallas, it mustn't come with a measure of public outrage or disgust, and certainly without rebuke for the assumption of audacity. I'm not brave for leaning over and kissing my boyfriend; I'm typical of any two people in a relationship. The odd straight couple doesn't have to consider where they are before a moment of expression strikes, and such should be the case with gay couples. To say that one group should have that thought bubble over their head before they react is the problem. Maybe I just shared a moment or a perverse joke or a smart ass remark with my "significant other". The straight couple doesn't have to ask themselves where they are to react to it, but the gay couple might depending on their geography.Basically, I'm saying that hate crimes should apply to gay's reaction to an event the same way it does now to a heterosexual's reaction to the opposite. Maybe a few caved in skulls on the other side of the asile, for no good reason, would serve as a warning to so many who cave in a skull for what is, esentially, the same reason in reverse.
If people find it unsual or disgusting that is how they will react- give them time.
Originally posted by Robtard
He thinks sexuality is strictly sex, or in his words "what they do in bed." E.G., he doesn't understand that a gay man is sexually attracted to another man, which is what really makes him a homosexual; the gay-sex being the lesser contributing factor.That or he's gay and just won't accept it, because that "I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed", tells me that he may find his male friends sexually attractive, but never has pursued it on a physical level and in his mind that makes it not homosexual, somehow.
My point was I do the same things with my close friends. I embrace them. I tell them i love them, which i do. I have even cooked food for them on the grill at a BBQ.We go to the movies etc. the only difference is I don't tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**. So what does a gay man do that's different other then the sexual activity.
As far as my point about the Constitution and our Forefathers ,you keep saying "God" does not appear in the Constitution and," One nation under God" was not Introduced until 1954 therefore trying to make a point that our Forefathers were not influenced by religion. I claimed they were and to go farther it was an essential part of it. You want Facts? OK How about this.
George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism."
The word "God" dose not appear in the U.S. Constitution. (There is reason for it and if i must i will go into that but, it doesn't diminish my point) It does appear, in some form in the State Constitutions .
For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.
I believe these Facts proves my point.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
My point was I do the same things with my close friends. I embrace them. I tell them i love them, which i do. I have even cooked food for them on the grill at a BBQ.We go to the movies etc. the only difference is I don't tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**. So what does a gay man do that's different other then the sexual activity.As far as my point about the Constitution and our Forefathers ,you keep saying "God" does not appear in the Constitution and," One nation under God" was not Introduced until 1954 therefore trying to make a point that our Forefathers were not influenced by religion. I claimed they were and to go farther it was an essential part of it. You want Facts? OK How about this.
George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism."
The word "God" dose not appear in the U.S. Constitution. (There is reason for it and if i must i will go into that but, it doesn't diminish my point) It does appear, in some form in the State Constitutions .
For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.I believe these Facts proves my point.
Do you find them sexually attractive? Do you look at a man and it sexually excites you? Have you met a man you'd like to spend and share your life with? "Tongue kiss them or take it or give it to them in their A**", as you say, is the physical aspect of homosexuality, physical.
Politicians incite the word "God" all the time, there is also a large amount of literature that shows many (ie not all) of the forefathers as being non-religious to outright anti-religious, mant saw it as another controlling factor. George Washington was also most likely a Deists, as was Franklin. Paine was believed to be an Atheist and Jefferson, well he rewrote the bible to his own liking and took out much of the nonsense superstition, though some will argue he was really an Atheist too.
Did a quick search, as I know anything that disagrees with your POV will fall on deaf ears, but here are some quotes back at you:
"The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." - Thomas Paine
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin
"Civil governments function with complete success by the total separation of the church from the state." - James Madison
The US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", you'd think if the founding fathers wanted God to be an integral part of this country, they would have included it there, no?
Na, you don't know what you're ranting on about, again.
What ever you say man. The Fact is that the country was founded on Religious ideals and Moral code. You are more interested in being seen as the genius boy on this Forum than understanding why gay people are not allowed to get married. I was Just stating a reason why. The populace is against it or there would be more States legalizing it.
GOD BLESS AMERICA 😄
The populace are against it because people are prejudiced, un-understanding, and fearful beings. Humans simply love to hate things they cannot understand, or things that are different than they are.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and, by god, I hope I am, but are you basically saying that certain people of varying traits should not be allowed to get the same rights as others because of... a book? Written by a fallible human?
I would have thought we would get past that sort of bigotry hundreds of years ago.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The populace are against it because people are prejudiced, un-understanding, and fearful beings. Humans simply love to hate things they cannot understand, or things that are different than they are.Please correct me if I'm wrong, and, by god, I hope I am, but are you basically saying that certain people of varying traits should not be allowed to get the same rights as others because of... a book? Written by a fallible human?
I would have thought we would get past that sort of bigotry hundreds of years ago.
People I am not against any person ,race or sexual preference. You are reading my post out of context.
What i am is someone who believes in the U.S. Form of Govnt. Thats all !! I think a Representative Democracy is the best form of Govt. there can be. This representative Democracy was founded on religious ideals and Moral code. This can not be disputed.
I was trying to state that Gays are not different ,with my previous posts, and should not be discriminated against. I stated the only difference is in the bedroom. If you read my previous posts I said that what goes on behind closed doors is nobodies business. My implication was that the Govt. should have no say in what goes on in the Bedroom but, apparently the "Populace" is against gay marriage. The populace has the power to put in Govt. who they choose.
As long as we have this form of Govt. and you are for this form of Govt. then you have to accept it. 🤨
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's pretty funny since he just posted quotes by various founding politicians saying the exact opposite.
George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."
Did you miss this?????
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The populace are against it because people are prejudiced, un-understanding, and fearful beings. Humans simply love to hate things they cannot understand, or things that are different than they are.Please correct me if I'm wrong, and, by god, I hope I am, but are you basically saying that certain people of varying traits should not be allowed to get the same rights as others because of... a book? Written by a fallible human?
I would have thought we would get past that sort of bigotry hundreds of years ago.
We are talking about something that could cost the Govt. money. How do you prove your gay? Suck face in front of the Marriage Lic. giver?
This could easily be taken advantage of by anyone wanting tax breaks, thats the main point. Religion is the excuse.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I was trying to state that Gays are not different ,with my previous posts, and should not be discriminated against.
You stated multiple times that you believe homosexuality to be a "mental deficiency".
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I stated the only difference is in the bedroom.
And the mind. Straight people typically don't fall in love with people of the same sex. In fact if they did they wouldn't be straight.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
If you read my previous posts I said that what goes on behind closed doors is nobodies business. My implication was that the Govt. should have no say in what goes on in the Bedroom but, apparently the "Populace" is against gay marriage. The populace has the power to put in Govt. who they choose.
As long as we have this form of Govt. and you are for this form of Govt. then you have to accept it. 🤨
As a part of the population it is one's duty to use whatever influence you have to advance what you believe to be right. Lying back and letting the majority **** you in the ass is not the basis of democracy. In a free nation you never have to "accept" anything.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
We are talking about something that could cost the Govt. money. How do you prove your gay? Suck face in front of the Marriage Lic. giver?
This could easily be taken advantage of by anyone wanting tax breaks, thats the main point. Religion is the excuse.
How does a straight couple prove they're getting married for anything but tax breaks?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
This is a very very very very bizzare argument...
It's the equivalent of his statement. He fears that gay couples will marry just to cheat the government, I wonder why he thinks that married couples (and, hell, those money grubbing gays) aren't doing that now via heterosexual marriage.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's the equivalent of his statement. He fears that gay couples will marry just to cheat the government, I wonder why he thinks that married couples (and, hell, those money grubbing gays) aren't doing that now via heterosexual marriage.
I'm honestly astounded at him...