Homo Sexuality

Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more

dchaosblade

- Lord of Chaos
Retired
QUOTE (franzoir @ Feb 23 2010, 01:44 PM) It is natural but it is taking precedence over emotions. And I believe human being are mainly emotional vessels therefore it is a fallacy for logic to come first.
By this argument, murder, which is primarily an act of emotion (whether it be rage, jealousy, or whatever) should rise above the use of logic - which would normally take precedence and prevent a person from committing such an act? Does religion not PROMOTE the use of logic and reasoning in order to put down such basal actions such as relying on emotion to make decisions? You can't have it both ways, you must chose. Can't argue that our more base emotions and instincts should take precedence, and then base such arguments around thoughts of religion which strictly say that such base emotions and instincts are wrong...so wrong that following them will lead you straight to the depths of hell and eternal damnation...


QUOTE (franzoir @ Feb 23 2010, 01:44 PM)I will never be swayed by a comparison with humans and animals. Some animals eat their spawn and have sex with their mothers. Should i do that too?By using REASON and LOGIC, no, you shouldn't. Reason and logic dictate that both are bad (killing and eating your children prevents the continuation of your bloodline and will bring negative consequences upon you personally. Incest will cause any children to have a higher chance of negative genetic mutations.) If you were to consider only the basal instincts and emotions then yes, perhaps you should. Fortunately the human condition is for us to use logic, reasoning, and foresight to make decisions, weighing the positive and negative consequences and choosing whether an action is worth it or not.
 

franzoir

-the smooth, the suave, and the shrewd
Sempai
QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Feb 23 2010, 11:51 AM)By this argument, murder, which is primarily an act of emotion (whether it be rage, jealousy, or whatever) should rise above the use of logic - which would normally take precedence and prevent a person from committing such an act?  Does religion not PROMOTE the use of logic and reasoning in order to put down such basal actions such as relying on emotion to make decisions?  You can't have it both ways, you must chose.  Can't argue that our more base emotions and instincts should take precedence, and then base such arguments around thoughts of religion which strictly say that such base emotions and instincts are wrong...so wrong that following them will lead you straight to the depths of hell and eternal damnation...
You've conflated religion with emotions. The most i said about religion was that it was replaced for another. So i dont see where your coming from.

Again people need to be aware of context in which i am saying things. I have not rejected reason. It is largely good for social relations etc and one should act according to that creed. However, reason should not be applied so rigidly and perversely as i believe it is in modern society. Your point about religion is also true and if there was no enlightenment era and religion was still the dominating creed i would also call it perverse.

But it does not change my views about your instincts and emotions are largely to be trusted. Instinctively and emotionally you know when something is right and when something is wrong. I do not need someone to rationalise it to me. The only reason people do not like the emphasis on emotions is because they are largely unpredictable and out of our control. Back to the point, homosexuals should be tolerated for social cohesion and stuff. But tolerance is not the same as acceptance and for someone to tell me to accept it is a bit totalitarian.

I know exactly where Dalraida and Dchaosbalde are coming from because i am presented with the same arguments everyday. But my philisophical compass is a bit more abstract and differs from the academical norm. Nonetheless i dont think ive said anything unreasonable since im not propagating a hate campaign against gay people.

Eitherway i go back to the bottomline that humans should do whatever they want as long as they can bear the consequences of their actions.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE (franzoir @ Feb 23 2010, 12:53 PM)
Again people need to be aware of context in which i am saying things. I have not rejected reason. It is largely good for social relations etc and one should act according to that creed. However, reason should not be applied so rigidly and perversely as i believe it is in modern society.

How it's read : "Reason is good and should be used, except when it disagrees with me".

Where do we draw the line ?
It's fine if I don't accept black people ? Of course, if I used reason and stuff, I would realize that there's nothing wrong with black people, but my guts tell me they are a bunch of lazy thieves.
Is it okay if I outcast Christians (they could still adore their God of course, I'm tolerant. But no way I'm accepting them) ? I could use some facts like the existence of Mother Theresa and the Red Cross as proofs that religion can exalt the generosity of some people, but my instincts tell me they are just gullible fools that pray a magical sky-pixie.

I guess no, it's not fine. It's not illegal and I wouldn't be put in jail of course, but it's stupid and intolerant.
And yet, that's what you're doing with gays.



QUOTE Eitherway i go back to the bottomline that humans should do whatever they want as long as they can bear the consequences of their actions.


To sum up : the law of the strongest.
 

dchaosblade

- Lord of Chaos
Retired
QUOTE (franzoir @ Feb 23 2010, 01:16 PM) However, if i had a son and he was gay, that would be the dealbreaker. I would disapprove, probably disown and feel like a failure as a father.

QUOTE (franzoir @ Feb 23, 2010, 02:53 PM)Back to the point, homosexuals should be tolerated for social cohesion and stuff. But tolerance is not the same as acceptance and for someone to tell me to accept it is a bit totalitarian.
So you tolerate gays...well, unless they're a part of the family, in which case FK YOU GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!
Now THAT sounds like tolerance. And social cohesion, because who needs family, am I right or am I right?

There's a line somewhere, and you have to pick a side of it. You can't straddle it and say I like a little of this and a little of that except when there's this, then I choose that, and if there's not this then I change my mind I prefer that.
 

franzoir

-the smooth, the suave, and the shrewd
Sempai
QUOTE Reason is good and should be used, except when it disagrees with me

That is your interpretation.


QUOTE It's fine if I don't accept black people ? Of course, if I used reason and stuff, I would realize that there's nothing wrong with black people, but my guts tell me they are a bunch of lazy thieves.

People will think what they think. Racism still exists and will always exist. But scientific rascism is ok with you since it is based on empirical evidence?


QUOTE
I guess no, it's not fine. It's not illegal and I wouldn't be put in jail of course, but it's stupid and intolerant.
And yet, that's what you're doing with gays.

And so inorder to be a decent human being i need to accept gay people. Well call me indecent. But as long as im not abusive or inciting hatred but generally cordial towards people because they are human beings first and foremost i dont see what more you can ask of me. People disagree with other peoples lifestyles all the time. Are they all stupid and intolerant?


QUOTE To sum up : the law of the strongest.

And this differs from how the world works because?

Schindler saved some Jewish people from the holocaust even though if caught he would be killed by association. Would it not be logical to follow the status quo and preserve his life. Why did Schindler save them? Did their plight not resonate emotionally with Schindler which compelled him to act. Same can be said of other figures like William Wilberforce etc

Logic dictates i should move my factory to India where i can get cheap child labour and maximise my profits even though this will means laying off thousands of workers in this country who rely on their job to provide for their families.

As with most things in life there is another side, but what im getting from you is its logic or nothing? And all you have presented me with are the negatives of what emotions can bring. Can there not be a balance between the two? Can emotional beings not have a positive impact?

Reason, logic, science, religion, emotions etc are not wholly bad or good. The way people apply it decides it. The crux of my argument is reason has been applied perversely in which decision undertaken do not account for how it will emotionally impact on society.
 

JustGravy

-chi
Kouhai
If I may add to this conversation...

QUOTE And so inorder to be a decent human being i need to accept gay people.
I think you're perfectly within your rights to accept or not accept people as they are. While I may disagree with you, you have that right. I do think, and you touched on this earlier, that toleration is required. So long as one's rights don't interfere with my given rights, they're free to practice as they like, in my opinion.


QUOTE Schindler saved some Jewish people from the holocaust even though if caught he would be killed by association. Would it not be logical to follow the status quo and preserve his life. Why did Schindler save them?
You seem to have a grasp on this. At any level, risking one's life for anyone person or persons is that - risking your life. The loss of one's life is (for the most part) quite counterproductive to one's own well-being. However, the human species is a social species. We are hardwired to naturally want to help each other. When one uses reason, one can easily determine that it is beneficial to help each other out; yet we are already naturally adept at this - emotionally connected to it, even.


QUOTE Logic dictates i should move my factory to India where i can get cheap child labour and maximise my profits even though this will means laying off thousands of workers in this country who rely on their job to provide for their families.
Again, this would only be plausible on an individualistic point of view. As an American, I would naturally want to have my business here, where it could benefit other Americans. This is not to say I don't like India or wouldn't be happy to make a profit. There are plenty of businesses now that take advantage of cheap labor for the extra profit as is. One could use "logic," as you say, to justify either option.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow how this all ties in to homosexuality, but from what I've gathered it's an attempt to distinguish reason v. emotion and whether or not peoples' thoughts on homosexuality are based on said reason, emotion, or both.

I find that a lot of people are raised under the impression that homosexuals are evil, gross, or corrupt the youth (ironic?). I feel that if they weren't raised wary of gays, they'd likely not see it as an issue.
 

Fsu_Dark_Walker

-chi
Kouhai
I read through the last pages of this particular discussion, here are my thoughts about homosexuality. The emotional arguments vs the logical arguments vs the religious arguments.

Here are my thoughts:

In my world homosexuality is indeed gross,against my religious beliefs, perverse, non-sustainable to the survival of humanity (what would humanity do if we was all gay?), I just don't want to see this crap on the street type of deal (ugh *shiver up the spine*).

You know for the first time in recorded history (at least to my knowledge) there has been a gay marriage. In all of recorded history it has never happened before (the marriage part). This has come about I believe because a certain minority has been lobbying and working really hard in the past few decades through television music and other activities to make a practice that in olden days was up there with murder, incest, child molestation, and other illicit crap that people knew was a crime, frown on.

I don't like it. I am a lazy man, probably, bye nature and I don't have the energy to dedicate my life to motivate the other lazy masses to roll over, shake the chip crumbs off their shirts and say "wow I don't have to be afraid I'll be labeled a bigot or a hatemonger if I say 'homosexuality really is wrong,'" like the gays did to make it acceptable.

But here is the question, where will it stop? If it's ok for men to rump roast each other, the child molester is going to reasonably say, probably, maybe I can spin a positive beat on lowering the age of consent maybe a year at a time over a couple of decades. Hmm, good idea.

Maybe that girl who has been hankering for some hot lovn from her brother gets the same idea, hey the homosexuals accomplished it, why not me? I wanna marry my brother.

This crap is just stupid. The world is being indoctrinated. Just because its fashionable to break away from the old and forge something doesn't make the the things that have always been so wrong.

Final Thoughts Spiritual Ending:

Man isn't just flesh and blood either. Really he isn't. Don't you think there have been forbidden loves 'or lusts' in the past? For the 'oh so famous' I can't help who I like outlook? Make a choice and live with it, 'no that isn't a endorsement for pooper poking,' That isn't me saying to you, 'Go live a loveless life.' Love each other Chuck and Bob, hell I love you guys too. Just don't do the rump rollover. Stop the insanity, the spread of this no-future disease homosexuality.

God really did make adam and eve not adam and steve. All creatures that have gender are male and female. Their most certainly is a reason for that.

To take a page form little Timmy's 'Christmas Carol' let me end with a hearty:

God Bless Us One And All!
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE non-sustainable to the survival of humanity (what would humanity do if we was all gay?)

What would humanity do, if we were all men ?! It couln't survive for sure.
Therefore, men are evil !

Is it your reasoning ?
Because there's a big flaw here (the flaw being : even if gay marriage is legalized, most people are still completely heterosexual. Not because they are forced, but by choice).


QUOTE
But here is the question, where will it stop? If it's ok for men to rump roast each other, the child molester is going to reasonably say, probably, maybe I can spin a positive beat on lowering the age of consent maybe a year at a time over a couple of decades. Hmm, good idea.

Ah ! The slippery slope argument !
Where will it end, I wonder.
You start with banning gay marriage, but where will it end ? With banning heterosexual marriage too ?
Therefore, banning gay marriage is dangerous, it's a slippery slope.

By the way, you know the age of consent varies a lot accross the world.
Even accross the USA (if my sources are good, 18 in California, 17 in Illinois and 16 in Minnesota).


QUOTE
God really did make adam and eve not adam and steve. All creatures that have gender are male and female. Their most certainly is a reason for that.



(I promise, when you're smart enough to understand, this picture is funny)

(Also funny how people who are so adamantly partisan of sexual reproduction are often also skeptical of Darwin's evolution, by the way)
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Feb 23 2010, 10:52 AM) I'll even go further than Eggbeast : there's no plan for the survival of the human race.
Oh, I didn't *technically* say that there's a plan for humanity, I was just making the point that if we, as human beings exists, then we, as a species, must be good at surviving. Also, from the naturalistic perspective, one cannot say that homosexuality is abnormal. A species that is good at surviving doesn't need to be a species that breeds like there's no tomorrow.

And for those of you who have personal, emotional, or religious reasons to put heterosexuality on the moral high ground, that's your personal opinion, which is fine. However, it has no place in dictating the rights, or the social standing of others.
 

mamori

-sama
Sempai
1) Don't confuse gender with sex. Sex refers to which set of genitals you have, gender refers to the way in which society conditions each of the sexes to behave because of their sex organs.

2) There's no logical argument for denying marriage (read: socially accepted kinship) to any consenting coherent adult.
 

Fsu_Dark_Walker

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE (I promise, when you're smart enough to understand, this picture is funny)

(Also funny how people who are so adamantly partisan of sexual reproduction are often also skeptical of Darwin's evolution, by the way)

I said all creatures that HAVE Gender. Not those creatures that utilize asexual reproduction.

As for the argument of if we were all men, or all women? Then we would be screwed, no choice in the matter on that one. Act of God kinda if the next generation just happened to be born only one gender.

I guess the question is whether you believe (or give a crap to believe) that homosexuals don't have a choice. Personally I think everyone has a choice. Freewill and all that. Maybe you don't like your choices but you still got em. You can choose to abstain, you can choose to sleep with the opposite gender even though it doesn't excite you. You can love anyone if you have a good heart.

Well whatever.

How about this one, most people have children, then their children have children ...It's a wonderful thing being able to see your grandchildren, maybe even your great grandchildren. You know that you are leaving a legacy behind that will exist after the death of your body. Your offspring.

Not for the folks for whom their children lust after the same gender. What a curse, no legacy. No Future for those poor people. Of course you love your children no matter what, the offspring of your body ends there, even if they adopt or whatever.

Here is something else, most of the gay people I know lament the fact that they are Gay! "Life would be easier if I wasn't gay." Common enough out of the mouths of homosexuals. Even gay people I think don't want to be gay.

Hmm, I think I ranted enough and threw more gristle into the mill. Like I said earlier I'm just one of the Lazy Majority.
 

mamori

-sama
Sempai
lol, you say being gay is a choice, then comment on how all the gay people you know don't want (ie, didn't choose) to be gay.

and what about people who choose not to have children? are they being unethical, mentally ill, or undeserving of marrying the person they love?
 

JustGravy

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE Personally I think everyone has a choice. Freewill and all that.... you can choose to sleep with the opposite gender even though it doesn't excite you.
Are you presuming that there is no sexual attraction or "excitement" between two gay men or women? I can understand and agree with this statement if it applies to a particular person; I, for example, could certainly sleep with another man despite the fact that I feel no sexual attraction towards them. However, if you are suggesting that there is a lack of "excitement" felt between all men to men and, respectively, women to other women, then I request that you provide evidence and proof of this.

In regard to your statement that people have a choice - are you suggesting that people are choosing to be gay, or perhaps that a gay person could choose to ignore their feelings and engage in a heterosexual relationship?
If you are suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle one can choose, I ask this: is this choice conscious or unconscious (or both)? Is it that all people are naturally born straight and can only choose to be homosexual or bisexual (see first paragraph), or is it that one chooses their sexuality? I ask this all so as to pose a question of my own towards you (I know I've already asked many questions, but they were more for clarification).
(Assuming you do find sexuality to be one's choice) At what time in your life did you actively choose to be heterosexual; to find women attractive; to desire women physically on a biological level?

If you were to ask me, I would say that one's sexuality is determined by pressures one has in development, i.e. as a baby, in childhood, perhaps even all the way into adulthood; or by genetics. While I do not have any advanced knowledge on the subject, nor do I suggest that these conditions apply in combination or exclusively to all gay people, or that these are the only two options out there, it is still what I have come to understand largely as homosexuality's "origin" in people.


Your comment on offspring has no real application towards the morality or legality of homosexuality. A gay couple will no more know the happiness of witnessing their lineage as a heterosexual couple which chooses not to have children. Neither does a gay couple lose out or feel any less joy in seeing their adopted children grow up and have children on their own. I assure you, one feels tremendous joy in either situation.
If none of those suffices for you, I have two words for you - "Artificial Insemination."


QUOTE ...most of the gay people I know lament the fact that they are Gay! "Life would be easier if I wasn't gay." Common enough out of the mouths of homosexuals. Even gay people I think don't want to be gay.
While it's very likely that I have not met these same people as you have, I think you have misunderstood their intent. The quote you gave says, "Life would be easier if I wasn't gay." They never said anything about wanting to be straight, but that their lives would be easier if it were so. In a time where just about everyone is accepted for being themselves except for gay people, being gay can be rough. There are quite a few people who would give one trouble for it. It is an understandable statement, what you heard.
To put it in perspective for you, I'll recount a conversation I had with someone. This guy - a black guy - told me - a white guy - that his life would be easier if he were a white man (perhaps he'd get pulled over less? I don't know
). However, he does not lament or dislike being black or who he is in the least, nor should he.
A person saying that their life would be easier were they not gay is not the same as them saying they lament being gay, or wish they weren't. Unless the person you have heard this from stated as well that they wished they weren't gay, you have misunderstood the intent of their statement.
 

dchaosblade

- Lord of Chaos
Retired
QUOTE (Fsu_Dark_Walker @ Feb 25 2010, 06:00 PM)
I said all creatures that HAVE Gender. Not those creatures that utilize asexual reproduction.

As for the argument of if we were all men, or all women? Then we would be screwed, no choice in the matter on that one. Act of God kinda if the next generation just happened to be born only one gender.

I guess the question is whether you believe (or give a crap to believe) that homosexuals don't have a choice. Personally I think everyone has a choice. Freewill and all that. Maybe you don't like your choices but you still got em. You can choose to abstain, you can choose to sleep with the opposite gender even though it doesn't excite you. You can love anyone if you have a good heart.

Well whatever.

How about this one, most people have children, then their children have children ...It's a wonderful thing being able to see your grandchildren, maybe even your great grandchildren. You know that you are leaving a legacy behind that will exist after the death of your body. Your offspring.

Not for the folks for whom their children lust after the same gender. What a curse, no legacy. No Future for those poor people. Of course you love your children no matter what, the offspring of your body ends there, even if they adopt or whatever.

Here is something else, most of the gay people I know lament the fact that they are Gay! "Life would be easier if I wasn't gay." Common enough out of the mouths of homosexuals. Even gay people I think don't want to be gay.

Hmm, I think I ranted enough and threw more gristle into the mill. Like I said earlier I'm just one of the Lazy Majority.
For one, gastropods are NOT asexual.
Many species of land gastropods (a.k.a. Snails) are hermaphrodites. They are both male and female, and have both reproductive organs. In fact, there are LOTS of animals that are hermaphrodites. It's quite common amongst invertebrates. Many fish are hermaphrodites and a few other vertebrates are also hermaphrodites. So yeah, it was a counter to your rather ignorant claim that "God really did make adam and eve not adam and steve. All creatures that have gender are male and female. Their most certainly is a reason for that."
Repeating propaganda - particularly that which finds its sources amongst religious groups - is usually a bad idea due to the various holes in logic or the complete ignorance of those who make the crap up in the first place.

I personally feel that while you are free to have any opinion you wish, you do not have a right to keep people from getting married when doing so does absolutely no harm to anyone. Incestuous relationships lead to a lack of genetic diversity and ultimately harm to the descendants. Gay marriage - due to the inability to have children - has no such drawback. There is no negative effect on it other than you not liking it, and lets face it, you do stuff all the time that others don't like and we don't legally stop you...


As to the stupid reasoning of 'what if the whole population of humanity were gay' - or alternatively were all the same sex...I can name a major fallacy. Let us assume for the moment that ALL of humanity were reduced to one sex...due to the current technological level (much less the technological level we'd be at by the time such a scenario occurred due to the theoretical rampant homosexuality), it would be a rather simple move to continue procreation by "cloning", or to be more precise, creating test-tube babies using mixed genes of the parents.

Now, allow me to put forth another, completely separate theory. Let us assume for the moment that one's sexuality (whether homo, hetero, or bi) is not a conscious choice... Would it not be better to allow the homosexuals to get married, NEVER have kids, and thus never pass down the "genetic defect" (no insult intended) which caused them to be gay to their descendants? From a religious fanatic point of view, wouldn't this even be beneficial, because it eliminates the "taint" or "impurity" of homosexuality from the gene pool? Wouldn't it thus be smarter to SUPPORT gay marriage rather than denounce it?
Just sayin'...

Now, I will also say that I am personally a Christian, I'm straight, and I don't give a damn if a gay couple get married. Nor do I view homosexuality as particularly wrong. I personally kinda find it gross, the same kind of gross as I feel when my parents start talking about their sex life around me, but I don't think that people who are homosexual are gross. I see no reason to judge them for their sexuality. Why should I? It doesn't affect ME at all. The only people it affects are their partners who are, who'da guessed, gay too! (and thus presumably don't care either).
Now, if a religious organization does not want homosexuals to get 'married' via their organisation, I can understand that. They have every right to say 'our priest (or whatever) will not marry you in our church (or whatever)'. But they don't have a right to prevent the legal binding of marriage, which takes place in a court room, and is officiated by a judge (or similar State position). That is an affair of the state (as in, government), not of the religion. As such, it is separate. THAT was one of the decisions made when the United States was established and THAT is how it should be.


Edit: Point of interest:
The captain of a ship has the right to marry a couple on his ship in international waters according to Maritime Law. Is there anything preventing said marriage between a gay couple? If so, does said marriage apply legally in the whole of the United States? Or only in states which have legalized gay marriage? On the same note, if a gay couple gets married in a state which allows gay marriage, their marriage does not hold water legally in other states if they move, correct?
 

JustGravy

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Feb 25 2010, 05:18 PM)Edit: Point of interest:
The captain of a ship has the right to marry a couple on his ship in international waters according to Maritime Law. Is there anything preventing said marriage between a gay couple? If so, does said marriage apply legally in the whole of the United States? Or only in states which have legalized gay marriage? On the same note, if a gay couple gets married in a state which allows gay marriage, their marriage does not hold water legally in other states if they move, correct?
With the Full Faith in Credit Laws, contracts, titles, etc. in one state must be honored by the other states. Including gay marriage, right?... Wrong.

Meet the Defense of Marriage Act.
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

While this is straight from wikipedia and may or may not be perfectly accurate, please feel free to do any further research.

Sucks.
 

dchaosblade

- Lord of Chaos
Retired
QUOTE (JustGravy @ Feb 25 2010, 08:16 PM) With the Full Faith in Credit Laws, contracts, titles, etc. in one state must be honored by the other states. Including gay marriage, right?... Wrong.

Meet the Defense of Marriage Act.
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

While this is straight from wikipedia and may or may not be perfectly accurate, please feel free to do any further research.

Sucks.
I didn't say they did. Quite the contrary, I said I was pretty sure they didn't...Was just not positive - especially in the case of marriage under Maritime Law.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE
I said all creatures that HAVE Gender. Not those creatures that utilize asexual reproduction.


Dchaosblade already pointed your mistake. I knew it would be funny.





QUOTE As for the argument of if we were all men, or all women? Then we would be screwed, no choice in the matter on that one. Act of God kinda if the next generation just happened to be born only one gender.

Therefore, you agree that, just like gays, men make the survival of the human race impossible ?
It's the same reasoning : stretch absurdly a situation, see that the stretched situation is unsustainable, and then conclude that the original situation is unsustainable. It's a fallacy.


QUOTE
I guess the question is whether you believe (or give a crap to believe) that homosexuals don't have a choice. Personally I think everyone has a choice. Freewill and all that. Maybe you don't like your choices but you still got em. You can choose to abstain, you can choose to sleep with the opposite gender even though it doesn't excite you. You can love anyone if you have a good heart.

Even if homosexuality was a choice (it's not, but let's imagine), why should gays choose to be straight ? What's wrong with homosexuality, except your personal beliefs that other people don't share ?
Please, realize that nobody in the 21 pages of this thread gave a reason why homosexuality was bad that wasn't rebuked.



QUOTE How about this one, most people have children, then their children have children ...It's a wonderful thing being able to see your grandchildren, maybe even your great grandchildren. You know that you are leaving a legacy behind that will exist after the death of your body. Your offspring.

Personal opinion. I think that math is one of the most entertaining thing in the world, and that cats are far superior to dogs, but it's also just my opinion, my tastes.
It's like saying that everyone should write novels, just for the sake of leaving a legacy. It doesn't make sense (and would be a terrible idea, since I'm a very lousy writer).


QUOTE
Here is something else, most of the gay people I know lament the fact that they are Gay! "Life would be easier if I wasn't gay." Common enough out of the mouths of homosexuals. Even gay people I think don't want to be gay.

Gays' lifes are hard only because of homophobic bigots !
Just like blacks' lifes were (are?) more difficult because of the KKK.
But the wrong ones aren't the gays and the blacks, but the bigots and the KKK.


QUOTE
Hmm, I think I ranted enough and threw more gristle into the mill. Like I said earlier I'm just one of the Lazy Majority.

It depends on where you live (even in the USA).
The lazy majority is increasingly pro-gay (because it realizes that gay marriage didn't bring fire and brimstone where it was allowed).
 

khael

/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ being M
Sempai
I've been wondering about this for a while and being the lazy ass that I am I did not even try researching on my own. Sorry for the stupid question [putting it out there in case it is, to prevent such remarks]

The marriage in this whole homosexual marriage debate is about civil marriage right? Or are the homos pushing for church marriage as well?

Edit

Thanks Mamori.
 

mamori

-sama
Sempai
yes, it's about civil marriage. due to protections for religious freedom any church can perform a "marriage," it just depends on state law whether or not the state will acknowledge it if teh marriage is between members of the same sex. As an ordained minister of the Universal Life church I can Marry any two people I want to, but it doesn;t mean the state will recognize that marriage.
 
Top