What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

What do you think of homosexuality and gay marriage(choose all that apply to you) ?

  • I strongly dislike gays, but think they should have the same rights as anybody else

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    134
It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.

If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
The United State of America is not meant to be a Democracy. "And for the Republic for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.

Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.

They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.

I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?

Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?

Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party.

That alone is insufficient reason to declare a right to gay marriage.

In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc.

Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).


Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."

Dear heart, I never said anything of the kind. I believe I quite clearly indicated that the First Amendment protects people's right to engage in the free exercise of their religion (i.e. formulate opinions based on their own values, however derived) and to engage in free speech (i.e. to vote in accordance with their own opinions/values, be it directly by referendum or indirectly through their elected representatives).

Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?

I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole.

Name the last thing 350 million Americans all agreed on.

And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them.

I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.

If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses.

Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.


It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law.

I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?

I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.

However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority.

You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.

Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse.

You're conflating two different issues. Also engaging in the "we're the minority and we demand to be treated like we're 51% and be given our way" sort of thing I mentioned above.



However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?

Certainly. I can even empathize with it. For all you know, I may even agree with you. (Though I would bet money that you think I'm some rabid gay basher). You're arguing Gay Rights. I'm talking basic Civics.

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.

Not at all. You merely have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed.

Thank you for proving my point. You have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment. You obviously haven't the slightest idea what the Establishment clause refers to.

America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.

Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and totally ignore the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.

And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.


Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.

If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.

You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.


Out of curiousity, what religions are supportive of homosexuality? I don't think you will find many.
 
Mike Cash said:
Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.
I am making that point not because it gets me closer to my goal, I point it out because it is a contradiction.

I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?
Obviously you aren't paying the slightest bit of attention to anything I'm saying. If you were you would know that is not what I am saying.

Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?
This is true, but how many atheists do you see marching around downtown with anti-gay and pro-Christians picket signs?

Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).
If something is found to be wide spread but OUTSIDE of religion I see no problem with it. But when it stems solely from the church, I do. I don't see this as conflict of interest.

Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?
Ah, but here's the rub. The First Amendment is a piece of paper and it's meaning is up to interpretation. Anyone can twist what it says to their point and it's still just as valid as the next person's idea of what the First Amendment is about.

I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.
I almost can't think of anything to say because that statement is so horrible. But if you want me to shoot back so badly, which I'm sure you do, I will say this: yep, you'll find it right there next to women's rights to be first class citizens, black's rights to be equal, and it'll be right below the section stating that the Native Americans should be free. Just because something is not in the precious Constitution does not mean it is not a right.

Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.
Do you want me to pull up the numbers? 'Cause I will if I have to.

I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?
It's not news to me. I've lived in this screwed up system all my life. Believe me, it is not news to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's right.

I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.
Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine going to school one day and between classes some of your classmates make a ring around you, they begin to yell horrible things at you calling you a "faggot" a "dirty homo" and many, many more and much worse things. Then they turn violent. The teachers finally break it up but you're still beaten inside and out. Imagine having people say that you are no better then the dirt in their back yard just because you're in love with someone they think you shouldn't be. Imagine people telling you that you are going to burn in hell because you loved the "wrong person." Imagine people tracking down where you live and putting signs in your yard that say you're a morally bankrupt homosexual sinner who is on a fast track to hell. Imagine you go to a bar, everything's fine, until some punk comes in with a gun and shoots and kills you all just 'cause it's a Gay Bar. Imagine that you've met the person of your dreams and you want to marry this person but you can't 'cause some Christians decided to bar you that right just because a pile of paper written thousands of years ago says it's "wrong."
I don't think you have ever stopped to think about what we go through on a day-to-day basis. Because if you had you would not say things like that.

You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.
My grammar has nothing to do with this discussion.

America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.
Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and totally ignore the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.
If America cannot have an Established Church then how can it pass laws based on a church? Isn't that like Establishing said church to be the Church of America if America is bassing laws off of it? We are ruled by the church currently. Which by your own definition is against the First Amendment.

And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.
As I said before how one sees pieces of paper is up to their interpretation of it. There is no One Way to view the First Amendment, it can be viewed in many ways because it is not a clearly stated document.

If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.
You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.
I've tried to be passive about this issue but I got my head bitten off by bitter Christians who made sure that I knew that I was going to hell for this. I've tried being nice, all it ever got me was a ripped open and bleeding heart. So I learned to be mean and drive my point home into the other's chest because this is the only way that I can be heard. If I had sweet-talked a.k.a BSed my way through this thread no one would have paid attention to what I said enough to respond to it. And if that means that I have to be the ***** in this situation to be heard then so be it. But I will not stand to the side, smile sweetly, and pretend that this doesn't get to me, or pretend that I don't care. There is only so much punishment someone can take before they stop being nice and I am WAY passed my threshold on said punishment. And I know I will probably not live to see the day America changes, I will probably go to my grave long before what I'm fighting for becomes a reality. But even knowing that I will be damned if I don't go down fighting even if it's a hopeless cause.
And of course, you're going to come up with a smart response to what I just said to try and make it sound like a pity-party or something like that to try and belittle me. But I don't care.

afailedaffair said:
It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.
That's because straight men get off on the idea of two women f**king each other. It's sickening.

If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?
Very good point. I personally fail to see the big difference bewteen the two.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
I guess you just missed the whole section of my post about gays being the minority, huh? Just because Christians are a majority that does not make them 'the masses' that I meant. 'The masses' is referring to ALL not just the majority or minority. So no matter which the people in question belong too they are still impossing their view point on "the sheep-like masses" to quote Bette from The L Word. See, here's the thing, gays aren't trying to make everyone gay or join their "lifestyle" as Christians so tastelessly put it. Whereas Christians ARE trying to impose what they believe on EVERYONE. Gays just want equal rights is all, they aren't trying to make everyone Gay Lifestyle Converts.

And YOU missed the rest of my post saying just because the majority thought something didn't make it right.

I really wish you'd stop saying Christians are doing everything when in fact it's just large portions of America. I know gay christians. Does that mean they're against their own right to get married? I've seen Muslim sites against gay rights (here) and Jewish ones (here). It's not limited to those that believe in Christ. Though perhaps you refer to them only because they're the majority and we have a Christian in the White House who's been quite vocal on the issue.
 
afailedaffair said:
If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?
Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?
 
Tsuyoiko said:
Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?

Here's a site that lists which states in the US sodomy is considered illegal in.

Linkage

And an additional site that gives perhaps a slight update

Wiki wiki wiki
 
MeAndroo said:
It's not limited to those that believe in Christ. Though perhaps you refer to them only because they're the majority and we have a Christian in the White House who's been quite vocal on the issue.
I point the finger at Christians the most because the largest number of homophobes I've incountered are Christian and they are also the worst to deal with. And don't get me started on our dear President, we'd be here until the next February.

P.S. How can anal sex be illegal ANYWHERE? The fact that people would have laws banning certain kinds of intercourse is a just a bit odd, stupid, and quite silly to me. What does it matter how they do it? Honestly.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
I point the finger at Christians the most because the largest number of homophobes I've incountered are Christian and they are also the worst to deal with. And don't get me started on our dear President, we'd be here until the next February.
P.S. How can anal sex be illegal ANYWHERE? The fact that people would have laws banning certain kinds of intercourse is a just a bit odd, stupid, and quite silly to me. What does it matter how they do it? Honestly.

Couldn't that just be because the majority of people in this country are Christian? That said, however, I understand that much of the anti-gay rhetoric does originate in primarily Christian areas. There's a reason it's called the Bible Belt.

Post edited.

Isn't Dick Cheney's daughter a lesbian? Odd how the current administration seems to promote the prevention of gay marriages in light of it. Then again, just because you have a family member with a certain characteristic doesn't necessarily change the way you think.
 
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko said:
Anal sex between a man and a woman used to be illegal - I'm sure it was only a relatively few years ago that it was legalised in the UK. I'm pretty sure it's still illegal in a lot of countries. I wonder where it is legal for heterosexuals but illegal for gays?

It's apparently "salutory" for straight people.

But when some straight "feller" sees his two dudes next door going at it, he'll probably do something about it.
 
If christians are so "by the book"
Why do they call Easter "easter"
The name Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe. A festival called Eastre was held during the Spring equinox by these people to honor her

It's called Pasch.
 
I call it easter because if I call it anything else, no one will know what I am talking about and I will look stupid.
 
MeAndroo said:
From what I know, one of the reasons anal sex used to be outlawed was because of the spread of AIDS. Originally, it was primarily blamed on homosexual males. Without getting too graphic, sodomy has certain...factors that supposedly enhance the risk of contracting HIV from an infected partner. With the spread of AIDS and increase in knowledge about how it operates, this became less and less of a reason. Many states have in fact repealed their anti-sodomy laws, and I believe a major Supreme Court case took place in 2003 in Texas.
I know how it "works" thanks. But still, I think even with AIDS it's a little much to outlaw something like a kind of sexual intercourse. Educate people on the risk of it, fine, but to ban it is going just the tiniest bit far--Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "tiniest bit" too far? I meant WAY TOO FAR.
And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays. :eek:kashii:
It's apparently "salutory" for straight people.
But when some straight "feller" sees his two dudes next door going at it, he'll probably do something about it.
Oh, now that is just f**ked up (no pun intended). Right, so it's fine if a guy and girl do it that way but a guy and a guy? Hell, no. Why should the same standerds apply to gays that apply to straights? [insert BIG roll of the eyes here]
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays. :eek:kashii:

Well, even some AIDS charities consider homosexual men to be one of the main causes of the worldwide spread of the HIV virus.

Avert.org

But a great deal of AIDS was also attributed to intravenous needle sharing, which, during the 60s and 70s, was more prominent amongst homosexual males than the rest of the population. Whether it was spread through needles or sodomy is not a question that's easily answered. This site argues it's more the fault of the drugs than of any sort of sexual experience.

A doctor named Alan Cantwell offers the theory that AIDS is a manmade genocidal tool aimed by the government at african americans and the homosexual population. This is getting off topic a bit, but I thought it was an interesting conspiracy theory.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
it's a little much to outlaw something like a kind of sexual intercourse. Educate people on the risk of it, fine, but to ban it is going just the tiniest bit far--Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "tiniest bit" too far? I meant WAY TOO FAR.

Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.

(Of course the above isn't meant to be serious. It is meant to help you learn to focus your rhetoric and improve your odds of bringing others around to your way of thinking through rational presentation of your ideas.)

And also, I just love how quick people were to blame AIDS on gays. :eek:kashii:
Oh, now that is just f**ked up (no pun intended). Right, so it's fine if a guy and girl do it that way but a guy and a guy? Hell, no. Why should the same standerds apply to gays that apply to straights? [insert BIG roll of the eyes here]

You weren't even around back then.

And you're once again conflating unrelated issues. People were quick to blame AIDS on gays becase early on AIDS was encountered predominantly among gays and because little to nothing was known about AIDS beyond that. I can remember people ragging me and saying I must be gay just because I knew what the letters "AIDS" stood for.

The simple fact was that heterosexual transmission of HIV (letters the public at large didn't learn until years after they learned the letters AIDS) just wasn't on the radar screen of public consciousness in those early days. AIDS was so predominantly found among the gay community and so (seemingly) conspicuously absent among straights that in their ignorance people assumed it was a "gay disease".
 
AIDS wasn't even known in the 60's or 70's. And all the anti-Sodomy laws predate the epidemic and can't actually be linked to any type of health concerns. The fact that AIDS primarily affected Gay men in the 80's probably affected the spread and delayed research into the cause and prevention of the disease.
 
I'd like to publicly retract one of my earlier statements. Since Britain had an anti-buggery law in 1533 and Illinois was the first state to repeal their anti-sodomy law in 1962, 3 years after the first case of AIDS was found, it doesn't make sense that the establishment of anti-sodomy law would be influeced by the spread of HIV and AIDS. My post #130 has been edited.
 
Right. Let's legalize incest, bestiality, and rape. They are, after all, kinds of sexual intercourse.
There is a big difference between making a sexual POSITION illegal/legel and actual types of sexual RELATIONSHIPS. Why do you keep making these broad connections with things like this? I never said a thing about inter-person sexual relationships, I was talking about a sexual position. Stop trying to make it sound as though I am saying things that I am not please.
 
I'm coming up on my 20th aniversary too this year. Gay marriage seems to suggest certain advantages: leaving the toilet seat up, borrowing clothes, what movies and sports to watch, eating the same meal twice in the same week... but the biggest question is who gets the remote.
 

This thread has been viewed 141223 times.

Back
Top