|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted July 29, 2003 09:45 PM |
|
|
It's his life, not mine. Who he chooses to stick it in is his choice, not mine.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted July 29, 2003 10:42 PM |
|
|
Well, i'm just going to say this, and that's that I'm going to the wedding of and old school friend to his boyfriend and i can certainly see it lasting a good deal better than the heterosexual weddings I have attended recently, one of which lasted only 3 months 
____________
 Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
zud
Promising
Famous Hero
box worshipper
|
posted July 30, 2003 03:11 AM |
|
|
If it bothers you....don't look
I dont really give a big rat's arse if they get married in a church or not. I think what is wanted is the equality to do as another couple.
If u choose to make it legal or not is really not much of and affecting issue. It will still happen. I find it rather funny and sad that people think that they can have others act as they think they should by legislation.
I am definitly not gay myself. but have had many friends that are. Actually most (by my experience) are smarter and more motivated in life than the average heterosexual. I understand what some of you are trying to say about the kids. but IMHO your totally wrong. Its not the enviroment that makes a kid gay, and some of the problems you have mentioned that might arise from same sex parents are trivial. What is most important is for a child to be brought up by loving, caring, involved and commited parents. This can happen in either enviroment. and If a gay couple goes thru the process to get a child (you must not know how much money/commitment is involved for an adoption) I can tell you they will be very good parents.
If you think bringing up a child in a same sex family will have much impact on the childs sexual preference, once again I think your very wrong. They might be more accepting of gay people in general. but what excites and turns on a person in a sexual nature is not really a learned thing, I still remember walking across campus in college heading from my dorm to a friends during spring quarter (My favorite always) The girls all laying outside on nice days getting a bit of tan was always a wonderful thing. when one of my friends in the group mentions the hottie playing catch.........Now I never even saw and if I did wouldnt have paid attention to 2 guys playin catch with a dozen beauties in bikini's laying out. But to each their own.
Just to turn it around a bit. what would u do if you didnt notice the opposite sex much, but were turned on by your same sex? How would you feel about this or any other gay issue and other people wanting to impose their personal values on YOU?
Would it be time to join the priesthood? Suicide? Live a life of lies trying to be the same because of your peers?
____________
Winner or Whiner?
|
|
rrrray
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 30, 2003 04:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, i'm just going to say this, and that's that I'm going to the wedding of and old school friend to his boyfriend and i can certainly see it lasting a good deal better than the heterosexual weddings I have attended recently, one of which lasted only 3 months
Just to keep things fair, I imagine this statistic, even if it were done more formally, would be rigged. If 95% of all cars on the road are white, chances are, there's a statistic that claims car thieves prefer white cars, and if you own a white car, you're in danger of being victimized! Likewise, there are significantly more heterosexual couples in society, and thus are more likely to divorce.
But I agree with your opinion that gay marriages will tend to last longer. Having to put up with so much crap just to stay together, and still staying together and getting married, must mean there's something there. Ideally, all marriages, homo or hetero, will have this "something", but most people get married for the wrong reasons these days, or are simply unprepared for the married life.
____________
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted July 30, 2003 03:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are correct that anything can be justified based on what is "natural" just as anything can be claimed to be unjustified based on what is "natural." You used an appeal to what is "natural" as an argument against homosexuality. The beautiful thing about justifying something on natural law or the law of nature is that you don't ever need to provide references. Where is it written what is "natural?" Why do you get to decide?
You said unless it can be proven to be genetic, it is not "natural." Religion is not genetic. Does that mean religion doesn't deserve the protection of the law? Belonging to a political party is not genetic. Does that mean we can outlaw the Democrat and Republican parties?
Who said anything about religion or politics being natural. I consider these both to be a poor substitute for Gods kingdom which i believe will very shortly take over the earth and erase both of these warmongering facets of civilization.
On the question of refferences, i take all mine from the bible. I havent made any of those refferences because so few people see the bible as an authority on morality these days and i dont want something i value to fall on deaf ears.
But if i am asked by anyone i can provide enough bible references about homosexuality being unatural, and what God has done about it in the past and will do again.
BTW the bible also condemns heterosexual sex between unmarried couples so please dont think that i pick on any particular group.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted July 30, 2003 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you think bringing up a child in a same sex family will have much impact on the childs sexual preference, once again I think your very wrong. They might be more accepting of gay people in general. but what excites and turns on a person in a sexual nature is not really a learned thing
what can i say? we are here in this community to talk about different ideas. My opinions are not wrong it is just easily i live in a different conditions with different traditions and your learnings and experiences are different
but... every father wants his kid grows up and find a good job and a good wife to marry... i never heard a father who wants that his son becomes a gay... they just accept the situation.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2003 06:23 PM |
|
|
I believe that the world will soon be ended by a flattening rampage of pink and purple striped elephants. These pachyderms do not like left-handedness, and that´s why primary use of the left hand is wrong. Therefore it must be forbidden by law to produce lefty keyboards and pencils.
____________
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2003 05:13 PM |
|
|
Everyone is entitles to his/her own oppinion ***long pause*** except Lews_Therin.
|
|
frostwolf
Famous Hero
livin' in a bottle of vodka
|
|
posted August 07, 2003 12:16 AM |
|
|
I belive every person has the right to be happy.Now, excluding people with mental disorders or any such things, I strongly belive that every person shoud do whatever makes him/her happy.In the end we all walk under the same sun and we all breathe the same air and we all die eventually, why is it so wrong to seek love/affection/happiness in the arms of a person of the same sex?If it makes you happy, I don't belive anyone in the world has the right to say that is wrong.
As for the church, well they wanted to burn Gallileo because he was a scientist with a revolutionary ideea.What do you think, if he was gay would they have done the same?You may disagree with me on this, but what the church says is not always true, or right or anything.Religion is made by humans.Humans may be wrong.
____________
What can you expect from a world where everybody lives because they're too afraid to commit suicide?
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 07, 2003 10:33 AM |
|
|
Anyone should be allowed to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on another's right to the same.
To those arguing that gay couples should not adopt children for lack of a mother's/father's role in parenting, perhaps single parents should be forced to relinquish their children at birth. There is absolutely no evidence to support that lack of a father figure is more likely to make someone gay, or have any sort of detrimental effect.
|
|
Thunder
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2003 09:18 PM |
|
|
Same sex marriages should not ever be allowed. Being homo-sexual has nothing to do with love, it is only lust. Man or woman can love another without having to go all dirty. Love has nothing to do with sex. Period.
Accepting homosexuals is just a step forward accepting all kind of phedophils, rapes and intervening with animals. ("Hey! They are just having fun let them continue to do so!!)
Maybe that's one of the things I hate in the modern world, lack of morals and urgency for all kind of acceptance (accepting racial differences is certainly a good thing, accepting murder is certainly not). No one can argue against how much they spread violence these days though media, movies and games. It's like we are returning to the Roman times or worse.
Furthermore, all churches who are going against the teachings of the Bible, which they claim to follow, have no merit at all.
____________
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 08, 2003 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Same sex marriages should not ever be allowed. Being homo-sexual has nothing to do with love, it is only lust. Man or woman can love another without having to go all dirty. Love has nothing to do with sex. Period.
That's absurd. I know gay people who are in love. I haven't a clue how you'd be able to say that gay people aren't really in love if you aren't one of them.
Quote:
Accepting homosexuals is just a step forward accepting all kind of phedophils, rapes and intervening with animals. ("Hey! They are just having fun let them continue to do so!!)
Also absurd. The big difference there is that homosexuals are consenting.
Quote:
Maybe that's one of the things I hate in the modern world, lack of morals and urgency for all kind of acceptance (accepting racial differences is certainly a good thing, accepting murder is certainly not). No one can argue against how much they spread violence these days though media, movies and games. It's like we are returning to the Roman times or worse.
I fail to see why you would deny someone the right to do anything as long as they aren't hurting anybody.
Spread violence through the media? Please, that argument is as old as time itself, and never made sense to begin with. There is no more violence in society today there was a hundred years ago, period.
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 08, 2003 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In addition, I think it soulod be against the law to lie about gender.
I hope you mean on the internet. Otherwise, I can usually tell  .
Um...why?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 08, 2003 12:32 AM |
|
|
i mean liars on net should be imprisionated. And castration should eventualy come to any human for doing so much sinful stuff like rape or malest.
Edit
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 08, 2003 01:12 AM |
|
|
Castration?? Man, they aren't hurting anyone! It isn't rape or pedophilia, where one party is being violated, it's a relationship between two consenting adults, and nobody else's business!
I agree that insisiting it be called "marriage" is rather ludicrous. I'd rather take the entire institution of marriage out of the legal system altogether.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 18, 2003 06:46 PM |
|
|
copied from a similar thread on Guardian's Grove:
~Call the arrangements what you will, but denying same-sex couples the same legal rights granted to opposite-sex couples via marriage is flat out discrimination. Let the churches refuse to provide the religious trappings, if they object. Let them deny their blessings, their buildings, their clergy, their fancy ceremonies. That stuff is icing, really, and it's not like there are no other options. People can go to other congregations. But there's only one law, and it is not based on any given religion (in the US, anyway!). There is no objective basis for denying legal union, and its accompanying benefits, to two consenting adults.
The government of the United States, at this moment, presumes to tell me who I am permitted to love. If the one I fall for happens to be a man, yippee! the government will recognize our union. If my partner happens to be a woman, however, we are left in the dust. Fair? Not in the least.
~Regarding the "selection" of homosexuality/bisexuality: Ah, nature vs. nurture yet again. It's probably a mix of both, as is so much else in life, but neither is under the control of the individual involved. Whether the initial attraction is "lust" or "love," it's heavily emotional. Concious control has very little to do with it. Anyone tried to insert intellect and selection into that process? What would you do if you fell for someone of the "wrong" gender?
To sum up, a lot of the comments I'm reading above are from people who have obviously never known these issues from the other side. Try giving homosexuals/bisexuals the benefit of human empathy. When you understand that our position could have just as easily been yours, most of these things become a lot clearer.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
posted October 18, 2003 07:46 PM |
|
|
WTF?
Quote:
But i'm also against hetero Marriages..
Whats wrong with a Man and a Women getting together, and getting married? It's completely natural. Seriously WTF is up with that?
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
kaiser
Tavern Dweller
für das Vaterland
|
|
posted October 18, 2003 08:29 PM |
|
|
dear DoddTheSlayer
unfortunately i don't know my bible as well as i should. Before I form an opinion could you provide me with bible references about homosexuality, and, is there anything regarding it in the new testament? Also, while we're here for my own study could you provide references regarding pre-marital sex? (again, is there a new testament ref. for this?) thanksssssss
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 09:33 PM |
|
|
I've stayed out of this one as long as I could...
But recent posts just take the cake.
[EDIT] After slowing down a little to re-read the posts before this one, I feel I must apologize particularly to Buzud and Khaelo (but to a few others as well) for repeating several points already made. I posted in a huff and did not offer proper acknowledgements.
Thunder, if your premise, that love has nothing to do with sex, were true, then it seems that this would probably settle the question, once and for all.
However, unfortunately for purposes of settling this debate, but fortunately for the soul of humanity, I believe you are wrong about this.
I know few people – either men or women –would agree with you that sex has nothing to do with love. In my experience, while one can experience either without the other, sex has very much to do with love. Sex can be an utterly empty bodily function, but it is also the most intimate, most personal way of connecting with a loved one – the ultimate spiritual, physical act of union with an individual whose soul you deeply desire to be swept up with in ecstasy. If you have never experienced this type of true union, then my heart goes out to you, my friend.
Love-based sex is part of a psychological phenomenon known as “bonding,” which serves the biological purpose of creating an enduring, stable relationship that effectively renders a family atmosphere capable of rearing the offspring of the species.
The human institution of marriage is a manifestation of legitimizing certain unions, to further encourage that stability, and hence foster further stability in society. Further, monogamy, if you research its roots is, at least some would argue, a method of assuring patriarchal lineage in cultures that were property-ownership based (in other words, a guarantee for establishing whose son was whose) so that inheritance could continue in a given bloodline unchallenged by another man. In them days, when the Church was heavily intertwined with feudal government establishments, there were certain assurances the Church incorporated at the behest of state interests. Many believe this fact has had a heavy influence on the religious influence in the institution of marriage.
So, what does this imply for same-sex unions? Well, some might argue that it would imply such unions are meaningless since they are not capable of producing children. However, if this were the case, what are the ramifications of childless heterosexual couples? Does this de-legitimize their union, or the institution of marriage?
This is irrelevant you might say, since many couples choose to adopt. While I would remind you that many couples choose not to do that and in fact choose not to have children at all, let’s take the inability to reproduce argument and give it a closer look. Can’t same-sex couples adopt as well (assuming it is legal)? If so, then incapacity to reproduce in itself has no greater impact on the legitimacy of such a union than it does on that of a non-producing heterosexual union.
Furthermore, while the institution was in part originated to assure the production of children, last I checked we did not have an underpopulation problem. So this can no longer be use as an excuse either to legitimize heterosexual unions, or to delegitimize homosexual ones.
It has further been argued that a child needs the influence of both a man and a woman in order to foster true stability in the youngster’s childhood. This, I would submit to you, is another red herring my friend. If this is so strong an argument as to make it the reason for not granting same-sex marriages the same status in society, what are we to do with single parents? Outlaw their parentage, take their children away and adopt them into two-partner families? Or perhaps sanction abortion as a method of avoiding single parentage?
Setting aside the party-line inconsistencies this reasoning leads to, I strongly feel that a stable household is a stable household. Sanctioning the union lends greater strength to the union and its partners, be they male or female. And a stable household with two parents is every bit as nurturing, if not more so, than any single-parent household. Probably the most important influence a parenting partnership can have on its children arises out of the example the loving stability of the partnership itself presents to the child – i.e. how to love well, how to nurture well – not whether one or the other partner has boobs or balls.
As for the psychological effect that having same-sex parents has on a child – two things. First, recent studies tend to suggest that any such psychological damage arises primarily from the social stigma itself, not the fact that the parents are of the same sex. Thus this argument becomes circular. Eliminate the stigma and you eliminate the damage. Second, some of the same recent studies (as Khaelo has pointed out) suggest that homosexuality is a physical, chemical phenomenon, not a choice, and the fact that children reared in same-sex partnerships show no greater incidence of homosexuality attests to that fact.
What’s really going on here is a debate about fundamental terms – what’s right, what’s wrong, and who decides this. When it comes to the tenets of right and wrong, there are three primary categories we are all falling into in this debate (or any other socio-religious debate for that matter):
1) those who believe that right and wrong are eternal truths that are ultimately determined by a God who then ordains human conduits through which those truths are revealed to the masses;
2) those who believe that right and wrong are eternal truths ultimately determined by a God, but we do not know what these are and must glean and ascertain them for ourselves as part of our spiritual responsibility; and
3) those who believe that right and wrong are ultimately determined by human experience, and that these things can change over time depending on the needs of society.
Most of us fall into one of these three categories. And ne’er the twain shall meet. This fundamental disagreement is what is at the heart of this debate.
This goes back to my statements in past posts about us being in the midst of a spiritual revolution here. Some here in HC have said they don’t see it. However, in the past fifty years, there have been a growing number of humans engaging in increasingly intense, cross-cultural spiritual quests to try and figure out why their own religious traditions seem to so fail to answer these critical questions; individuals who have gone so far as to lay themselves down in streets and risk injury or arrest to make a stand for things they deeply believe in – even whole new religions emerging to try and bring together the growing urge that more and more people have to truly understand the spiritual forces at work in their lives, to take personal responsibility for their own spiritual choices, to personally, intimately, establish a relationship with something greater than ourselves that a growing number seems to sense is out there – if we could only reach it – and that parochial habits of letting the clergy decide these things for us just no longer cuts it. Trying to figure out whether homosexual unions is something we should sanction is just one small example – just part of that quest for many of us.
Fundamentalist subscribers of many major religions fall primarily into the first category. I have a little bone to pick with you guys at this juncture. For instance, the Old Testament is filled with incidents of slavery. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I was younger I didn’t ever find any outright statement against slavery in the Bible??? Does this mean that we could continue to sanction it without committing a sin??? If this is so I’ve got a couple of friends I’d like to sell you…or myself, for that matter. What do you think my going rate should be?
As for the other two categories, this is primarily where people would start arguing over whether homosexuality is against nature. Well hell, if that’s the case what’s the deal with my two male dogs who seem to so enjoy one another’s company??? Why do we find so many incidents of homosexual gratification among so many types of animals and insects, and practically every human tribe, if it is so gall darned unnatural???
Which returns us to the notion that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in approximately 10% of the population. I recently heard this radio program in which the fundamentalist representative argued that, while he recognized the endemic nature of homosexuality in some humans, we have all these assaults on the institution of marriage – sex outside of marriage, single parentage, divorce – and now this is just one more assault on the stability of the institution, which is designed to in turn stabilize society and produce children. I submit to you all that sanctioning homosexual marriages does not assault or otherwise impact the institution of heterosexual marriage, in any way. On the contrary – the failure to sanction it creates a whole constituency of society who are forever forced either to engage in sex outside of marriage (one of this guy’s gripes) or engage in unions of some other sort that are not sanctioned by society (the core of this guy’s gripes), which in itself makes them destabilizing as outside the norm, or in the only alternative, it forces these individuals into a life of celibacy, if they are to follow this set of rules.
Pursuant to all of this thinking, how could not sanctioning same-sex marriages lend to the stability of society???
I submit that the reasons for the institution of marriage have so metamorphosed over the centuries that many arguments for why it was originally formed are no longer relevant. Marriage has become a union borne primarily out of Love. Yes Thunder. Love. I think to argue anything else is disingenuous, at best. I strongly sense that many of us have just been so socialized to hold homosexuality in disdain that it is nothing more than a matter of prejudge we are still scrambling around trying to justify.
However, with Love as the emerging, single spiritual theme for many of us on our own spiritual quests, I submit that we no longer have any reason not to sanction homosexual unions born out of Love, than we would have not to sanction any other union borne out of love.
Yes, I know this implies in the slippery slope thinking that I could marry my cat if I wanted to. But I have yet to hear any huge sector of the populace who wants to marry domestic animals and have such a union sanctioned by their society. I have yet to catch wind of verified scientific studies that bestiality is a naturally-occurring phenomenon in any percentage of the human populace. I have yet to see any of my friends unable get health benefits for their pets because their union isn’t sanctioned, or not be able to mingle their assets or file their taxes with their bestial mates like other married partners, or who can’t adopt their partner’s children because (s)he has the wrong body parts, or who are not allowed to pick up their dead mate’s ashes at the post office because they are not considered “family members,” or any other of the number of legal ramifications that landslide onto my same-sex-partner friends’ lives because we don’t recognize their love bonds as legitimate.
So let’s just not go there shall we????
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted October 19, 2003 10:52 PM |
|
|
Carefully approaches Peacemaker ...
Ok..drop that glass of wine ..RIGHT NOW!
step AWAY from the glass...
Don't make me ask again..
( )
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
