Staredit Network

That's one reason why many protestants find catholocism faulty in many ways

and its why alot of Catholic marriages actually last longer then others.

[quote=AOB)Snipe)r(]Gays are gross its jsut a gross thing you know. But theres a different between Gays and Lesbians i dont know wat it is tho. Casue i am perfectly fine with Lesbians but gays just seem like gross people.[/quote]

[quote=M.Army]Yea, nobody likes seeing a man making out with a man, but i'm sure tons of people like woman making out with woman.


IMO it's gross, but if they want to get married, well they can do w/e they want at their own risk.[/quote]

I won't digress farther upon this, but in case you didn't know that's homophobic. What's the problem of guys kissing in front of you and not the two girls scenario? Provided they don't hassle me to join, I'm fine with it. It's their choice (to kiss in public) and they do have the right to do the same things as hetero's do. Equality for all, isn't that a golden rule in the U.S.? *Wink, wink*

[quote=Rantent]Some of the coolest people I know are homosexual. That doesn't make them want to have sex with me. It's only a preference.[/quote]

Just to make clear that it isn't exactly a preference. And that's for all of the similar opinions I most assuredly will see through out the intire thread. It's an hormone reaction (amidst others).

[quote=Snake)Ling]Some people are born homosexual, that cannot be changed. It isn't their fault they're gay. Bisexuals, on the other hand, have a choice to be gay or straight.[/quote]

Faulty logic. If someone's sexual preferences are mainly from within conditions like hormones, then care to explain me on how would it be any different for bissexuals?
Somehow I fail to to see the loophole that allows it.

[quote=Tavrobel]In certain places in the south, uncle/dad is not an uncommon relationship. If you are mormon, you can become your own uncle/aunt, step-sibling, or your own cousin. You, as in, becoming you, but a different niche.[/quote]

Sorry, but I can't relate to that. There's another thing that religion is faulty at (and I say this to almost every one I see about). By this time, they should've realised that inborn breeding brings up genetic problems to the surface a lot faster than the other way around. Diversity in spreading race's (aka meiosis) is known to be a lot safer, since it diminuishes the risks of massive extinction levels when dealt in front of catastrophic situations.

[quote=Rhiom]this isnt my own opinion but a lot of [people actually do think it is hurting them because they feel that if you allows gay to marry it disanctifies their marrige by balittling it into nothing. Again not my own opinion but a lot of people actually do think that gay marriages would hurt them (not physically)[/quote]

Yet another proof that most religions are conservative enough to the point of acting like they're hissy fits over it. It works the same as if most still don't allow women to became priests and follow the same guidelines (as in, preach on religious events of your community).
Most religions should get out more and get in touch with the societies' feel, needs and shape themselves into it, not the other way around. That irking stance of "it's my way or the highway" doesn't rhime that well with tolerance and the equality most of'em preach about (in theory, at least). Afterall, the Dark Ages passed eons ago.

[quote=Dead][center]THEY SHOULD BE SHOT...[/center]
[right][snapback]325519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If that's so, so should you. That way your ignorance wouldn't be passed onto the next generation as well. If the Nazi way it's your way, then please stay away from normal SD section debate.
May I remind that we're at the SD area and that this section as stricter rules than the rest of the site (no flaming for one)?

[quote=Dead]Where did you get that kind off BULLSHlT? They had a freaking gay parade this summer in europe. Man even cops slandered on them while guarding those bastarrds from the crowd who wanted to tear them apart .[/quote]

If it was considered as regular as everything else, than it would have no reason to be that way. You just don't see hetero' parades because they aren't persecuted as homosexuals are. Morals and ignorance side-by-side and hand-in-hand seems the picture that fits you right now. And no, this isn't any near the bullshiz you're trying to pass over here.

[quote=KaboomHahahein]But I don't want them to change the definition of Marriage. That is something they should not do. And the thing about letting the priest decide if he would like to do the marriage ceremony just so they dont' discriminate both sides is stupid. If the priest says no, you may not have a homosexual marriage here then they can say that they are being discriminated which in the end won't work out.[/quote]

Equality of rights. Sheesh! How many times will I have to repeat myself?
That justification is because of the faulty prejudice your society's and their religions' have towards the homosexual element in it and nothing else. It really hasn't nothing to do with ppl's sexual preferences or any real motives of why they should be prevented to marry.

[quote=Fortune]The male sexual organ was created to enter the female sexual organ—that is a fact. I believe that people were born with free-will and should be able to do what they wish.[/quote]

1st of all, it evolved into that way. Just liked to point out that many species haven't forcefully to reproduce that way. *Winks and smiles*
2nd, it's not their choice (see link when replying to Rantent).

[quote=SirhcTheForbidden]So you like fat, burly men, uh?[/quote]

Tolerance and ignorance don't go hand to hand. And you definetly liked to prove it.

[quote=M.Army]THere's nothing we can do about it sadly. We have no choice but to let them be. As far as giving them rights... i'm pretty much apathetic. If gays are given rights, that's ok with me. If they aren't, that's also fine with me.[/quote]

[quote=Infested-Jerk]Ditto, Millenium, as long as they stop talking to me about it.[/quote]

There goes the acceptance and equality thing out the window... or to (religious) Hell.

[quote=Felagund]Wow, that's like saying, "I don't care either way if women have rights." My respect for you has dropped yet again.[/quote]

May I join this bandwagon as well? *Ponders, winking*

[quote=M.Army replies to Felagund]I'm talking about rights as in the controversial issues like marriage, not rights as in equality and voting and all that stuff.

If they want to marry, let them marry. If they want to do whatever they want to, let them be. I dont hate or love these gay people, neither do I hate or love what they do or are.[/quote]

Equality means all of those as well. In particular since marriage isn't solely a religious event, it's a civil one as well. For the State and under it's eyes (taxes reckoning and related relations shiz) when facing a married couple what really counts it's that lil' signing on the civic paper that acknowledges to it (the State) that you're in fact married. Or else the religious marriage wouldn't have ya to sign that same paper in the end of the (church) celebration.
Just thought to clear that one out. No one now has the bias excuse of gay marriage being "wrong" solely on the religion's excuse. *Shows tongue*

[quote=Mayhem]I wish the goverment would just give them there rights so they can stop talking bout it cuz i dont really like gay ppl they freeak me out at least gay men do not women[/quote]

Another one of those cases siding along with the so called morals. Just not to add ya into the homophobes bandwagon too.

[quote=Neiji]Gays are gay. 1st gay = homosexual. 2nd gay = some freaking stupid insult teenagers say...

I hate them. You say you can't grow unnatural things and mess w/ mother nature like changing DNA, but you can still do this...[/quote]

What makes you so sure that homssexuality wasn't the way to reproduce in the dawn of times? Then it may evolved into another thing altogether. And from that, who can say that they're unnatural? Couldn't that be said about us the heteros'?
Afterall, we even have it in nature relationships between animals. Yours is a moot point, imho. ;p

[quote=Brutetal]Hey that might as well be racist! That is disresectfull. Its not right.

Anyways, I don't care what they do. At least their 2 feet away from me and don't talk to me. Its all good! The gay sociaty is everywhere, so might as well accept it now.[/quote]

Look who's talking... you, that even in the same post state that they should be kept away from you. 'Gayhood' doesn't spread, period.
And ignorance is hard to shun, in particular when you're not open minded at all.

*Sighs* Chalk another one up for the homophobes bandwagon.

[quote=Tmac]I really don't care what they do as long as they don't do it in public.
They should have rights too. Why shouldn't they? ...
BTW isn't there a seperation between church and state?

Just give them rights![/quote]

Isn't that sweet... and contradicting!?!
Care to explain what's the difference between an hetero couple kissing in the street and a gay one?

[quote=Tmac]... The bible has a one liner that say its not allowed to be gay. It also has a one liner about why we shouldn't eat shellfish.[/quote]

Then enlighten us, common mortals, with your über separation between religion and state. *Taint of sarcasm*

What I'd like to know is exactly from where in the Bible it's that 'gorgeous' sentence, assuming that's the one you're speaking of? And in particular if it's lined with the shellfish sentence that is absolute crap btw, since we can eat it (even though I don't like that much of shellfish).

ADDITION:
[quote=Loser Musician]I understand what you're saying, but the color of your skin and wether you are male or female is based 100% on you being born that way. Homophobes in most cases, are not PRIMARILY born that way.[/quote]

Humurous to say the least... and ignorance flavoured to keep it diplomatic.
Read my article (located way up in this post) of why homossexuals are born that way, mostly due to hormone biology.

[quote=Brutetal]Its what they do to me is what scares me lol.[/quote]

Oh, boy... what's gonna be next (as excuse)?
Then respectfully decline as you would, in case it was a girl that did it and she was interested in ya. I also was approached that way in the past by one homo' and did it like that. And we still are friends.

[quote=Mr.Camo]I could care less if they're gay or not. As long as they don't touch me.

But if they can take a wang, they can take a few insults.. [/quote]

Again, I say it doesn't spread. However ignorance seems to, by what am seeing here 'till now.

*EGS (enough good sense) warning*
Question: Do you like to be insulted even not giving any shred of reason for that person to do it?
I do believe you don't, so cut the crap and "don't do to others what you don't like done onto you".

[quote=EngrievedMelancholia]Gays are just gays...some of them are little censored.gif ...But hey men being gay leaves more girls to the guys really.

Edit:People were not born gay,some of them may of been but they can change overnight...But i dont see why anyone would like having a nice woman rather then a big hairy guy[/quote]

*Cringes for the 8th time* Go to the above of my post and see the article that proves that gays are born that way.

Now seriously ppl, when debating this kind of stuff it reeeeaaally helps if you investigate a tad further before making such bluntly 'ignoramus' statements. *Sticks out tongue*

[quote=Tmac]... Maybe you don't realize it right away but it will kick in eventually. At puberty is my guess.[/quote]

Same as it does for hetero's, I might add. You simply don't jive fondness into gals from the get go now, or did ya?

[quote=Screwed]Homosexuality is inborn, Homophobia is taught.[/quote]

This one I definelty must recall, when debating this issue altogether again. Good job.

[quote=M.Army replies to EngrievedMelancholia]... But doing activities that indicate your gayness is the total opposite (like marriage, kissing, announcement, etc)[/quote]

You were goin' on the right track but all of the sudden... you've simply derailed. *Shudders*

What's the difference between telling your hetero' and gay? That's another thing I'd like to know too.
Just not to mention the "equality of rights" that the U.S. constitution likes so much to state 'round and about.

[quote=Brutetal]Anyways, you can be born gay from genetic error (when your cells are multiplying and somthing goes wrong or you have the so called "Gay Gene")

You can also become gay or Bi from your enviroment from once your born to pubrity.

If you only live with sisters and your mom, and your dad gone the entire time of your childhood as well as you having not much friends, like about around maybe 4 or 5 max is equal to high chance of being gay or BI.[/quote]

Interesting but I'd like to see more than your words stating that you have an increased chance of becoming gay by simply being in an women only or men only growth environment.
And I sy that because do have/know a couple of cases that parents got divorced and the kids were created by the opposite sex parent and they all became hetero'.

[quote=Revolver Devalle]Here's a question for all of you. If it is true that you can be born homosexual, why should it matter to be anyone else except the person who is born that way and the person/people they find attractive? And if homosexuality is a choice, then why does it require some big-ended debate by, no offense to anyone, people like us who likely hold little to no political power to do anything about it?[/quote]

Maybe because of enlightening ppl of the reality vs. ignorance. Or to do it simply just for the heck of it, as I'm doin'? Afterall, ideals change in front of the most accurate n' current situation. Or do they not? If not is your answer, then most likely the person(s) in question is(are) stubborn. *Smirks*

[quote=Revolver Devalle]Here's my point. The idea of homosexuality wouldn't be a problem to anyone in our system if people didn't make such a big fuss over it. ...

Which is really where it all comes down to, what truly is homosexuality but a preference of a body type that is the same or similiar to the one that person has? In my own personal expirience, relationships are typically more for the physical nature of a given person. Well, that's not the best reason to have a relationship, but how many people, in the current or younger years, lusted after that supposed 'beautiful' looking person?[/quote]

But it it's a problem. And most likely is due to the fact that folks keep getting shunned of their equality potencial as while others don't suffer that same stigma.

Also I'd like to clear out that it ain't true that relationships are more of the physical nature. In teen years perhaps, but not when you've reached the late teens. I do have had a couple of girlfriends that initially we became attracted by one another's personality.
But that isn't the point of debate now, since the attraction either it being physical or mental personality driven simply doesn't affect the way of sexual orientation preferences.

[quote=M.Army]... Sure let them do that, let them have those rights. But another term should be used for it instead of marriage. It'll give the same rights as a marriage and stuff, but just not twist the meaning of the word "marriage."[/quote]

The word marriage at the lack of a better expression means the union between to ppl, as a few Catholic priests I know of would say. In my country as soon as you live wiht the same person more than 3 years in a row, you're considered to have the same rights as married couples do. The only problem homossexuals have (here) is to prove that they live together in a marital status.
I'd like to clear that one out, since not every one has the joys to say and make it official that they're married (as in, religious or simply civil) although doin' everything like the married couples do.

*Tiny taint of sarcasm* If you don't want it to be "twisted" (in your opinion), then call it a religious marriage and not a civil one.

[quote=Insane]Why not just change the meaning of "Marriage" instead of creating another word?[/quote]

Execlelent idea. Maybe a piece of my earlier paragraph would help out a tad in this field, provided some of you folks can let go of the religious connotation bias.
[quote=Earlier paragraph]The word marriage at the lack of a better expression means the union between to ppl, as a few Catholic priests I know of would say.[/quote]
*Smiles and pats on Insane's back*

[quote=Revolver Devalle]Politics. It isn't just a piece of cake to change the meaning of a word that everyone knows, and even if you did, who would really care? It's just a lot easier, and cheaper, to make up something rather than reinvent an existing thing.[/quote]

Ta da. And just for ya, the religious (connotation) biased folks. *Shows tongue*

[quote=Kow]I really have no problem with it, as of now, except for the fact that most gays don't want to be eqal, they want special treatment.[/quote]

I'd like ya to further explain it with details in which "special" way (in particular about marriage).

[quote=Rvolver Devalle]Ah, and here's where we leave the typical train of thought and actually start getting to the heart of the matter.

It's not that most homosexuals so much want special treatment so much as to be defined as different. Marriage is a one-way train, and as such, only those who 'fit the bill' can get aboard. However, in a same sex relationship, the only way to produce a baby would be through a sperm plant (typically lesbians, as the female body can actually carry an unborn child), test tube babies, or adoption.[/quote]

No, it isn't and doesn't. I wouldn't consider gay folks any different than an hetero' couple that can't have kids of their own due to biological infertility.
In addoption, either you're single or a couple trying to addopt you'll have your backgrounds checked. Just not to mention the constant follow-up by the social workers.
And I do believe that some homo' folks can actually be better parents than hetero' couples.

[quote=Star-Chris]This may have already been brought up but its not just in the Bible that states marriage is man and women. At least in Catholic marriages the priest will NOT marry (man and women even) if you don't want to have kids. Thats right, if you don't want to have kids, but want to get married you better find another church becuase a Catholic one won't wed you. Its part of a four question questionare the Priest asks you when you meet him in order to arrange a marriage.

So that means if your gay the Priest will not wed you and your partner becuase you both cannot create a child through love. Its suppose to be some deep love thing like your giving yourself up to your partner and through this a child comes bla bla bla.

Pretty strict eh?[/quote]

Try pretty moronic, instead. If that definition, that isn't accurate btw, is thrown around by Catholic priests wouldn't it be based upon their 'rule book' (aka Bible)?
And I do know a lot of cases that folks got married by the Church and clearly said to the priests before that celebration they hadn't in mind to have offspring.

edit: Took out places calling people ignorant.

edit: Sorry for messing upthe quotes

Edit reason by author (at 30-Nov, 12h GMT): Since 'someone' messed up the quotes I've changed it's colouring into grey since it's the usual colour they get into when that feature (really) works. It's my suggestion, if it's possible anyway, that the quote text coding might need a lil' boost, so it won't cramp up so easily. *Wink, wink*
And since those were screwed anyway, I've taken the oportunity to fix some minor typoes amidst my replies that noticed shortly after adding my reply (and it's so called 'addition', that was done in order for the quotes to work properly).


What I didn't really get into, is the removing the blunt labelling (aka calling ignorant, in this case), since haven't flamed but instead pointed out a thing that seems to getting in the way of stances taken and a real pondering about'em on this issue altogether. *Sighs and shrugs shoulders*
As you can realise M.Army, I even showed the rules that serve as a guideline for posters in this particular forum area. Perhaps farther developments upon this matter should be better if traded by PM. *Winks and invites PM exchange if any enlightment is required due to rising doubt(s) upon this*

That's quite impressive...

Hm. I'll need to look up more information before I continue this debate. Personal expirience, it seems, won't cut it here. I advise, as Basan has so excellently done, that the rest of you do the same.

Can someone tell me what exactly are we debating about? Right now we're all simply just stating our thoughts on them. What I mean is what actually are we affirming or negating to?

Thanks

Thanks for comment.
What I usually do is to 'grab' my egs standard and see if it's appliable to both sides of the debated matter. Usually the side where it sticks better (if not totally) is the one I follow though. And that's why you don't need to be religious (read, theist) in order to have "high morals" as some call it. But that just my humble opinion on it anyway.



And isn't that the thread's title?

On a seriouser note, though, maybe I can spunk this debate up a lil' now that the Vatican has released (read, yesterday) it's newest priciple - forbidding homossexauls to take up priest duties. All I need is to find a news link for it to be 'officially' well based upon.

Do you think that 'gayhood' vs. priesthood (more as in, incompatible) is a based enough justification for the newest Pope to proceed with this latest concept of his?

Okay, I'm going to school in about 5 minutes.... so I don't have time to read the article yet. I might revisit this post when I get back.



As I have said many times before, I think it's not natural too. However, if I don't follow my feelings and possibly even comform to hetero's standards, the consequences will be a very lonely life. I can make a woman's life miserable or set a man's life free.

From reading your post, you are suggesting that being gay can be caught? Of course you can believe what you want, but I think of being gay as a natural genetic defect. I sure as hell didn't choose to be gay, and my friends are as hetero as they can possibly get. My homosexuality doesn't get passed on to my friends as you have suggested it was contagious. I could find a link about causes of homosexuality... but I don't have time right now. Of course I will be very biased, because I seem to be saying all this to make myself feel better.

I will elaborate on this when I get home.

This is what bugs me.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Being gay was a sin. I'd love for someone to point out those lines that say "Being gay is a sin." Again, this could be another example of people twisting religion/religious interpretations.

It does, however, define marriage as the bonding of man and woman. This is the part where interpretation comes in. Many might say that this implies that same genders cannot marry and it would be a sin. Some might even go as far as to say that this also implies that just being gay itself is a sin.

I ardently believe that just being gay itself is NOT a sin. As far as marriage, I really don't know.


Oh and Basan, deciding to count up the number of ignorant people and labelling certain people out loud, like Kow and others, ignorant on your list wasn't necessary at all. Calling or labelling people ignorant is flaming.

honestly, i dont mind gays as long as they dont bother me,

Example: they try and hit on me knowing that im straight.

I do know the Bible, or at least it's catholic version, and never saw it written there. It must've been a late edition, no doubt. *Sarcasm*

Btw, did ya even bothered to see the scientific explanation provided at my 1st post here (as in, the link there)?
And your 'sound' explanation of how homossexuals came to be has any basis, other than your own, by any chance? If so, I'd sure like to see it.



Now we're talking. Precise definitions are always better and are far lesser easy to missinterpret upon. Just not to mention that it's what actually is in the Bible (at least the one I know of, the Catholic version).



Oh, that (the counting bit). That was it?
And if it's the truth (that homossexuality isn't chosen upon), does it also matter btw? (As my link shows as well. ) And if it may've sounded offensive to anyone, at the lack of better wording to express myself at the time, then I apologize in advance.
But lets not digress into this again (since it, most likely, would end up in circles). It's edited and I left it the way you wanted to (except that grey colouring part and the post-editing text have made).

Gay people r just people not much more diferent from a muslim or budist from our point of veiw,i mean its their own problem if they wish to never have sex(oral and anal r not true sex)

It's definantly a choice. My cousin went from straight to gay to straight again in around a 3 year period. No nature there.

You're basing every single LGBTQ on one single person

Maybe he's bisexual?

We are overreacting with homosexuals... They are human too

If homo/bisexual people marry I don't care. I don't mind if someone is homosexual but I do think it's pretty strange because:
1. If you are homosexual you have much more risks than if you were attracted to the opposite gender.
2. If you are homosexual then you can't serve one of the main purposes of life, to have offspring to replace you.
3. I just think it's strange.

But besides all this it really depends on the person.


Michael Jackson is human too
George Bush is human too
Arnold the Governator is human too
Michael Moore is human too

Oh my... then the Kama Sutra was wrong and 'only' after all these centuries.

On the other hand, I'd like your explanation on what possible similarities do have muslims and budhists to do with ppl's personal sexual orientation (read, homossexuality in this case).



Please don't give extremists any flashback ideas. Hitler's Nazism ideals, agenda are pretty much done and gladly, I might add.



Good to hear that you've read the article I provided and that you even brought your own shred of evidences proving me wrong. *Sarcasm*
As you can realize we have nothing from your behalf that even remotely points out that homossexuality is a choice. Until then, please stop stating crap like that.

And as someone else already pointed out... Are you sure he isn't a bissexual instead?



1. Which greater risks are you speaking of? If it's AIDS, think again.

2. No, but they can raise other folks offspring as their own in similarity to an hetero' couple with infertility issues. Afterall, all those kids that were given by their parents for addoption (amidst others nastier, like incompetent parenting), would thank'em. Even if not spoken out loud.

3. It's your opinion and you sure are entitled to it. But it kinda rubs off that you haven't read the explanation that shows that they're not 'that' different from us anyway, other than the intolerance bias that, from time to time, gets sprinkled around (read, I provided the article in linkage earlier on at this thread).



Care to enlighten on what this has to do with the point of Procuress showing that if they're human, they should have the same rights other fellas do have (assuming that my interpretation of what he said at post #141 is correct)?

gays, something is wrong with those people, its not right, if the whole world was gay we would lose the population in under a couple centuries, i beleive turning homosexual is something that develops starting from ur childhood

Even if the world was 100% gay (Which is purely impossible), people WILL still be having children. Find a better argument.

"But Leif! gay people can't have kids, you fool!! PWNZORS!!!!"

LOL, when you hear the conservatives barking their heads off over anti-gay stuff, you just KNOW they are not as concerned with female homosexuals as they are males. It makes for better pr0n (that doesn't do it for me, I have my reasons, but lots of guys - even conservative guys - like girl on girl action).

Heheheh... If you ask me what my source is, I'll just tell you to google the word "lesbian." heheh.

2. I would rather wait be adopted by a dad AND a mom.
3. So?

I'm just saying that he shouldn't use "they are human too" as an argument.

Just as what Basan said, the matter really doesnt matter here.
Michael Jackson, Bush, Arnold, and Moore are not gays. I don't suppose they are also relative subject to talk about...

Hell. If all Lesbians only looked like that....

Tatu = PiZzPwNoRz!1!1!