The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Fragony]

Same old crap again Frag , can you force yourself to write what the real story was instead of once again repeating your oft debunked fabrication ?

[insert debunk here]

[aimlesswanderer]

I find hilarious when loud anti gay crusaders are eventually caught doing what they constantly denounced, hypocrisy FTW! Hello Ted Haggard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard. Hello former senator Larry Craig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Perhaps, just perhaps, some 'straight' people are so 'interested' in homosexuality because they try to hide their own homosexual feelings (and there is a plethora of anti-gay enthusiasts caught taking it up the bum to prove it)

Some, maybe. On the other hand, I think KarlXII said it perfectly with:

All Republicans that oppose Obama are, in fact, insecure Democrats.

Saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a closet homosexual is a rather amusing troll.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why homosexuality would be "wrong".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why homosexuality would be "wrong".

I've already said that I don't care much either way. However, it really depends what you see as valid.

[Kadagar_AV]

I've already said that I don't care much either way. However, it really depends what you see as valid.

Valid - an argument that has any sort of sence behind it...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Valid - an argument that has any sort of sence behind it...

Which is, of course, purely subjective.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If one argues that it is against God's will;
One can counter that they are the way God made them. If God wanted them some other way, he would have made them that way. Any argument regarding God's will is pure speculation anyway, because no one knows the mind of God. Any who claim to are fools.

If one argues that it is against nature;
There have been countless species who have demonstrated homosexual desire and coupling. Some species even change gender spontaneously in a same-sex environment, to keep the species alive. There is nothing particularly unique about human behavior, it is once again, perfectly natural, as we are part of nature, not separate from it.

If one argues that it is uncivilized;
It is a consenting activity between two adults, which is far less uncivilized than most other human behaviors such as hatred, loathing, greed, sloth, gluttony, selfishness, apathy, and so forth which are destructive things, none of them illegal. So if we are to legislate morality, why not touch on the things which clearly are tearing society apart, such as organized hatred? If you won't make hate illegal, why must you make love that you don't understand illegal? If Nazis can march freely in our streets, so can the gays. And duh, I'd prefer gays marching than Nazis.

If one argues that it is perverse;
Then you must make illegal all forms of sodomy including relations which involve parts of the body above the neck, because many people argue those activities are equally perverse, even among heterosexuals. You must also ban adult videos and literature, as well as adult oriented playthings. And you must also ban articles of clothing, public and private, which tittilate the senses and encourage lust which is not for the defined purpose of procreation. Once you outlaw what things people deem perverse, you must outlaw all forms of sex for pleasure, as that is not what God/nature/religious people intended it to be for.

If one argues it will lead to polygamy;
I have news for you. Polygamy already exists and it is indeed a separate issue. If you're this concerned about marriage, why not confront Islamic fundies who allow girls as young as 8 to be married to 50-year olds and be given no legal rights or protections. There are far worse things in the world than two consenting adults getting married, which involve much greater "distortions" of what we call marriage.

If one argues that it is immoral;
It is immoral to persecute a people who have done you no wrong. It is immoral to fire people from a job because of which consenting adult they choose to share a bed with. It is immoral to focus so much on preventing gay people from obtaining equality under the law. It is immoral to prevent people of the same gender to obtain the right to visit their loved ones in a hospital, or to adopt children. Gay and bisexual people often end up having children, and as such they are allowed (as if they needed our approval?) to raise their own children as fit, loving parents. A person's same-sex preference should not exclude them from acting as a normal member of society.

If one argues that it teaches children that it is ok, and that is contradictory to your religious teachings;
Other forms of behavior banned by your religious teachings, such as gambling or prostitution or divorce, happen all the time, and yet somehow you manage to live. Wars and slavery and human destruction of themselves and their environments happen all the time, and frankly the religious sector of our population tends to support or ignore those policies more than the secularists do. You can, as you are legally allowed to do, spread teachings of fear and hatred against gay people to your children. You can teach that they are rotten to the core and will burn in hell. And someday, your child may see your false piety and your casting off of other human beings as garbage, and they may elect to do the same towards you; especially considering that the chance that your child may be gay is greater than you might imagine. You must also realize that they can choose to believe in whatever faith they like in this country, or none at all, and increasingly that's what they will do. Yet somehow, ever since marriage between gays became legal in several states, God did not smote us, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Oh, except for some very extraordinary things... such as a people once persecuted are now being treated like equal human beings, and it didn't affect your life in a negative way at all. For some people you've already judged as being fodder for Satan, they are enjoying their lives as free people. And if there is a God and he does judge them, let Him judge them for doing something they were free to engage in, not bullied into hiding from by religious zealots, forced to live an uncomfortable lie which often leads to depression and suicide.

Finally:
Love thy neighbor, and don't judge him or her, because you're hardly a saint, and their sexuality is none of your business. Because this will affect our laws and therefore our courts, you have a right to have an opinion on the matter, but once the votes have been counted and the laws upheld by a court, let it go. Find another scapegoat for blaming the world's troubles on.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also, the argument that people who oppose the spread of homosexuality are secretly gay is as ridiculous as saying that people who oppose the spread of murder are secret murderers. Don't get me wrong, I am not equating the two, but a lot of people think they are both a sin, and so oppose the spread of homosexuality. (if there was not so much of it and if it were not being flaunted so, there would not be so much contraversy over it)

There are a number of people who think Jews are evil. By your logic, if there were just fewer people practicing Judaism and it wasn't done so publicly, there would not be so much controversy over it. If you have a problem with homosexuality that's fine, but it's never been demonstrated how it harms people, especially straight people.

[Vuk]

There are a number of people who think Jews are evil. By your logic, if there were just fewer people practicing Judaism and it wasn't done so publicly, there would not be so much controversy over it. If you have a problem with homosexuality that's fine, but it's never been demonstrated how it harms people, especially straight people.

You missed my point entirely ATPG. Jews do not flaunt their Judaism like gays flaunt their gayness. My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but simply that people who think it is evil make a big deal about it because gay make such a big deal about themselves. I was not arguing for or against liking or disliking gays, simply saying that everyong who opposes them being secretly gay is hardly a satisfactory argument. I think the way gays flaunt themselves is a much more likely reason for there being so much anti-gay ferver.

[Fragony]

If one argues that it is against God's will;
One can counter that they are the way God made them. If God wanted them some other way, he would have made them that way. Any argument regarding God's will is pure speculation anyway, because no one knows the mind of God. Any who claim to are fools.

If one argues that it is against nature;
There have been countless species who have demonstrated homosexual desire and coupling. Some species even change gender spontaneously in a same-sex environment, to keep the species alive. There is nothing particularly unique about human behavior, it is once again, perfectly natural, as we are part of nature, not separate from it.

If one argues that it is uncivilized;
It is a consenting activity between two adults, which is far less uncivilized than most other human behaviors such as hatred, loathing, greed, sloth, gluttony, selfishness, apathy, and so forth which are destructive things, none of them illegal. So if we are to legislate morality, why not touch on the things which clearly are tearing society apart, such as organized hatred? If you won't make hate illegal, why must you make love that you don't understand illegal? If Nazis can march freely in our streets, so can the gays. And duh, I'd prefer gays marching than Nazis.

If one argues that it is perverse;
Then you must make illegal all forms of sodomy including relations which involve parts of the body above the neck, because many people argue those activities are equally perverse, even among heterosexuals. You must also ban adult videos and literature, as well as adult oriented playthings. And you must also ban articles of clothing, public and private, which tittilate the senses and encourage lust which is not for the defined purpose of procreation. Once you outlaw what things people deem perverse, you must outlaw all forms of sex for pleasure, as that is not what God/nature/religious people intended it to be for.

If one argues it will lead to polygamy;
I have news for you. Polygamy already exists and it is indeed a separate issue. If you're this concerned about marriage, why not confront Islamic fundies who allow girls as young as 8 to be married to 50-year olds and be given no legal rights or protections. There are far worse things in the world than two consenting adults getting married, which involve much greater "distortions" of what we call marriage.

If one argues that it is immoral;
It is immoral to persecute a people who have done you no wrong. It is immoral to fire people from a job because of which consenting adult they choose to share a bed with. It is immoral to focus so much on preventing gay people from obtaining equality under the law. It is immoral to prevent people of the same gender to obtain the right to visit their loved ones in a hospital, or to adopt children. Gay and bisexual people often end up having children, and as such they are allowed (as if they needed our approval?) to raise their own children as fit, loving parents. A person's same-sex preference should not exclude them from acting as a normal member of society.

If one argues that it teaches children that it is ok, and that is contradictory to your religious teachings;
Other forms of behavior banned by your religious teachings, such as gambling or prostitution or divorce, happen all the time, and yet somehow you manage to live. Wars and slavery and human destruction of themselves and their environments happen all the time, and frankly the religious sector of our population tends to support or ignore those policies more than the secularists do. You can, as you are legally allowed to do, spread teachings of fear and hatred against gay people to your children. You can teach that they are rotten to the core and will burn in hell. And someday, your child may see your false piety and your casting off of other human beings as garbage, and they may elect to do the same towards you; especially considering that the chance that your child may be gay is greater than you might imagine. You must also realize that they can choose to believe in whatever faith they like in this country, or none at all, and increasingly that's what they will do. Yet somehow, ever since marriage between gays became legal in several states, God did not smote us, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Oh, except for some very extraordinary things... such as a people once persecuted are now being treated like equal human beings, and it didn't affect your life in a negative way at all. For some people you've already judged as being fodder for Satan, they are enjoying their lives as free people. And if there is a God and he does judge them, let Him judge them for doing something they were free to engage in, not bullied into hiding from by religious zealots, forced to live an uncomfortable lie which often leads to depression and suicide.

Finally:
Love thy neighbor, and don't judge him or her, because you're hardly a saint, and their sexuality is none of your business. Because this will affect our laws and therefore our courts, you have a right to have an opinion on the matter, but once the votes have been counted and the laws upheld by a court, let it go. Find another scapegoat for blaming the world's troubles on.

None of that, act normal, don't impose, tada. But that seems to be rather hard for attention-whores and provocation-junkies. Tearing eachother apart in broad daylight where everybody can (must?) see it, that doesn't help at all. I am not going to respect someone who doesn't respect me. Ask me to respect them as a person, fine. Demanding respect for their sexual preference, get lost.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You missed my point entirely ATPG. Jews do not flaunt their Judaism like gays flaunt their gayness. My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but simply that people who think it is evil make a big deal about it because gay make such a big deal about themselves. I was not arguing for or against liking or disliking gays, simply saying that everyong who opposes them being secretly gay is hardly a satisfactory argument. I think the way gays flaunt themselves is a much more likely reason for there being so much anti-gay ferver.

I believe some Jews do flaunt their judaism, by wearing the skull caps and going to temple and wearing their hair a certain way and speaking the Yiddish and saying things like Mozel Tov. Some of them even wave the flag of Israel in their signature lines, or in support of Israel in front of their place of business. And by the way, most gays do not flaunt their gayness, because certain people AHEM make them feel unwelcome.

You know, those darn black people also make such a big deal about the equal rights, tolerance and acceptance of blacks, that if they would all just shut up and go away the world would be a better place, now wouldn't it?

So the reason you don't think gays deserve equal protections is because they insist on living their lives in an openly gay manner?

None of that, act normal, don't impose, tada. But that seems to be rather hard for attention-whores and provocation-junkies. Tearing eachother apart in broad daylight where everybody can (must?) see it, that doesn't help at all. I am not going to respect someone who doesn't respect me. Ask me to respect them as a person, fine. Demanding respect for their sexual preference, get lost.

Straight people flaunt their sexuality much more than gay people do, because there is no majority of people who disapprove of it and condemn them for being Godless straights. The respect argument here is ludicrous, when you have rappers making music (?) videos involving barely clothed women, with drug-related, gang-related, money-obsessed, violent, sexist content, that is much more offensive to me than a man who speaks with a lisp and wears a pink shirt that says "We're here and we're queer." Straight people, historically, have zero respect for gays. So now, you're arguing since they don't automatically respect your wishes and just hide in the closet all the time, it is their own fault that the world hates them? Pardon but they've been in the closet for untold generations. They just want equal rights.

You can hate them and disrespect them all you want, so be it. It's a free country and if you want to judge them as being inferior or unworthy of your respect, feel free to do so, and I can do the same for you, and have a lot more reason to do so. But if you advocate against their equal rights, and you don't have an argument as to why, then why are you having the discussion? If the bottom line is that queers make you uncomfortable, (or if blacks make you uncomfortable, or if Jews make you uncomfortable, or if Democrats or Republicans make you uncomfortable, or if Midgets make you uncomfortable...) you know, suck it up or move to a homogenous and intolerant culture like, say, North Korea. You'll fit right in.

[Fragony]

They just want equal rights.

They got equal rights.

You can hate them and disrespect them all you want, so be it. It's a free country and if you want to judge them as being inferior or unworthy of your respect, feel free to do so, and I can do the same for you, and have a lot more reason to do so.

The ATPG monologues.

I respect them as a person, not as a homosexual, why should I? It ain't an achievement or anything all it takes is bending over. I don't respect people because they are christians, I don't respect people because they are muslims, and I don't respect people because the are gay.

But if you advocate against their equal rights

It's all in your head

If the bottom line is that queers make you uncomfortable

If you think I am harsh you should talk to a gay, yes, friend of mine who hates girlyfag's guts with a passion. Normal guy, has a relation, nobody thinks about it they just are. By the way, I slept with him. No not like that but in the same bed, that is how uncomfortable I am.

[Vuk]

I believe some Jews do flaunt their judaism, by wearing the skull caps and going to temple and wearing their hair a certain way and speaking the Yiddish and saying things like Mozel Tov. Some of them even wave the flag of Israel in their signature lines, or in support of Israel in front of their place of business. And by the way, most gays do not flaunt their gayness, because certain people AHEM make them feel unwelcome.

You know, those darn black people also make such a big deal about the equal rights, tolerance and acceptance of blacks, that if they would all just shut up and go away the world would be a better place, now wouldn't it?

So the reason you don't think gays deserve equal protections is because they insist on living their lives in an openly gay manner?

Ok, who said I thought that they did not deserve equal protections? Boy ATPG, talk about putting words in peoples' mouths.
Your entire argument is bunk! Jews do not wear 'skull caps' (so tempted...), wear their hair a certain way, and speak Yiddish to draw attention to themselves. They do it because it is a religious calling. You know I am talking about the gays who relish in the attention they get for being gay. People who go to gay parades dressed as God knows what, people who screw each other in the street at said parades, people who everywhere they go (not for a religious convinction, but just to draw attention to themselves for being gay) wear rainbow T-shirts and eat the face off their boyfriend in Hardeez (talk about a way to ruin my darned male. I am sinking my teeth into a thick burger and all of a sudden two homos in rainbow shirts in front of my start eyeing me and then eating each other's faces off - disgusting). And yeah, I have seen all to many gays like that. (never seen anyone screaming for attention for being straight, you'll have to point the next one out to me) My argument was that that was why a lot of people were focusing on them, because they are demanding people's attention. Sure, there are straigh attention-, but they are not looking for attention for being straight. When repubs (gay or straight) hold parades and wear t-shirts and demand attention for being repubs, people pay attention to them for being repubs, 'cause that is what they are flaunting. When women (gay or straight) flaunt their sexuality, you hear people focusing on how imoral people are, because that is what was being flaunted. Likewise, when you have a lot of people flaunting their gayness, it is going to rally people who believe being gay is wrong. If gays would stop making a big deal about them being gay, then it wouldn't be a big deal that they were gay.
I personally think homosexuality is wrong (and I am not gonna get into an argument as to why), but I got gay friends. It is their choice and I am not gonna judge them on it (heaven knows I make plenty of mistakes myself. I know most of them think me being a conservative is wrong :P). I really do not care at all that they are gay. When I see a bunch of sparkling guys dressed as peacocks in parade with their hanging out, I find THAT offensive. You know what though? If people started having straight parades and flaunting being straight, and dressing like asses, and having sex in the streets, I would be disgusted by that too. If you do not want attention, DON'T DEMAND IT!


EDIT: and so you do not have another ATPG flight of fantasy, let me stress that I am not talking about people looking for attention, I am talking about people demanding attention for being gay. I am not saying that gays cannot kiss in public. I am talking about doing things just to show people that they are not gay. "I am gay" t-shirst for instance. WTF? Who cares? When you wear that t-shirt, you want people to care. I don't go wearing "I am straight" t-shirts, because it really shouldn't matter to anyone (but my gf ). The only reason I would wear such a t-shirt is to make people focus on me being gay. Before you use you Judiasm argument, that is not the same, because they do not wear their cloths to flaunt themselves off as Jews. They do it out of religious conviction. I WANT people to know that I am a nice person. I WANT people to know that I am an honest person. I WANT people to be fooled into thinking that I am an intelligent person. I don't want people focusing on my sexual preferences though, because that is not what defines me. You can handsome and ugly people gay and straight. Smart and dumb. Nasty and nice, etc. Do you really want people to think of you as a sexual preference (ie a 'gay man') and not a person? Gay activist claim to want the very opposite, yet they define themselves as being gay and always call attention to it. If they want it to be no more important than 'do you like sugar with your coffee?', then why don't they act like it? If it is that important to them, then it will be that important to others.

[Tribesman]

Saw this gem on another forum

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah those arguments never work, I'm opposed to homosexuality because of my religion and I know its against God's will, secularism is just used today for its convenience but now people don't like it when it comes back to bite them, bring back the Godly Republic I say.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If gays would stop making a big deal about them being gay, then it wouldn't be a big deal that they were gay.

Ya know, I bet if we just made sure they had civil rights, you'd see them acting out a lot less. Pass gay marriage and you'll get a lot less marching in the streets.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I personally think homosexuality is wrong (and I am not gonna get into an argument as to why), but I got gay friends. It is their choice and I am not gonna judge them on it (heaven knows I make plenty of mistakes myself. I know most of them think me being a conservative is wrong :P). I really do not care at all that they are gay. When I see a bunch of sparkling guys dressed as peacocks in parade with their hanging out, I find THAT offensive. You know what though? If people started having straight parades and flaunting being straight, and dressing like asses, and having sex in the streets, I would be disgusted by that too. If you do not want attention, DON'T DEMAND IT!

Political change often requires that you demand people's attention.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: and so you do not have another ATPG flight of fantasy, let me stress that I am not talking about people looking for attention, I am talking about people demanding attention for being gay. I am not saying that gays cannot kiss in public. I am talking about doing things just to show people that they are not gay. "I am gay" t-shirst for instance. WTF? Who cares? When you wear that t-shirt, you want people to care. I don't go wearing "I am straight" t-shirts, because it really shouldn't matter to anyone (but my gf ). The only reason I would wear such a t-shirt is to make people focus on me being gay. Before you use you Judiasm argument, that is not the same, because they do not wear their cloths to flaunt themselves off as Jews. They do it out of religious conviction. I WANT people to know that I am a nice person. I WANT people to know that I am an honest person. I WANT people to be fooled into thinking that I am an intelligent person. I don't want people focusing on my sexual preferences though, because that is not what defines me. You can handsome and ugly people gay and straight. Smart and dumb. Nasty and nice, etc. Do you really want people to think of you as a sexual preference (ie a 'gay man') and not a person? Gay activist claim to want the very opposite, yet they define themselves as being gay and always call attention to it. If they want it to be no more important than 'do you like sugar with your coffee?', then why don't they act like it? If it is that important to them, then it will be that important to others.

They have a right to express themselves. Any nudity or lewd conduct in public is against the law and should be prosecuted. Other than that, tough it out.

[Marshal Murat]

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Quick, send this the MSNBC. Ha-HA Dick Cheney, found out at last!

[Vuk]

Ya know, I bet if we just made sure they had civil rights, you'd see them acting out a lot less. Pass gay marriage and you'll get a lot less marching in the streets.



Political change often requires that you demand people's attention.



They have a right to express themselves. Any nudity or lewd conduct in public is against the law and should be prosecuted. Other than that, tough it out.

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights. Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings. For that reason people of religious persuasion want to protect the word, but it is that, just a word. A gay wanting marriage (a Christian concept of a union before God between a man and a woman) is like me wanting to have gay sex with my gf! The fuss about gay marriage is just another way to grab attention. Heck, just make their own union for pities sake! I personally think that the government should stop recognizing 'marriage' and only recognize unions. I think it is the church that should recognize marriages. Sure, you got some gays of religious persuasion who think that the religious institution applies to them, but the ones I know who get up in arms about it hate religion...and still want to enter into an institution of religious values...go figure. And I hate to clue you ATPG, but the DO have rights and they still demand attention. I am not saying that they are evil for it, but you asked why they get so much attention, and that is why, because they demand it. And like I said, from my own real life experience, those gays who act like normal people (ei don't go around flaunting their gayness at every opportunity) are treated exactly like everyone else. No one gives a toot that they are gay. They don't hide it, they don't avoid PDA, they just don't flaunt it like show-offs every two seconds. When religious people go out of their way to flaunt their religion and start defining themselves to everyone as religious, and wearing religious tshirts, and going on parades, and cannot have a conversation without bringing it up, people roll their eyes at them and people start feeling uncomfortable around them and even feeling animosity toward religion. It is the same thing with gays. If you want people to just relax and except you, then relax and stress what you have in common, not what is different. People need to see that you are a normal person like them, and that you have something in common. When you only ever stress what is different, you will be seen as a freak because you are not like anyone else. That is a stigma that you have to work for. I guarantee you that if gays stopped demanding attention and were just themselves, 99% of any anti-gay fever would dissipate. They could continue to work for any equal rights that they think they do not have without being a bunch of annoying, trollish, show-offs. I have little respect for anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, who goes marching in the street to demand that you pay attention to his/her sexual preference. I'll respect the gay who don't, but for being people, not for being gay. I don't respect anyone for being straight, and I ain't gonna respect anyone for being gay. The straight people I respect for being good people, and the gay people I respect for being good people. There is no line in my mind. The attention hungry retards who want to draw attention to their sexual preferences/fetishes/whatever, I have very little respect for, straight or gay, simply because they seem like pretty base, obnoxious people.

Saw this gem on another forum

Wouldn't happen to be the Armoury would it?

[Samurai Waki]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want?

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

[Vuk]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want?

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

Gay sex is not butt sex, it is sex between two people of the same sex. If you are trying to convince your gf to have a sex change, then I can understand the eyerolling. My point was that gay marriage was as much an oxymoron as straightgaysex. No, anyone can act the way they want as long as they do not break laws, but that does not mean you have to like it. If I started dressing up as a darned peacock and acting as a retard, people wouldn't be able to stop me, but they would still think of me as a retard. Act however you want, but if you act like a retard, you will be thought of as a retard. As far as acting like a retard where it is within the law, but still infringes on people's rights (gay parades, ect), I think that is down right rude and I think of people who participate in those things as rude. It is like the fetish parade that went through Chicago when I was there. I don't care if people like dressing in leather and beating each other within an inch of their lives, but please do not push it on me and keep me awake all night and stop me from going into the street. I got my own sex life, but I am not trying to push it on people who do not give a crap. That is rude and infringes on people's rights to privacy, whether the law recognizes that or not.

[Tribesman]

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights.

Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.

No it isn't , marriage is a social contract between two people , religion is not neccesary .

[Brenus]

"Marriage is a religious institution" Was. Marriage is now a contract between 2 adults. The proof is you can divorce without religion's consent and you need lawyers to do so. And to pay duties stamps. Expensive ones...

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

That's the only sane choice, in my opinion. I still go for breaky-wakeys now before I pop a blood vessel.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

Because you still agree with us on that, it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion would it?

Except for the religious intolerance bit... not everyone has secular values.

[Vuk]

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition. That is why they seek to protect the meaning of the legal definition.

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

ATPG, no offense, but you are the most closed minded person I have ever talked to. You are so sure of everything and your opinions on everything so set that you constantly imagine people saying things they never said. Arguing with you is annoying and pointless, as I consistently have to spend the first half of my post pointing out to you that I did not say half the things you think I did. The reason you always put words in other people's mouths is because you think that you know everything, and you assume way too much. Don't assume, it makes an out of you and me. Words to live by.

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

First of all, I myself expressed my opinion that the war over gay marriage was silly on both parts. I was simply trying to explain to you WHY it is that Christians get upset about it, since you admitted that you did not understand. People can do whatever they want under the legal definition of the law. And I hate to clue you, but christians do get upset when people abuse and misuse the institution. It is supposed to be sacred, and what motivates people to live good lives and stay together. There is plenty of outrage about people not taking marriage seriously.

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

All you ever hear is gay, gay, gay? Maybe that is your heart trying to tell you something.
Seriously though, how can you compare Christianity to radical islam? You say that because Christians want to protect marriage that they are as bad as extremists who kill and torture? (and this is after in a previous thread you said that there was no difference in living conditions in America and Cuba) I think you should try to be a little more decerning.

It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves.

Christians are the paranoid ones? a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind
hmm...The protection of marriage has nothing to do with disliking or distrusting gays. It is because they believe that God made something with a meaning, and when you try to change that meaning you are twisting God's words. And as I said above, legal marriage stemmed from religious marriage, so they see the need to protect legal marriage in order to safeguard religious marriage. It is not that they are trying to protect it from evil people seeking to kill them, but that they are trying to preserve God's wishes. They would be just as upset if it was changed to a union between a man and a table, or a horse and a pig. They believe that it is between a man and woman, and anything else is not marriage. It could be equal to it, but it is not marriage. You bash the Christians for being exclusionary for that? It is a darned religious institution given to them by their God! That would be like me saying that Jews are exclusionary because I cannot make my dog a Rabbi! I want the legal definition of a police man changed so that my pig can be one! STOP BEING EXCLUSIONARY!!!!! Get the point?! It is a darned word! It has a meaning! It has nothing to do with protecting against evil people, it has to do with preserving an institution. Are Jews evil and exclusionary for wanting to protect the institution of Rabbis? For keeping my dog out? They are not picking on my dog, they are just not gonna call him something he isn't! Since when is marriage such a great and important thing that not being able to use the word means that you are persecuted? As I said before, I think the state should get rid of marriage as a legal institution altogether, and end all the fuss. The entire argument on both sides is stupid! I believe that gays and straights should be given equal rights in their relationships, but a gay union is no more a marriage than a man and a woman having sex is gay sex! I don't see any straight people insisting on being able to call their unions 'gay'. It is ridiculous for gays to fight to change the meaning of the word.
And all Christians ever talk about is gay people, huh? Funny, I hardly ever hear them mentioned by the Christians I know. In fact, it is non-Christians at school who I hear talking about gays all the time. I think it is you who is obsessed ATPG, not me. Personally, I couldn't give a flying about gays. If they want to do it, that is their problem. What I don't like is ANYONE, gay or straight pushing their darned sexual preferences in my face! I don't bloody care and I don't want to be bothered with it!

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I don't think gays will burn in hell ATPG, that is your opinion. In fact, you are assuming that I believe in hell...which I don't. You are making an absolute fool out of yourself. As I said above, Christians DO get bent out of shape about other abuses of marriage. They make a big deal about gay marriage because gays make a big deal about it.

they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

My point exactly ATPG, why is it a big deal?! Why is it a big deal to them? Why do they need to fight to change a legal definition stemming from a religious institution that will result in the cheapening of the religious institution in the minds of the followers of that religion? Why cause trouble over something of no importance at all. Marriage does not help gays one bit if they can get the same rights in civil unions. I think all couples should have the same rights, but I also think it is silly for them to instigate a fight with the Christian community over a word that the Christians view as theirs. The gays got their own words too, let the Christians have theirs. As I said, I do not think that the state should recognize either.

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

A perfect example of your unbreakable preconceptions at work here ATPG. That is the view you have of religious people, and rather than base your view on what they say, you have been basing your perception of what they say on that view. You show here (as you have in previous posts) that you have absolute contempt for those of different opinions than you. They have different opinions and do not believe that what I KNOW is right is right! THEY MUST BE ILLOGICAL BIGOTS! Maybe what you KNOW is right is not. Maybe you are not even paying attention to what I am saying because you are seeing what you want to see. I got better things to do than argue with someone who has no intention of treating me with any respect or taking anything I say seriously.


Oh yeah, and if gay marriage becomes legal, no, I won't march in the street, and I won't dress like a peacock.

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition.

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

[Vuk]

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same. As I said, it is about as much discriminating as not letting my dog be legally recognized as a Rabbi! You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition? To use my dog example, you could see why Jews would justifiably be very angry if I tried to make my dog legally classified as a Rabbi, but it would be hard to understand why it would mean anything to me or my dog. As I said, I think that marriage should not be recognized in any form, but as it is, it is impossible to seperate it from its religious origins. (simply because of the way that it is percieved) Don't let there be any difference in treatment, but if it means that much to them, let them keep their silly word. They got a claim of thousands of years on the institution.