Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Ambulance Y on August 09, 2006, 10:56:37 PM
-
This might've already been done, but I was just wondering what everyone's opinions on gay marriage were.
Myself, I am for it. Love is love after all. Homosexuals are people just like you and me, so shouldn't they have the same rights as any of us? Some people's defense is that the Holy Bible forbids anything homosexual, but the country isn't run by the Bible, so the what's in the Bible shouldn't always be in the Constitution. I mean, if we deny homosexuals rights, then essentially, we are sending our selves back in time. America has denied groups like women and African-Americans privileges in the past, so shouldn't we learn from that? That's what I think
-
I am for it. Not letting two people marry just because they're the same sex is pointless bigotry and just plain mean.
-
In a place with many right-wing folk, I'd say that "against" will soon surpass "for" in the votes.
I am for it, myself. Here are my reasons:
• Marriage, as much as people with moral religious values don't want to think, is definitely not a religious thing anymore (I'm quite sure it has existed in SOME form even before religion did). It doesn't have to be done in a church, it can be done in courts, just about anywhere as long as someone with the power to unify a couple is present. Denying two men or two women this right is just downright stubborn, in my opinion. The Constitution implies that there is a wall between church and state, yet many of today's politicians still believe there is no such wall, and like to base federal and state laws on religious laws.
• Just like how civil rights were achieved, and women's rights were achieved (well, most, they still don't get paid as much as men. :/), homosexual rights will be definitely be achieved. "It is inevitable."
The state I currently live in is still debating whether or not same-sex marriages can be performed here. Many proposed bans on it have been shot down, as well as proposed laws allowing it. Here's to hoping they can be legal, eventually. :|
Any posts below mine:
Disagree with me if you'd like, fine. I don't care. But trying to start an argument by hocking a loogie on what I stand for is something I will not tolerate. Arguing on a topic such as this will get people nowhere. I am not going to change my beliefs just because you want me to.
-
The Catholic religion kind of contradicts itself in this area. It basically says if you're gay, you are going to go to Hell. BUT, it also says if you have faith in God, you'll still wind up in Heaven. So what happens to gay Catholics? I'm for it, because all men (and women) are created equal.
-
Arguing on a topic such as this will get people nowhere.
Then how does one get anywhere?
-
Cars. :/
-
Ideologically speaking.
-
View 1: It's just a piece of paper. People can still get "married" without the paper. It may cause certain changes in the individuals taxes and other financial matters, but I don't see the big religious problem. Besides, two women kissing is hot!
View 2: It's a very slippery slope. Why not allow marriage with parents, kids, dogs, computers? That's just not right, it's Left. "They" can already have a "civil union", why do they need to be "married". Besides, two men kissing is gross! Meh.
View 1 + 2: Even though I'm one of, if not the only, married person here, I'm not for or against "gay" marriage and will therefor not vote. It just doesn't seem really important to me either way. It doesn't effect me either way. If I were gay I might feel different.
...all men (and women) are created equal.
I disagree with the "created equal" concept though. The "created" part could be argued, but I will not go there. The "equal" part is obviously wrong to me. I don't have nor was I born with the ability to achieve Einstein's IQ, Michael Jordan's basketball scores, or even Lizard Dude's humor. If the concept was "should be treated equal", I'd generally agree with that. Just don't treat me like everyone else.
*Parts of this post were sarcastic. I have desided not to specify what parts. I've also choosen to include views here that are not my own in an effort to further discussion.
Edit: I agree with Vids second post.
-
Oh, don't give me that. You know what "created equal" means.
Why not allow marriage with parents, kids, dogs, computers?
Hey, whaddabout that lady who married the dolphin? I don't want to see their kids... O_o
-
Don't be greedy; he was giving it to all of us. And I agree with that part.
-
I am 100% for gay marriage. Everyone should try it at some point in their lives.
-
The Catholic religion kind of contradicts itself in this area. It basically says if you're gay, you are going to go to Hell. BUT, it also says if you have faith in God, you'll still wind up in Heaven. So what happens to gay Catholics? I'm for it, because all men (and women) are created equal.
False. Catholics have nothing against gay people. The problem lies witin the context of homosexual acttions. Since the Catholic faith teaches taht the purpose of sexual actions is for BOTH
A: Procreaition
and
B: To express true love and affection
The Church condemns those actions between gay lovers. It has nothign against the orientation. As St. Augustine said, Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I feel, that in no way are gay people bad. Why would someone CHOOSE to like people of hte same sex, and be ridiculed by society. I just feel that since sexual actions between gays would break one of the 2 reasons for sexual encounters, gay marrage shouldn't be allowed.
-
Wow. A right-of-center forum and the "for" option is winning 10-3 as of this post. Shocking.
I'm for it. The only arguments I've heard against it are either ideological, which I don't believe in, or financial (people will turn gay just to reap marital benefits!), which I also don't believe in, because I honeslty can't decide why two people who are heterosexual would pretend to be gay just for a small monetary benefit. I mean, if they really are straight, I figure the psychological strain they experience pretending to be gay will more than offset the monetary gain.
That, and the fundies are against it. If the fundies are against it, and it's not illegal, I'm almost certainly for it.
People are not created equal by any stretch of the imagination. They deserve equal treatment, but some people are just better-crafted than others. (I honestly believe that one's success in life is determined 100% by luck, but this is for a different thread.)
-
(I honestly believe that one's success in life is determined 100% by luck, but this is for a different thread.)
Crap.
-
For,but only because Aunt Terri is G**.
-
I'm going to have to be the odd man out here. I am strongly against it.
A few years ago my pastor gave a sermon on how God's law said that man and woman were made to be compliments of each other. It does not work with a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
That's why it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And not Amy and Eve either.
Look through the Bible and you won't find any support of gay marriage in there whatsoever. Since I view the Bible as the "users manual" for human life, I'm a firm believer in going against gay marriage.
-
Against.
Read the posts of AbercrombieBaseball and Koopaslaya. Their words express my belief (as far as gay marriage goes).
-
I'm going to have to be the odd man out here. I am strongly against it.
A few years ago my pastor gave a sermon on how God's law said that man and woman were made to be compliments of each other. It does not work with a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
That's why it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And not Amy and Eve either.
Look through the Bible and you won't find any support of gay marriage in there whatsoever. Since I view the Bible as the "users manual" for human life, I'm a firm believer in going against gay marriage.
Not only do I completely agree, but I've heard the exact same thing at my church one time!
-
(opinion, removed to decrease the length of this post)
See, here's the thing. You believe that the Bible is the "users manual" for human life... I've read a few passages in the Bible that are kind of... appaling? For example, I can claim that the Bible teaches society to treat women as inferior to men on all facets of life. Several passages in the Bible support this viewpoint. I'll pull them up for you if you'd like.
Seriously, I have yet to see any valid argument against gay marriage that isn't religion-based. And since religion is not a valid basis for ANYTHING in my mind, I have yet to see a valid argument against gay marriage.
I think I'll make that thread about life being entirely luck, also, since this notion is apparantly "crap".
-
Well, here's what I have to say. It aint pretty.................
I have no idea why anyone would want to be with someone of the same sex. It takes all the romance out of creating something wonderful together, the way God wanted it to be. It's a sin in my eyes (but not to the point of going to hell).
I'm sorry, but as a heterosexual, I'd never be able to see through the eyes of a homosexual. I'm extremly interested in being with a woman, and I just think that being with a man would be disgusting.
Law wise, I could give a rat's butt on what the government wants to do with it. I think it's more personal, and having the law step in and put a stop to it is kinda the way we delt with things back in the Puritanical age. I absolutley dislike the way homosexual's think, but then again, I also despise Puritan thought.
Againts, as far as the Bible goes. That's my opinion. Yeah, I'll probabley be ridiculed for it, but I don't care. I'm not changing my mind. Period.
(DeadAwake, I hope your comment was a joke. There's no way I'd ever try it.)
-
As St. Augustine said, Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I would just like to stress this, because it really was just what I was thinking in reading this topic.
-
It's not like I hate homosexuals (heck, there was one in my class last year who was hilarious) I just don't agree with their methods.
-
This is one of the things that I just don't really care about.
If you are homosexual, then great.
If you aren't, cool.
-
... I view the Bible as the "users manual" for human life...
Post hidden for God's sake.
User's Manual on slavery:
1 Timothy 6:1
All those who are under the yoke of slavery must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching is not brought into disrepute.
Tt 2:9
Slaves must be obedient to their masters in everything, and do what is wanted without argument.
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, you should obey your masters respectfully, not only those who are kind and reasonable but also those who are difficult to please.
1 Corinthians 7:21
Even if you have a chance of freedom you should prefer to make full use of your condition as a slave.
Hmmm. Why don't we have slavery in America today? It seems perfectly justified according to your manual.
...all men (and women) are created equal.
Post hidden for God's sake.
User's Manual on a woman's role:
1 Corinthians 11:4
For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5
And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head.
1 Corinthians 11:7
But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.
1 Corinthians 14:34
As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet.
Well, so much for women being created equal to men.
-
I think I'll make that thread about life being entirely luck, also, since this notion is apparantly "crap".
No, he was saying "crap" because he has horrible luck and you just 100% doomed his life.
-
If AB thinks the Bible is his user manual, than it isn't anyone's right to take that from him. Please back off.
-
No, he was saying "crap" because he has horrible luck and you just 100% doomed his life.
Ah. That explains it. It should have listed as a caveat that 98% or so of that luck has already been determined (at conception).
And Luigison got to the "women are inferior" stance in the Bible before I did, heh. I was just going to link to that quiz on the Landover Baptist site.
-
I vote no because I don't want it to influence the kids I may have, I know it is very ignorant, but thats what I believe. Like it or not.
-
Have you guys ever heard of "The meek shall inherit the Earth?" When life is all said and done, the slaves and the meek will be righteous in God's eyes. It doesn't matter if you were a slave on Earth. The fact that you are obeying your master and not bringing yourself to killing him, means you will be given something better after this crappy life is over. This isn't the true life. Our mortal lives mean nothing when compared to the life afterwords.
-
Wow! A discussion on gay marriage has turned into a discussion about religion!
Who woulda thunk it?
(Oh, the meek don't inherit squat. They die and face the same eternity of nothingness their masters face, only their lives were terrible. That line, in my opinion, was placed by whoever wrote the Bible as a way to make sure slaves don't revolt. "Wait, so our lives will improve after we die? There's no need to revolt!" ... It's probably the EXACT reason all the "women are inferior to men" passages were added -- to maintain the patriarchial status quo. "Ya, the Bible says you need to be subordinate to me, so it's true."
Think about it. If you had the ability to write a book with the authority to influence everyone in a society, wouldn't it include the same viewpoints that you believe in? You know, so everyone else believes the things you do? I think the Bible was designed by ruling classes to keep their beliefs and standard of living intact for as long as possible.
That's just my opinion, though. It can't be proven at all.
-
For God's sake............I thought this was a topic about gay marriages, not insulting the Bible. If AB thinks the Bible is his user manual, it isn't right for someone else to tell him otherwise.
Okay. I fixed my previous post. I'm going to tell my principal tomorrow that I can no longer teach because it isn't right for me to correct students' misconceptions. BTW, I believe in the Bible, but I don't believe everything in the Bible.
-
It's hard being a Religious man in an atheist world. Somehow I think I'll get banned for this.
So what do you guys believe in? That we all become nothing after we die? Do you ever think about how we got here?
I'm sorry, but one day, I'm going to be a Pastor. Not a word you said has changed my mind about the way I think. If you guys want to live a Godless life, that's fine with me. It's obvious you people just felt like jumping on AB for stating that the Bible was his personal book for living life. I'm telling you to stop. There, I said it. Go ahead, ban me for being a religious freak. I know that the meek will inherit the Earth because I used to be meek! I was nothing, picked on every day of my life, until I found that God brings hope. I'm a different person now. I inherited the Earth and all it's wonders. I learned that the world is not all evil!
So go ahead. Criticize me for going off topic, or sticking up to you guys. I just know what I said was right in my heart. I feel much better now.
-
And from out of the religious discussion the wannabe martyrs begin to march.
-
Even if I'm standing alone, you will not change me. No matter how may insults, it won't work.
-
Don't be so dramatic and dumb. You are pretending and trying to convince others that you are facing some great adversity that doesn't exist to make your argument more noble and/or correct. Please stop doing that, it's annoying and childish.
-
And here come the insults. Look, I don't see why you guys had to jump on AB for saying the Bible was his book for living. It's obvious that you guys think I'm "childish and dumb", but I'm just stating my opinion.There are some here that might agree with me.
Now I know how fuzzy felt before he left. He had an opinion, and people wanted to tell him he was wrong.
-
I'm not even arguing your point, I am criticizing your foolish attempts to make yourself seem heroic.
"Somehow I think I'll get banned for this."
"Not a word you said has changed my mind about the way I think."
"Go ahead, ban me for being a religious freak."
"So go ahead. Criticize me for going off topic, or sticking up to you guys. I just know what I said was right in my heart."
"Even if I'm standing alone, you will not change me. No matter how may insults, it won't work."
-
I said what I needed to say. If I sound heroic, that's your opinion. So what if I do? I'm not trying to win support, I'm just sticking up for what I believe in. I don't care if I'm called a fool. I just know I'm a fool who's living life the way I think it should be lived. So there. :)
-
For the record, I did not insult PaperLuigi or AB. I posted some quotes from the Bible and made short simple observations on those passages. If you want to read what I posted then click the quote or edit images on the "hidden" post. If quoting the Bible insults your believe in the Bible... Nevermind. I don't want to appear to insult you.
-
I have not read this thread through, nor do I intend on giving my views on gay marriage, but I did want to voice my support of TEM's recent statements.
Not because you disagree with some people, not because you're religious, not because you're expressing your opinions, but because you're victimizing yourself for no apparant reason, PaperLuigi. If anything, your comments are insulting the administration here at the Fungi Forums for assuming you'd be banned because of something you believe.
No one is going to openly insult you for posting your opinions and beliefs here, if you do so in a respectful manner. If they do, it will be dealt with.
This is a discussion, and not everyone is going to agree. That's fine, and in my opinion what forums are all about. If you think someone responding to you with a different opinion is an offense to your beliefs, you need to take a step back and calm down.
-
My victimizing was wrong, I just thought that the others were trying to turn A. Baseball againts his belief in it being his "user manual." They laid out all the reasons why he shouldn't believe, and I gave reasons why he should. That's when the whole fight broke out, and it's my fault for victimizing myself.
-
If you believe in the Bible, Jesus also said to "pray in your inner room." "Your faith alone has saved you." You don't need to TRY to be a hero, just let yourself be one.
What I am saying is, don't make it so apparent. "Trun the other cheek." I never let religious things bother me. And I am rather religious, if I do say so myself.
-
Well, ya. Religious discussion tends to do that to people.
Looking back at my first reply to AB's comment, I think I was a bit condescending to his stance, the way I worded a reply. I changed it a bit.
Then again, I personally despise the "Adam and Steve" reference to the gay marriage issue. I've seriously had a fundamentalist try to convince a somewhat large group of people that I was gay and actually going out with someone named Adam because we both had somewhat similar views of religion in general. Basically, his logic was "You don't agree with me on the subject of gays, therefore you're OBVIOUSLY gay because I said you are. God bless your soul." AB's comment was nothing of that sort, but that reference still struck a nerve with me.
-
Well, ya. Religious discussion tends to do that to people.
This is pretty much why religious/political discussion is considered a no-no and/or a bannable offense in other forums I frequent.
I personally despise the "Adam and Steve" reference to the gay marriage issue.
My eye always twitches whenever I hear/read that counter-point. It's not clever, it's definitely not funny, and it just makes the person who said it look ignorant in general, in my opinion.
Though, it definitely does not make me go crazy as much as the "if you think gays should marry, then you DEFINITELY think it's okay for people to marry with non-human animals" counter-point. This is when I usually realize that you cannot reason with bigots who say that when I state my views.
Then again, I'm crazy enough to say "yes" to that nonsensical counter-point, but usually to see their reactions, which make me laugh.
-
Hey there, big boy. ;) ;) :-*
-
'sup ;-P
-
^ Post of the Year nominee.
-
...Well, then, back to the subject at hand:
I will say "for". I see it as a matter of love, true and pure, that can exist between two people, regardless of such differences - or similarities - between them.
'Course, I realize that this is a rather idealistic standpoint, but 'tis my view on the matter.
-
I must say, from a biological standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. But I can't say I really care what other people do with themselves, either. It doesn't affect me. However, the people going out of their way to bend over backwards in acceptance of homosexuals is a bit unnerving.
-
I am 100% against gay marriage. I am a Baptist and I know that it is written that men and women are supposed to be coupled together.
A quote from Genesis 2:
18- "And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19- Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20- So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."
21- "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22- Then the rib which the LORd God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."
23- "And Adam said:
"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.""
24- "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
If you read this, I hope you get the point. I now these weren't the best verses to quote, and I will try to find better ones, but this is what I have. Please read.
-
I am for Gay Marriage. Maybe the bible says it's wrong, but not everyone believes in the bible, and I think that making two people that love each other not be able to marry because a religion that they don't even believe in says they can't. In America, which claims to be a free place, not letting someone do something because of a religion is hipocracy.
-
Edited post because it's too hardcore.
-
If gay marriges were allowed, the human race would (almost) end.
How so? Do you think people would "become" gay just because gay marriage were legal?
-
No, he was saying "crap" because he has horrible luck and you just 100% doomed his life.
Yes, LD is correct.
-
The Bible is not the only holy book that discourages homosexualism, just incase nobody knew.
-
If everyone became a homosexual, the world would eventually end, and I'm sure you know why. Sure, it would take an extremely long time (what with us having 6 billion on Earth and all) but yeah..................
I don't think that if they were allowed the world would end. There are WAY more heterosexuals in the world then gays.
-
I like how some people are thinking armageddon would occur should gays be allowed to marry everywhere. Come on people, BE REAL here. Then again, if that's what you want to believe, and because you guys haven't been arguing my personal views, I should leave you alone.
the people going out of their way to bend over backwards in acceptance of homosexuals is a bit unnerving.
Well, seeing as I have a handful of friends who are gay, I feel some sort of need to support them.
-
Gay marrige is:
1. Wrong
2. Sick
3. Is the opposite of everything in the Bible
If gay marriges were allowed, the human race would (almost) end.
Phoenix Wright disagrees. (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=707411)
Come on. It's one thing to be against something. It's another altogether to take a book whose accuracy is incredibly disputed, combine it with flat insult, and use it to berate people who disagree with you.
@Mr. Melee: Your argument at least has some substance to it, so I'll address it with a bit more seriousness. Let's hypothetically say that Genesis actually does accurately describe the start of the human race for a second. The passages you cite say that God promotes heterosexual relationships. That's all. Those passages actually don't seem to present any stance for or against gays. All they say is that God condones heterosexuality.
About it being unnatural... why exactly do animals that aren't humans exhibit gay behavior if it is a "learned" trait. I claim one sexual preference is determined entirely at birth. Although, if you feel strongly against gay relationships, you can try to change it. I know of one person on another forum who is openly bisexual but only dates women because of his religious beliefs. You can't "turn" someone gay. I'm not even sure if you can "turn" someone straight who is genetically inclined to be gay without much difficulty.
-
I feel way weird around gay people. That is why I have no gay friends, and probably why I have no mercy for Gay Marrage.
-
Although I didn't vote, all of my views on this subject were already stated for me by Insane Steve. He and I tend to share views on a lot of subjects.
-
Wow, I leave for three days and I sure miss a lot...
I believe (though not unshakably) in two principles:
1) freedom of religion
2) separation of church and state
In accordance with "freedom of religion", I believe that gay marraige, polygamy, and various other deviant marital arrangements as purely religious constructs should be legal. I do not condone marital arrangements in which one or more parties are incapable of consent, e.g. marraige with animals or children, or marital arrangements which are likely to lead to material harm to innocents, e.g. incest, but I don't see how gay marraige between consenting adults causes any material harm.
In accordance with "separation of church and state", I believe that laws governing legally recognized marraiges should not be affected by religious beliefs. This raises the question of why we need legally recognized marraiges at all. The supreme court of my state (Washington) has ruled that marraige is a legal institution created to encourage procreation, and therefor marraige can be restricted, for reasons not related to religion, to marraige between a man and a woman. Personally I think the world is grossly overpopulated, and I don't think we should be encouraging procreation at all. I'm all for encouraging child raising, e.g. through adoption, but I don't want to encourage child creation. I have yet to see credible evidence indicating that gay couples are less effective at raising children than are straight couples. So I am in favor of gay marraige.
-
If you believe all of this, the I'm going to make a religion in which we kill people. Will that be ok for you?
-
So I can't have a child with a woman?
-
Wow.
If people continue to be so accepting to everyones' beliefs, and everyones' choices, and disregard the Bible because it tries to make limits, what will said people have left to stand on? Doubt?
-
I want to read a valid, nonhomophobic, nonreligious excuse to not allow gay marriage.
-
Wow.
If people continue to be so accepting to everyones' beliefs, and everyones' choices, and disregard the Bible because it tries to make limits, what will said people have left ot stand on? Doubt?
So you're saying we should only be accepting to SOME people's choices? And who is so much more morally righteous than the rest of humanity to determine who deserves to have beliefs and who doesn't? The way I read your statement, you imply that believing in the Bible's messages is a REQUISITE for having any set of morals at all. This is perhaps the single most ignorant statement to come from someone's mouth in the eyes of an atheist; it's a shame how frequently the message comes up, though. It really is.
I second TEM's request for an argument against gay marraige that isn't "The Bible said so."
-
Hmmm. I didn't realize that The Blue Toad's post could have been serious until Insane Steves reply. I'd taken it as sarcasm.
-
If you believe all of this, the I'm going to make a religion in which we kill people. Will that be ok for you?
No. As I said I do not believe unshakably in freedom of religion. I also care about protecting innocent people, which is why, as I stated, I am opposed to incest, and to marraige with minors. I don't see how consentual gay marraige harms any innocent people.
So I can't have a child with a woman?
Go right ahead. It hasn't come to the point where we need to discourage people from intentional procreation (though this is current policy in China), but neither do I think that the government should encourage procreation. The supreme court of Washington state justified the ban on gay marraige by arguing that the purpose of legally recognized marraiges is to encourage procreation. I do not believe this argument; I believe that marraige laws came into being as a formal recognition of religious practices, not as a practical means of encouraging procreation. But, if you do accept the supreme court's argument, then I question the policy itself. Why should we encourage procreation at all? There's really no shortage of people.
-
After reading cantthinkofaname's comment, taking The Blue Toad's comment seriously isn't too much of a stretch.
Although, if it is sarcasm, which it looks like now that you mention it, I retract my comment.
-
On topic: After going back and rereading The Blue Toad's other comments here, I think the most recent one probably was meant to be serious.
Off topic: I think the govt. should encourage procreation, but in a very different why than it do now. The current system encourages procreation of low socio-economic single parent inner city households. This procreation further expands that dependent population. On the other hand, highly educated high earning professionals aren't procreating nearly as much. These trends suggest to me that the average IQ is going down and that the US could look more like a third world country in the future.
Back on topic: Since I have nothing against gay marriage since it doesn't effect me I guess you could count me as a "for" since I would not vote against it.
Off topic again: I am against abortion in all but extreme cases, but since I am not a woman I don't feel I have the right to say the abortion should be illegal.
-
Well, the people with higher IQ are *probably* going to be thinking about things besides the act of procreation more often, whereas the lower-class people are, well, low class for one thing, but also are easily swayed by the media's messages of sex and beer being the most important things.
-
See, I always thought the reason lower-class people have more children, on average, is because they have nothing better to do with themselves. They find themselves out of work more often, which basically gives them more time to procreate or something. Which is why I believe in a very drastic welfare reform which will never happen because society is too afraid of change... but I digress.
-
As I did not mean for my most recent post to really offend any of you, of which I will humbly refuse to back up, and for the fact that I cannot state a good reason gay marriage ought to be illegal that stretches beyond my own religion, I'll remain silenced.
-
*gears crank*
Say, isn't marriage a function that came through religion? My apologies if this has been brought up already.
-
In some societies, I think so. It may have been instated in some places to charge taxes and stuff like that.
Also, Steve may be right. It kind of goes with my thought that the theoretically more intelligent people are going to have other, perhaps better things to do with themselves.
-
*gears crank*
Say, isn't marriage a function that came through religion? My apologies if this has been brought up already.
I said I think marriage could have definitely existed in some from before religion. But, you know, could be wrong.
-
I'm fairly sure religion was invented first, whether marriage came about because of it or not.
-
Marriage came from the Bible. In the verses I quoted before, do you notice how God said to Adam and Eve that they would be joined and become one? That's the first marriage right there. And it came from God.
In my last post, I listed that I knew the verses weren't the best to quote, as they, like I.S. put it, did not defy the right to gay marriage. Well, after a little researching, I have found more verses to support my argument. This time, I have found two verses in Leviticus 18. As I quoted them last time, they will be in NKJV (I know I didn't list that in my last post). These are the words of the LORD God.
22- "'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23- Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.'"
As I said last time, I will still be on the look-out for verses with a little more substance and ones that fit cleaner in this argument.
@TEM- I cannot post an argument that is not supported by the Bible, as the Bible is all I need.
-
I think you're missing the point here. The idea was to see if you were capable of an argument without citing religious texts. But oh well.
Also... I *think* there was probably marriage before the Bible was written, so... yeah. As I said before, I think it may have come about in a variety of ways.
-
Of course there was. The Bible was written way after Abraham and them. They got married.
-
i support gay marriage
-
For. I see nothing wrong with gay marriage since it's essentially the same thing whether gay or straight. Two people deeply in love tying the knot and staying with each other until death.
Then again, divorce rates just climb higher and higher as time passes. Though I blame that more on school dropouts, celebrities and trailor trash.
-
Hm, I'm still actually quite surprised the poll is currently in favor of supporters.
-
Mr. Wiggles reminds me, I would much rather see marriage be taken more seriously (as in monogamy) as opposed to gay marraige. I'll never look at gay marraige in a completely positive light, but what I really can't stand is the amount of divorces that take place nowadays.
-
I'm not saying that gay marrige is bad or good. It's just that gays will be rejected in public and be made fun of for the rest of their lives. I personally hope that the government dosn't "OK" gay marrige.
[size=0pt]*Gays suck. Be straight, not gay. If you can read this text, you have really good eyesight.[/size]
-
I don't follow.
-
Mr. Wiggles and Suffix bring up an amazing point:
All the people who think that gay marriage "ruins the sanctity of marriage as an institution" should be even more outraged at celebrity marriage. Britney Spears, anyone?
Oh, as for "gays being rejected in public," I don't think that gays care what other people think of them if they're strong enough to file for a marriage license in today's sea of "I HAVE HIGHER MORALS THAN YOU."
-
Insane Steve does bring up a good point, which brings me to responding.
Bear with me; this will be extremely long. If you actually read this whole thing, I commend you, and I really appreciate it.
While I do not support gay marriage--or that lifestyle--I do not think of them as any worse or better than anyone else, including straight people. I find the lifestyles of, well, pretty much most straight people anymore, to be appalling. I don't agree with those lifestyles, but I don't judge them because who am I to do so? I have faults of my own, and there are things I don't like about myself, either. We need to care about people (in general, including gays) and love them wherever they're at in life, even if you disagree with them, and even if they don't like you or have hurt you.
Whether it's admitted or not, marriage is a religious institution. It's become more and more secular, but honestly, it really can't be separated from it. Think about it--why do people still get married today, and not simply live together (as many do, but still majority get married)? I mean, what is it that makes it any different? (Besides any benefits the government provides, which really isn't anything unless a spouse dies--but I doubt people want to think about that or plan on their spouse dying, unless they're sick-minded and twisted. The main benefit is health insurance, but that's not government related--it varies from company to company, so even if gay marriage was legalized/considered legitimate, I doubt all companies would immediately change their policies.) Pretty much the only real reasons for marriage are 1) religious, and 2) showing a deeper level of commitment.
With commitment, though, I really have to question that because over half of marriages end in divorce. Divorcing someone is more of a hassle, yes, than breaking up with someone you're living with, but still, it's very common, and doesn't stop people from doing it for virtually any--or no--reason at all. People may say they're committed, or plan on being so, but really, in today's world, are they? Many are, sure, but majority seems to say otherwise.
So pretty much, it goes back to religion. Even if people aren't religious at all, marriage is still seen as a societal "norm", and many people get married because it's the "acceptable" thing to do. Or, basically, marriage is a tradition. This tradition is tied to religious roots (even if not in the entire history of humankind (which I believe it does), at least from the religious roots of those who founded this country and of the people from the different cultures who came here (our ancestors, basically)).
Going back to the beginning, I do not think our society will be "horrible" and "immoral" and "hopelessly lost" if gay marriage was legalized and approved of everywhere, because, frankly, I believe our society in general is already at that point, regardless of homo***uality. Straight people have ruined the sanctity of marriage as it is, with easy divorce, less commitment in general, infidelity, and *** outside of marriage. It especially bugs me when straight people condemn gays simply because they like the same gender. (Yikes, I need to be careful that I don’t judge those people, either).
As I said earlier, I don't see gays as any better or worse than straight people. My problem is when people have *** outside of marriage, as I believe that is originally intended to be a holy, pure act of unity and love between a husband, wife, and, yes, God. (I understand not all of you believe this (or may not understand this), but since this is what I believe, it has an important impact on where I stand.) Anyway, I believe *** has been totally twisted and distorted from its original intent and has become either a filthy, dirty thing in society, or has become so common and meaningless that everything pure and holy about it has been completely defiled and destroyed. (I also realize how ironic and/or fitting it is that I'm censoring the actual word.)
Now, because I see *** as something that should only be done within the context of marriage, one might think, okay, if gays are allow to marry, then they will be doing it within the context of marriage--which will make it okay, right? The Bible, what I believe in (yes, again, I realize not everyone shares these beliefs) shows that God detests when "a man lies with another man," etc., so within the context of "marriage" or not, is really not the point. I don't want legalized gay marriage to become an excuse for gays to justify having ***, even if they wait until marriage, even if they're monogamous, because I still see that as wrong. (Honestly, though, I do see that as better than when two straight people sleep around with each other and with other people outside of marriage.)
Also, with gays, I do not judge them for being attracted to the same gender because, honestly, you really can't control how you feel about someone. Regardless if one is "born with it" or "choose to be gay", or anything in between, whatever it is people debate about, it doesn't really matter, because you can't control feelings. What you can control, though, is actions and even attitude. It's the actions--and especially the lifestyle--I have a problem with, not the individuals or the feelings; it's what you do with the feelings that matters.
I think that people need to stop pointing the finger at others, stop judging them and condemning them. No one is perfect, and no one is superior or inferior to others, at least in God's eyes. Judging people's souls or state of morals isn't in our place, because we're imperfect, too. (I realize this is hypocritical of me, because I’ve done that and probably still do; I don’t like it and am trying to work on that.) People need to look inside their own selves first before they look at others; it's so easy to make excuses for our own actions and point the blame or problem on someone else, or to play victim. (That's not to say others are innocent, but it starts with owning up to your own self, first). I'm totally going generic and universal now, so I'll stop. But what we need to do is love and respect others, even if you disagree with them, even if you don't like what they're doing. That doesn't mean you need to support them or keep quiet; you can tell someone you disagree or don't like something, as long as it's in a respectful, caring way (condescendingly is disrespectful, too). This can apply to people who disagree with the gay lifestyle, people who disagree with those who dislike the gay lifestyle, or to anyone about anything.
Again, I know not everyone believes in God or has different beliefs than me, and I respect that. Please respect what I have to say, even if you disagree. I will add this: God loves gays, God loves the people who judge gays, God loves the people who support gays, God loves those who don't judge gays, God loves those who insult and hurt others, loves those who have been hurt or insulted, God loves those who follow and believe in him, loves people who don't believe in him, God loves those who hate him, and even loves hypocrites. He doesn’t love many of these actions, but he loves everyone equally and infinitely---AND everyone makes mistakes and has flaws and problems and struggles. I find that incredible, amazing, and humbling. Don't you think we should try do that, too?
-
It's just that gays will be rejected in public and be made fun of for the rest of their lives.
I don't think they'd care, anyway. I'm sure I'm criticised in public for being fat, but I couldn't care less (much to the dismay of my father). What makes you think gays, or anyone with a difference in their personality, appearance, and sexual orientation are any different?
*Gays suck. Be straight, not gay.
How very homophobic of you. Great job.
-
Sapphira's post confuses me. There are weird asterisks all over it. And they seem to be replacing a word that is rather pivotal to her whole argument. Hmm.
-
Do you EVER say anything that isn't disrespectful, sarcastic, or critical of others, Chup?
You know EXACTLY what I'm saying. And you know I'm just weird (and stubborn) about saying that word. That's my issue to deal with, not yours.
CTOAN, what you said is exactly what I was talking about that people need to stop doing. Vid, you're being sarcastic and judgmental toward him with your post, too.
I'm yelling and annoyed. If I'm being judgmental or condescending right now (I'm not sure if I am or not; I can't really tell), I apologize for it and for being hypocritical. :S
-
I'm sorry.
-
I'd like to congratulate Sapphira on posting the first completely intelligent and coherent "Against" argument in this thread (excluding the censoring of the word "sex", which I find humorous more than pointless).
-
CTOAN, what you said is exactly what I was talking about that people need to stop doing. Vid, you're being sarcastic and judgmental toward him with your post, too.
I'm just showing him it's not right to do what he did, by fighting fire with fire. I'd rather not be sarcastic and condescending, it's something I definitely hate when others do so to me.
CTOAN's "Fine-print", however, is just extremely obnoxious, and he needs to be taught the moral "If you can't say anything nice, keep your dirty mouth shut."
-
I'm just curious, Sapphira, when you chose your user name were you aware of the definition of the word sapphic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sapphic)? You have a deceptive user name for some one who rejects the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not trying to use that as some pathetic counterpoint to your views; I thought everything you said was very cogent. I just think it's funny.
-
Thanks, TEM, :] (and ahaha >_<).
Hirocon:
Ahahaha, no, I was not. O__o
I was aware, though, of a woman in the Bible named Sapphira (Acts 5, I think) who did some not-so-great things. >_<
I chose the name, though, because I thought it looked/sounded cool, and sapphire is my birthstone and one of my favorite colors. XD
-
That meaning isn't quite legitimate; that is, it was put upon the term later by others who used it as (support? justification? I cannot think of the word) for their own purposes. Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho
I'm not saying either way here, but no one really knew what she was thinking. Poetry is tricksy.
P.S. "Sapphira" Doesn't seem like it would have been an all too uncommon name. Related to "sapphire", of course.
-
Sapphira lost me at the *** part.
Edit: Whoops. I just saw Chup and Sapph's exchange over this very thing.
Edit 2: While I only disagree with some of Sapph's points, I fully agree with TEM's appraisal of her post. BTW, I have decided not to change my sig.
-
Insane Steve does bring up a good point, which brings me to responding.
Bear with me; this will be extremely long. If you actually read this whole thing, I commend you, and I really appreciate it.
While I do not support gay marriage--or that lifestyle--I do not think of them as any worse or better than anyone else, including straight people. I find the lifestyles of, well, pretty much most straight people anymore, to be appalling. I don't agree with those lifestyles, but I don't judge them because who am I to do so? I have faults of my own, and there are things I don't like about myself, either. We need to care about people (in general, including gays) and love them wherever they're at in life, even if you disagree with them, and even if they don't like you or have hurt you.
Whether it's admitted or not, marriage is a religious institution. It's become more and more secular, but honestly, it really can't be separated from it. Think about it--why do people still get married today, and not simply live together (as many do, but still majority get married)? I mean, what is it that makes it any different? (Besides any benefits the government provides, which really isn't anything unless a spouse dies--but I doubt people want to think about that or plan on their spouse dying, unless they're sick-minded and twisted. The main benefit is health insurance, but that's not government related--it varies from company to company, so even if gay marriage was legalized/considered legitimate, I doubt all companies would immediately change their policies.) Pretty much the only real reasons for marriage are 1) religious, and 2) showing a deeper level of commitment.
With commitment, though, I really have to question that because over half of marriages end in divorce. Divorcing someone is more of a hassle, yes, than breaking up with someone you're living with, but still, it's very common, and doesn't stop people from doing it for virtually any--or no--reason at all. People may say they're committed, or plan on being so, but really, in today's world, are they? Many are, sure, but majority seems to say otherwise.
So pretty much, it goes back to religion. Even if people aren't religious at all, marriage is still seen as a societal "norm", and many people get married because it's the "acceptable" thing to do. Or, basically, marriage is a tradition. This tradition is tied to religious roots (even if not in the entire history of humankind (which I believe it does), at least from the religious roots of those who founded this country and of the people from the different cultures who came here (our ancestors, basically)).
Going back to the beginning, I do not think our society will be "horrible" and "immoral" and "hopelessly lost" if gay marriage was legalized and approved of everywhere, because, frankly, I believe our society in general is already at that point, regardless of homo***uality. Straight people have ruined the sanctity of marriage as it is, with easy divorce, less commitment in general, infidelity, and *** outside of marriage. It especially bugs me when straight people condemn gays simply because they like the same gender. (Yikes, I need to be careful that I don’t judge those people, either).
As I said earlier, I don't see gays as any better or worse than straight people. My problem is when people have *** outside of marriage, as I believe that is originally intended to be a holy, pure act of unity and love between a husband, wife, and, yes, God. (I understand not all of you believe this (or may not understand this), but since this is what I believe, it has an important impact on where I stand.) Anyway, I believe *** has been totally twisted and distorted from its original intent and has become either a filthy, dirty thing in society, or has become so common and meaningless that everything pure and holy about it has been completely defiled and destroyed. (I also realize how ironic and/or fitting it is that I'm censoring the actual word.)
Now, because I see *** as something that should only be done within the context of marriage, one might think, okay, if gays are allow to marry, then they will be doing it within the context of marriage--which will make it okay, right? The Bible, what I believe in (yes, again, I realize not everyone shares these beliefs) shows that God detests when "a man lies with another man," etc., so within the context of "marriage" or not, is really not the point. I don't want legalized gay marriage to become an excuse for gays to justify having ***, even if they wait until marriage, even if they're monogamous, because I still see that as wrong. (Honestly, though, I do see that as better than when two straight people sleep around with each other and with other people outside of marriage.)
Also, with gays, I do not judge them for being attracted to the same gender because, honestly, you really can't control how you feel about someone. Regardless if one is "born with it" or "choose to be gay", or anything in between, whatever it is people debate about, it doesn't really matter, because you can't control feelings. What you can control, though, is actions and even attitude. It's the actions--and especially the lifestyle--I have a problem with, not the individuals or the feelings; it's what you do with the feelings that matters.
I think that people need to stop pointing the finger at others, stop judging them and condemning them. No one is perfect, and no one is superior or inferior to others, at least in God's eyes. Judging people's souls or state of morals isn't in our place, because we're imperfect, too. (I realize this is hypocritical of me, because I’ve done that and probably still do; I don’t like it and am trying to work on that.) People need to look inside their own selves first before they look at others; it's so easy to make excuses for our own actions and point the blame or problem on someone else, or to play victim. (That's not to say others are innocent, but it starts with owning up to your own self, first). I'm totally going generic and universal now, so I'll stop. But what we need to do is love and respect others, even if you disagree with them, even if you don't like what they're doing. That doesn't mean you need to support them or keep quiet; you can tell someone you disagree or don't like something, as long as it's in a respectful, caring way (condescendingly is disrespectful, too). This can apply to people who disagree with the gay lifestyle, people who disagree with those who dislike the gay lifestyle, or to anyone about anything.
Again, I know not everyone believes in God or has different beliefs than me, and I respect that. Please respect what I have to say, even if you disagree. I will add this: God loves gays, God loves the people who judge gays, God loves the people who support gays, God loves those who don't judge gays, God loves those who insult and hurt others, loves those who have been hurt or insulted, God loves those who follow and believe in him, loves people who don't believe in him, God loves those who hate him, and even loves hypocrites. He doesn’t love many of these actions, but he loves everyone equally and infinitely---AND everyone makes mistakes and has flaws and problems and struggles. I find that incredible, amazing, and humbling.
Bravo! Like TEM said, this is a very good post, and doesn't use the logically weak argument of "God said so". Sapphira understands that Christianity is and should be about love and inclusion, not about attacking others.
-
(Too long to be quoted twice on the same page.)
I agree, and actually read it because I figured "Well, with Sapph posting here, I have a feeling that this is one of the best posts in the whole topic." I was right. ^_^
There was something awesome in that post that I really wanted to quote but I completely lost after I read it, I guess because the whole post made a lot of sense. Anyways, I'm gald I didn't actually waste my time reading, but I think I'm wasting my time typing, but I thank Sapphira for one of the very few "worth while" reading posts here.
-
I'm just curious, Sapphira, when you chose your user name were you aware of the definition of the word sapphic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sapphic)? You have a deceptive user name for some one who rejects the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not trying to use that as some pathetic counterpoint to your views; I thought everything you said was very cogent. I just think it's funny.
This was the same point I was trying to make months ago when she pulled the ban-trigger on me. >_<
What's my opinion on gay marriage? I'm all for it. The state should not deny the same legal rights to certain loving couples that they grant to other loving couples on the basis of a religiously founded favor of heterosexuality. Now I'm completely ignoring the religious aspect here; if a homosexual couple wants a marriage recognized by their church, it's up to their church to decide, but if they go to a courthouse requesting a legal marriage, the state should be not discriminating.
-
Of course all the heterosexual males praise the female's post... 9_9
Before I get all confused in a bunch of words, let me just say that I am more "for" than "against" gay marriage. I guess my logic is that homosexuals don't choose to be so, so restricting them from an act of love would be... unloving?
I guess I was hoping I could come up with something good to say, but it looks like all the good comments were taken. I'll just say that not liking gay people because they're gay isn't very nice, especially because they can't help being gay. Sacrificing your love for a person for your religion is pretty twisted. That's an actual choice too. The fact is, homosexuals exist, despite what we think is ideal or right, so they should be embraced, not shunned. Sure, I'm a Catholic that actually still goes to church sometimes and prays too, but I accept homosexuality and do not look at it as an abomination. I guess it's kinda weird, but so is intercourse, if you think about it(which would make us perverts, thinking about sex and all). This is more about homosexuality than the marriage part of it, but I think that's the core part that people are trivial about. Oh, and... being a lesbian doesn't make you any less of a bein'.
So, I'm "for" gay marriage. At least I'm not against it. This is the only line you really had to read. I shoulda said so at the beginning. Too late XP
-
I didn't want to post here when this topic was first posted for fear of being flamed. But Now:
I am totally, 100%, against it. It might be just how I was raised. And it is against my religion. I think that if God intended for us to be homosexuals/*******s, he would've made Adam and Adam and/or Eve and Eve. Anyways, if everyone was a homosexual/*******, and got married to one another, the human race would (and veeeeerrrry sloooowwwly) become extinct. I'm against how they live their life. I'm not against them. (And I think it's very unlikely that everyone would become gay)
-
Aaaaaand the "Against" argument has been lowered to its original standard.
-
Not everyone is going to become a homosexual. It's totally impossible for that happen, but it is true that more homosexuals would cause a much needed population decline. As for it ruining the sancity of marriage, so does divorce! I don't believe in the Bible but I have read it and it frowns upon divorce. Divorce is just as bad as homosexual marriage, as is sex before marriage. Also, I think the government is making too big a deal of this. Shouldn't they be trying to stop murder, war, theft, hate crimes, etc. not same sex marriage?!
-
... homosexuals/*******s ... homosexual/******* ... gay ...
Interesting censorship.
Aaaaaand the "Against" argument has been lowered to its original standard.
[11:39] <Luigison> pt_peach obviously did not read the rest of the for or against thread
... bible ... Same Sex Marriage ...
Hmmm. Interesting use of caps.
-
It always urks me a little when people say something along the lines of "I'm okay with homosexuals, just not their behaviors/lifestyles etc.", because that, to me, sounds like the most oxymoronic (may not be a word, but you get the idea) thing I've ever heard.
It's like telling someone who IS a homosexual "Man, you're a great person, and I've always thought of you as a great friend. I just don't want you to get married with your boyfriend." all while keeping a stupid grin on your face.
Also, not every homosexual guy has the lifestyle of "Shopping, fashion, shoes, sex with guys!". There are lots of homosexuals who are just like us, as in, geeks/nerds/dorks who enjoy video games, computers, 1337-speak, etc. etc., the only obvious difference being that they are attracted to members of the same sex. Some are into drawing and other arts. Some enjoy sci-fi stuff. Heck, I'm sure there are tons of homosexuals who are strictly religious Christians, who are just as against gay marriage as others.
So, why say you're against their lifestyle, when some of their lifestyles are almost exactly the same as yours (except the whole being attracted to members of the same sex thing)?
Just a little thing for you guys who said something like that to think about.
-
Let's see what my family/friends have to say about same sex marrige...
Dad: I just hope the government dosn't legalize it.
Mom: They're not right people.
8-year-old brother: Gay is a bad word! Don't say it!
1st Friend: Gays are dumb.
2nd Friend: Good thing I don't have any gay friends...
-
Also, I think the government is making too big a deal of this. Shouldn't they be trying to stop murder, war, theft, hate crimes, etc. not same sex marriage?!
I'd rather have the government try to prepare us for peak oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/), or at least acknowledge its existence.
One thing that really bugs me about the government's response to gay marraiges is the hypocrisy of those who want to ammend the constitution to ban gay marraige. I've heard many conservatives say that the issue of gay marraige would ideally be left to individual states, but a constitutional ammendment is needed because activist judges are striking down bans on gay marraige against the wishes of the citizens. Seeing as gay marraige is currently legal in only one state, I don't really see any epidemic of activist judges on this issue. But, even if there were such an epidemic, if conservatives really wanted to leave the issue of gay marraige to the states, then they should propose a constitutional ammendment saying something to the effect of "there is no constitutional guarantee of a right to marraige, and laws restricting marraige rights on the basis of gender are not unconstitutional" or something like that. Then activist judges could not claim that laws outlawing gay marraiges violate the constitution, and the issue really would be left to the states. That's not what conservatives want. They want a constitutional ammendment explicitly defining marraige as a union between one man and one woman. Such an ammendment would not leave the issue up to the states.
-
Let's see what my family/friends have to say about same sex marrige...
Dad: I just hope the government dosn't legalize it.
Mom: They're not right people.
8-year-old brother: Gay is a bad word! Don't say it!
1st Friend: Gays are dumb.
2nd Friend: Good thing I don't have any gay friends...
Dad: Erm, I think the more accurate statement is "I just hope the government makes it illegal." There's no national statute against it. Although, I think it's more a state issue in its current form, and I think it's presently only legal in Massachusetts.
Mom: "Not right people?" Who are you to act like you're morally superior to people you don't even know to decide who's "right" and who isn't?
8-year old: Gay is a bad word to use in an insulting manner, I agree. "This is gay." No substance. At all.
Friend 1: Wow. I've like for you to pull up a proven, valid scientific study that definitively proves an inverse correlation between homosexual tendencies and IQ. Please? I don't think one exists.
Friend 2: Erm, gay people don't act very differently than straight people in mutual friendships. At all. What's with the prejudice?
Please refrain from posting in the thread until you have something VALID to say. "Gays are dumb" is not a valid point. In fact, it's probably THE example I'd use to show someone the absolute worst way to argue a point. As an aside, I can see where you get your prejudices from.
As for Sapphira's post... I'll respond to it when I have the time. It's a very well thought-out post, and I figure I should dignify it with a genuinely thoughtful response.
-
Please refrain from posting in the thread until you have something VALID to say.
Although I disagree with each of the family and friends statements, I think it was important to see the environment around the poster.
-
DOing all the thinking on it that I have been doing. I choose to not really have much on an opinion, because I'm not gay. Therefore, I don't know what it is like at all. I can not make a judgement either way.
-
Hmmmmmmm... I read it as a "The people I'm around agree with me!" post, not a "This is what everyone I'm around thinks, hence why I think" post. If it is the latter... then... ya. It's valid in that respect, and I lashed out a bit quickly.
Course, if you're trying to use those as arguments against gay marriage, they really aren't very valid.
-
Well, all I did was glance at Sapphira's post and noticed that most of it revolved around the connection of marriage to the Christian religion. While the Christians are the vast majority in the country, the principles of democracy are "majority rules, minority rights", and it seems like homosexuals are having the right to marry the person of their choice stomped on here.
Then again, marriage as we know it today only came into being as a Christian practice. The fact that this "marriage" concept exists at the state level in the first place clearly shows influence and bias toward Christianity. Oh well, the American government has always favored Christianty since its inception, despite the 1st amendment forbidding it. What can ya do?
-
I think that one show on Bravo changed the public's appearance of homosexuals. Though I, honestly, don't care either way, I'd like to hear people's opinions on homosexuality before this whole "boom" occurred.
It'd probably be not entirely different, but it seems like more people have a stronger opinion on this topic nowadays rather than thenadays...
-
Um, the 1st Amendment doesn't forbid Christianity or Christian influence; it says we have freedoms to believe and practice what we want (within reason--like, you can't go violating the other amendments and laws).
The whole intent of the "separation of church and state" ordeal was so that the government could not have control over the church, not that all principles of Christianity or other faiths should have no influence or standing in the government. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution were very religious people, and it had a big influence on the laws and rights and other governmental things of our nation. Look at our currency and Pledge of Allegiance. Their faith was very intertwined with our government.
Vid: The problem is when people are hypocritical or are lying to their faces. You can care about a person and not like their actions at the same time. Also, the "lifestyle" has to do with their ***ual actions, not their hobbies or unrelated interests or personality.
-
Um, the 1st Amendment doesn't forbid Christianity or Christian influence; it says we have freedoms to believe and practice what we want (within reason--like, you can't go violating the other amendments and laws).
It does forbid Christian influence on the government. The 1st amendment verbatim:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice the first part. It says no law should relate specifically to any religious establishment, and the laws of marriage certainly do.
The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution were very religious people, and it had a big influence on the laws and rights and other governmental things of our nation. Look at our currency and Pledge of Allegiance. Their faith was very intertwined with our government.
Exactly. Seems contradictory for a country promoting religious freedom, doesn't it? I'm agnostic, and I'm tired of Christianity being pushed on me. Now I can take the Pledge of Allegiance and the print on our currency. That's easy to tolerate. But I draw the line when my own freakin' state tried to pass a resolution declaring Christianity to be the "official" religion of the state(Yes, Missouri actually proposed this).
-
My friends and family have also spoken (though it was two years ago during the election, but my friends pretty much never change). I did a school project that year and had to interview 20 people (I did 23 because I included my family). Had to dig this up but thought I'd post it here.
Mom: It's wrong. Just read your Bible.
Uncle: No way. It's man and woman.
Cousin: Eew! I'd never date another girl.
FRIENDS:
Dude #1 (pretty liberal): Yeah, sure, if they want to do it.
Dude #2 (very liberal): This is America, do what you want!
Dude #3 (moderate): We don't need any more fruitcakes! No to gay marriage!
Dude #4 (very conservative): Nothing good comes of bending rules. Ban it now.
Dude #5 (sort of a hippie): As long as everyone's happy, they can do it.
Dude #6 (conservative): No, gay marriage is bad.
Dude #7 (claims to be communist): Gay marriage is wrong.
Dude #8 (moderate): I'm against marriage but they can live with each other.
Chick #1 (very conservative): No way. Read your Bible.
Chick #2 (conservative): No, it's morally wrong.
Chick #3 (conservative): Gay marriage is not a cool thing.
Chick #4 (moderate): They can live together, just don't get married.
Chick #5 (liberal): Yeah, go for it. They have rights too.
Chick #6 (apathetic): No, because it's never been a custom.
Chick #7 (conservative): Gay marriage is wrong both politically and morally.
Chick #8 (very liberal): Why can't gays and lesbians have rights too?
Chick #9 (claims to be conservative): Um, it's fine.
Chick #10 (liberal): Fine by me.
Chick #11 (moderate): No way. No gay marriage in America!
Chick #12 (conservative with a hippie mother): Gay marriage would never work. So no.
-
With the rising divorce rate nowadays, with all these unhappy spouses and such, I doubt there will ever be anymore gay marriages...
-
Regarding the "God made a man and a woman" argument:
As the story goes, there were only two people. These two had to breed to create the entire human race. Since humans reproduce sexually, the two had to be of different sexes. Therefore, God had no choice but to make a man and woman. So of course there is no Adam and Steve. Humanity would have died and God would have been like, "Oops."
But now there are lots of people. Now there are too many people for the planet to sustain. God sees this and has to fix the problem somehow. To fix the problem, God starts making more and more of the population "sexually" interested in the same sex. Because of this, they will experience the same happiness of a serious relationship, but not be able to reproduce. The population shrinks back to a manageable size, and no one is prevented from having a serious, sexual relationship with a loved one. Everyone wins!
Man, God sure is smart to create homosexuals.
-
Sounds like the newest Bible entry to me.
-
Sounds actually pretty smart, to me.
-
Sounds pretty sarcastic to me, the second paragraph, anyway. (At least I hope so. :P )
-
Interesting, but it couldn't work with the Christian God. He destroyed Sadom and Gamora precicely becasue of homosexual actions, among other things.
-
... precicely becasue of homosexual actions, among other things.
Which is it? "Precicely" homosexual, or "other things"? Or both? Didn't they then have incest? Sorry, I don't remember the entire story and don't have time to look it up now.
-
What about Jonathan and that other guy?
-
I think the key reason Sodom was destroyed was because it was homosexual rape that was happening frequently.
-
Back then, the Earth's population was much smaller. We still needed to grow. Now, we are too many and homosexuality is essential so God lets it flourish.
-
Back then, the Earth's population was much smaller. We still needed to grow. Now, we are too many and homosexuality is essential so God lets it flourish.
I love how you are speaking for God. I can do it to:
Back then, the Earth's population was much smaller. We still needed to grow. Now, we are too many and war is essential so God lets it flourish.
Back then, the Earth's population was much smaller. We still needed to grow. Now, we are too many and AIDS is essential so God lets it flourish.
Back then, the Earth's population was much smaller. We still needed to grow. Now, we are too many and abortion is essential so God lets it flourish.
Would any of those work too? I guess you could use "so God lets if flourish" with almost anything. It wouldn't necessarily make it true though. Maybe there should have been a </sarcasm> tag somewhere.
-
I just remembered why I don't believe in religeon.
-
Please share.
-
Homosexual people have gotten married and had kids before they realized that they were gay, or at least before they admit it.
Also, abortion is a choice, unlike homosexuality and AIDS. I guess war isn't much of a choice for most, or at least death by war may have nothing to do with whether you want war or not.
-
I don't believe in religeon either!
-
I don't believe in religeon either!
Pedant.
Anyways, I think the point is that, if God really does exist, no one has the authority to claim that "they know what God wants humanity to do" because it's quite impossible to know exactly what God wants us to do.
Then again, I don't believe in God, so... ya. Maybe my view on this is skewed a bit.
-
Nah, I think that's pretty much right. It's what I've always thought, anyway.
-
The Bible: Have you ever actually sat down and read that thing? There is so much hate in it that God supports!
God supports just about everything evil. Anyone that has read the Bible knows that the Bible states that "the law of the Lord is perfect."-Psalm 19:7
According to these laws, we are supposed to kill millions of people:
-kill everyone that works on Sunday
-Kill teenagers who dissobey their parents
-Enslave people from other nations
-Oppress women
-Kill anyone that happens to be homosexual
-The list goes on
An intelligent person does not believe in a god or gods. He can clearly see that all religion is a cult put out there by primitive men that did not have any scientific answers on how the world works.
An interesting note:
In Greek Religion, a handful of the gods were gay or bisexual! Zeus in fact was bisexual! Sadly, Christianity is the most popular cult that practices hatred and oppression.
-
Whoa. I mean just...............whoa.
Come on, fuzzy. I know I was wrong to dislike you for your beliefs before, but come on! I have read the Bible, and it says nothing about killing homosexuals.....or any of that for that matter.
You seem to be hateful towards us as it is. If God is so "evil", then why are you being evil towards us? Christianity, in my opinion, is no cult. It is what I base my faith on.
Besides, this is a topic about gay marriage. There was no reason for you to do that.
Oh, and welcome back! I'm sorry I was so mean to you before.
-
I work every Sunday and yet no one has killed me. Fuzzy's probably talking about the religous nuts that base practically everything they do on God. Those people really annoy me, especially when they believe I'm going to the Home For Infinite Losers because I don't practice their beliefs.
-
Home for Infinite Losers............Dragon Ball Z..........good times.
I don't read anywhere that God instructs people to kill others on Sunday. That's really extreme. What kind of Bible are you reading, anyway? If you hate Christianity so much, then why do you read the Bible in the first place? Just calm down. We aren't here to kill............unless anyone's a Ninja Christian assassin.
-
Don't listen to anything fuzzy said in his post, anyone.
-
*smacks his head a few times with his hair comb*
...My memory of his post is gone......that, and all my knowledge of global warming.
-
Don't know whether to say "Welcome back, fuzzy," or "Shut up, fuzzy." Either of which would be preceded by a "Heh, heh, heh..." so I'll go with just that.
Heh, heh, heh...
-
Wow. Just, wow. I am in complete shock.
Fuzzy has the most inaccurate perception of Christianity I've ever heard from anyone in my entire life. I'm not even going bother arguing against him because I doubt it'd make any difference anyway. I can't even begin to say how utterly untrue his claim is. I can't even fathom how anyone can even jump to such a conclusion based on that passage. All I have to say is that before you make such horrible, bold (and incorrect) statements about the Bible, why don't YOU actually read it? The whole thing, especially what Jesus has to say in it.
The fanatics you possibly base these claims from who killed people for "religious reasons" had a skewed perception of Jesus' teachings as well. I wish people wouldn't judge something based on the actions of a few (or many) so-called followers. Jesus taught love, respect, and compassion toward others, not hatred, oppression, and killing.
-
There are freaks who publish books supposedly based on the bible about how to whip your children and stuff.
Needless to say, they're total fruitcakes. like fuzzy
-
Leviticus 20:13
-
John 8:3-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:3-11;&version=31;) (Can be applied to any of the other laws, including and similar to the one in the verse you said.)
-
I read a book based on John 8:3-11. I'm sure you've all heard of or read the Scarlet Letter, correct?
I wonder what fuzzy's motive was. He came here for about 2 minutes to post a comment that almost everyone disagrees with, and then he just left. Was he trying to change are views by calling the Christian members "Unintelligent," or was he just being rude? It doesn't matter now.
Let us forget when fuzzy wronged us, and get back to the riveting topic of gay marriage.
-
All I need to say is that condescending people for their religious beliefs is just as wrong as condescending upon them for not having religious beliefs.
The problem is that, to some athiests, the actions (and beliefs) of "psychotic" Christians (a very small minority... actually, other religions have these people, also) tend to be so extreme that they can overshadow the motives of the rest of the population who see Christianity (or religion in general) as a basis for self-improvement. I know after having to deal with people who constantly act as if they're better than I am because they're religious and I'm not that I tend to get frustrated about religion in general. Those feelings tend to be sporadic, but they happen. I'm sure I'm posted a couple messages here that show these moments.
Anyone heard of the Landover Bapist Church? That website has several passages from the Bible that seem to support some of fuzzy is saying about it. Although, it is somewhat strong (but not YOU ARE ALL STUPID FOR DISAGREEING WITH ME strong, I don't think) in its messages, so the easily offended may not want to go there.
-
John 8:3-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:3-11;&version=31;)
Thank you, Sapphira. For the record I don't agree with fuzzy's assessment of Christianity; I was just posting that verse for reference.
-
I think it's important to remember that even though the Bible was written through "divine inspiration", it was still written by people who lived during times when they had slavery, shortage of women's rights, and lacked such an in-your-face society that we have today. So there's a bit of a culture difference between Europe from 2000 years ago and the world today.
Insane Steve, just for clarification, when you say you don't believe in God, do you mean that you don't believe in any form of an almighty god-like being? Because I know some people say that but they just mean "the" God, so I just want to hear it from you.
-
I do not believe in the existance of any "higher" beings that control the universe or the like.
5/6 of the people in the world don't believe in "The" God.
-
Off topic: I am not here to stay. This topic is very important right now so I thought that I would say what I felt. I hate religion. I really do. It causes so many problems and hatred tword people. None of your little Bible quotes are going to change me either because I don't believe in fairy tales. If you believe in God then why not unicorns, witches, and centuars? But if it is in a book that was written thousands of years ago then it must be true! If you don't take the Bible literally then you don't believe in God. If you take it literally then you are a fool that believes in a fairy tale.
On topic: Gays should be allowed to get married without having to go to another country like Cananda, the UK, Netherlands, Spain, etc. One state isn't going to cut it either. Marriage should be a civil right.
P.s.: I do not think all Christians are evil. Or any other person who practices a religion. I was just saying what was in the Bible. Which it is all in the Bible. Reread it a bit closer next time.
-
Hit and run? Don't be a coward. If you say something like that, you must be prepared to take hits from the opposite side. Unless, of course, you're a coward............
I don't even understand why you have to be that way. Insane Steve doesn't believe in God, but he doesn't call us stupid for having a religion. You really need to stop.
EDIT: You said that we're fools for believing in a "fairy tale." I don't think you could be more hateful than that.
-
fuzzy, even though I respect your opinion on your view of religion...
You don't have to make it sound like that everyone who is religious is a fool for believing in a "fairy tale".
Yeah, I consider myself a religious guy. And it doesn't bother me that you aren't religious (I really don't care), just don't be so hateful about it.
-
You must respect the beliefs of others, fuzzy. If this is all you came back to do, I'd say you should go back into that hole you were in for the past few months.
What you're doing is hocking a huge loogie on what quite a few people in this thread are standing for (and laughing while doing so). I respect your beliefs, I'm sure others do as well, but not respecting other's beliefs will not help at all. Even before you left, you attacked the beliefs of others, claiming "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT." when most of your opinions could not be backed up at all. There's no point in posting in a thread like this if you're not going to respect the beliefs of others.
You turned the thread celebrating a talented artist's birthday into "LET'S ALL GO VEGAN BECAUSE IT'S FUN" thread. There was no point in doing that, either. I quite enjoy meat, and I'm not going to turn into a vegetarian because you want me to. But, no, you didn't respect OUR opinions on meat, and we yelled at you for that. You also backed up your opinions on stuff that wasn't based on fact. If you can't find factual evidence to support your claims, don't start the argument.
Most of these people you're attacking HAVE read the Bible, and multiple times, I'm sure. I believe them when they say they do. And that's great, they enjoy the book. It contains stories that make people feel better and try to live by. Telling them to read it more carefully because it states stuff that's considered nonsensical in today's world (though it might be true, I don't know myself, as I can't bring myself to read such a huge book) is just mean.
You want to return? Fine, do what I'm telling you in this post and RESPECT the beliefs of others, don't ATTACK them.
-
Uh... Vid, you seem to be attacking what fuzzy belives.
-
Yes, but he's saying that he respects his way of thinking. Fuzzy, on the other hand, did not want to respect what Christians believed in, and instead of keeping his mouth shut, attacked us claiming that it was "evil", and that what he said was completely correct. Vid is simply explaining to fuzzy that every opinion is valid.
-
Let's look at God's Plan. According to the Christian religion, God has planned every birth and every death before it has happened.
God must plan a lot of murders to kill people, and he has planned all abortions. Yet Christians fight abortions and don't one of the Ten Commandments tell you not to murder? God must plan a lot of rapes too in order for his birth plans to go into affect.
This means that everybody on the planet must just be a simple puppet that God cruelly controls. Everything is already set in place. If everything is already planned then prayer would be even more meaningless then it already is now.
God's plan is impossible because God is imaginary.
But some people are to blind and unwilling to listen to the truth. They are too thick skulled to realize that the Bible is just one big cruel story that doesn't make any sense at all. A story that tells people to believe what isn't true. The Bible is a fairy tale.
Those of you not afraid to see the truth go to: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm (http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm)
-
*deep, annoyed sigh*
Well, I tried. You cannot get through to idiots. Sorry, guys.
-
He's hopeless. He cares about nothing but his precious enviroment and trying to prove everyone else wrong. What a pathetic way to live.
-
...
God has a plan for everyone, but he gives people freewill. If they follow the plan he wants for them, they'll be living to the fullest. If they don't, well, it's up to each individual. God knows what everyone will end up doing, if they'll follow him or not, but he doesn't control us. What we do is up to us.
Fuzzy, you seem to be the only one who is blind, unwilling to listen, and thick-skulled to anything anyone has to say.
If you don't stop insulting and bashing and attacking and disrespecting people's beliefs, fuzzy, you'll be banned. You can believe what you want and have your own opinions, as long as you're respectful about it. Keep being disrespectful, and it won't be tolerated here.
-
Argh. Just do what fuzzy tells you to do, like he wants it.
Please ban me! (I'm not kidding.)
-
Yeah, he did say he wanted to be banned. And God knows he'll be back again to argue his point. He just doesn't give up.
-
There you go again. Saying that I am the one that is wrong even though I am the only one that speeks logic. We are too different to get along. So are you going to ban me or what? Sheesh!
-
I get along fine with Insane Steve, and he and I have very drastic viewpoints. The thing is, we're both respectful. And that's the problem: not that you have drastic points of view from me (and others), but you're disrespectful.
Problem solved.
-
The sky is wrong.
-
Sapphira did a good job explaining what I was actually going to explain about free will.
If the Christian religion didn't have good points to it, so many people wouldn't follow it. If something is inherantly bad, the masses tend to shy away from it. I have less of an issue when people are respectfull in their beliefs, than when they attack something that does have good points.
-
Sooner or later, fuzzy, you are going to HAVE to learn how to respect other people and what they believe in. If someone believes in God, don't complain to them. We're only complaining to you is because you refuse to accept the fact that everyone doesn't think the same as you. Just get over it and move on.
-
I think it's time to get back the topic of gay marriage now.................
I gave it some thought, and after thinking about it a little, have come up with something to consider:
I don't believe the law should play an influence on whether or not someone should get married to the same sex. Yes, I think it's wrong, and there's no way I'd ever do it, but taking away someone's right to do so would be to condemn them to a life of unhappiness. That's even worse than saying we can't have children because of over-population.
Imagine how bad Lance Bass had it. He was around 3 other guy members for a loooong time, and he's gay.
-
I have no respect for Lance Bass as a person.
-
The day he confessed it, my initial reaction was "No [crud], Sherlock, I'm pretty sure we're all aware of that". My sister was a huge fan of that band, and I was forced to watch them on tv or listen to them on the radio.
-
I hate the Backstreet Boys................wait, are we talking about Lance Bass or gay marriage? Or religion...........huh. It's hard to tell.
-
I thought he was N*sync
-
He was. Doesn't matter much though, my sister was enamored with both N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys.
-
I think gays should be grateful that they have the right to do anything, not that they shouldn't. But it used to be they had to keep everything in the closet in fear that they could lose their life if anyone found out. Think about it, they don't have to live in constant fear anymore, for the most part. I do know there are still what someone might call "gay bashers" people who look for gay people (men and sometimes women, depending how extreme) to beat up. I also know that gay people's parents still disown them, which is also against the Bible Fuzzy... We don't kill our kids becuase they're gay, or even disown them, God wants us to forgive them and come to odds with them, not that they're doing something wrong but they are doing something wrong in the Bibles eyes. So I guess what I am trying to get at is that I hate it when people mope around saying they have no rights becuase they're gay or bisexual, look at what you DO have. They can Kiss in public without fear, they can spend life with the one they love, they can share they're money, house, dog, cat, or whatever they desire, they also have all they're clubs and marches and parades. If you got this far, don't you think reward might be just around the corner? I mean you basically only have 1 thing you can't have. I just don't like the banter, thats all, and there is my peice.
-
I thought he was N*sync
Whoops. Well, I never paid much attention to either band, so it really doesn't matter. You gotta feel sorry for the guy, though. I mean, for the sake of his whole career (in addition to his friends) he hid his homosexuality from the world for a long time. I have to take it into perspective; it'd be hard to keep my heterosexuality secret if I lived in a world full of gays. That's why I've changed my mind about the law putting rules on it.
-
You are correct. Lance is from N*Sync.
-
I had a similar debate in a different forum about gays, and there will always going to be 2 opposing opinions.
I don’t hate homosexuals, but I can’t indorse or agree with their life style I feel they cut against what is Gods design. Creating health issues, going against the natural biological human functions. I know some people have chemical imbalances, deformities, caused by various environmental influences and I know that not everything in life is black and white, so for people with these issues there are ways of helping them through medical means, and I’d leave all the judging on what is what to God. But for people who choose this life style, well… that’s their own doing.
In life we all have choices to make, and can make them anytime we want, but should always keep in mind that we have no control of the consequences that come from them. (Good or bad).
As for marriage I believe it should be kept between woman and man only and I know that even a traditional marriage is not always successful and unfortunately there is a high rate of divorce. I know from small claims court shows on TV and the endless assembly line of people and divorce problems… Sigh. Whatever happened to commitment? A family that has good set of values and love for one another is able to work things out (thick and thin).I know my grandparents, parents and other relations have found this kind of love. As for gays it seems they are confused on the meaning of love. Love comes in many, many different forms, Love for country, God, parents, siblings, friends, pet, etc, etc, and it’s not all about sex as some people get confused with; as some are driven blindly by there own lusts and not thinking clearly on the consequences of there choices which manifest into a bees nest of more problems. Which in this case, gay or not we all make mistakes….
As for the bible, (this topic seems to sway this direction.) amazingly enough that it can be intrepid in very different ways, for many people; as history has told us that in times of old where “Christian crusaders“, that held up the word of God for false agendas and how do you think there are so many different variations of Christian beliefs, Churches/ Denominations named in various kinds all having there own variations of the understanding of the Bible (like the battle between the Catholics and the Protestants that has been going on for Centuries). But out of all this sometimes the most important things get put off to the side. (I’m not in anyway saying that all churches are bad) The Key is Jesus the deliverer of us all, while some people bicker and fight over the religious details and traditions, its the shed blood of Christ that counts the most of all taking our sin debt to the cross. A gift for anyone to receive by faith for forgiveness, he’s just a prayer away. Christ never contradicts his own teachings as some have done.
For knowing what bible to go by, I personally recommend the King James Version (as it is an older English translation, which I think older means more accurate closer to when original languages of the times were read and spoken.
-
That was awesome, Art. I agree 100 %.
-
Sure. no-one recognizes what I wrote..
-
Errr......sorry?
-
... But it used to be they had to keep everything in the closet in fear that they could lose their life if anyone found out. Think about it, they don't have to live in constant fear anymore, for the most part...
The military has the don't ask don't tell rule. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the rule, but I have to admit that the rule keeps homosexuals in the closet for fear of losing their jobs.
On another note all men are feminine in the womb. That's why men have breasts.
-
Please elaborate the breast comment.
-
On another note all men are feminine in the womb.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebaumsworld.com%2Fforumfun%2Fmisc6.jpg&hash=35325e190db3c1537730d788bbe3cc13)
-
That's why we have nipples, fool (oh gosh, the dreaded n word). Guys just develop after that, what with all the testosterone loaded into the breakfast cereals and everything.
-
BP is right. I should have said nipples, not breasts. Sorry.
Why Do Men Have Nipples? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400082315/sr=1-2/qid=1156552329/ref=sr_1_2/002-4876320-4808808?ie=UTF8&s=books
-
XD. My apologizes. Although some of us have big chests.............................and others have breasts for one reason or another.
I have another point to bring up. If there were two gay guys, and one of them had a...............gender reassignment, would it still be considered gay? I know this is disgusting, but I've always wondered.
-
Now, I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back for sure.
-
Wow, 3 topic changes all in one page!
-
Make it four. Some men can lactate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation)
-
Make it four. Some men can lactate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation)
Umm... okay. I just lost my appitite.
*vomits*
Let's just get back to the "gay marrige" thing before something else that's very disturbing happens...
-
Make it four. Some men can lactate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation)
Well, I knew that already....
But for once, I'll agree with what CTOAN is saying in this thread. Original topic, please.
I'm still quite amazed that in a forum with people who mostly have right-wing views, "for" is beating "against". Whenever I see it, I say "yay" in my head. ^_^
(Hahahaha, didn't mean to offend anyone/brag/whatever, sorry)
-
Errr......sorry?
No, no, nothing personal, I was just saying it in general. I wasn't just directing it at you anything.
-
Five. Six if you count the "How many topic changes have there been?" theme as its own topic.
-
Well, I knew that already....
Why are you assuming he's only telling you this? To show off your vast knowledge of man nipples?
-
*throws up* Okay...............I'm about to eat dinner with all these horrible images in my head.
-
Why are you assuming he's only telling you this? To show off your vast knowledge of man nipples?
I LOL'd. I dunno why I answered it that way. These disgusting reactions to something that really should've been learned when they took Health/Biology is pretty funny as well.
-
I don't get why that's any more disgusting than female lactation. Sure, it's way less common, but do you people gag and vomit and freak out knowing that women can do that? (SEEING it happening != knowing it's possible).
Hahaha, that reminds me of the other day, we were out of milk, and I silly-ly asked my dad in a pouty, kiddy voice, "Daddy, can you make the milk appear?"
He cupped his "man-boobs" and said, "I'm all out. I think you'd have a better chance than I would."
We laughed, and I said, "Not really, and besides, male lactation is possible." XD
Yes, I'm weird and I have a weird family. XD
-
I would've loved to witness that conversation. XD
Though it is very possible, I'd rather not lactate. Probably wouldn't be very delicious, either. :P
-
Me neither. We may have the ability to do it, but I'd rather not.
-
Well, I wouldn't, either, and I'm female. Then again, I don't want kids, so... won't really matter. XD
-
I have no clue what to say...
-
Sapph is just deranged.
-
/me is weirded out.
-
...
I'm deranged because I don't want kids? WTD, lots of people don't want kids.
-
Not so much that as your deranged conversations with your deranged father.
-
Sapph's Derangerous. :o
-
...
I'm deranged because I don't want kids? WTD, lots of people don't want kids.
For a while I thought about not having kids........................
But I remembered that each of the eldest sons of the family helped forward the Morgan family tree. (Most of the women and younger sons cut it off without having children to continue the line)
Children are kinda troublesome. But I really do want a son. So............yeah.............
Don't you just love topics about gay Christians lactating, while watching videos of Lance Bass who doesn't have any children?
-
I don't plan on having children either (or getting married), so I win both ways. :)
(There are only three males in our family's current generation, my brother, myself, and our cousin, from oldest to youngest. If I choose not to have children, and my brother follows suit, the family would have to rely on our cousin for continuing the family (He's currently, like, 10 or something)). If HE doesn't want children either, you can kiss our bloodline goodbye. :D
-
Ouch. I do have 2 male cousins, but one has already had a child (without marrying, may I add) and I haven't the slightest clue where my 2nd cousin is. The other one, the younger cousin, might get married..........but I just don't know. Besides, they're on my mother's side, so they're responsible for continuing their own line. It's me alone, besides my little brother. And that's it. All of my aunts on my fathers side are done, in their 60's with no children.
-
I don't plan on having children either (or getting married), so I win both ways. :)
(There are only three males in our family's current generation, my brother, myself, and our cousin, from oldest to youngest. If I choose not to have children, and my brother follows suit, the family would have to rely on our cousin for continuing the family (He's currently, like, 10 or something)). If HE doesn't want children either, you can kiss our bloodline goodbye. :D
That kindof reminds me of what the Hitler family is trying to accomplish, except your not really doing intentionally.
-
Let's not confuse bloodline with surname. Of course I think keeping family records by last name isn't the right way to do it at all. Another thing I don't like is family trees; they're made wrong. If you wanted to see your ancestory, you should be at the top and you should work backwards.
-
I thought that that's what you were supposed to do.... when making a family tree....
-
Most trees I see start with some really old person and then fan out from there.
-
Gosh, all I have is three older brothers and three male cousins, one of which is married with a child. I hope my family doesn't die out... After all, my family is so functional and healthy and contributive to society.
-
I'm adopted, so the really I have no purpose but to carry out the name, not the blood.:(