I live in California and the everyone here is talking about gay marriges. I personally think homosexuals should have there own form of marrige because to me marrige is a religious event that takes place in church most times between a man and a woman. If you have a man and man or woman and woman its a different thing. To me it creates the opportunity to make a new word. Maybe "Consentige"? I have no idea, but what are your thoughts and what would you name this new pairing.
Marriage ceremonies vary dramatically depending on religions, which are a belief. They may have different names but at the end of the day it's just a ceremony of commitment and promises being made, no matter what sexuality or religion you are.
"If you have a man and man or woman and woman its a different thing. " How so? Are you speaking from personal experience?
I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together I just think it should be called something other than marrige. If I discover a new kind of mineral I would name it something new. I consider same sex pairing to be something new in society. I believe everyone deserves the right to love and happiness anywhere in the world.
I think marriages should be between a man and a woman, the reasoning that "if you love someone you should be able to marry them" could also be an excuse for bigamy, marrying animals, underage etc. It's all ridiculous.
There already is a name for it OP - Civil Partnership. Only whoever is pushing for this wants that to be named "marriage" instead.
Really the main problem here to me is the fact that it forces homosexuality into church. It give homosexuals the right to sue a church for its beliefs. If a homosexual wishes to marry in any California church they can sue any church that denies them. I could care less but I do think I kinda steps on freedom of religion. The only way of not stepping on anyones toes I could think of was to give them the same rights but call it something different to calm the anger brewing around here.
Originally Posted by Carnivorous id I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together I just think it should be called something other than marrige. If I discover a new kind of mineral I would name it something new. I consider same sex pairing to be something new in society. I believe everyone deserves the right to love and happiness anywhere in the world.
You honestly think most straight people that get married are religious btw? The last wedding I went to, the bride and groom had to start attending the church so they could get married there, they weren't religious at all.
in america you dont NEED a church, just a courthouse and a judge. the church part is generally JUST a ceremony, you still need papers from the government.
Wow James!! I pretty much always agree with you, but that was the worst arguement ever. Did you really just compare a grown up selfresponsible individual to cows, camels and underage children?? That's a whole different ballgame. The reason you shouldn't be able to marry a cow or a child is because they're not capable of making that decision, so that law is to protect them. When 2 gay people want to get married, the law is not for protection, but to discriminate them. And it's not as if you can only adopt children when married, so it's just a title.
I still love you though, Dr. James! Do you want to marry me?
I do not like gay marrage. It's unnatural, disgusting, and no nation before the last couple hundred years has ever allowed gay marrage, or homosexuality in general.
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Adam, Homosexuals are what the church has problems with. I just think that when church is asked to change its beliefs to incorporate law it makes me feel like we just lost a little more freedom.
Adam, Homosexuals are what the church has problems with. I just think that when church is asked to change its beliefs to incorporate law it makes me feel like we just lost a little more freedom.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- I do not like gay marrage. It's unnatural, disgusting, and no nation before the last couple hundred years has ever allowed gay marrage, or homosexuality in general.
I agree with your opinion, but you are wrong about the history part. Wikipedia says that the Greeks and Romans thought being gay was O.K.
Wikpedia also says that animals can be gay too, so i guese it's not as unatural as we think.
seperation of church and state. but since when has the government given a shit about the constitution? not in awhile.
if you think homosexuals are right in what they are doing then why do a majority of them hide it for most of their lives. some for their entire lives. its because its wrong and they know it. we all do things we know are wrong, but we like it, it feels good, and we do it anyway. its no different.
I'm pretty open minded about the gay sexuality, and I'm actually very shocked at the last couple of views on homosexuals. I'm starting to see why Americans seem to frown upon gay marriage, like Americans are brain washed to love their country, they seem to be brainwashed into thinking gay sexuality is a crime? In the UK gays are generally accepted all over and we don't get any trouble from them what so ever, so if gay marriage is a big deal in CA at the moment, perhaps it's because you're being close-minded and making it a big deal? Ive only ever known a handful of gay people, a couple of them being lesbians and the gays being friends of my brothers (who are not gay btw),and they are all nice people.
I don't have a problem with gays either. I've only ever been friends with two gay people, but neither of them gave me any reason to dislike them. It's not like they kept trying to rape me or anything.
To be honest, is this thread actually appropriate for a site with mainly teens and kids on it? Your profile says you're 32, Id have thought you'd have known better.
My nephew watches south park, the worlds not perfect, and anyone with a t.v. in California is reminded of Prop. 8 every 10 mins.. Its also being discussed in church and current events in school. Being young doesn't mean you're stupid. I'd never let a child go into a world of wolves without the ability to protect him/herself. Ive NEVER lived in a fairy tale world where everythings perfect.
Originally Posted by MitchHM Wow James!! I pretty much always agree with you, but that was the worst arguement ever.
But that's what the people in favour of homosexual marriages are saying! "If you love someone you should be able to marry them". My beef isn't with them, we have civil partnerships already and I'm all for that. It's when mad heads say "well I love my horse" and question why they can't marry that, I mean it has happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage). With these kind of knee jerk alterations to beliefs and practices that have gone on for hundreds of years it usually ends in giving an inch and later giving a mile.
I've been to a civil partnership ceremony, nowt different to a registry office wedding.
Just I was always brought up to think of a husband and bride getting married, are they allocated that or are they both husband (or both wife, in the case of lesbians and such)?
I'm really quite surprised about the amount of people against gay marrigge! Especially if it's for religious reasons. I mean, come on. If god doesn't like gay people he shouldn't make them. It's kinda sick to make a person knowing he can never live up to your rules, and still punish him with an eternity of pain. Who do you worship?
Originally Posted by -Adam- To be honest, is this thread actually appropriate for a site with mainly teens and kids on it? Your profile says you're 32, Id have thought you'd have known better.
I agree, there should be less talkage of these things in the forum. It's not really relevant.
Ok I can respect that. The fact that you're for civil partnerships shows it's nothing personal against gay people, just that you want to keep the ritual intact. I still don't understand though how you can compare a horse to a person. 2 people can both claim to love each other. A horse can't claim anything. So an animal would always be forced into the marrige, where gay people both want to be married. That's the big difference!
We don't let horses vote. A hundred years ago black people couldn't marry white people here. A hundred years before that, black people couldn't marry each other. And people compared black people to horses, back then. Honestly, I don't understand how Gay Marriage is an issue in the first place. I thought the conservatives were a bunch of "Not in my back yard" sorts, not "I'M GONNA BE IN YOUR BACKYARD NO MATTER WHAT BUT YOU BETTER NOT BE IN MINE OR I'LL SHOOT YOU" hypocritical sorts.
You are kind of right Pixel thief. I as a conservative am for small/limited government. Therefore, under my ideology the government should have no right to say who can get married and who can't. :/
Originally Posted by MitchHM So an animal would always be forced into the marrige, where gay people both want to be married. That's the big difference!
There are forced marriages though.
This is what is a bit scary. If "marry anyone you love" comes into play and you have forced marriages and bigamy already then some mighty big floodgates could be opened.
And hey, if you're not religious and you want to get married (like what Adam was saying about the folks he knows)- then get a civil partnership! Marriages were founded in religious practices. If you're not religious then why get married?
Oh and for kicks; I'm for abolishing religious schools. Religion shouldn't have a place in the education system.
Yeah I think the whole "Government not funding religious schools" falls under separation of church and state, but they should definitely be free to choose where to send their kids if they want to. But thats pretty much how it is right now anyway.
But why would he compare the two arguements? They're both on completely different levels, and yes- age should invalidate opinions if they're going to be so ridiculous.
We should make a game where a gay person turns homicidal and guns down straight people in order to revenge himself on discriminatory society, sheerly to be controversial
Originally Posted by Pixelthief We should make a game where a gay person turns homicidal and guns down straight people in order to revenge himself on discriminatory society, sheerly to be controversial
Instant TIGsource frontpage.
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Originally Posted by Ricky Dr. James, what about private religious schools? Shouldn't parents have the right to choose what kind of school their kids go to?
Absolutely not. Because then you end up with people believing that the world was created in 7 days, that it's okay to take an eye for an eye, that the world is flat and giants live in the clouds with towering beanstalks as the only method of reaching them. There is only 1 science, 1 maths etc. IMO Religion should be taught at church/mosque/and such.
Originally Posted by Ricky Dr. James, what about private religious schools? Shouldn't parents have the right to choose what kind of school their kids go to?
Absolutely not. Because then you end up with people believing that the world was created in 7 days, that it's okay to take an eye for an eye, that the world is flat and giants live in the clouds with towering beanstalks as the only method of reaching them. There is only 1 science, 1 maths etc. IMO Religion should be taught at church/mosque/and such.
People could believe that the universe was sneezed out by a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure for all I care, its just when they start attempting to impose their own beliefs on other people that problems arise. But parents should have the custody of their children and all that implies. If the lunatics want to teach their children that they should fear the great white hankerchief, let them. If you say they cannot attend private religious schools, that implies they cannot homeschool their own children in a religious manner.
Hence it really boils down that religious schools should be allowed, but they should just be utterly private and off the government payroll & voucher system.
my cousin is gay. and he is an awesome guy. he never used to be gay. he used to be COMPLETELY different. he even had a girlfriend. gays arent born they choose to be so. the only problem i have with him is his taste in music.
i have no problem with gays or gay marriage. right they arent trying to rape people. they arent generally a nuisance either. but theyre making a big fuss and butting into legal and religious issues that are already established. if they want to get married so bad, move to a state or country where its already legal and accepted.
adam DONT EVER say someone is too young to have an opinion in any conversation. THAT is close minded.
I think the government does have the right to tell people how they should be educated. If you don't, you're basically saying it's ok to never send your kid to school. It's ok to allow terrorist training camps. You should see education more as a right, rather than an obligation, even though it's obligated.
I think the government does have the right to tell people how they should be educated. If you don't, you're basically saying it's ok to never send your kid to school. It's ok to allow terrorist training camps. You should see education more as a right, rather than an obligation, even though it's obligated.
I understand what you are saying, but i didn't mean it to that extreme. Of course there should be laws against terrorist training and of course everyone should be educated to some degree.
I became less religious when I went to High School. My Primary school was religious- Assembly was called Worship and the headmaster used to sing the Neighbours soap Theme tune and replace "neighbours" with "Jesus"
Originally Posted by -Adam- "he used to be COMPLETELY different. he even had a girlfriend. gays arent born they choose to be so."
Have you ever thought he could have been living a lie?
so he was living a lie and he didnt know he was? hes admitted it was a lifestyle change. its a preference. a bad one if you ask me. i already stated the health risk factor. not to mention its just...well...gay.
Incidentally, Dr. James, if you were grouping eye-for-an-eye with the people who believe the world was created in seven days... I just want to point out that they believe you aren't supposed to give an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You're probably thinking of turn the other cheek, which is the exact opposite.
The government is already too involved in every single little detail of every day life. You can't even own a dog without registering and paying for various fees for goodness sake. It has no right telling you how you should be educated. Granted, it should be required that you are educated... Meh. It's too complicated.
In my opinion being gay is a lot more natural than getting married. Like Adam said, there's gay animals, in ancient Greece it was totally ok for men to shamrock each other and Julius Caesar had fun with boys as well. Marriage is just made up by people, and those people where massive homophobes, right?
I am a Christian, and I think that God doesn't condemn people being gay, because they were made that way. The thing that is not right is when someone doesn't try to seek help. We can't help how we are born, but we have the power to change ourselves. These days, however, people are encouraged to be gay; i'm not sure I agree with that.
I hope this doesn't sound close-minded and arrogant, it's just my opinion . Maybe i'm wrong, but who's to judge?
Originally Posted by Ricky I couldn't disagree with you more Dr. James. The government has absolutely no right to tell people what to believe or how people should be educated.
But they do. As I said, there are many ways of teaching art, music, talent and opinion based subjects which produces varied results from school to school. But maths, science, english... The core subjects are exact and faultless. Science says you can't turn water into wine or walk on water without some kind of apparatus or magic do-hicky. That is what should always be compulsory (to a certain age). Else you get a divided population which foolishly leads people into believing creationism and other joke sciences (for the record my educated Catholic friends don't believe an ounce of creationism, or the whole 7 days thing). And that's bad. It's good to question founded science as it leads to further discoveries, but no Toytown 'science'.
This is ridiculous, how can someone choose to be gay.
You either like women or men.
Being a homosexual is about as wrong as being bald, yes some people choose to become one or the other but straight people don't choose to become gay because thats not how it works. You have to be gay to choose to be gay.
I'm straight ok, i like girls. I didn't choose to be straight, i just am... But if society told me i was wrong to be like this i would tell society to fuck off because i am the way i am.
It's the same as Racism. Learn to love your fellow man... er but in a platonic way if you're not gay.
Do people honestly think a straight man would choose to want to make love with other men and put up with the crap from homophobes, just to be controversial?
Originally Posted by -Adam McMillan- Here is my view on the subject,
I am a Christian, and I think that God doesn't condemn people being gay, because they were made that way. The thing that is not right is when someone doesn't try to seek help. We can't help how we are born, but we have the power to change ourselves. These days, however, people are encouraged to be gay; i'm not sure I agree with that.
I hope this doesn't sound close-minded and arrogant, it's just my opinion . Maybe i'm wrong, but who's to judge?
It still doesn't explain why God makes them gay in the first place, it doesn't seem fair he gives some people the disadvantage of being gay and having to seek help to get straight. Why would he do that?
Wow i'm impressed, even after 5 pages we are actually having a deep discussion on the dc, without people being disrespectful to others, while some have different views you guys are respecting the posts being made even if you do not agree with them. This must be some type of record
Impressive
Edited by an Administrator.
Be sure to follow us on the twitters for the latest and greatest: @dailyclick
What I think:
Who cares if people are gay, seriously, its their choice, not yours. If they like men and they are a guy, leave them alone. I have a lot of friends that are gay or bi. I can name about 3 off the top of my head. If these people want to get married, you still should not have a right to tell them no. Earlier in the topic people were talking about emos. There's nothing wrong with emos, hey even I am kind of emo. i have long hair that covers my eyes, I listen to some music with screaming in it, and I'm still a normal person, half you people wouldn't even know this by talking to me on TDC.
But seriously, let people do what they want, That is like someone telling you that you are not allowed to be with your wife/girlfriend, even though you love them, your not allowed to get married to them.
Doesn't seem right does it?
Sure marriage might have started from religious ceremonies, but in religion don't they teach acceptance? Judging people by there sexuality is NOT acceptance.
Your just jealous that you're not as awesome as me.
(And my megaman avatar )
But seriously, let people do what they want, That is like someone telling you that you are not allowed to be with your wife/girlfriend, even though you love them, your not allowed to get married to them.
Doesn't seem right does it?
But that's the whole thing. A civil partnership is the same as being married. It brings the exact same benefits from a law and benefit standpoint. It's just that you're not husband and wife and (IIRC) surnames stay put, even in different sex relationships. A marriage is a union between man and woman - it requires a different name to be in a same sex relationship IMO.
Sure marriage might have started from religious ceremonies, but in religion don't they teach acceptance? Judging people by there sexuality is NOT acceptance.
There are limits. In Christianity they teach that if someone steals your coat then you offer then your shirt. But that's just stupid and none of the Christians I know go by that. Just like you can't go into a church, demand that you seek refuge there and later move in as a resident - even though they're supposed to put you up if you need help.
But that's the whole thing. A civil partnership is the same as being married. It brings the exact same benefits from a law and benefit standpoint. It's just that you're not husband and wife and (IIRC) surnames stay put, even in different sex relationships. A marriage is a union between man and woman - it requires a different name to be in a same sex relationship IMO.
Thats not how the laws work though. They recognize Marriages and Civil Unions as separate entities. If that were to be true, the government would have to stop recognizing marriages and ONLY recognize civil unions. Then same sex couples would have the same rights. But right now, theres a variety of things that aren't allowed. For example, if one partner is terminally ill, the other might not be allowed to visit them in the hospital on their deathbed. Imagine telling a man they couldn't do that for their wife.
So no, its not the same, but it should be.
Originally Posted by Dr. James There are limits. In Christianity they teach that if someone steals your coat then you offer then your shirt. But that's just stupid and none of the Christians I know go by that. Just like you can't go into a church, demand that you seek refuge there and later move in as a resident - even though they're supposed to put you up if you need help.
Well those people aren't good Christians then, are they? That whole love thy neighbor and all that jazz, thats optional right? I believe thats called "Cafeteria Christian", or at least it would be, if those same christians didn't use that term to denounce each other in a ridiculously hypocritical manner. Meh. This is why I say, religion doesn't make people good, nor does it make them bad. It just complicates things either way.
So you're saying if a Christian is being robbed, that according to their religion they should offer the thieves tea and cake?
If you read the bible or talk to any of the people who properly understand what it's all about they say there are limits, explained in the contradictions of points. "Be good, but rather let people learn to help themselves" etc. Just like it's completely unrealistic to help everyone that needs you, or pay into every charity. It's impossible as we're all only human.
I almost shed a tear googling that. You'd think Cafeteria Christan or A la Carte Catholic would apply to those who call themselves Christians, but forget all the teaches of "Love they neighbor", the 10 commandments, and forgiveness, but all the wikipedia article goes on about is how people use it as a label on those who call themselves Christians but don't follow the strict orders on hating gays & stopping women from having abortions & denouncing evolution. You'd think that for a Christian, that whole direct commandment from Jesus saying "Love thy neighbor" would trump something john or whoever said 3rd hand immediately before saying "Thou shalt not eat shrimp".
Originally Posted by Dr. James So you're saying if a Christian is being robbed, that according to their religion they should offer the thieves tea and cake?
If you read the bible or talk to any of the people who properly understand what it's all about they say there are limits, explained in the contradictions of points. "Be good, but rather let people learn to help themselves" etc. Just like it's completely unrealistic to help everyone that needs you, or pay into every charity. It's impossible as we're all only human.
Actually yes, thats exactly what Jesus said. I'm no expert on bible studies, but its pretty hard to interpret "Turn the other cheek" as "Shoot the guy whos robbing your house to feed his starving family" Now ask yourself, if you went back in time and punched Mohandas Ghandi in the gut, would he turn around and put you in a headlock, or would he forgive you? Yeah its a pretty unrealistic expectation of anyone. But doing it is what makes you a good person, instead of just "another human". Thats the entire point of the religion.
On the subject of christianity -- I don't understand why a person would bother adhering to only some Biblical values. Someone would use christianity to justify homophobia, but will not even "turn thy other cheek"? Dr. James, being "only human" isn't enough in that case, because gays who "don't seek help" are only human, and then the whole cycle is hypocritical. A Tibetan monk always restrains 'unpleasant' emotions such as anger and hate (which is not easy), and they are as human as us. Basically, it's fine to call yourself a christian or whatever else, but don't use religion as an excuse for bigotry, especially if you are only religious when it is convenient.
One might also look at religion through a practical lens. "Be fruitful and multiply" was an important concept back then, and a quick way to mobilize a religion. Today, it might be the opposite; for example, the one child law in China. Perhaps a modern Bible would eliminate clauses on sexual preference, or even advocate homosexuality as a way to prevent overpopulation. Homophobia today holds neither philisophical nor practical value.
People really just follow their religion when it benefits them. More people would kill in the name of their god than die in it. They buy into the whole turn the other cheek thing up until its their turn. Frankly, its because religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Good people exist, bad people exist. Being a christian or a muslim or a sikh or a jedi knight makes no difference either way on your morality, although religious differences sure have persisted since antiquity as one of the larger causes of death in this world.
It still doesn't explain why God makes them gay in the first place, it doesn't seem fair he gives some people the disadvantage of being gay and having to seek help to get straight. Why would he do that?
Okay, let me correct myself, that didn't come out how i meant it to. it's not particularly god's choosing, it's kinda the environment we were brought up in, but God gives you the power to change.
I'm fine with gay people, they should really have all the rights straight people do in regards to partnership - I'm not gay but I think it's silly to have a problem with what they do/are, it's their life you know, they shouldn't be controlled.
That said, people will always act like this about something; even if gay marriage is allowed there'll be a new issue. There will always be people for and against something, no matter which side is ethically right.
Um... Nobody is born sexually active.
It's something that develops when you hit puberty. So, yes it's entirely possible that it's the environment you grow up in that affects your sexuality.
It's probably also the reason why people develop bizarre fetishes.
Not to start anymore problems but the main supporters of Prop 8 are Mormans. Some of the Christain churches here support gay marriges. I used the word religion because 17% of the prop 8 supporters are Christian the rest are other religions but mostly Morman. I only say this because it seems to be popular to bash Christain beliefs. I support freedom of religion for any religion. I'm not here to bash anyones beliefs I have plenty of gay friends that don't understand me either. I have no problem with gay marriges but I do have a problem with forcing people to change their religious beliefs. I don't even go to church but those who do should be able to praise Alah, Buddah, or whatever they choose. It's sad Sex and Satanic California churches get less flack than Christians. I'm Weird I disliked what I saw going on in the churches but was never tempted to force my beliefs on them. I just stopped going. I do think that they should give gay couples the same rights as married couples though. To me those are the laws that should be changed. All in all though this Prop 8 will hopefully help homosexuals as far gaining more rights for gay couples.
much things you guys said are contradicting each others. like it's said(if it's true) god made adam then eve. not adam and michael jackson. but as ben said, it's their own life.
Visit Sciisoft Support Forum! This is totally new and cool!
I don't see the point in gay marriage, really. Marriage is all about tying a man and a woman together so that they'll be forced to take care of their child together. Less divorces, more kids with parents, happyness.
Gays can't make babies together, so why should they get married? So someone could make money when they divorce?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Gays can adopt (i think) and that's a good thing. Although I'm against gay marriage, i don't think it's my right to tell other people what they can and can not do.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- I do not like gay marrage. It's unnatural, disgusting, and no nation before the last couple hundred years has ever allowed gay marrage, or homosexuality in general.
Dude, no offence but check your facts. Almost every society in the history of Earth has had a gay streak. Take the Greeks: every single Greek soldier had a wife, and a gay buddy for when he was at war. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I disagree with homosexuality but I think that Gays should be able to be joined, but not through marriage. If churches HAVE to marry gay couples it would be like forcing Muslims to eat bacon and drink alcohol. Its overriding the beliefs of the church which is just as big a taboo as saying Gays can't marry.
So if Gays get "married" through a courthouse or judge I am OK with it, but we shouldn't force churches to give up their rights for others.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I became less religious when I went to High School. My Primary school was religious- Assembly was called Worship and the headmaster used to sing the Neighbours soap Theme tune and replace "neighbours" with "Jesus"
Jesus, Everybody needs good Jesus
With a little understanding
You can find the perfect blend
Jesus...should be there for one another
That's when good Jesus become good friends
Ooh Jesus, should be there for one another
That's when good Jesus become good friends.
That doesn't even make sense...
Religion in schools has a very small "OK" area. I think teaching ABOUT religion is good, but not teaching religion. If you take out teaching about religion all together you get the sort of people who irrationally hate Muslims and try to turn the Middle East into a large crater. People should be taught what the most common religions are about and what they believe without bias so the students can make an informed decision.
A friend of mine went to a Mosque as part of a Christian discipleship group where they just talked to the Islamic-Pastor-equivalent about what they believed. He wasn't suddenly brainwashed into becoming Muslim or anything, but it made his choice to be Christian valid, because he wasn't just doing it because someone told him to.
Originally Posted by MitchHM I'm really quite surprised about the amount of people against gay marrigge! Especially if it's for religious reasons. I mean, come on. If god doesn't like gay people he shouldn't make them.
God didn't make people gay, He gave them free choice. And (from a general religious perspective) they chose wrong.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I became less religious when I went to High School. My Primary school was religious- Assembly was called Worship and the headmaster used to sing the Neighbours soap Theme tune and replace "neighbours" with "Jesus"
Jesus, Everybody needs good Jesus
With a little understanding
You can find the perfect blend
Jesus...should be there for one another
That's when good Jesus become good friends
Ooh Jesus, should be there for one another
That's when good Jesus become good friends.
That doesn't even make sense...
Religion in schools has a very small "OK" area. I think teaching ABOUT religion is good, but not teaching religion. If you take out teaching about religion all together you get the sort of people who irrationally hate Muslims and try to turn the Middle East into a large crater. People should be taught what the most common religions are about and what they believe without bias so the students can make an informed decision.
A friend of mine went to a Mosque as part of a Christian discipleship group where they just talked to the Islamic-Pastor-equivalent about what they believed. He wasn't suddenly brainwashed into becoming Muslim or anything, but it made his choice to be Christian valid, because he wasn't just doing it because someone told him to.
Originally Posted by MitchHM I'm really quite surprised about the amount of people against gay marrigge! Especially if it's for religious reasons. I mean, come on. If god doesn't like gay people he shouldn't make them.
God didn't make people gay, He gave them free choice. And (from a general religious perspective) they chose wrong.
so just cause society shows a history means its not unnatural?
history also repeats itself so would you be for the next hitler?
Lets get something straight. Prop 8 is all about how the government joins two individuals. I agree that churches shouldn't have to marry gays if they don't want to. But we don't vote on what churches should do. The government is not a church, and should be completely separate from one. And hence you cannot place your religious differences in the way of gay people getting married. Let the government recognize it on an equal level to straight marriage, but let the churches think whatever they want to think.
Churches should seriously not be tax-exempt if they're going to campaign politically for propositions like this.
Originally Posted by -Adam- "he used to be COMPLETELY different. he even had a girlfriend. gays arent born they choose to be so."
Have you ever thought he could have been living a lie?
so he was living a lie and he didnt know he was? hes admitted it was a lifestyle change. its a preference. a bad one if you ask me. i already stated the health risk factor. not to mention its just...well...gay.
Cecil, I'm quite shocked at this statement you made. I've always known you to be pretty fair and balanced. The health risks in gay sex are exactly the same as in normal sex. If you don't wrap it, you can catch something. Guy, girl, gay, straight. STD's don't care what your sexual preference is.
You know, I read in Psychology Today once that people can become gay (choose to be so), or they may have a gene that makes them predisposed to being gay. It was talking about the Darwinian aspect of homosexuality, the advantages and disadvantages of inheriting such a gene.
I tend to think "marriage" shouldn't be (and isn't) just a religious thing anymore. I'm not religious at all, but I'd probably still like to get married someday. It's about making a statement to the person you love - not God (or the government).
If you take the religious aspect out of it, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with gay marriage.
I also tend to think people should "live and let live".
As far as I know, there aren't too many religious people who believe they'll burn in hell for allowing *somebody else* to marry someone of their own gender, so they should probably just keep their mouths shut.
The other thing I touched on, which is not exactly relevant, is that I don't think marriage should have any legal meaning. I just can't see any reason at all why it should.
Bloody hell this is one hell of a deep debate. I don't really care about if homosexuals wanna get married, but i also don't think they should be aloud to marry in churches if they are not welcome - seems like the church is being forced into something there. Then again, since female vicars are allowed (when once they were not, in the UK atleast) who is to say the church shouldn't evolve. Tough one, this is.
As i said i don't care about people being gay, i'd rather they did it behind closed doors though. Gays being affectionate makes me feel ill, but this isn't because i hate gays; i think people taking a shit makes me feel ill too, and straight people do that as much as gays! It's just my personal taste.
Incidently, to show how un-anti-gay i am (??) i would like to let you all know i am a HUGE fan of the Pet Shop Boys (see YouTube if you ain't sure....) and have seen them live. The campness of the show and the costumes were awesome and i have all their albums. However, i was not impressed with male audience members kissing each other next to me and also i am a HUGE fan of Slipknot too.
Originally Posted by -Adam- "he used to be COMPLETELY different. he even had a girlfriend. gays arent born they choose to be so."
Have you ever thought he could have been living a lie?
so he was living a lie and he didnt know he was? hes admitted it was a lifestyle change. its a preference. a bad one if you ask me. i already stated the health risk factor. not to mention its just...well...gay.
Cecil, I'm quite shocked at this statement you made. I've always known you to be pretty fair and balanced. The health risks in gay sex are exactly the same as in normal sex. If you don't wrap it, you can catch something. Guy, girl, gay, straight. STD's don't care what your sexual preference is.
not true shab. yes there are the same risks no matter what gender+gender relationship it is but in homosexual relationships the risk is increased (and not JUST because of the gayness but because of some psychological differences and physical tendencies like substance abuse). im sure you can find plenty more information on the web etc. the info is always going to be biased but why do you think aids and other stds are more common among gays than heterosexuals?
and if you want to go biblical, stds and other sexual diseases were cause for punishment for homosexuality and adultery.
which is another reason most religions majoryl christianity are in favor of abstinence. if you dont have sex til marriage youre less likely to get and/or spread diseases.
Originally Posted by AndyUK Um Cecil, what makes you say it's unnatural?
can you make a baby with two penises or two vaginas andy? thats why its unnatural lol.
unless youre arnold swartzenegger then even men can get pregnant.
but if man is sinful by nature then it actually is natural.
im playing devils advocate just so everyone knows. i really couldnt give less of a sh*t as long as it doesnt affect me personally.
@adam - im all for man hugs. shabs just too many states away from me
Civil partnership should stand equal to marriage in law terms, and churches should be allowed to refuse to marry gay people if they don't want to. However, if they should decide to do so it would make the church a more humane institution than it is.
And on the subject of homosexuality being unnatural in a biological sense, you really can't use that argument. Because the very species humans is in itself something very, very unnatural already. It isn't any more natural to drive cars or shop for groceries etc. etc..
It's so very sad that religion with it's high values and such stand for a substantial percentage of hate and war in the world. Humans should drop the whole holier than thou mentality that religion stands for.
Though I don't believe religion to be evil in it's abstract form, it's when people use religion to justify evil actions that religion becomes something bad. You could say that humankind isn't mature enough to practice religion.
Just read through this thread, a lot of people have expressed very demeaning things about gay people, and for what reason? It is a fact that gay people don't try and impose their sexuality on other people any more than straight people do. No, actually, straight people try and impose THEIR sexuality on people MORE than gay people do!
So all you expressing your disgust and horror of homosexuality are no better than other hateful phalanxes, just like racists, nazis and the likes.
And on the subject of healthrisks involved in gay sex, it's just ridiculous when you try and use the probably most subjective source possible on the issue as a source for facts.
STOP DOING THAT
People should be allowed to be in love with whomever they want to without others bashing them and threatening them with an eternity in damnation and such. It's not the physical body that is in love, it is the person inside the body, the soul if you wish. The body is only used to express that love, and as such, the person inside shouldn't be punished for that.
I'm amazed at the amount of people here that have the guts to express their profound disgust towards gay people. It only shows that they are hateful and frightened little people. And those kinds of people have a tendency to be the ones who hurt mankind with that hate. Hopefully, in the future, mankind will be able to respect one another as they are. But it's probably a fair bit into the future.
Do as you wish with your prop.8 Mr.Americas', and good luck with the future!
I'm amazed at the amount of people here that have the guts to express their profound disgust towards gay people. It only shows that they are hateful and frightened little people. And those kinds of people have a tendency to be the ones who hurt mankind with that hate.
Being disgusted by homosexuality is not the same as hating homosexuals. I disagree with what they do, but that doesn't mean i don't love them just the same (Jesus kind of love, not sexually). It bothers me when people tell me i "hate" someone just because i disagree with something they do.
Originally Posted by AndyUK Um Cecil, what makes you say it's unnatural?
can you make a baby with two penises or two vaginas andy? thats why its unnatural lol.
unless youre arnold swartzenegger then even men can get pregnant.
but if man is sinful by nature then it actually is natural.
im playing devils advocate just so everyone knows. i really couldnt give less of a sh*t as long as it doesnt affect me personally.
@adam - im all for man hugs. shabs just too many states away from me
Edited by the Author.
It's quite naive to say to be called natural, something has to work or be perfect. Ok so they can't reproduce like a Male/Female couple but you wouldn't call a person born without lungs unnatural or wrong just because they can't breathe
Oh and about the problems with STDs it's probably because you don't need to wear a condom to 'what what in the butt'.
I'm amazed at the amount of people here that have the guts to express their profound disgust towards gay people. It only shows that they are hateful and frightened little people. And those kinds of people have a tendency to be the ones who hurt mankind with that hate.
Being disgusted by homosexuality is not the same as hating homosexuals. I disagree with what they do, but that doesn't mean i don't love them just the same (Jesus kind of love, not sexually). It bothers me when people tell me i "hate" someone just because i disagree with something they do.
Edited by the Author.
Please note the choice of words, to disagree with something and to express profound disgust are two separate things. If you're not the target, don't take the bullet.
I don't think anyone here has shown any hate or disgust for gay people, Just for what they do. That's why i took the bullet. Quote one person in this thread who has shown hate towards gay people.
Originally Posted by AndyUK Um Cecil, what makes you say it's unnatural?
can you make a baby with two penises or two vaginas andy? thats why its unnatural lol.
unless youre arnold swartzenegger then even men can get pregnant.
but if man is sinful by nature then it actually is natural.
im playing devils advocate just so everyone knows. i really couldnt give less of a sh*t as long as it doesnt affect me personally.
@adam - im all for man hugs. shabs just too many states away from me
Edited by the Author.
It's quite naive to say to be called natural, something has to work or be perfect. Ok so they can't reproduce like a Male/Female couple but you wouldn't call a person born without lungs unnatural or wrong just because they can't breathe
Oh and about the problems with STDs it's probably because you don't need to wear a condom to 'what what in the butt'.
theres a difference between being born without lungs (i think that was a bad example cause they would never have developed. would have died in the womb) and choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle. and yes you would call them unnatrual if they were born with a defect. thats the very definition. defective, abnormal, mutation, no natural. the difference is, one chooses the other doesnt. it just wouldnt be 'politically correct'. which is what this is ALL really about. the political correctness of the rights that gays should have. (or rather want to have)
That is not expressing hate toward gay people. That is expressing hate towards what they do. There is a Huge difference. Oldman Clayton probably is just as friendly to gay people as he is to anyone else.
All I can say is, unless anyone in this thread is gay, they do not know what it is like to have gay thoughts, and then cannot tell whether it is "natural" or not. I've never wanted to bonk another man, but I'll tell you this; its none of the governments business to tell you who you can fall in love with. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and only gays were allowed to marry, how would you feel?
Originally Posted by Ricky That is not expressing hate toward gay people. That is expressing hate towards what they do. There is a Huge difference. Oldman Clayton probably is just as friendly to gay people as he is to anyone else.
First of, since it's down to the level of word trickery, I never actually said that anyone in this thread had expressed hate towards gay people;
"I'm amazed at the amount of people here that have the guts to express their profound disgust towards gay people. It only shows that they are hateful and frightened little people."
so stop playing with words.
Secondly, let me rephrase the quote and you tell me if it's still all dandy.
"Being black is disgusting."
"That is not expressing hate toward black people. That is expressing hate towards what they do (being black). There is a Huge difference. He probably is just as friendly to black people as he is to anyone else."
Does that still make sense to you?
EDIT: I'm not trying to impose that OMC is out there bashing gay people btw. Just proving my point.
How can you black. Black is not a verb. I can not go and black someone. Your example is stupid. I'll give you a different example, one that actually makes sense.
My sister lied to me once. I hate lies, they disgust me. Do i hate my sister? No. I love my sister. Hating a sin doesn't mean you hate the sinner.
Originally Posted by Ricky How can you black. Black is not a verb. I can not go and black someone. Your example is stupid. I'll give you a different example, one that actually makes sense.
My sister lied to me once. I hate lies, they disgust me. Do i hate my sister? No. I love my sister. Hating a sin doesn't mean you hate the sinner.
(Homosexuality is also not a verb.)
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
It literally meant, "the quality of being gay is disgusting".
sententia, you are right. homosexuality is not a verb. But to be considered homosexual, you must put your penis into a man. In that sense, it implies some action on the individual's part to make them what they are. Unlike race.
How can you black. Black is not a verb. I can not go and black someone. Your example is stupid. I'll give you a different example, one that actually makes sense.
My sister lied to me once. I hate lies, they disgust me. Do i hate my sister? No. I love my sister. Hating a sin doesn't mean you hate the sinner.
_________________________________________
sententia, you are right. homosexuality is not a verb. But to be considered homosexual, you must put your penis into a man. In that sense, it implies some action on the individual's part to make them what they are. Unlike race.
You do not need to put your genital in any specific place at all to be considered homosexual, that is just a stupid thing to say. And if that was the case, would lesbians be considered straight? (homosexuality isn't gender-specific you know )
I think it's quite demeaning that you only consider the sexual aspect of homosexuality. You know, a gay person can live in a platonic relationship with someone and still be gay. You're just very off on very many areas.
And as it has come down to the core question this particular argument can't continue, the question being why a person is homosexual. You, in direct contradiction to like 99% of all gay people, consider being homosexual a choice. I believe it is not. In the same way as you do not choose race, I believe you do not choose sexual preference, validating my example.
The only people who can do something similar to choosing is bisexual people.
Most gay people have tried to supress their nature but not been able to. How would you explain that?
And since we will never agree on the reason why a person is homosexual, we can just stop the argument now.
I knew that was your point from the very beginning, I just wanted to clearify that I hadn't accused anyone here of verbalizing that hate, and that I think hating in itself is something disruptive and destructive.
Originally Posted by AndyUK Yeah you don't breath in the womb, thats what the umbilical cord is for. Don't forget not developing properly happens all the time in nature...
Maybe you should find out what natural means?
Also stop saying people choose to be gay, thats just not true.
wow. could you make a statement on any less evidence than you just did? as a baby your lungs are filled with liquid (amniotic fluid). babies breath liquid oxygen. the embilical chord is connected to the stomach and is a source for which it recieves nutrients. even if somehow a baby DID survive in the womb without lungs it would die almost immediately at birth.
do you even know what youre talking about?
as for being gay by choice, a percentage of the gay community agree that it is a concious choice. its easy to blame something about yourself on genetics. "oh i was born gay so theres nothing i can do about it". they dont HAVE to have sex with their same sex. they dont HAVE to act on their psychological urges. and they blame their genetics, when the truth is, conciously or subconciously they dont WANT to do anything about their situation, cause then theyd be held responsible.
dont tell me to stop saying something without providing a decent and supported argument when all i have done is do so.
oh i forgot to insert some information. yes the baby does get oxygen from the umbilical chord. but in the later terms it does breathe with its lungs. so yes it WOULD die in the womb from complications without lungs.
sorry if i came on a little harsh. im suffering from an asshole manager and its late. sorry andy.
A gay gene wouldn't make any sense. Genes can't be passed on unless you have kids, and gay sex doesn't make kids. Your sexual urge probably is determined by your environment.
exactly. which is why i hate it when people say they are born gay. complete bull. and even if you were it would HAVE to be a genetic mutation which WOULD make it unnatural.
its environmental and psychological. it should be treated as a psychological problem.
I have a comment on my own, but that won't be fair since I locked this thread. Best this thread stay locked before Phizzy detects it and does bad things to you guys.
Administrative Message: This topic has been locked.
Edited by an Administrator.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Edited by the Author.
(However, arguments that I wouldn't use. 
Goodnight all. 
or is that too gay? 
