I was homophobic that is until I met a gay couple that came and helped my family move. They should be allowed to marry and such, but must keep bedroom discussions in the bedroom. I don't wanna picture... Ahh fuck, too late. Damn it, now I'm gonna have to look at some girl action before I can sleep soundly tonight.
My point is, tv shows and movies such as Bruno over exaggerate it. They typically aren't really open about it. Gays should have the same rights as everybody else.
If I offend anybody, let me know and I will delete the post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
Just a question(no flame or anything)- Is a handicapped person also unnatural and therefore wrong?
Because they definitely are removed from the norm.
I'm going to sound like some right wing eugenics fiend, but yes, they ARE unnatural, and from a genetic perspective, they ARE wrong.
(Please take into consideration that I'm not calling for the extermination/shunning/disapproval/whatevs of the handicapped, I have NOTHING against them)
Let's consider that natural means a perfectly healthy, perfectly functioning human being. This is how we are supposed to be (not as intended by god or shit like that. we're not bringing this into it). Disabilities are caused by changes in ones genetic code, thus, if our natural genetic code is altered, it CAN be considered unnatural. Due to this disadvantageous change, then they can be considered wrong.
edit: Guess I should throw down my perspective on homosexual marriage, I have nothing against it, and never have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Sixen" »
"One in every 10 million people can potentially have a headache from this pill." God forbid she is the 0.000000001% of having a headache.
Imagine being a kid with 2 fathers... Your classmates won't be as understanding as the government.
I'm not religious, but marriage is one of the christian sacraments. And if the churchs disagrees, it shouldn't be allowed. At least name it differently.
So, option 2. Another legal figure, particularly one that doesn't allow them to adopt. Unless gay discrimination diminishes (which probably will after this law), you're just ruining a kid's life. I think that should be implemented on a 2nd stage when the waters are calmer.
Lol marriage in a church is Christian, you can still get married by the government or by the church without them giving you blessing of god.
Ex. If me and my girlfriend marry at her church we would not get a blessing because I'm not really Christian and had sex before marriage. The same could be done for gays right?
However I´m against gay couples to have children, simply because a child should have both female and male rolemodels. It´s not that the kid will become gay if his parents are, it´s just that there needs to be a women and a man when raising a kid proper.
Hence the reason why 2 guys or girls can´t get a kid normally, they have to adopt.
I think homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong,
I have to disagree, homosexuality (how disgusting it might be) is present in the animal kingdom as well, hence it is natural.
A child SHOULD have both female and male role models, but how many people in the world actually do? So many kids grow up in dysfunctional families, single parenting, even NO parenting(24/7 nanny or other family member), and still SO MANY kids are stuck in the US(and I'm sure other countries') foster care systems. Kids in that system are likely to turn 21 before anyone even want to think of adopting them. I don't see how this argument of "child needs male+female to function properly" when a huge portion of children growing up don't even realistically have this to begin with.
By the way, homosexuality IS natural. Homosexual behavior have been observed in over 1,500 species. And if I recall, from the many Evangelists I've talked to, everything is God's creation. Why create homosexuality in so many species then? This is where Evangelists say animalistic behavior does not equal morality. So then you're saying homosexuality is a problem with morality? Weren't you just complaining about naturalism like 10 minutes ago? If it's really about morality, how can the world be filled with so many unjust actions? People in the SouthEast are still getting their eyes gouged out and STONED TO DEATH. Abortion is being legalized in various countries around the world? Destroying the precious seed that is also considered God's creation by abusing the sexual reproduction system God has given you?
From what I've read, seen, conversed, argued, and debated, it's a cyclic debate where Anti-Same-Sex people can never accept proof. It is an argument of ignorance. They toss their proof at you, which is more likely than not, a proof that cannot be proved.
Ugh, I'm angry now. I need to punch Hell Baal to death or something.
I believe that any person whether male or female, can marry the same sex
This is because it's inevitable that people love the same sex also called homosexual or lesbian
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
add me if you want to^^
Europe non ladder and ladder player
I'm gonna put my highrune in your socket
flyarion, flyarion_third, flyarion_fourth, flyarion_fifth
on if homosexuality is natural or not, I understand that it is natural, this because I understand/define nature as things that happen without human intervention (intervention including both, technique and intention) as Helfeather said it is something that pops in other species and in humans the sexual orientation is not a choice nor something forced into people (if someone think otherwise just think when did they DECIDE to be heterosexual, for example). For some of the religious arguments about this I could answer that celibacy is unnatural and all kinds of things like this... If we are going to stick to the objective side of the matter then... well, what I said before
about kids being raised in a homo-parental family and the possible consequences, there are two possible approaches, the first, an internal approach, meaning the kid's psyche and his/her relation with the rest of his/her family... there are no studies that prove that growing in this kind of family produces any kind of trauma or social disability, so we can't argue it will be bad for the kid... actually there are many studies and I've read testimonies of kids raised this way that are actually happy with their families as they are, just like every other kid that is happy with his/her family....
the other approach is an external one... how people will treat the child knowing he/she has two fathers/mothers... this isn't an issue to argue against gay marriage, as the essence of this problem is the installed intolerance towards homosexual couples... the kid can learn to overcome the mockery and shit... but as a society we should ask ourselves how are we raising the other kids to be so cruel and intolerant? parents should teach them to understand diversity and not to use it as a mean to make others suffer...
@venom: I think it's ok for anybody to state their opinion, of course I think homofobia is a bad thing as it's a form of discrimination (the bad discrimination), but in no way the idea is that you or anybody to be happy with seeing a gay couple or whatever... I think the problem is the idea some groups have that they can impose their opinion in an intolerant and violent way... (not only religious groups of course)
Apparently one significant difference between gay and straight men is that sections of the brain which are more developed in men (Spatial Sense, Orienteering) are underdeveloped, while sections more developed in women (Seeing shades of colour, communication) are more developed in gays. So there is an actual difference, as far as brain development. Cause is, as of yet, unknown.
As for it being natural, well, as far as I can tell it is a naturally occurring mutation. Mutations are, in many cases, natural, you know.
Apparently one significant difference between gay and straight men is that sections of the brain which are more developed in men (Spatial Sense, Orienteering) are underdeveloped, while sections more developed in women (Seeing shades of colour, communication) are more developed in gays. So there is an actual difference, as far as brain development. Cause is, as of yet, unknown.
As for it being natural, well, as far as I can tell it is a naturally occurring mutation. Mutations are, in many cases, natural, you know.
those studies don't demonstrate that the differences are caused by genetic mutations, it could be produced by cultural influence (if you're gay and your interest tend to be those considered feminine then the practice could make those areas of the brain develop, just a thought)
and, assuming that homosexuality is produced by a genetic mutation (thing that I believe to be incorrect, but anyway) then yes... it would be natural...
That doesn't mean that marriage can't be redefined. I think homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong,...
Really like how? You mean they cannot reproduce?
Yes.
Just a question(no flame or anything)- Is a handicapped person also unnatural and therefore wrong?
Because they definitely are removed from the norm.
No. Their unfortunate abnormality is wrong and, by the dictates of the human gene pool should not, under normal circumstances, have occurred. I would never say that the human should not exist. Just the handicap.
I'm not offering an umbrella argument, and this is also not what this thread is about. It's about the legalization of gay marriage But since you brought it up... here's my opinion:
For homosexuality to be a genetic mutation (and therefore natural), the body would require a reason to form physical genitalia for said sex. It doesn't. The male prostate is very close to the ultra-sensitive large intestine, about two inches inside, and is easily stimulated. Obviously, dicks weren't meant to go up peoples' digestive tracks, they're meant to fertilize female...parts... and create a life form. Homosexuality, at least at the male root, is, at most, a psychological difference from heterosexuality, humanly-speaking. We don't have millions of men walking around with half-baked vagina. We have millions of men walking around with psychologically-atypical sexual arousal preferences.
And, of course, there's love, but what is love? Anyone can love anyone and anything. Homosexuality is therefor defined by the intimate sexual arousal, and not an ambiguous and abstract thing like love. I love my parents, do I want to have sex with them? No. That's not my sexual preference. Homosexuality is not based on love, it's based on sex (sex sex, not genders).
That is my opinion. A bit redundant to say "that is my opinion," but for some reason, in the past when we've had threads like this, unless I state that, I get flamed.
I'm not going to go around and say, "OMG GAY!!! YER DUMB LOLZ!", but I'm not going to approve of it. I'm not going to tell my children to "explore possibilites" and "be open to sex with other men," but once they're out of my house, their life is their own. Not to say I have any yet. I'm not going to root for gays at parades devoted to promoting sex to millions of families- kids, pre-teens, and generally people who don't need to be concerned with sex yet, but I'm not going to go out with a shotgun and kill them. Just sayin'. If you want that life, your life is yours to live. Don't expect me to approve of it. I'll still care about you as a human being, love you like I should, and that isn't going to change based on your lifestyle, but I will never approve of it.
And as long as you love your kids, I'll have all the respect in the world for you that I would for any parent.
Anyway, back to the topic: I voted civil marriage should be for everyone.
Oy, I should stay away from these kinds of threads around here, I think I'm getting really upset and losing respect for some people; the very things I play games and come to these forums to avoid. But, I chose to read the topic, so bad on me I guess.
GOOD FOR ARGENTINA.
Eventually I hope the United States, the falsely self-proclaimed 'land of the free' (as long as you're straight / white / male / Christian) catches up to such open-mindedness.
I'll break down my perspective here rather simply:
1) Marriage IS NOT ONLY a religious institution; one can be married in a religious context but not be considered legally married, and likewise (obviously). If Catholics choose not to allow gays to marry in their churches, I think we can all agree that's just peachy and expected. But for the -opinion- of the Catholic (and other) Churches to extend beyond themselves into civil law, especially in the US that is a nation without an official religion (or even religious stance, other than the freedom of religion itself) is a travesty, and as a person of absolutely zero faith let me be quite clear in that I feel is is absolutely insulting and one of the ways in which every 'backwater' stereotype about America and Americans becomes reality and not just a stereotype.
TL;DR version: Religion should keep their take on marriage (as well as the rest of their Dark Age superstitions) out of the civil, legally-affecting version of marriage that applies to every citizen of this country that chooses to marry.
2) Very simply, some of you people need to google the definition of 'unnatural'; obviously homosexuality is not unnatural, as it occurs quite prominently in nature, most obviously in humans, but certainly not limited to them. You're welcome to say 'I think it's weird', or 'I think it's strange and doesn't make sense because they cannot reproduce', but when you say 'unnatural' you need to be very, very aware of the implications of that word in particular. We can all get chatty about science, etc., but choose your words carefully and don't mask prejudice in a visage of 'cold hard facts'.
That all said-- I'm surprised at some the close-mindedness, to an extent, in this thread; however, I'm also relieved that even those that seem very uncomfortable with homosexuality seem open to an idea of equality. Honestly, I don't care if you think homosexuals are the scum of the Earth, if you still believe they should be treated no differently than you UNDER THE LAW...then I count you as a friend and I can respect you. It's that simple. But anyone that would sink so low as to claim that they do not 'deserve' the same rights, or that they are 'immoral'...well, you're a bigot, no matter how you justify it.
A brief aside on the adoption topic: Would a kid with two fathers get picked on in school? Yeah, maybe. But how in the world is that a justification for not allowing gay couples to adopt, instead of a very clear example of the kind of stupid close-mindedness so many parents are passing onto their children?
I think it's a bit far to go and say that people who have different morals than you are closed-minded bigots. That's no better than the people who flame off gays, and you certainly don't see me saying the same of you.
Only reason I consider it unnatural is due to the fact they cannot reproduce.
Sure, it may be natural in the sense that it actually occurs in nature, but it is not natural in the sense that they can produce viable offspring, and further their species.
Which, is pretty much the base need/desire/whatever of all species.
But again, as I've already said, I never have had anything against gays, nor do I think they should be treated differently. I just don't see homosexuality as natural when reproduction is taken into consideration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Sixen" »
"One in every 10 million people can potentially have a headache from this pill." God forbid she is the 0.000000001% of having a headache.
I think it's a bit far to go and say that people who have different morals than you are closed-minded bigots. That's no better than the people who flame off gays, and you certainly don't see me saying the same of you.
It depends what those morals are, correct? If hypothetically my 'morals' dictate that I think African Americans are scum, that doesn't make me a bigot? Where do you draw the line?
If I didn't go -that- far, but said 'I don't think there's anything wrong with African Americans...but if my son/daughter wanted to date/marry one I wouldn't approve of that'...am I still a bigot? Absolutely. Bigotry by degrees == bigotry.
What's your point? Racism isn't the only kind of bigotry.
Unless you're making the tired, debunked claim that race isn't a choice and sexual orientation is? If that's the case please say so, I don't want to waste any more time in such a ridiculous and intellectually shallow discussion.
All of this aside, I don't care. I really don't. Whether I think you're being bigoted or not, whether you think you are, whether you think whatever you might think about me if I -do-...none of that matters as long as can agree that equality beneath the law is what we want to see. If that's what you want (and it seems to be), then that's all I need to really know. Whatever you want to think about gays or Hispanics or whatever is yours, and I couldn't really care less what you (or John Doe) thinks, until it enters the realm of the law we all live beneath.
You have that right, whatever your opinion is. I have mine.
But what no person has the right to do is let their own individual moral or religious or race-related view infringe on the rights of another human being. Ever. Ever.
Unless you're making the tired, debunked claim that race isn't a choice and sexual orientation is? If that's the case please say so, I don't want to waste any more time in such a ridiculous and intellectually shallow discussion.
Yes, I am. Thank you for calling me intellectually-shallow and ridiculous.
as long as can agree that equality beneath the law is what we want to see.
Agreed.
If that's what you want (and it seems to be), then that's all I need to really know. Whatever you want to think about gays or Hispanics
Hispanics? When did I ever say anything about Hispanics? Stop insinuating this stuff. It's low-grade argumentation and it kind of pisses me off.
or whatever is yours, and I couldn't really care less what you (or John Doe) thinks,
My name is Seth Harkins, and my opinions are my own. I'm not insulting yours.
But what no person has the right to do is let their own individual moral or religious or race-related view infringe on the rights of another human being. Ever. Ever.
RE: 'Orientation is a choice'; well, there are still actually people that think the Earth is flat. These things take time, I don't hold it against you. You as a whole, in my experiences, are certainly not intellectually shallow; this specific opinion of yours, in -my- opinion, however, very much is. That's all. It happens. Being civil means we get along anyway. Cheers.
RE: the rest, yes, agreed, and that's what matters. the 'Hispanics', in a sentence perhaps poorly-articulated, was just an example. I didn't mean you had said anything about Hispanics, just emphasizing the right for you (and anyone) to have whatever opinions they want, that right remains theirs until they take it beyond that and try to enforce their personal beliefs on others through law.
"It's getting really hot out, so air conditioning is natural!"
No sir, it is not.
It may be favorable given the overpopulation of the world, but that does not make it natural whatsoever.
Sorry sir, but this is an absolutely lameass comparison. People did not invent homosexuality because the world has too many people. This is only a possible explanation in why homosexuality might fit in our natural world.
I'm going to sound like some right wing eugenics fiend, but yes, they ARE unnatural, and from a genetic perspective, they ARE wrong.
(Please take into consideration that I'm not calling for the extermination/shunning/disapproval/whatevs of the handicapped, I have NOTHING against them)
Let's consider that natural means a perfectly healthy, perfectly functioning human being. This is how we are supposed to be (not as intended by god or shit like that. we're not bringing this into it). Disabilities are caused by changes in ones genetic code, thus, if our natural genetic code is altered, it CAN be considered unnatural. Due to this disadvantageous change, then they can be considered wrong.
edit: Guess I should throw down my perspective on homosexual marriage, I have nothing against it, and never have.
There's nothing that is wrong from a genetic perspective. The word 'wrong' that is being used by you and Magistrate is so wrong. :xD
Genetics put you in a state- that is ALL. Whether you survive or not is dependent on a variety of other factors.
Most societies have forms of help and aid to assist them handicapped people. We are no longer in the jungle where the guy with the deformed limb needs to outrun the lion. It's really funny when we look at things from your(not genetic) perspective.
For homosexuality to be a genetic mutation (and therefore natural), the body would require a reason to form physical genitalia for said sex. It doesn't. The male prostate is very close to the ultra-sensitive large intestine, about two inches inside, and is easily stimulated. Obviously, dicks weren't meant to go up peoples' digestive tracks, they're meant to fertilize female...parts... and create a life form. Homosexuality, at least at the male root, is, at most, a psychological difference from heterosexuality, humanly-speaking. We don't have millions of men walking around with half-baked vagina. We have millions of men walking around with psychologically-atypical sexual arousal preferences.
Whenever religion tries to use scientific reasoning to justify their moral standpoints, the result is hilarious and quite pathetic.
Homosexuality is about fucking. Heterosexuality is about fucking. Or if you want another term- it's sexual attraction. Most average man and a woman will fuck to reproduce only a grand total of 2-3 times in their lifetimes, meaning that the rest of the occasions are for pleasure. Some will NOT want to reproduce at all. So right now, you've invented a psychological difference between them.
I won't even go into the anatomy part- it's just laughable. So from this point, male homosexuals are unnatural but since lesbians will not have the same thing going on, they are perfectly natural. Or will you come up and say all vaginas should have dicks in them? Ya but unlike males(who surprisingly should have all died with so many sensitive things stimulated), lesbians will probably not be using anything meant to overstimulate 'sensitive things'.
And, of course, there's love, but what is love? Anyone can love anyone and anything. Homosexuality is therefor defined by the intimate sexual arousal, and not an ambiguous and abstract thing like love. I love my parents, do I want to have sex with them? No. That's not my sexual preference. Homosexuality is not based on love, it's based on sex (sex sex, not genders).
Eh...what? Heterosexuality is based on sex SEx, SEX- it is NOT based on love, like homosexuality. Love does not even belong in this conversation. Like you said- you can love anything or anyone. You should try to make sense sometimes.
I'm not going to go around and say, "OMG GAY!!! YER DUMB LOLZ!", but I'm not going to approve of it. I'm not going to tell my children to "explore possibilites" and "be open to sex with other men," but once they're out of my house, their life is their own. Not to say I have any yet. I'm not going to root for gays at parades devoted to promoting sex to millions of families- kids, pre-teens, and generally people who don't need to be concerned with sex yet, but I'm not going to go out with a shotgun and kill them. Just sayin'. If you want that life, your life is yours to live. Don't expect me to approve of it. I'll still care about you as a human being, love you like I should, and that isn't going to change based on your lifestyle, but I will never approve of it.
And as long as you love your kids, I'll have all the respect in the world for you that I would for any parent.
Impossible to believe. If you can have as much love (as you claim) for them irrespective of their sexual orientation, you would have realized your approval counts a big part in the love too. Gays are not campaigning to promote fucking each others assholes but to gain equity and freedom to live without the prejudice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point is, tv shows and movies such as Bruno over exaggerate it. They typically aren't really open about it. Gays should have the same rights as everybody else.
If I offend anybody, let me know and I will delete the post.
"It's getting really hot out, so air conditioning is natural!"
No sir, it is not.
It may be favorable given the overpopulation of the world, but that does not make it natural whatsoever.
I'm going to sound like some right wing eugenics fiend, but yes, they ARE unnatural, and from a genetic perspective, they ARE wrong.
(Please take into consideration that I'm not calling for the extermination/shunning/disapproval/whatevs of the handicapped, I have NOTHING against them)
Let's consider that natural means a perfectly healthy, perfectly functioning human being. This is how we are supposed to be (not as intended by god or shit like that. we're not bringing this into it). Disabilities are caused by changes in ones genetic code, thus, if our natural genetic code is altered, it CAN be considered unnatural. Due to this disadvantageous change, then they can be considered wrong.
edit: Guess I should throw down my perspective on homosexual marriage, I have nothing against it, and never have.
By the way, homosexuality IS natural. Homosexual behavior have been observed in over 1,500 species. And if I recall, from the many Evangelists I've talked to, everything is God's creation. Why create homosexuality in so many species then? This is where Evangelists say animalistic behavior does not equal morality. So then you're saying homosexuality is a problem with morality? Weren't you just complaining about naturalism like 10 minutes ago? If it's really about morality, how can the world be filled with so many unjust actions? People in the SouthEast are still getting their eyes gouged out and STONED TO DEATH. Abortion is being legalized in various countries around the world? Destroying the precious seed that is also considered God's creation by abusing the sexual reproduction system God has given you?
From what I've read, seen, conversed, argued, and debated, it's a cyclic debate where Anti-Same-Sex people can never accept proof. It is an argument of ignorance. They toss their proof at you, which is more likely than not, a proof that cannot be proved.
Ugh, I'm angry now. I need to punch Hell Baal to death or something.
This is because it's inevitable that people love the same sex also called homosexual or lesbian
add me if you want to^^
Europe non ladder and ladder player
I'm gonna put my highrune in your socket
flyarion, flyarion_third, flyarion_fourth, flyarion_fifth
about kids being raised in a homo-parental family and the possible consequences, there are two possible approaches, the first, an internal approach, meaning the kid's psyche and his/her relation with the rest of his/her family... there are no studies that prove that growing in this kind of family produces any kind of trauma or social disability, so we can't argue it will be bad for the kid... actually there are many studies and I've read testimonies of kids raised this way that are actually happy with their families as they are, just like every other kid that is happy with his/her family....
the other approach is an external one... how people will treat the child knowing he/she has two fathers/mothers... this isn't an issue to argue against gay marriage, as the essence of this problem is the installed intolerance towards homosexual couples... the kid can learn to overcome the mockery and shit... but as a society we should ask ourselves how are we raising the other kids to be so cruel and intolerant? parents should teach them to understand diversity and not to use it as a mean to make others suffer...
@venom: I think it's ok for anybody to state their opinion, of course I think homofobia is a bad thing as it's a form of discrimination (the bad discrimination), but in no way the idea is that you or anybody to be happy with seeing a gay couple or whatever... I think the problem is the idea some groups have that they can impose their opinion in an intolerant and violent way... (not only religious groups of course)
As for it being natural, well, as far as I can tell it is a naturally occurring mutation. Mutations are, in many cases, natural, you know.
those studies don't demonstrate that the differences are caused by genetic mutations, it could be produced by cultural influence (if you're gay and your interest tend to be those considered feminine then the practice could make those areas of the brain develop, just a thought)
and, assuming that homosexuality is produced by a genetic mutation (thing that I believe to be incorrect, but anyway) then yes... it would be natural...
oh... I missunderstood you... sorry
Yes.
No. Their unfortunate abnormality is wrong and, by the dictates of the human gene pool should not, under normal circumstances, have occurred. I would never say that the human should not exist. Just the handicap.
I'm not offering an umbrella argument, and this is also not what this thread is about. It's about the legalization of gay marriage But since you brought it up... here's my opinion:
For homosexuality to be a genetic mutation (and therefore natural), the body would require a reason to form physical genitalia for said sex. It doesn't. The male prostate is very close to the ultra-sensitive large intestine, about two inches inside, and is easily stimulated. Obviously, dicks weren't meant to go up peoples' digestive tracks, they're meant to fertilize female...parts... and create a life form. Homosexuality, at least at the male root, is, at most, a psychological difference from heterosexuality, humanly-speaking. We don't have millions of men walking around with half-baked vagina. We have millions of men walking around with psychologically-atypical sexual arousal preferences.
And, of course, there's love, but what is love? Anyone can love anyone and anything. Homosexuality is therefor defined by the intimate sexual arousal, and not an ambiguous and abstract thing like love. I love my parents, do I want to have sex with them? No. That's not my sexual preference. Homosexuality is not based on love, it's based on sex (sex sex, not genders).
That is my opinion. A bit redundant to say "that is my opinion," but for some reason, in the past when we've had threads like this, unless I state that, I get flamed.
I'm not going to go around and say, "OMG GAY!!! YER DUMB LOLZ!", but I'm not going to approve of it. I'm not going to tell my children to "explore possibilites" and "be open to sex with other men," but once they're out of my house, their life is their own. Not to say I have any yet. I'm not going to root for gays at parades devoted to promoting sex to millions of families- kids, pre-teens, and generally people who don't need to be concerned with sex yet, but I'm not going to go out with a shotgun and kill them. Just sayin'. If you want that life, your life is yours to live. Don't expect me to approve of it. I'll still care about you as a human being, love you like I should, and that isn't going to change based on your lifestyle, but I will never approve of it.
And as long as you love your kids, I'll have all the respect in the world for you that I would for any parent.
Anyway, back to the topic: I voted civil marriage should be for everyone.
Arguments: see my previous post.
GOOD FOR ARGENTINA.
Eventually I hope the United States, the falsely self-proclaimed 'land of the free' (as long as you're straight / white / male / Christian) catches up to such open-mindedness.
I'll break down my perspective here rather simply:
1) Marriage IS NOT ONLY a religious institution; one can be married in a religious context but not be considered legally married, and likewise (obviously). If Catholics choose not to allow gays to marry in their churches, I think we can all agree that's just peachy and expected. But for the -opinion- of the Catholic (and other) Churches to extend beyond themselves into civil law, especially in the US that is a nation without an official religion (or even religious stance, other than the freedom of religion itself) is a travesty, and as a person of absolutely zero faith let me be quite clear in that I feel is is absolutely insulting and one of the ways in which every 'backwater' stereotype about America and Americans becomes reality and not just a stereotype.
TL;DR version: Religion should keep their take on marriage (as well as the rest of their Dark Age superstitions) out of the civil, legally-affecting version of marriage that applies to every citizen of this country that chooses to marry.
2) Very simply, some of you people need to google the definition of 'unnatural'; obviously homosexuality is not unnatural, as it occurs quite prominently in nature, most obviously in humans, but certainly not limited to them. You're welcome to say 'I think it's weird', or 'I think it's strange and doesn't make sense because they cannot reproduce', but when you say 'unnatural' you need to be very, very aware of the implications of that word in particular. We can all get chatty about science, etc., but choose your words carefully and don't mask prejudice in a visage of 'cold hard facts'.
That all said-- I'm surprised at some the close-mindedness, to an extent, in this thread; however, I'm also relieved that even those that seem very uncomfortable with homosexuality seem open to an idea of equality. Honestly, I don't care if you think homosexuals are the scum of the Earth, if you still believe they should be treated no differently than you UNDER THE LAW...then I count you as a friend and I can respect you. It's that simple. But anyone that would sink so low as to claim that they do not 'deserve' the same rights, or that they are 'immoral'...well, you're a bigot, no matter how you justify it.
A brief aside on the adoption topic: Would a kid with two fathers get picked on in school? Yeah, maybe. But how in the world is that a justification for not allowing gay couples to adopt, instead of a very clear example of the kind of stupid close-mindedness so many parents are passing onto their children?
Sure, it may be natural in the sense that it actually occurs in nature, but it is not natural in the sense that they can produce viable offspring, and further their species.
Which, is pretty much the base need/desire/whatever of all species.
But again, as I've already said, I never have had anything against gays, nor do I think they should be treated differently. I just don't see homosexuality as natural when reproduction is taken into consideration.
It depends what those morals are, correct? If hypothetically my 'morals' dictate that I think African Americans are scum, that doesn't make me a bigot? Where do you draw the line?
If I didn't go -that- far, but said 'I don't think there's anything wrong with African Americans...but if my son/daughter wanted to date/marry one I wouldn't approve of that'...am I still a bigot? Absolutely. Bigotry by degrees == bigotry.
Unless you're making the tired, debunked claim that race isn't a choice and sexual orientation is? If that's the case please say so, I don't want to waste any more time in such a ridiculous and intellectually shallow discussion.
All of this aside, I don't care. I really don't. Whether I think you're being bigoted or not, whether you think you are, whether you think whatever you might think about me if I -do-...none of that matters as long as can agree that equality beneath the law is what we want to see. If that's what you want (and it seems to be), then that's all I need to really know. Whatever you want to think about gays or Hispanics or whatever is yours, and I couldn't really care less what you (or John Doe) thinks, until it enters the realm of the law we all live beneath.
You have that right, whatever your opinion is. I have mine.
But what no person has the right to do is let their own individual moral or religious or race-related view infringe on the rights of another human being. Ever. Ever.
Yes, I am. Thank you for calling me intellectually-shallow and ridiculous.
Agreed.
Hispanics? When did I ever say anything about Hispanics? Stop insinuating this stuff. It's low-grade argumentation and it kind of pisses me off.
My name is Seth Harkins, and my opinions are my own. I'm not insulting yours.
I said likewise.
RE: the rest, yes, agreed, and that's what matters. the 'Hispanics', in a sentence perhaps poorly-articulated, was just an example. I didn't mean you had said anything about Hispanics, just emphasizing the right for you (and anyone) to have whatever opinions they want, that right remains theirs until they take it beyond that and try to enforce their personal beliefs on others through law.
There's nothing that is wrong from a genetic perspective. The word 'wrong' that is being used by you and Magistrate is so wrong. :xD
Genetics put you in a state- that is ALL. Whether you survive or not is dependent on a variety of other factors.
Most societies have forms of help and aid to assist them handicapped people. We are no longer in the jungle where the guy with the deformed limb needs to outrun the lion. It's really funny when we look at things from your(not genetic) perspective.
Whenever religion tries to use scientific reasoning to justify their moral standpoints, the result is hilarious and quite pathetic.
Homosexuality is about fucking. Heterosexuality is about fucking. Or if you want another term- it's sexual attraction. Most average man and a woman will fuck to reproduce only a grand total of 2-3 times in their lifetimes, meaning that the rest of the occasions are for pleasure. Some will NOT want to reproduce at all. So right now, you've invented a psychological difference between them.
I won't even go into the anatomy part- it's just laughable. So from this point, male homosexuals are unnatural but since lesbians will not have the same thing going on, they are perfectly natural. Or will you come up and say all vaginas should have dicks in them? Ya but unlike males(who surprisingly should have all died with so many sensitive things stimulated), lesbians will probably not be using anything meant to overstimulate 'sensitive things'.
Eh...what? Heterosexuality is based on sex SEx, SEX- it is NOT based on love, like homosexuality. Love does not even belong in this conversation. Like you said- you can love anything or anyone. You should try to make sense sometimes.
Impossible to believe. If you can have as much love (as you claim) for them irrespective of their sexual orientation, you would have realized your approval counts a big part in the love too. Gays are not campaigning to promote fucking each others assholes but to gain equity and freedom to live without the prejudice.