Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[obfuscator]

And I thought you didn't like homosexuals acting like they were better than everyone else?

 

There would be no style if the world consisted of 100% macho straight guys. I think straight women and straight guys who like style stuff handled it fine before gays started being into that.

[sprites]

Ya' know, I don't mind homos tbh. I just don't want em' around me.

God didn't create Adam & Steve, so therefore I'm pretty sure he didn't have the intention of other dudes taking it from eachother.

So you admit your own prejudice.. Thats like saying I'm not racist, I just don't want black people around me.

 

Please explain why you are afraid of these gay people?

 

There would be no style if the world consisted of 100% macho straight guys. I think straight women and straight guys who like style stuff handled it fine before gays started being into that.

I think gay men have a harder time expressing their female side than heteros. For whatever reason we believe that romantic relationship with a female is undesirable. Therefore we equate feminine traits with being sexually undesirable and our masculinity is put on a pedestal.

[Zierro]

Stealing, murder and rape don't appear to be on maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

My original point was that sex and love is important to humans. Cold blooded murder is not.

 

So somebody's desire to have homosexual sex is more 'important', or more irresistible/powerful/needed, than somebody's desire to rape? How do you know who wants what more, or who holds which to a higher regard (whatever you are implying)?

 

I don't even understand how Maslow's hierarchy of needs is applicable here. I said that, like the acts of rape and murder, homosexual actions are something that is possible to overcome. I do not agree that it should be overcome (because I don't see it as a sin), but it is just as possible to overcome as the other things.

 

Or.... Us them mentality. We own all things awesome, while heteros don't. If it wasn't for homos there'd be no *style* in literally anything. Also, the world would be a cold grey.

 

 

 

Can you imagine...? :ohnoes:

 

You're right - "style" is so gay.

[Undo]

So you admit your own prejudice.. Thats like saying I'm not racist, I just don't want black people around me.

 

Please explain why you are afraid of these gay people?

 

I tl;dr'd.

Pls don't be e-raged sis'.

 

So you admit your own prejudice.. Thats like saying I'm not racist, I just don't want black people around me.

 

Please explain why you are afraid of these gay people?

 

I tl;dr'd.

Pls don't be e-raged sis'.

 

Karma & ignorancy's a [bleep] aint' it?

 

_____

 

Back on topic,

I don't think once I saw the word gay in the Bible.

 

& Btw, this week is a month for the gays who've committed suicide because of their position.

If you're pro-gay, wear purple.

 

Just sayin' - Deal with it.

[Surprise]

[Zierro]

Btw, this week is a month for the gays who've committed suicide because of their position.

 

Speaking of that, I don't get what the purpose of that was. I for one enjoy the challenge of getting shunned by popular opinion. Yet another case where suicide is one of the most absurd of options. Maybe they just weren't proud enough.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Btw, this week is a month for the gays who've committed suicide because of their position.

 

Speaking of that, I don't get what the purpose of that was. I for one enjoy the challenge of getting shunned by popular opinion. Yet another case where suicide is one of the most absurd of options. Maybe they just weren't proud enough.

I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.

[Alg]

I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.

Though in the case of gays who were bullied to suicide, it's probably the same thing as being killed directly for it. Honoring them at the same time as those who were directly killed for it makes sense.

They probably wouldn't have died if they weren't tormented based on their orientation, after all. Something like this draws attention to that kind of senseless death, regardless of who the killer actually is.

[sprites]

I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.

Though in the case of gays who were bullied to suicide, it's probably the same thing as being killed directly for it. Honoring them at the same time as those who were directly killed for it makes sense.

They probably wouldn't have died if they weren't tormented based on their orientation, after all. Something like this draws attention to that kind of senseless death, regardless of who the killer actually is.

 

I remember seeing Tyler Clementi's thread on another forum asking for advice on what to do about his roommate spying on him. But I like many others simply watched silently and felt like the situation would resolve itself. I think it's revealing how much we all take responsibility in these suicide cases. Because right now you could have a gay friend, maybe a total stranger that needs to reach out to somebody.

[Saru Inc]

And I thought you didn't like homosexuals acting like they were better than everyone else?

 

There would be no style if the world consisted of 100% macho straight guys. I think straight women and straight guys who like style stuff handled it fine before gays started being into that.

 

That post was sarcastic.

 

Stealing, murder and rape don't appear to be on maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

My original point was that sex and love is important to humans. Cold blooded murder is not.

 

So somebody's desire to have homosexual sex is more 'important', or more irresistible/powerful/needed, than somebody's desire to rape? How do you know who wants what more, or who holds which to a higher regard (whatever you are implying)?

 

I don't even understand how Maslow's hierarchy of needs is applicable here. I said that, like the acts of rape and murder, homosexual actions are something that is possible to overcome. I do not agree that it should be overcome (because I don't see it as a sin), but it is just as possible to overcome as the other things.

 

Or.... Us them mentality. We own all things awesome, while heteros don't. If it wasn't for homos there'd be no *style* in literally anything. Also, the world would be a cold grey.

 

 

 

Can you imagine...? :ohnoes:

 

You're right - "style" is so gay.

 

That quote was sarcastic, teehee. And no, some Heteros are surprisingly good at style type crap, while some homos are surpisingly bad. I have no fashion sense whatsoever. While some heteros (not metro or homo) are surprisingly well fashion oriented.

 

Btw, this week is a month for the gays who've committed suicide because of their position.

 

Speaking of that, I don't get what the purpose of that was. I for one enjoy the challenge of getting shunned by popular opinion. Yet another case where suicide is one of the most absurd of options. Maybe they just weren't proud enough.

 

Ummmmmm. No. I mean, I can't tell if you're being serious or not... I think they should ? Why is that?

 

Nvm I can't really explain it.

 

 

Btw, this week is a month for the gays who've committed suicide because of their position.

 

Speaking of that, I don't get what the purpose of that was. I for one enjoy the challenge of getting shunned by popular opinion. Yet another case where suicide is one of the most absurd of options. Maybe they just weren't proud enough.

I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.

 

Surrender? No.

 

I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.

Though in the case of gays who were bullied to suicide, it's probably the same thing as being killed directly for it. Honoring them at the same time as those who were directly killed for it makes sense.

They probably wouldn't have died if they weren't tormented based on their orientation, after all. Something like this draws attention to that kind of senseless death, regardless of who the killer actually is.

 

 

Yes.

 

Ding ding ding we have a winrar.

[obfuscator]

 

That post was sarcastic.

 

Lol I can never tell :(

[Greg295]

^ yeah, i cant detect sarcasm on the internet either.

 

And i really want to have an opinion on how its gay pride month (sorry, i dont know the proper name, no offence ment.) but i have mixed views on suicide. Need to think about it more, as it is a very sad but interesting subject.

[Skeptical]

Finally:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101206145.html

 

I have to wonder though: what happens when the courts uphold democratic principles when a good portion of society wished to dismantle them?

[Saru Inc]

ummmm. nothing.

[meol]

ummmm. nothing.

:razz:

 

It's still good news, though. If the Executive doesn't have the initiative and the Legislative is blocked by Republicans, at least the Judicial power can ensure some justice. Does anyone know if the ruling will get appealed?

[obfuscator]

Just from a standpoint of judicial influence, I've never been a fan of the fact that appointed judges basically have the power to change laws at will over elected representatives...

[homerman]

Just from a standpoint of judicial influence, I've never been a fan of the fact that appointed judges basically have the power to change laws at will over elected representatives...

That's the fun of unelected officials! Though they don't really drastically change laws in the UK (and only have an effect on common law anyway).

[Myweponsg00d]

http://www.glaad.org/spiritday

 

Spirit day today. Show your support to end the bullying of LGBT's by wearing purple today.

[magekillr]

Just from a standpoint of judicial influence, I've never been a fan of the fact that appointed judges basically have the power to change laws at will over elected representatives...

 

They don't change laws, they interpret the laws. In this case, DADT has absolutely no legal standing in the face of the Constitution. Same goes for DOMA. Same goes for gay marriage in general.

 

However, what strikes me as hilarious about this sort of thing is that the people yelling about "activist judges" are also the ones who support repealing the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment took away the state legislatures' ability to appoint Senators and instead gave that power to the people. This was done because it took less money to buy a state legislature than it did to buy the Senator herself/himself. So for most of the country's history, Senators have never been elected, yet they wrote laws.

 

Whenever "judicial activism" is ever brought up, it's always with regard to civil rights/liberties; segregation, privacy rights, etc. Voting on peoples' civil rights isn't something I've ever been a fan of ;)

[obfuscator]

Just from a standpoint of judicial influence, I've never been a fan of the fact that appointed judges basically have the power to change laws at will over elected representatives...

 

They don't change laws, they interpret the laws. In this case, DADT has absolutely no legal standing in the face of the Constitution. Same goes for DOMA. Same goes for gay marriage in general.

 

However, what strikes me as hilarious about this sort of thing is that the people yelling about "activist judges" are also the ones who support repealing the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment took away the state legislatures' ability to appoint Senators and instead gave that power to the people. This was done because it took less money to buy a state legislature than it did to buy the Senator herself/himself. So for most of the country's history, Senators have never been elected, yet they wrote laws.

 

Whenever "judicial activism" is ever brought up, it's always with regard to civil rights/liberties; segregation, privacy rights, etc. Voting on peoples' civil rights isn't something I've ever been a fan of ;)

Perhaps that's the case in the states, I can tell you that in Canada laws are actually struck down, completely voided.

 

In this case as well, they voided an existing law(note, I think the law is stupid). It doesn't matter whether it has legal standing in the constitution or not, it should be elected officials making changes, not those who are appointed.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Just from a standpoint of judicial influence, I've never been a fan of the fact that appointed judges basically have the power to change laws at will over elected representatives...

 

They don't change laws, they interpret the laws. In this case, DADT has absolutely no legal standing in the face of the Constitution. Same goes for DOMA. Same goes for gay marriage in general.

 

However, what strikes me as hilarious about this sort of thing is that the people yelling about "activist judges" are also the ones who support repealing the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment took away the state legislatures' ability to appoint Senators and instead gave that power to the people. This was done because it took less money to buy a state legislature than it did to buy the Senator herself/himself. So for most of the country's history, Senators have never been elected, yet they wrote laws.

 

Whenever "judicial activism" is ever brought up, it's always with regard to civil rights/liberties; segregation, privacy rights, etc. Voting on peoples' civil rights isn't something I've ever been a fan of ;)

Senators were originally appointed for the same reason why there's an electoral college. Another case of the inconsistency of American law.

 

Activist judges are a big problem. They're suppose to uphold the law, not interpret it to their own beliefs. A judge should be impartial and independent from politics, not projecting their political views on their rulings. Proposition 8 was repealed by a judge out of activism. Now I don't know if you have plebiscites in your state, but they're based upon a popular vote. That is a ruling directly against a popular vote. I quite frankly don't care if the vote can be considered socially acceptable or not but it was cast and a definitive decision was made. America is suppose to be about democracy.

 

Edit: And some may claim there is no such thing as an activist judge. Or really? What if one were to purposely target and hit as many abortion-permitting laws as possible, than the left would be all over said judge. If I'm a judge, even though I am against abortion and I believe it is morally wrong, it is not my job to impress my view on others so I must rule according to the popular support/pre-established law that has not been determined unconstitutional.

[Skeptical]

I have to say that for the most part, appointed judges do far more for our country than elected officials. I'm still trying to establish exactly how I feel about it, but rule by majority really isn't the best way: after all, not everyone in the country created the American constitution, even though it was for them, and has served them (and the rest of the world) quite well. Democracy, however, does appear to prevent the establishment of tyrants though, hence my apprehension at denouncing it.

[Myweponsg00d]

I have to say that for the most part, appointed judges do far more for our country than elected officials. I'm still trying to establish exactly how I feel about it, but rule by majority really isn't the best way: after all, not everyone in the country created the American constitution, even though it was for them, and has served them (and the rest of the world) quite well. Democracy, however, does appear to prevent the establishment of tyrants though, hence my apprehension at denouncing it.

 

 

Democracy is dead in the United States. The "presidents" we vote for are all corrupt. We don't really have a REAL choice of who gets elected. We get to choose between a few people...all of whom are ridiculously wealthy, or have been funded by massive corporations such as the Monsanto food corporation.

 

Executives from Monsanto funded the Bush campaign, and then these executives were appointed into government positions with the FDA to oversee the very company they belonged to.

 

We no longer have a choice. The rich people make all of the choices for us. We then have the illusion of choice delivered to us based on how the media companies are told to deliver the information to us.

 

Obama is no different. A corrupt bastard who makes leadership choices heavily influenced by all the corrupt rich bastards who funded his campaign.

[Alg]

Was expecting something completely different from the first paragraph. Pleasant surprise. :razz:

 

Even then, the president's more or less a figurehead.

[Skeptical]

I have to say that for the most part, appointed judges do far more for our country than elected officials. I'm still trying to establish exactly how I feel about it, but rule by majority really isn't the best way: after all, not everyone in the country created the American constitution, even though it was for them, and has served them (and the rest of the world) quite well. Democracy, however, does appear to prevent the establishment of tyrants though, hence my apprehension at denouncing it.

 

 

Democracy is dead in the United States. The "presidents" we vote for are all corrupt. We don't really have a REAL choice of who gets elected. We get to choose between a few people...all of whom are ridiculously wealthy, or have been funded by massive corporations such as the Monsanto food corporation.

 

Executives from Monsanto funded the Bush campaign, and then these executives were appointed into government positions with the FDA to oversee the very company they belonged to.

 

We no longer have a choice. The rich people make all of the choices for us. We then have the illusion of choice delivered to us based on how the media companies are told to deliver the information to us.

 

Obama is no different. A corrupt bastard who makes leadership choices heavily influenced by all the corrupt rich bastards who funded his campaign.

 

Bush wasn't elected; he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

And don't try to shift the blame: the Canadian public elected Harper, and the U.S. elected the Bushes, and Clinton. Obama is superior. In fact, he's the first thing to even resemble a Democrat to inhabit the White House in years. Please explain to me how he is corrupt. So far, he has refrained from starting a war, fought for public health care and the end of discrimination against gays. He's not perfect, but he's a step forward.