Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Wizz]

um, well the easy response to that, is "Have you actually had sex?" I'm not trying to impertinent nor do I wish an actual answer, but firstly sex is just the best, any sort of sex. secondly, when your actually doing that, all that thought about stuff just goes away and you are in the moment. So thinking about performing those acts is just simply not something which has any relevance to what occurs during sex.

 

 

 

As to the disgust thing, thats just a learnt response. I didnt learn it so it doesnt bother me in the slightest.

 

Lastly most of those acts are simply ones which women will perform on men on straight relationships, you arent disgusted by women so why would you be disgusted by men. If its disgusting that men put their penises in the hole that [cabbage] comes out of in other men, why isnt it disgusting that men put their penis right by the bit that wee comes out of in women? If it disgusting that men put [roosters] in their mouths, why isnt it disgusting that women do the same?

 

True it could be a mindset. You could have a straight go to a Glory Hole and it turns out that on the other side is another man but he thinks it's a girl. Looks like youre banging something you don't want. :lol:

 

 

 

why isnt it disgusting that men put their penis right by the bit that wee comes out of in women?

 

cause the storks will get mad and refuse them a child

 

:thumbdown:

 

Won't that make the Stork happy?

[Shinjula]

I have to admit to having a small piece of disgust reaction myself, at the reverse image, the idea of being at a glory hole and finding out its a woman on the other side, ew!

[Sly_Wizard]

Gays make up a bigger percentage of them though, so they're bound to have a bigger voice...

 

 

 

Okay, now that we've got that sorted

 

 

 

Why should any of those be illegal?

 

 

 

Normally, I wouldn't answer a question with a question but this time I am. Why should anything be illegal? The answer is that nothing should be illegal, but things are illegal because society deems that they be that way. Yes, it's that simple.

 

 

 

...And it worries me how people misuse the word "right".

[Shinjula]

Thats so not true, its the the majority of a society believes they have a cost to them, for example in a lot of christian societies they beleive that it will errode family values and destroy the society. Now many people believe them wrong, but thats why they do it, its not just for no reasons, that would be silly.

[Sly_Wizard]

I didn't say that things are done for no reason, since things done for no reason at all wouldn't be done in the first place.

[Shinjula]

Lol, just seen this on bash.org (dont go there) and thought it pertinent...

 

Titanium_Dragon> Hey everyone

 

Titanium_Dragon> I had a revelation today

 

Titanium_Dragon> Everyone knows that more intelligent creatures (humans, dolphins, chimps, ect.) tend to have sex for fun

 

Titanium_Dragon> But some people believe that sex for any reason but procreation is wrong

 

* Titanium_Dragon never put two and two together

[venomai]

...And it worries me how people misuse the word "right".

 

How would you define a right?

[Zierro]

I didn't say that things are done for no reason, since things done for no reason at all wouldn't be done in the first place.

 

 

 

The reason is pretty lame though. And I will go as far as saying it's actually unjustifiable. Just like the reason of why the KKK is racist. Or the reason people murder.

[Shinjula]

A right is something the strong give to the weak from a sense of altruism.

 

 

 

Does that work for you?

[NoMoreDead]

To those of you who oppose gay marriage/rights, I offer a question: Why isn't everyone entitled to equal rights? I thought that all men we're created equal under God.

 

 

 

(This question has been asked a hundred times over, but I still haven't seen a reasonable answer)

 

 

 

(HINT: If you have an answer, you are more than likely wrong.)

[Claremont]

I think its just people trying to get attention. People can choose not to be homosexual if they want. I know I'll get a bunch of crap for saying this, but thats what I think.

 

 

 

also, seeing as the bible says homosexuality is a sin, I see there can be only 3 possibilities:

 

 

 

1. its a choice

 

2. its not a choice and the bible is wrong

 

3. its not a choice and the bible is right

 

 

 

I think we can rule out choice 3, cause God would have to be really stupid to create someone who is inherently sinful and can't do anything about it...

 

 

 

but I mean, what about when girls go to parties and get drunk and make out with each other, then say they aren't [bleep]... They obviously were just trying to get attention. Which is the same with most homosexual people I think.

 

 

 

Alas, for you are indeed a fool.

 

 

 

In the year 310AD the roman emporer Constantine - Who was so in love with him self he named a city after himself; Constantinople. Constantine held if you will, an assembly of all people representing all nations and races and most importantly! Religions! In this assembly it was discussed which books shall be used to make up the good book of the bible - many were thrown out as they made Jesus look like a simple human who was simply a leader of people, and a normal man most importantly, who had a wife and even children, he was a30 year old jew, of course he had a job!

 

 

 

My point being here is that after certain books were removed from the bible the view of it was obsecured and I dont beleive that we take it in today as it was originally ment. To this point I dont believe that the term 'the bible says it is wrong' is incorrect! And for all we know, there could have even been points made in the original which implyed that god loved all man reguardless, at least there should have been because at the moment the bible contradicts itself... not that many notice.

 

 

 

P.s: I used to be quite homophobe, comming from boardingschool background, then I actually became friends with a person with same sex orientation and realised its just like a manly girl... which are handy for truthful fasion advice..

 

 

 

To Dwarf - Grow up :/

[user1991]

Gays make up a bigger percentage of them though, so they're bound to have a bigger voice...

 

 

 

Okay, now that we've got that sorted

 

 

 

Why should any of those be illegal?

 

 

 

Normally, I wouldn't answer a question with a question but this time I am. Why should anything be illegal? The answer is that nothing should be illegal, but things are illegal because society deems that they be that way. Yes, it's that simple.

 

 

 

...And it worries me how people misuse the word "right".

 

 

 

Worst answer ever.

 

 

 

Quit trying to hide the fact that you're discriminating against people with certain genetic differences to you. This includes gays, people who want more than one wife/husband etc and people who want to marry objects and stuff (don't know why they would but to each his own I guess). Of course, gays are in a much larger percentage and therefore have the bigger voice than the others..

 

 

 

But even so.. you denying that this is caused by religion is just.. well plain misleading yourself. Are you telling me the whole "to lie with another man is an abomination" line didn't play a part in this?

 

 

 

What's even more surprising is that you're black. You would think that after the whole segregation/anti-miscegenation thing you'd be more understanding when a minority is being oppressed.

 

 

 

And no, it isn't what "society" wants, it is what the government wants in terms of what is illegal or not. This may represent the majority most of the time but such is the nature of Burkean representation.

[magekillr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herrin ... al_fallacy)#Red_herring

 

 

 

This is the same fallacy used by people against gay rights, time and time again. They try and change the subject to incest, pedophilia, polygamy, and marrying of objects/pets to try and make their point about gay rights. Why can't they just admit that they don't want gays to marry because their god says it's wrong?

 

 

 

Sorry, that's not how logic works. We're discussing gay rights, we're not discussing something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. When it comes time to discuss whether or not a teenager that didn't give their consent to be married to someone else should have that right, then we'll discuss that. Wait, isn't that how marriage USED to be defined? An agreement between two families between two unwilling teenagers that never gave their consent, nor in today's society would have the legal authority to do so as they're minors?

 

 

 

Something else that was acceptable and, quite frankly was a conservative trait, was polygamy. This was acceptable and frequent in Biblical times, and a few centuries into the beginning of the AD calendar.

 

 

 

Third, there's a reason incestuous relationships are taboo, and it's because we don't want mutant babies running around in society. However, some countries do allow it, guess what one of them is? Israel.

 

 

 

Marrying of pets/objects. Last I heard, neither were consenting partners. Case closed.

 

 

 

I mean, I addressed those issues, but the thing you're not understanding is that they're completely unrelated to this; mainly because those involve two parties in which one cannot consent to the marriage.

[BlueLancer]

 

And no, it isn't what "society" wants, it is what the government wants in terms of what is illegal or not. This may represent the majority most of the time but such is the nature of Burkean representation.

 

 

 

This is stunningly true, regardless of polls showing support or disfavor towards things like gay marriage, it's ultimately up to the politician.

 

 

 

Let's be realistic... In any country as of today, even in western 'free' democracies, supporting gay rights/marriage makes you lose voters. You lose a big portion of key demographics such as catholics, the elderly, conservatives, and in America, most of the time, republican voters.

 

 

 

The answer is that nothing should be illegal, but things are illegal because society deems that they be that way. Yes, it's that simple.

 

 

 

Gay marriage and abortion are illegal because few politicians dare use their voice to raise concerns about either issue. If they approach either issue, it will brand their entire career and tarnish their image with the party, instead of just being a 'stable' politician sticking with 'safe' issues and legislation.

 

 

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarri ... us_N04.htm

 

According to an ABC/Washington Post Poll, 63 percent of Southerners oppose gay marriage; only 46 percent of Easterners do.

 

 

 

Even if the majority of eastern states & their populations don't oppose gay marriage, gay marriage or adoption don't have the power of law and remain illegal due to lack of will from politicians.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Let's be realistic... In any country as of today, even in western 'free' democracies, supporting gay rights/marriage makes you lose voters. You lose a big portion of key demographics such as catholics, the elderly, conservatives, and in America, most of the time, republican voters.

 

However, let us not blame America exclusively in this crime. The same is true in most democracies around the world. Now that politics has reached a stage where it's become a career, a way of life, politicians have to be careful about choosing which subjects to play with.

 

 

 

Clearly, gay rights and abortion are political toxic. In Britain, France, America... you name it.

[BlueLancer]

Yep, but republicans are an additional voting block a politician will likely lose if he proposes pro-gay legislation in the US. In most other western countries, there isn't an ideologically identical party to the US Republican party. The problem exists everywhere, just to a greater degree in the US compared to, say, European countries.

 

 

 

Take Sweden for example... The political system and the will of the people allow ultimate freedom for anyone, even gays. Heck, even the Church of Sweden approves of gay marriage and will bless gay couples in churches.

 

 

 

In Sweden, a politician can support any reasonable issue without losing any significant voter blocks due to the absence of significantly conservative political entities like the Republicans in the USA.

[JtotheP]

Gays shouldn't be married by the Christian church because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. BUT the Bible says God loves all people no matter race or lifestyle choices. I know a gay Christian and he doesn't like he is gay.

[gedboy2112]

(Note my typing FA1L'S And I don't edit my post's so no flaming or I will report YOU to a moderator)

 

Also this is my first (in this topic for 2 years and I have not read any of the other post's)

 

 

 

I think this is more of a religious debate then anything else. I am a deist and think why would "GOD" care? if you where god would you care if 2 male's had kinky sex in the bathroom? It's pleasure and if 2(or more with polygimy) people are okay with whatever they want to do what's wrong with it...

 

Yea there need's to be protection if you don't want a desiese and that's the couples choice.

 

The FA1L they call the religious right(wrong) want's to control everyone and anyone. So the heck what if you think gay sex is a sin if you think that they are going to hell is the not punishment enough? I am not trying to discriminate against any one religion and I have many christian friend's (some of them are indeed gay) But the power hungry people like the conservative party's of the world Like rethuglicin's and 3rd party canidite chuck baldwin (I'm spacing his party) Say they want to purify the world with there idea's and "Moral values" are not for the good of the community, they know that fear and more to the point the fact that SO many people in the usa agree with them can give them power. Whoever posted that no one will speak up against people taking away our right's is compleatley correct.

 

I am hertosexual but I think that not only is it not the goverment's right to take away that right but it's responibilty that it stay's legal.

 

 

 

(And again excuse my spelling/typing im to lazy to edit it.)

 

 

 

And yes I am a Liberal progresive green ralph nader voting machine.

[Wizz]

I think its just people trying to get attention. People can choose not to be homosexual if they want. I know I'll get a bunch of crap for saying this, but thats what I think.

 

 

 

also, seeing as the bible says homosexuality is a sin, I see there can be only 3 possibilities:

 

 

 

1. its a choice

 

2. its not a choice and the bible is wrong

 

3. its not a choice and the bible is right

 

 

 

I think we can rule out choice 3, cause God would have to be really stupid to create someone who is inherently sinful and can't do anything about it...

 

 

 

but I mean, what about when girls go to parties and get drunk and make out with each other, then say they aren't [bleep]... They obviously were just trying to get attention. Which is the same with most homosexual people I think.

 

 

 

God has created someone who inhertly sinful, I beleive it was in the Bible. Lilith, the first wife of Adam. In the current story of Adam & Eva, Lilith appears as the snake who gives Eva the Forbidden Fruit. Many of us know what the forbidden fruit represents, so if the snake gave the fruit to Eva what does that represent? Lilith had sex with Eva? But that would mean that Lilith had sex with Adam because Lilith was his first wife. Is this proof of Homosexuality in the Bible?

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry, I was raised knowing Bible Stories in Spanish but basically, Eva=Eve. Sorry for any Misunderstanding >.<

[Sly_Wizard]

Worst answer ever.

 

 

 

Quit trying to hide the fact that you're discriminating against people with certain genetic differences to you. This includes gays, people who want more than one wife/husband etc and people who want to marry objects and stuff (don't know why they would but to each his own I guess). Of course, gays are in a much larger percentage and therefore have the bigger voice than the others.

 

 

 

Okay. So, in other words, you completely ignored what I wrote out and instead choose to resort back to the untrue statement of "We're discriminating against people with genetic differences"? No matter how many times you continue to use this statement it doesn't become anymore true. You continue to falsely assume that gays are being singled out, when this is patently false. No one group is being singled out, as we're "discriminating" on the basis that any marriage which wants to include any other parties other than one man and one woman to be invalid. Really, it's nowhere near as hard as you're making it out to be.

 

 

 

But even so.. you denying that this is caused by religion is just.. well plain misleading yourself. Are you telling me the whole "to lie with another man is an abomination" line didn't play a part in this?

 

 

 

As I've said way earlier in this thread, people are allowed to vote their convictions (Unless you live in a communist state). However, voting to retain marriage as being defined as one man and one woman is not singling out any one group of people, since it encompasses a vast majority of groups.

 

 

 

What's even more surprising is that you're black. You would think that after the whole segregation/anti-miscegenation thing you'd be more understanding when a minority is being oppressed.

 

 

 

African*. And, furthermore, I'm getting deathly sick of the entire "Race = Orientation" argument. Therefore, let's get a couple of things straight.

 

 

 

1.) Gays aren't actively separated from society except for by their own doing. They're not required to attend separate schools nor are they required to eat at different ends of a restaurant nor to ride in the back of the bus nor are denied any basic rights afforded to any other citizen. The only thing they are not afforded is the "right to marry" which, in itself, isn't even a right. It's a privilege bestowed by the government to certain groups of people. Yes, I can see how gays being disallowed to marry is equal to blacks being denied virtually all of their rights. Really. I can.

 

 

 

(No, I really can't. The comparison is absurd.)

 

 

 

2.) Didn't I already explain this? Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed wrong because they denied one set of men and women the same privileges afforded another set of men and women. As no man nor woman has the ability to marry a man or a woman, respectively, they are not being denied any privileges that another group has as no group has them. This is the reason why anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in Loving v. Virginia. It's not that hard to understand.

 

 

 

And no, it isn't what "society" wants, it is what the government wants in terms of what is illegal or not. This may represent the majority most of the time but such is the nature of Burkean representation.

 

 

 

Every ban on gay marriage, at least in the U.S., has been voter approved :)

[Sly_Wizard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring

 

 

 

This is the same fallacy used by people against gay rights, time and time again. They try and change the subject to incest, pedophilia, polygamy, and marrying of objects/pets to try and make their point about gay rights. Why can't they just admit that they don't want gays to marry because their god says it's wrong?

 

 

 

Hooray for not understand what a red herring. A red herring is an attempt to divert attention away from a specific topic onto another topic (First A. Introduce B. A is abandoned). But, here, I'll kindly post the progression of the argument.

 

 

 

Noob says people are singling gays out by not allowing them to marry. I said that they aren't because, by virtue of the "one man, one woman" clause (And not a "No gay people shall be barred from marrying" clause), all groups consisting of anything other than one man and one woman are barred from marrying. You turn up and scream "Red harring!".

 

 

 

Find the red herring, please. This should be interesting.

 

 

 

Sorry, that's not how logic works.

 

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

 

 

We're discussing gay rights, we're not discussing something that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

This leads me to believe that you've not been keeping up and just decided to read one post and respond with "Red herring!" Once again, the false claim was made that gays are being singled out. My post clearly showed how that is patently false. They are not being singled out any more than any other group prevented from marrying due to the "one man, one woman" clause. Try to answer that, next time.

 

 

 

When it comes time to discuss whether or not a teenager that didn't give their consent to be married to someone else should have that right, then we'll discuss that. Wait, isn't that how marriage USED to be defined? An agreement between two families between two unwilling teenagers that never gave their consent, nor in today's society would have the legal authority to do so as they're minors?

 

 

 

Not really, but hey. If that's what you believe then more power to you. The biggest misconception about arranged marriages is that the intended parties HAD to go through with them when, in fact, this is not true. Iirc, they weren't required but if one party didn't go through with it there were heavy reparations (Of which I can't remember atm).

 

 

 

...Speaking of which, arranged marriages have a ridiculously low divorce rate :thumbup:

 

 

 

Something else that was acceptable and, quite frankly was a conservative trait, was polygamy. This was acceptable and frequent in Biblical times, and a few centuries into the beginning of the AD calendar.

 

 

 

...And pederasty was once considered liberating. What's your point?

 

 

 

Third, there's a reason incestuous relationships are taboo, and it's because we don't want mutant babies running around in society. However, some countries do allow it, guess what one of them is? Israel.

 

 

 

That's great for Israel? And who mentioned incest? lol

 

 

 

Marrying of pets/objects. Last I heard, neither were consenting partners. Case closed.

 

 

 

...Still haven't gotten the point, huh? Since marriage is defined as being between "one man and one man" then by extension anyone who would want to marry their pet is also barred from marrying. But you seemingly haven't been able to understand. Either that or you're just being obtuse. Case reopened.

 

 

 

You need to show why keeping marriage defined as being between "one man and one woman" is more discriminatory to people wanting to marry other people of their same gender than it is to people wanting to marry more than one persons of either their same or opposites genders or more discriminatory than to people wanting to marry non-humans.

 

 

 

I mean, I addressed those issues, but the thing you're not understanding is that they're completely unrelated to this; mainly because those involve two parties in which one cannot consent to the marriage.

 

 

 

No, you haven't addressed anything. All you managed to do was ignore my original response that no one is singling gays out by keeping marriage to "one man and one woman", as other groups besides just gay people are negatively affected by it as well. But you effectively managed to avoid the point contained therein by promptly exclaiming "But those are different!".

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh here we go again with the pretentious "I can argue about what an argument is longer than you can" brawl. It gets boring.

 

 

 

We don't have to explain each and every single point and address each and every single counter-argument to support homosexual marriage. The desire for equality is justification enough.

[Sly_Wizard]

I never said you did. I did say, however, that you have to explain how gay people are being discriminated against moreso than any other group also barred from marrying under the fact that marriage is defined as "one man and one woman". And, yes, I'm still waiting.

[I_am_Geed]

All I can say is if a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman, they should have the right to be joined in a marriage. Im personally not gay, but quite a few of my friends are, so I support them :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Lol @ me for living in Connecticut so same sex couples can marry here now

[Ginger_Warrior]

They're not.

 

 

 

Gays have been accepted by society though (at least, they have in most supposedly free countries). Bestiality, or any of the other groups, isn't accepted. You're arguing a totally redundant point when the whole nature of our argument is that marriage shouldn't be the bond between one man and one woman exclusively.