why do people argue that since being gay is natural, as in your born with it, that means its OK and we should celebrate it? as far as I know there are other conditions people are born with, such as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders that make then "not normal". Why are these conditions not celebrated and protected like homosexuality, but rather looked on as something that needs to be cured and gotten rid of?
I know I will catch hell for this, I was just curious as to why this is.

I don't think we should "celebrate" it. I find the gay parades to be silly and unecesary. The idea of celebrating ones sexuality in public is crass. However, I think all the ruckus around gays right now has to do with the backlash of them having been socially oppressed for so long. Kind of like when women were trying to get legal equality they were burning their bras and holding parades with them all wearing pants and stupid stuff like that. I believe if gays become equal in the eyes of the law and people quit making fun of them and hateing them they will settle down and blend into the population. (With the exception of the few fanatics that every group has.) The few gay people I know are not overt about it. You couldn't tell by looking at them or watching how they act. They live normal lifes with normal jobs and are law abiding citezens.

I find gay parades to be crass and completely stupid. I do not understand the guy in leather speado's, chained by the neck to a big burly tatooed thug. Or the tatooed women in leather riding harleys and chewing tobaco.

Homosexuality is not a disease that makes one unable to thrive in a social environment like the things you mentioned. (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). It is some kind of chemical imbalance that takes place durring the fetal stages of development and only effects the part of their brain that triggers a sexual response.

I think it would be very difficult to grow up in a society that tells one they should like girls and be attracted to them but have your body and mind react in a sexual way twords men and feel nothing twords women. Many of them fight it for years. Unfortunately sexual drive is an instinct and instincts are something that very few people can ignore.

I believe that people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are protected by the disabilities act.

Originally posted by Travh20
why do people argue that since being gay is natural, as in your born with it, that means its OK and we should celebrate it? as far as I know there are other conditions people are born with, such as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders that make then "not normal". Why are these conditions not celebrated and protected like homosexuality, but rather looked on as something that needs to be cured and gotten rid of?
I know I will catch hell for this, I was just curious as to why this is.
HOMOPHOBE! NAZI! Just kidding. The difference between homosexuality and things like schizophrenia and depression is that homosexuality doesn't harm the person or society. If it is natural then homosexuality is more like a birth defect (like having eleven fingers) and should be protected by the law as much as disabilities are.

Originally posted by Jester
If it is natural then homosexuality is more like a birth defect

If it is natural, then it is no more of a "birth defect" than blue eyes, heterosexuality, or liking the taste of licorice.

If it is natural, then it is no more of a "birth defect" than blue eyes, heterosexuality, or liking the taste of licorice.
That is just not true. Natural does not = normal.

You make it sound like sexual preference is like having a favorite color. Sorry, but people are supposed to be attacted to the opposite sex. I don't know if you've noticed, but the reproductive organs of males and females compliment each other nicely. When men like men and women like women its because something has gone wrong. Nature did not intend for people to be gay. I always say the colon is intended to remove things from the body... not take them in. Sorry.

so does that make a third arm coming out of your chest...or a third eyeball in your forehead...natural??

good points Dave

Now tell me what would be the use of "curing" gay people ?
I just don't see the point. Let people live their lives the way the want, give them some rest !

Originally posted by DaveTooner

You make it sound like sexual preference is like having a favorite color.

Its like having eyes of a certain color, like blue.

Or like being left-handed or right-handed.

Neither is "wrong" just because you decide they're *wrong*.

Just because the majority might happen to take a position, for instance, that **Left-handed people are unnatural!" does not give the majority the ethical right to villify left-handed people or to deny left-handed people the same rights everyone else enjoys.

Same case with homosexuality.

There are rumours that gays and lesbians are born with the opposite sexes brain. That might explain why they are attracted to the same sex, but ya shouldn't insult or diss them. And no, people don't have to be attracted to the opposite sex... they only need the other sex to reproduce.

And as far as I know, the human specy is not so endangered it makes it necessary for every person able to reproduce to mate with the other sex. Or tell the pope to send in the catholic priests legions first, I am sure they would enjoy this much more than homosexuals.

The question has never been what's right with it. It's what's wrong with it. Something that I've never seen an answer to(no, bible does not count, neither does the rediculous notion that our race will somehow die out as all will become gay)

Its like having eyes of a certain color, like blue.

So you're saying its genetic? Wouldn't a trait like that die out?

Furthermore, blue eyes are not an "abnormality." You have to admit that homosexuality is an abnormality whether you believe it's right or wrong. It is obvious that men and women were meant to be attacted to each other.

Travh;

it is not natural it is a preference, to be natural it would have to be part of nature. Gays can not reproduce so they would not survive. Just like someone born screwed up would die if it weren't for the help of others. This doesn't mean it is bad, but it is not part of the big scheme of things

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Furthermore, blue eyes are not an "abnormality." You have to admit that homosexuality is an abnormality whether you believe it's right or wrong. It is obvious that men and women were meant to be attacted to each other.
But what harm does homosexuality actually do, if only a small percentage of the population is homosexual? It is an abnormality, you are right, but one which does little harm. In fact, homosexuality may be nature's way of controlling population.

The bottom line is, homosexuality is only harmful if a large percentage of the population becomes homosexual. There is little danger of that occurring.

The implication is that if homosexuality is not normal then it is a birth defect.

I find it hard to believe that God would consider a birth defect to be "right" or "wrong". It just is.

Does not God create all people? Even the ones that are not exactly like the majority of us?

Originally posted by mad dog
it is not natural it is a preference

A "preference", eh??

So......you're saying that being born with a an attraction to the same sex has nothing to do with it.

That if you wanted to, you could just choose to be a homosexual.

?!?!?!?!

Interesting.

That's exactly it. Show me a study that says you're born with homosexuality or that it's genetic. There's not one. For people to say you're born with it is crazy. You might have a different personality, but you are by no means born that way. It's all psychological. It really is a choice.

-Smithers

Originally posted by flyerES
That's exactly it. Show me a study that says you're born with homosexuality or that it's genetic.

OK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



STATEMENT ON NIH GENETICS STUDY

Washington, DC, July 14, 1993....A study to be released later this week by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates that there is a correlation between a specific chromosomal region in human males and homosexuality.

The NIH study, which will be published in the July issue of _Science_, is the most recent in a body of research indicating a possible genetic basis for homosexuality. While a widely-publicized brain study by researcher Simon LeVay and a subsequent study of gay male twins pointed to the potential of a biological basis, the NIH study identifies a specific area of the X chromosome that is linked to male homosexuality. The study does not identify an individual gene responsible for directing sexual orientation, nor does it show that the specific chromosome accounts for all occurrences of homosexuality. The study focused solely on gay men, although a similar study of lesbians is in progress.

"The NIH study is an important addition to the growing body of evidence indicating a genetic basis for homosexuality in some people," said Peri Jude Radec, NGLTF Deputy Director of Public Policy. "And it shows that homosexuality is a naturally occurring and common variation among humans

Originally posted by flyerES
That's exactly it. Show me a study that says you're born with homosexuality or that it's genetic. There's not one. For people to say you're born with it is crazy. You might have a different personality, but you are by no means born that way. It's all psychological. It really is a choice.

-Smithers

Flyer - I will asume you are male. Did you choose to be attracked to women? Or did it just happen?

While I don't pretend to know everything about homosexuality, I do know a little about the internal turmoil of a gay young man. My oldest brother is gay. He is 55 now and back when he was in his teens and twenties he fought his homosexuality with all his might. Back then, late 60's - early 70's, homosexuality was considered anherant behavior and wasn't even spoken about in public.

I will agree that there are people who make a choice to be with the same sex. However I know that many people do not. My brother tried very hard to live a straight life. He hated his sexual feelings, he hated is body for reacting to men instead of women. It was a terrible emotional thing for him. He prayed about it and dated women in an attempt to be "normal" but he just did not find women attractive. I can say with 100% certainty that he did not make the choice to be gay.

Think about it. Why would someone purposely choose to live a lifestyle that makes them a pariah in society, that makes people hate them, that their religious beliefs tell them is wrong and that causes them unlimited amounts of social and legal hassles throughout their life.

Originally posted by Freethinker
OK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



STATEMENT ON NIH GENETICS STUDY

Washington, DC, July 14, 1993....A study to be released later this week by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates that there is a correlation between a specific chromosomal region in human males and homosexuality.

The NIH study, which will be published in the July issue of _Science_, is the most recent in a body of research indicating a possible genetic basis for homosexuality. While a widely-publicized brain study by researcher Simon LeVay and a subsequent study of gay male twins pointed to the potential of a biological basis, the NIH study identifies a specific area of the X chromosome that is linked to male homosexuality. The study does not identify an individual gene responsible for directing sexual orientation, nor does it show that the specific chromosome accounts for all occurrences of homosexuality. The study focused solely on gay men, although a similar study of lesbians is in progress.

"The NIH study is an important addition to the growing body of evidence indicating a genetic basis for homosexuality in some people," said Peri Jude Radec, NGLTF Deputy Director of Public Policy. "And it shows that homosexuality is a naturally occurring and common variation among humans


"in a body of research indicating a 'possible' genetic basis for homosexuality."

Possibility, not proof. There is still not a study proving this.

I still think is psychological.

Flyer - Did you make a consious choice to be attracked to women?
Or did it just happen?

Originally posted by Echo2
Flyer - Did you make a consious choice to be attracked to women?
Or did it just happen?

For me, it just happened. However I don't think being attracted by the same sex is something that just happens. And I'll go back on my wording that it is a choice, b/c it might not be a choice every time, but I think its something that happens psychologically.

Lots of studies support both sides. Do a little search and you'll see that this very topic has been discussed several times now, with both sides siting some good studies to support their arguments. The fact is, no one knows whether being gay is a choice or not. Sorry if you don't like that answer. Get over it.

Exactly what I'm saying, no proof.

There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality (dozens of times higher) in New York than among Aboriginies in the Outback.

Something about the social setting of an overpopulated metropolis increases the chances of individual's being gay.

I am sure that the people involved think it "just happens" much like Republicans think that being a tight-assed jingoist "just happens" (sorry I couldn't resist).

Originally posted by Ed Blank
There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality (dozens of times higher) in New York than among Aboriginies in the Outback.

Something about the social setting of an overpopulated metropolis increases the chances of individual's being gay.

I am sure that the people involved think it "just happens" much like Republicans think that being a tight-assed jingoist "just happens" (sorry I couldn't resist).


Overpopulated metropolis' are also known to be more liberal and open to change than smaller cities.

You fill in the blank as to the reason why.

If it was something like being left handed then roughly the same percentile would be gay in Swaziland and in Paris.

Since the higher population density corelatates to the incidence of homosexuality, there is some link which is beyond genetics.

Originally posted by Echo2
The implication is that if homosexuality is not normal then it is a birth defect.

I find it hard to believe that God would consider a birth defect to be "right" or "wrong". It just is.

Does not God create all people? Even the ones that are not exactly like the majority of us?

Yeah, but I don't think people are born gay. I was saying earlier that even if they were that wouldn't make it "normal." But I don't believe people are born as homosexuals. I also don't think people choose to be gay. I think it is a behavior that develops from environmental factors.

If being gay was genetic, the gene would have died out a long time ago.

Originally posted by Echo2
I don't think we should "celebrate" it. I find the gay parades to be silly and unecesary. The idea of celebrating ones sexuality in public is crass.
.

I believe that people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are protected by the disabilities act.

if you think it's silly, you'd hate to be in the french quarter for southern decadence (labor day weekend). i'm all for gay rights/equality/marriage. but i think anyone (gay or straight) that wear things likeass-less chaps, that perform lewd acts (sometimes as much as oral sex) in the streets (i do mean in the middle of the streets) have no respect for anyone.

and schizophrenia, as well as bipolar disorder, are protected by the disabilities act; although trying to have someone declared disabled because of bipolar disorder is extremely difficult (especially in children).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Echo2
[B].

Homosexuality is not a disease that makes one unable to thrive in a social environment like the things you mentioned. (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). It is some kind of chemical imbalance that takes place durring the fetal stages of development and only effects the part of their brain that triggers a sexual response.[B]

this is a fact that many disagree with. despite research that supports this (we just happened to cover this extensively last semester), many people remain convinced that people choose to be homosexual. sad.

My undersatning is that it is an imbalance of hormones or chemicals that happens in the brain durring the first fetal stage. So although it isn't genetic, one is born with it.

I do admit there are people that make sexual choices though.

I kind of see human sexuality as a line. On one end are the people with strong sexual attraction to the opposite sex and at the other end are people with strong sexual attraction to the same sex. All of us fall somewhere along this line. Some more sexual some less. Ever heard the term sex addict? I would place them at 1. The majority of humans are 2 or 3.

Hetero___l____l____l____l____l____l____l____l___ l___Homo
1 . . ..2...... 3.......4......5...L...6...... 7.......8......9.......10


5-6 is Bi or totally disinterested in sex


Just my personal theory. No medical or scientific knowledge went into this.

Interesting post Echo. I guess I'll buy that theory.

we all make choices every day (some good, some bad). maybe one instance of homosexual behavior can be considered a choice; still, no one chooses to be homosexual (just as we do not choose whether we'll be male or female)

Originally posted by CX returns
There are rumours that gays and lesbians are born with the opposite sexes brain.
This is some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Thank you CX, for it's reasoning like this that makes Bush look like a monkey, for sure.
Originally posted by Freethinker
Its like having eyes of a certain color, like blue.

Or like being left-handed or right-handed.

Neither is "wrong" just because you decide they're *wrong*.
The conversation wasn't over homosexuality being an issue of right or wrong, it was over whether or not it should be considered normal or natural, of which, Dave Tooner summed up the point quite nicely, and all PRIOR to you making this statement.
Originally posted by BorgHunter
But what harm does homosexuality actually do, if only a small percentage of the population is homosexual? It is an abnormality, you are right, but one which does little harm. In fact, homosexuality may be nature's way of controlling population.

The bottom line is, homosexuality is only harmful if a large percentage of the population becomes homosexual. There is little danger of that occurring.
Borg, you know, you're a really smart kid. Good points...

Originally posted by jennygadling
(just as we do not choose whether we'll be male or female)
And that's a good thing for sure. We wouldn't want everyone to be male, now would we? :D

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And that's a good thing for sure. We wouldn't want everyone to be male, now would we? :D


Hmmmm????? Are you baiting me prae? LOL

I would come back as a woman if I had the chance to do it over. Being a man would be interesting and I'd love to try it for a month or so, but there are so many social constraints put on men. Women have made great strides in equal rights but you poor men are still discriminated against a lot. The best example would be how family courts discriminate against you getting custody of your children durring a divorce.

Echo, do you think that most people are at least SOMEWHAT attracted to people of their own sex? I just cannot imagine that's true.

Women have made great strides in equal rights but you poor men are still discriminated against a lot.

This is TOO true. As a white Anglo Saxon male, I'm the most hated creature on the face of the planet...

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Echo, do you think that most people are at least SOMEWHAT attracted to people of their own sex? I just cannot imagine that's true.

No I don't think so. I am not the least bit attracted to women. They just don't do anything for me. However, I can appreciate a pretty woman for her looks. Like appreciating a pretty picture or pretty landscape. Much different feeling than when I appreciate a hunky guy for his looks. That feeling comes from deaper down inside and is very noticably sexual.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This is TOO true. As a white Anglo Saxon male, I'm the most hated creature on the face of the planet...

don't take it personally; it's all the men before you that laid the groundwork for that hatred.:D

Ouch. Little jenny has sharp teeth. lol. You go girl!

I don't think you (men) are the most hated but you have definately taken a lot of knocks, historically and recently.

Ever notice how govenments consider men to be throw away people. Not as important as women? Up untill recently women were not even allowed near combat. But men were expected to do it.

Save the women and children first. Huh? Are we more important than you? I think this comes from the "save the species" line of thought. It only takes one man to populate a village but it takes many women.

Hey, that means we could kill all you guys off except one and just use that one for....um, never mind.

:D

i was only teasing; i'm no male-basher. i despise certain men, but it's because they're morons (not just because they're men!!)

I don't think that being gay is a matter of genetics insofar as I don't think there is a gene that "makes" a person gay. I suspect there are genetic factors that predispose someone towards homosexual behavior.

I also agree with Echo when she says that people's sexuality is more a matter of a position on a sexual continuum rather than falling into neatly defined categories like "gay" or "straight".

If you look at all the factors that people find sexually attractive in one another it seems pretty clear that sexual attraction is a fairly complex thing that isn't easily defined.

As far as the contention that if homosexuality was genetic in origin it would have died off a long time ago, that would only be true if it were a matter of there being a "gay gene" and that gene only served to determine a person's sexuality. It is more likely that whatever genetic factors there may be are combinations of genes, and it may be possible that there is some other unknown genetic advantage to having the combination that predisposes someone towards being gay. As an example the gene that causes sickle cell anemia only causes that disease if you inherit a copy of the gene from both parents. If you inherit a copy from only one parent you are immune to malaria.

To get back to the original question, we shouldn't treat gay people differently just because we don't know if it is genetic or not. The criteria for determining if it should be treated as a mental defect should be whether it causes someone to be unable to function in our society. Since being gay causes no problems from the standpoint of the affected person, the APA decided thirty years ago that it should not be considered a mental defect.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BorgHunter
But what harm does homosexuality actually do, if only a small percentage of the population is homosexual? It is an abnormality, you are right, but one which does little harm. In fact, homosexuality may be nature's way of controlling population.

The bottom line is, homosexuality is only harmful if a large percentage of the population becomes homosexual. There is little danger of that occurring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by The Praetorian
Borg, you know, you're a really smart kid. Good points...

I'm not so sure this is a good point... saying that this not harmful to society. I think people that agree this is a moral problem in society would say that, although a small percentage, the amount of homosexuals is growing. Maybe it does little harm now, but many problems start out small. It all starts in the house with how parents raise their children. Homosexuality is becoming more widely accepted. Therefore, the more accepted it is by the family, the more accepted it will be in society, leading to a growing # of homosexuals.

And this thinking would only come from one that thinks society is entering a moral crisis.

-Smithers

Therefore, the more accepted it is by the family, the more accepted it will be in society, leading to a growing # of homosexuals.
That's just stupid! You would first of all, have to prove that it is ENTIRELY by choice for that to fly at all. Second of all, you'd have to explain to us how that's so horrible and detrimental to the world. It is entirely a moral issue, no more, no less, but somebody has no right to place any their moral convictions upon another. Homosexuality harms noone, and it never will. The question is not what's so right about it, it's what's so wrong about it... which is.. nothing.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Therefore, the more accepted it is by the family, the more accepted it will be in society, leading to a growing # of homosexuals.
That's just stupid! You would first of all, have to prove that it is ENTIRELY by choice for that to fly at all. Second of all, you'd have to explain to us how that's so horrible and detrimental to the world. It is entirely a moral issue, no more, no less, but somebody has no right to place any their moral convictions upon another. Homosexuality harms noone, and it never will. The question is not what's so right about it, it's what's so wrong about it... which is.. nothing.

So you're saying you don't think the # of homosexuals is growing? Riiiight...

I also didn't say it was so horrible and detrimental to the world . I said there are some (actually many) people that think it is part of a moral crisis and feel threatened by it. AND they have a right to free speech... and you're gonna have to live with that b/c it sure ain't goin' away buddy.

-Smithers

So you're saying you don't think the # of homosexuals is growing? Riiiight...
I said no such thing. However, a "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" argument doesn't fly. You have no proof of causality between the two, you're just grasping at straws. Give me some proof that growing acceptance of homosexuality is a direct catalyst to people becoming homosexual.(And I don't mean just the large number of people who have "come out of the closet" in recent years because they wont get mugged and killed anymore)

I also didn't say it was so horrible and detrimental to the world . I said there are some (actually many) people that think it is part of a moral crisis and feel threatened by it. AND they have a right to free speech... and you're gonna have to live with that b/c it sure ain't goin' away buddy.
They still have no right to attempt to restrict those who are homosexual. Equality is Apathy.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I also didn't say it was so horrible and detrimental to the world . I said there are some (actually many) people that think it is part of a moral crisis and feel threatened by it. AND they have a right to free speech... and you're gonna have to live with that b/c it sure ain't goin' away buddy.
They still have no right to attempt to restrict those who are homosexual. Equality is Apathy.

people have every right to say whatever they want to. it's called freedom of speech, remember, that first amendment. that's how laws are eventually made.

people have every right to say whatever they want to. it's called freedom of speech, remember, that first amendment. that's how laws are eventually made.
What is it with this forum and it murdering one's reading comprehension? Good job dropping the first part, I see you agree with me. They have no right to restrict those who are gay, which is what many are trying to do. Many are also trying to limit our freedom of speech and press and silence the portrayal of any form of and mention of homosexuality.

Originally posted by Blibblob
people have every right to say whatever they want to. it's called freedom of speech, remember, that first amendment. that's how laws are eventually made.
What is it with this forum and it murdering one's reading comprehension? Good job dropping the first part, I see you agree with me. They have no right to restrict those who are gay, which is what many are trying to do. Many are also trying to limit our freedom of speech and press and silence the portrayal of any form of and mention of homosexuality.

We're not discussing the free speech of homosexuals, we are discussing the actions of homosexuals. You're trying to change the arguement. Stop running in circles. You just said people have no right to restrict homosexuals (their actions). I agree people have no right to restrict the actions of homosexuals beyond what the law says. But people have every right to talk about it in order to get laws enacted or or keep laws sustained.

And just curious, I know it's none of my business, but are you a homosexual?


-Smithers

Originally posted by Blibblob
people have every right to say whatever they want to. it's called freedom of speech, remember, that first amendment. that's how laws are eventually made.
What is it with this forum and it murdering one's reading comprehension? Good job dropping the first part, I see you agree with me. They have no right to restrict those who are gay, which is what many are trying to do. Many are also trying to limit our freedom of speech and press and silence the portrayal of any form of and mention of homosexuality.

I saw one of the quotes you put under your posts:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father of this country and they built this country UNDER GOD. It's in the pledge of alligence. And now people like YOU are trying to take our foundation away by creating problems like homosexuality. It's not christian. Jefferson intended for America to be built under christian morals and ideas, along with all the other founding fathers. Do you think he wants us stray away from our christian heritage? If you hold so much high regard for Thomas Jefferson than stop trying to defend homosexuals. Otherwise, take that quote off.

We're not discussing the free speech of homosexuals, we are discussing the actions of homosexuals. You're trying to change the arguement. Stop running in circles. You just said people have no right to restrict homosexuals (their actions). I agree people have no right to restrict the actions of homosexuals beyond what the law says. But people have every right to talk about it in order to get laws enacted or or keep laws sustained.
What? I was never changing the topic. I originally spoke of actions, you mentioned freedom of speech of those who attack homosexuals. Another form of freedom of speech, and press, was the right to have homosexual literature(or anything that has anything relating to homosexuality in it), of which is currently under attack and there are some who are attempting to ban it.

And just curious, I know it's none of my business, but are you a homosexual?
Completely straight and taken.


Thomas Jefferson was a founding father of this country and they built this country UNDER GOD. It's in the pledge of alligence. And now people like YOU are trying to take our foundation away by creating problems like homosexuality. It's not christian. Jefferson intended for America to be built under christian morals and ideas, along with all the other founding fathers. Do you think he wants us stray away from our christian heritage? If you hold so much high regard for Thomas Jefferson than stop trying to defend homosexuals. Otherwise, take that quote off.
LOL! Holy shit, I don't know where to begin. First I'll start with some advice: learn some history.
Pledge of Allegiance? The pledge of allegience we currently have is not the same one that they had 100 years ago(it wasn't even thought of until far after the death of all of the founding fathers), "Under God" was appended in there in 1954 in order to "combat" the heathen "communists" in the USSR.
Next, Thomas Jefferson was not religious, he was a deist. There are countless quotes and peices of literature by him in which he bitches and complains about god and christianity. When he put "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence he was speaking of it in a purely philosophical sense, not declaring that one existed. The idea of us all created equal is a philosophical one and has nothing to do with a god.
Finally, Thomas Jefferson believed in equality and freedom. He believed in liberty. I'm defending homosexual's liberty, something I'm quite sure Thomas Jefferson would have done if he was alive today.

Our Founding Fathers assumed that we would keep our Judeo-Christian heritage. They assumed it. It was so much a part of their thinking that it never occurred to them that anyone would be so crazy as to think you could sustain this system of self-government without respect for it. It just never occurred to the Founders that we could get to a point where we’d actually think we could sustain politics without morality, politics without religion, politics without faith, and our particular form of politics without God.

If you can show me a position where the Democrat party does not take the position that’s opposed to God’s will, then I’ll change what I just said, but I don’t find one. On all the major issues of moral concern, the Democrat party has aligned itself with evil. I’m sorry. That’s where they stand.

Our country was built with the understanding that we should keep God(notice how I capitalize the "G") in the law. Homosexuality is not part of God's teachings. Therefore, you lose. Good-bye!

Therefore, you lose. Good-bye!
Well, you're a little sure of yourself. Especially when you gave a little rambling without proof, completely unfounded... and well, they were either lies, or you are so deluded that your version of reality has ben warped far beyond what can occur due to your acceleration.
Read, and learn young grasshopper (http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html)
This topic has gone over so many times before, it would be nice if you hit the search button so you can watch others with the same deluded beliefs have quote after quote from these wonderfully Judeo-Christian founders insult their religion left and right. There is a first amendment for a reason: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

Originally posted by Blibblob
We're not discussing the free speech of homosexuals, we are discussing the actions of homosexuals. You're trying to change the arguement. Stop running in circles. You just said people have no right to restrict homosexuals (their actions). I agree people have no right to restrict the actions of homosexuals beyond what the law says. But people have every right to talk about it in order to get laws enacted or or keep laws sustained.
What? I was never changing the topic. I originally spoke of actions, you mentioned freedom of speech of those who attack homosexuals. Another form of freedom of speech, and press, was the right to have homosexual literature(or anything that has anything relating to homosexuality in it), of which is currently under attack and there are some who are attempting to ban it.


You originally said this: somebody has no right to place any their moral convictions upon another

So I said people have every right to say whatever they want. You then changed the arguement to:

Many are trying to limit our freedom of speech and press and silence the portrayal of any form of and mention of homosexuality.

So we were discussing the following:
*Homosexuals - their actions
*People against homosexuality - their freedom of speech

As you can see in the last quote above, you are trying to change the discussion. This is the second time you have not logically been able to participate in an arguement with myself. Please, use some logic next time bilbo.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Therefore, you lose. Good-bye!
Well, you're a little sure of yourself. Especially when you gave a little rambling without proof, completely unfounded... and well, they were either lies, or you are so deluded that your version of reality has ben warped far beyond what can occur due to your acceleration.
Read, and learn young grasshopper (http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html)
This topic has gone over so many times before, it would be nice if you hit the search button so you can watch others with the same deluded beliefs have quote after quote from these wonderfully Judeo-Christian founders insult their religion left and right. There is a first amendment for a reason: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

oh my god, you just posted a quote from atheism.org... next time why you try a more neutral site to prove your point. LOL

So we were discussing the following:
*Homosexuals - their actions
*People against homosexuality - their freedom of speech
As you can see in the last quote above, you are trying to change the discussion. This is the second time you have not logically been able to participate in an arguement with myself. Please, use some logic next time bilbo
I never changed my argument. Reading comprehension people, reading comprehension! Seriously, do people skip over or misread on purpose or is there a crayon stuck in their brain?
"What is it with this forum and it murdering one's reading comprehension? Good job dropping the first part, I see you agree with me. They have no right to restrict those who are gay, which is what many are trying to do. Many are also trying to limit our freedom of speech and press and silence the portrayal of any form of and mention of homosexuality."
YOU brought up freedom of speech, I don't know how YOURS fit in, but mine was an addon, an extra to the argument, not it itself. Did you skip english class in high school?

oh my god, you just posted a quote from atheism.org... next time why you try a more neutral site to prove your point. LOL
It's the largest collection of founders quotes on religions I know of. Want some more so you can be satisfied?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm (one of your own nonetheless)
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm

Google is your friend people! USE IT, it is the most powerful search engine on the internet, and it can ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR ME.

sexual attraction is a fairly complex thing that isn't easily defined.

Mine is very easily defined: straight.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I never changed my argument.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. You did try and change that argument. You libs sure don't cease to amaze me. (lie after lie after lie; doesn't seem to phase you guys)

Anyway, my original point was that homosexuality is not good for our country and that our society is entering into a moral crisis. I think this topic might be dead (like some people's brains).

Excuses, excuses, excuses. You did try and change that argument. You libs sure don't cease to amaze me. (lie after lie after lie; doesn't seem to phase you guys)
What the fuck? You failed English didn't you!? Critical thinking way over your head?! I fucking HIGHLIGHTED what I wrote. Put the words together, they form sentences, how the words are pieced together change the meaning of sentences. READ DUMBASS.

Anyway, my original point was that homosexuality is not good for our country and that our society is entering into a moral crisis. I think this topic might be dead (like some people's brains).
And you never told us why it's not good for our country! Why is it not good? Come on, English failure should be able to explain it! Try it in Spanish. Or maybe Klingon, you may get your point, or lack there of, across better.

Originally posted by Blibblob
What the fuck? You failed English didn't you!? Critical thinking way over your head?! I fucking HIGHLIGHTED what I wrote. Put the words together, they form sentences

No, I can critically think, I just have a problem arguing with illogical people who run in circles when they don't like what they are hearing.

By the way, I'm glad you can put words together and form sentences. That's some skill you have mastered there.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Anyway, my original point was that homosexuality is not good for our country and that our society is entering into a moral crisis. I think this topic might be dead (like some people's brains).
And you never told us why it's not good for our country! Why is it not good? Come on, English failure should be able to explain it! Try it in Spanish. Or maybe Klingon, you may get your point, or lack there of, across better.

My philosophy would be:

I don't think it is good for society b/c homosexual acts are selfish. They are not promoting recreation. I believe that the individual has to control his/her sexual actions. Some people try to compare this issue to race, but you can't compare it to that b/c you have no control over the color of your skin. The issue of slavery was that we made moral judgments about people based on something they have no control over (their color). If we tell people they have no control over their sexual actions (like we do on race), then people can have sex with anything/anyone. So we could tell someone, "your sexual behavior is beyond your control (just like race) and if I disapprove of it, I am doing something prejudice?" It means that concepts like sexual responsibility, which are the basis for marriage, concepts like maturity, which are the basis for maintaining the protection of our children against sexual exploitation-they can't be sustained. Because after all, if adults have no more control over their choice and judgment in sexual matters than children, why would you prosecute them for having sex with children? It would just be the older children having sex with the younger children, then, because we are all children where sexual matters are concerned.

I don't think this is right b/c it goes against the logical ethical codes we have as a society. I think it destroys the foundation of all the ethical codes I've ever heard of. human beings must be held accountable for their sexual passions. If we must hold them accountable, it is necessary for moral codes that distinguish between different kinds of sexual acts.

Finally, I don't have a problem if homosexuality is happening behind closed doors. I have a problem with laws that can't be enforced without destroying privacy. I don't think its anyone’s business what people do in private. It's when it becomes public when I have a problem. I don't want to see it, hear about it, or anything. I think there is our right and we have an obligation to make laws that regulate behavior to respect our public standards. When homosexuals demand marriage then we have an obligation to defend institutions that are important to the maintenance of our civilization.

homosexuality = a moral crisis!!!

-Smithers

Originally posted by flyerES
I don't think it is good for society b/c homosexual acts are selfish. They are not promoting recreation.
Throughout history we’ve had women who choose not to have children. Throughout history we’ve had women who have not been capable of producing children because of scientific complications. Now more then ever we have women who decide not to have children. So I guess they are selfish as well? Honestly, if you want to attack homosexuals attack straight couples who decide not to have children.

Originally posted by flyerES
I believe that the individual has to control his/her sexual actions. Some people try to compare this issue to race, but you can't compare it to that b/c you have no control over the color of your skin.
How do you know gays don’t choose their sexuality? Have you been gay?

Originally posted by flyerES
I don't think this is right b/c it goes against the logical ethical codes we have as a society. I think it destroys the foundation of all the ethical codes I've ever heard of.
Wait, I think those arguments were used before…oh yeah, when they wanted to stop interracial marriages/relationships occur! It’s against our “ethical codes” and it “destroys the foundation of our country”

Well let me tell you something, societies change. We change, and as a society, we grow.

Slavery use to be “ethical” and a “foundation of our society”…yet was that correct?

Not to mention, what really hurts our society is not accepting homosexual couples. It divides us, and creates a barrier between people.

Originally posted by flyerES
It's when it becomes public when I have a problem. I don't want to see it, hear about it, or anything. I think there is our right and we have an obligation to make laws that regulate behavior to respect our public standards. When homosexuals demand marriage then we have an obligation to defend institutions that are important to the maintenance of our civilization.
How is a marriage public? Usually it’s in a secret area, that is carefully selected. Only close friends/family are invited, and then marriage occurs. It’s hardly public Not to mention having a ring on ones “heart finger” is hardly noticeable.

Seriously, equal rights. Every couple deserves equal benefits in the hospital etc. And the right to have their love recognized by the state.

Originally posted by Overdose
Throughout history we’ve had women who choose not to have children. Throughout history we’ve had women who have not been capable of producing children because of scientific complications. Now more then ever we have women who decide not to have children. So I guess they are selfish as well? Honestly, if you want to attack homosexuals attack straight couples who decide not to have children.

It's not about the choice to have children or not. It's putting the act of creating a human being into God's hands anytime you have sex. I don't think you should be able to block God's hand when commiting an act(sex) that has always been regarded as a way to reproduce and bring the union of man and woman together. My belief is that these two things must be present when having sex. There is no opportunity for creation when two men or two women have sex.


How do you know gays don’t choose their sexuality? Have you been gay?

It is my belief that gays should be able to control their actions. Whether it was a choice or no choice, I don't care. It should be controled.


Wait, I think those arguments were used before…oh yeah, when they wanted to stop interracial marriages/relationships occur! It’s against our “ethical codes” and it “destroys the foundation of our country”

Well let me tell you something, societies change. We change, and as a society, we grow.

Slavery use to be “ethical” and a “foundation of our society”…yet was that correct?

Not to mention, what really hurts our society is not accepting homosexual couples. It divides us, and creates a barrier between people.

You cannot compare an interacial marriage (between a man and a woman) and a gay marriage. They're in two totally different arenas in regard to the creation of a human being. An interacial marriage (between a man and woman) allows for creation of a human being to be possible when having sex; gay marriage doesn't. (this idea about the creation of a human being possible when having sex is the center of my whole position on this issue) When someone commits a selfish act I come to the conclusion that this person is selfish. And I don't think a selfish person is something that brings us closer together. This is something that builds the barrier and hurts society.


How is a marriage public? Usually it’s in a secret area, that is carefully selected. Only close friends/family are invited, and then marriage occurs. It’s hardly public Not to mention having a ring on ones “heart finger” is hardly noticeable.

Seriously, equal rights. Every couple deserves equal benefits in the hospital etc. And the right to have their love recognized by the state.

Marriage is defined as the bond between a man and a woman- a bond being the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

Homosexuality is no secret. To say so is ridiculous. It is pushed in our faces everyday on the news.

There is a left-wing agenda that is being pushed by a small amount of society here. And I'm going to fight back.

Originally posted by flyerES
It's not about the choice to have children or not. It's putting the act of creating a human being into God's hands anytime you have sex.
Wrong Many women are infertile and can never have a child, even if they were to have sex millions of times.

Originally posted by flyerES
I don't think you should be able to block God's hand when commiting an act(sex) that has always been regarded as a way to reproduce and bring the union of man and woman together.
That’s nice and all, but have you ever heard of the concept of separation of church and state? Let me help you out…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That thus proves that you can bring in religious arguments all you want, but they ultimately have no say in Government sponsored institutions, such as marriage (which is Government sponsored)

Originally posted by flyerES
It is my belief that gays should be able to control their actions. Whether it was a choice or no choice, I don't care. It should be controled.
The only time it should be controlled is if it’s affecting someone else, by the actions they are committing or if they are put in an increased and dangerous harm. Otherwise, the Government has no right to impose anything on what you do as a person.

Originally posted by flyerES
You cannot compare an interacial marriage (between a man and a woman) and a gay marriage. They're in two totally different arenas in regard to the creation of a human being.
You can compare them actually. Everyone is human, and we all have traits and feelings such as love and compassion. Love is what makes a marriage strong, and if you have that, you can have a successful marriage. They are not different.

Originally posted by flyerES
An interacial marriage (between a man and woman) allows for creation of a human being to be possible when having sex; gay marriage doesn't.
Firstly, marriage is not about being able to create another human. Throughout history it was about gaining wealth and maintaining social status. It was hardly about reproduction, actually.

Next, you have failed to address the point I’m trying to make. Should women who are infertile (can’t have babies), not be allowed to marry because they can never have a baby?

Originally posted by flyerES
Marriage is defined as the bond between a man and a woman-
Marriage use to also be defined as only between those of the same race. We changed that because it was incorrect, and we as a society evolved. That’s what we are doing now.

Originally posted by flyerES
There is a left-wing agenda that is being pushed by a small amount of society here. And I'm going to fight back.
Fight back, and you’ll lose eventually. The vast majority of the youth in our country is turning extremely liberal. Even if they are Pro-Iraq War, they are becoming liberal on social issues…as shown by polls and just me being around students in high school. So fight back all you want, but you’ll lose.

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong Many women are infertile and can never have a child, even if they were to have sex millions of times.

Next, you have failed to address the point I’m trying to make. Should women who are infertile (can’t have babies), not be allowed to marry because they can never have a baby.

Look at in in this context. Before the world had doctors to tell a woman she was infertal, she probably kept trying to have sex with the intent to have children. So, she was acting with an open mind to having children. She was not blocking the possibility of creation. My idea is when a man(seed) and woman(egg) are together there is the possibility of creation. With gay sex (seed & seed OR egg & egg) the possibility does not exist.


You can compare them actually. Everyone is human, and we all have traits and feelings such as love and compassion. Love is what makes a marriage strong, and if you have that, you can have a successful marriage. They are not different.

I don't think this is a real marriage. I think marrige is the unselfish, loyal, and benevolent concern for one another. Gay sex only serve's as one's own pleasure. It serves no other purpose!!


Firstly, marriage is not about being able to create another human. Throughout history it was about gaining wealth and maintaining social status. It was hardly about reproduction, actually..

Marriage isn't traditionally about creating human beings?!! I beg to differ my gayly(in the happy sense) infatuated friend!!!


Marriage use to also be defined as only between those of the same race. We changed that because it was incorrect, and we as a society evolved. That’s what we are doing now.

Like I said before, this has nothing to do with race. Race is something you have absolutely no control over(unless of course you're michael jackson). You have control over your sexual actions. I explained this pretty thoroughly in my philosophy post earlier.


Fight back, and you’ll lose eventually. The vast majority of the youth in our country is turning extremely liberal. Even if they are Pro-Iraq War, they are becoming liberal on social issues…as shown by polls and just me being around students in high school. So fight back all you want, but you’ll lose.

The youth in our country that can vote (the 18-29 year old bracket if you call that youth) are taught in universities by 90% liberal teachers. It is common to have more liberal youth b/c of this. Once out of college, without the influence of the 90% liberal teachers, they are able to better form their own beliefs.

And by the way, I never lose.

Originally posted by flyerES
Before the world had doctors to tell a woman she was infertal, she probably kept trying to have sex with the intent to have children.
Okay, and now they don’t. You make no point.

Originally posted by flyerES
So, she was acting with an open mind to having children.
As with time societies change, and so does the “intents” of people.

My aunt has sex (I assume so at least), with her boyfriend, and she has no “intent” of ever having children. Should she not be allowed to marry?

My friend Natasha is infertile, should she not be allowed to get married? Honestly, catch a clue.

Originally posted by flyerES
I don't think this is a real marriage. I think marrige is the unselfish, loyal, and benevolent concern for one another. Gay sex only serve's as one's own pleasure. It serves no other purpose!!
That’s your defination of marriage, one that cannot be placed on everyone in the United States. EVERY couple deserves a marriage license. It’s called equal rights. Look it up.

Originally posted by flyerES
Marriage isn't traditionally about creating human beings?!! I beg to differ my gayly(in the happy sense) infatuated friend!!!
Ever study the Renaissance? Ever read William Shakespeare? You’d learn a few things.

That marriage was to increase wealth and keep social status.

Originally posted by flyerES
Like I said before, this has nothing to do with race. Race is something you have absolutely no control over(unless of course you're michael jackson). You have control over your sexual actions. I explained this pretty thoroughly in my philosophy post earlier.
Wrong. You never explained it at all. You just assumed that because “God”, didn’t intend for homosexuality it must not be natural. Sadly, we have a separation of church and state. So your “reasons” or “facts” are of no concern to the laws in which we live in.

Originally posted by flyerES
And by the way, I never lose. [/B]
Really…? Care to prove that?

You can compare them actually. Everyone is human, and we all have traits and feelings such as love and compassion. Love is what makes a marriage strong, and if you have that, you can have a successful marriage. They are not different.

They are too different. You can't give a logical reason as to why a man and a woman of opposite sex shouldn't be together. Now all you have to do to tell that it ain't quite normal for a man and a man to be together is to examine the sexual practices. It just is not meant to work like that. Men and women compliment each other perfectly. Nature made it so. Homosexuality is an abnormality.

No, I can critically think, I just have a problem arguing with illogical people who run in circles when they don't like what they are hearing.
Would you care to go step by step how I was being illogical and circular. Just because you can't read doesn't make the other person's points invalid, which brings me to my next point. You either A) ignored the vast majority of what I wrote or B) just couldn't read it. Skipping over the majority of my post to make potshots, pathetic ones at that, does not mean you win, or are winning. Nor does it discredit a single thing I've said. So, either read, or shut the fuck up.



I don't think it is good for society b/c homosexual acts are selfish.
What? They can't love? How is it selfish?

They are not promoting recreation. I believe that the individual has to control his/her sexual actions.
With two adults: Why? This appears to be an inherent flaw in your argument. Why must two adult individuals reserve themselves with one another? People don't have the same moral codes as you. What you think is wrong doesn't make it wrong to the rest of the world, and thus doesn't promote your standing that it is a problem due to moral issues.

Some people try to compare this issue to race, but you can't compare it to that b/c you have no control over the color of your skin. ... If we tell people they have no control over their sexual actions (like we do on race), then people can have sex with anything/anyone.
That's not the issue. This is never about sex. Homosexuals may not love another? One has no control over who they end up loving, or whether that person is of a different sex, or the same sex. This is preference, this has nothing to do with choosing to have sex.

... why would you prosecute them for having sex with children? It would just be the older children having sex with the younger children, then, because we are all children where sexual matters are concerned.
And here we fall into a wonderful slippery slope. Your end... makes no sense. I don't necessarily see how letting two consenting adults do what they please with each other, will make everybody want to have sex with children. There is no causal link in there. Your making it seem that homosexuals just want to have sex.


I don't think this is right b/c it goes against the logical ethical codes we have as a society. I think it destroys the foundation of all the ethical codes I've ever heard of. human beings must be held accountable for their sexual passions. If we must hold them accountable, it is necessary for moral codes that distinguish between different kinds of sexual acts.
See, your still thinking all homosexuals want to do is act like bunnies. Laws should stem from no moral codes that reflect the opinion of a religious organization. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, it's not going to make them rape children, it's not going to make others rape children. They have every right to love, and to have sex with whomever agrees with them. Any opinion about how some long string of bizarre things that often don't connect, leading down a slippery mountain, to where we have children raped by mongooses does not make homosexuality bad anywhere except in your mind. Which we don't care about. It doesn't mean we should make ANY decisions about the lifestyle, outside your head.


..It's when it becomes public when I have a problem...
Public? How does it become public?

When homosexuals demand marriage then we have an obligation to defend institutions that are important to the maintenance of our civilization.
And again we have no connection! Important to the maintenance of our civilization? Defend them? Marriage is still a legal structure, a legal contract, a legal issue. And you haven't given us a reason why law must stop those who are homosexual from doing what they wish to do.

blibblob you're blabbing again. Here's what you said:

Would you care to go step by step how I was being illogical and circular. Just because you can't read doesn't make the other person's points invalid,...

Yeah, well, you're the one having trouble understanding what theory meant and yeah you are going in circles constantly. It's like you're saying the same thing every reply.

bilbo, you just told me to "shut the fuck up." Am I making you mad?? haha!! And no I won't explain step by step. I already did that. Try reading the rest of my earlier posts and you should have the answers to most of the questions you asked.


overdose, you missed the point on every point I made, especially the most important one. I have no time to argue with someone who can't comprehend what I'm saying. It's one thing to refute my point, but to try and refute it when you haven't even realized what my point is is stupid. The point you missed was:

"My idea is when a man(seed) and woman(egg) are together there is the possibility of creation. With gay sex (seed & seed OR egg & egg) the possibility does not exist. "... this is my opionion on why it is wrong.

Yeah, well, you're the one having trouble understanding what theory meant and yeah you are going in circles constantly. It's like you're saying the same thing every reply.
What the fuck are you talking about? YOU MAKE NO SENSE! Trouble understanding what theory? What circles? What am I saying over and over?

bilbo, you just told me to "shut the fuck up." Am I making you mad?? haha!! And no I won't explain step by step. I already did that. Try reading the rest of my earlier posts and you should have the answers to most of the questions you asked.
I've read ALL of your posts. You choose to IGNORE most of what I put in mine. Look here again, you choose not to attack my points, but again you're attacking me. Do you have a brain at all?! Now, would you bother to READ my damn posts and refute my points, instead of continuing your incessant ramblings of a ravenged lunatic?

just my opinion, but i don't think the # of homosexuals are increasing; i think more are "coming out", being honest to themselves and those around them.

Originally posted by flyerES
overdose, you missed the point on every point I made, especially the most important one.
You made no point.

Originally posted by flyerES
I have no time to argue with someone who can't comprehend what I'm saying.
What your saying is false.

Originally posted by flyerES
"My idea is when a man(seed) and woman(egg) are together there is the possibility of creation. With gay sex (seed & seed OR egg & egg) the possibility does not exist. "... this is my opionion on why it is wrong.
WOMEN CAN BE INFERTILE, AND THEN THERE IS NO CHANCE OF CREATION

Get that in your head. Not all women produce eggs, and not all women want children. Your point is false, and pathetic.

Originally posted by flyerES
"My idea is when a man(seed) and woman(egg) are together there is the possibility of creation. With gay sex (seed & seed OR egg & egg) the possibility does not exist. "... this is my opionion on why it is wrong.
What about sex with protection, i.e. condoms, birth control pills, etc? And what about heterosexual sex other than coitus, for example oral sex, or anal?

And finally, why do you think that your definition of "wrong" should be codified into law?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by flyerES
"My idea is when a man(seed) and woman(egg) are together there is the possibility of creation. With gay sex (seed & seed OR egg & egg) the possibility does not exist. "... this is my opinion on why it is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WOMEN CAN BE INFERTILE, AND THEN THERE IS NO CHANCE OF CREATION

Get that in your head. Not all women produce eggs, and not all women want children. Your point is false, and pathetic.

Ignorance. overdose (overdosing on the peace pipe I see... peace and love, peace and love buddy). Ignorance!!

You absolutely, completely miss the point!! It has nothing to do with fertile or infertile for the freakin' 100th time!!! It has to do with the possibility of life being created.

AGAIN, creation is possible between a man and woman, not between the same sex. It could never happen between the same sex whether fertile or infertile. Why don't you understand this?!!!


Originally posted by BorgHunter
What about sex with protection, i.e. condoms, birth control pills, etc? And what about heterosexual sex other than coitus, for example oral sex, or anal?

And finally, why do you think that your definition of "wrong" should be codified into law?

For gay or selfish actions I believe:
Do condoms, birth control pills, oral sex, or anal sex promote life? No they don't. These alone do not. They are the same thing as gay sex in comparison to selfish actions. Condoms and birth control (with the acceptation of Natural Family Planning) block the hand of God in regards to creation. Oral and anal sex does not promote life either. However, it these two are used as foreplay to an act of creation I guess they are acceptable.

For marriage I believe:
It has nothing to do w/ my definition of wrong. It has to do with the idea of what marriage is in regards to the law. The federal law says marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and states that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."



If you are, stop pushing the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by flyerES

AGAIN, creation is possible between a man and woman, not between the same sex. It could never happen between the same sex whether fertile or infertile. Why don't you understand this?!!! [/QUOTE

but why, just because it's anatomically possible allow any man and woman to become parents? there are many "couples" who have no business raising children. if the kids are beinggiven the opportunity to live in a loving home, why should we say no?



]

Originally posted by jennygadling
[QUOTE]Originally posted by flyerES

AGAIN, creation is possible between a man and woman, not between the same sex. It could never happen between the same sex whether fertile or infertile. Why don't you understand this?!!! [/QUOTE

but why, just because it's anatomically possible allow any man and woman to become parents? there are many "couples" who have no business raising children. if the kids are beinggiven the opportunity to live in a loving home, why should we say no?



]

What? I dont' understand the question. Could you restate it for me?

Originally posted by flyerES
What? I dont' understand the question. Could you restate it for me?

just because a man and a woman are physically able to have children, it doesn't mean that qualifies as fit to raise those children. anyone who opens their home to a child (straight or gay), to give them a happy life, should be applauded; not turned away.

Originally posted by flyerES
Ignorance. overdose (overdosing on the peace pipe I see... peace and love, peace and love buddy). Ignorance!!
Yes, I’m the ignorant one… --rolls eyes--

Originally posted by flyerES
You absolutely, completely miss the point!! It has nothing to do with fertile or infertile for the freakin' 100th time!!! It has to do with the possibility of life being created.
No, I didn’t miss any point. The points you are bringing up are false, and pathetic. They are downright narrow-minded and are not factually based. YES it does have to do with being infertile. Because if a women is infertile she cannot have a baby, so there is no possibility of life being created.

Originally posted by flyerES
AGAIN, creation is possible between a man and woman, not between the same sex.
Creation is not possible between a man, who is with a women who is infertile.

Originally posted by flyerES
It could never happen between the same sex whether fertile or infertile. Why don't you understand this?!!!
What do you mean, why don’t I understand this? You’re the one being an idiot.

It could never happen between a man and a women who is infertile If she is born infertile, she will never be able to have children. If she has sex, she will never be able to create another life. That’s the same as with homosexuals. There is no difference.

Not to mention, MARRIAGE IS NOT JUST ABOUT CREATION It’s for many different reasons. It’s for love, it’s for commitment, it’s for hospital visitation rights for your loved one, it’s about so much more then just “creation” Not to mention marriage throughout history has not been about creation It’s again been about, improving or maintaining social status and wealth

For those who really want a true, lasting partner that will stay with you, good times and bad, for sickness and health.....

www.marryyourpet.com

Originally posted by Karankawa
For those who really want a true, lasting partner that will stay with you, good times and bad, for sickness and health.....

www.marryyourpet.com

That's halarious. Overdose, maybe you would be better off that way...

What do you mean, why don’t I understand this? You’re the one being an idiot.

You can tell when somebody gets a little angry one these forums, but that's just because they're not trying to understand what another person says. I think that overdose is just mad because he's never going to get his little gay marriage thing.

honestly, how is allowing gay marriages going to harm society? hell, many "straight" marriages are destructive; no one's trying to ban them, are they? in some states, a 14 year old kid can get married; what does a 14 year old know about marriage, commitment, and everything that makes a marriage successful? but, because it's legal, it's ok? meanwhile, there are countless "loving, committed" couples (many of whom have been together for years) that cannot marry. how does this make any sense?
by the way, gay couples CAN have children. not just through adoption; lesbian couples can be artificially inseminated (courtesy of a sperm donor, using one of the women's egg), and the child is biologically hers. the other partner then legally adopts the child. bingo! they're proud parents.

Originally posted by flyerES
For gay or selfish actions I believe:
Do condoms, birth control pills, oral sex, or anal sex promote life? No they don't. These alone do not. They are the same thing as gay sex in comparison to selfish actions. Condoms and birth control (with the acceptation of Natural Family Planning) block the hand of God in regards to creation. Oral and anal sex does not promote life either. However, it these two are used as foreplay to an act of creation I guess they are acceptable.
So, as I understand it, you believe that sex is about procreation and not recreation, yes? If this is the case, you should understand that marriage is not about sex, nor is it about promoting children. Marriage has a rich history that I think you should explore, as it never was about children. The way I see it, marriage is an expression of love; a bond between two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together.
For marriage I believe:
It has nothing to do w/ my definition of wrong. It has to do with the idea of what marriage is in regards to the law. The federal law says marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and states that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Okay, so then if the law were to be changed, either through legislation or judiciary decisions, then you would support same-sex marriage? And, furthermore, you support the civil union law in Vermont and the same-sex marriage laws in Massachusetts?
If you are, stop pushing the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!!
Okay, I think I'm just going to ignore this one...

Originally posted by flyerES
For marriage I believe:
It has nothing to do w/ my definition of wrong. It has to do with the idea of what marriage is in regards to the law. The federal law says marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and states that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

the same laws that allow 14 year old kids to marry, right?

These guys are just out to waste time.

Originally posted by jennygadling
the same laws that allow 14 year old kids to marry, right?

His point is that he does not want gay marriage, you retards.

Originally posted by Overdose

No, I didn’t miss any point. The points you are bringing up are false, and pathetic. They are downright narrow-minded and are not factually based.


considering there is ultimately no clear-cut right answer based on the split in party lines on the issue.....your attempt to undermine anyone by saying they are false, pathetic, and narrow-minded shows your lack of maturity.


Originally posted by Overdose

It could never happen between a man and a women who is infertile If she is born infertile, she will never be able to have children. If she has sex, she will never be able to create another life. That’s the same as with homosexuals. There is no difference.


Um....no difference except for the fact that she's a girl and he's a guy. thats a pretty big difference in my book.

Originally posted by Decka
considering there is ultimately no clear-cut right answer based on the split in party lines on the issue.....your attempt to undermine anyone by saying they are false, pathetic, and narrow-minded shows your lack of maturity.




Um....no difference except for the fact that she's a girl and he's a guy. thats a pretty big difference in my book.

Thank God, somebody's got it right.

Originally posted by Decka
your attempt to undermine anyone by saying they are false, pathetic, and narrow-minded shows your lack of maturity.
Ummm, I think his opinion is false, pathetic and narrow-minded. That isn’t immaturity, it’s just my opinion. If you can’t handle it, I’m sorry. I’m not going to change for you.

Besides, call me immature. It’s not as if it has any affect on me.

Originally posted by Decka
Um....no difference except for the fact that she's a girl and he's a guy. thats a pretty big difference in my book.
Ummmm, Decka sadly you don’t understand what is being debated.

He is saying marriage is all about creation, or having babies. When really, it’s not just about that. But besides that, even if was just only about creation, why do we allow infertile people to get married? They can’t create, so why should they be allowed to marry?

As for your, “guy girl” issue, and how it’s a “big difference” that’s just laughable. The women who is infertile may as well be another man, because she can’t create another baby. If marriage is only about creation, then infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. Got it? Hopefully, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ummm, I think his opinion is false, pathetic and narrow-minded. That isn’t immaturity, it’s just my opinion. If you can’t handle it, I’m sorry. I’m not going to change for you.

Besides, call me immature. It’s not as if it has any affect on me.


Ummmm, Decka sadly you don’t understand what is being debated.

He is saying marriage is all about creation, or having babies. When really, it’s not just about that. But besides that, even if was just only about creation, why do we allow infertile people to get married? They can’t create, so why should they be allowed to marry?

As for your, “guy girl” issue, and how it’s a “big difference” that’s just laughable. The women who is infertile may as well be another man, because she can’t create another baby. If marriage is only about creation, then infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. Got it? Hopefully, but I doubt it.

It's not about fertile or infertile, it's about penis and vagina. How many times do we have to tell you? You're a retard!

"Besides, call me immature. It’s not as if it has any affect on me."

You're a fu*cking gay fag*got. Literally

Originally posted by Overdose
Ummm, I think his opinion is false, pathetic and narrow-minded. That isn’t immaturity, it’s just my opinion. If you can’t handle it, I’m sorry. I’m not going to change for you.


im the one that CAN handle it....what makes you so special that you can say its "just your opinion".....but then go and bash someone else when they give theirs? Its a direct contradiction in itself.


Originally posted by Overdose

Ummmm, Decka sadly you don’t understand what is being debated.

He is saying marriage is all about creation, or having babies. When really, it’s not just about that. But besides that, even if was just only about creation, why do we allow infertile people to get married? They can’t create, so why should they be allowed to marry?

As for your, “guy girl” issue, and how it’s a “big difference” that’s just laughable. The women who is infertile may as well be another man, because she can’t create another baby. If marriage is only about creation, then infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. Got it? Hopefully, but I doubt it.

while i think marraige is FAR more than creation.....i disagree with your how a guy=girl theory.

Originally posted by Decka
im the one that CAN handle it....what makes you so special that you can say its "just your opinion".....but then go and bash someone else when they give theirs? Its a direct contradiction in itself.




while i think marraige is FAR more than creation.....i disagree with your how a guy=girl theory.

I know, I'm just trying to make a point. Creation is part of it, but definetly not all of it.

This's for overdose:

If the whole world were gay than there wouldn't be many babies would there?(don't pull that donated sperm crap either) It's just not the way it's supposed to be. Go to a psychologist or something.

assassin...my post was a reply to OD's post....didnt want any confusion

Originally posted by Assassin
It's not about fertile or infertile, it's about penis and vagina. How many times do we have to tell you? You're a retard!
No, I’m not a retard. Why does it matter, about penis and vagina? If two penises or vaginas love each other, what is it to you? How does it directly affect your way of life?

And if you are still going on about the creation thing, I suggest you stop. If a women (vagina) is infertile, it does not matter if she has a vagina or not because she is infertile so having a vagina will not help her in having a baby because she is infertile.

Originally posted by Assassin
You're a fu*cking gay fag*got. Literally
Thanks for your kind and considerate words. You know you could potentially get banned for using such harsh insults? Not to mention all of your little pictures that went along with your insults.

Originally posted by Assassin
If the whole world were gay than there wouldn't be many babies would there?(don't pull that donated sperm crap either) It's just not the way it's supposed to be. Go to a psychologist or something.
How do you know it’s not the way it’s supposed to be? Can you prove it? Or are you going to bring in religious opinions to try and prove your point? Because you do know we have a separation of church and state in this country. So please, have you been gay? Do you know if it is natural or not? Why would someone choose to be gay? Do they want to be discriminated against? Honestly, use common sense.


Originally posted by Decka
what makes you so special that you can say its "just your opinion".....but then go and bash someone else when they give theirs? Its a direct contradiction in itself.
I don’t care if someone calls me narrow-minded or calls my opinions wrong. Why would I care? Go ahead call me that. As long as you can prove I’m wrong, go for it. But usually, you can’t. So, I don’t let it bother me.

Next, what is a contradiction is how you jump all over my ass for being rude etc. but then you let your fellow conservatives get away with using bigoted language and posting insulting pictures.

Originally posted by Decka
while i think marraige is FAR more than creation.....i disagree with your how a guy=girl theory.
That’s too bad. Because a man marrying a women who is infertile, is the same as a man marrying a man…in terms of creation. They both can’t reproduce. Period.

What if everyone eventually became bi-sexual where the constraints of sexual morality slipped away and we were simply left with the desire to be curious, to simply dabble in this and that for pure romantic indulgence.

I do presume to think that eventually we will knock death on the head, or at least prolong life to such an extent that babys shant be needed, and the want to explore such sexual no go's.

Theres this book called "The Dancers at the end of time" which touch's on such things.

Originally posted by Freethinker
A "preference", eh??

So......you're saying that being born with a an attraction to the same sex has nothing to do with it.

That if you wanted to, you could just choose to be a homosexual.

?!?!?!?!

Interesting.

Show me one baby that is born and ready for sex, I have never seen one, but there are many things I haven't seen?

Sex by itself is a choice, nature does not force anyone to have sex whether they're gay normal etc...

Some folks like fat some like skinny some blond some red everything is a prefrence. But what does work for nature and the big picture is man and woman not man-man or woman-woman. So being Gay has nothing to do with being natural.

Originally posted by mad dog
Some folks like fat some like skinny some blond some red everything is a prefrence. But what does work for nature and the big picture is man and woman not man-man or woman-woman. So being Gay has nothing to do with being natural.
But what harm does homosexuality actually do, if only a small percentage of the population is homosexual? In fact, homosexuality may be nature's way of controlling population. It's probably perfectly natural, just like your average heterosexual male's preference is for an attractive young female, because that is our instinct. Most heterosexuals are programmed to go after whoever is most likely to A) Have the strength and stamina to carry a baby, i.e. not diseased or old, and B) Have good genes. Homosexuals simply had their wires crossed at some point in time and received the sexual instincts that, ideally, would have been given to females.

The bottom line is, homosexuality is only harmful if a large percentage of the population becomes homosexual. There is little danger of that occurring. Thus, I propose that homosexuality is entirely natural.

Originally posted by mad dog
Show me one baby that is born and ready for sex, I have never seen one, but there are many things I haven't seen?

Sex by itself is a choice, nature does not force anyone to have sex whether they're gay normal etc...

Some folks like fat some like skinny some blond some red everything is a prefrence. But what does work for nature and the big picture is man and woman not man-man or woman-woman. So being Gay has nothing to do with being natural.

The theory that 'people are born gay' is not proven and far from it. This guy has got it right. No one is born gay.