Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 231
Gay RightsPage 8 of 18    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)

Humans are not animals


We're not??? What are we then, vegetable or mineral?

Of course we're animals, we just use more tools than the other species, and we seemto have more intelligence.... the jury is still out on whether that increased intelligence is a good evolutionary facet or not though...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 232
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/23/2009 10:06:22 PM

Natural marriage is a marriage formed by natural relationship.


But we're talking about natural & nature; no other species "marries" so how is marriage itself even "natural" ?

No other species wears clothing, I guess that's also unnatural.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 233
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/23/2009 10:08:22 PM

People must have forgotten that everyday when they use the toilet - POOP/DUDU comes out of their backside, it's not a sex organ


If that's the criteria for what constitutes a "sex organ" then I guess our genitals aren't sex organs either, since urine comes out of them.
 curiousaboutu77
Joined: 12/28/2007
Msg: 234
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 1:50:42 AM
Far too many people on this planet spend far too much time trying to force there beliefs on other people without taking a good look at themselves. If it is not our place to judge other people then it is not our place to force our beliefs onto other people as we won't be judging it. If two adults of the same sex want to marry then so be it, they should as who am i to force my thoughts onto them just like when you go to the library you should be able to read what you want and not be told what you can read. As far as im concerned, any government that wants to force there beliefs onto others and it doesn't hurt others, like whether a gay couple should be able to marry or not, is on a par with a dictatorship rather then governing a free society.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 235
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 8:02:00 AM

As far as im concerned, any government that wants to force there beliefs onto others

I totally agree with this statement.
That is precisely why "Government" should have absolutely nothing to say about forcing a religious body to do anything thats against their doctrine.
Particularly when you live in a country where you have the freedom to practice/ or not, any religion you choose.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 236
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 9:14:31 AM
That is precisely why "Government" should have absolutely nothing to say about forcing a religious body to do anything thats against their doctrine.
Particularly when you live in a country where you have the freedom to practice/ or not, any religion you choose.


Though we don't usually agree on much politically it seems, I do agree with you on that. I've never been in favor of in any way trying to "force" any religion which expressly forbids it to recognize gay marriages. Civil unions recognized by the state only, I am in favor of or at least (to tell the truth) I am basically indifferent to. As I am not gay, at the end of the day these are interesting debate topics for me but I have no real horse in the race and could really care less what they do or who they marry in a court or city hall.

But no one can , IMO, force a religious body (in a land with freedom of , and freedom from, religion) to recognize such unions or to marry same-sex couples within their institutions. That's asking too much, IMO, and it would clearly be unconstitutional I would think since it would obviously impinge on said institutions' freedom of religion (forcing them to change their clearly stated dogmas or doctrines).
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 237
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 1:54:30 PM
curiousaboutu77 wrote:
If two adults of the same sex want to marry then so be it, they should as who am i to force my thoughts onto them just like when you go to the library you should be able to read what you want and not be told what you can read.


That's an apples to oranges comparison. Marriage is for a specific purpose. And it is NOT, I repeat NOT, so two adults can show the world how much they love each other. It is a lingering vestige from biblical times which governments have embraced in order to encourage population growth and general social and economic stability.

That being said, homosexual marriage is in total dischord with not only the bible, but with the government's intended purpose for marriages. Homosexual marriage would not benefit the majority of the population (straight people) and it is in fact harmful in many ways to the individual and those they surround. So getting back to the library analogy, it's not just a difference in preference between****ns and Vonnegut.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 238
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 1:56:29 PM
Auto censorship sucks. I was simply trying write the name Charles D-I-C-K-E-N-S.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 239
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 2:12:08 PM

Marriage is for a specific purpose. And it is NOT, I repeat NOT, so two adults can show the world how much they love each other. It is a lingering vestige from biblical times which governments have embraced in order to encourage population growth and general social and economic stability.

Toss out the Bible with regard to marriage.
What an anachronistic notion--the population grows with or without the church.



That being said, homosexual marriage is in total dischord with not only the bible, but with the government's intended purpose for marriages. Homosexual marriage would not benefit the majority of the population (straight people) and it is in fact harmful in many ways to the individual and those they surround. So getting back to the library analogy, it's not just a difference in preference between****ns and Vonnegut.

In your opinion.

In my case, the 'government's intended purpose' for marriage got flushed--I'm too old to have babies, so the population premise is moot.

How is same-sex marriage 'harmful to the individual and those they surround'?
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 240
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 2:25:04 PM
^^Civil unions recognized state-by-state do not cut it, in my opinion, as they cause a whole host of complications.

I do not believe that anyone who has a "horse in the race" is asking the government to require religious institutions to recognize the marriages. No one with a thoroughbred, anyway. Personally, I think that issue allows people to take their eye off the ball (the ball, of course, being the legal unions.)


As long as it's not requiring the religious institutions to recognize them as married, then I'd be on board with it (for whatever my vote is worth), whether it's a civil union or a full legal marriage license in city hall just like any hetero couple. I've personally never been clear on whether most gay marriage activists were demanding, for example, to be married within whatever religious background they each come from, or only to be married in a court or city hall. With the former idea, I think there's no way to force it and they are overstepping. With the latter idea, IMO go to town...

I came to the conclusion a long time ago with this issue , that it's one of those things where, since it does not adversely affect me or my family in any way or impact the lives of other people negatively (and it does not), my being adamantly against it serves no real purpose and would only be yet another instance of a person putting their nose into someone else's private life where it doesn't belong trying to regulate their behavior simply because I myself don't adhere to the same lifestyle.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 241
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 2:34:43 PM

How is same-sex marriage 'harmful to the individual and those they surround'? quote]

Same sex marriage would basically be condoning and encouraging homosexuality. Homosexuality itself is harmful to the individual and those they surround. Whether its that it brings shame to family members, or just the fact that many homosexuals struggle with an assortment of psychological issues that stem from the circumstances that made them gay (such as molestation), or (to a lesser extent nowadays) the increased risk of STDs.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 2:59:40 PM
So Passionate Gent, homosexuals aside how do you feel about "God's attitude toward slaves? Selective revrence would be disrespectfull to your God, would it not?

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 243
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 4:25:37 PM

Same sex marriage would basically be condoning and encouraging homosexuality.

No.
It would be condoning marriage between two consenting adults.


Homosexuality itself is harmful to the individual and those they surround. Whether its that it brings shame to family members...

Feeling shame is a personal issue.

It is not incumbent upon anyone to ensure that others feel no shame about something that simply isn't their business to begin with.


...or just the fact that many homosexuals struggle with an assortment of psychological issues that stem from the circumstances that made them gay (such as molestation), or (to a lesser extent nowadays) the increased risk of STDs.

Seriously?

Many heterosexuals struggle with psychological issues--some from being molested--which did NOT 'make them gay', or make them become serial killers, or circus clowns.
Many heterosexuals also get STDs.
Weak arguments for your assertion that same-sex marriage causes harm to anyone.
 Fishingthereef
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 244
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 6:46:44 PM

geeleebee said:
Seriously?

Many heterosexuals struggle with psychological issues--some from being molested--which did NOT 'make them gay', or make them become serial killers, or circus clowns.
Many heterosexuals also get STDs.
Weak arguments for your assertion that same-sex marriage causes harm to anyone.

LOL!!! Yes!!! Circus clowns!!! If the Christian god thought those damn homosexuals to be "abominations" and 'deviants' SURELY that same god thought Circus clowns to be SATAN INCARDINATE.

I mean.... we can argue 'gay' all day, but who here would stand up for CLOWNS???


Scary.

Thank you, Geeleebee.

LOOK! My full-but-quite-rare FULL signature:

James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth, Outer spiral arm of the Milky Way, our universe, but all that on an atom on the flee of a really, really, really large dog that we ave dyslexically identified as 'god'.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 245
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 7:33:42 PM
Great.
Now we're gonna have the 'Save the Clowns' police on us.
Thanks.
THIS is gonna make the bad dreams come back, for SURE.


I don't know if clowns are Satan incarnate, or not--they just scare the crap outta me...

Whoa.
Just had a thought...suppose homosexual clowns want to get married? And adopt all the little abandoned clowns? What if they want to move into your neighborhood?
Crap.
What if they want to move into MY neighborhood?!

Buncha clowns...
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 246
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 8:04:46 PM
geeleebee wrote:
Same sex marriage would basically be condoning and encouraging homosexuality.
No.
It would be condoning marriage between two consenting adults.


Marriage between adults who are homosexuals...and thus, encouraging the bad things that come with that.


Homosexuality itself is harmful to the individual and those they surround. Whether its that it brings shame to family members...

Feeling shame is a personal issue.

It is not incumbent upon anyone to ensure that others feel no shame about something that simply isn't their business to begin with.


You make things other people's business when it effects them, even if that's not your intent. I can just imagine if a person's Mom found out they molested children or something. Then they say, "But don't feel ashamed Mom, it's none of your business anyway. Be happy for me instead!"


Many heterosexuals struggle with psychological issues--some from being molested--which did NOT 'make them gay', or make them become serial killers, or circus clowns.
Many heterosexuals also get STDs.
Weak arguments for your assertion that same-sex marriage causes harm to anyone.


But heteros arent' some separate group. They are just how people "are". That is the default state of being. Homosexuality is the deviation from this state of being, and this condition can't be likened back to heterosexuality as though it is somehow equivalent.

My arguments are solid, as demonstrated by me continually backing them up with facts and rational explanations.

Between unjust persecution and naive tolerance is a middle ground. That is where I stand on the issue of homosexuality.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 247
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 8:39:22 PM

Marriage between adults who are homosexuals...and thus, encouraging the bad things that come with that.

Again--in your opinion.

'Bad' is subjective, and therefore cannot be used as a measure of anything with regard to this topic.


You make things other people's business when it effects them, even if that's not your intent. I can just imagine if a person's Mom found out they molested children or something. Then they say, "But don't feel ashamed Mom, it's none of your business anyway. Be happy for me instead!"

Do you mean 'affect'?
If a person's mother found out that they were molesting children, that person's mother should call the police.
If a parent found out that their child is Gay, then how that parent feels is decided by that parent--not the child--not society--the parent.

By the way, comparing a child molester to a homosexual is very narrow-minded, and it speaks volumes about what your real feelings are with regard to the GLBT community.


But heteros arent' some separate group. They are just how people "are". That is the default state of being. Homosexuality is the deviation from this state of being, and this condition can't be likened back to heterosexuality as though it is somehow equivalent.

Being homosexual is 'normal' for a homosexual person.
Being heterosexual for a heterosexual person is 'normal' for that person.
That whole concept of 'normal' is what's on the continuum alllllll the way across.


My arguments are solid, as demonstrated by me continually backing them up with facts and rational explanations.

No, your 'arguments' are not solid, and you haven't backed them up with facts.
Rather, you have stated your opinion. Big difference.
Your 'rational explanations' are not facts--they are your opinion.


Between unjust persecution and naive tolerance is a middle ground. That is where I stand on the issue of homosexuality.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond.
 Fishingthereef
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 248
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 9:51:00 PM

coveredinpaint said
Marriage between adults who are homosexuals...and thus, encouraging the bad things that come with that.

AH! Now we're getting down to it. Please, Coveredinpaint (or anyone), please you the below space to list the supposed "bad things" that come with two men or women marrying each other:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


AND HERE... please list how if my two gay neighbors marry each other effects you:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Oh, and just FYI, while being heterosexual is just how some people "are", so is being gay. Just because YOU aren't gay and don't feel an attraction towards other men doesn't mean NO ONE feels that way... just that *YOU* don't. Just because there are FEWER gays does not make them "wrong" or "evil"... just different.

And different scares many people... not just you.


My arguments are solid, as demonstrated by me continually backing them up with facts and rational explanations.

Actually, I can't remember any real argument you've made... especially anything coming close to "solid" or "rational"... I'm sure you filling out the two blanks above will explain your position though.


Between unjust persecution and naive tolerance is a middle ground.[

What in the hell is "Naive tolerance"? You sure seem to weigh in heavily ANTI gay for being in your nebulous "Middle ground".

Do you "tolerate" Blacks and Jews too? I have many gay friends... and I've NEVER thought that I "tolerated" them... they are simply good people, living their lives and trying to make the world a better place... "Tolerance" isn't needed at all... they are just people.


James, Seattle, Washington, USA.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 10:13:14 PM
I think some folks here have established that however "religous" or "moral" they see themselves to be they simply don't want to accept the realities that come with being citizens of a Consitutional Republic as opposed to a Biblical, Islamic, or any kind of Theocracy.

Gent, Paint, I wish you great holidays and but one gift for the season, the power of critical thinking and an actual understanding of what it means to be an American. The 14th Ammendment isn't going anywhere. No man or woman is "more" equal than another.

"Think! Its very patriotic."

Paz contigos amigos mios,

John
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 250
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/24/2009 10:27:45 PM

Homosexuality itself is harmful to the individual and those they surround



Whether its that it brings shame to family members{/quote]

So people shouldn't do anything that other memberesof their family may have problems dealing with? I guess interracial marriages shouldn't be allowed, it may offend/cause shame to someone on your family. That'd go for marrying someone of another faith too I guess.


or just the fact that many homosexuals struggle with an assortment of psychological issues that stem from the circumstances that made them gay


And heterosexuals don't suffer from any pychological issues???
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 251
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/25/2009 6:11:02 AM
geeleebee wrote:


By the way, comparing a child molester to a homosexual is very narrow-minded, and it speaks volumes about what your real feelings are with regard to the GLBT community.


My intent was to not make child molesters and gays seem analogous. It was that the person does something which REALLY dissappoints their parent. I could've said "What if the mom was ashamed that her son sat at home and played video games all day?" The point of using child molesting as an example is because it would invoke EXTREME disappointment in the parent. Just like it does when a parent finds out their child that they had so much hope for, was gay. Trust me, I've read a letter from a mom to a her gay child (which I was not supposed to read), and the heartbreak in her words were palpable. Her only child, a disgrace to her, her husband, and their whole family. It was just plain sad. You'll find there is a lot of sadness surrounding homosexuality in general. Not my opinion, but literally directly from the people it adversely "affects".


No, your 'arguments' are not solid, and you haven't backed them up with facts.
Rather, you have stated your opinion. Big difference.
Your 'rational explanations' are not facts--they are your opinion.

Of course you would say that. When I argue with the most irrational religos on the topic of evolution or ID, they say the EXACT same thing to me. But again, I'm here, responding, and being as rational as I can in rebutting your comments.

SeattleRain11 wrote:

Oh, and just FYI, while being heterosexual is just how some people "are", so is being gay. Just because YOU aren't gay and don't feel an attraction towards other men doesn't mean NO ONE feels that way... just that *YOU* don't. Just because there are FEWER gays does not make them "wrong" or "evil"... just different.

And different scares many people... not just you.


No, the preponderance of people are straight. People in general don't have cancer. A small handful of the population is afflicted with it. I never said that gays are evil, just that we shouldn't EMBRACE homosexuality. Would you say that some people "are just born with cancer" and we should just let them die because they are not evil or wrong for having it? Heck no, we treat it and fight that cancer to try to save them. So they can live happy, FULLFILLING lives. Could we draw a comparison there perhaps?


Between unjust persecution and naive tolerance is a middle ground.[

What in the hell is "Naive tolerance"? You sure seem to weigh in heavily ANTI gay for being in your nebulous "Middle ground".

I have many gay friends... and I've NEVER thought that I "tolerated" them... they are simply good people, living their lives and trying to make the world a better place... "Tolerance" isn't needed at all... they are just people.


Naive tolerance, if you don't know how to look up definitions, essentially means that you just embrace everything without looking at it critically. I've not once used derogatory terms for gays nor stated that they should be persecuted. Just goes to show your attempt to polarize this debate by making me seem homophobic and anti-gay. The reality is that I am against the condition of homosexuality, not the people afflicted by it. Just like oncologists are against cancer, not their patients.

Gays are people too, true. And they have rights and should be given respect. Cancer patients are people too and deserve the same. I say fight the cancer, not the person. Do you get it now?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 252
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/25/2009 8:30:38 AM

Gays are people too, true. And they have rights and should be given respect. Cancer patients are people too and deserve the same. I say fight the cancer, not the person. Do you get it now?


Cancer is something that is wrong with the person, and as such we should try to cure it. A homosexual has nothing wrong with themself, and thus has no need to be cured; your comparison is ludicrous.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 253
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/25/2009 9:20:00 AM

Just like it does when a parent finds out their child that they had so much hope for, was gay.

Generalize much?

The hope parents have for their children is that they grow up to become everything they have the potential to achieve. Parents hope that their children never have to suffer, although suffering is what often peels away the facade of who we think we are, and reveals who we truly are.
Parents want their children to never do without--although doing without forces us to take a different route, thereby discovering strengths and/or talents we never knew we had.
Parents want their children to be loved and cherished for the unique being they are.

Parents who choose to feel ashamed of their GLBT child make that choice from ignorance and fear. Their dreams for their child are just that--their dreams.

For the child who has grown up feeling different and apart, finally acknowledging their homosexuality is profoundly freeing.

If parents choose to live in shame, then shame on them for wasting the experience of really knowing their child because of fear and ignorance.
 Fishingthereef
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 254
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/25/2009 10:26:21 AM
coveredinpaint said:
My intent was to not make child molesters and gays seem analogous. It was that the person does something which REALLY dissappoints their parent. I could've said "What if the mom was ashamed that her son sat at home and played video games all day?" The point of using child molesting as an example is because it would invoke EXTREME disappointment in the parent. Just like it does when a parent finds out their child that they had so much hope for, was gay. Trust me, I've read a letter from a mom to a her gay child (which I was not supposed to read), and the heartbreak in her words were palpable. Her only child, a disgrace to her, her husband, and their whole family. It was just plain sad. You'll find there is a lot of sadness surrounding homosexuality in general. Not my opinion, but literally directly from the people it adversely "affects".

WOW. How in the heck can you say this isn't YOUR opinion? You give one example of narrow-minded, bigoted, homophobic parents and instantly presume that ALL parents are narrow-minded bigots.

Could you generalize any more than that?

Why is it the gay son's fault that his parents are this way? The PARENTS... not the gay son are the one's with the sickness. Maybe one day THEY will finally see that their son isn't the one with the problem and seek help for themselves.

Is this one of your "logical arguments" that you claim you have?



No, the preponderance of people are straight. People in general don't have cancer. A small handful of the population is afflicted with it. I never said that gays are evil, just that we shouldn't EMBRACE homosexuality. Would you say that some people "are just born with cancer" and we should just let them die because they are not evil or wrong for having it? Heck no, we treat it and fight that cancer to try to save them. So they can live happy, FULLFILLING lives. Could we draw a comparison there perhaps?

Not just 'no', but HELL NO. You can't draw any comparison at all... well, by 'you' I mean most people... obviously YOU have drawn a comparison to gay & cancer -- and earlier the now-classic gay & child molester. (Yes, I know you recanted that comparison later, but the fact that it was your initial comparison is very enlightening. You only changed it when someone called you out on it.)

Your homophobia is quite clear and it's laughable that you claim some sort of "middle ground" on this issue. Homosexuality is not a disease any more than 'tall' or 'blond hair' are diseases.

Now... HOMOPHOBIA.... there's a disease worth fighting, as are all narrow-minded sicknesses.


Naive tolerance, if you don't know how to look up definitions, essentially means that you just embrace everything without looking at it critically. I've not once used derogatory terms for gays nor stated that they should be persecuted. Just goes to show your attempt to polarize this debate by making me seem homophobic and anti-gay. The reality is that I am against the condition of homosexuality, not the people afflicted by it. Just like oncologists are against cancer, not their patients.

Just in THIS post you've called gays:
"Sick"
"Disappointing"
"afflicted"
"something to be ashamed of"
"EXTREMELY disappointing" (emphasis yours)
"a Cancer"
"sad"
"in need of treatment"
and
"disgraceful"

. . . and you've said MUCH more against gay men and women, but I didn't want to go back through all your posts.

I noticed you purposely didn't list out your "logical reason" homosexuality is bad... Remind me ... remind us ALL please of your critically-thought-out reasoning that being gay is bad for society:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Feel free to add more numbers if needed. Sadly... I can pretty much guarantee you'll ignore this request again, and I'll presume the reason is that when confronted with actually having to LIST your reasons, you yourself realize that they are very poor rational at best.


Gays are people too, true. And they have rights and should be given respect. Cancer patients are people too and deserve the same. I say fight the cancer, not the person. Do you get it now?

I say comparing a gay person to someone having CANCER shows your own sickness, not theirs. Do YOU get it now?

James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 255
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/25/2009 10:53:39 AM
Bigotry :The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.


<div class="quote"> You give one example of a narrow-minded, bigoted homophobe set of parents and think that ALL parents are narrow-minded bigots.


<div class="quote">
Now... HOMOPHOBIA.... there's a disease worth fighting, as are all narrow-minded sicknesses.

I suppose you can't see the similarity.
I suppose we will never find any "middle ground" because one side is no more interested than the other.
I'm not sure "Homophobia" (a fear ) has anything at all to do with "Repulsion"
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >