Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like Christians, pro-life people, etc?
Gays do not have the monopoly on attacks here.
Nobody deserves to be attacked, that much is true... but when Christians and "pro-lifers" are continuously attacking the other side, they need to expect some will fight back. I wasn't taught to be a bully or aggressor, but I was taught to stand up for myself & my beliefs. And while you might not see things this way, Christians have a monopoly in this country - and I have a hard time feeling sorry for people (as a group) who bully, harass, and otherwise torment those who are weaker than them. The FBI doesn't lie, and these statistics pretty much speak for themselves:
Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group). (Based on Table 1.)
Sexual-orientation bias
Of the 1,482 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:
55.1 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
26.4 percent were victims because of an anti-homosexual bias.
15.3 percent were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.8 percent were victims because of an anti-bisexual bias.
1.4 percent were victims because of an anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Sorry, but with those types of statistics, I just don't buy the "woe is me, we suffer from discrimination too." That doesn't mean I'm okay with anyone being a victim of hate, but to compare the suffering of these groups is just ridiculous. And as a Jewish person myself, I am part of the group that experiences over 71% of all religious-based hate crimes (and that's only including those which are convicted as hate crimes) - and yet I'm still okay with including gays & lesbians as victims of hate, especially considering they stood beside us in the concentration camps. They do suffer greatly, and you obviously have no clue what that is like.
Quote:
While the transgendered do have a mental disorder, I don't believe gays do as well, but please replace the conviction of those who say any given LGBT lifestyle is "unnatural" or whatnot with the oft-repeated statement here: "It's not a baby, it's just a cluster of cells."
It is very common to see the liberal crowd insist that some of us are crazy,
that abortion is not murder, that it is just removing a cluster of cells or whatever
other euphemism makes them feel better. They stamp their feet and crow and crow.
That's not an attack, those are just facts... and I've never heard of anyone being targeted for NOT choosing abortion, whereas the hardcore pro-lifers think it's okay to bomb & protest clinics that perform them. Murder is when you firebomb a clinic and kill everyone inside, choosing to remove a cluster of cells is not - as any court of law would agree.
Quote:
But whenever anyone has a less-than-glowing opinion of the "LGBT lifestyle," that is just intolerant! Uncalled for! Bigoted!
It works both ways.
You don't have to love them, we only expect people to show the amount of respect they deserve... is that so difficult? Despite what you might think by my statements above, I completely respect Christians and the Christian faith. I would never condemn them as a group, I would never harass them on the streets, and I would certainly never attempt to strip them of basic rights. I have many friends who are Christian, and not ONCE have I told them they're "wrong" or evil in any way. There's a difference between respecting those who don't share your beliefs, and embracing their beliefs or lifestyle as your own. Get it?
Fat people and ugly people also face "mistreatment and persecution."
And that isn't right either... or do you think it's okay to mistreat gays, just because other groups have experienced persecution?
Quote:
What I see, based on the evidence, is a psychological phenomenon. People choosing to satisfy their own morbid sexual fantasies and desires or in the case of the "transgenders," simply wanting to be "different" simply because they can be "different" and there is a world that tolerate such silliness and conveys it rapidly through mediums like the internet.
I can't wait until "trans-species" start popping up in the news and on the internet (if they haven't already).
I'm sorry, but that is an absolutely ridiculous (and far-reaching) "argument" - yeah, like people are going to become transgendered just because it's cool & tolerated on the internet? Mmmmkay. Bottom line, it doesn't really matter WHY anyone is transgendered, gay, or whatever... as long as they're not hurting other people, I don't see how it's your business why they are this way.
Quote:
What about the rights of mass murderers? Pedophiles? Rapists? Embezzlers?
Why should they be oppressed and denied personal freedoms and a demand for equality?
Another major logic fail, and I can't even believe I'm responding to such a comment... but since you don't seem to understand the difference, murder, pedophilia, rape & embezzlement are ILLEGAL and HARMFUL TO OTHERS. To even compare these to consensual adults of the same sex loving one another is not only illogical, but shows you're stretching really hard to make yourself sound reasonable. You did not accomplish your goal, at least not to those of us with a shred of common sense & understanding of the law.
Quote:
I don't know that it necessarily is. I only know that it is contrary to nature.
Then why do animals engage in homosexual activity? And don't tell me "we're not animals," because you are the one bringing nature into the debate... and the last time I checked, animals are a part of nature & the natural order of life.
Quote:
Just because one can do something, it does not logically follow that one ought to do something. That's Philosophy 101.
We also don't have to eat more food than we need to survive, drink alcohol, drive cars, masturbate, watch television, play golf, or thousands of other activities humans engage in regularly. So why do we do them? Because they make us happy, and offer some type of fulfillment in our lives. So unless you abstain 100% from everything that isn't necessary for survival, you are being a hypocrite.
Oh yeah, and in case you weren't aware, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in "non-traditional" and non-procreative sexual acts... I don't want to get too graphic (PG-13 site, LOL), but why are straight folks putting things where they don't naturally belong? Just because they CAN do it, doesn't mean they SHOULD do it!
Quote:
The simple reality is that every life-form on this planet has one function, and one function only: to propagate the species and ensure its survival.
I'm almost 35 years old, don't have children, and don't ever plan to have them... so have I failed at my human obligations, and do I not deserve equal rights? What if I choose to marry my boyfriend, even though neither of us want kids - should our marriage license be denied, just because we'll be using birth control? And what about heterosexual older or infertile couples who want to get married? I assume you don't support their marriages either, seeing as the only purpose in marriage is to procreate.
Quote:
Since the primary purpose and function of humans is to propagate the species, homosexuality is anathema to that end; it is at odds; completely contrary; and even perhaps destructive to the species.
Long before the existence of either religion or government, men and women paired off and formed families to bear children and ensure the survival of the human race. Obviously, neither religion nor government are necessary for the union of men and women.
You haven't demonstrated how homosexuality ensures the continued survival of human beings. Surely you aren't going to suggest that a man can breastfeed an infant, or carry a fetus to term.
See above... and like another poster said, homosexuals can still procreate with or without marriage, and heterosexuals can still marry without creating children. Fail yet again.
Don't we have enough humans in this world already? The planet is literally busting at the seams, and it's unlikely the Earth will sustain us for much longer if population growth continues multiplying... so if anything you should be thanking the gays & non-breeders among us, for not contributing to this problem. Not to mention, many scientists have agreed that homosexuality and infertility exist in nature to CONTROL population overgrowth.
Being the father of two recent college graduates, I know that there are many, many different scholarships available for all kinds of students. They are not all related to academic performance, and many of them have to do with some group characteristic.
If you want to single out this one for elimination, and don't have anything to say about all the others, then it starts to look like you're trying to discriminate against gays.
Is this the only example of "special rights" that you are opposed to?
For instance, there are some misguided people on these very threads who argue that the right to marry a person of the same sex is one of these "special rights" and that gays have equal rights as straights because they have the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Do you agree with that position?
So a scholarship which is only open to heterosexuals is just fine?
Yet, two heterosexuals who preferred to insert the penis into the anus, or the finger into the vagina, or the tongue into the anus, or the big toe into the mouth, etc...are still allowed to receive the special rights that you feel are only for heterosexuals who only insert the penis into the vagina.
Obviously what we need is to have every couple fill out a questionnaire on their marriage application specifying what type of sexual activities they plan on engaging in. Then we need inspectors to ensure that these statements are upheld and the stated sexual activities not deviated from.
While all these options are available, only one is designed by nature to be the corrects hole into which to insert the penis, and only this particular act creates children. Marriage laws address legal issue arising from vaginal intercourse, and this is as it should be since all other type of intercourse are incapable of producing children.
So a scholarship which is only open to heterosexuals is just fine?
Sure, why not? Scholarships exist for just about every group, so I don't see how that's any different... provided there are ALSO scholarships for homosexuals, thus making it equal on both sides.
What does that have to do with marriage? Homosexuals can procreate if they want to. And there's nothing in the current marriage laws that says procreation is required to have a legal marriage.
And of course, there are evolutionary reasons for homosexuality that do help control the species, so Mircea is wrong on both counts.
While all these options are available, only one is designed by nature to be the corrects hole into which to insert the penis, and only this particular act creates children. Marriage laws address legal issue arising from vaginal intercourse, and this is as it should be since all other type of intercourse are incapable of producing children.
You're avoiding the question... if an engaged straight couple DOES perform these "non-procreative" acts, should they still be allowed to marry? And what about people who can't physically make children? My mother is 64 years old and single, so should we not allow her to marry her boyfriend? After all, she can't make any more babies!!
Putting it into the mouth or the anus doesn't preclude putting it into the vagina.
How do you know? I've known people who mostly (perhaps only) perform non-vaginal sex, so that is a fallacy... and further proof that "what you choose to put where" is not dependent upon one's sexual orientation.
A better question might be "why do you even care??" I don't care what people do with their parts, and it certainly shouldn't be the basis of marriage laws. These days marriage is based (mostly) on love, not what sexual organs they put where, or whether or not the couple plans to have children. Fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That doesn't mean I'm okay with anyone being a victim of hate, but to compare the suffering of these groups is just ridiculous. And as a Jewish person myself, I am part of the group that experiences over 71% of all religious-based hate crimes (and that's only including those which are convicted as hate crimes) - and yet I'm still okay with including gays & lesbians as victims of hate, especially considering they stood beside us in the concentration camps. They do suffer greatly, and you obviously have no clue what that is like.
