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.
I didn't mean that to be funny or an attack. I just remember (perhaps incorrectly) Harrier posting within the last year or so about being an undergraduate college student considering law school and a career in law.
He's switching to teaching. But only the truth, not the things the school curriculum requires him to teach.
For marriage to be legal does not require a church or religion. Why are you not fighting divorce? It is more damaging to straight marriages than any gay marriage. It is the mortal threat.
I oppose most divorces, but that is not the subject of this thread.
"Marriage is still marriage, just because two women or two men marry does not change the word or the definition."
Two men or two women marrying does not change the definition of marriage.
This is true, but the definition of marriage must be changed in order for them to marry.
And by the same token just because a few people do not change their sexual orientation does not mean that no one can. You're falling into the same trap and line of thinking that the anti-gay folks are using: because it's right for you it must be right for everyone and therefore enforced upon everyone. Might want to think about that a little.
No evidence exists that anyone has changed their orientation. If it did, don't think you the devoutly religious "ex-gay" organizations would show evidence that? Instead, their Presidents have admitted not a single one of their members have ever changed their orientation.
It's amazing how many people are threatened by the thought of societal acceptance of gays in general, much less gay marriage.
It's also amazing how many people are threatened by the existence of religion, except that it's also amazing how many religious people are threatened by the absence of religion.
One might say the same to you. You seem to want to ignore certain parts in there rather than amending it.
Here's an example. The First Amendment protects ALL speech, not just political speech. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that "Freedom of Speech" is restricted only to political speech. Nowhere does it say the free exercise of religion presupposes that one MUST choose a religion to exercise. They were very aware of aethiests and free-thinkers during the 1700s, so it's not like they didn't account for them.
DOMA is a problem, because it technically overrides the rights of the several states in this case. Unless it's repealed it's going to have to go to the Supreme Court at some point. Obama isn't enforcing the law but the next President might choose to do so. Might be wise to think about how to deal with that. Simply ignoring DOMA isn't going to make it go away. And even though it's probably unconstitutional doesn't guarantee that it'll get struck down, not these days....
Absolutely correct. There are many belief systems that don't have God or a god-figure. Buddhism, Shintoism, the Native American animistic belief systems, and many more. Perhaps our friend NY Jew doesn't believe in those either?
When a gay person came on to me I made that decision (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I "confirmed" my straightness to that point). I have a friend who made a decision to go from straight to gay after enduring two divorces. People clearly CAN make conscious decisions regarding this if they choose to. Not necessarily that they HAVE to or ALL of them do but people CAN do so. That is the point. I realize the gay movement generally doesn't like that fact or want to believe that fact because they think it hurts their argument. I really don't care because frankly there's no argument to be had: what exists exists and needs no justification or argument.
When a gay person "came on" to you, you confirmed you inborn knowledge that you "straight"! So have I! I know many many people, both men and women who have been married to an opposite sex partner, who have children, and who have finally, often in their 50's & 60's, finally admitted to themselves and others that they are primarily emotionally attracted to same sex individuals. They do not wish to "hurt their legal spouses, or their children, they feel ashamed for being "who they are", they say that in our no sane society, would they choose to be homosexual, but they can no longer deny their true feelings. They have finally "fallen in love" with someone of the same sex, and wish, as we all do, to be happy, to feel validated, and to well and truly "love". Talk to gay people, . . . .. not the ones who are still in denial, but those who have accepted themselves and learned to love themselves, and the the truth will be obvious!
s
I oppose most divorces, but that is not the subject of this thread.
"Marriage is still marriage, just because two women or two men marry does not change the word or the definition."
Two men or two women marrying does not change the definition of marriage.
This is true, but the definition of marriage must be changed in order for them to marry.
The definition of marriage is defined by law, and it's already changing throughout the country. Marriage is also an English word, meaning other countries have unions equivalent to our marriage, that by definition include same-sex couples.
You need to get over this semantic argument. You're not going to win. People like you are dying off (Thank God), and are looking more and more like KKK, Neo-Nazis, or Flat Earthers. All relegated to the dustbin of ignorant history.
When a gay person came on to me I made that decision (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I "confirmed" my straightness to that point). I have a friend who made a decision to go from straight to gay after enduring two divorces. People clearly CAN make conscious decisions regarding this if they choose to. Not necessarily that they HAVE to or ALL of them do but people CAN do so. That is the point. I realize the gay movement generally doesn't like that fact or want to believe that fact because they think it hurts their argument. I really don't care because frankly there's no argument to be had: what exists exists and needs no justification or argument.
Do you understand the concept of attraction? One can not voluntarily control who or what they find attractive. Why do some people like blondes or brunettes? They don't consciously choose that, it's controlled by chemical reactions in the brain. We don't look at people and go through a thorough analysis, "Hmm, I see that person over there, I think I will find her attractive. She has these qualities that seem appealing to me from my current vantage point. But that guy over there, despite having ripped muscles and chiseled facial features is definitely not someone I'm going to find attractive today".
It doesn't work that way. You see someone, and your automatic response is, "Wow, she's hot!" or "Woa, that guy is pretty handsome".
Your friend never went from straight to gay. Most humans, according to the Kinsey studies are actually bisexual, even if most are unaware of it. Your friend is most likely bisexual, and became more self-aware of those attractions. Or your friend is gay, suppressed it, had relationships with the opposite sex, but couldn't deny their true attractions which is what led to the divorces. Happens every day among closeted gays. You frankly, have no idea what the cause is. You're not in your friends head, and even your friend may not know.
You're not going to win. People like you are dying off (Thank God), and are looking more and more like KKK, Neo-Nazis, or Flat Earthers. All relegated to the dustbin of ignorant history.
No evidence exists that anyone has changed their orientation. If it did, don't think you the devoutly religious "ex-gay" organizations would show evidence that? Instead, their Presidents have admitted not a single one of their members have ever changed their orientation.
Actually evidence does exist, although there's some question as to whether the people who "changed" were induced to say that or not. And all of the evidence regarding this is allegorical anyway, so people feel free to ignore it at leisure. And frankly some people don't want to change, and that's fine too. But keep this in mind: if you want others to accept that you make your own decisions in life and they don't get say, then you have to grant the same courtesy, and if someone "chooses" not to be gay, whether you believe they actually can make that choice or not, you MUST accept it.
One can not voluntarily control who or what they find attractive.
And with that straight falsehood, your entire argument falls apart. You need to stop pretending that people don't have a choice and simply accept that people must accept your life choices whatever they may be.
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.
