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.
This is false, as many of my gay and lesbian friends ARE Christian. And your 'proof' of this is? Sorry, but if he was gay, he's still gay - he's just in denial. And what do gays 'do' that bothers you? Is it the fact that they love another man? Because, frankly, who someone loves should bother no one.
We all know what gays 'do' that bothers them. The irony is, heterosexuals do those things, too. I know, shocking, huh?!
Actually, you can have it both ways. Human sexuality involves a wide range of sexual behavior. That we have assigned names to various sections of the range is an artificial construct. Just like assigning names to the spectrum of visible light. Blue is an artificial construct. It helps us understand the world around us, to describe and explain things, but just because you decide that Alfred's sexual turn-ons are abnormal doesn't necessarily make that true. What appeals to Alfred may not appeal to you, but that is the beauty of the human condition, we're all different.
Pretty much this. Only looking at it as "either homosexuality is a deficiency or heterosexuality is" is rather foolish, and proves a lack of decent research.
Whether or not homosexuality WAS pulled off of the APA list in the 70's due to pressure from the homosexual community is rather irrelevant, especially considering the fact that there was continuous research done SINCE then which has proven that homosexuality is not abhorrent or negative by any means.
It's only "abhorrent" with those who have previous unfounded biases.
As far as the conspiracy theory goes, did you even bother reading the link I provided you a few pages back. In it it states that even the "father of the gay gene theory" agrees that it was changed due to activism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not someone who is staunchly on your side?
Yeah, right. So it's all a cover-up, huh? All of the major mental health organizations in the modern world are just pretending like homosexuality is not a disorder because of some activists who "forced" them to make the change in the 1970s?
Well I missed 1/2 the thread, was brougth into the discussion when it was merged with another one..
Thanks for pointing that out - I actually hadn't realized threads had been merged, though I did wonder why it seemed a few posters were mentioning a poll that did not appear to be the same one at the head of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm not sure thats even the situation or not.. Is pedophilia a choice? Some would say no, people have a mental problem, but we still outlaw pedophilia.. And no, I'm not equating gays to pedophilia, just sighting that as an example about a status vs a choice.. Lots of "non choices" is regulated away. How about domestic violence? Is the perpetrator of domestic violence making a "choice"? You might say they are, while others would argue that its bread into them.. But again we deem that illegal... Obviously I'm again not saying that "gay" should be illegal, but again, we dont allow people to act upon their desires in many situations..
I do understand where you're coming from - but I would argue that "consent" should actually have legal ramifications and impact in consideration for what we deem legal or otherwise.
I don't want to sidetrack the actual point of this thread, but I would like to present a relevant counterpoint here. In many states, the way the domestic violence protection laws are written, the participation of the victim in the prosecution of the perpetrator is unnecessary to the process (though juries mostly seem inclined to deem it necessary to handing down a conviction). In some states, "consent" is a valid defense to domestic violence charges - Illinois being, I believe, the first to have allowed for this particular affirmative defense as it relates to couples involved in consensual sadomasochistic relationships. Much in line with how sports such as boxing are deemed legal - beating the crap out of each other IS legal in a consensual sporting context.
So I think that consent has valid legal implications and ramifications that can be extended to arguments for and against gay marriage versus legal protections for say, pedophiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And one day it might be deemed that people dont wake up and decide to become pedophiles.. (again, not calling gays pedophiles, just sighting it as an example)..
Understood - but I think they DO one day decide to act on such urges. And again, I think the concept of "consent" is valid and applicable, that we do have precedent for consent to shape our laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But in reality, isnt gay a choice? I mean one could choose to not have sex.. Its not like its forced upon you? I know nature doesnt say this is reasonable that one go through life a virgin because they find the thought of sex repulsive, but nothing says you have to have sex.. There are people who simply dont believe in sex, so why should these people be denied "protection" that gays are now asking for?
Herein lies the crux - a difference between orientation and action. Both of which are relevant to the debate. Both of which will need to be settled by SCOTUS. On some level, the reasonableness of a choice is at issue as well. If your choice is between bad and worse, is it truly a choice at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I believe most people make a choice to be homo, hetero. I mean lets get serious here, I'm sure lots of hetero's find people of their own sex attractive.. but they make a choice to not act upon their desires.. That doesnt mean that either is wrong, but that also doesnt mean that they be treated the same.. I could after all choose to not have sex.. It is a real option
It is a real option, but is it a reasonable one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I happen to believe that will be the outcome by the SCOTUS but what I object to is this overpowering federal government dictating every single states laws on their behalf. Its almost to the point that states are meaningless, which is the exact opposite of the original layout of government we run under.
There's validity to your objection... . But the reality is, we are trying to work within the system that actually exists. It may be that one day things aren't done as they are today, but for now, THIS is how we legislate, THIS is how we've shaped our country. It may not be the ideal, it may not even be the original goal - but it's where we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats just it.. If each state can decide laws that oversee "common law marriages" then why cant they do the same for other forms of marriages?
btw, the Supreme Court threw out common law marriages as no longer "marriage", they are technically shared assets..
With the way our nation is currently structured, including our tax laws, our social security laws, even our (new/pending) health care laws, we have imbued the federal government with the ability, and responsibility, to legislate issues that are directly impacted by these things... and marriage is one of them.
The United States is fairly unique in that we take up a big chunk of a rather enormous continent, and how we have divided up our big chunk is into states, rather than autonomous countries. I had a friend here visiting from London a couple of years ago, and he was pretty staggered by the fact that driving up to the UP of Michigan took longer than it takes him to traverse his country. He kept saying, "we're really still in the same state??"
We also have open borders and thus, free movement and relocation within our country. As such, there is a very valid argument for certain statuses and rights to be universal within the larger borders of the nation. It is unreasonable to expect a segment of our population to cease to have a valid and life-impacting status simply by literally crossing the street.
If a man and woman get married in France and then move here, no matter where they move in the US, we consider their marriage valid. We don't trouble ourselves with whether or not their marriage was performed in a manner consistent with our local laws - it is enough that it was consistent with the laws of the land in which they resided at the time.
But that's not how gay marriage is being treated by the states. If a couple is married in Massachusetts, they're told in the other states that they are NOT married, and thus denied status under local laws.
That's not just. That's not equality. That's not even separate but equal.
You must believe that left-handedness is a disorder too, given your definition of what's natural or normal.
An abnormal response.
We are born with 2 hands. Everyone is. However, men are born with 'different' private (sex*ual) parts than women. To me, that indicates 'naturally', that men are supposed to/were naturally meant to, interact w/women, in a sexual way. And not 'men w/men or women w/women'.
Don't make it so complicated when it's very simple. What fits a man's private parts (female) and vice versa re:women (men)?
Anything outside is abnormal. Un-natural.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You're saying that if we don't believe your conspiracy theory, then we're the ones who are being ignorant.
To respond to this bit of ridiculousness would necessitate violating the "keep it PG-13" requirement of this site.
Suffice it to say, if your marriage is all about how your parts fit with your partner's parts, if THAT is the defining aspect... well, you have my sympathy.
You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. I can't blame 'ya. I've already agreed that I believe being born gay is not a choice in most cases, and that not allowing you guys to marry is unconstitutional, even if I am opposed to it. That right there should let you know that I am more tolerant than many here on CD. But at the same time, I still get slammed as being anti-gay.
I've thrown my two cents out there. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within 50 years, regardless who opposes it. Just like any other minority fighting for their rights. As Freddie Mercury sang his song "I want it all and I want it now". Well, you guys are going to get it, but there is a process to adhere to.
This is how I feel. Obviously it is not enough for you guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Yeah, right. So it's all a cover-up, huh? All of the major mental health organizations in the modern world are just pretending like homosexuality is not a disorder because of some activists who "forced" them to make the change in the 1970s?
I've tried to discuss this but as usual, I'm written off as a right wing nut job. The fact of the matter is that it has become culturally acceptable in our society since then. Hey, more power to you guys. Since it seems that I am the only conservative left on this thread at the current time, I'll let you guys/gals have at it for a while. I've got other work I gotta get done. Cheers!
This is false, as many of my gay and lesbian friends ARE Christian. And your 'proof' of this is? Sorry, but if he was gay, he's still gay - he's just in denial. And what do gays 'do' that bothers you? Is it the fact that they love another man? Because, frankly, who someone loves should bother no one.
ok and who are you to tell someone that once your gay you have to stay gay? come on now, he had a choice to be gay or to go straight and he did just that. what bothers me? you dont have time to hear my list but one of the things that bothers me, you alll are so intollerant of others rights but we have to tip toe around yours and we have to accept your beliefs or we are evil. thats bulls@#$
I find it funny how Christians say that the Bible says marriage should only be between man and women but some how fail to mention that Atheists can get married with no problems or complaints.
Makes me wonder why they are so biggoted against gays but not Atheists.
An abnormal response.
We are born with 2 hands. Everyone is. However, men are born with 'different' private (sex*ual) parts than women. To me, that indicates 'naturally', that men are supposed to/were naturally meant to, interact w/women, in a sexual way. And not 'men w/men or women w/women'.
Don't make it so complicated when it's very simple. What fits a man's private parts (female) and vice versa re:women (men)?
Anything outside is abnormal. Un-natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twowolves
It's really quite simple. See response above.
Oh, I get it! You're opposed to homosexual sex, as well as anal and oral sex between heterosexuals because "that's not what those parts are for". You know, heterosexuals, by sheer numbers of an overwhelming majority, engage in far more anal and oral sex, thus misusing all those parts you really want to see used properly, than do homosexuals.
But let's be honest - you couldn't care less. You don't care a bit about 'misused parts', it's just a simplistic rationalization that happened to jibe with your homophobia, and you didn't bother to think through the implications of your silly, ad hoc justification.
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.
