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.
By saying this, you're just doing the same thing the individuals you are complaining about do. It's easy to fall into generalizations but we should remember not all members of any group, whether religious or based on sexual orientation or something else, are uniform in their thoughts and beliefs.
How? How is it doing the same?
There are a group of people who fall in love with people of the same gender. Then there are people who believe they have an imagery friend in the sky and all delusional. Two totally different things.
Not all members of any group are uniform in their beliefs. Correct. But all religious people believe there is a fairy daddy up in the sky, don't they? They call it faith. I call it mental sickness.
There are a group of people who fall in love with people of the same gender. Then there are people who believe they have an imagery friend in the sky and all delusional. Two totally different things.
Not all members of any group are uniform in their beliefs. Correct. But all religious people believe there is a fairy daddy up in the sky, don't they? They call it faith. I call it mental sickness.
The idea is to put your belief aside for a minute so you can be tolerant. Many religious people think gay people are mentally ill. But as a gay person I ask them to put their beliefs aside for a minute so they can have a conversation with me or do business with me or what have you. So I think it's only fair to put our beliefs aside about organized religion (I do agree with you) to be civil and tolerant of religious people.
46% of HIV cases are among black people. And while on the national level you're right that gay men have the highest rate of HIV, on the global level, the demographic with the highest rate of HIV is heterosexuals.
You just contradicted yourself here. I'm guessing you mean that the majority of cases are among heteros, while the highest RATE of them occur among homosexuals. Right?
What do you think you've been doing this whole thread? You're judging gays for being "immoral" because of your personal beliefs.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy. You guys howl when we dare to say something is immoral, yet you can't see how intolerant you are for telling us we're wrong. Yes, it is immoral. Deal with it.
Quote:
No, gays don't. Straight people have the right to marry the person they fall in love with. Since gays fall in love with people of the same sex, they can only marry someone they're not in love with. Hardly comparable.
What if a straight person falls in love with someone they can't marry? Maybe a 2nd wife? Someone underage? What if the person they fall in love with doesn't return the love?
Nobody is guaranteed marriage for the sake of love. Gay or straight.
Quote:
We already have given special rights to heterosexuals. Unless of course we redefine marriage as having nothing to do with the person you love, then allowing opposite-sex marriage restricts marriage to heterosexuals.
The law is blind to love. I don't have the "right" to be married for love any more than anyone else.
You just contradicted yourself here. I'm guessing you mean that the majority of cases are among heteros, while the highest RATE of them occur among homosexuals. Right?
No, the highest rate of HIV is among straight people on the global level, and among gay people within the U.S. The links I provided are more exact in that they specify heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, since sex and sexual orientation don't always necessarily correlate. (For example a gay person could be married and having heterosexual sex cause of social pressure or a straight person could get raped by someone of the same sex.) But it shows that HIV transmission is hardly restricted to the gay community and not even the most prevalent among gays.
Quote:
I am pointing out the hypocrisy. You guys howl when we dare to say something is immoral, yet you can't see how intolerant you are for telling us we're wrong. Yes, it is immoral. Deal with it.
I am fine with you believing it is immoral. It's people who take that belief and use it as a reason to mistreat gay people or prevent them from having the same rights that I disagree with. I think most religions are bullsh*t but that doesn't mean I have to openly mock religious people, harass them, or try to take away their right to worship.
Quote:
What if a straight person falls in love with someone they can't marry? Maybe a 2nd wife? Someone underage? What if the person they fall in love with doesn't return the love?
Nobody is guaranteed marriage for the sake of love. Gay or straight.
I am for polyamory, so I think people should be able to marry a 2nd or 3rd person, etc. Underage is a different story because children cannot consent. But once that child becomes of age, by all means. And if the person doesn't return the love, that's not consensual either. The only expression of sexuality that takes both people's feelings and rights into account is consensual. It can be homosexual, heterosexual, polyamorous, fetishist, or whatever else in nature. But if it's consensual, no one is being forced to do anything against their will and therefore no one is being hurt.
Maybe they're not guaranteed it, but it should at least be a possibility for everyone.
Quote:
The law is blind to love. I don't have the "right" to be married for love any more than anyone else.
In that case, do you support same-sex marriage? If it's really not about love then it's not about allowing gays to marry, so it's not condoning homosexuality in any way. Any two women or men should be able to marry for benefits without any romance. Right?
No, the highest rate of HIV is among straight people on the global level, and among gay people within the U.S. The links I provided are more exact in that they specify heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, since sex and sexual orientation don't always necessarily correlate. (For example a gay person could be married and having heterosexual sex cause of social pressure or a straight person could get raped by someone of the same sex.) But it shows that HIV transmission is hardly restricted to the gay community and not even the most prevalent among gays.
Generally speaking, HIV is highest among people actively "doing" something to get it--be it drug use or homosexuality. From what I understand, there was a recent study released maybe a month ago that showed the highest per capita rate (must be US only) of HIV is among homosexuals.
In any event, the issue is somewhat secondary to the topic.
Quote:
I am fine with you believing it is immoral. It's people who take that belief and use it as a reason to mistreat gay people or prevent them from having the same rights that I disagree with. I think most religions are bullsh*t but that doesn't mean I have to openly mock religious people, harass them, or try to take away their right to worship.
I can agree with you there. I don't think there is any call to mistreat someone.
Of course, you and I disagree on the "rights" issue because I think we should all be equal. You seem to think we need to redefine marriage to include same-gender marriage if you're gay.
Quote:
I am for polyamory, so I think people should be able to marry a 2nd or 3rd person, etc.
I'm not.
Quote:
Underage is a different story because children cannot consent. But once that child becomes of age, by all means. And if the person doesn't return the love, that's not consensual either.
Then it's not really just based on love, is it?
Quote:
The only expression of sexuality that takes both people's feelings and rights into account is consensual. It can be homosexual, heterosexual, polyamorous, fetishist, or whatever else in nature. But if it's consensual, no one is being forced to do anything against their will and therefore no one is being hurt.
So it's not really consensual, is it? You want some rules--the question is which ones?
Quote:
Maybe they're not guaranteed it, but it should at least be a possibility for everyone.
It already is.
Quote:
In that case, do you support same-sex marriage? If it's really not about love then it's not about allowing gays to marry, so it's not condoning homosexuality in any way. Any two women or men should be able to marry for benefits without any romance. Right?
Huh? You've kind of wandered off the track here. As I've been stating repeatedly...it's about the same rights. We all have the exact same rights regardless of whom or how we love.
If you are positing that the life expectancy of a gay male is not substantially less than a non-gay male, then you are in denial.
And you are simply wrong and searching for someone to annoy. Most of the gay males I know are in their fifties and sixties and substantially healthier than I am. The two I know who have health problems, the problems are completely unrelated to the fact that they are gay. Both were in auto accidents several years ago that continue to affect their health in different ways.
Oh, BTW, why would I, a heterosexual female, be 'in denial' over the life expectancy of gay males?
I understand that conversations about sexuality can provoke strong reactions, but I can't understand why some people are so strongly anti-gay that they need to make negative comments whenever the subject comes up. I can't see anything good about being anti-gay.
Mabe the only good thing, is that they bring the issue to the forefront to be discussed.
The idea is to put your belief aside for a minute so you can be tolerant. Many religious people think gay people are mentally ill. But as a gay person I ask them to put their beliefs aside for a minute so they can have a conversation with me or do business with me or what have you. So I think it's only fair to put our beliefs aside about organized religion (I do agree with you) to be civil and tolerant of religious people.
why should people have to put thier beliefs aside? why dont you put yours aside. if you cant have a conversation with someone then dont bother with them.
Gay people have the exact same rights straight people do. I can't marry anyone of the same gender, either.
You do know that was the exact same argument used against allowing interracial marriage, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Very good. But the books aren't scripture because we have them in the canon...they're in the canon because they're recognized as scripture.
And that 'recognition' was decided by committee! Before the Council of Nicaea, there were many other codices that people recognized as scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
No...it really isn't. My argument against gay marriage is that I don't believe we should give special rights to people based on who they like to be intimate with. We all have the right to marry--it's just a question of who you want to marry.
Okay, for over 12 years on the internet now, I have been asking people to describe these 'special rights' and haven't gotten an answer. Could you tell us what 'special rights' you are talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
You should leave and find a real church then that actually teaches the word of God.
Sorry, but such statements as this really p**s me off! Yes, I'm a Christian. Yes, you're a Christian. But it simply is NOT your place to tell anyone their beliefs are wrong. Neither of us can prove in any way that what we believe is the truth. And because we cannot prove it, we should simply accept that others may believe differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Irrelevant. Same gender marriage should not be legal for gay or straight.
Why? Please try to give us an answer as to why my gay friends should not be free to marry the person they love, the person that completes their lives. And try to do so without relying on the Bible, because our laws in this country do not depend on what you or I think the Bible says about anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Try to compare apples to apples, ok? You're born black or white...but you can choose who you sleep with.
Irrelevant. Choosing to sleep with or have sex with, any individual does not define one's sexual orientation. That is defined by to whom one is sexually attracted. You can 'choose' to have a sexual encounter with someone who does not excite you sexually. Doing so does NOT change your sexual orientation.
BTW, I left out a couple of things because, not knowing what you were replying to, I couldn't formulate a reply.
Last edited by MsMcQ LV; 10-06-2010 at 10:38 AM..
Reason: additional statement.
You do know that was the exact same argument used against allowing interracial marriage, don't you?
Except, of course, that you are born black or white. You can choose whom you choose to sleep with. Are you suggesting that gay people are animals who can't control their lusts?
Quote:
And that 'recognition' was decided by committee! Before the Council of Nicaea, there were many other codices that people recognized as scripture.
Such as? The gnostics?
Quote:
Okay, for over 12 years on the internet now, I have been asking people to describe these 'special rights' and haven't gotten an answer. Could you tell us what 'special rights' you are talking about?
A special form of marriage defined for gay people. Currently, there are no restrictions whatsoever based solely on sexual preferences. You're arguing that we should allow a new form of marriage simply because gay people don't want to observe the same restrictions on marriage that heteros do.
Quote:
Sorry, but such statements as this really p**s me off! Yes, I'm a Christian. Yes, you're a Christian. But it simply is NOT your place to tell anyone their beliefs are wrong. Neither of us can prove in any way that what we believe is the truth. And because we cannot prove it, we should simply accept that others may believe differently.
I'm sorry, but it's not your place to tell me I'm wrong here.
Funny how you can tolerate anyone that agrees with you, but if we disagree you get ticked off.
Honestly...you can attend whatever feel-good social club you want, but if they're not preaching the Word of God as it's written, why bother with calling it a church?
Quote:
Why? Please try to give us an answer as to why my gay friends should not be free to marry the person they love, the person that completes their lives. And try to do so without relying on the Bible, because our laws in this country do not depend on what you or I think the Bible says about anything.
I've covered the whole "equal and same" rights thing above. By allowing gay people to define their own form of marriage, you're giving something to them that the average hetero does not have.
I can't just make up my own definition of marriage.
Quote:
Irrelevant. Choosing to sleep with or have sex with, any individual does not define one's sexual orientation. That is defined by to whom one is sexually attracted. You can 'choose' to have a sexual encounter with someone who does not excite you sexually. Doing so does NOT change your sexual orientation.
So what? Is marriage based solely on sexual attraction?
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.
