U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-10-2013, 08:24 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
It matters to me only insofar as acceptance of it is being rammed down my throat. I've always been able to be friends with people of all types, whether or not I accepted what they did. I've been friends with smokers - just don't smoke around me. I've been friends with druggies - just don't do drugs around me. I've been friends with homosexuals - just don't engage in same-sex affection around me. The list goes on. Historically, these people have known about my antipathy toward things they do, and out of respect for me, they keep it away from me. And out of respect for them, I don't say anything to them about it as long as they don't bring it up. That always worked in the 1990's and the previous decade. Why is it suddenly such a problem now?

Again, I know I'm not being made to do it but I have worked as a wedding DJ. What's next - I get sued out of business because I won't DJ a gay wedding? I'd sooner hang up my turntables and retire.



I'm not open-minded. Never have been, never will be. Open minds are like open windows - you need screens to keep the bugs out.

(By the way, that response clocked in at exactly 126 characters. Gee, only 9,874 to go...)



I've done that. Not one has said that the other gender was unattractive. Out of six "gay people" I have personally known, the three men "turned gay" in their teens or twenties... who knows what they're doing now... and the three ladies "turned gay" then "turned back".



Why not? Because it's sin. Do I find the idea of sex with men gross? Yes.
Your sin is relative to you and your bible only, not to everyone else. Keep your bible to yourself and out of every ones lives. Gay and gay sex is not a sin, nor is it immoral. Well, I find the idea of sex with a woman gross, am I supposed to pretend that I like women and have sex with them to appease you and every bigot there is? So if you find sex with men gross, how can you say sexual orientation is a choice, you obviously could not have sex with a man, I cannot have sex with a woman, is that clear?
Rate this post positively

 
Old 09-10-2013, 08:28 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
If the 'man and woman' part of marriage can be replaced with 'adults' why cant 2 be replaced with 3 or non-related be removed, or adults be changed to people? They all can be changed, if society wants them to, that is the key. It is a not a 'right' to be allowed into marriage unless society as a whole decides that the definition should cover your situation. The whole issue is not a matter of 'rights' or 'justice', its a matter of public opinion.
You do not know what you are talking about. Marriage is a right and is not up to society. Your opinion does not govern who can marry. Get used to it because marriage equality will spread all over the USA.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:28 PM
 
1,615 posts, read 2,504,533 times
Reputation: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
If the 'man and woman' part of marriage can be replaced with 'adults' why cant 2 be replaced with 3 or non-related be removed, or adults be changed to people? They all can be changed, if society wants them to, that is the key. It is a not a 'right' to be allowed into marriage unless society as a whole decides that the definition should cover your situation. The whole issue is not a matter of 'rights' or 'justice', its a matter of public opinion.
Wrong because being gay is an unchosen trait a sexual orientation. So for me its gay marriage or nothing. You cant give benefits to people based on unchosen traits. The other things you listed were not traits but chosen actions. If you want to marry three people and can't you can still marry in accordance with your orientation. Since I'm gay nature created me to couple with another male. Therefor you are denying me any chance to get married. Your relationship is not better than mine simply because you are straight in birth. Many gay people have been together for decades waiting to marry. Many straights get married in vegas and divorce soon after. Not getting married won't change my orientation. It makes my life harder though.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:39 PM
 
3,124 posts, read 4,739,066 times
Reputation: 1955
This is hilarious! My, our bigoted friends are awfully defensive and vocal. :x

Bees to honey...they can't get enough of the gay.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 08:21 AM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 4,551,280 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
Your sin is relative to you and your bible only, not to everyone else.
Oh, it's relevant to everyone else. Some people just don't recognize this.

I find it amusing that you have yet to answer the question about how it is that the Bible and Christianity can be bunk, and your "modern enlightened way" can be the right way. Skillful dodge of that question, bud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
Keep your bible to yourself and out of every ones lives. Gay and gay sex is not a sin, nor is it immoral.
Who died and made you God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
Well, I find the idea of sex with a woman gross, am I supposed to pretend that I like women and have sex with them to appease you and every bigot there is? So if you find sex with men gross, how can you say sexual orientation is a choice, you obviously could not have sex with a man, I cannot have sex with a woman, is that clear?
Then stay celibate. (By the way, that isn't just me talking. That's every Christian church out there, Protestant AND Catholic, except those that have forsaken the Bible in the name of getting butts into the seats.)
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 08:27 AM
 
16,213 posts, read 10,117,669 times
Reputation: 8430
Weird questions, but here ya go...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction". Yes - I don't care as long as all are consenting adults.

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs! Yes - I don't care as long as all are consenting adults.

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America? No, children are not consenting adults.

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal? No, animals are not people.

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
Your questions are really weird. One cannot compare legally consenting adults to children or animals. Children cannot legally make a decision to marry, hence why I said "no" to that question 3. Animals, no matter how many people have "fur kids" or "fur babies" and love them to pieces, are not people and cannot get married.

And FWIW, I don't consider myself "liberally minded" but I also do not consider myself socially controlling of other people's behavior and I feel all adults should be able to make choices freely concerning the living of their own lives.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
1,035 posts, read 1,480,688 times
Reputation: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Oh, it's relevant to everyone else. Some people just don't recognize this.

I find it amusing that you have yet to answer the question about how it is that the Bible and Christianity can be bunk, and your "modern enlightened way" can be the right way. Skillful dodge of that question, bud.



Who died and made you God?



Then stay celibate. (By the way, that isn't just me talking. That's every Christian church out there, Protestant AND Catholic, except those that have forsaken the Bible in the name of getting butts into the seats.)
How small of a world do you live in? Do you post stuff like this to keep this going? I mean, seriously, you can't possibly be this narrow, right? The bolded statements are the equivalent of me saying, "I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I!" ... "Na uh, Mom, EVERYONE is doing it! I mean EVERYONE!"

Homosexuality is only an issue to religions, not the government. Religion does not belong in government, nor does it dictate how laws are made. So you're entire point is once again invalid. Homosexuality may be an issue for religions, which is fine, they're free to do whatever they want. But, it isn't for an increasing amount of government entities and people in general. The folks within the government who have an issue with homosexuality only do for personal religious convictions. Those folks are slowly being weeded out because they're not equipped to make unbiased laws for a diverse society, this said society does not have one mandated religion. Because, once again, religion is a PERSONAL conviction. This will in turn show an increasing amount of people questioning certain religions, but once again, no one is forcing the church to do anything.

Staying celibate is a laughable argument. Sex before marriage is a sin according to the Bible. I'm sure EVERYONE out there who is a straight, married Christian adhered to that, right? But hey, the good news is, it doesn't matter because it's only an issue to your religious beliefs...which are irrelevant to government.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Oh, it's relevant to everyone else. Some people just don't recognize this.

I find it amusing that you have yet to answer the question about how it is that the Bible and Christianity can be bunk, and your "modern enlightened way" can be the right way. Skillful dodge of that question, bud.



Who died and made you God?



Then stay celibate. (By the way, that isn't just me talking. That's every Christian church out there, Protestant AND Catholic, except those that have forsaken the Bible in the name of getting butts into the seats.)
Your bible is not relevant to everyone. So I truly mean it when I say to take your bible to church and leave it there. And Yes, your bible is bunk and modern times are not the same as 2000 years ago and is not relevant to modern life. Who made you gods spokes person. I do not see why I should be celebate to appease you bigots. Why don't you bigots try not getting divorces. Your bible means squat to me and to many others, it does not make law and it does not govern. So dash your bible.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:01 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,495,209 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
Your bible is not relevant to everyone. So I truly mean it when I say to take your bible to church and leave it there. And Yes, your bible is bunk and modern times are not the same as 2000 years ago and is not relevant to modern life. Who made you gods spokes person. I do not see why I should be celebate to appease you bigots. Why don't you bigots try not getting divorces. Your bible means squat to me and to many others, it does not make law and it does not govern. So dash your bible.
He's praying for you. He prays for all the world's sinners. Don't you feel better now?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:04 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
He's praying for you. He prays for all the world's sinners. Don't you feel better now?
I toss his prayers back at him, I do not want them, I do not need them. I used to respect the church, but that is waining quickly. They do not respect me and they try to force their religion upon all people, not just their own parishioners.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top