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 never claim superiority. I don't try to intimidate a whole group of people in an attempt to bolster my own sense of self worth (the root of discrimination). I haven't read any posts by you, so I have no way of knowing your views, but from your silly little attempt to belittle me, I can guess. You clearly feel defensive of my post against those who wish to harm gay people, I guess you're one of them. History will treat you las you deserve.
Sorry, not trying to belittle you. But yes, you do seem to feel superior especially by your last statement. And no I am not "one of them" whoever that is I am defensive because I don't like prejudice of any kind. So that is my view. And what history are you referring to
Sorry, not trying to belittle you. But yes, you do seem to feel superior especially by your last statement. And no I am not "one of them" whoever that is I am defensive because I don't like prejudice of any kind. So that is my view. And what history are you referring to
When history looks back on the people who were against equal rights. Those who were against it will be looked on as the people who were against women's suffrage are now viewed, or those opposed to integration.
The world sees the homophobes for what they are and the fire of hate and insecurity that burns with in them. I have pity for them and at times feel sorry for the way they embarrass themselves. Then I remember that they'd like to see me and a few other million people dead or in camps, and I don't feel so bad anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
Actually, most of the world sees them as equals. The pity and embarrassment seems to be directed at people like you who deem themselves superior. If you were a member of my family with your attitude, I would definitely be embarrassed and want to hide you in the closet. lol
Natalie, Lior Arel wrote about 'homophobes', not homosexuals. I think you may have misconstrued his post. You are both on the same 'side'.
Actually, it is the same-sex marriage crowd that is crying about the word marriage as equal civil unions have been enthusiastically rejected since these unions wouldn't legally equate homosexuality with heterosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
oh bull hockey pucks. you know this is a complete lie.
what the same sex crowd is crying about is that marriage (you get federal benefit) was completely different from civil unions (isn't recognized by the Fedreal govt at all). And that the institution of marriage afforded over 1000 basic rights, of which civil unions would never cover in their entirety
Marriage is NOT a religious term. its a term to describe the contractual agreement between two consenting adults to enter into a, hopefully, permanent relationship, and to benefit from that relationship.
When history looks back on the people who were against equal rights. Those who were against it will be looked on as the people who were against women's suffrage are now viewed, or those opposed to integration.
History tends to be written by the victorious party. For example, World War II textbook would probably look a lot different had Nazi Germany won the war. A more American example would be what happened to the Native Americans. In a word, it was genocide, but never would an American history textbook ever use a word that we use for people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. That was genocide, what we did was... just a mistake. We regret it.
That's historical bias. While what happened is presented correctly. No history text book (well most) don't lie about what happened to the Native Americans. It says very clearly that American made up a reason to expand westward, killing those who stood in our way, and took as much land as we could. This is what happened. But with a Hitler, it's described very brutally. There's a noticeable difference.
now, to stay on topic, looking at the current trend, people in world are becoming far more rational and secular; many European countries have approved of gay marriage and have been doing fine. No massive societal destruction (Denmark for example is considered the happiest country on Earth; it allows gay marriage). America is pretty divided on this issue. Most still think Christianity founded the American constitution, and the people who are supposed to lead by example aren't exactly correcting this mistake (well, one party isn't, I'll let you all figure out which one). However, younger voters seem to be more liberal, so it's fair to say that within a few generations, same sex marriage will be supported in most, if not all states. In short, much like how the Civil Rights movement ended in... well, civil rights, the same sex marriage movement will likely be seen through a similar scope: one of great triumph and a step forward for Western Civilization (even though America is far from the first to do it).
Yep, until the time comes to force an unwanted association between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
If you really want to keep your nose out of other people's business, why don't you start by coming up with a word for same-sex marriage that isn't the same as the one used for marriage between a man and a woman?
Such hateful, baseless nonsense. Marriage has meant all kinds of things in all kinds of cultures throughout history. What about "plural marriage" which is between many people? Can we not use the term "marriage" for that either?
Lets' not forget the fact that there is not one single reason whatsoever to be offended or disgusted by homosexuality that doesn't arise from hate, fear, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination thereof.
Not a single one.
To preclude consenting adults from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355
While you are technically right, the Bible is however pretty darn accurate about historical events and archeology and other discoveries has proven this time and time again. To deny it's accuracy is just foolish.
There is no doubt The Bible contains some actual history. So do the works of Homer. But just because we now know there was a real Trojan War, does that also mean Odysseus and his men fought a cyclops or were nearly lulled to their deaths by the hypnotic singing of some mermaid tarts?
The Bible contains some history. It also includes a great deal of allegory, myth and legend, much of it borrowed from earlier, older cultures. This in no way impacts the value or worth of The Bible as a source of wisdom or as great literature.
But let's not pretend The Bible is 100% valid and accurate history. That's the height of foolishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355
...common sense dictates that it takes a man and a woman to create new life, and that the gay lifestyle cannot, it also spreads disease among themselves.
Oh,. This old nugget. So, does that mean in some way that couples who have no intention of procreating or who for some reason cannot produce offspring have invalid marriages? And are STDs the province of homosexuals only?
What a silly, ridiculous piece of excremental "thought" that is.
We should remember: there is not one sexual activity of any kind homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals don't also engage in.
Quote:
Sorry but the 1st Amendment applies to Conservatives too.
A true conservative would never, never endorse any legislation that would preclude consenting adults from marrying. A true conservative would allow his fellow citizens in a free society BE free to engage in whatever they like as long as it harms nobody else.
A true conservative wouldn't give a second thought to the issue of same sex marriage. Or of abortion for that matter.
No it's not a lifestyle since no 2 gays are alike, and yes it's something 99.9% of people are born with. Sexual Orientation is biologically set in fetal development. The only people who reject this view are religious nutjobs and the extremely uneducated.
You mean proof that homosexuals are "born that way?"
Well, there are studies that show a difference in the architecture of the brains of homosexual males from that of heterosexual males.
And I'm curious if you then also believe heterosexuality is also a "choice."
But leaving that aside, whenever the question of whether or not a person "chooses" to be gay crops up, all I can think is: "Who freakin' cares???"
IF people choose to be gay, so what? It is their choice. It harms nobody else and is nobody else's business.
You know, when I started "coming of age" and developing physically, I found I naturally was attracted to girls. I didn't have to think about it...I didn't choose it. It just happened.
I suspect that is true of the vast majority of heterosexuals.
By the same token, I have gay family members and many gay friends and have met many other gay people through them.
While it may be only anecdotal evidence, I can guarantee you that every one of them, if asked, would say that as they developed and hit puberty they felt a natural, inborn, if you will, attraction to members of their same gender.
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.
I am defensive because I don't like prejudice of any kind. So that is my view. And what history are you referring to