Homosexuals
-
You do have a right to be homophobic. You also have the right to believe that frisbee is sinful. Noone's going to throw you in jail for hating frisbee throwers. You just have to accept that alot of people are going to look at you funny, and suggest that you seriously question your f***ed up beliefs. Avid frisbeerers are probably going to be quite insulted and say "what the hell is WRONG with you?!?" The government shouldn't pass laws banning someone from playing frisbee in their own backyard, or set up taxation such that they'd pay thousands of dollars less if they played baseball instead. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
But your idea of playing Frisbee is not my idea of playing Frisbee. I shouldn't be forced by the government to accept your idea of playing Frisbee as mine. You should in fact create a new sport with deferent rules and benefits. Jeremy Falcon
-
But your idea of playing Frisbee is not my idea of playing Frisbee. I shouldn't be forced by the government to accept your idea of playing Frisbee as mine. You should in fact create a new sport with deferent rules and benefits. Jeremy Falcon
I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. If we did 'create a new sport', as in, create a new relationship type for gays with all the benefits of marriage, then I think the gays of your country would be quite happy with that compromise. They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. If we did 'create a new sport', as in, create a new relationship type for gays with all the benefits of marriage, then I think the gays of your country would be quite happy with that compromise. They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. To me marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It would be like saying marriage isn't marriage when it's gays. But, if the gov. deems it marriage then it's a push towards making me accept it too. If we stroll on the marriage doesn't have to be a man and a woman tangent I could just as well marry my dog. *woof* *woof* Rover's happy. :) AdventureBoy wrote: They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. Who knows. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. My child, my discision. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Yes, but this isn't evolution it is coercion. Progress as defined by who? How many of us get a voice as to what represents progress? I don't believe in clinging to the past, unless it is all I have left to cling to to avoid falling into the abyss. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Stan Shannon wrote: My child, my discision. Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Stan Shannon wrote: Progress as defined by who? The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not. Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Stan Shannon wrote: Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
You seem a little new to the topic; (1) like it or not, marriage is something with implications in church, law, finance, and society in general. Married couples recieve many benefits that singles do not. If you allowed gays to form something similar to a common-law relationships, (e.g. a marriage recognized by state and society, but not by church) then you would address 90% of the greivances by gay people. (2) There's more than one f***ing church! Get off your high-horse! Alot of the world doesn't view homosexuality as being wrong! Would you refuse to recognize a marriage if it was held in a buddhist church? Such a marriage would not be a marriage under God (not your god anyway) Why then do you deny that homosexual marriage is valid? ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: There's more than one f***ing church! Get off your high-horse! Are you directing this at me? Where in my post did I mention there being only one church? I never made mention of my feelings about gay marriage either. Just for clarity's sake, if I got to vote on this issue, I would abstain because I don't care one way or the other. On the issue of marriage in general, I still hold my opinion that the government shouldn't be involved. Brad Jennings Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Is homosexuality progress? :) If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate :) Just my $0.02 worth... :) Paul ;)
van der walt is qualified to answer - googlism
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress True, well said :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency True again, I don't disagree :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... :-) I agree with what you're saying, though :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943 -
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Stan Shannon wrote: My child, my discision. Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Stan Shannon wrote: Progress as defined by who? The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not. Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Stan Shannon wrote: Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Liberalism has assumed the responsibilities of a source of moral authority in our society in competition with other, traditional, sources such as the church. As such, it is entirely fair to characterized it as a religion, since it provides a moral infrastructure for its believers and adherents. It has become far more than merely a philosophy or a set of political principles. In fact, it has coopted scientific theory to replace creation myths, its dieties are to be found in government, and it constantly warns of an "end of time" if all of humanity does not behave as demanded. Of course its a religion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Of course your sure they will have failed, because none exist. Why does none exist, because scientific progress into the subject has been stifled by the religious orthodoxy of the left. The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not Under the careful control of their intellectual masters, of course. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Yeah, its exactly the same thing. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. You're probably correct, but at least once you guys finally realize what you have actually created, I will be there to say "I told you so". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. How do you know this? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: How do you know this? Valid question, despite you trying to joke about it.. ;) I can only say I was certain to 95% until I got laid. I knew I was straight then. <pseudo-serious>Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know.. ;)</pseudo-serious> -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: How do you know this? Valid question, despite you trying to joke about it.. ;) I can only say I was certain to 95% until I got laid. I knew I was straight then. <pseudo-serious>Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know.. ;)</pseudo-serious> -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ask yourself next time you have sex, and when you fondle her ass; "I wonder if it would be nicer if her ass was hairy", and you'll know X| X| X| X| Well looks like I know the answer for me. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult Those transformations are one way, because they know they're in the wrong body. Ask Anna yourself. I doubt she's done everything because it was a fun thing to do. At some point in time she knew something was wrong, and luckily she found out what it was. Had she not, she might not have been around today. Same thing goes for homosexual people. They just don't go from being straight one day to being homosexual. It's something they're born with. There are bisexual people too, but you don't have to convert them to anything. The point is; nobody is transformed. What may be transformed is just the exterior in the case of transexual - inside they're still the same person. Why is that so hard to understand?????? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. Actually we DO understand it in a manner - its just not politically correct to discuss it in the terms it needs to be discussed. Some years ago there were several studies on rats as to what happens when the population density increases. One of the things was that the number of homosexual individuals increased proportionaly to the density. Perhaps its natures way of causing a decrease in population other than a pandemic or warfare. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Scientifically, you're making sense. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress True, well said :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency True again, I don't disagree :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... :-) I agree with what you're saying, though :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943Paul van der Walt wrote: Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... I know.. but I get kind of worked up on this issue. I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years. Let's just say that I've changed my philosophies radically since I moved out. It's all very simple; just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man in the white society, and it'll come to you, like a ton of bricks. I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience. :rose: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Paul van der Walt wrote: Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... I know.. but I get kind of worked up on this issue. I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years. Let's just say that I've changed my philosophies radically since I moved out. It's all very simple; just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man in the white society, and it'll come to you, like a ton of bricks. I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience. :rose: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years I can imagine that that'd certainly sensitize one to the issue :omg: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man I think most of us could only gain by doing that every now and then... Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. Indeed :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience No problem, no offense taken :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out :~ ;P) :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943 -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Liberalism has assumed the responsibilities of a source of moral authority in our society in competition with other, traditional, sources such as the church. As such, it is entirely fair to characterized it as a religion, since it provides a moral infrastructure for its believers and adherents. It has become far more than merely a philosophy or a set of political principles. In fact, it has coopted scientific theory to replace creation myths, its dieties are to be found in government, and it constantly warns of an "end of time" if all of humanity does not behave as demanded. Of course its a religion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Of course your sure they will have failed, because none exist. Why does none exist, because scientific progress into the subject has been stifled by the religious orthodoxy of the left. The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not Under the careful control of their intellectual masters, of course. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Yeah, its exactly the same thing. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. You're probably correct, but at least once you guys finally realize what you have actually created, I will be there to say "I told you so". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Ask a homosexual person. They, if anybody, would know. Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah, its exactly the same thing. So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Ask a homosexual person. They, if anybody, would know. Stan Shannon wrote: Yeah, its exactly the same thing. So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? Not at all, since I'm the heretic in this current scenario... :~ "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, you'd like to go back when we burned the heretics? Not at all, since I'm the heretic in this current scenario... :~ "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Uhm.. you're the guy with the lighter. ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Uhm.. you're the guy with the lighter. ;P -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Not at all, I'm the guy challenging the most well established moral orthodoxy of this age. :rolleyes: "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I lived under the same roof as a racist and homo hater for 20 years I can imagine that that'd certainly sensitize one to the issue :omg: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: just put yourself in the position of the homosexual or the black man I think most of us could only gain by doing that every now and then... Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as nobody else is hurt by it. Indeed :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'm sorry if I spoke like an asshole, but you were not the targetted audience No problem, no offense taken :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There are very narrow minded people around, and I don't believe you're one of them Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out :~ ;P) :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943Paul van der Walt wrote: Thanks, I try to keep an open mind (without letting my brains drop out Always remember; The Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Taste[^] :rolleyes: -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
marriage is much more than reproduction. in a 1999 study, the General Accounting Office counted over a thousand government-recognized benefits given to couples by the Federal government: (big long PDF here). Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I guess its come out of the Culture. Most of the US couple dont marry soon even after they have kids. So gov made this law to make ppl get married (or provide one good reason to marry) Now gays also want those advantages thats why now there is a gay marrage problem. Problem?? you may say where is the prob? Well i guess it is , Bush says it very sensitive issue.
P.R.A.K.A.S.H