The Gay-Straght Alliance

Joz said:
I don't think any thinks that 'gays' are bad people. I have known some and they are exceptional people. Talented, hearts of gold. It still doesn't make what they do acceptable. I've known people who have made the mistake & cheated on their spouse. Doesn't make them 'bad' either but I still don't have to like what they've done. It is hard to seperate the person from their actions; and in some cases it's impossible. So, don't go judging the people on this board, until you know them.
:clap:
 
You just stated the truth right there.. now here is my question.. you have a gay guy who is best for the job as the next us president and then you have this drug addicted moron(aka bush) which one would you chose and why?

Just a question(this was actually used in one of my political science classes)
 
Your scenario is redundant....
Your asking us to vote for our leader based on social status
and no mention of who can run the country better, other than
the opinon that the gay guy is "best for the job".
 
JOKER96BRAVO said:
Your scenario is redundant....
Your asking us to vote for our leader based on social status
and no mention of who can run the country better, other than
the opinon that the gay guy is "best for the job".

The premise iss also based on the fact that the gay guy's opponent is a drug addicted moron. Hypothetically, you are supposed to say "the gay guy of course!" Given the nature of the hypothetical question, maybe sun is trying to tell us that Kerry is gay?
 
If you honestly want me to answer without being a smartass I will.
I think they would vote for the straight guy. Main reason being
the same reason we don't vote for someone who worships satan,
This country was based on religion and is still a HUGE factor in who
we want to represent. Sad but true.
 
I'm not going to worry about this anymore i have just seen to much where people use someones social status to not higher them for a job, black, hispanic,gay, lesbian etc. and if you notice we are a country full of indivduals but because of what happens with one person who is the head of our country we are all judged. I'm a liberal, cause i give most people the benifet of doubt. Unless they are Compleatly closed, they don't think out side the box. I'm serious if you get the chance to actually understand where a gay person is comeing from i would so do it because u might be able to see why they are the way they are. and u might not disagree with them being who they are.
 
Dan said:
I don't buy the 'marriage is a sacred institution' argument for a second. If marriage was so sacred, we wouldn't have "Who Wants to Marry My Dad", "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", etc. shows on TV all the time. I guess my point is that these days, sadly, marriage really isn't that sacred of a thing, and it has nothing to do with gay people.


That's the point I was making. If the term 'marriage' is not supposed to be sacred then why do Gays demand it for their union?

Like I said they can enter a civil union which legally does the same thing.

But very few churches would define their union as a marriage. Gays are demanding legal 'marriage' only for the term itself. And that seems like it's being foisted on American society without explanation why.

Is this a backdoor to getting gays back in Church?
 
I'm not going to worry about this anymore i have just seen to much where people use someones social status to not higher them for a job, black, hispanic,gay, lesbian etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong but white people are almost the minority in the US. It's sad also that this happens but there are laws to
protect people against this situation, and I've seen it work.



and if you notice we are a country full of indivduals but because of what happens with one person who is the head of our country we are all judged.
I don't think it has anything to do with the head of the country. Americans
are not judged simply by our leader, it's our piss poor arrogant attitude torwards
the rest of the world


I'm a liberal, cause i give most people the benifet of doubt. Unless they are Compleatly closed, they don't think out side the box. I'm serious if you get the chance to actually understand where a gay person is comeing from i would so do it because u might be able to see why they are the way they are. and u might not disagree with them being who they are.
I have taken the time to know MANY gay people and I can honestly say...
I have no idea where they are comming from, but I keeped an open mind.
Untill I got bitten on the ass
 
JOKER96BRAVO said:
I have no idea where they are comming from, but I keeped an open mind.
Untill I got bitten on the ass[/COLOR]

I don't think you meant that to be funny, but it was. But, too, that's the way it is with any person.
 
sun1331 said:
You just stated the truth right there.. now here is my question.. you have a gay guy who is best for the job as the next us president and then you have this drug addicted moron(aka bush) which one would you chose and why?

Just a question(this was actually used in one of my political science classes)

:tank:

Political science... you mean you spell this atrociously and you made it into college?!?

Your question is ridiculously biased. First, Kerry is not gay. Second, Bush is not drug-addicted, as much as everyone at the Democratic Underground would love to think so. Third, I am voting for Bush not because I am a die-hard Republican, but because I think Bush is the only candidate with the balls to continue to fight terrorism. John Kerry has no plan to fight terrorism, except to be more sensitive to the terrorists and bring all of our troops home.

To address your larger point, you have fallen for the common fallacy that people's sexual orientation is 1) the most defining aspect of the person, and 2) permanent. Homosexuality is neither a permanent condition nor the definig factor in who a person is.
 
Man, I step out for two hours and this thread goes batshit crazy!

-=d=- said:
You don't agree that a homosexual lifestyle is more destructive?

No, I don't. Not all gay people have AIDS or other diseases, not all gay people are mentally unbalanced (well, that's a whole other argument, but not to a destructive level, I mean). I assume you're referring to anal sex, which is disgusting, but not limited to the gay community.

-=d=- said:
I don't want anyone to be killed for the choices they make regarding the gender of the person they like having sex with.

But health issues are not debatable. Homosexual lifestyles tend to be more violent, have more illness (including mental?), and otherwise are detrimental to the participants.

No, I know you don't, I was making a generalization. But, I think that a major problem we as a country have with most,if not all issues, not just this one, is that we look at numbers and make judgements based on them. I can almost guarantee that for any statistic you find, I can find one that says the exact opposite of it. Could you expand on 'violent', because I know a HELL of a lot more violent heteros than homos.

JOKER96BRAVO said:
If you honestly want me to answer without being a smartass I will.
I think they would vote for the straight guy. Main reason being
the same reason we don't vote for someone who worships satan,
This country was based on religion and is still a HUGE factor in who
we want to represent. Sad but true.

This is one of the smartest things I've read in this thread. Though they'll never admit to it, fact is that most people are put off by homosexuality because the Bible says they should be.

Comrade said:
That's the point I was making. If the term 'marriage' is not supposed to be sacred then why do Gays demand it for their union?

Like I said they can enter a civil union which legally does the same thing.

But very few churches would define their union as a marriage. Gays are demanding legal 'marriage' only for the term itself. And that seems like it's being foisted on American society without explanation why.

This is fair. I think for them, they see their not being able to get married as a form of discrimination, which I sort of agree with. I am willing to bet, though, that the average gay couple couldn't care less about whether they're deemed "married" or just "civilly united" (or whatever you would call that :D ), in the same way the average black person doesn't give a crap about affirmative action.

Comrade said:
Is this a backdoor to getting gays back in Church?

Well, you know how they like the backdoor. ZING! Sorry, I probably just blew my entire argument there.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying there was a conscious removal of gays from Church? I know a gay guy who is very christian, goes to church all the time, and it is definitely a conflict for him. But, I honestly don't think there are any churchgoers who are actively trying to get gay people to attend.

...I shouldn't say that, that's really stereotyping. None of the churchgoers that I PERSONALLY have met are anxious to get any gays into church.

gop_jeff said:
Political science... you mean you spell this atrociously and you made it into college?!?

Now, now, Jeff. I can think of many people on this board who were bitched out for claiming the president was stupid because he can't speak well. Let's not have double standards on the new girl.;)

gop_jeff said:
Your question is ridiculously biased. First, Kerry is not gay. Second, Bush is not drug-addicted, as much as everyone at the Democratic Underground would love to think so. Third, I am voting for Bush not because I am a die-hard Republican, but because I think Bush is the only candidate with the balls to continue to fight terrorism.

This is all true. But, here's a scenario. It's been pretty much widely-accepted that for a time when he was younger Bush was definitely heavy into partying, correct? Say a candidate who admitted to experimenting with another man in college but wanted to continue to fight the war was up against a candidate (not Bush) who was drug-addicted in his past but wanted to leave Iraq?

To address your larger point, you have fallen for the common fallacy that people's sexual orientation is 1) the most defining aspect of the person, and 2) permanent. Homosexuality is neither a permanent condition nor the definig factor in who a person is.

I agree, I admit that I am annoyed by gay people who must have everything in their lives be about the fact that they're gay. I don't base every single aspect on my life on banging chicks.
 
Dan - Read the link I posted earlier; it outlines how and why living in a homosexual lifestyle is destructive. Speaks to issues other-than AIDS, etc.
 
sun1331 said:
I went to a high school where we had a very large GSA, There is nothing wrong with it. Just because some stupid book( yes i said the bible was stupid) says we have to be with seperat genders we agree. Yeah right. If that is the only thing people follow from the bible then they are all ignorent and its just wrong.. How about instead of complaining about something you don't understand and never will you just leave it alone. If you keep a closed mind you wont get anywhere in they business world.

I'm sorry if my view makes anyone mad but i just have to stand up for people that get trampled on.. Oh yeah i say WAY togo for a chance for gay people to get married.

Cristina


Christina,

First of all, your views and opinions regarding gays will make you quite unpopular around here....second of all, Even though I am in the vast minority, I agree wiht you and applaud you for speaking up!

Even though it makes me want to :bang3: , I guess we must respect everyon's opinion - even though we may not agree with them....something about 'free speech' and freedom of opinion and all that. Oh and one other thing, the term 'queer' regarding homosexuals simply SCREAMS ignorance - its hard to even read someone's opinion much less consider it, when they begin with that. (again, my opinion which I do believe I am allowed to have....jsut as other's have theirs that are completely different from mine).
 
Dan said:
Now, now, Jeff. I can think of many people on this board who were bitched out for claiming the president was stupid because he can't speak well. Let's not have double standards on the new girl.;)

You are quite right. My apologies, sun1331.

This is all true. But, here's a scenario. It's been pretty much widely-accepted that for a time when he was younger Bush was definitely heavy into partying, correct? Say a candidate who admitted to experimenting with another man in college but wanted to continue to fight the war was up against a candidate (not Bush) who was drug-addicted in his past but wanted to leave Iraq?

In that scenario, I would go for the guy who's fighting the war. Like I said, homosexuality is not the defining character trait of a man, and if he's now fighting a war, he's got to be straight, right?! :D (j/k) Seriously, though, the candidate fighting the war would be my pick, because I think that's the most important issue in this election.
 
sun1331 said:
How many of you who judge these people actually talked to them like they are humans not just those gay people who have diseases? I'm figuring none of you. because if any of you had any gay friends you would actually have some insite not just a big head full of old school ideas. just a thought.

Man I LOVE it when people come onto a new board and just judge people without knowing them at all!! Gotta love it.

I have 2 uncles and a cousin who are gay. Also 2 female cousins who claim to be gay. (Personally it think its from all the BS glam homosexuality is getting lately).

Saying all this, I STILL find their way of life TOTALLY wrong and disgusting. Well maybe not the female cousins...LOL

Do I think they should be able to get married? No. They can get civil unions if they like. There is NO reason they need the term marriage.
 
jackass said:
I have 2 uncles and a cousin who are gay. Also 2 female cousins who claim to be gay. (Personally it think its from all the BS glam homosexuality is getting lately).

Holy crap, Jackass! Do you guys have your family reunions at the RamRod? :gay:
 

Forum List

Back
Top