What with all this talk of homosexuality

[1549]

We as a country went through a very hard time with AIDS. We have spent billions of tax dollars. I'd say we've had more than our share of homosexual havoc.

I guess you can say we Americans are "outcasting" gay people from our mainstream lifestyle. However, we are not preventing gays from living their gay lives in private. We don't advocate physical violence against gays. We are not out to kill them like they would be killed if they lived in the Middle East. We are not rounding them up to kill like the Nazis did or keeping them subdued as in Red China. Americans just do not want the legalizing of gay marriage and all of the related deviancy it will bring. That will affect the lives of the majority in a bad way.

You guys always fall back on the religious argument...forget the Bible....gay sex is still perverse.

I understand that you are not advocating any sort of physical violence against gays, but the result of forcing them out of accepted culture is institutional violence and physical violence. Gays will be left out of jobs and treated unfairly in the workplace. Whether you promote violence or not, when you begin to deem a group as "unacceptable", certain people will resort to physical violence.

Perhaps you feel gay marriage will bring about the moral downfall of America...but there is really no proof of this. If the biological evidence turns out as scientists say it will, then the acceptance of gays in society will little affect on the size of the gay population.

Lastly, just because you and I think two men having sex is sort of gross, does not make it fair to discriminate against homosexuals.

Eagle and Manu, I would love to continue this debate with you guys...but it is time for a hamburger dinner. So, adios fellas.

 

[manu1959]

Then you are still discriminating. What you are proposing is no different than the "seperate but equal" codes that facilitated discrimination against blacks.

Gays should not have to sue there way for a "seperate but somewhat equal" form of legal relationship. They should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals.

Nope....

to equate gay lifestyle with being black is simply silly....they are miles apart

What about forced Chinese labor....is being gay the same as being Chinese?

How about women and the right to vote...same as that?

Gays have the same rights as straights, blacks, Chinese whites and women

Problem is the life style is not accepted as normal....tolerated maybe but accepted no

and marriage is not a right

further, being married will neither validate the gay lifestyle as normal nor will it make it acceptable to those that think it is not....it will simply cause further resentment....and to believe that teaching the young to accept as normal what is not.... and preventing the symmetrical teaching is more Orwellian than 1984 itself

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem is that there is a proposed amendment to ban gay sex marriage. That is the debate here. By doing that, you are discriminating against gays...which goes against everything the United States preaches.

Bullcrap. Defining marriage between a man and a woman doesnte discriminate against gays. It protects marriage. Gays are perfectly capable of marrying people of the opposite sex like everyone else!

If they dont want to thats fine, but they have no reason to say they cant get married when they obviously can. They just dont wan to marry the people they can marry. And there is no reason we should allow them to marry and yet deny brothers and sisters from getting married.

The United States does not preach deviancy. The United States does not preach destroying the foundations of society. The United States doesnt preach the intolerant bull coming from the gay agenda. Now stop trying to force this crap onto the people.

BTW I was in a discussion with a homosexual who said he was married to a wife and had 3 children before coming out and destroying his marriage. No one kept him from marrying her, although im sure she might have if she had known. And the example sure didnt help his "I was born like this" argument.

 

[MissileMan]

Then it will be scientific proof that they are born with a physical defect.
And science will eventually be able to correct it.

Are you saying that we should legalize birth defects?

Sure...let's make it illegal to go into public if you're blind or deaf, or retarded. Of course, science has correcting those defects well in hand...right? Reread what you wrote and contemplate the magnitude of the stupidity.

 

[Said1]

Not another thread about queers. Say it ain't so. :duh3:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure...let's make it illegal to go into public if you're blind or deaf, or retarded. Of course, science has correcting those defects well in hand...right? Reread what you wrote and contemplate the magnitude of the stupidity.

I suppose you think we should allow the blind to get a driver's license too?

 

[MissileMan]

I suppose you think we should allow the blind to get a driver's license too?

Since you'd have them confined to their houses(or jail, since, according to you, birth defects should be illegal)...what need would they have for one?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Since you'd have them confined to their houses(or jail, since, according to you, birth defects should be illegal)...what need would they have for one?

Where the hell did I say we should make birth defects illegal and then have people with them confined to jail? I only made the quip "Are you saying we should legalize birth defects?" Don't read more into it than is actually there.

I will try to make it more clear:

If science finds a scientific cause for gays, then science will someday be able to find a cure for gays. Same goes for deafness, blindness, etc.

In the meantime we shouldn't allow the blind to get a legal driver's license (they can't see) anymore than we should allow a gay to get a legal marriage license (they can't have children).

 

[Said1]

In the meantime we shouldn't allow the blind to get a legal driver's license (they can't see) anymore than we should allow a gay to get a legal marriage license (they can't have children).

Neither can I. :huh:

 

[manu1959]

Where the hell did I say we should make birth defects illegal and then have people with them confined to jail? I only made the quip "Are you saying we should legalize birth defects?" Don't read more into it than is actually there.

I will try to make it more clear:

If science finds a scientific cause for gays, then science will someday be able to find a cure for gays. Same goes for deafness, blindness, etc.

In the meantime we shouldn't allow the blind to get a legal driver's license (they can't see) anymore than we should allow a gay to get a legal marriage license (they can't have children).

a building inspector in san francisco once made me put braille on a drive through ATM....think he was gay?

 

[MissileMan]

Where the hell did I say we should make birth defects illegal and then have people with them confined to jail? I only made the quip "Are you saying we should legalize birth defects?" Don't read more into it than is actually there.

I will try to make it more clear:

If science finds a scientific cause for gays, then science will someday be able to find a cure for gays. Same goes for deafness, blindness, etc.

In the meantime we shouldn't allow the blind to get a legal driver's license (they can't see) anymore than we should allow a gay to get a legal marriage license (they can't have children).

Firstly, unless you intend to make an argument that we should perform fertility tests on heterosexual couples before granting them a marriage license and deny any couple that can't have children the right to marry, you should drop the "they can't have children" argument.

As for science finding a cure...what's if it turns out to be untreatable?

How about this for an alternative: We allow gays to have civil unions until the second coming and Jesus himself says, "no".

 

[Powerman]

Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality.

I don't know why people think they have some biblical mandate to hate gay people.

 

[Powerman]

Firstly, unless you intend to make an argument that we should perform fertility tests on heterosexual couples before granting them a marriage license and deny any couple that can't have children the right to marry, you should drop the "they can't have children" argument.

And what about people who don't want to have children?

Fuck them too while we're at it.

In fact, screw it. You can't get married UNTIL you have kids.

That should solve this problem of people who don't feel like adding to the population

/sarcasm

 

[manu1959]

Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality.

I don't know why people think they have some biblical mandate to hate gay people.

1. how do you know what jesus thinks?

and

B. don't hate em....just saying that it is not normal behaviour and i don't want to be told i have to accept it and i don't want my child taught that it is normal and that they must accept it....


other than that....take it in the ass all you want....what do i care if it looks like you been eating glazed doughnuts all day

 

[Powerman]

1. how do you know what jesus thinks?

I don't. But I'm not trying to force his beliefs on other people. Maybe you should ask Christians how they know what Jesus thinks.

B. don't hate em....just saying that it is not normal behaviour and i don't want to be told i have to accept it and i don't want my child taught that it is normal and that they must accept it....


other than that....take it in the ass all you want....what do i care if it looks like you been eating glazed doughnuts all day

What do you mean by "accept it"

You don't have to show up to the wedding or civil union or whatever. You don't have to buy gay porn. You don't have to do anything gay.

You just have to mind your own business. There is no requirement to "accepting" gays


ETA: What exactly constitutes "normal" behavior?

 

[Bonnie]

What causes people to be prejudiced against gay men and lesbians?
There are probably no simple causes of homophobia. While there is probably no single thing which causes a person to be homophobic, research has shown that prejudice towards gay people and homosexuality can be influenced by the person:

Reporting no homosexual experiences or feelings.
Being negative about types of sexual behaviour and relationships which are neither procreative nor take place within marriage.
Having a lower educational and social status, for example the lower a person's level of educational attainment and social class the more negative their attitudes are towards homosexuality.
Having and adhering to strong religious beliefs which disapprove of sex and/or homosexuality.
Having little/no social contact with lesbian and gay people.

roomy, I could care less what sexual proclivities anyone has, I have a good male friend from childhood who is gay and have some acquaintances the same. I have no fear of becoming gay associating with them, they are great people and good friends. And I can also tell you that my good friend is Catholic and fully accepts what the church teaches regarding homosexuality, so therefore he doesn't hate the church, or talk badly about Catholics or Christians he simply accepts that he is making a choice in his life, he doesn't blame society, he doesn't blame his parents, the church, his hormones or his genetics. He keeps his love life business private, doesn't shove his homosexuality in anyone's face, doesn't expect them to change laws for him, he would never advocate back door brainwashing of young school children into thinking homosexuality is just fine and normal. He just wants to deal with his life the way he wants to, he does the best he can with his religion and how he comes to terms with his sexuality.

I suspect most of society would have no problem with homosexuality if most behaved like him, but rather many seem to take joy in shocking people and or shaming society into not only accepting but approving of their lifestyle. When they do that they are making their lifestyle other people's problem and that's not going to wash no matter how much the gay community attacks religion, attacks morality, attacks the intelligence of those opposed to them, attempts to take charge of other people's children's morality through very transparent books being placed into school ciriculum against parents wishes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

a building inspector in san francisco once made me put braille on a drive through ATM....think he was gay?

LOL probably

Firstly, unless you intend to make an argument that we should perform fertility tests on heterosexual couples before granting them a marriage license and deny any couple that can't have children the right to marry, you should drop the "they can't have children" argument.

As for science finding a cure...what's if it turns out to be untreatable?

How about this for an alternative: We allow gays to have civil unions until the second coming and Jesus himself says, "no".

I'm not dropping the "they can't have children" argument because it is TRUE.
Face the facts MM.

Firstly, you must agree that most normal men and women can have children together.

Second, you must agree that men and women with medical problems/choice issues have or had the POTENTIAL to have children together if they were to get their medical problems fixed, etc. They also have the possibility of adopting children and bringing them up in a normal family unit.

Third, you must agree that if gays have their scientifically-based defect corrected, they will then find opposite sex partners to marry and have children.

If there is no cure to be found right away, never give up hope.

Why is it you guys keep trying to make it into a religious argument? I thought most of you gays/gay-promoters were atheists or agnostics or something un-religious. Do you anti-religious people really want to talk religion?

 

[Powerman]

I guess I've just never been a victim of homosexuals "shoving their lifestyle" in my face

People point to things such as gay shows and say "look! They're showing their gay lifestyle in my face!"

Maybe if those same people weren't the dumbest people that ever lived they would realize that the people who put the show on the air are trying to make money and are targeting their programming toward a specific group of people.

If you think that things such as Queer Eye for the Straight guy are examples of homosexuals shoving their homosexuality in your face then you might LITERALLY be the worst person who ever lived.

 

[Bonnie]

I guess I've just never been a victim of homosexuals "shoving their lifestyle" in my face

People point to things such as gay shows and say "look! They're showing their gay lifestyle in my face!"

Maybe if those same people weren't the dumbest people that ever lived they would realize that the people who put the show on the air are trying to make money and are targeting their programming toward a specific group of people.

If you think that things such as Queer Eye for the Straight guy are examples of homosexuals shoving their homosexuality in your face then you might LITERALLY be the worst person who ever lived.

Exactly who are you generalizing with this rant??
I have never heard anyone state show like Queer as Folk and Queer Eye are representative of shoving the the gay lifestyle in anyones face, if you had bothered to read the posts most are saying they have a real problem with pro gay school books being integrated into their kids lesson plans, and Gay's getting married in their churches. There is nothing unitelligent about that.
Why is that such a problem for you to GET or understand if your so intelligent and enlightened???!!

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not dropping the "they can't have children" argument because it is TRUE.
Face the facts MM.

Let's talk about facts. Homosexuals can indeed have children, just not with each other. A lesbian can have herself artificially insemenated and have her own baby. A homosexual male can donate into a cup and hire a surrogate mother to carry a baby. So along with my original reason to drop the "they can't have children" argument, there is now this one. Between the two, your argument is nulled.

Firstly, you must agree that most normal men and women can have children together.

Yep, but, so what? AND...how many choose not to?

Second, you must agree that men and women with medical problems/choice issues have or had the POTENTIAL to have children together if they were to get their medical problems fixed, etc. They also have the possibility of adopting children and bringing them up in a normal family unit.

There are many who are born sterile, so no, I must disagree.

Third, you must agree that if gays have their scientifically-based defect corrected, they will then find opposite sex partners to marry and have children.

Probably

If there is no cure to be found right away, never give up hope.

My question was "what if it is never treatable?"

Why is it you guys keep trying to make it into a religious argument? I thought most of you gays/gay-promoters were atheists or agnostics or something un-religious. Do you anti-religious people really want to talk religion?

Who are you trying to convince that your motives aren't strictly religious? To say it's anything else is Clinton-esque dishonesty and you know it. By the way, what was wrong with my alternative?