Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can you tell me where in the Constitution it grants people the right to suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual?

No one is advocating to "suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual,” the notion is ignorant nonsense.

That the Constitution forbids you and others on the right from seeking to codify your subjective religious dogma designed to deny gay Americans their civil liberties does not ‘violate’ your beliefs as Christians.

Your right to religious expression, as is the case with all other rights, although inalienable, is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)), where your religious believes do not give you license to violate the civil liberties of others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This will be fun to squash.

Because the only possible way to deal with an honest discussion of the issues is to quash it, right?

That says something about you, even if you don't know it.

You must be a hateful bigot. No. Just because I don't accept or agree with everything homosexuality doesn't make me a hateful bigot. That is intellectually lazy, not to mention very partisan. Since when does “I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral” the same as “I hate you for being gay.” There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person

. There is a difference between not liking something, and then seeing what words and actions you take against it. See if you were to say " I dont like the gay lifestyle, but to each their own." That is perfectly fine and not bigoted. Hiding behind the excuse of religion is just that. An excuse. Hate the sin not the sinner is quite stupid.

Seriously?

Have you ever dealt with an alcoholic? You don't get very far with one by giving them all the booze they can drink just because you love them. You have to hate their drinking, but sill love them. In other words, you hate the sin, but love the sinner.

You really should try thinking before you post, or does that give you a headache?

.it's OK to insult and mock homosexuals? Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a completely incredulous jerk. That's especially bad when in the same breath you're calling homosexuality a sin. You give homosexuals justified ammo to call you hateful when you deliberately insult and mock them. Do you think Christians should mock and insult people with vile slurs like “******”? No. Those who don't support homosexuality can certainly be civil and respectful in their disagreement.

so the don't hate the person, BUT they insult them by calling it a sin. Okie dokie.

Yes, just like you don't hate a smoker, but still point out that smoking is bad for their health. You should try it sometime.

nobody is asking people to be 100% tolerate of things. You can be intolerant of gay people all you want. You just can't stop them from living their lives( via the 14th). I dont care about their parades, or snark, or whatever. I just ignore it and move on with my life. Like everyone should.

If no one is asking for 100% tolerance why the **** are people going to court when someone refuses to photograph their wedding?

women have anal sex as well their captain. A lot of them do. So.....this point is stupid and we can move on.
Yes its called a strap-on numbnuts. Why a woman would prefer it is because they prefer having sex with a woman and not a man, because they are attracted to women. Yet you dont need a strap-on in order to be a lesbian. Its not in the rule book.
This part just shows your ignorance to people being gay and just sex in general.

It also shows your hypocrisy.

Don't let that stop you thoug, it is so much easier to be a hypocrite than to take the time to educate a person out of their ignorance.

Well this was stupid. Studies show that things are fine. Gays are not bad parents. You should have stopped there.

Damn, you called him stupid for agreeing with you.

What does that say about you?

no

That explains why you chased me around the board calling me gay until you realized I wasn't that easy to insult.

The bible is irrelevant. Mind your business and leave it at that.

So is your belief that people are born gay.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you tell me where in the Constitution it grants people the right to suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual?

No one is advocating to "suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual,” the notion is ignorant nonsense.

That the Constitution forbids you and others on the right from seeking to codify your subjective religious dogma designed to deny gay Americans their civil liberties does not ‘violate’ your beliefs as Christians.

Your right to religious expression, as is the case with all other rights, although inalienable, is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)), where your religious believes do not give you license to violate the civil liberties of others.

Yes they are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Of course you do. Unfortunately, for you, I can find examples on the internet.

I?m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Public Discourse

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog

 

[LoneLaugher]

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

 

[LoneLaugher]

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Of course you do. Unfortunately, for you, I can find examples on the internet.

I?m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Public Discourse

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog

You know those people? Cool.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'. Such people give me hope that maybe political correctness has not warped our entire culture.

 

[PredFan]

This is supposed to be a free country. You should be free to by gay or straight. You should also be free to practice your religion, run your business in the manner you want to, and speak your mind as you please. You also are expected to shut up and take your medicine when the stupid shit you say and do causes you to suffer.

YES!!! You are free to reject God and live in sin but know the price is very very high!!!

Would you shut up? You are making the entire world dumber every time you post.

I can't claim to be a religious man but I doubt very much that God wants us to go around judging people.

 

[R.D.]

God makes the rules, sure. The Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" is not one of those Commandments.

THIS ""IS"" THE WORD OF GOD!! Do you deny that truth?????? Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11

So...heaven is full of female prostitutes and not much else??

 

[LoneLaugher]

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'.

You want them to have every benefit that heterosexual married couples have....but not call it marriage? Is that what you are saying?

 

[R.D.]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Of course you do, free thinking is outside your understanding. I also know a gay man against gay "marriage". Google it, a great many are not fooled by the pretense

 

[LoneLaugher]

You know Marcus Bachmann? Cool!

 

[Foxfyre]

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'.

You want them to have every benefit that heterosexual married couples have....but not call it marriage? Is that what you are saying?

It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws; i.e. without making marriage into something different than it is.

At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'.

You want them to have every benefit that heterosexual married couples have....but not call it marriage? Is that what you are saying?

It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws.

At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.

Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.

You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.

What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.

"Bill........will you _______________ me?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'. Such people give me hope that maybe political correctness has not warped our entire culture.

Same-sex couples are the most vigorous advocates of traditional marriage: a union of two equal partners. And same-sex couples oppose changing the contract law that is marriage.

Moreover, all the evidence indicates that children living in homes with same-sex parents are just has happy and well-adjusted as those living in homes with opposite-sex parents. Children need only love and attention to thrive, regardless the gender configuration of their parents.

Last, to advocate for ‘gay marriage’ as some ‘separate but equal’ legal contrivance to appease the bigotry of those hostile to same-sex couples is just as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to indeed access marriage law.

 

[Foxfyre]

You want them to have every benefit that heterosexual married couples have....but not call it marriage? Is that what you are saying?

It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws.

At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.

Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.

You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.

What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.

"Bill........will you _______________ me?

I really don't care what Bob and Bill call it. But it won't be traditional marriage even if they call it that. Those who are unwilling to compromise in the least to accommodate something that is good just so they can be considered 'no different than' somebody else, are not advocating equality. They are demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else. That is not equality. And many believe it is as wrong as the National Football League being required to change its rules and concept to accommodate women or the NBA having to change its format to allow short guys to play with the giants or requiring Christian churches or Jewish synagoguea to include Atheist beliefs in their liturgy. This would give the illusion of 'equality' but it would not be that. It would be taking something away from another group to accommodate a different group and thereby completely change what the original concept is.

 

[PredFan]

Since this thread is about various thoughts on homosexuality here a few additions I'd like to add:

I have a friend, is name is Phil (really). I knew him before he came out. He was a very unhappy guy, not mean or grumpy in any way but I knew he was a list soul. Since he came out he's a changed man. Happy, successful, well liked and charming. I'm so proud of him.

I have another friend who's name is Jaime. She was the first lesbian I ever met. Wonderful woman, heartbreakingly tragic childhood. She calls me her "dad" and often confides in me. I pray for better things for her.

My wife's ex-husband Jon, is gay. She found this out after they got divorced. He's an asshole. Jaime and Phil can't stand him either.

And then there's my friend Chip. He's in the entertainment biz. He's quite talented with artwork and FX. Good all around guy, would give you the shirt off his back. He's also a very funny guy both intentionally and unintentionally.

I bring up my friends to supply a background to my statements.

1. There is a president in nature for homosexuality. In some species of animal, rabbits for example, if a community gets too large, males and females will attempt to mate with each other and this continues until the population drops. Could this be the same phenomena in humans? Might explain the population of gays in big cities.

2. Is it Nature or Nurture? i say a little of both. I believe that there is a gene or combination of genes that with the right environmental stimuli, produces homosexuality. That's the nature part of the Equasion. All four of the people I know that are homosexual had tragic or abusive childhoods. Of course Jamie has told me all about her childhood, I've learned some smattering of details from Phil and Chip as well. Jon, my wife's ex, well, I've met his parents and they are incredible assholes to him. That's Nurture.

The interesting thing about Jon is that he was adopted. He has two older siblings, one male and one female and they are both also homosexual. Tends to support the proponents of Nurture.

Lots of people have shitty childhoods and not all of them are gay, which is why I tend to believe that it's a combination of both.

I don't know any homosexuals that did not have a crappy childhood. Logically I would have to believe that there are some homosexuals that had great childhoods, but I don't know any and I know four.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since this thread is about various thoughts on homosexuality here a few additions I'd like to add:

I have a friend, is name is Phil (really). I knew him before he came out. He was a very unhappy guy, not mean or grumpy in any way but I knew he was a list soul. Since he came out he's a changed man. Happy, successful, well liked and charming. I'm so proud of him.

I have another friend who's name is Jaime. She was the first lesbian I ever met. Wonderful woman, heartbreakingly tragic childhood. She calls me her "dad" and often confides in me. I pray for better things for her.

My wife's ex-husband Jon, is gay. She found this out after they got divorced. He's an asshole. Jaime and Phil can't stand him either.

And then there's my friend Chip. He's in the entertainment biz. He's quite talented with artwork and FX. Good all around guy, would give you the shirt off his back. He's also a very funny guy both intentionally and unintentionally.

I bring up my friends to supply a background to my statements.

1. There is a president in nature for homosexuality. In some species of animal, rabbits for example, if a community gets too large, males and females will attempt to mate with each other and this continues until the population drops. Could this be the same phenomena in humans? Might explain the population of gays in big cities.

2. Is it Nature or Nurture? i say a little of both. I believe that there is a gene or combination of genes that with the right environmental stimuli, produces homosexuality. That's the nature part of the Equasion. All four of the people I know that are homosexual had tragic or abusive childhoods. Of course Jamie has told me all about her childhood, I've learned some smattering of details from Phil and Chip as well. Jon, my wife's ex, well, I've met his parents and they are incredible assholes to him. That's Nurture.

The interesting thing about Jon is that he was adopted. He has two older siblings, one male and one female and they are both also homosexual. Tends to support the proponents of Nurture.

Lots of people have shitty childhoods and not all of them are gay, which is why I tend to believe that it's a combination of both.

I don't know any homosexuals that did not have a crappy childhood. Logically I would have to believe that there are some homosexuals that had great childhoods, but I don't know any and I know four.

The closest thing I have to a godson--we were the designated family to take the kids and raise them if anything happened to both of their parents--was raised in a normal, happy, heterosexual household, was a very bright and, from all appearances, happy child, well liked, well accepted by his peers. He and his four siblings, all straight, grew up with our kids. He never came out until he had been in college for awhile. He has been 'married' and is living with his partner--one of my favorite on line game buddies--for a long time now--both are quite successful professionally and living in a elegant home on the east coast.

So a crappy childhood is not essential for a person to be gay. Though I will concede that many do. I myself, however, had a mostly miserable childhood so far as my natural family was concerned, but it never occurred to me to be sexually attracted to another woman.

(My 'godson' and his partner, though both have been politically active in achieving gay rights, are not in favor of changing the definition of traditional marriage.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Quantum Windbag

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

I quote the Bible, you quote a blog that claims the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

Good job.