Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Page 4 of 8 [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Apr 2008, 9:46 pm

oscuria wrote:
Bluesummers wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Bluesummers wrote:
And I would argue that you need to lighten up...



Nah. For what? I'm conservative as they come. Just be glad I'm not in charge of ruling over you people.

:lol:
That's the thing...no one really is. So why bother being so judgmental?



Why bother conforming? The lifestyle is not for me and it makes me uncomfortable seeing it.

I've nothing against homosexuals, just homosexuality. Think about it if it doesn't make sense at first.

what does not make sense? homosexual life style?

It sounds like you believe that homosexuality is a choice, something people want to persue just for the fun of it, or to get rebelious or something like that.

We need to think in the attraction at first, the sexual orientation defined in a gay person, in the same way the attraction towards women works for an heterosexual person.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Apr 2008, 9:55 pm

oscuria wrote:
Anubis wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Anubis wrote:

It's not that. Most prejudice against homosexuality is based purely on bigotry, religious or otherwise, and the same "it's an abomination against the laws of nature!! !" crap. There are homosexual and bisexual animals in nature. Homosexuality has been observed in many, many animals.
And, since when did who other people happen to love and screw affect you? Do you feel you have some sort of moral duty to impede upon others' lives and personal freedom? I don't think that God would really hate homosexuality, due to it being prevalent in nature.

Also, even if he did, is God not infinitely forgiving? Or is your conception of God a Big Brother-like being who hates those who go against his will, but doesn't punish them until they die?


I know your comment was against Fred, but:

I'm actually against homosexuality because I find it repulsive. I wouldn't want to see such a site in public.

I would argue that I wouldn't want to see a heterosexual couple do the same, nor a woman breastfeeding in public.


So, you're against sex in public? Yes, on grounds of public decency, I agree. However, I can't agree with there being a reason to ban consensual and harmless private activity.

Something harmless and consensual might be repulsive to you, but there's also a word: tolerance. Is it your problem if two people of the same sex have sexual intercourse? I don't see it destroying society.


Note that my argument only comes from public flaunts of affections and indecency. What people do in the privacy of their home, as long as it is not illegal, is of no concern to me.

I am still against homosexual marriages because I don't believe such a thing exists. I don't agree with homosexuality because I find it indecent, but at the same time I would consider women who dress a certain manner indecent as well. What you do behind closed doors does not involve society as a whole, only the group behind the door, but once it becomes public, then does it affect society.

Why do you find homosexuality indecent?

Why heterosexual affection being made publicly is more accepted to some people than homosexual?

Quote:
Understand a bit more my position?

Your position seems to be that you find it repulsive seeing two gay men acting on it, I don't know how do you find two women though.

Any position based on just being disgusted by something is not valid and it takes away our objectivity and it becomes prejudice, that is how we as human beings tend to act about many things we dislike.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2008, 9:57 pm

greenblue wrote:
what does not make sense? homosexual life style?

It sounds like you believe that homosexuality is a choice, something people want to persue just for the fun of it, or to get rebelious or something like that.

We need to think in the attraction at first, the sexual orientation defined in a gay person, in the same way the attraction towards women works for an heterosexual person.



If I want to have sex with a woman, it is because of my desire to go out to have sex. I will be ignoring that such actions run contrary to what is correct in my mind, that the consequences may result in many things such as an STD, a child out of wedlock, and would be against the fundamentals of marriage.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2008, 10:02 pm

greenblue wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Anubis wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Anubis wrote:

It's not that. Most prejudice against homosexuality is based purely on bigotry, religious or otherwise, and the same "it's an abomination against the laws of nature!! !" crap. There are homosexual and bisexual animals in nature. Homosexuality has been observed in many, many animals.
And, since when did who other people happen to love and screw affect you? Do you feel you have some sort of moral duty to impede upon others' lives and personal freedom? I don't think that God would really hate homosexuality, due to it being prevalent in nature.

Also, even if he did, is God not infinitely forgiving? Or is your conception of God a Big Brother-like being who hates those who go against his will, but doesn't punish them until they die?


I know your comment was against Fred, but:

I'm actually against homosexuality because I find it repulsive. I wouldn't want to see such a site in public.

I would argue that I wouldn't want to see a heterosexual couple do the same, nor a woman breastfeeding in public.


So, you're against sex in public? Yes, on grounds of public decency, I agree. However, I can't agree with there being a reason to ban consensual and harmless private activity.

Something harmless and consensual might be repulsive to you, but there's also a word: tolerance. Is it your problem if two people of the same sex have sexual intercourse? I don't see it destroying society.


Note that my argument only comes from public flaunts of affections and indecency. What people do in the privacy of their home, as long as it is not illegal, is of no concern to me.

I am still against homosexual marriages because I don't believe such a thing exists. I don't agree with homosexuality because I find it indecent, but at the same time I would consider women who dress a certain manner indecent as well. What you do behind closed doors does not involve society as a whole, only the group behind the door, but once it becomes public, then does it affect society.

Why do you find homosexuality indecent?

Why heterosexual affection being made publicly is more accepted to some people than homosexual?

Quote:
Understand a bit more my position?

Your position seems to be that you find it repulsive seeing two gay men acting on it, I don't know how do you find two women though.

Any position based on just being disgusted by something is not valid and it takes away our objectivity and it becomes prejudice, that is how we as human beings tend to act about many things we dislike.


Did you overlook the part where I stated that I view the heterosexual couple affections in public indecent as well?

Homosexual couple means just that. If I wanted to differentiate I would have used the proper term, Gay or Lesbian.



I'm sure many people are disgusted by pedophiles and rapists. By your argument we should be more accepting of them.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Apr 2008, 10:02 pm

oscuria wrote:
greenblue wrote:
what does not make sense? homosexual life style?

It sounds like you believe that homosexuality is a choice, something people want to persue just for the fun of it, or to get rebelious or something like that.

We need to think in the attraction at first, the sexual orientation defined in a gay person, in the same way the attraction towards women works for an heterosexual person.



If I want to have sex with a woman, it is because of my desire to go out to have sex. I will be ignoring that such actions run contrary to what is correct in my mind, that the consequences may result in many things such as an STD, a child out of wedlock, and would be against the fundamentals of marriage.

Fundamentals made by men.
Also, few christian gay people feel exactly the same way so that is why they would want to be able to get married and live their sexuality until marriage, some churches that accept homosexuality do that.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2008, 10:12 pm

greenblue wrote:
Fundamentals made by men.
Also, few christian gay people feel exactly the same way so that is why they would want to be able to get married and live their sexuality until marriage, some churches that accept homosexuality do that.


Any church that performs "homosexual marriages" is corrupted, and I'm sure you know that. Christianity does not allow homosexual acts. This does not mean that the Church is against homosexuals, on the contrary. It is against the desire to be in bed with each other that is view as corrupt. The same would be same for a man and woman who get together before marriage.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

27 Apr 2008, 1:21 am

oscuria wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Fundamentals made by men.
Also, few christian gay people feel exactly the same way so that is why they would want to be able to get married and live their sexuality until marriage, some churches that accept homosexuality do that.


Any church that performs "homosexual marriages" is corrupted, and I'm sure you know that. Christianity does not allow homosexual acts. This does not mean that the Church is against homosexuals, on the contrary. It is against the desire to be in bed with each other that is view as corrupt. The same would be same for a man and woman who get together before marriage.


Please, inform us where the leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, condems homosexuality? The speaking out against Homosexuals is not Christian based. If there is a passage against Homosexuals spoken by Christ, please point it out to us.

I also want to out point again, that the current preception of marriage in the United States Protestant Christian Religion, is a minority one in the world and in the history of the world.

There is no excuse to give married heterosexual couples special legal rights over everyone else in our society. The state should not be involved in the condoning or forbidding of personal relationships between two non-related consenting adults.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

27 Apr 2008, 2:22 am

IdahoAspie wrote:
Please, inform us where the leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, condems homosexuality? The speaking out against Homosexuals is not Christian based. If there is a passage against Homosexuals spoken by Christ, please point it out to us.

I also want to out point again, that the current preception of marriage in the United States Protestant Christian Religion, is a minority one in the world and in the history of the world.

There is no excuse to give married heterosexual couples special legal rights over everyone else in our society. The state should not be involved in the condoning or forbidding of personal relationships between two non-related consenting adults.


This comes across pretty clear to me:

Gospel of Mathew wrote:
(4) "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (5) and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."




There are many things Jesus didn't say, are we to interpret that as giving proof to it being allowed? Any rational person would understand that it does not. From the above passage, Jesus stressed the importance of a union between a man and a woman--never man and man, or woman and woman. Do you then need him to precisely say "I condemn homosexuals and their right to marriage!"? Such a thing would be superfluous.

How trustworthy are you with the authority of Paul? There are very clear statements made by him concerning the nature of such acts.

Also, if one is to assume that the Trinity is true--that Jesus was in the beginning, then the quotes found in the Tanakh apply. Even if he wasn't, there is no need to doubt he followed the previous laws prescribed.


And are you serious about your comment about the world's perception? My parents aren't originally from America. Trust me when I say that no Church or Temple would ever marry a homosexual in their country without some backlash. Islamic countries? Right.

That is unless I misinterpreted what you meant.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Apr 2008, 2:44 am

oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
Please, inform us where the leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, condems homosexuality? The speaking out against Homosexuals is not Christian based. If there is a passage against Homosexuals spoken by Christ, please point it out to us.

I also want to out point again, that the current preception of marriage in the United States Protestant Christian Religion, is a minority one in the world and in the history of the world.

There is no excuse to give married heterosexual couples special legal rights over everyone else in our society. The state should not be involved in the condoning or forbidding of personal relationships between two non-related consenting adults.


This comes across pretty clear to me:

Gospel of Mathew wrote:
(4) "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (5) and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."




There are many things Jesus didn't say, are we to interpret that as giving proof to it being allowed? Any rational person would understand that it does not. From the above passage, Jesus stressed the importance of a union between a man and a woman--never man and man, or woman and woman. Do you then need him to precisely say "I condemn homosexuals and their right to marriage!"? Such a thing would be superfluous.

How trustworthy are you with the authority of Paul? There are very clear statements made by him concerning the nature of such acts.

Also, if one is to assume that the Trinity is true--that Jesus was in the beginning, then the quotes found in the Tanakh apply. Even if he wasn't, there is no need to doubt he followed the previous laws prescribed.


And are you serious about your comment about the world's perception? My parents aren't originally from America. Trust me when I say that no Church or Temple would ever marry a homosexual in their country without some backlash. Islamic countries? Right.

That is unless I misinterpreted what you meant.



that passage, to me, sounds more like the meaning is "stay with your spouse because you're stuck with them" kind of deal. of course not that strict...but certainly not the petty treatment of marriage that it gets today.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

27 Apr 2008, 3:01 am

skafather84 wrote:

that passage, to me, sounds more like the meaning is "stay with your spouse because you're stuck with them" kind of deal. of course not that strict...but certainly not the petty treatment of marriage that it gets today.


Certainly, yes. The last part is certainly indicative of a marriage that is meant to last. But how can one get past the "Made them male and female. A man [to] be united to his wife...and the two become one flesh"?

Now, as it seems people are misunderstanding my position, I've never condemned homosexuals. From what I believe, and my understanding in the nature of certain faiths, there is nothing wrong with liking or loving your own sex--whether it be a love of friendship or a love of want. The problem lies with the urge to go through with such emotions, in the case where it be more than friendship.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

27 Apr 2008, 11:08 pm

oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
Please, inform us where the leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, condems homosexuality? The speaking out against Homosexuals is not Christian based. If there is a passage against Homosexuals spoken by Christ, please point it out to us.

I also want to out point again, that the current preception of marriage in the United States Protestant Christian Religion, is a minority one in the world and in the history of the world.

There is no excuse to give married heterosexual couples special legal rights over everyone else in our society. The state should not be involved in the condoning or forbidding of personal relationships between two non-related consenting adults.


This comes across pretty clear to me:

Gospel of Mathew wrote:
(4) "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (5) and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."




There are many things Jesus didn't say, are we to interpret that as giving proof to it being allowed? Any rational person would understand that it does not. From the above passage, Jesus stressed the importance of a union between a man and a woman--never man and man, or woman and woman. Do you then need him to precisely say "I condemn homosexuals and their right to marriage!"? Such a thing would be superfluous.

How trustworthy are you with the authority of Paul? There are very clear statements made by him concerning the nature of such acts.

Also, if one is to assume that the Trinity is true--that Jesus was in the beginning, then the quotes found in the Tanakh apply. Even if he wasn't, there is no need to doubt he followed the previous laws prescribed.


And are you serious about your comment about the world's perception? My parents aren't originally from America. Trust me when I say that no Church or Temple would ever marry a homosexual in their country without some backlash. Islamic countries? Right.

That is unless I misinterpreted what you meant.


I am not arguing that heterosexual can be good, as your quote implies. I am arguing that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, never spoke against Homosexuals, or homosexuality. So to say all homsexuality is against Christ, is not supported--it can only be speculated. Christ himself, did not union with a woman, so it could not be considered an absolute order of God, unless you believe that Jesus disobeyed God.

Further, your claim that it is "superfluous" for Christ not to mention Homosexual as being against God, while speaking to population unaware that adultry, murder, rape, abuse of woman, theft, greed, and dishonor, are all wrong, seems to weaken your argument considerabily.

Is homosexuality more instinctively known as wrong than rape, murder, or adultry?

Paul's words against homosexuality were not words of God, or Jesus, but just his words, as he admits to such at the beganing of the letters in which his thoughts are reveilved. He also believed that women were not fit to speak to men about God.

My comment was not that homosexuality was accepted universally. My comment was that your view of a marriage, one man, one woman, in a loving forever equal partnership with God to have children, is not the normal view of marriage. Most marriages are about money, wealth, and politics, not two people in love. The definition of marriage has always changed in the past due to the political and social norms of the time. Piligamy, wife rape, and marrying of 14 year olds was common until the 20th century. Your view of marriage, which you think of as the correct Christian view, has only been around for a short period of time, and pretty much only in the western world.



ClosetAspy
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 361

28 Apr 2008, 8:00 pm

I get a little nervous at the idea of discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation. If it is ok to discriminate against gays, then why not against people who are celibate or asexual? There are some things that I think are not anybody's business, unless they are hurting others. But some people seem to think otherwise.

As far as gay marriage goes I am neither for nor against it. However, I do question the motives of some of those who are for it, because the word I hear coming up over and over again in discussions for it is "benefits"--usually in some kind of financial context, such as insurance. If there were no benefits to be obtained from marriage, whether straight or gay, would there be so much agitation for it? The late philosopher Ayn Rand had some pretty harsh words to say about people who had their hands out for money and benefits they themselves did not earn, and I think she would be one of the leading critics of gay marriage today if she were still around. However, if I were a divorce lawyer, I would definitely be for it! More marriages=more divorces.

And what about polygamy? If one spouse is good, several spouses ought to be even better. Let's all get in the act and dip our hands in!



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

28 Apr 2008, 9:12 pm

Look....... As I said earlier, marriage is an out-dated concept. If your with someone you truely love, then you do not need a piece of paper to validate it. But who can guarantee you'll still feel the same about that person 12 yrs down the road?... At that point, breaking up becomes expensive.

My personal feelings of marriage aside, I don't think discriminatory rules should be applied. Whatever one group of people does, everyone should be able to do..... Meaning, gays have just as much right to get married as anyone else. As for Polygamists, if their wives/husbands know and understand those conditions, and are ok with it, and no abuse is going on, then they should have the right to marry as many husbands/wives as they choose..... But, some measures must be taken to keep them from over-populating or having too many children.
Most cases you hear about Polygamy though is usually some kooky off-brand Christian religious cult. And in most of those cases, abuse does occur. Against women and children, and that does need to be stopped.
But at the same time, men or women should have the right to be with as many partners as they feel is necessary, provided they are not abusing other people in the process. I personally am not much of a people person enough to want more than 1 mate, so if I luck out and manage to find my soul mate or my life partner, she's gonna be the only one for me. But, I support free will, if someone feels they must love more than 1 person, who am I to tell them they are wrong (as long as nobody innocent is being hurt)?



Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

28 Apr 2008, 10:30 pm

I support a restriction of rights due to the dangerous diseases associated with homosexual proclivity.

How would it feel to know that the chef who cut his finger while preparing your lunch, is a raving aids ridden homosexual? Yeah I know anyone can have aids, but aids is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

I also think gays should be required by law to wear medic alert type bracelets inscribed with the word HOMO. In a hypothetical situation where I see some guy get hit by a car, I would be much more willing to administer medical attention if I knew whether or not the person on the ground (possibly bleeding) is a homosexual.


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


fabshelly
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 207

28 Apr 2008, 11:36 pm

Hey, don't knock sodomy if you haven't tried it.

Also, who would choose to be gay, looking at the way society - especially "people" (I use it for lack of a better term) like the OP.

Funny how the most hardcore homophobes usually end up being closet cases themselves - and usually pedophiles as well, unlike those who are "out".


_________________
I wonder if Homo Sapiens Sapiens called Neanderthals "NT"s too?


fabshelly
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 207

28 Apr 2008, 11:39 pm

Fred2670 wrote:

Jesus and Darwin agree
Wake up be a man


Oh really? Hm...

Okay, Mr. Big I'm A Christian....without looking!

Please list everything Jesus Christ said about homosexuality.


Thanks for playing, and have a swell day!


_________________
I wonder if Homo Sapiens Sapiens called Neanderthals "NT"s too?