Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 135
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

26 Apr 2008, 5:53 pm

Fred2670 wrote:
That isnt going to work

You may not agree with me or like
what I have to say, but you will never get
me to doubt my sexuality, even though I am
sure that would delight you. Moreover I would
be willing to bet that the only reason you even
suggest something like this is because you
hope that I will take extreme offense to it
which would also delight you.


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?


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Apr 2008, 6:51 pm

IdahoAspie wrote:

None of your statements agree with the facts. Marriage is not for rearing children. Otherwise the law would not allow infertile people to marry, and people would not stay married after their children left. Nor would they divorce in the middle of child rearing.

Marriage has historically been to establish women as property of their husbands. Since we no longer view women as property or servents to their husbands, this view is also obsolete.

Your view seems to be one only limited to the 1920-1960s of the United States.

Homosexuality is not viewed as depraved behavior but only to a minority of people. Homosexuality serves the same purpose of as heterosexuality, just without the risk of children.



None of them agree to your facts since marriage is a religious duty, not a duty of law.

My views ARE traditional. They are not solely confined to an era in America and if you looked around the world you would find people who believe the same.



Odin wrote:

This post just oozes the Naturalistic fallacy.



You can believe what you want. The law should not be in charge of who should get married. All my beliefs come from religion. obviously. Yours probably a "humanistic" path. I couldn't care less if you think my view is wrong. All the traditional views claim that marriage is to raise family--and I believe it is true. Because you do not experience this where you live does not make it is false.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Apr 2008, 6:54 pm

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.



Bluesummers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

26 Apr 2008, 6:57 pm

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


_________________
omgz I r banned.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Apr 2008, 7:02 pm

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:



Bluesummers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

26 Apr 2008, 7:04 pm

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?


_________________
omgz I r banned.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Apr 2008, 7:06 pm

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.



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 135
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

26 Apr 2008, 7:07 pm

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.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Bluesummers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

26 Apr 2008, 7:13 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.
Sure, I can't say I like the idea of two men going at it like wild boars either, but things just are the way they are. You don't have to participate, you don't have to watch, so why not just accept? A lot of bad will come from complete intolerance...read any history lately?


_________________
omgz I r banned.


Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 135
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

26 Apr 2008, 7:27 pm

Exactly. What one is repulsed by, another is attracted by, and vice versa. It's odd, but true. No harm has come from harmless tolerance. Hence, harmless. Funny, how I used to be so radically opposed to homosexuality, three or four years ago. Tolerance helps alot. By accepting that something is harmless, one can lighten up.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Bluesummers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

26 Apr 2008, 7:35 pm

Anubis wrote:
Exactly. What one is repulsed by, another is attracted by, and vice versa. It's odd, but true. No harm has come from harmless tolerance. Hence, harmless. Funny, how I used to be so radically opposed to homosexuality, three or four years ago. Tolerance helps alot. By accepting that something is harmless, one can lighten up.
Yep. My only problem with gays is derived from Will and Grace, and that clown of a character Jack. It's beyond gay-bashing, to assume a man who is attracted to other men must act like a faerie princess. Just once, I'd love to punch him in the face for being so annoying...

Ahem, but I suppose I could tolerate *him.* Just not that standard.


_________________
omgz I r banned.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Apr 2008, 7:49 pm

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.

Understand a bit more my position?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
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: 48
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.