Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch on.

That is my point! It isn't the government's business. And people should not be granted extra rights because they are male/female, gay/straight/bisexual, married/single/divorced/widowed, have children or don't. People are all equal, and their decisions and positions in life should not determine their value to society or the number of right they have.

I understood your point, I am just reitertating that it is incorrect. Dictionary definitions change, and they now include Gay Marriage, look it up.

If you want to play word games, Gay also means happy, so it you say that "Gay Marriage" means a happy marriage, in that instance you may be correct, their is no happy marriages

If my opinion is of any importance to the discussion may I add that:

Homosexuality is seen as depraved because it is caused by desire. Where in some cultures sex is only allowed when a couple is married and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, homosexuality, and their want in marrying each other, will be viewed as a corruption both in spirit and to society. The necessity of marriage is to rear children. Now in the west we are used to seeing couples having sex outside of marriage, broken marriages, adultery, children out of wedlock etc. No lie that this happens in all societies, but to some people marriage is held very sacred and not to be ridiculed. That is to hold the values of a family highest and the carnal desires lowest.

Homosexuals do not have it the best, but I don't see any reason to believe in homosexuals being allowed to marry each other. A homosexual couple cannot have children, therefore it cannot be a family. Seeing a homosexual couple in arms would be very taboo.

Now you can say "Well, what if it's a heterosexual couple." In my opinion, I too would agree that it's not something that should be seen in public, but not as bad as two of the same sex. It all has to do with what is best for society and the image one wants to show.



Oh well. I'm not in any position to change the laws, so whatever.

thats fine as long as I get to be a hetero bigot

you dont know what you're missing susie
you probably dont have enough to satisfy
a woman anyway

Oh thats right you are a woman

just as soon as your sister needs some air

No hate here
only intolerance

touch me and aids gets
splattered everywhere

Youve been lied to
(can you prove otherwise?)

Homosexuality isnt a condition..
its a cop out for dudes who cant get chicks

"Oh Im fat" or "Oh Im ugly" or "Oh I cant get laid"
"Oh I guess I'll do whatever I can..????
Sick Sad Wrong. Stay the hell away from my kids.

Jesus and Darwin agree
Wake up be a man

+1

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.

Who told you this?
Do you honestly believe it?

i think he's talking about if homosexual's were to get benefits (income support or something like that) from the government just for being homosexual. or maybe i just didn't understand the first post?

if i did understand it then no of course they shouldn't, equality is what it is.

This post just oozes the Naturalistic fallacy.

I'm a straight man, moron.

Freddie, baby, I'm a straight man, with two children, and a wife who puts up with my aspieness. I think I may have "what it takes to satisfy a woman".

And your every post reeks of fear. You seem to fear you might really be attracted to men (which may involve bisexuality, not merely the gay/straight paradigm), and this would seem to run contrary to your worldview. So, rather than be exposed to the temptation to take up with a man, you'd rather see all homosexuals permanently exiled, denied basic human rights because of who they are and what they do. Even when "what they do" is something you would only know about if you asked, or spied on them. (I have no clue what specific acts my gay acquaintances engage in, if any - never figured it was any of my business, any more than it's theirs which positions my wife and I enjoy most.)

Perhaps you need to take some time to examine your true motivations, to try to come to know yourself.

Or you could just continue on as you are, confusing "aspie" with "as*hole"...

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.