Those where the words I was looking for :). You really do have guts posting on OT (where there are a few hom.ophobes) about this, and this is a great thread. We need more good threads, considering the spam we get these days :(.I don't think the Bible preaches tolerance of other people. In fact, it is very clear in it's command for believers to spread the word and attempt to get people to believe in the Christian faith. Christians are commanded to not pass judgement though, and that's where many Christians fail. There is a difference between having a calm, rational discussion with someone to try and get them to see your point of view, and being rude towards them like many people do to gay individuals.
drewtwo99
Conversation with a hom.o.sexual
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
Tolwan
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
Edit: Ultimately, I don't think the state has any business in defining marriage or granting special status for married individuals in the first place. I'd support a divorce of marriage from state over same-sex marriage any day.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
drewtwo99
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
Those where the words I was looking for :). You really do have guts posting on OT (where there are a few hom.ophobes) about this, and this is a great thread. We need more good threads, considering the spam we get these days :(.linkthewindow
I'm glad you enjoyed the thread. I hope that by sharing my perspectives I've helped people come to new understandings! Also, OT isn't that bad with the spam. System wars is far worse :p.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
gobo212
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
For those who are against same-sex marriage, I think it's all about the legal rights though. They seem to all be opposed to domestic partnership and civil union laws that benefit gays. I'm not sure why.
[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
drewtwo99
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
For those who are against same-sex marriage, I think it's all about the legal rights though. They seem to all be opposed to domestic partnership and civil union laws that benefit gays. I'm not sure why.
I'm not religious which is maybe why I don't understand but it seems that hardcore religious people need take those sticks out of their asses.
[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
drewtwo99
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
For those who are against same-sex marriage, I think it's all about the legal rights though. They seem to all be opposed to domestic partnership and civil union laws that benefit gays. I'm not sure why.
Most i would say it's based off their own ideological beliefs. They feel just getting the same legal rights is just the same as being married, and thus you have these same-sex couples intruding on a sacred union that should be benefitted to only those of a more natural persuasion. No offense, just stating what most probably believe. However, i will put this forth - There are a couple with concerns with regaurds to the domino effect - If we break down the social boundries for marriage/unity, then what stops more from happening? First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows? I think those are legitimate concerns.
Yes, that is trueI'm glad you enjoyed the thread. I hope that by sharing my perspectives I've helped people come to new understandings! Also, OT isn't that bad with the spam. System wars is far worse :p.
drewtwo99
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.gobo212I agree with this too, but for a different reason. Marriage is too sacred for the state to have a monopoly on, instead, all couples should be in a 'civil union' if they are in a stable, long-term relationship, and seek a marriage from a church if they want too. It should be up to the church if they want to marry people or not.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
Tolwan
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
For those who are against same-sex marriage, I think it's all about the legal rights though. They seem to all be opposed to domestic partnership and civil union laws that benefit gays. I'm not sure why.
Most i would say it's based off their own ideological beliefs. They feel just getting the same legal rights is just the same as being married, and thus you have these same-sex couples intruding on a sacred union that should be benefitted to only those of a more natural persuasion. No offense, just stating what most probably believe. However, i will put this forth - There are a couple with concerns with regaurds to the domino effect - If we break down the social boundries for marriage/unity, then what stops more from happening? First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows? I think those are legitimate concerns.
Honestly I don't care about polygamy as long as all the participants are of legal age and give their consent.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]Yes, that is trueI'm glad you enjoyed the thread. I hope that by sharing my perspectives I've helped people come to new understandings! Also, OT isn't that bad with the spam. System wars is far worse :p.
linkthewindow
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.gobo212I agree with this too, but for a different reason. Marriage is too sacred for the state to have a monopoly on, instead, all couples should be in a 'civil union' if they are in a stable, long-term relationship, and seek a marriage from a church if they want too. It should be up to the church if they want to marry people or not.
I agree that private orginizations should have the right to do whatever they please.
Same. Although, who are the 'parents' of the child could be an issue.Honestly I don't care about polygamy as long as all the participants are of legal age and give their consent.
gobo212
Most i would say it's based off their own ideological beliefs. They feel just getting the same legal rights is just the same as being married, and thus you have these same-sex couples intruding on a sacred union that should be benefitted to only those of a more natural persuasion. No offense, just stating what most probably believe. However, i will put this forth - There are a couple with concerns with regaurds to the domino effect - If we break down the social boundries for marriage/unity, then what stops more from happening? First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows? I think those are legitimate concerns.
Tolwan
The only problem I have with the domino theory is that the only people who use it are those who believe in the One Woman One Man marriage in the first place. No one is actually defining what's wrong with polygamy when they use that argument. If they stretch it to beastiality, you can then make the case that an animal is unable to enter into a legally binding contract. If they stretch it to pediastic marriages you can make the case that a child of a young age can't legally enter into a binding contract.
No one is arguing why same-sex marriage or polygamist marriages are wrong. They're just saying, if this then this! So? So what if polygamist marriages become legal?
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Most i would say it's based off their own ideological beliefs. They feel just getting the same legal rights is just the same as being married, and thus you have these same-sex couples intruding on a sacred union that should be benefitted to only those of a more natural persuasion. No offense, just stating what most probably believe. However, i will put this forth - There are a couple with concerns with regaurds to the domino effect - If we break down the social boundries for marriage/unity, then what stops more from happening? First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows? I think those are legitimate concerns.
drewtwo99
The only problem I have with the domino theory is that the only people who use it are those who believe in the One Woman One Man marriage in the first place. No one is actually defining what's wrong with polygamy when they use that argument. If they stretch it to beastiality, you can then make the case that an animal is unable to enter into a legally binding contract. If they stretch it to pediastic marriages you can make the case that a child of a young age can't legally enter into a binding contract.
No one is arguing why same-sex marriage or polygamist marriages are wrong. They're just saying, if this then this! So? So what if polygamist marriages become legal?
Well, then it's purely an ideological debate. Except for polygamy, there are plenty of legality issues i can think of. Family line issues, tax issues, etc. etc. But back to the point, i think unless you want half the country entering into another secession from the union, we need to respect certain moral boundries. If we begin a domino effect of completely ignoring the morals of half the country, you start some SERIOUS culutral battles in an already polarized nation.
Yes, the legal issues are the only thing stopping me from supporting it. Children are one. In a polygamous relationship, there is generally shared responsibility for children, but legally, there can only be two parents. Not to mention (as you said) tax, etc.Well, then it's purely an ideological debate. Except for polygamy, there are plenty of legality issues i can think of. Family line issues, tax issues, etc. etc. But back to the point, i think unless you want half the country entering into another secession from the union, we need to respect certain moral boundries. If we begin a domino effect of completely ignoring the morals of half the country, you start some SERIOUS culutral battles in an already polarized nation.
Tolwan
Well, then it's purely an ideological debate. Except for polygamy, there are plenty of legality issues i can think of. Family line issues, tax issues, etc. etc. But back to the point, i think unless you want half the country entering into another secession from the union, we need to respect certain moral boundries. If we begin a domino effect of completely ignoring the morals of half the country, you start some SERIOUS culutral battles in an already polarized nation.
Tolwan
I agree with you that respecting moral boundaries are important, which is why we should avoid legislating them if at all possible. No one should be forced into a same-sex marriage, and one should be forced into an opposite-sex marriage. Let people choose which marriage they would like to engage in. That way, people who are opposed to same-sex or polygamist marriages can keep entering the opposite-sex marriages they see as morally fit.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Yes, the legal issues are the only thing stopping me from supporting it. Children are one. In a polygamous relationship, there is generally shared responsibility for children, but legally, there can only be two parents. Not to mention (as you said) tax, etc.Well, then it's purely an ideological debate. Except for polygamy, there are plenty of legality issues i can think of. Family line issues, tax issues, etc. etc. But back to the point, i think unless you want half the country entering into another secession from the union, we need to respect certain moral boundries. If we begin a domino effect of completely ignoring the morals of half the country, you start some SERIOUS culutral battles in an already polarized nation.
linkthewindow
Pretty much yeah. It'd cost a HELL of a lot to completely revamp half of our social programs just for probably the smallest minority on this half of the planet Which still has severe moral and ideological issues to begin with.
Still could happen. Ever heard of buying votes :?Pretty much yeah. It'd cost a HELL of a lot to completely revamp half of our social programs just for probably the smallest minority on this half of the planet Which still has severe moral and ideological issues to begin with.
Tolwan
In the US, a state-by-state system would work better. People who don't want marriage reform can go to a more conservative state, and vice-versa for the more liberal minded people.I agree with you that respecting moral boundaries are important, which is why we should avoid legislating them if at all possible. No one should be forced into a same-sex marriage, and one should be forced into an opposite-sex marriage. Let people choose which marriage they would like to engage in. That way, people who are opposed to same-sex or polygamist marriages can keep entering the opposite-sex marriages they see as morally fit.
drewtwo99
Well, it's 4am and I'm really tired! If anyone has any more questions please feel free to post them and I'd be glad to respond when I can! Have a great day everyone. Thanks to Tolwan for the interesting discussion, as well as for the kind words from everyone!drewtwo99Night :D
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Still could happen. Ever heard of buying votes :?Pretty much yeah. It'd cost a HELL of a lot to completely revamp half of our social programs just for probably the smallest minority on this half of the planet Which still has severe moral and ideological issues to begin with.
linkthewindow
In the US, a state-by-state system would work better. People who don't want marriage reform can go to a more conservative state, and vice-versa for the more liberal minded people.I agree with you that respecting moral boundaries are important, which is why we should avoid legislating them if at all possible. No one should be forced into a same-sex marriage, and one should be forced into an opposite-sex marriage. Let people choose which marriage they would like to engage in. That way, people who are opposed to same-sex or polygamist marriages can keep entering the opposite-sex marriages they see as morally fit.
drewtwo99
To bad states rights have been shat on in the last century.
NOTE: I wanted the title of my thread to read "Conversation with a Homosexual" but the censor wouldn't let me!
There seem to be so many threads about gays, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc... and most of the conversation is between heterosexuals. I thought it might be interesting to open up a thread for discussion with an openly gay forum poster. I'd like you to ask me any questions you have regarding homosexuality, what life is like as a homosexual, politics, religion... anything.
I'm a very accepting and tolerant individual. I respect moral opposition to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, etc, so I'm not going to attack your religion or morals, etc. Feel free to ask anything !!! (Within the realm of what I can respond to as layed out in the ToU).
To start the discussion, I would first like to say that I was raised in a strongly Christian household, I went to church regularly, and I battled with my sexuality for a long time. I hated myself. I tried so hard to be straight. Even to this day, if there was some miracle cure that could make me straight I'd seriously consider taking it (almost definitely would). Many gays disagree with this. They fear a "cure" for homosexuality, saying it destroys who they are. I disagree, I don't define myself as a homosexual, I define myself as a human being.My attraction to the same sex is a small part of me. And no, I don't hate myself anymore, I am happy with the person that I am. But, hey, let's face it, we live in a world that is about 90% straight, and it would be a hell of a lot easier to find potential romantic interests if I were straight.
Anyway, with that said, please feel free to ask any questions!drewtwo99
But that's what you are. You want to minimize or change an aspect of you that society deems undesirable so that it would make things easier for you? It sounds like you are not happy with who you are, or at least conditionally so. If society had absolutely no prejudice against gays would you still want to take a "cure" to become straight? I really don't think you should deny your sexuality, as much as you would like it not to be a part of you and try to minimize it, it is part of what defines you and you should strive for acceptance. Otherwise you're going to be spending the rest of your life wishing to be something that you're not.
Thanks for sharing, that took courage to post.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Iowa, and colorado are two examples that come to mind. Colorado happened a bit of time ago though. In your defense, Oregon did go ahead and push forth it's anti-gay marriage amendment despite court battles, nullifying over 3000 marriages as i recall (rough number). The way i see it, depending on how things go, i support a federal amendment if we see more cases of courts usurping state decisions, but as you are well aware, conservatives are currently not pushing for a federal amendment. We've entered a "wait and see" period. So i dont think that's something you'll have to worry about.
However, one thing i havent looked up yet is, is a marriage that takes place in another state, still valid if you move to a state with a ban on it. If it is, then i think that really is another case for a federal amendmant. People just jumping lines to get married then cross back.
Tolwan
Well, alright. Thanks for your input! Oregon has a domestic partnership law now that has gone into effect which grants the same legal standing as a state recognized marriage though. For me, that's fine if it makes everyone happy. Define marriage however you want, but give everyone the same legal rights.
I agree with this. If this is what it takes to make religious conservatives happy than give gays the same legal rights as married people but call it something different.
For those who are against same-sex marriage, I think it's all about the legal rights though. They seem to all be opposed to domestic partnership and civil union laws that benefit gays. I'm not sure why.
Most i would say it's based off their own ideological beliefs. They feel just getting the same legal rights is just the same as being married, and thus you have these same-sex couples intruding on a sacred union that should be benefitted to only those of a more natural persuasion. No offense, just stating what most probably believe. However, i will put this forth - There are a couple with concerns with regaurds to the domino effect - If we break down the social boundries for marriage/unity, then what stops more from happening? First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows? I think those are legitimate concerns.
I don't. No where else in the world that permits same sex marriage has had that problem, why should america? is there a significant proportion of the population pushing for polygamy?But that's what you are. You want to minimize or change an aspect of you that society deems undesirable so that it would make things easier for you? It sounds like you are not happy with who you are, or at least conditionally so. If society had absolutely no prejudice against gays would you still want to take a "cure" to become straight? I really don't think you should deny your sexuality, as much as you would like it not to be a part of you and try to minimize it, it is part of what defines you and you should strive for acceptance. Otherwise you're going to be spending the rest of your life wishing to be something that you're not.
Thanks for sharing, that took courage to post.
Rekunta
Even if society accepted gays I'd still probably take a "cure" simply because there'd be more potential love interests out there. However, as I said earlier, I do not wish I were not gay every day. I'm happy with who I am. I don't want a cure or hope for a cure in anyway. Honestly.
I live in saudi arabia and i'm a muslim , Gays here never surface and if they do they get executed , i know a friend of mine who was executed when he was 18 along with his boyfriend of the same age , at schools some students do gay sexual things and usually they dont get caught , but if they do sometimes people let it slide , at times they get sentenced .
I think partly what makes some teenagers in my country to commense gay actions is the fact that a guy here cant get hooked up by a gal and its forbiden by our religion . So families usually lock up their girls and the guys direct their sexuality elsewhere , when they grow up they get married and gayness is gone ... Thats my theory of Gays in Saudi arabia.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]NOTE: I wanted the title of my thread to read "Conversation with a Homosexual" but the censor wouldn't let me!
There seem to be so many threads about gays, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc... and most of the conversation is between heterosexuals. I thought it might be interesting to open up a thread for discussion with an openly gay forum poster. I'd like you to ask me any questions you have regarding homosexuality, what life is like as a homosexual, politics, religion... anything.
I'm a very accepting and tolerant individual. I respect moral opposition to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, etc, so I'm not going to attack your religion or morals, etc. Feel free to ask anything !!! (Within the realm of what I can respond to as layed out in the ToU).
To start the discussion, I would first like to say that I was raised in a strongly Christian household, I went to church regularly, and I battled with my sexuality for a long time. I hated myself. I tried so hard to be straight. Even to this day, if there was some miracle cure that could make me straight I'd seriously consider taking it (almost definitely would). Many gays disagree with this. They fear a "cure" for homosexuality, saying it destroys who they are. I disagree, I don't define myself as a homosexual, I define myself as a human being.My attraction to the same sex is a small part of me. And no, I don't hate myself anymore, I am happy with the person that I am. But, hey, let's face it, we live in a world that is about 90% straight, and it would be a hell of a lot easier to find potential romantic interests if I were straight.
Anyway, with that said, please feel free to ask any questions!Rekunta
But that's what you are. You want to minimize or change an aspect of you that society deems undesirable so that it would make things easier for you? It sounds like you are not happy with who you are, or at least conditionally so. If society had absolutely no prejudice against gays would you still want to take a "cure" to become straight? I really don't think you should deny your sexuality, as much as you would like it not to be a part of you and try to minimize it, it is part of what defines you and you should strive for acceptance. Otherwise you're going to be spending the rest of your life wishing to be something that you're not.
Thanks for sharing, that took courage to post.
I don't think it's minimizing a part of yourself to say that you're a human being and not a homosexual. I'm hetero but I definitely wouldn't say that that's the defining characteristic of my life.
I have gay relatives, gay friends, and at my old job, gay co-workers. I'm not phased by homosexuals.
I have to say, I was considering experimenting in the 10th grade, but then I watched a gay porno, and got scared straight.
Depending on the law of countries (constitutions etc.) do you think that Same Sex Marriage should be allowed?
As long as people's genetics dont make them want to hurt others like pedophiles or serial killers im cool with whoever. Your hair, your eyes, your skin color, your ethnicity, your sexual preference, I dont care. Gay guys are just less competition.
Can somebody just explain flamers though?? I get the part about being homosexual but flamers dont act like men or women, they are just out there in their own little world.
I'm gay and if I was given the chance to somehow "become straight", I'd definitely pass. My sexuality is a big part of me - (it doesn't define who I am to a T, but it is a pretty big part of me) and I don't want that to change. I like who I am.Ignis-FatuusYou took the words right out of my mouth.
As long as people's genetics dont make them want to hurt others like pedophiles or serial killers im cool with whoever. Your hair, your eyes, your skin color, your ethnicity, your sexual preference, I dont care. Gay guys are just less competition.
Can somebody just explain flamers though?? I get the part about being homosexual but flamers dont act like men or women, they are just out there in their own little world._AbBaNdOn
Umm... well... people act a certain way to try and exibit themselves I guess. I definitely have some gay tendencies myself... I think it's just how society works!
I live in saudi arabia and i'm a muslim , Gays here never surface and if they do they get executed , i know a friend of mine who was executed when he was 18 along with his boyfriend of the same age , at schools some students do gay sexual things and usually they dont get caught , but if they do sometimes people let it slide , at times they get sentenced .
I think partly what makes some teenagers in my country to commense gay actions is the fact that a guy here cant get hooked up by a gal and its forbiden by our religion . So families usually lock up their girls and the guys direct their sexuality elsewhere , when they grow up they get married and gayness is gone ... Thats my theory of Gays in Saudi arabia.
bryan2020
There may be some truth to what you say about gay men having to direct their sexuality towards other men when women aren't available. The same phenomenon occurs in prisons here as well when men can't have sex with other women. They still consider themselves to be heterosexual.
However, I'm sure that there are a good number of gay saudi's who also are truly gay and want to be with other men if their culture and religion would allow for it.
[QUOTE="Ignis-Fatuus"]I'm gay and if I was given the chance to somehow "become straight", I'd definitely pass. My sexuality is a big part of me - (it doesn't define who I am to a T, but it is a pretty big part of me) and I don't want that to change. I like who I am.gman56You took the words right out of my mouth.
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't see being gay as a big part of me. It's a preference, just like my preference for the color green over the color blue, my preference for coca cola over pepsi, etc. It's a small, small part of who I am.
Depending on the law of countries (constitutions etc.) do you think that Same Sex Marriage should be allowed?
mechwarrior_bob
I think that marriage itself has no business being legislated on, but gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples. That just makes sense to me.
Have you ever had intercourse with a woman (before you admitted to being gay If so, was it enjoyable at all?chrisrooR
No I never have! I've tried to imagine myself in that situation and try to fantasize about it... but it's very uncomfortable for me and I just don't feel right trying to put myself there mentally.
Another questions...You said (i think) that you were previously born into christianity; how did you get over the whole " eternal damnation" thing?
Just curious, not meant to be offensive :)
chrisrooR
Not taken as offensive! I don't really know what you're asking, are you asking me how I cope with the possibility of me being sent to Hell? If that's the question, then, I guess I just have to answer that I don't believe that the traditional protestant idea of heaven and hell are really accurate. If you've never read the book "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, I highly recommend it. It's an imaginitive work of fiction about what hell and heaven might be like, and, I think that honestly it makes a lot of sense.
I would imagine if one developed a less restrictive or liberal outlook on life and religion the "promise" of damnation is not as threatening if at all. But just a thought.
~Azure~
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Another questions...You said (i think) that you were previously born into christianity; how did you get over the whole " eternal damnation" thing?
Just curious, not meant to be offensive :)
drewtwo99
Not taken as offensive! I don't really know what you're asking, are you asking me how I cope with the possibility of me being sent to Hell? If that's the question, then, I guess I just have to answer that I don't believe that the traditional protestant idea of heaven and hell are really accurate. If you've never read the book "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, I highly recommend it. It's an imaginitive work of fiction about what hell and heaven might be like, and, I think that honestly it makes a lot of sense.
I meant that if your parents were Christian, did they ever have the "Christian" word on your sexuality? (e.g. "you'll go to hell! reconsider!)
I meant that if your parents were Christian, did they ever have the "Christian" word on your sexuality? (e.g. "you'll go to hell! reconsider!)
chrisrooR
Oh, well, no my dad or mom never told me that. Both of them believed that simply believing in Christ was enough to go to heaven, and that salvation is a gift from God, not something to be earned by your works.
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I meant that if your parents were Christian, did they ever have the "Christian" word on your sexuality? (e.g. "you'll go to hell! reconsider!)
drewtwo99
Oh, well, no my dad or mom never told me that. Both of them believed that simply believing in Christ was enough to go to heaven, and that salvation is a gift from God, not something to be earned by your works.
Sounds like you have wonderful parents :)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment