I wish people who posted here would still be on GS 30, 40 or even 50 years from now. If homosexual marriage becomes commonplace by then, I would be curious to know if their stance has changed, or if they are still adamant about their views.II_Seraphim_IIPeople as a whole tend to stick to their views once they've voiced them. So I wouldn't bet on them changing. :P
Don't we already have equal marriage rights?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Yes, at the expense of what parent's children must learn because the minority said so?? Doesn't seem right to me.GabuEx
There's this little thing called the Constitution; its entire purpose is to make the minority win when the majority tries to walk on them. Arguing that the majority's will must be done is quite possibly one of the most un-American things that someone could say.
The majority's will may be done and not at the expense of gay rights. That is the point I'm arguing here. You honestly believe that it's OK to teach that in school when the majority of parents don't want them to be taught that in school at particular ages? No one is saying to ignore homosexuality either. Get some freakin sense people. When children mature and come of age, they get to decide that and learn about it for themselves. Why force it upon children whose parents' don't want them to learn about it in that environment? Throw me a freakin bone here.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Throw me a freakin bone here.GabuEx
I've already thrown you four or five by explaining to you Brown v. Board of Education far more times and in far more detail than I should have to. :P I see little point in doing it again.
Indeed you have, as I have pointed out the foundations as to which that was founded upon, showing no correlation to what we're discussing now.[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] This has to do with parenting and what their children learn. Not racial/sexual orientation condemnation. Sorry.LikeHateradeSo if the majority of parents want the schools to teach their kids about Cleavland Steamers, that'd make it right? It isn't about what parents WANT their kids to learn in school, but about what they DON'T want them to learn. What I mean by that there is currently no problem to parents with the established order of education and the learning criteria in schools. Parents don't have a right to find some personal fetish or any subject for that matter and choose that to be learned in schools. When pertaining to the majority, parents have a right to have a say in what their children learn in this field in school because there are changes being made to a system of learning that parents approve of to something that would be forced on their children that they wouldn't agree with. I believe in listening to the minority, but I don't believe in ignoring the majority either.
What does it matter? A homosexual child would probably be thankful for the information, whereas a heterosexual child wouldn't give a damn. It'd probably save the marriages where a boy goes in thinking he likes women, and then divorces after finding out that it's okay to like guys, and it's not just a way of life to marry a woman.
It isn't about what parents WANT their kids to learn in school, but about what they DON'T want them to learn. What I mean by that there is currently no problem to parents with the established order of education and the learning criteria in schools. Parents don't have a right to find some personal fetish or any subject for that matter and choose that to be learned in schools. When pertaining to the majority, parents have a right to have a say in what their children learn in this field in school because there are changes being made to a system of learning that parents approve of to something that would be forced on their children that they wouldn't agree with. I believe in listening to the minority, but I don't believe in ignoring the majority either.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] So if the majority of parents want the schools to teach their kids about Cleavland Steamers, that'd make it right?TirOrn
What does it matter? A homosexual child would probably be thankful for the information, whereas a heterosexual child wouldn't give a damn. It'd probably save the marriages where a boy goes in thinking he likes women, and then divorces after finding out that it's okay to like guys, and it's not just a way of life to marry a woman.
It matters that parents don't want their children learning about it. Homosexuality being taught at certain ages can have an effect on that kid's sexuality. What it could also do is ruin marriages where a kid hears in school that it's ok for him/her to be with the same sex, and divorces that person only to realize that he/she didn't even like the same sex. I believe that someone looking at this situation with a completely unbiased opinion would see wrong-doing in this simply because the minority is forcing the majority of parents' children to learn about something in school that their parents do not, when it can be prevented and equal rights may be achieved for gay couples.[QUOTE="TirOrn"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] It isn't about what parents WANT their kids to learn in school, but about what they DON'T want them to learn. What I mean by that there is currently no problem to parents with the established order of education and the learning criteria in schools. Parents don't have a right to find some personal fetish or any subject for that matter and choose that to be learned in schools. When pertaining to the majority, parents have a right to have a say in what their children learn in this field in school because there are changes being made to a system of learning that parents approve of to something that would be forced on their children that they wouldn't agree with. I believe in listening to the minority, but I don't believe in ignoring the majority either.LikeHaterade
What does it matter? A homosexual child would probably be thankful for the information, whereas a heterosexual child wouldn't give a damn. It'd probably save the marriages where a boy goes in thinking he likes women, and then divorces after finding out that it's okay to like guys, and it's not just a way of life to marry a woman.
It matters that parents don't want their children learning about it. Homosexuality being taught at certain ages can have an effect on that kid's sexuality. What it could also do is ruin marriages where a kid hears in school that it's ok for him/her to be with the same sex, and divorces that person only to realize that he/she didn't even like the same sex. I believe that someone looking at this situation with a completely unbiased opinion would see wrong-doing in this simply because the minority is forcing the majority of parents' children to learn about something in school that their parents do not, when it can be prevented and equal rights may be achieved for gay couples.So having schooling where you are told the reality of life is inappropriate? 1) You are born with your sexuality. 2) You won't change your sexuality on a whim.
Someone is not going to divorce another person because they are taught that they have "options," if you can consider it that. Equal rights is having the right to marry whoever you want to. Nobody's beliefs are important enough to change the fact that everyone derserves the chance to be who they want to be, and nobody should be able to regulate someone's prosperity.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="TirOrn"]It matters that parents don't want their children learning about it. Homosexuality being taught at certain ages can have an effect on that kid's sexuality. What it could also do is ruin marriages where a kid hears in school that it's ok for him/her to be with the same sex, and divorces that person only to realize that he/she didn't even like the same sex. I believe that someone looking at this situation with a completely unbiased opinion would see wrong-doing in this simply because the minority is forcing the majority of parents' children to learn about something in school that their parents do not, when it can be prevented and equal rights may be achieved for gay couples.
What does it matter? A homosexual child would probably be thankful for the information, whereas a heterosexual child wouldn't give a damn. It'd probably save the marriages where a boy goes in thinking he likes women, and then divorces after finding out that it's okay to like guys, and it's not just a way of life to marry a woman.
TirOrn
So having schooling where you are told the reality of life is inappropriate? 1) You are born with your sexuality. 2) You won't change your sexuality on a whim.
Someone is not going to divorce another person because they are taught that they have "options," if you can consider it that. Equal rights is having the right to marry whoever you want to. Nobody's beliefs are important enough to change the fact that everyone derserves the chance to be who they want to be, and nobody should be able to regulate someone's prosperity.
1) Prove it 2) I've heard cases that say otherwiseEqual rights is that man or woman having the right to be with whoever he/she wants and receive every civil right and legal benefit that comes along with marriage.
[QUOTE="TirOrn"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] It matters that parents don't want their children learning about it. Homosexuality being taught at certain ages can have an effect on that kid's sexuality. What it could also do is ruin marriages where a kid hears in school that it's ok for him/her to be with the same sex, and divorces that person only to realize that he/she didn't even like the same sex. I believe that someone looking at this situation with a completely unbiased opinion would see wrong-doing in this simply because the minority is forcing the majority of parents' children to learn about something in school that their parents do not, when it can be prevented and equal rights may be achieved for gay couples.LikeHaterade
So having schooling where you are told the reality of life is inappropriate? 1) You are born with your sexuality. 2) You won't change your sexuality on a whim.
Someone is not going to divorce another person because they are taught that they have "options," if you can consider it that. Equal rights is having the right to marry whoever you want to. Nobody's beliefs are important enough to change the fact that everyone derserves the chance to be who they want to be, and nobody should be able to regulate someone's prosperity.
1) Prove it 2) I've heard cases that say otherwiseEqual rights is that man or woman having the right to be with whoever he/she wants and receive every civil right and legal benefit that comes along with marriage if they choose to be with the same sex.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="TirOrn"]1) Prove it 2) I've heard cases that say otherwise
So having schooling where you are told the reality of life is inappropriate? 1) You are born with your sexuality. 2) You won't change your sexuality on a whim.
Someone is not going to divorce another person because they are taught that they have "options," if you can consider it that. Equal rights is having the right to marry whoever you want to. Nobody's beliefs are important enough to change the fact that everyone derserves the chance to be who they want to be, and nobody should be able to regulate someone's prosperity.
LikeHaterade
Equal rights is that man or woman having the right to be with whoever he/she wants and receive every civil right and legal benefit that comes along with marriage if they choose to be with the same sex.
I don't think anyone straight would think its ok in this age to be gay.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] 1) Prove it 2) I've heard cases that say otherwise
Equal rights is that man or woman having the right to be with whoever he/she wants and receive every civil right and legal benefit that comes along with marriage if they choose to be with the same sex.
links136
I don't think anyone straight would think its ok in this age to be gay.
Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.GabuEx, can I ask if you believe marriage serves any purpose, and if so what is it?jimmyjammer69
Well, it has two main purposes, as I see it. The first is that it's an affirmation of the intention of two people to remain lifelong partners, for better or for worse, richer or poorer, and so on. The second is kind of corollary to the first, which is that, in a marriage into which children are born, that affirmation serves to keep the two parents together in order to provide the children a stable household in which they can grow and flourish.
People will often say that the second one is the entire point of marriage and that that's why gay marriage should not be legalized, but I would argue that their support of marriage between any man and woman goes contrary to this statement, as that would include support for marriages in which one partner is infertile, or marriages in which neither partner desires children, or any other setup in which children are not produced.
It's likely that this side of marriage was very important in the days that the Bible was written, given how important it was for any given tribe of people to keep their populations up, but now that we're in the modern era with billions of people on Earth and millions in each country, as well as the fact that our relative level of modern era peace has made child-rearing much easier compared to Biblical times, the importance of marriage to child birth is nowhere near what it used to be.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Yes, at the expense of what parent's children must learn because the minority said so?? Doesn't seem right to me.LikeHaterade
There's this little thing called the Constitution; its entire purpose is to make the minority win when the majority tries to walk on them. Arguing that the majority's will must be done is quite possibly one of the most un-American things that someone could say.
The majority's will may be done and not at the expense of gay rights. That is the point I'm arguing here. You honestly believe that it's OK to teach that in school when the majority of parents don't want them to be taught that in school at particular ages? No one is saying to ignore homosexuality either. Get some freakin sense people. When children mature and come of age, they get to decide that and learn about it for themselves. Why force it upon children whose parents' don't want them to learn about it in that environment? Throw me a freakin bone here. I don't believe children too young should be taught about any sexuality. I do, however, believe it's imperative that children at least be taught about it during middle school(grades 7-8 equivalent) or early high-school(grade 9-10). Parents should have some say in their children's education, for sure, but denying the education system having a hand in the matter at some point is merely enforcing the incredible disinformation, lack of tolerance, poor stereotypes and subjugating far too many youths and teens to verbal and physical abuse because of their sexuality, or because they're thought to be homosexuals. When children mature and come of age...what age range would that be? Believe it or not, teaching teens about homosexuality would probably be much more beneficial than negative, because if the only place they're learning about homosexuality is by word of mouth from parents and relatives, and friends who've only heard it from their parents/relatives....then nothing's going to change. There won't BE any learning about homosexuality.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]GabuEx, can I ask if you believe marriage serves any purpose, and if so what is it?GabuEx
Well, it has two main purposes, as I see it. The first is that it's an affirmation of the intention of two people to remain lifelong partners, for better or for worse, richer or poorer, and so on. The second is kind of corollary to the first, which is that, in a marriage into which children are born, that affirmation serves to keep the two parents together in order to provide the children a stable household in which they can grow and flourish.
People will often say that the second one is the entire point of marriage and that that's why gay marriage should not be legalized, but I would argue that their support of marriage between any man and woman goes contrary to this statement, as that would include support for marriages in which one partner is infertile, or marriages in which neither partner desires children, or any other setup in which children are not produced.
It's likely that this side of marriage was very important in the days that the Bible was written, given how important it was for any given tribe of people to keep their populations up, but now that we're in the modern era with billions of people on Earth and millions in each country, as well as the fact that our relative level of modern era peace has made child-rearing much easier compared to Biblical times, the importance of marriage to child birth is nowhere near what it used to be.
The reason I ask is that I see marriage as a pretty worthless institution, but I would one day like to have kids. I live in a country where having children outside of wedlock is heavily frowned upon and I feel like I'm constantly fighting for my right NOT to get married. I'm very confused as to why so many people are fighting so hard for the opposite. When I look around me, it seems like the most common reason for marriage is still security and stability for children, and this way of thinking is far from redundant to most couples. Of course it's pretty difficult to find any reliable statistics to back up this idea. Maybe statistics on the nuimber of children born and cared for in unmarried relationships, or the average number of years (or months) after which a married couple conceive or have children would be enlightening but I'm damned if I can drag them up. If a couple want to affirm their love for each other, they can do it without getting married, and I wish they would - it would certainly ease the tension on those of us who feel bullied into conforming to what we see as an outmoded tradition too heavily subsidised with tax and state benefits. I can see good cause for marriage (or civil union or whatever we want to call it) in cases where a couple are, for whatever reason, unable to have children and need to prove to social services that they are stable enough to raise children, but it would still be nice to see the fringe benefits taken out of marriage and have those of us who choose not to get married be regarded as equal.Wouldn't you agree that financial benefits often play a major role in couples' decisions to get married in almost every country? Why should they be there? Shouldn't we co-habiting partners be granted the same rights and benefits as traditionalists and religious types? When people fight for homosexual marriage, they undermine the position of people who want to be treated as equal by the state without getting married :(jimmyjammer69Well, they were put there basically because promoting the birthing of children was (and kinda still is) important. I wouldn't say that they play a major role in most people's decisions to get married, though. Certainly not more than other factors, religious or otherwise.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Wouldn't you agree that financial benefits often play a major role in couples' decisions to get married in almost every country? Why should they be there? Shouldn't we co-habiting partners be granted the same rights and benefits as traditionalists and religious types? When people fight for homosexual marriage, they undermine the position of people who want to be treated as equal by the state without getting married :(GabuExWell, they were put there basically because promoting the birthing of children was (and kinda still is) important. I wouldn't say that they play a major role in most people's decisions to get married, though. Certainly not more than other factors, religious or otherwise. In this modern peaceful era, with the high population, it would be nice if tax bribes weren't handed out. It would certainly go some way to showing that people get married out of love or respect for tradition, and would grant equality to gays in civil partnerships, co-habiting partners and married heterosexuals.
Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.LikeHateradeOne or two cases of people seemingly "changing" orientation does not necessarily mean they actually changed their orientation.
Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.LikeHateradeI've also heard stories of black people turning white...does that mean race is a choice?
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.II_Seraphim_III've also heard stories of black people turning white...does that mean race is a choice? Of coarse not. Race is in your genes. Sexuality is not.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.-Sun_Tzu-One or two cases of people seemingly "changing" orientation does not necessarily mean they actually changed their orientation. If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases.AirGuitarist87Or, they were gay all along and didn't know it. Or put on a false front in order to avoid discrimination. They said that because they had a prior attraction towards the opposite sex. If a woman was attracted to men, before she was attracted to women, then her sexuality changed. Period.
EDIT: And no I'm not saying this woman is attracted to both, but loses her previous attraction to men, after she has been with a woman.
Why do you guys care so much about gay marriage? It baffles me. Is it so you can just argue? Anyway marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman, as God intended and commanded. Gays don't have the right to have that privilege. Surprising how many atheists there are on this forum...Solid_Snake325:| Are you serious? That is flat out the most ridiculous reason against gay marriage. In this day and age, I can't believe that's still touted as a valid arguement.
Why do you guys care so much about gay marriage? It baffles me. Is it so you can just argue? Anyway marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman, as God intended and commanded. Gays don't have the right to have that privilege. Surprising how many atheists there are on this forum...Solid_Snake325
this is the 21st century right? Lets please try to get away from the witch burning days. Religion has no say on what people can legally and harmlessly do. Or else I intend and command that all Christians should burn at the stake, because I said so. See how that works? Lemme guess, you only support stuff if it directly benefits you. Typical.
Why do you guys care so much about gay marriage? It baffles me. Is it so you can just argue? Anyway marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman, as God intended and commanded. Gays don't have the right to have that privilege. Surprising how many atheists there are on this forum...Solid_Snake325Separation of church and state means that you fail.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Have you never heard of anyone that was originally attracted to the opposite sex turning gay because I have. However we're beginning to get off-topic.LikeHateradeOne or two cases of people seemingly "changing" orientation does not necessarily mean they actually changed their orientation. If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases. People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, because it would create a less hostile environment for the gay community.
If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases. People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] One or two cases of people seemingly "changing" orientation does not necessarily mean they actually changed their orientation. -Sun_Tzu-
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet."[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases.LikeHaterade
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet." And how is it you know that to be a fact?[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases.LikeHaterade
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet."And how would you know either?
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet." And how is it you know that to be a fact? If people know that someone is gay what would be the point of that person to lie about having a previous attraction to the opposite sex?
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
ithilgore2006
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] If someone says they used to be straight and they are now gay that means they changed their sexual orientation. And there are way more than 1 or 2 cases.LikeHaterade
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet." How do you know for a fact that these gay people that you are referring to were actually genuinely attracted to the opposite sex, as opposed to just trying to fit in. And if these people were in fact attracted to the opposite sex and then suddenly "turned gay then that would make them bisexual, not gay[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] People stay "in the closet" so to speak because they are afraid to come out and be gay because they are afraid of not fitting in with the rest of society. But they always were gay even though they said they weren't and acted straight. Their orientation never changes; the only thing that changes is the fact they are "out of the closet" because they feel comfortable and they find a sense of belonging.Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet." How do you know for a fact that these gay people that you are referring to were actually genuinely attracted to the opposite sex, as opposed to just trying to fit in. And if these people were in fact attracted to the opposite sex and then suddenly "turned gay then that would make them bisexual, not gay No it would not and this is the last time I will say it. A gay person that had a previous attraction to the opposite sex this is now gay means they lost that previous attraction due to experience with the same sex. You can't change the fact that they WERE attracted to the opposite sex.
Now there would be no need to be "in the closet" in the first place if we teach people to be tolerant, thus creating a less hostile environment for the gay community.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet."LikeHateradeAnd how is it you know that to be a fact? If people know that someone is gay what would be the point of that person to lie about having a previous attraction to the opposite sex?
because of all the religious people that hate gays? Or any of the youth that hate gays? Or the fear of parents disapproval?
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="ithilgore2006"] And how is it you know that to be a fact?links136If people know that someone is gay what would be the point of that person to lie about having a previous attraction to the opposite sex?
because of all the religious people that hate gays? Or any of the youth that hate gays? Or the fear of parents disapproval?
Sorry but you're making no sense now. They already KNOW that he/she is gay You were saying?
[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.GabuExWell 40 years ago it was defined in many states as the union of a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, so by that metric we've already redefined marriage. Do not compare this to racial segregation and any other black and civil rights movements -- they're incomparable. African-Americans and women are a protected class, homosexuals are not.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.Stevo_the_gamerWell 40 years ago it was defined in many states as the union of a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, so by that metric we've already redefined marriage. Do not compare this to racial segregation and any other black and civil rights movements -- they're incomparable. African-Americans and women are a protected class, homosexuals are not. How are they incomparable? They're all human beings.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Stop avoiding the fact that there are gay people today that were originally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not talking about gays that were "in the closet."LikeHateradeHow do you know for a fact that these gay people that you are referring to were actually genuinely attracted to the opposite sex, as opposed to just trying to fit in. And if these people were in fact attracted to the opposite sex and then suddenly "turned gay then that would make them bisexual, not gay No it would not and this is the last time I will say it. A gay person that had a previous attraction to the opposite sex this is now gay means they lost that previous attraction due to experience with the same sex. You can't change the fact that they WERE attracted to the opposite sex. Many people believe that they are straight when they are in fact gay because everyone else around them is straight, so they feel comfortable being "straight", and they marry the opposite sex, they have kids and they raise a family. But a man marrying a woman doesn't make him straight. There is an overwhelming amount of people who question their sexuality every day. There is no clear cut line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. These people who seemed to have "converted" are just realizing that they never were really straight. And there is absolutely no proof that a child being taught to respect the gay community will suddenly go from being straight to gay
[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] If people know that someone is gay what would be the point of that person to lie about having a previous attraction to the opposite sex?LikeHaterade
because of all the religious people that hate gays? Or any of the youth that hate gays? Or the fear of parents disapproval?
Sorry but you're making no sense now. They already KNOW that he/she is gay You were saying?I geuss I read that wrong....
Although my general point still stands. Gays in todays society are frowned apon. Nobody likes to be looked down apon. Kinda like MJ still denying that he's a pedo. I'm not surprised that someone is known to be gay would deny it. I mean why do you think people make fun of other people by calling them a ****
Why do you guys care so much about gay marriage? It baffles me. Is it so you can just argue? Anyway marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman, as God intended and commanded. Gays don't have the right to have that privilege. Surprising how many atheists there are on this forum...Solid_Snake325
And why do you care so much about not allowing gay marriage? It's the 21st Century, things have changed a lot since the Biblical days. They want to make a vow to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love and experience the same marital rights as a heterosexual couple, I don't see a reason why that shouldn't be allowed.
I'm Catholic by the way and what I believe in over this issue does not make me anyless of one.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How do you know for a fact that these gay people that you are referring to were actually genuinely attracted to the opposite sex, as opposed to just trying to fit in. And if these people were in fact attracted to the opposite sex and then suddenly "turned gay then that would make them bisexual, not gay-Sun_Tzu-No it would not and this is the last time I will say it. A gay person that had a previous attraction to the opposite sex this is now gay means they lost that previous attraction due to experience with the same sex. You can't change the fact that they WERE attracted to the opposite sex. Many people believe that they are straight when they are in fact gay because everyone else around them is straight, so they feel comfortable being "straight", and they marry the opposite sex, they have kids and they raise a family. But a man marrying a woman doesn't make him straight. There is an overwhelming amount of people who question their sexuality every day. There is no clear cut line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. These people who seemed to have "converted" are just realizing that they never were really straight. And there is absolutely no proof that a child being taught to respect the gay community will suddenly go from being straight to gay Just stop. Seriously. You're fighting a losing battle. There are gay people that have HAD HAD HAD See what I'm doing there? They weren't dellusional by their surroundings or any other effect. They HAD an attraction to the opposite sex, and then they lost it due to experience with the same sex. Get over it. There isn't proof but it's obvious it would have an effect. That's called common sense.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="links136"]Sorry but you're making no sense now. They already KNOW that he/she is gay You were saying?
because of all the religious people that hate gays? Or any of the youth that hate gays? Or the fear of parents disapproval?
links136
I geuss I read that wrong....
Although my general point still stands. Gays in todays society are frowned apon. Nobody likes to be looked down apon. Kinda like MJ still denying that he's a pedo. I'm not surprised that someone is known to be gay would deny it. I mean why do you think people make fun of other people by calling them a ****
No sir. Gay marriage is frowned upon. Not equal rights.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment