untying_average said:
OK, so you say that it isnot healthy to have same sex parents, can anyone give any evidence?
Psychologists have done research into this, and found that children of same-sex parents (sorry about the scientific confusion, but you know what I mean) have, all in all, no additional problems over children from a heterosexual relationship. Actually, it's been found (when the parents were judged equally: some studies studied gay parents who happened to be drug addicts and compared them to hetero parents who weren't...) that kids from a same-sex union are better adjusted and are more comfortable with themselves. And that's a big thing when you're a kid.
sugaryblue said:
the bible says it's wrong
That's a complex issue, and you'd have to go into the Ancient Greek and Hebrew for that. Basically in the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah/ Old Testament) it's condemned because you can't have children from it (if so, then why is a man allowed to have sex with his pregnant or infertile wife? Surely that's just as bad). In the New Testament the references are a lot more subtle and can mean many different things: all in all there's no conclusive evidence as to what the Bible really says about the matter. Especially because Ancient Greek is such a vague language.
And besides, one thing I'd like to say which is a bit off the topic: when Christians show their hatred for people who are different, including homosexuals but also others, they are going against one of the basic tenents of the Bible: love thy neighbour as thyself, and love thy enemy. It makes me angry when they say "oh, this obscure passage condemns gays, so we can too" when the central tenent of Jesus' teachings says that you must love all people.
The Bible has been twisted since it was written to mean whatever the powerful who read it want it to mean. I'm a spiritual Christian, and therefore discount a lot of what people say it says.
neo_o said:
Be it for better or worse, society is uncomfortable with the idea of gay adoption.
Just because society is uncomfortable with something, doesn't mean it's not right. American society (in the same way you talk about "society" because all in all it's the powers of society- the government- deciding what's 'acceptable' and not) is uncomfortable with ending wars on poor countries in the Middle East. And please don't tell me that you think that killing all these innocent people will help to stop terrorism. In fact, studies are continually showing that the more a country acts in the "war on terror", the greater the chances that the terrorists will strike there. So society's comfort doesn't mean a damn thing.
neo_o said:
Marriage is a religious based institution. Don't you think its hypocritical to unite two people, in the name of something that condemns that very union?
Yes it's religiously based. So is the idea of government, funnily enough. And I don't see people trying to get atheist/ agnostic/ non-Christian (because this debate does come down to that with your arguments) politicians out of office because they're not pious enough.
neo_o said:
Yes. Because without marriage available to all adults (children fall under a different category) then some people are being labelled as less human than others. In many constitutions around the world, an equality under law applies to all people. Without marriage, name and all, homosexuals have been labelled as sub-human.
neo_o said:
Since the majority of people arent fags, less then 10%, lets assume its the norm to be straight eh? Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice
I have blue eyes. Am I 'abnormal'? Should I be denied my rights as a human being because I have blue eyes?
I have had psychotic episodes. Am I 'abnormal'? Should I be denied my rights as a human being because I have had psychotic episodes (this is about 1% of the population), despite the fact that I'm medicated for it?
My brother is left handed. Same question.
Very few anglos are born with brown eyes (most babies have blue eyes which change to brown or other colours). Is it therefore unnatural for anglos to have brown eyes?
And please, 'fag' is an offensive term. Please desist.
Ziff said:
Shouldn't homosexuals have been bred out by now? Why do they still exist?
There's a theory that people started out as two groups: the group with homosexuals and the group without, and that the first group survived better. But what does it matter in any case? People are people are people, regardless.
George W. Bush said:
homosexuality was quite reasonably accepted amongst the Greeks (with some notable exceptions). But still, even they thought marriage was between a man and a woman.
Rubbish:
1. Homsexuality did not exist as a concept until C19.
2. Sexuality was something that men did, not women.
3. Having sex with a woman, in the minds of the Ancient Greeks, did a man damage.
4. Sex with a woman was not sex, it was reproduction, and men and women were taught to hate it.
5. Sexuality between men was for two reasons:
a) Coming of age: a man would have sex with a boy along with teaching him the way to be a man.
b) Friendship.
6. Marriage may have between a man and a woman in the most simple terms, but in actuality marriage was a man taking property that he'd bought.
[QUOTE: George W. Bush] I'm about to sleep, so I will get back to the other stuff later, but you keep stating that homosexuals can fuck, and do fuck, women. ... homosexual men can easily have sex with women IF THEY WANTED TO, but yet they CHOOSE NOT TOO [sic]. Ergo, homosexuality is a choice. ... are you somehow implying that two lesbians can get togeather and impregnate each other? ... If you are sexually attracted to th same sex, you are a homosexual. Fuck what society sees about you, fuck how often you have sex, it matters WHAT TURNS YOU ON. ... Just because they're both human doesn't mean they aren't different. ... Just because men and women are entitled to equal rites doesn't make them the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Yes they do. They're called lesbians, you patriarchal so and so.
Heterosexual men can easily have sex with men IF THEY WANTED TO, but yet they CHOOSE NOT TO. Ergo, heterosexuality is a choice.
The wonders of science... a lesbian couple can now have a child with only their genes.
Science proves that people are attracted to people: I find both men and women attractive, and I'm not bi. My straight friends sometimes find members of the same sex attractive, and my gay friends members of the opposite sex. Haven't you ever heard a guy say "yeah, I'd do it with Brad Pitt"? It's a common phenomenon.
Just because they're both human doesn't mean they're both different: See my point about left handedness and blue eyes. Just because they're different doesn't mean they're not both human and therefore have the right to be respected for who they're attracted to, and treated as a human.
Up until recently, men and women were seen as the same thing. And I think it's a good way to look on society. Maybe then the old boy's clubs will finally disappear and we'll have equality for all members of society.
And, if you're going to quote the Greek situation as to your case, then why do you keep saying that lesbians are gay too? You're contradicting yourself. (I think lesbians are homosexual, before you say anything)
[QUOTE: Ziff] A straight man can't get an erection over another man. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely not true. I know plently of straight guys who have, as I have plenty of gay guys who have over a woman, plenty of straight women who orgasm because of women, and plenty of lesbians who orgasm because of men. Orgasms and erections are beyond the control of a person, regardless of their sexuality. It's like a knee jerk: can't be controlled.
[QUOTE: HaBibi~] HIV/AIDS is a result of homosexual activities.
...
umm, well it is not possible to be "born gay"...it is proven that homosexual behaviour is developed from two main factors:
1. values/ morals and 'family beliefs'
2. experiences[/QUOTE]
Wrong. HIV/AIDS is a result of unsafe sex with someone who's infected.
It might be true that gay men are more likely to contract it, but not much more so than straight people. And lesbians are
far less likely to get any form of STD than straight people. So lesbians are the best form of sexuality around, by your logic!
2nd point: what about the gay people who've had lots of sex with people of the opposite sex and have grown up in a fundamentalist religious family? Then they discover they're gay... and disprove your point.
[QUOTE: eviltama]
the arguement isn't about their religious stance. It has no bearing on the 'discussion' at hand. So hence i think they should stfu abt what their religion may or may not say its irrelevant.
...
What is right in the minds of the general community they may see as right, but there is nothing to say it is right [/QUOTE]
It matters to the person whose religion it is. But they don't have the right to push it onto people who don't share that belief.
2nd point: what's said in the general community, just like on TV: is in the minds of the lowest common denominator, who aren't intelligent enough to embrace difference as a gift.
[QUOTE: Xayma] That is debatable, numerous studies into animals have shown brain differences, a female rat injected with testosterone while developing it exhibited lesbian properties. [/QUOTE]
So you're trying to say that lesbians are really male in a woman's body? And gay men female in a man's body? Oh, brother.
And anyway, if a lesbian were a man, then she would be attracted to straight women, being women, not lesbians, being men, if homosexuality works like that. That's obviously garbage.
[QUOTE: neo_o] WTF is with you people and mouthing off random racial examples that have nothing to do with the topic.
...
That's like a necrophiliac complaining because that it's discriminatory that the law won't let him root corpses. He has the same right as everyone else, except he just chooses not to exercise it.
...
Civil unions (which I support fully btw) just aren't good enough for them. [/QUOTE]
Racial examples have everything to do with it. This is about a fear of difference, which you obviously suffer quite severely. Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals, as blacks are different to whites. If you think one is offensive and the other not, then you should look at your views, and try for consistency.
The difference in the second example isn't even subtle. A dead person does not have a choice in whether they want to have sex with the living person. Homosexuals do have a choice. To me, necrophilia is in a similar category to rape. Therefore it's relevant because doing it denies a person's choice (and if the corpse is no longer a person, their loved ones should have a choice in the matter).
Third point: why aren't they good enough? Because they're not the same thing. If homosexuals are denied the same form of union as heterosexuals, then that's condemning them to be a sub-standard human being. Which is not on.
