Gay rights

[Arkacia]

I have seen several threads on several sites on various subjects concerning Gay rights, including marriage, adoption, discrimination and violence.
I simply cannot understand the violent opposition some sections of society have against homosexuality. It has been pretty much proved now, that Homosexuals are born not made, and have no choice in their sexual orientation.
In my opinion, Gays should have all the rights and privilages of hetrosexuals in society, after all, what they do in their own homes affects no-one outside that home.

[Mick]

I agree Arkacia, I dont understand their choice but I believe everyone should have equal rights in society....unfortunately some people think that being gay is wrong so they want everyone else to be "normal" :rolleyes: like them.

[lil_mikey91]

yeah me niether but im not gay so i dont mind

unless your gay then that is a very random subject???

Edit Double post merged. Please use the edit button to add extra information to a post.

[Arkacia]

These are very short and confusing comments lil_mikey91 :confused:.

Perhaps you would like to expand a bit and explain to us what you mean by them ;):).

[queeny]

i knew sum1 who was gay, he was quite popular actually.

[Mick]

i knew sum1 who was gay, he was quite popular actually.
Gay people are certainly more accepted these days, I think this has a lot to do with many celebrities coming out of the closet and TV shows like Queer eye for the straight guy. Really they are no different to anyone else, but I can understand why many people still have a problem. Religious beliefs play a big part in the laws that discriminate against gays which is sort of covered by the thread Separation of church and state (http://www.randomgames.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107) and also some peoples reaction to gay people.

I know a few gay people and I don't look at them any differently, I must admit though, seeing 2 men kissing makes me feel repulsed(I don't know why, just a natural reaction for me) but I don't mind seeing 2 women kissing(definately a guys thing).

Despite this I feel gay people should have the right to marry, have kids and live life the way they want. There is probably far more gay people around than we realise because it is still hard for them to come out of the closet, even though society has become more accepting.

[cellardoor]

I agree with you with many aspects. I think that gays should be life partners. and hav e a some form of marriage. but a marriage is to be done between a man and a women. thats what a marriage is described as. but i think thetre should be something equal as a marriage. for homosexuals. and lesbians

[the_dude3]

Ok first of all Arkacia, where is the proof of gay being born not made?? There is no proof what so ever and let me tell you why...

Back in 1993, a geneticist by the name of Dean Hamer conducted a "linkage study" for the gay gene. His study concluded that there was a linkage on q28 region of the X chromosome in homosexual males. But four months after the publication made in Science magazine in 1993, the geneticists over at Yale, Columbia, and Louisiana State Universities noted that Hamer's report focused on social and political ramifications of genetic homosexuality rather than discussing scientific evidence. They also indicated that the results were not consistent with any genetic model and should be interpreted cautiously.

Hamer then responded saying that his research was inconclusive that Xq28 underlies homosexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families, adn that it's influence was statistically detectable in the population that he studied.

Hamer gave another report in a 1994 issue of Science magazine devoted to behavioral genetics. He said that complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental agents. He clarified that "environment" meant not only social environment, but also the flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side of the womb and other factors.

Science revisited the topic in 1999, publishing two articles questioning supposed links to a gay gene. Both articles reference an independent genetic study conducted in Canada in 1989 with research continuing today by four researchers from the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School. This study used 52 pairs of gay siblings from 48 families æHamer’s research used 40 homosexual brother pairs. The study concluded, “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28."

Resource: "The Gay Gene?" by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover

The whole gay marriage thing. I don't quite agree with that either because well, it is through the church that people get married and it wouldn't be quite right because it contradicts Christian values which the church is part of. Marriage should be up to the church to deside what to do with, not people who aren't really involved with the church or people who don't truly follow Christian ways.

[Arkacia]

I don't have any proof, and maybe should'nt have worded it that way. I'll try again, I believe myself that Gays are born not made. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where they are going to be the victims of derision, discrimination and violence. That does'nt make any sense to me, and never has.

As for the Gay marriage debate, personally I have a hard time understanding most of the opposition. I do understand religious bodies not wanting to preform weddings of people living a lifestyle that goes against their teachings, and have no problem with that. What a church does within its own walls is pretty much its own business.

However why Gays can't have a civil ceremony, with a marriage celebrant, is another story. A Gay marriage itself does'nt affect anyone outside the families concerned. It does'nt "cheapen or degrade" the institution of marriage, and won't destroy it. I can't see hetrosexuals refusing to get married, just because Gays are allowed to.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents on the subject :).

[the_dude3]

If you don't have any proof arkacia then why believe that gays are born, not made? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, gays would choose the lifestyle because they think they are born not made so therefore can't help it and they can't turn to religion because they think that God will reject them completely if they want to be "cured" (not meaning it's a disease). So, they end up haging around other gay people, people who don't care about being around, or people who support gays. That's where they don't get the persecution or escape it if any at all.

What you say about gay marriage is also confusing because marriage is an extremely big part of the church and a big part of the church that people relate to. If gay marriage goes through, they will soon enough want to go to churches which like I said would TOTALLY contradict the ways of the church. I don't want to count the Catholic church though because they have gay pastors (at least in the U.S. i don't know about other countries) which should not be because it's against the Bible to be gay (obviously).

The civil ceremony thing that you mentioned does infact affect people outside the families because i guarantee you that at least some people will disagree with it if they find out. Marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman, not between man/man or woman/woman.

[Arkacia]

If you don't have any proof arkacia then why believe that gays are born, not made? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, gays would choose the lifestyle because they think they are born not made so therefore can't help it and they can't turn to religion because they think that God will reject them completely if they want to be "cured" (not meaning it's a disease). So, they end up haging around other gay people, people who don't care about being around, or people who support gays. That's where they don't get the persecution or escape it if any at all.
Most gay people are born into normal families, grow up in these families, and spend their teenage years totally confused and frightened. Imagine being a gay teen at high school trying to not give anything away, so your friends don't desert you, or worse still, so you are'nt beaten up every other day by other teens desperatly trying to prove their "manhood". It happens, every day, in every western country. I know gay people, and every one of them has told me that they always knew they were gay, from childhood, and only came out as adults because thats when they felt comfortable doing it, and more to the point, felt it was safe. Not one of them has ever told me they "turned" gay because they were hanging around other gays. Most of them however (not all), had tried hetrosexuality, to please family etc, and found it just as disgusting as some people find homosexuality.

What you say about gay marriage is also confusing because marriage is an extremely big part of the church and a big part of the church that people relate to. If gay marriage goes through, they will soon enough want to go to churches which like I said would TOTALLY contradict the ways of the church. I don't want to count the Catholic church though because they have gay pastors (at least in the U.S. i don't know about other countries) which should not be because it's against the Bible to be gay (obviously). So with this argument, I could also, as an athiest, walk into a church, and tell them I want to be married in a religious ceremony, even though I don't believe in their God, and it goes against everything they stand for, and if they say no, I can get the state to make them? That is a slippery slope fallecy. As far as I know, the state (in Aust) can't tell the church who they can and can't marry. The churches decide that themselves. I am sure a Christian church can say no to a gay marriage, just as they can say no to a Muslim marriage. Also the Catholic church does'nt have a monopoly on gay pastors. In Aust there are just as many Protestant gay pastors as Catholic, and the convicted child molesters are pretty even between the two.

The civil ceremony thing that you mentioned does infact affect people outside the families because i guarantee you that at least some people will disagree with it if they find out. Marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman, not between man/man or woman/woman. Well thats not the problem of the people being married, thats the problem of the people who disagree with it. Two gay people getting married won't affect the lives of anyone outside the families, and if anyone else has a problem with it, its up to them to deal with it themselves. Gays should'nt be denied a civil ceremony just because just because a group of total strangers says "I don't like that, so you can't do it". Marriage is the joining of two people who love each other and want to make the ultimate life commitment. The sex of the two people concerned is irrelevant.

[the_dude3]

Nice arguement Arkacia, now for my piece I have two articles for you to read, but first of all where do you get your definition of marriage? I don't see where marriage comes into play with evolution. Why does marriage then have to be limited to two people. Not only people but animals, my hampster shows great signs of affection for my other hampster and I think that they want to get married.

Anyway, here are the two articles i promised you... http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0031315.cfm
http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0021043.cfm
They are fairly long so I suggest you set aside a good amount of time to read them.

[Arkacia]

Those articles are from a religious viewpoint, and are very biased because of that. To be totally honest, I've never read such a load of long winded rubbish in my life. The doom and gloom stuff that person was saying in the first article, did'nt make me think, it made me laugh. Giving gays the right to legal marriage will not destroy the concept of family. It will widen and extend the concept of family.

The second article made me sad. That poor kid is very confused, and I wonder if he will get the kind of help he needs, and I don't mean being told its bad to be gay, he's just going through a phase, and if he prays it'll all go away. He may be gay, he may not, but being pushed by others in one direction or the other won't help him. It will just make his confusion a lot worse. He need to see an independant counciller, who will help him work through his confusion, and help him to accept who and what he is, whether that be gay or straight.

I'm not disputing the church's right to refuse to marry gays within their faith and walls. Not in any way, but the church does'nt own the concept of marriage, which in its various forms, was around long before Christianity was even thought up, and because of that, the church has no right to dictate to anyone outside of their own faith what they can do under a nations laws, and who they can and can't marry under a states civil marriage laws. Church and state are supposed to be separate, are'nt they?

I can't remember saying anything about marriage and evolution. Perhaps you could refresh my memory on what I said and where.

As for the hampsters. Thats another slippery slope fallecy. When your hampsters can give informed consent to marriage, as legal adults, then you are more than welcome to try to find someone to marry them. Until then, they fall under the same catagory as people marrying pets, and children, which are other favorite arguments of the anti gay marriage people, as in it will never happen.

[the_dude3]

Why must you think something is totally biased because it's from the other side? How do you know that it's biased in the first place? how inthe world would it widen the concept of family? That I don't understand. The guy seemed pretty much correct to me. If I were you I wouldn't laugh and instead take this stuff seriously. This is not something to joke around about. This is talking about the decay of our society to an even further level. Do you remember the part about Scandinavia? Over half the babies will spend their lives living with only one parent. One parent!! Do you know how tough that is on a kid? I lived just with my mom for 3 years and I could barely stand it. Without being around my father of course. Not that i hate my mom, it's just that being stuck w/ 1 parent gets old real fast. anyway, and that's thanx to their gay population. Just listen to what he has to say!!

About the article with the kid. I agree with you he is very confused, but wouldn't you classify him as being gay if you did not know his internal struggles? How could this be just a phase if he said that he was doing those sorts of things ever since he was little?

The church DOES own the concept of marriage because they were the ones who created it! What even leads you to think that marriage was only around after christianity started (marriage with believing in God)? there was still marriage before christianity came in the first place. What forms of marriage were there? And if there were they could have easily been other religions from the time before Christ was born. If you didn't know, God still existed before Christ and there were other religions started because of Satan's doing. Also since the church started marriage and it's church affiliated business, then shouldn't the state stay clear of marriage because of marriage being a church thing?

I'm sorry for being so shallow with my wording and I should have gone deeper into the subjects with the hampster/evolution/marriage thing. Well I DO want to know where you get your definition of marriage because according to your beliefs, there is only just life and living. No purpose, no meaning, just living, which is so empty I don't know how you are satisfied with it. I was getting ahead of myself when I said that marriage ties in with evolution, and it doesn't, you're right. Just forget i even said that.

As for my hampsters, obviously I was joking about that. i don't even have hampsters in the first place, but you know what I'm getting at. You never know what could happen with this whole gay marriage thing. It could get way out of hand like it already has, and youknow that there are some pretty different people out there who just might want to marry their pets. I mean just showing signs of affection could lead to the thought of consent for some people. And it could just be a thing and nobody will care about it, but i HIGHLY doubt that.

[pollovivo]

Well... honestly the_dude3... I wouldn't just attack Arkacia like that (administrative powers are great indeed :D ) as this is a fairly civilized forum. As for the topic... let gays live their lives how they want to... nothing wrong with doing your own thing as far as I know...

[the_dude3]

But pollovivo, I need to express my thoughts on this. Besides this is just healthy conversation is all. About the people doing their own thing... what if there is a murderer and well obviously his own thing is murderering and there IS something wrong with that. Not saying gays are murderers or that they are just as bad, but it's a little bit like that.

[Arkacia]

The thing is though, gays "doing their own thing" does'nt hurt anyone else. I would like someone opposed to gay marrigae to explain to me how a gay couple getting married would directly impact on their their lives. Not on society, or the institution of marriage, or the morals of the country, but on their life, on a personal level. How would Jack and Jim or Judy and Jill getting hitched change their life for the worse, or better yet, change it at all?

If the religious lobby, and moral crusaders really cared as much about the "institution" (I hate that word) of marriage, as they want us to believe they do, then why are'nt they jumping up and down about the divorce rate, or reality TV shows like the one with the man choosing one "gold-digger" who was totally willing to marry a stranger on TV for money, or Britany Speires getting married for a "joke". Those sort of things, degrade and cheapen marriage a heck a lot more than gay marriage could ever hope to. I have never seen moral crusaders protesting on television, screaming that divorce should be banned.

[pollovivo]

I think that the only reasons that people are opposed is because the are either really grossed out by it, or they feel it it religiously a crime. On the topic of the former... should we also ban small children from picking their nose? As for the latter, If God loves us all the same, then why would that be a problem? I think that like most things, it's mostly just a fear of the unknown...

[Mick]

But pollovivo, I need to express my thoughts on this. Besides this is just healthy conversation is all. About the people doing their own thing... what if there is a murderer and well obviously his own thing is murderering and there IS something wrong with that. Not saying gays are murderers or that they are just as bad, but it's a little bit like that.

It is nothing like that! pollovivo is obviously talking about doing their own thing as long as it doesn't affect other people and that is the point of the gay marriage debate, it does not affect anyone else. You cannot compare that to a murderer who goes around killing people, that is a completely different situation.

I think if gay people want to get married then they should, how does it affect anyone else really? Personally I find their choice distasteful, but why should I care what they do? They don't tell me how to live my life or affect me in any way. I think it is terrible when people try to impose their viewpoints on other people like that.

It's like the people that complain about the nudity, violence and bad language on TV. They don't have to watch it, just change the channel or turn it off, don't sit there complaining about it. With complete censorship, TV would not be the same.

[2xGuest426]

Yea Miccy! But who complains about nudity? :BIGgrin:

More seriously, wisdom was in 2 points: Right to do own choices & not harming others.

Everyone should have rights to live their life as they want, unless it harms others. No one tells me how to live my life, and I'm not telling to anyone how to live theirs. In fact, if we cut the religious crap, then who can say being a gay is not just as right as being not a gay? Who can determine non gays have bigger right to exist than gays? It could as well be that gays started to say that heterosexuals should not be allowed to get married...

Society (I mean society as a country) should be for all types of people, since being part of a society is not voluntarily. Therefor society should accept all kind of people. If belonging in a community is voluntarily, then the community can make it's own rules, as long as it does not harm other people. That means that if someone wants to find a heterosexual community, and developes their own rite for marriage, it should be allowed to write it own rules for that. (compare to religion) But if we think marriage just as a way to get certain status in eyes of law, then it should accept all marriages IMO. (again, as long as it does not affect on others & doing it is voluntarily).

[pollovivo]

Just remember... If the government thinks something's bad it OBVIOUSLY must be... :rolleyes:

(note the sarcasm and pollovivo's strong dislike of politicians... :D)

[phantomullet]

If the religious lobby, and moral crusaders really cared as much about the "institution" (I hate that word) of marriage, as they want us to believe they do, then why are'nt they jumping up and down about the divorce rate, or reality TV shows like the one with the man choosing one "gold-digger" who was totally willing to marry a stranger on TV for money, or Britany Speires getting married for a "joke". Those sort of things, degrade and cheapen marriage a heck a lot more than gay marriage could ever hope to. I have never seen moral crusaders protesting on television, screaming that divorce should be banned.

WOW. I do not know what you mean. Christians everywhere for decades have been "jumping up and down" about the divorce rate. These days, people are even starting to refer to their first marriage as a "starter message" and it is getting a pretty bad. Also, though, you must consider that the Bible says under certain circumstances, such as an unfaithful spouse, that a divorce is ok.

[Arkacia]

What I meant by that is I've seen protests on TV in Aust of people against gay rights and gay marriage, but have never seen one against divorce or single parents. I do know that religions have spoken out against the divorce rate, but not on the scale of the attacks against gays.

If someone religious thinks homosexuality is a perversion, against the bible, and wrong, then they have a right to that opinion, and have the right to express it, but don't in my opinion have the right to force their beliefs on others, who may or may not share them.

[phantomullet]

In my first post, I forgot to answer the original question about gay marriage. First off, it is not even worth arguing about, homosexuality is not hereditary. One simple fact proves this, there are many identical twins (with the same exact genetic make-up) where one will be gay and the other straight. Also (especially for those of you who believe in evolution) since humans have been around for thousands of years and since homosexuals cannot reproduce, logically we should have much fewer and maybe no homosexuals today. I am not ignorant enough, though, to say that it is just a choice where a person sits down and says, hmm, should I be gay or straight. Obviously nobody would try and force themselves to be gay. Someone with say an eating disorder does not just sit down and say, hey, maybe I should starve myself until I can no longer have kids and then eventually die. I am a Christian so I think homosexuality is immoral but I certainly understand that not everyone shares my beliefs. This is why I do not think that homosexuality should be illegal. I don't think any Christian is proposing this. I just think that "marriage" should be limited to one man and one woman because of the years of tradition. Other people are welcomed to practice other forms of sex, but they should not be given the rights of marriage. I am pretty sure that even those of you who support gay marriage would oppose marriage given to children or those who practice polygamy or even beastiology. I bet, though, whatever your arguments supporting gay marriage are, could also be used to justify these other forms of sex having marriage rights. What separates heterosexual marriage from these is the years of tradition.

[HinesDaMan]

Yikes...this is a touchy topic, but I have a very different position. My Church takes the position that Homosexuality is immoral and a sin, but similar to my beliefs about contraception, I disagree with the Church on this topic. I disagree not because I don't think that Homosexuality is very different, but because I don't really think that it is sinful because of the simple fact that we do not know for sure that it is heriditary or not (and also, what people do in the bedroom should stay out of the watching eye of the Church.) However, I do not agree in gay marriage simply because our law defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. I don't understand what the problem with a civil union is...the benefits are the exact same, and honestly; does it matter what your relationship is called? I know that people could call my girlfriend and I a civil union for all I care. What matters is how the individual views the relationship. Not the rest of the world.

[Every1sHero]

Personally I feel that giving them the right to call themselves married is no big deal. Why not do it? Is this really that big of deal, or are our Liberal Left activists trying to find another issue to attack our President on? I think it's the latter.

[Arkacia]

Its not the Liberal Left attacking the president in this issue, its the conservative right trying to push its religious ideals on the whole population, using your President as a tool. If the religious bodies kept their noses out of the business of people who are'nt part of their bodies, and stopped using the political clout of religious politicians to further their own agendas, then gays would already have the right to civil marriage, and this issue would'nt be an issue.

No-one is trying to push religious marriage on the churches. They can refuse to marry gays, and refuse to recognise gay marriage between their members, but they should'nt have the right to force all people, religious or not, to follow their teachings just because they think something is a sin.

[HinesDaMan]

The fact that this IS in fact now an issue is proof that this a liberal issue. Never-before was this is an issue, but has become one in an attempt to make Bush look like a fool. While it is true that the Moral Majority uses Bush to push the issue, this issue surfaced because of the Liberal Left's last ditch efforts to take the presidency. Too bad Bush won his (deserved) second term.

[Arkacia]

Of course it was an issue before. Gays have been fighting for equal rights since the late 70s/early 80s that I know of, probably earlier :).

The only reason gay marriage has become the biggest part of the gay rights movement, is because of all the publicity that its got since Bush became personally involved in the issue, pushed and urged on by the religious right. He, like all politicians, will side with whatever issues are more likely to generate more votes, and garner more support to keep himself or his party in office.

Its not a "liberal" issue, its a gay rights issue, and not the only right they were/are fighting for. Yes I will concede that the more liberal oriented have joined them to help fight for the right of gay marriage, just as the religious right have joined the homophobes to fight against it, but they have'nt done that just to attack and upset Bush. The liberals have been involved in the gay rights movement right from the start because its an issue of human and civil rights. All this has been going on a heck of a lot longer than Bush has been in the whitehouse.

The liberals don't need to try to make Bush look like a fool either, he does a good enough job of that on his own ;).

[HinesDaMan]

Ouch...that's my President you're talking about, a man I both respect and would vote in for a third term. Anyway...

The reason Bush sides with the Moral Majority (a big Conserative group the pushes moral issues like Abortion and Gay rights, for those of you who don't know) is because he's Conservative, not because they'd generate more votes. Not everything the man does is corrupted, for God's sake.

I take offense to the fact that you think all people opposed to Gay Marriage are homophobes. Me, I don't really care that people like others of the same gender, that's not my business. But here's the deal: Marriage is defined not only in religious texts (and that includes The Torah and the Qu'Ran) as union between man and a woman, but also in the Constitution. It has been made so that Civil Unions allow for all the same benefits of Marriage, for tax and other purposes. In fact, one of the only reasons they are separate is for statistical cluttering. It is true that Bush and the Moral Majority feel that it is a sin. This is a standpoint on the issue I think is foolish, but I agree with the overall case nevertheless. Keep Marriage as the constitution puts it.

BTW...being so critical of Bush, why don't you try leading one of the most powerful countries in the world...it's probably a lot harder than you think.

[Arkacia]

Ouch...that's my President you're talking about, a man I both respect and would vote in for a third term. Anyway...
He's not my President, and I don't have to respect him. In fact I don't have to respect any politician if I don't want to. I dont' have any respect for our own conservative Prime Minister either. Thats the beauty of free speech ;):).

The reason Bush sides with the Moral Majority (a big Conserative group the pushes moral issues like Abortion and Gay rights, for those of you who don't know) is because he's Conservative, not because they'd generate more votes. Not everything the man does is corrupted, for God's sake.
I never said he was corrupt, I said he was a politician, and the major thing in any politician's mind is the next election. Yes, I have no doubt he is against gay marriage because he is a conservative, but like our conservative Prime Minister (little Johnny Howard aka the garden gnome), I have no doubt that he, or his advisors, jumped on this issue because him coming out strongly against this it would win him votes in the bible belt, which I heard it did. I'm sure if coming out against this issue was likely to lose him votes, you would'nt have heard a peep out of him about it.

I take offense to the fact that you think all people opposed to Gay Marriage are homophobes. Me, I don't really care that people like others of the same gender, that's not my business. But here's the deal: Marriage is defined not only in religious texts (and that includes The Torah and the Qu'Ran) as union between man and a woman, but also in the Constitution. It has been made so that Civil Unions allow for all the same benefits of Marriage, for tax and other purposes. In fact, one of the only reasons they are separate is for statistical cluttering. It is true that Bush and the Moral Majority feel that it is a sin. This is a standpoint on the issue I think is foolish, but I agree with the overall case nevertheless. Keep Marriage as the constitution puts it.
Your right about the homophobe comment, I did'nt word that right, and apologise. What I meant was the small minority of anti-gay marriage people who are against it simply because they are homophobic. Take a look at neo-nazi and KKK web pages, and you will see the kind of people I meant by that comment.

I was lead to understand that civil union of gays in the US is also not allowed in most states. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. A civil union though, is still marriage. I can get a civil celebrant tomorrow to preform a ceremony in our back yard for me and my de-facto. We'd have to register our marriage with the Registrar of birth, deaths and marriages, and we'd be fully married in the eyes of the state. Our union would have full and equal standing with a couple married in church. Gays in Australia can't do that, and can only have unofficial ceremonies that are'nt recognised by the state at all. Just because religion hijacked marriage centuries ago, doesn't mean it owns the concept.

BTW...being so critical of Bush, why don't you try leading one of the most powerful countries in the world...it's probably a lot harder than you think.
See my answer above. I respect those who earn my respect, and by his foreign policies, Bush hasn't come close. I can't stand conservative, war mongering, bible bashers, and both Bush and Howard fall into that group, so don't expect to hear anything nice about either of them from me ;):).

[HinesDaMan]

It's sad that you judge a leader solely on their foreign policies...there's a lot more to leading than that. Oh, and by the way, there was a very successful election in Iraq and Saudi Arabia called it "A Model Country." Ha, Bush sure looks like a fool now. Moving on to the actual topic...

Like I said, you don't know enough about American politics to claim that Bush jumped on an issue solely because of votes. First off, Bush would have won the bible belt even If he never once addressed this issue; that's a very conservative area and would never have gone to the uber-liberal John Kerry.

Religion hijacked marriage? Look, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean religion "hijacked" marriage; it DID invent marriage as we know it, and most marriages are adapted from the Roman Catholic ceremony. Probably even your ceremony.

There is a case right now to make Civil Unions legal all across America. It's doing very well.

[phantomullet]

There is a case right now to make Civil Unions legal all across America. It's doing very well.
Yeah, correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told that even Bush supports Civil Union

[HinesDaMan]

Yes Phantomullet, you are correct. Bush does support Civil Unions

[pollovivo]

I suppose that even if you don't marry, you can still live with another person, so it almost is a childish topic to argue about, but at the same time It would be nice to just come to an overall conclusion that is indeed fair to everybody.

[Scossaden133]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=DeepSkyBlue][SIZE=3]Gay people are like you and me they shouldn't have to have legal rights just to be with their partner or get married. Holy wow. If a man wants to marry a man leave him the hell alone and let them be together same with women you can't help who you fall in love with. White, Black, Young, Old, Gay Straight. You can't help who you are who you fall in love with and you can't help someone elses hatered,Leave them alone let them live there life the way a man and women would. Oh and for whom ever it may piss off I also believe a gay could should beable to raise a child. Who gives a flying hoot what bush or any other person thinks it's a crying shame when there has to be a law against you marrying your partner man or woman.

[HinesDaMan]

Oh and for whom ever it may piss off I also believe a gay could should beable to raise a child. Who gives a flying hoot what bush or any other person thinks it's a crying shame when there has to be a law against you marrying your partner man or woman.

See, that is something I have a problem with. I am in no way doubting the gay person's love or kindness toward children...but just imagine, little 5-year-old Susie, being shunned and having no friends because her Mommy is a boy. Everything shown on TV, every commercial, ever other family is completely unlike hers. That's gotta be traumatizing to a child.

[Arkacia]

Gays have been raising children for centuries, and there is no evidence that they turn out any different to children rasied by hetro couples. If little Susie is being shunned because of who her parents are, then thats the fault of the people with narrow minds. Why should her parents, whatever their gender, be punished by being denied the opportunity of being parents because of the views and abuse of others.

A little girl and her two mothers lead the Gay madi gras in Sydney this year. She seems perfectly normal and happy in the interviews, pics taken of the parade, and the episodes of a kids show her family also appeared in. I can't speak for the US, and won't, but in Australia the barriers are slowly being broken down.

[NeonShadows]

It really frustrates me that some people think gay marriage is so wrong. If 2 people love each other what's the problem? Yes, the Constitution says that marriage is between men and women but didn't the Constitution also say slavery was legal until about 1870? What about the right to vote for women? We didn't get that until 1920. As the years pass times will change and hopefully one day gays won't be looked down upon like they are now. It saddens me how shallow-minded some people are these days. It makes me think about how lucky I am to live now and not in the past when it was so difficult for some.

Bush on the other hand, he just angers me with his ways. I don't like him but I suppose it was the will of the majority that he was re-elected. I can't really change that. That's who the larger quantity of people thought could run the country. So I can wait for another four years to pass with him running America before he no longer can anymore. The country may (or may not) fall into ruin by then but hopefully gays will finally have the rights they deserve. They are American citizens too, are they not? Do they not deserve the same rights as straight people?

One day the resistence will be over-ridden with pro-gay rights activists and the gates for them will finally fling all the way open instead of the meager openings they have now.

[dunkinmb310]

hey let the homosexuals out there be proud and let them have rights and not be ostracized

[Bad To The Bone]

I simply cannot understand the violent opposition some sections of society have against homosexuality. It has been pretty much proved now, that Homosexuals are born not made, and have no choice in their sexual orientation.

Well what i say is if you hate it that much perhaps you are trying to hide something yourself. There has been an experiment done where men were men watched gay porn. It was found that a high percentage of the 'gay haters' were most sexually aroused by watching it as opposed to men who were not gay but who were not gay haters just had normal arousal levels as expected because some kind of sexual activity was being watched.

I'm 100% comfortable with my sexuality so I don't have a problem with gay people.

[Arkacia]

I have a question.

Some of the Americans who have posted in this thread say they're against gay marriage, but approve of civil unions. I'm curious what the difference is between the two.

If its just that gays can't marry in church unless the church agrees to preform the ceremony then thats fine and I agree. No church should be forced to go against its own teaching within its own walls. Though in that case it makes the whole arguement just something over the word "marriage" and I can't see how anyone is going to stop gay couples using that word to describe their union.

[the_dude3]

Gays shouldn't be married in a church at all because it is against the Bible to be gay in the first place. So don't even talk about gays getting married at all. As far as civil unions go, I don't know what to say about that. I wouldn't even call it getting married and I don't know why gays would call civil unions marriages, because they're not. Maybe they're trying to be something they aren't by pretending to be it.

[JsWoman]

Gays have the right to the same levels of repsect and options that a hetorosexual person has. I mean, I understand the stand against them getting married, even if I don't agree with it, but it has to be personal choice. In my church there used to be an openly lesbian couple, and there is actually another couple there, now, who were treated with the same level of respect as anyone else in the church. And, if they wanted to and it were legal, I know my church would marry them.

No, I'm not gay/lesbian. I have no problems with them, have been friends with them, and they are just normal people, like the hetorosexual people out there in the world.

[the_dude3]

How could you not have any problems with gays when you are a member of the church? And especially how could anyone allow a gay couple in the church? The Bible clearly states that God does not like people being gay and if he doesn't like it then I think no Christian should contemplate the acceptance of the gay minority into the church, unless if they were trying to help them with their being gay. I know, I know some people think that being gay is hereditary and might come back at me to say that it is. Well guess what? Nobody has exactly proven that, so meh. Oh yeah the Bible verse. Here read this... Romans 1:24-32 This will show you that God doesn't like people being gay and that satan is trying to confuse you to make you think they are normal. Sure they are human beings and all, but what they stand for is wrong-o. Like I said, the marriage of gay people should not be tolerated by believers in Jesus nor should their actions be tolerated at all by the Christian people. Don't let satan fool you!

[JsWoman]

How could you not have any problems with gays when you are a member of the church? And especially how could anyone allow a gay couple in the church?
They may be gay, but they are still people, and should have the same rights as anyone else. It isn't our place to judge them, as is said in Romans 2: 1-5
The Bible clearly states that God does not like people being gay and if he doesn't like it then I think no Christian should contemplate the acceptance of the gay minority into the church, unless if they were trying to help them with their being gay.
And I repeat, it isn't our place to judge them, and they are still people.
I know, I know some people think that being gay is hereditary and might come back at me to say that it is. Well guess what? Nobody has exactly proven that, so meh.
They haven't disproved it, either, so it isn't our place to judge them, I repeat, yet again.
Oh yeah the Bible verse. Here read this... Romans 1:24-32 This will show you that God doesn't like people being gay and that satan is trying to confuse you to make you think they are normal. Sure they are human beings and all, but what they stand for is wrong-o. Like I said, the marriage of gay people should not be tolerated by believers in Jesus nor should their actions be tolerated at all by the Christian people. Don't let satan fool you!
And Romans also says not to condemn someone without therefore condemning yourself.

[the_dude3]

Ok first think about what you read when you read it. It says not to pass judgement when you do the same things as the people you are judging because you do the same things. That would more than likely apply to judging if you do the same things as the people you are judging. And besides that when did I say that gays weren't people? I said they're ACTIONS should not be tolerated, not the gay people. I'm sure they have good personalities, it's just what they DO is wrong. Did you even read the verses that I wanted you to read? Anyway, about the gay gene... In the Bible just before the verses I told you about, Romans talks about how the peoples' minds become corrupted and they're thinking goes all wack, then they do sexually immoral things and then it refers to the gay part. Being a Christian I'd think you'd listen to the Bible rather than what the media throws out there. Those verses show because they say that the thought is the one to make people corrupt and then become gay that being gay is of the mind and not the heriditary gene. Oh yeah and the thing you were saying about Romans says not to condemn someone without condemning yourself, it probably means to repent of your sins and correct yourself before you "condemn others". Just my thought, but I think it makes sense. I suppose since I thought of it, but still... So yeah that's it I suppose.

[yarnellcg17]

Back in November of 04 on Election Day.. In my state..same sex marriage was placed on the ballot..1st time ever it was and had been done to lift the ban on said instititution..

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

I seen it and did not punch the chad out on it..why? because whether I feel I have nothing against it..I left a passive position on it as I have always done..whether Gay Rights is an issue at all..

Here on Earth it is always going to be an issue..and certain religions are always going to make it that way..but for some of those other religions out there that are not going to make it an issue..I can only think of one reason in particular they wouldn't..

The only 1 person or entity that has sole reign of judgement is God himself..and I too believe..only 1 person or entity that has sole reign of judgement is.. God himself..

And nothing is ever going to change my mind on that point of view..

[JsWoman]

You know, dude3, it isn't even worth it. You're going to think what you want to think... True, what Romans says is about women with women and men with men. Just because I'm not going to pass judgement on them, and think they have every right to the same things that we have access to, such as going to church, getting married to the one they want to be, and all others, doesn't mean that the devil, or anything else, has subverted my mind. I just think that it isn't my place to pass judgement on them when I, myself, am a sinner, even if not doing exactly the same things as them.

Being a Christian I'd think you'd listen to the Bible rather than what the media throws out there. Those verses show because they say that the thought is the one to make people corrupt and then become gay that being gay is of the mind and not the heriditary gene. Oh yeah and the thing you were saying about Romans says not to condemn someone without condemning yourself, it probably means to repent of your sins and correct yourself before you "condemn others".

I do listen the bible. I tend to think that you are reading too much into a subject that you deeply despise. It does say, Romans 1: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Maybe that seems to show your reasoning, even more, except for the fact that it says that God gave them over, basically meaning that God gave them the option of free will, just like everyone else of his making. Doesn't mean it's right, but, when they go to the other side, God will judge them as he sees fit.

BTW, my church says that the bible is our story, so don't accuse me of not paying attention to it.

Also, one other thought, if I didn't make myself clear enough, before... God is the one that gave us freewill... True we may not make the best choices, but it isn't Man's place to make judgements that God will make on the other side.

[yarnellcg17]

Exactly true to what I say as well..." God did give man freewill". And I think alot of people just do not grasp that when it comes God is the one that gave us freewill

God did give man freewill..in just about everyway imaginable..that is why this world we live on is still here..
Here is one man that was pretty much not right in his views in his own life and who also had private faults of his own and that was Hitler..
Hitler wasn't fond of gays..but then again Hitler wasn't too fond on much of anything including his persecution on Jews..
He thought they were the root of evil and the cause of problems in society as a whole..not really..all Hitler was.. was a man locked into to the past..and he blamed just about every thing that was in his path for his past..
I hope that we will never ever come to that again..
What he failed to see was this "God did give man freewill" and but it isn't Man's place to make judgements that God will make on the other side.

[JsWoman]

A little repetitive, Yarnell, but it does have one reigning theme, and that is that God gave all mankind the power of freewill and choice. Nice going. But, right at this moment, I don't have much else to add to this topic.

[Baller]

How could anyone like the gays. They brought a horrible thing into this world... AIDS!!!
I have to give them some credit though, cause without them, there wouldn't be a gay al on south park

[JsWoman]

Gays didn't bring AIDS, or the HIV virus, into the world. It doesn't work like that, so get your facts right, Baller.

[yarnellcg17]

Forenote: Back in the early 1980's HIV..the Virus that causes AIDS was found in Gays..but!!.. as time went on and common sense prevailed..they finally realized that it is an everyones infection to get..
Gays..Bisexuals..Heterosexuals of all ages and gender and race..

The Origin of HIV
Debate around the origin of AIDS has sparked considerable interest and controversy since the beginning of the epidemic. However, in trying to identify where AIDS originated, there is a danger that people may try and use the debate to attribute blame for the disease to particular groups of individuals or certain lifestyles. The first cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in 1981, but they provide little information about the source of the disease. There is now clear evidence that the disease AIDS is caused by the virus HIV. So to find the source of AIDS we need to look for the origin of HIV. The issue of the origin of HIV could go beyond one of purely academic interest, as an understanding of where the virus originated and how it evolved could be crucial in developing a vaccine against HIV and more effective treatments in the future. Also, knowledge of how the AIDS epidemic emerged could be important in both mapping the future course of the epidemic and developing effective education and prevention programme as well as proper counseling and safer sex.

Here is the rest of that link

http://www.indiaids.org/hiv_aids/origin.asp

[JsWoman]

See, Baller... Even scientists don't know where the HIV virus first originated from, so don't be trying to place that blame on gays, even though you aren't the first with that misconception. Please don't think that I'm trying to make you look stupid, because I really am not trying to.

[Baller]

But I learned in health class that hiv, leading to aids, is a gay disease. and a gay person with aids banged a girl who later did it with Magic Johnson.


But my health teacher shaves his head which is like as shiny as the sun, and Hes pretty stupid. So I wont take his word

[JsWoman]

Yeah, but in order for a person to have gotten it, they had to have come in contact, somewhere along the line, with something else that had it. It is a std, but it can be spread through any bodily fluids; ie blood, saliva, women/male fluids, breast milk, etc; so there isn't any use blaming the issue on gays/lesbians.

[Baller]

I have always had one question:
Can aids spread by peeing in a pool? Because if aids is spread through bodily fluids, couldnt an aid infected person pee in a pool and someone else contract aids?

[yarnellcg17]

Forenote: Back in the early 1980's HIV..the Virus that causes AIDS was found in Gays..but!!.. as time went on and common sense prevailed..they finally realized that it is an everyones infection to get..
Gays..Bisexuals..Heterosexuals of all ages and gender and race..

Answer to that is no..On The Swimming Pool..
and I didn't think so before I looked to see..but I researched it to make sure my NO answer was on target..

Chlorine injected into the vein will definitely kill HIV in an infected person, the virus that causes AIDS. It will kill everything, including the host (or hostess, as the case may be). The purpose of chlorine in swimming pools is to kill other kinds of organisms that can spread that way--it is not specifically for HIV. You are perfectly safe swimming in a pool with someone infected with HIV, even without chlorine, as long as you're not having sex in the pool (in which case, chlorine won't help either).


Reference comes from
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
SDSTAFF JillGat

[Arkacia]

There are still a lot of myths about HIV. This site (http://www.thefreedomfoundation.org/aidshiv_myths.html) should reussure worried people about some of the ways HIV can't be passed. This one (http://aids.about.com/cs/aidsfactsheets/tp/hivmyths.htm) dismisses some more far reaching myths. If anyone has questions about this, just google. There is heaps of factul information out there.

[alexdavina]

gay rights should be equal to straight rights...

[the_dude3]

You know, dude3, it isn't even worth it. You're going to think what you want to think... True, what Romans says is about women with women and men with men. Just because I'm not going to pass judgement on them, and think they have every right to the same things that we have access to, such as going to church, getting married to the one they want to be, and all others, doesn't mean that the devil, or anything else, has subverted my mind. I just think that it isn't my place to pass judgement on them when I, myself, am a sinner, even if not doing exactly the same things as them.



I do listen the bible. I tend to think that you are reading too much into a subject that you deeply despise. It does say, Romans 1: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Maybe that seems to show your reasoning, even more, except for the fact that it says that God gave them over, basically meaning that God gave them the option of free will, just like everyone else of his making. Doesn't mean it's right, but, when they go to the other side, God will judge them as he sees fit.

BTW, my church says that the bible is our story, so don't accuse me of not paying attention to it.

Also, one other thought, if I didn't make myself clear enough, before... God is the one that gave us freewill... True we may not make the best choices, but it isn't Man's place to make judgements that God will make on the other side.


Ok first off I'm going to apologize for making some seemingly arrogant comments as to this issue with you Jswoman. But like you know the Bible does tell of homosexuality being a sin, just like all the others. If u want I have more verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and a couple others that talk about it being wrong just like getting drunk, committing adultery, greed, and all the like. All of those things are sin and need to be dealt with just like any other. I suggest you look up a guy by the name of Sy Rogers. He was a transvestite and was looking to get a sex change surgery, but then he found Christ and is now married to a woman and has kids. I just watched a video on him. Very powerful testimony.

I also would like to touch on the fact that you said that it is by our God-given free will that we make our choices. I don't remember if it was you who said that homosexuals are born, not made, but if it was you, you are saying that it IS by our free will and not by genetics. Kinda contradictory if it was you...idk tho.

Next thing is the whole judging part that you were talking about. I don't just go up to people and hate on them because of what they do. Remember I said earlier I don't like actions, but the person inside behind that action is what counts. I look for that. Granted we all are sinners and should not judge anyone, but then if we don't look out for each other, that in itself isn't very good from a Christian stand point. We should care for them and love them for who they are, but at the same time, correct the wrongful behaviors that aren't biblical in a positive way. Same sex marriage in my mind is like giving a drunk another shot of vodka before he/she passes out or encouraging them to continue in their behavior. Or more like giving a person addicited to porn a dirty magazine or buying them a prostitute er something of the sort. So we need to help it out accordingly. I do think that homosexuals are entitled to as much of the church as any other person who struggles to get closer to God through Christ, but they shouldn't be using it as a way to provoke their sin.

I hope I made things clearer to you and less harsh sounding. If I did sound harsh I didn't mean to and I'm sorry if I was, but that's just what it is.

[Wolfy2]

My view is that if you want to be homosexual, you can. It's your life, and you should make the decisions.