Homosexuality Debates

Black Mamba 19 said:

Ok religion aside, most people vote against homosexuality, so that would be a clear view on what the majority wants, not that I think that any person has the authority make the decision and make it a law for people to follow, it should just stay as it is and have people keep their own opinions. Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice anyway, so if they're sick of the way they're treated they can do something about changing, because I sure won't feel sorry for you because you want to take the easy way out.

Then I suggest you read the rest of the debate in which the idea that homosexuality is a choice rather than just how a person is has already been covered. Also I would like to hear some of your arguements against homosexuality without using religion, since you said 'Ok religion aside' you must have some pretty good non-religious arguements ready. The way this usually goes is 'Its wrong because its not natural', Whys it not natural?, 'oh, well, umm because its against god' and low and behold religion is brought back into the mix. Then usually they mention falling populations and the devastation of the world and all that usual bull.

I'm also keen as to where people are voting against homosexuality (not sure what they are particularly voting for). I'm assuming your American (correct if I'm wrong) and I assume you are talking about voting against same-sex marriages etc. It would be nice to know there reasons for voting against it, since for a country that is suppose to seperate state and religion they don't do a very good job of it. Equally only a few months back Slovenia passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, so I'm not sure where your 'majority' comes from.

So what your saying is that homosexuals who 'remain' homosexual despite the violence and abuse are 'taking the easy way out'? Now perhaps I'm just looking at this at a completely different angle but I'd say thats definately not taking the easy way out. Equally has it ever crossed you mind that the reason that they don't 'change' is because they can't rather than the fact that they don't want to?

It never fails to amaze me that people who aren't gay tell people who are, why they are gay, despite the fact that the person with the best idea is the gay person. Its like a butcher telling a baker how to make bread.

Black Mamba 19 said:

Ok religion aside, most people vote against homosexuality, so that would be a clear view on what the majority wants, not that I think that any person has the authority make the decision and make it a law for people to follow, it should just stay as it is and have people keep their own opinions.

Do you have a source for this? I'm aware that proposition 8 in California passed by an incredibly small majority, but that's ignoring the fact that various religious groups pumped millions into the "yes on 8" campaign and that more recent polls have suggested the majority of Californians support gay marriage.

Black Mamba 19 said:

Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice anyway, so if they're sick of the way they're treated they can do something about changing, because I sure won't feel sorry for you because you want to take the easy way out.

Okay, let's go over a few facts here.
1. I am gay.
2. You are not.
3. I am saying that homosexuality is not a choice.
4. You are saying that it is.

Who is more likely to be correct here? You might say that you "chose" to be straight, but the fact that you would have chosen it doesn't mean that you did. You didn't wake up one day and think "I think I'll be attracted to the female form", just as I didn't wake up and think "I feel like suffering discrimination and having trouble finding a partner - I think I'll like guys!"

Yes, you can choose who you have sex with. But whether or not you want to have sex with someone depends on your sexuality, which you didn't choose.

(hey to join in do i have to read all 37 pages?)

It's recommended that you at least read the last few pages of the thread to make sure you don't repeat points that were recently made. I imagine no-one would remember the ones that were made two years ago so reading the entire thread isn't absolutely necessary, no.

I'd also suggest you read the rules thread at the top of the forum as D&D's rules are highly specific and on the whole stricter than elsewhere on the site, as this forum's meant to be about intelligent, semi-formal discussion of serious issues. The rules thread is rather long despite my best efforts to condense it, but long posts are something of a norm in D&D.

Okay so i read all the forum rules and the last couple pages.

Somewhere isa document that started the USA there are the words, "All people are created Equal" If all people are equal, age aside, then why are we involving religon in this discussion. If all people are equal then shouldn't they all have the same rights? Men and Woman are equal. Jews and Christians are equal. Whites and Blacks are equal. so what about Homosexuals and Straights? are they equal?

rate_me-
It is clear that you are against Homosexuals being allowed to get married, but do you think that Homosexuals and Straights are equal?

Now if you are against it then that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But i personally think that they should be allowed to get married, they are equal so they get the same rights am I correct?

America was founded on and SHOULD still be about 5 ideals.
Democracy - the government is powered by the peopl
Liberty - Freedom
Opportunity - One can choose to do what they want
Equality - we are all equal no matter what
Rights - nature given rights

I think i messed up on Rights, i tried to find the definition but couldn't, so could someone maybe fix that for me.
Now we can keep debating this using religon but that will go now where. America is nearly run by the Catholic Church. Take out the Democracy Ideal and we would be.
The Catholic Church is entirely against Gay Marriage. Why because of their view that marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

This topic has nothing to do with Racism as clearly stated before.
This topic does have to do with prejudice, though.
AND no matter what there will always be prejudice against people because of how they are. We can't stop it, its just how we are. We are prejudice against Gays because WE do not like change.

AS a matter of fact, we hate it. Someone tell me a time in History we took change easily and without hate. And i can tell you a far larger time in History when we refused and hated it.

My position in this debate is that Gay MArriage should be allowed and religon should have anything to do with it.

Black Mamba 19 said:

Ok religion aside, most people vote against homosexuality, so that would be a clear view on what the majority wants, not that I think that any person has the authority make the decision and make it a law for people to follow, it should just stay as it is and have people keep their own opinions. Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice anyway, so if they're sick of the way they're treated they can do something about changing, because I sure won't feel sorry for you because you want to take the easy way out.

Uh, no.

I as well would like to see the source of your "majorit" findings.

And again, no. Out of all the homosexual people I know, none of them chose to be gay. Please stop talking about something you know nothing about.

nightmare2 said:

rate_me-
It is clear that you are against Homosexuals being allowed to get married, but do you think that Homosexuals and Straights are equal?

Now if you are against it then that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But i personally think that they should be allowed to get married, they are equal so they get the same rights am I correct?

America was founded on and SHOULD still be about 5 ideals.
Democracy - the government is powered by the peopl
Liberty - Freedom
Opportunity - One can choose to do what they want
Equality - we are all equal no matter what
Rights - nature given rights

Yes, I believe they are equal, as does the Church. I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all; "the government is powered by the peopl". However, because I do not see it as a real marriage, I would vote against it. I do think that they should have the same rights to jobs, adoption, etc.; basically, the only thing I'm against is marriage, and that's not because I don't think they're equal, but because of what marriage is to me.

rate_me said:

nightmare2 said:

rate_me-
It is clear that you are against Homosexuals being allowed to get married, but do you think that Homosexuals and Straights are equal?

Now if you are against it then that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But i personally think that they should be allowed to get married, they are equal so they get the same rights am I correct?

America was founded on and SHOULD still be about 5 ideals.
Democracy - the government is powered by the peopl
Liberty - Freedom
Opportunity - One can choose to do what they want
Equality - we are all equal no matter what
Rights - nature given rights

Yes, I believe they are equal, as does the Church. I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all; "the government is powered by the peopl". However, because I do not see it as a real marriage, I would vote against it. I do think that they should have the same rights to jobs, adoption, etc.; basically, the only thing I'm against is marriage, and that's not because I don't think they're equal, but because of what marriage is to me.

If you don't mind me saying that is a little bit strange, that you would allow gay people to adopt but not to be married. I would have thought that bringing up a child would have been a bigger 'thing' (for the life of me can't thing of the right word here) than marriage. Usually people argue for marriage and then the next step is for adoption as a bigger 'right' so to speak. That and the fact that a married couple, staright or gay, generally provides a better basis on which to bring up a child.

I'm sure we've probably gone over this before but what exactly do you object to when it comes to gay marriage, is it just 'religious marriage' or all marriages in general?

rate_me said:

Yes, I believe they are equal, as does the Church. I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all; "the government is powered by the peopl". However, because I do not see it as a real marriage, I would vote against it. I do think that they should have the same rights to jobs, adoption, etc.; basically, the only thing I'm against is marriage, and that's not because I don't think they're equal, but because of what marriage is to me.

Marriage to you is clearly something with religious significance. Would you therefore support marriage rights for gay couples provided that no churches that didn't want to marry gay couples would be forced to do so? In other words, all "married" gay couples would be entitled to the same rights that married straight couples were, such as tax breaks and the right to visit each other in hospital when visitors are restricted to "family only"?

If so, would you allow churches that don't have any problem with marrying gay couples to do so, as well?

super craig said:

If you don't mind me saying that is a little bit strange, that you would allow gay people to adopt but not to be married. I would have thought that bringing up a child would have been a bigger 'thing' (for the life of me can't thing of the right word here) than marriage. Usually people argue for marriage and then the next step is for adoption as a bigger 'right' so to speak. That and the fact that a married couple, staright or gay, generally provides a better basis on which to bring up a child.

I'm sure we've probably gone over this before but what exactly do you object to when it comes to gay marriage, is it just 'religious marriage' or all marriages in general?

Read a book that has a bit about this kinda stuff. Somewhere in the book, "Why We Suck" the author says that he knows a couple of Gay couples who are raising their children much more diligently than alot of stright couples he knows.

Marriage and adopting aren't really the same. I think anyone should be able to adopt, straight, gay, married, or unmarried. To be able to have the experience to raise one is probaly a great thing. And why would people want to deny a child without a family or a home to be adopted just because the adopter (s) is Homosexual. That is very cruel. It is known that children can grow up to be straight or gay when raised by a straight couple. So the same will happen with a gay couple. They may see that there parents are different from other kids parents, but they will grow up less prejudice which is a very good thing.

Adoption shouldn't be debated because most likely the child will grow up straight, either way. Science has proven that one is 86 of the time attracted to the opposite sex no matter what kind of house they were raised in. That number came from various sites' percents, then i just averaged them.

That's actually a really good argument point right there. I never understood adoption agency problems with this. Would you rather the child be bumped around the system and probably end up a crack dealer on the streets? I wouldn't. I would a gladly send them to a gay couple with a stable environment. And really? Where do gays come from? I don't know, they were born from a straight couple, and raised by them, but are still gay. So as stated, why can't it work in opposite?

Catharsis said:

1. I am gay.
2. You are not.
3. I am saying that homosexuality is not a choice.
4. You are saying that it is.

Who is more likely to be correct here? You might say that you "chose" to be straight, but the fact that you would have chosen it doesn't mean that you did. You didn't wake up one day and think "I think I'll be attracted to the female form", just as I didn't wake up and think "I feel like suffering discrimination and having trouble finding a partner - I think I'll like guys!"

Yes, you can choose who you have sex with. But whether or not you want to have sex with someone depends on your sexuality, which you didn't choose.

I have to agree with you on this Catharsis, yet I am a little different to yourself.

I am straight but I will agree with you that being gay/bi etc is not a choice, like you I didn't wake up one morning and decide I was into girls.

It's your emotions and feelings that make the choice, not yourself.

I am only 17 but I still havent peaked adolescence yet and may well be gay/bi in future, you can't decide here and now, nature and your emotions take care of that.

Catharsis said:

rate_me said:

Yes, I believe they are equal, as does the Church. I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all; "the government is powered by the peopl". However, because I do not see it as a real marriage, I would vote against it. I do think that they should have the same rights to jobs, adoption, etc.; basically, the only thing I'm against is marriage, and that's not because I don't think they're equal, but because of what marriage is to me.

Marriage to you is clearly something with religious significance. Would you therefore support marriage rights for gay couples provided that no churches that didn't want to marry gay couples would be forced to do so? In other words, all "married" gay couples would be entitled to the same rights that married straight couples were, such as tax breaks and the right to visit each other in hospital when visitors are restricted to "family only"?

If so, would you allow churches that don't have any problem with marrying gay couples to do so, as well?

I would not oppose allowing homosexuals to engage in civil unions, as opposed to an actual marriage, although I would not actively support it. Obviously, I do not think that Churches should be forced to do so. If it was compatible with a given Church's doctrine to allow a homosexual union, I don't really care if they wed them into a civil union.

rate_me said:

I would not oppose allowing homosexuals to engage in civil unions, as opposed to an actual marriage, although I would not actively support it. Obviously, I do not think that Churches should be forced to do so. If it was compatible with a given Church's doctrine to allow a homosexual union, I don't really care if they wed them into a civil union.

See, this is what I can't understand. You're quite happy to allow atheists and those of other religions to get married without demanding that it be called a "civil union". I can understand that what you're proposing is effectively a "separate but equal" arrangement, but why not permit people to call it a "marriage", seeing as you already allow atheists to call it so? Again, with the proviso that churches would not be forced to wed any that they didn't want to? After all, straight couples are presently allowed to get "married" without the involvement of a church, and it's not called a civil union then. It just ensures that marriage, in a purely legal sense, does not discriminate against same-sex couples in any way. The separation alone implies inequality, and civil unions in various countries are just an inadequate substitute for marriage - they don't grant all the same rights to same-sex couples.

I would not oppose allowing homosexuals to engage in civil unions, as opposed to an actual marriage, although I would not actively support it. Obviously, I do not think that Churches should be forced to do so. If it was compatible with a given Church's doctrine to allow a homosexual union, I don't really care if they wed them into a civil union.

Civil Union, Marriage. Church, No church. Don't care about Civil Union....Pick one. Your willing to give them a civil union, why not as Cath said, call it a marriage. Marriage doesn't even have to be near church. Ordain easily much? Marriage license? Actually in all concepts, a marriage license is all it takes, some witnesses, who has to go to the church to do it. Wed them into a civil union, bah, rather just stay together until the full deal is presented. That's part of the whole problem. People who really want something just don't stop with getting a drop. They want the whole glass. We wouldn't be here discussion this matter if they did. Is it really that bad to allow them to marry? Let them be. The church can let it go. It's not their prerogative to decide who gets to love who and profess the strength of that love through marriage. It won't hurt. I mean really, what will change? The divorce rate at most. Just let it be.

On Facebook back when I was in like 9th grade I think, some punk *** made a group against Homosexuals and I reported it to the admins. He was posting these videos up;

http://www.youtube.com/watc...I1ltCZ4s

I watched all parts, and found this rather interesting on what this guy proposed.

Xtreme gamer said:

On Facebook back when I was in like 9th grade I think, some punk *** made a group against Homosexuals and I reported it to the admins. He was posting these videos up;

http://www.youtube.com/watc...I1ltCZ4s

I watched all parts, and found this rather interesting on what this guy proposed.

How many parts are there? I made it up to part 4 and I'm not going to lie it lost me when we switched from homosexuals to Hitler and Healthcare reforms etc. I just didn't get half the connections he was trying to get at, which seemed to me to be nothing more than taking random ideas and then filling in the gaps in an attempt to make a story. You've got more patience than me by the looks of it so whats the end message he's getting at? Up until the bits I saw he was straying away from homosexuality. My appologies, I'll watch them all eventually but a quick summary would be much appreciated

Though it did make me laugh, the Nazi party set up by gays? Whats next, theories that the KKK was originally started by black people. 'They didn't kill the butch gays', what a load of old tosh, you can by openly gay and butch and I don't recall Hitler surrounding himself with openly gay men. The gays in the party that they didn't kill weren't Butch they just kept it secret, they didn't kill them because they didn't know.

Speaking of keeping it secret here's something I read a couple of days ago. Haven't really got anything to debate on this but just thought I would throw it out there, particularly in response to the 'its a choice' arguements.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news...vellers

You could guarantee that a hetero pride day would just be crap.

super craig said:

Xtreme gamer said:

On Facebook back when I was in like 9th grade I think, some punk *** made a group against Homosexuals and I reported it to the admins. He was posting these videos up;

http://www.youtube.com/watc...I1ltCZ4s

I watched all parts, and found this rather interesting on what this guy proposed.

How many parts are there? I made it up to part 4 and I'm not going to lie it lost me when we switched from homosexuals to Hitler and Healthcare reforms etc. I just didn't get half the connections he was trying to get at, which seemed to me to be nothing more than taking random ideas and then filling in the gaps in an attempt to make a story. You've got more patience than me by the looks of it so whats the end message he's getting at? Up until the bits I saw he was straying away from homosexuality. My appologies, I'll watch them all eventually but a quick summary would be much appreciated

Though it did make me laugh, the Nazi party set up by gays? Whats next, theories that the KKK was originally started by black people. 'They didn't kill the butch gays', what a load of old tosh, you can by openly gay and butch and I don't recall Hitler surrounding himself with openly gay men. The gays in the party that they didn't kill weren't Butch they just kept it secret, they didn't kill them because they didn't know.

Speaking of keeping it secret here's something I read a couple of days ago. Haven't really got anything to debate on this but just thought I would throw it out there, particularly in response to the 'its a choice' arguements.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news...vellers

You could guarantee that a hetero pride day would just be crap.

Boyyyyy just watch it all Listen to this guy man lol

rate_me said:

I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all;

Think about this for a second. Then replace the "they" from gays to blacks. Does it still sound okay?

YoSoyJu said:

rate_me said:

I am alright if they do get "married", but only if the citizens vote and allow it, because this is a democracy after all;

Think about this for a second. Then replace the "they" from gays to blacks. Does it still sound okay?

No, because you're implying that I have a problem with homosexuals simply because they are homosexual, rather than my problem with gay marriage lying with my viewing of the act of homosexual intercourse being morally wrong, hence my lack of support for it (although I do want to point out now that I am not trying to push my ideologies onto others by means of disapproving). I put married in quotation marks because it is colloquially called a marriage, but I would not define it as such.
In addition, you're taking that sentence out of context and trying to add a meaning to it that was never a part of my train of thought. I was saying that yes, they should get rights like heterosexual couples do, and that my only issue is with it being a full-fledged marriage because I don't see it as one. I am perfectly alright with homosexuals being able to get Civil Unions, which are essentially the same as marriages with a few exceptions.
There is nothing wrong at all with consenting and loving heterosexual blacks marrying, because, obviously, it would be between a man and a woman (most important distinction), it wouldn't be a shotgun wedding or anything, and they would be united in their love (not saying homosexuals can't love each other).
In fact, the only reason why I actually posted in this debate again in the first place was because nightmare2's post was directly addressing me, and I just wanted to answer his question and be done, rather than get involved in this debate again, hence my relatively short posts. I am only replying to this post because I felt like you were insinuating that I had a bias against gays themselves rather than towards the meaning of a marriage, and then equating that with racism, which, personally, made me feel insulted because I had thought that I had made it explicit several times where my reservations lie, and because I have relatives who are biracial.