Political Crossfire Forums

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10563

Gdawg007 wrote:
So none of us would support a constutional ban on oral sex, right? Why on any other type of sex?

I wouldn't but there are plenty of people who would.

Quote:

Heterosexual females are one of most at risk groups for the transmission of STD's. Ripping occurs in non-virgins as well, it's called dyspareunia.

No I'm not saying it was meant to have a penis inserted, but none of your criteria can be used to call anal sex unnatural. All of those criteria happen during vaginal intercourse.

Yes they all happen...like I said...but you said it yourself, the anus simply isn't meant to have a penis inserted. So having one inserted is not natural or not what it was intended for.

The transmission of AIDS via sex is most common in homosexuals because of this very reason. I'm not saying that to be a bigot...simple truth.

Quote:

Why do blacks have million man marches? Why do Italians have Columbus Day parades? Why do Native Americans protest Columbus Day parades? Perhaps it is self-promotion, but they aren't the ONLY ones who do it. It's mostly people who have been wronged by the majority who have such parades...

I am not a fan of the argument, "well others do it so it's ok". My point was there is a large contingent of homosexuals that would have you believe their way or think you should accept homosexuality. I look at that the same way I look at a Jehova witness trying to push their religion on me.

Like I said...do what you want ...but don't push your lifestyle on everyone with the expectation they should agree.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10563

Gdawg007 wrote: Ameriman wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: free thinking american wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Ameriman wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? I dislike calling it marriage. Have all the same stuff with a different word and leave your private life out of my face.

How is their private life in your face?

What I think he is talking about is the pushing of a belief or lifestyle acceptance onto those who do not agree.

Here is an analogy.

How many of us here despise people of religion who continually push Jesus on you or try to have you converted?

What's the difference?

No one has ever knocked on my door on Sunday and tried to convince me to become gay...

True, but how many TV shows do you see espousing the Jehova's witness lifestyle?

Not many, but how many shows espouse the gay lifestyle? Will and Grace? Queer Eye? Most shows depict heterosexuals who are of course understanding of gay people, but none are gay. And most make homosexuality a topic of humor. There are many more shows that espouse religion than homosexuality.

But their existence shows a predominant movement to accept...most of those shows are about acceptance which, means you have to believe a certain way and accept that lifestyle as natural.

Ellen

Couldn't they say the same about all the shows that have heterosexuals on them? That there's a movement to make them accept that homosexuality is unnatural and that they should believe that and accept our lifestyle as natural? Why can't they say the same thing?

Ellen was a terrible show, in my opinion... :-)

For one thing....heterosexuality is natural...not believing that and not accepting it is simply silly given what nature has implemented. If you can point to anything that is unnatural in heterosexuality (I'm not talking sex play as we have already covered that) than please do so.

Homosexuality is debatable. I'm sure it feels natural however, that doesn't make it natural.

Aside from that....we agree...especially on Ellen...

Chingu · Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 9634 Location: Illinois

Because marraige means wedlock between a man and a women and those who hold such beliefs as serious hae the right to their beliefs.

Why can't gay people have civil unions?

Should gay poeple be allowed to adopt children? I have serious issues with that.

I have nothing against gay people as long as they are civilized as anyone should be and most are. I just don't think that their activist faction should step on the rights of those who believe that marriage is defined as the union - holy matrimony of a man and woman.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10563

Chingu wrote: Because marraige means wedlock between a man and a women and those who hold such beliefs as serious hae the right to their beliefs.

Why can't gay people have civil unions?

Should gay poeple be allowed to adopt children? I have serious issues with that.

I have nothing against gay people as long as they are civilized as anyone should be and most are. I just don't think that their activist faction should step on the rights of those who believe that marriage is defined as the union - holy matrimony of a man and woman.

MArriage is a religious institution and has no place within governmental controls whatsoever.

We should all have civil unions. If there is a church out there that wants to marry gay people than more power to them.

Just don't push your lifestyle on others or expect others to accept homosexuality. It is their right not to...

rxb fan · Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 194 Location: Elko, NV

Ameriman wrote: Chingu wrote: Because marraige means wedlock between a man and a women and those who hold such beliefs as serious hae the right to their beliefs.

Why can't gay people have civil unions?

Should gay poeple be allowed to adopt children? I have serious issues with that.

I have nothing against gay people as long as they are civilized as anyone should be and most are. I just don't think that their activist faction should step on the rights of those who believe that marriage is defined as the union - holy matrimony of a man and woman.

MArriage is a religious institution and has no place within governmental controls whatsoever.

We should all have civil unions. If there is a church out there that wants to marry gay people than more power to them.

Just don't push your lifestyle on others or expect others to accept homosexuality. It is their right not to...

ever heard of the cherokee?

they figured that since america was pushing all the other native americans off their land, they might as well adopt the old saying, "if you cant beat em, join em." so they tried to. they did more and more things to try and make it so that they could simply be a part of our culture for fear of being annihalated...

it seems to be taking a similar path here. the difference is that the government doesn't want to force gay people off their land. gay people would usually rather move.

so were the cherokee pushing their lifestyle on us? not really, they were becoming more like us. are the gay people really trying to push their lifestyle on us? not really, they just want to be recognized as ordinary citizens with the rights of everybody else. would this have ever been an issue if nobody had ever tried to make laws against it? i think not.

it is kind of ironic that religious people often times go around trying to convert people to their religion while telling gay people not to push their lifestyle on them, isn't it? :?

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject:

I'm going to shorthand this because I don't have a lot of time.

It seems a lot of the anti-gay marriage argument is focusing on anal sex being unnatural. This makes a couple of false assumptions:

1) That all gay couples practice anal sex, or that it is the preferred mode.
2) That sex is a requirement for marriage

The preferred sexual activity for homosexuals is supposedly oral sex, not anal sex. Some gay couples don't have any insertive sex at all. For those that do, anal sex would be the preferred activity only among the minority and may actually be quite infrequent among the rest.

There are plenty of sexless heterosexual marriages. Procreation is not the chief purpose of marriage. Marriage is the formal declaration by competent adults that they have consented to form a family unit together; it is contractual by nature. The formation of this family unit is the purpose of marriage, not procreation. That family unit may include children, but it doesn't have to. Have a look at the wording of a wedding ceremony - it's all about the formation of the family unit, with children only briefly mentioned, when they are mentioned at all.

Homosexuals who are seeking recognition of their long-term commitments are not generally of the promiscuous type of person that their opponents like to blame for the spread of STD's.

As to 'natural' and 'normal', comparisons to parallels in the animal kingdom have limitations in what they can tell us about the human species. The only point in bringing them up at all is to squash the false statements of those who say homosexuality doesn't occur at all in 'nature'. It clearly does, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it should be a human practice.

Since normal is primarily a statistical term, it is true that homosexuality is not 'the norm'. It is also true, however, that it is normal for a person who has a homosexual orientation to pursue homosexual behavior and doing so seems perfectly natural to them. Moreover, the urge for sexual gratification is both normal and natural, so it makes little sense to argue over which acts that achieve this goal are 'normal' or 'natural' - especially when neither characteristic is informative as to what is moral or immoral.

On the question of marriage being a religious institution, it ceased to be exclusively so a very long time ago - if it ever was. People can have their marriage solemnized by a non-religious official - a justice of the peace. As an amateur genealogist, I can tell you without hesitation that this practice definitely predates even the requirement for civil marriage licenses on a widespread basis that was instituted after the Civil War. I have seen town records recording marriages unsanctioned by any religious entity as far back as the 1840's and earlier - long before many of the benefits that have come to be associated with marriage (tax breaks, employer funded health insurance, etc) were in place. Civil recognition of marriage contracts aids in the mediation of disputes, estate handling, etc. - something that will still be needed if you take away all of the other benefits now associated with the institution. That we have made those contracts much easier to dissolve and have largely taken a no-fault approach to disputes over breaches does NOT nullify the contractual nature of marriage.

With regard to people having homosexual marriage forced upon them: No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender and no one is saying you cannot marry someone of the opposite gender. By making gender a restriction on marriage, you are however actually forcing your limited idea of what marriage should be upon those who take another viewpoint, preventing them from participation in the institution.

The 'being in our face' argument is particularly bogus. Gay people are surrounded by heterosexuals who display affection in public and think nothing of talking about their spouse with coworkers in casual conversation. But if a homosexual tries either one, they're instantly accused of trying to make a political statement.

Like it or not, gay couples can and do raise children, so this is likewise no argument for preventing them from marrying. By denying them recognition, you create an environment where one group (heterosexually married couples) get special privileges that others do not - and without any good cause for doing so.

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9329 Location: Palm Beach

I'll just post this again, since no one addressed it...

Hephaestus wrote: Marriage: Legal contract between two consenting adults.

Excerpt from a Supreme Court case known as Hale .vs. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1905):

Quote: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject:

Hephaestus wrote: I'll just post this again, since no one addressed it...

Hephaestus wrote: Marriage: Legal contract between two consenting adults.

Excerpt from a Supreme Court case known as Hale .vs. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1905):

Quote: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

The trouble here is that Constitution actually does a pretty poor job of protecting rights, and many of the rights we have come to take for granted our actually an amplification based on substantive due process, which a textualist will tell you has no constitutional basis, as they are only interested in what the text says, not in the 'spirit of the law'. Some of them will tell you that the court has usurped much of the power it has now, owing to its own early, non-textual interpretation of what its powers should be. They will tell you that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the bad acts of the federal government - the states are free to ignore it. To them, 'due process' is only procedural; so long as the rules are followed, it doesn't matter how draconian their design. Likewise, 'equal protection' under the law means only as the law is written, and it doesn't have to be written to protect any other rights equally. The ninth amendment is basically considered to mean only that any unenumerated rights are the domain of the individual states or the people as a whole, not apparently as individuals.

Evaluated in this manner, the Constitution is a poor source for seeking to have your rights protected. People have instead come to rely on the sometimes more friendly interpretations of the court. But that is changing, the supposed 'threat' posed by recognizing the marriages of gay couples is persuading some to call for the courts to be forced to yield the power of Constitutional review, or at least to take only a 'textual' interpretation of it. They are prepared to sacrifice the concept of the right to privacy to get rid of abortion & sexual liberation and to secure their safety from terrorists.

I happen to believe they'll be very sorry for having done so in the long run.

GrowHydro · Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 1035 Location: Louisiana

rxb fan wrote: GrowHydro wrote: rxb fan wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

then he also created the situation for nazis, murderers and power-hungry dictators. but he seems to be fine with us making our own decisions regarding these things for the most part. and my decision is: let homosexuals be treated by the law just as if they were heterosexuals.

Murder is a human interpretation of the act of killing, and killing is a fundamental part of nature.

Anyway, you got the right idea.

even so, with your argument god would have then made killing a fundamental part of nature.

...or did he have no choice?

i'm a bit more aligned with the 'diast' side of religion.

I don't think we can really argue what god can and can't do.

Same here.

GrowHydro · Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 1035 Location: Louisiana

Chingu wrote: Because marraige means wedlock between a man and a women and those who hold such beliefs as serious hae the right to their beliefs.

Why can't gay people have civil unions?

Marriage doesn't neccessarirly have to have a man and woman. In the sense your speaking of its a religious institution, thefore if the church allows it, then they can get married. Everybody has the right to their beliefs, that includes gays.

So why cant they just get married? They have the right to the pursuit of hapiness just like everybody else.

Quote: Should gay poeple be allowed to adopt children? I have serious issues with that.
I don't know that many gays but the ones I have met seem alot kinder than my buddies by far. Straight couples beat and molest their kids too, so its just discrimination.

Quote: I have nothing against gay people as long as they are civilized as anyone should be and most are. I just don't think that their activist faction should step on the rights of those who believe that marriage is defined as the union - holy matrimony of a man and woman.

You have the right to your opinion, not the right to controll other peoples lives. If you believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, fine nobody gets hurt, but outlawing gays, who have a differing opinion about marriage, from pursuing their own happiness trampling on their freedom and rights.

Those believes about "holy matrimony" stem from a persons religious beliefs, and have no place in American law. No religion should be favored.

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

RickyBear wrote: rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act, now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm, I don't know man there are always going to be two side to every debate, I happen to be on the side you are not, thats natural.

I need to copy this answer so I can just paste it instead of typing it each time, but oh well....here goes:
To say something is or is not natural, one must look to the natural world. Doing this, you will see that in fact it is natural. Many different species find a mate of the same sex & build a 'home' (nest, burrow, etc) & carry on a typical relationship like their male/female counterparts. Furthermore, there are types species that reproduce w/o sexual reproduction. So are the asexual species not natural, or are people not natural? Many animals, while reproducing sexually (male/female), have the females (sometimes even the males) raise the young while the males (or females) are kicked out of the group &/or only sought for mating purposes. Therefore, what is natural? A statement that being gay is not natural because no offspring can be produced is not only wrong, but mis-informed. Sex isn't only for reproduction, in both human & some animal species. Chimps (for one) mate for social reasons, no babies are produced. Are they un-natural? Male dogs will mount other male dogs as a part of social interaction. Granted there is no sexual penetration involved, but I suppose they are un-natural too because no offspring is produced?

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Rhoades wrote: Gay marriages do not produce children. Therefore, not natural.
Classic, uneducated (see stupid) argument

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Proven 100% - don't believe so. Just like it isn't proven that a straight person is genetically straight. HOWEVER, there is much more evidence that shows it is NOT a choice, is is something a person is, rather it be genetic &/or horomonal &/or invetro developement &/or environment.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

monkeys also eat their own feces... ---> as gross as it is, people do do it (wow - that was an unintended pun!)

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

FLea wrote: Let me break this down for you.

Organisims (most) all the way up the chain usually reproduce with the intent to produce offspring.

The hole you have bowel movements from was not intended for semen. Semen and sh!t do not make offspring.

Moving right along...

Some view a permiscuous lifestyle as what it is. An unhealthy lifestyle.
Some view it as you can do as you please.
Adultry used to be illegal to do.
Now you can have sex with whomever you want.

This is what I am getting at, nothing more nothing less.
A line is drawn, between what the public views as socially acceptable and not socially acceptable. Because in the end WE have to pay for the decisions we make.

I myself, chose a one girl kinda guy lifestyle. I think having meaningless sex with bar sluts is not healthy, dangerous and unwise. Hence bad for ones' soul. But I also agree people should have sex with whomever they want, its their choice. Once again, I dont push my views on others, i show up at the voting booth to put my 2 cents in. That is how I make a difference. Marriage is not a right, its a privilege.

I am not stopping gays from having sex, I am not stopping multiple people from having orgies.

What I am stopping is the recognition of it. See you people try to use the "moral" shot at gay marriage, saying Guy (A) loves guy (B). That will not work on morally religious folk. Remember marriage is a privilege not a right. It is NOT my right to have equal benefits for my little brother, its what it is, a benefit/privilege, Not a right.

What people have to understand is this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I drew my line there, respect it, argue it, lets vote on it. Its not discrimination. What right is being infringed upon?

You are right that marriage is a proviledge - one that should be available to any 2 adults, regardless of sex. And with this priviledge should come all the positive, as well as negative, implications. As far as "morally religious folk", I believe a lot of these 'morally religious' people need to look at their own lives (remove the plank from your eye before you try to remove the speck from someone else's) before passing any type of condemnation on someone else. Furthermore, for those 'morally religious' people, you need to look back into your church history (50 years ago & 500 years ago), your church divisions (what & why the division{s} were created), who wrote & translated the version of the Bible you read & quote, when it was written, etc. What you will find, if you are open to truely understanding what the Bible is & says, you will be surprised.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

RickyBear wrote: JustMe wrote: RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

If it is so natural than why do you have a pee-pee and a woman does not.
You guys are funny and I mean that in the literal sense, 2 males bodies don't match do they, seems a female is more apt to receive the pee-pee than the male bung hole, does it not. Last time I read my science, and it's been a while, and you can correct me if I am wrong that genitals were sex organs, right, when was the bung hoe classified as a "gentile", don't throw that that’s an religion crap on me when you know damn well that being gay is much more mental than physical, it is NOT NATURAL, get over your self already

Ladies & gentleman, an example of someone who either 1) hasn't read much or all of this post or 2) doens't understand much, here -->"it is NOT NATURAL"
A mouth is made for eating & communicating, but I wonder how many times your mouth has done something other than eat or talk? You hair serves a purpose to help keep you warm, how often do you shave? That doesn't seem natural by this logic. That 'not natural' arguement is SO old & beat to death & proven that it IS natural that there really is no more to say to someone who says it's not natural - is like talking to a wall.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

GrowHydro wrote: rxb fan wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

then he also created the situation for nazis, murderers and power-hungry dictators. but he seems to be fine with us making our own decisions regarding these things for the most part. and my decision is: let homosexuals be treated by the law just as if they were heterosexuals.

Murder is a human interpretation of the act of killing, and killing is a fundamental part of nature.

Anyway, you got the right idea.

And killing (see murder) is a chosen act where only one person decides it is 'beneficial'. Being gay is not a chosen act & there are, in terms of a relationship, 2 adults agreeing on living together or not - no one is hurt or killed. Likewise, if one gay person kills another gay (or straight) person with intent to cause harm, it is wrong.
The US still has the death penalty.

Sage Orator · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 334

Quote: Like I said...do what you want ...but don't push your lifestyle on everyone with the expectation they should agree.
I agree...that's why I don't like a lot of Christians. That is also why I don't like having public nativity scenes, or for example a giant cross that I drive by a lot. Couldn't it be argued that heterosexuality is being forced upon the people. That only a certain way is right, couldn't that be seen as forced upon us? "Cribs," DON'T FORCE YOUR LIFE OF LUXURY ON ME!

Sage Orator · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 334

Chingu wrote: Why can't gay people have civil unions?

Should gay poeple be allowed to adopt children? I have serious issues with that.

I have nothing against gay people as long as they are civilized as anyone should be and most are. I just don't think that their activist faction should step on the rights of those who believe that marriage is defined as the union - holy matrimony of a man and woman.
I am pretty sure most would be okay with that except that only two states allow civil unions or same sex marriage. Also, if that should happen, the 1049 rights, priveleges, and benefits given to people labeled as married should be given to them.

Why do you have a problem with then abopting children.

Are you serious, they are trying to step on your rights? How is this, that they are forcing themselves on you? How about the fact that you are forcing yourself on them just as much.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Sage Orator wrote: Quote: Like I said...do what you want ...but don't push your lifestyle on everyone with the expectation they should agree.
I agree...that's why I don't like a lot of Christians. That is also why I don't like having public nativity scenes, or for example a giant cross that I drive by a lot. Couldn't it be argued that heterosexuality is being forced upon the people. That only a certain way is right, couldn't that be seen as forced upon us? "Cribs," DON'T FORCE YOUR LIFE OF LUXURY ON ME!

It's a shame that your experience with Christians has been, apparently, negative. I grew up in a Christian church & while there are 1 or 2 'extremeists' in every church, most everyone I grew up with NEVER pushed anything on anyone. They let their lives they led speak for themselves. Now if someone approached them, they would be happy to share. I guess I had a good church - there was (and still is) a lot of caring & love for me & in general for everyone from the people I grew up with.
Seeing natavity scenes & crosses don't bother me at all. As long as they are done tastefully. I don't see a erected cross of natavity scene on a church's lawn (especially @ Christmas) as pushing anything down anyone's throat.