Political Crossfire Forums

[Crimson Shrew]

Gays, where to begin?

I have friends and relatives who are gay, however, that doesn't mean i condone their actions or lifestyle choices. I think it's un natural and just not right. But I'm not going to disown them or stop being friends with them because of it - what any other person does behind closed doors with people other than myself is their business, not mine.

I don't think pushing the "Gay Agenda" on people is right, in fact i think that's completely wrong and THOSE Are the gays that i hate. Don't try to tell me its normal, natural, or any other such crap, because it simply isn't.

I can understand the arguments of gay marriage on both sides. From my point of view, i don't understand marriage for any couple that isn't religiously affiliated in the first place. At thta point it's just a tax thing, right? Since many aspects of the homosexual lifestyle flat contradict mainstream religious convictions, marriage in that sense makes no sense. And marriage, for thousands of years, has consisted of the union between a man and woman to make a stable environment for creating children. Gays biologically cannot have children, thus marriage is simply pointless. they just want the tax breaks.

On the issue of gays adopting - i don't think it should be allowed, but it would be extremely hard to "prove". Living with someone of the same sex does not make you gay. But i do know it's not normal nor is it healthy to raise a child in an gay couple environment. You can't possibly say you're gay and that your dream is to have children of your own, because that's a contradiction. It's like saying you want to be free in China.

Gay marriage is a very slippery slope. Allowing it opens the door for marrying in big groups, which is a problem. That further "progresses" the "tolerance" to different "ideas" about marriage, leaving open marrying animals, items, and.... ideas.

[spearsy23]

mehehehehehehe gay a**holes :-D (sorry i couldnt resist)

[Jaxian]

Crimson Shrew wrote: I don't think pushing the "Gay Agenda" on people is right, in fact i think that's completely wrong and THOSE Are the gays that i hate. Don't try to tell me its normal, natural, or any other such crap, because it simply isn't.

If I called your love abnormal and unnatural, would you not try to defend yourself by claiming that it is normal and natural? Maybe you would, or maybe you'd just say that I'm entitled to my opinions. But if I then followed it up by trying to deny you legal marriage because your relationship is abnormal and unnatural, wouldn't you then certainly try to explain to me that your relationship is neither abnormal nor unnatural?

This is why you'll see gay people "pushing the Gay Agenda." They are simply trying to defend their relationships against the attacks of people who wish to deny their legal rights under the law. When someone denies gay marriage saying that same-sex relationships are abnormal and unnatural, it should come as no surprise that gay people will try to convince others that their relationships are nothing of the sort.

To turn the situation around, I should ask that same-sex marriage opponents do not push their "Anti-Gay agenda" upon others. In the same way that you ask me not to claim homosexuality is normal or natural, I ask same-sex marriage opponents not to claim that homosexuality is harmful to society, children or anyone else. It simply isn't true.

Yet I would never suggest that same-sex marriage opponents be denied legal rights or benefits under the law because they are pushing their agenda.

Quote: I can understand the arguments of gay marriage on both sides. From my point of view, i don't understand marriage for any couple that isn't religiously affiliated in the first place. At thta point it's just a tax thing, right? Since many aspects of the homosexual lifestyle flat contradict mainstream religious convictions, marriage in that sense makes no sense. And marriage, for thousands of years, has consisted of the union between a man and woman to make a stable environment for creating children. Gays biologically cannot have children, thus marriage is simply pointless. they just want the tax breaks.

Well, I can understand how you would come to this conclusion, and this is the assumption that many same-sex marriage opponents have made. But it simply isn't accurate. The reality of the situation is that same-sex couples can and do have children. They can use surrogate parenting, artificial insemination, adoption, and even godparenting to have children. Many have children from previous opposite-sex relationships. Any suggestion that same-sex couples cannot create or raise children is simply untrue. Simply because one is in love with someone of the same sex does not mean that person cannot find a way to have children. And many gay couples do have children, and they want the benefits that help them raise those children.

I can't deny that it isn't about the benefits in some sense. A gay person will want to visit his or her significant other in the hospital, for example. But specifically talking about tax benefits, I don't think that's really a big deal for any gay person. They'd probably be just as happy without the tax benefits, so long as all couples are treated the same.

And that's really a big part of this: that gay people and gay rights supporters really want people to be treated equally. If a gay couple has children, why shouldn't it receive the same benefits for those children as a straight couple? If a gay couple doesn't have children, why shouldn't it receive the same benefits as a straight couple without children? I can't see any reason, any need for special treatment held by a straight couple which is not also held by a gay couple. So that's what this is really about: treating straight couples and gay couples equally under the law. It doesn't matter whether the gay couple gets a tax break so long as they aren't denyed a tax break for being a gay couple.

Quote: On the issue of gays adopting - i don't think it should be allowed, but it would be extremely hard to "prove". Living with someone of the same sex does not make you gay. But i do know it's not normal nor is it healthy to raise a child in an gay couple environment. You can't possibly say you're gay and that your dream is to have children of your own, because that's a contradiction. It's like saying you want to be free in China.

But why can't a gay person say this? Certainly gay people can have children, and certainly they can raise those children. You can say that homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal, and I'll abide by your request not to disagree. But neither of those things makes them immoral, and neither of those things makes them bad parents. So if you're going to suggest that same-sex or homosexual parents are somehow not as optimal for raising children as opposite-sex or heterosexual parents, then explain why you believe that.

Simply saying that homosexuality is unnatural or abnormal isn't enough: it may very well be that an unnatural, abnormal set of parents is better for raising children. I can say at least that an unnatural or abnormal set of parents might be more likely to teach their children to accept the differences in people, instead of looking down on others for their differences. Beyond that, I know of no reason why a same-sex couple should not be exactly the same at raising children as an opposite-sex one.

Quote: Gay marriage is a very slippery slope. Allowing it opens the door for marrying in big groups, which is a problem. That further "progresses" the "tolerance" to different "ideas" about marriage, leaving open marrying animals, items, and.... ideas.

Okay, well let's get one thing right here: legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to lead to people marrying animals. I mean, it's frankly insulting to suggest that two men marrying is a step closer to a man and an animal marrying. Does that imply that homosexuals are more animals than heteorsexuals? Okay, maybe that's not what you meant. But the simple fact is that people aren't going to lose all rationality simply because more people are allowed to marry.

I mean, what if I said, "We shouldn't allow women to vote! It's a slippery slope, leading to voting for animals!" Would you think that I made a wise statement? Of course you wouldn't; simply because we allow women to vote doesn't mean we're going to go crazy and allow animals to vote. We're just extending the same benefits to one group of people that we extend to a different one. And this is how the statement that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to a man and animal marrying sounds. It's simply absurd. There is no way animals will be allowed to vote. There is no way pets will be "freed from the slavery of their owners". And there is no way men will be marrying animals.

The slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is a fallacy. It is nothing more than an unfounded guess at the future. It suggests that although people are completely opposed to something today, someone has predicted via psychic powers that people's minds will be changed to support the irrational if we legalize same-sex marriage.

While it might be true that legalizing same-sex marriage will change people's minds on some things, trying to predict exactly how their minds will change is difficult. And coming to the conclusion that legalizing same-sex marriage will cause people to lose rationality and support something wrong doesn't make sense to me. I might sooner suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead toward tolerance of other groups of people who are different from the majority, and that is a good thing. My prediction makes more sense because tolerance toward people different from the majority is a rational thing.

But realistically, if you want to prevent man/animal marriage, then oppose it. Don't oppose same-sex marriage. If I were afraid that allowing women to vote would legalizing animal voting, would it be right for me to oppose allowing women to vote? I don't think it would: the correct course of action would be for me to support a woman's right to vote, then oppose an animal's right to vote if that ever became an issue. And in the same fashion, I think you should support the homosexual's right to marry a member of the same sex, while opposing any attempt at legalizing man/animal marriage, should such a wild idea ever gain momentum.

[F'losrix]

Jaxian: That's a most excellent response. :tu:

[feederband]

Unnatural in all sense....But I don't despise them...Actually have some gay Friends...

[F'losrix]

feederband wrote: Unnatural in all sense....But I don't despise them...Actually have some gay Friends...
Hmm. Two wholly unsupported opinions from you in two separate threads dealing with gay issues. I see a trend here. You're trolling and if it continues, I'll take the action I deem appropriate to put a stop to it.

And by the way, the 'some of my best friends are gay' argument doesn't fly. We don't care if you have 2 gay friends or 200 - it doesn't lend any credence to your unrelated opinion.

[feederband]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: feederband wrote: Unnatural in all sense....But I don't despise them...Actually have some gay Friends...
Hmm. Two wholly unsupported opinions from you in two separate threads dealing with gay issues. I see a trend here. You're trolling and if it continues, I'll take the action I deem appropriate to put a stop to it.

And by the way, the 'some of my best friends are gay' argument doesn't fly. We don't care if you have 2 gay friends or 200 - it doesn't lend any credence to your unrelated opinion.

Hmmm... unsupported opinions...Hey my opinions....I have know BEST friends that are gay... The topic asked for my opinion....

[Plodder]

orientation is a choice. I could spontaneuosly say im gay and probably convince myself that I am and that its not my fault. But we all know better. Blaming it on the brain is a lame excuse

[The Grandmaster]

Plodder wrote: orientation is a choice. I could spontaneuosly say im gay and probably convince myself that I am and that its not my fault. But we all know better. Blaming it on the brain is a lame excuse

Oh yeah. When did you choose to be straight? :wink:
If people simply arbitrarily chose their orientation, why does nearly everyone choose the opposite sex?
Prove orientation is a choice and stop blowing smoke.

[F'losrix]

Plodder wrote: orientation is a choice.
Proof?

Quote: I could spontaneuosly say im gay and probably convince myself that I am and that its not my fault.
Try it and see how far you get.

Quote: But we all know better.
We don't all know any such thing.

Quote: Blaming it on the brain is a lame excuse
Viewing it as in issue which blame must be assessed is even lamer.

[Plodder]

Quote: Oh yeah. When did you choose to be straight?

I hereby revise my statement: we are all born naturally striaght, and a few decide that they are Homosexuals.

I dony pretend to know why, but It is logical sice all men have testoserone and women estrogen

[Æ]

Plodder wrote: I hereby revise my statement: we are all born naturally striaght, and a few decide that they are Homosexuals.
And what facts is your opinion based upon? Humans are not the only species that have homosexual members. Do animals "choose" too? The only choosing that is going on here is yours: CHOOSING TO BE A TROLL. Go away.

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: feederband wrote: Unnatural in all sense....But I don't despise them...Actually have some gay Friends...
Hmm. Two wholly unsupported opinions from you in two separate threads dealing with gay issues. I see a trend here. You're trolling and if it continues, I'll take the action I deem appropriate to put a stop to it.

And by the way, the 'some of my best friends are gay' argument doesn't fly. We don't care if you have 2 gay friends or 200 - it doesn't lend any credence to your unrelated opinion.

Okay, I think you are overreacting. The tread specifially asked for his opinion, so don't jump on him and accuse him of trolling for offering it.

Chill out a bit.

[TNBiologist]

Live and let live. I work with a gay guy that I am good friends with. I have also meet gay people that I didn't like. They are just like any other group pf people, some good and some a-holes. I do not agree with gays that scream hate crime or homophobe everytime someone says something they don't like, we are each intintiled to our opinions. I also don't like seeing "flaming" gay people, ei. men wearing dresses in public, but I believe they have the right to do that if they so choose and will support that right. It is the same as an extremely overweight person wearing a skimpy swimsuits, not something I want to see but thats their right.

[Sage Orator]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Oh yeah. When did you choose to be straight?

I hereby revise my statement: we are all born naturally striaght, and a few decide that they are Homosexuals.

I dony pretend to know why, but It is logical sice all men have testoserone and women estrogen
Women who inject testosterone don't normally become lesbians. Link 1 You have also stumbled upon another theory, this theory is that in addition to a "gay gene" lesbians have extra testosterone introduced to them in the first trimester.

You also do not seem to realize that nobody would "choose" to be a homosexual for their full life. It really just happens to them. This is because 90% of all homosexuals have been victims of violence or harassment. I will go into more detail if you wish but the point is for many being a homosexual can and will get you harassed. Nobody wants to be harassed. I would be willing to bet that you wouldn't stay a homosexual because you wouldn't be able to stand the harassment. I am not saying that all homosexuals are harassed but the studies I have seen puts the numbers very high.

I would suggest trying to prove what you have to say with some facts, links and the like. Unless this was a side note or/and was not well thought out and you would like for for me to dismiss it then that would be okay too.

[sLiPpY]

John Galt wrote: "Gay people" are all individuals. I don't personally dislike any gay people that I know, except for one, because he is a horrid person. My point is I have no opinion on "gays" as a group as they are each distinct and the question is as asinine as asking "what is your opinion on blacks" and then to add insult only giving what one would charactize as condescending answers for your multipole choice.

holy shiite John Galt... *bravo!* :clap:

[Sage Orator]

Crimson Shrew wrote: At thta point it's just a tax thing, right?
It is as much a tax thing as forcing civil unions instead of marriage is about taxes. Also, marriage gives more than taxes, there are 1049 federal laws giving rights, benefits, and privileges to those who are married. We are denying people 1,049 rights because of their sexual orientation. That seems just a little bit wrong to me.

Quote: Gays biologically cannot have children, thus marriage is simply pointless. they just want the tax breaks.
Then why do we allow for sterile people and elderly people to marry? They can not procreate so should they not be allowed to marry? Also, none of this is about tax breaks, it is about rights and wanting to be able to have public recognition of your love for another.

Quote: Gay marriage is a very slippery slope. Allowing it opens the door for marrying in big groups, which is a problem. That further "progresses" the "tolerance" to different "ideas" about marriage, leaving open marrying animals, items, and.... ideas.
Is this the logic portion or are you going to back that up? When you first think about it, it seems logical right? The facts are though, that isn't the way it works.

A lot of people say that allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine marriage. The argument is that it would support other “inappropriate" sorts of marriage and even encourage people not to marry. That if homosexuals can marry then what is to stop people from polygamy or marrying their relatives? The facts are though that there is no connection between the “inappropriate" forms of marriage. This was also claimed when sodomy was legalized in the United States, and so far few other cases involves the other “inappropriate" forms have come up. Polygamy is when one person has more than one spouse. It is illegal in most nations except for Arab countries. In Arab countries polygamy is common and only one country has banned it (marriedtoanarab). Only five Arab countries have decriminalized homosexuality (Eastern Europe & Central Asia-Laws). The most common place where polygamy occurs, Saudi Arabia, still has homosexuality as illegal and is punishable by death (Actwin-Sodomy laws around the world). Utah, where polygamy is most common in the United States, has banned same sex marriage (Fox News- 11 States Ban Gay Marriage). Also, polygamy is illegal in all nations that have same sex marriage as legal. There are also claims that same sex marriage cases will carry over to polygamy cases. That doesn’t seem to be the case with one country that has legalized same sex marriage has legalized polygamy and has seen little action towards legalization (Bulgaria,Netherlands,South Africa). This country is South Africa who legalized it in 2000, five years before legalizing same sex marriage. So, no connection between there being same sex marriages and there being polygamy. Another example brought up is people marrying relatives. There are twenty-five states that allow people to marry their cousin (Cousin Couples Facts). Yet there is only one state, Massachusetts, which allows same sex marriages. There are a total of 23 states that allow cousins to marry but not homosexuals nor is polygamy allowed. So polygamy and marrying relatives goes on without same sex marriage. With polygamy, it, for the most part, goes on only in places that do not allow homosexuality. Countries that allow same sex marriage also do not support polygamy or any other sort of “inappropriate" sort of marriage. So other “inappropriate" forms of marriage do not follow same sex marriage.

[floridaguy]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Oh yeah. When did you choose to be straight?

I hereby revise my statement: we are all born naturally striaght, and a few decide that they are Homosexuals.

I dony pretend to know why, but It is logical sice all men have testoserone and women estrogen How do you know how other people are born? Is it also logical to you that a straight guy would decide he likes to have sex with men instead of women? Why would someone do this?

[Gus]

Plodder wrote: I hereby revise my statement: we are all born naturally striaght, and a few decide that they are Homosexuals.
Live Science wrote: Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome.

However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from those women who had at least two gay sons—42 mothers in total, or 23 percent—they found something different.

"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."

In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.

[Darth Tiberius]

Liberty4All wrote: thegriffinator13 wrote: where is the sodomites damned to hell option?
Those with a clear mind should reread the story about Sodom & Gomorrah.

And realise it's fiction.