Originally posted by JoHosephat Originally posted by cornoffcob Firstly, don't flame people for being younger, its idiotic. This is a forum, age means absolutely nothing here. No, but maturity does, and sadly his correlates rather close with his age.
secondly, how the hell do you get a way with relating homosexuality with rape, murder, and "whatever other poison of the human mind." Your comparing companionship and love with killing, and forcing sex. If you don't understand the comparison, then you completely missed the point.I understand your comparison quite well. You compare homosexuality in nature to rape, murder, and necrophilia in nature. I don't agree with that in the slightest. If I'm wrong with corelating this comparison between what you said, please enlighten me by what you meant when saying : "Omigawdness, animals are teh gay, it must mean it's natural!" Apparantly he forgot animals are also known to eat their young, overall cannibalism, "murder", rape, necrophilia, and the list goes on. I have to say that you are ridiculous. Undeniably so, sir. I don't care whatever the fuck your faith is and says, Uhm, who said anything about faith? What? You got to be of a religious origin to believe in the malignant nature of homosexuality?You are a man of faith, even your forum nickname is from a ninth century Israelic King, your reference to homosexuality is enough to say you are of some sort of faith because very few that are secular condone homosexuality. Secondly, how in any way is homosexuality malignant? Do you even know what malignant means? It means to show hatred, or to cause harm intentionally. Or to cause harm to ones health. I don't see any way in which Homosexuality fits those qualities. But I do see your passion towards the evildoings of homosexuality to be rather malignant at best.
Homosexuals(by choice or not) in general, are regular people. No, sorry, they are not. They are in fact very irregular, and abnormal. They go against the right way of things.Very irregular? Abnormal? Okay they like other men, oh well. Many are regular people holdingla down stable jobs, in good loving relationships. I don't see anything abnormal with that. NOT RAPISTS and NOT MURDERERS. Never said they were.You inferred that they commited an act such as rapists or murderers. Treat them as you would any one else I am a respecter of people, I judge each human being individually based upon their own decisions and actions.And because they live a different life style you can call them abnormal, irregular, malignant, and against nature. You can call them sinners for their life style. Thats great. I realize that God has taught you to be a kind accepting loving person. Go on through life filled with hate.
and as said by many many other people, "GET OFF OF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE"Many others have told you the same in different topics. You'd think if it was repeated enough that maybe it would get through to some people.... One person is many many? You really need to learn numeric values.
Good day to you sir, I say good day. And a good day to you as well sir.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Originally posted by Draenor Of course, that also gets into the userping of roles in society, heterosexual or homosexual aside....I have a strong suspision about why the suicide rate is so much higher among males than females...and it's not because they are sexually frustrated.
About just as many women are lesbians as men gay, if that is what your implying
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Originally posted by cornoffcob Firstly, don't flame people for being younger, its idiotic. This is a forum, age means absolutely nothing here.
No, but maturity does, and sadly his correlates rather close with his age.
secondly, how the hell do you get a way with relating homosexuality with rape, murder, and "whatever other poison of the human mind." Your comparing companionship and love with killing, and forcing sex.
If you don't understand the comparison, then you completely missed the point.
I understand your comparison quite well. You compare homosexuality in nature to rape, murder, and necrophilia in nature. I don't agree with that in the slightest. If I'm wrong with corelating this comparison between what you said, please enlighten me by what you meant when saying :
"Omigawdness, animals are teh gay, it must mean it's natural!"
Apparantly he forgot animals are also known to eat their young, overall cannibalism, "murder", rape, necrophilia, and the list goes on.
Thank you. So just read it and you'll get the fact I was proving the insanity of trying to somehow normalize homosexuality by saying since animals do it, it must be ok. When I easily rebutted such a point by the aforementioned orange.
Uhm, who said anything about faith? What? You got to be of a religious origin to believe in the malignant nature of homosexuality?
You are a man of faith, even your forum nickname is from a ninth century Israelic King,
Eh, really? I just thought Johosephat as in the saying of, "Jumping Johosephat!"
Couldn't think of anything better at the time.
your reference to homosexuality is enough to say you are of some sort of faith because very few that are secular condone homosexuality.
Don't you mean condemn?
Secondly, how in any way is homosexuality malignant? Do you even know what malignant means? It means to show hatred, or to cause harm intentionally. Or to cause harm to ones health. I don't see any way in which Homosexuality fits those qualities.
I was referring to this, "very dangerous or harmful in influence or effect."
But I do see your passion towards the evildoings of homosexuality to be rather malignant at best.
By passion towards the evildoings of homosexuality?
So you're in admittance that homosexual acts are in fact evildoings?
Very irregular? Abnormal? Okay they like other men, oh well. Many are regular people holdingla down stable jobs, in good loving relationships. I don't see anything abnormal with that.
You kinda got it down pat within the third sentence. You inferred that they commited an act such as rapists or murderers.
Mmm...No I didn't.
And because they live a different life style you can call them abnormal, irregular, malignant, and against nature. You can call them sinners for their life style. Thats great. I realize that God has taught you to be a kind accepting loving person. Go on through life filled with hate.
I see that because you lack any real substance to say you are prone to kneejerk statements and assumptions. You know what they say about assuming right? Well...The "u" part isn't true, just the "me".
Many others have told you the same in different topics. You'd think if it was repeated enough that maybe it would get through to some people....
Can't say it comes to mind, sorry.
Then again, I guess I have a tendency to block out posts that lack any intelligent validity to them.
so I don't think that looking to some emo kids slitting their wrists because nobody loves them really explains the rise in suicide in recent times.
I just realized something, who the hell do you think kills themselves?
I mean are we feudal friggin Japan here and have honor suicides? (haven't seen that many disembowelment suicides)
So yeah, Emo kids that blow their heads off because nobody loves em are many of the suicides... Also emo old folks that have no reason to live any more. (I think old folks had more suicides then teens last year)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Originally posted by lardmouth I'll be honest. In my faith, it's a sin. And, I'd call it abnormal based on the evolutionary design of the two sexes. The penis' deisign, beyond a doubt, is to impregnate the female sex. The female, beyond a doubt, is to carry the child to term. Please don't quote me for debate on this. I'm not interested, and it's not my main point. Regardless of my beliefs above, homosexuals are consenting. There are no victims. They can be just as patriotic, just as compassionate, excellent law-abiding citizens, etc. The ability to free speach, voting, and other rights should never be witheld from them. And violence against them should absolutely never be tolerated. And you're a fool, and at worst a poor christian, to treat a friendly homosexual in a rude manner. You can recognize sin in others (and in yourself) without treating the other (or yourself) badly. As for marriage? Government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. It should be left to private individuals, and their private institutions, to determine such arrangements. Don't want to recognize, subsidize, or have government tell you homosexual marriage is equal? Now you won't. Don't want government telling you, you can't be married (or some similar relationship)? Now you won't. This whole debate would die in the political arena, if it was to cease to exist in the political arena. My only beef with this thread has been the medium. I found the exhibit to be silly. I think there are better arguements than what animals do. I've read of dolphins getting randy with humans swimming with them. It's just not a great arguement to me. The arguement I explain above, a more libertarian ideal, seems to go alot farther to me. Government can be a two-edged blade, you might like what it recognizes now, but you could despise what it recognizes later. Leave these matters outside the scope of government.
QFT, Not really anything I would add or change about what you said. And saying that a gay lifestyle is somehow valid because a few random animals and species have gay sex just shows that both animals and humans can have abnormal tendencies. One doesnt validate the other to me.
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. (Mark Twain)
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush
Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
Originally posted by outfctrl The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
And yet..
We have married couples who don't even have children.
We have married couples that adopt instead.
We have married couples who don't even want children, and/or can't have any.
We have single parents.
We have people who don't even want children at all ( I'm one, fuck that. )
How is allowing homosexuals to marry going to "undermine" families? Oh right, it won't.
You do realize there are homosexuals couples that adopt too of course. And guess what? They can be just as happy and "great" as a straight couples family. I would know, over half of my friends have homosexuals parents. And there's nothing wrong with them at all.
We have married couples who don't even have children. This is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefitthe presence of a father and a mother on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.
We have married couples that adopt instead.
We have married couples who don't even want children, and/or can't have any. See above We have single parents. Explain
We have people who don't even want children at all ( I'm one, fuck that. ) Having babies is not a requirement of marriage. The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is not rooted only in childrearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the State has a compelling interest in supporting it with or without children.
How is allowing homosexuals to marry going to "undermine" families? Oh right, it won't. No human societynot onehas ever tolerated marriage between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. And that is what is at stake here, making marriage between two men or two women as normal as between one man and one woman. It is saying that neither arrangement is any better than the other. As Dr. Dobson writes, only until the last few milliseconds of history and experience (i.e. Canada and some European nations) have we arrogantly believed we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.
This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by the God of nature and natures Godand a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together, and assures every child has a mother and father.
You do realize there are homosexuals couples that adopt too of course. And guess what? They can be just as happy and "great" as a straight couples family. To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here.
I would know, over half of my friends have homosexuals parents. And there's nothing wrong with them at all.
Next! With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.
Originally posted by outfctrl The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
Yeah, its such an important institution that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Originally posted by seabass2003 Originally posted by outfctrl The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
Yeah, its such an important institution that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
That's just the modern world though. I presume 100 years ago it would have been around 1%
Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by LilithIshtar And yet..
We have married couples who don't even have children.This is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefitthe presence of a father and a mother on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.You dont need a father and a mother to grow up and have a happy, normal life. Does it help? Maybe, depends on the child. Did it help me? No, it made things worse. But that doesn't even concern you at all, so I wont be getting into that. We have married couples that adopt instead. We have married couples who don't even want children, and/or can't have any. See aboveSee above. Not everyone wants children anyways. Not all couples who are married want children. We have single parents. ExplainExplain what? Have you never heard of a single father before? Or a single mother?.....Wow. We have people who don't even want children at all ( I'm one, fuck that. ) Having babies is not a requirement of marriage. The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is not rooted only in childrearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the State has a compelling interest in supporting it with or without children.Thats all fine and dandy, but not everyone is ment to like the oppisit gender. If we were, we wouldn't have homosexuals, now would we? Didn't think so. How is allowing homosexuals to marry going to "undermine" families? Oh right, it won't.No human societynot onehas ever tolerated marriage between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. And that is what is at stake here, making marriage between two men or two women as normal as between one man and one woman. It is saying that neither arrangement is any better than the other. As Dr. Dobson writes, only until the last few milliseconds of history and experience (i.e. Canada and some European nations) have we arrogantly believed we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by the God of nature and natures Godand a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together, and assures every child has a mother and father. Than please explain to me why we have single parents. Why we have so many orphans that will NEVER find proper homes at all. Why we have so many un-happy families, divorces and etc. Marriage is marriage. Everyone should have the right to decide who they can marry, not some one else's religion just because they think it's a "sin." when we all don't even follow the same religion! You do realize there are homosexuals couples that adopt too of course. And guess what? They can be just as happy and "great" as a straight couples family.To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here. I laughed at this, alot actualy.A child does NOT need a father and a mother to grow up "properly" and have a happy normal life. Is it helpful? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I said before, it can just depend on the child.And tell me how two same sex parents can not provide these "specials value's" as oppisit gender couples? That's right, you can't. You're not a homosexual, so of course you couldn't even have a clue as to how. I would know, over half of my friends have homosexuals parents. And there's nothing wrong with them at all. Next! With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.Thats right, you're right on the spot! Good thing when I adopt, I plan on letting my child watch the channel called Logo and watch all the homosexual movies he/she wants, read books and etc as much as he/she wants. ( Not the dirty kind! -.- )
If this was done, we'd have children growing up with far less hatred and closed minds than we do now. They would learn that love is love, no matter the gender, and that you have every right to love that person, even if they are the same gender as you.
We're human too after all. And our future children need to see that we should be treated as equals along with everyone else. Our world, our children, would not be as hateful as they are now. And their minds would be more open, instead of being closed off and being fed lies and told what to think.
Here's another thought for you to think about.
I have a cousin, who has two mothers ( lesbians, duh ). My cousin, who is now 15, had a father first. He was a terrible man. He would beat her, call her names such as "whore" and "slut" and would even do things to her that I'd rather not even mention. She hated her life and even tried committing suicide.
Why? Because she had a terrible father. Well, lucky this "man" has gone to jail for child abuse. Also during this time, while bonding closer to her daughter, her mother ( my aunt ) learned that she is indeed a lesbian. She found woman more attractive and even fell inlove with my cousins second mother.
This happened when the cousin was 10. So for five years she has had two mothers. And of my, wouldn't you know, it's been the best five years of her life. Her second mother has a son, who is 8 now, and is also enjoying his life more due to the fact that his mother is now happy and he is in guess what..
A happy family! -gasp-
( True story fyi. )
So food for thought. You don't need a father and a mother to have a happy normal life. I personaly wish I never even had a father ( Lets not go there! XD )
We also have many single parents who raise 1 through whatever number of children. And guess what? They also can lead happy lives, without the need of two parents of two different genders.
I will be one of these single parents. I can't even stand the thought of seeing another person laying in the same bed as me, male or female ( btw, I am a Lesbian. I don't want to get married personaly, but that isn't the point. ) I will be adopting two children, which I hope to both be males.
And there's nothing you can do about it. Why? Because I know I'll be doing my best to keep my future family happy, without a so called "fathered" Why? He isn't needed to complete the family.
If for some off reason you still don't get it, than I greatly pity you.
Thankfully, we do have children being raised well and being taught not to be hateful and to be open minded, even to those who are different than them. I can't wait to see our country a free country again.
And for anyone who is curious, in my religion, we worship the four seasons, the four main elements, and dark and light. And my gods and goddesses also say that being homosexual is perfectly fine, and that we should be given the chance to marry as well. But sadly, that freedom was taken away from us because of prejudice and closed minded narrow humans.
So sorry, I will not be supporting a country who has taken away my rights to be able to marry the one I love. Who knows, maybe I'll meet the right woman and may actualy want to marry her and have children, or adopt with her instead of being a single parent. The possibilites are endless.
I refuse to argue with you anymore. You haven't brought up good enough points to support yourself, only religious ones, which don't stand very well either. So keep in mind, there are people like me in this world, and eventually, you will have to get used to us, wether you like it or not.
Originally posted by outfctrl The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
Gay people adopt children and raise them. Using your logic, denying them marriage would be hurting the prospects of children a gay couple is taking care of.
Beside that, if you look at marriage historically, it has no set definition in time. Look at how many different ways marriage has been interpreted.
Plus, if a gay couple get married it's not going to effect my interpretation of marriage one bit. I'll still be able to marry a woman and live however I want. Even if my next door neighbors are a gay married couple it wouldn't effect my marriage one bit.
Let these American's live the way they want with the equality and freedom they deserve. They're citizens that are just as important and deserve just as equitable treatment as any other citizen.
Originally posted by Draenor Of course, that also gets into the userping of roles in society, heterosexual or homosexual aside....I have a strong suspision about why the suicide rate is so much higher among males than females...and it's not because they are sexually frustrated.
About just as many women are lesbians as men gay, if that is what your implying
That's not what I was implying at all...the thought hadn't even crossed my mind.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
A child does NOT need a father and a mother to grow up "properly" and have a happy normal life. Is it helpful? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I said before, it can just depend on the child. And tell me how two same sex parents can not provide these "specials value's" as oppisit gender couples? That's right, you can't. You're not a homosexual, so of course you couldn't even have a clue as to how.
But can we really say that any of us can play the role of husband or wife, regardless of what nature has endowed us with? Can we really believe that a child will find all she needs from a mother in two loving, nurturing men? Can that child find what he needs from a father in two strong, compassionate women? And this gets us to why same-sex families are actually cruel they intentionally deny every child they touch either their biological mother or father all in the interest of fulfilling adult desire.
And this gets us to why same-sex families are actually cruel they intentionally deny every child they touch either their biological mother or father all in the interest of fulfilling adult desire.
Doesn't the adoption of a child by any kind of couple deny the child their biological mother or father?
I am adopted, my sister is adopted and my brother is adopted. All three of us.
What I am trying to say is a child needs a loving mother and father.
Same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.
I read that headline earlier....honestly if it were up to me then homosexuals would be able to have relationships that are recognized by the government for equal rights etc...it's when they try to stick their heads into my religion, which directly conflicts with their lifestyle, that I take issue.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You dont need a father and a mother to grow up and have a happy, normal life. Does it help? Maybe, depends on the child. Did it help me? No, it made things worse. But that doesn't even concern you at all, so I wont be getting into that.
So because you had a father and your life kinda blew with him in it, that validates your claims?
Exactly...
Next.
Thats all fine and dandy, but not everyone is ment to like the oppisit gender. If we were, we wouldn't have homosexuals, now would we? Didn't think so.
Logical fallacy 101. Congratulations, you just spewed simplistic, but utter, BS.
Want to try again? Maybe use some of that brain power?
Next.
Than please explain to me why we have single parents. Why we have so many orphans that will NEVER find proper homes at all. Why we have so many un-happy families, divorces and etc.
Uhh, people get divorced, parents die, people don't learn how to get along.
Modern society is egocentric, self-serving, and hedonistic.
Marriage is marriage. Everyone should have the right to decide who they can marry, not some one else's religion just because they think it's a "sin." when we all don't even follow the same religion!
Doesn't matter whether you follow the same religion or not. The nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. I'm given freedom of religion, you're given freedom of religion. But at the end of the day, Judeo-Christian principles influenced the law-making of this nation.
And even going back further, Plato, who lived in one of the most hedonistic, sexually promiscuous/ambiguous nations for the time, saw the need to sanctify marriage and for in his opinion, that homosexuals should after awhile, come to terms to put away their egocentric desires, and to marry(opposite sex), and have a family.
I laughed at this, alot actualy.
Hahahaha!
A child does NOT need a father and a mother to grow up "properly" and have a happy normal life. Is it helpful? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I said before, it can just depend on the child.
To have a happy life?
Of course not, happiness is ones state of mind. The situation does not need to be ideal for the child to be happy.
But a child is meant to grow up in the nurture of a father and a mother, that simple.
And tell me how two same sex parents can not provide these "specials value's" as oppisit gender couples? That's right, you can't. You're not a homosexual, so of course you couldn't even have a clue as to how.
Female, female...
Male, male...
Not female, male, or male, female. k? Simple deduction. You're a big girl, you can understand, I'm sure.
Thats right, you're right on the spot! Good thing when I adopt, I plan on letting my child watch the channel called Logo and watch all the homosexual movies he/she wants, read books and etc as much as he/she wants. ( Not the dirty kind! -.- )
You think that saturating them in a homosexual culture will somehow force them to be friendly towards homosexuals?
They'll be more familiar with the lifestyle, but thinking that saturating the kid in the lifestyle, will make him accept it, is asinine.
If this was done, we'd have children growing up with far less hatred and closed minds than we do now.
Sassymolassey(sp?), sorry, but I got to steal this quote from you: "Don't become so open minded your brain falls out."(Paraphrased)
Nuff said.
They would learn that love is love, no matter the gender, and that you have every right to love that person, even if they are the same gender as you.
Ok, please stop with that BS. No one ever said anything about love. This is a talk about the homosexual lifestyle, k?
You can love someone of the same gender and not be gay.
We're human too after all. And our future children need to see that we should be treated as equals along with everyone else. Our world, our children, would not be as hateful as they are now. And their minds would be more open, instead of being closed off and being fed lies and told what to think.
Your irony is overwhelming. OVERWHELMING!
muahaha.
Here's another thought for you to think about.
I have a cousin, who has two mothers ( lesbians, duh ). My cousin, who is now 15, had a father first. He was a terrible man. He would beat her, call her names such as "whore" and "slut" and would even do things to her that I'd rather not even mention. She hated her life and even tried committing suicide.
Why? Because she had a terrible father. Well, lucky this "man" has gone to jail for child abuse. Also during this time, while bonding closer to her daughter, her mother ( my aunt ) learned that she is indeed a lesbian. She found woman more attractive and even fell inlove with my cousins second mother.
Hrmm...Wife has abusive jerk of a husband. Ends up lesbian. But wait, no! She was one all along! SHE JUST DIDN"T KNOW!
Ooo, frighteningly familiar, and overly cliche story.
This happened when the cousin was 10. So for five years she has had two mothers. And of my, wouldn't you know, it's been the best five years of her life. Her second mother has a son, who is 8 now, and is also enjoying his life more due to the fact that his mother is now happy and he is in guess what..
A happy family! -gasp-
( True story fyi. )
Is there a...Point?
Oh, right, happiness.
Uhh, so she went from chaos and abuse to relative peace. This validates your point howww?
So food for thought. You don't need a father and a mother to have a happy normal life. I personaly wish I never even had a father ( Lets not go there! XD )
She isn't living a normal life though.
Sorry...
We also have many single parents who raise 1 through whatever number of children. And guess what? They also can lead happy lives, without the need of two parents of two different genders.
Children with the traditional nuclear family, one mother, one father, end up being in a more stable, nurturing enviroment.
FACT!
I will be one of these single parents. I can't even stand the thought of seeing another person laying in the same bed as me, male or female ( btw, I am a Lesbian. I don't want to get married personaly, but that isn't the point. )
So you're anti-social. Good for you.
I will be adopting two children, which I hope to both be males.
And there's nothing you can do about it. Why?
The judiciary is my future. So don't be so assured in that chica.
Because I know I'll be doing my best to keep my future family happy, without a so called "fathered" Why? He isn't needed to complete the family.
If for some off reason you still don't get it, than I greatly pity you.
Uh oh! I guess I'm the new target of pity!
Thankfully, we do have children being raised well and being taught not to be hateful and to be open minded, even to those who are different than them. I can't wait to see our country a free country again.
Ahaha. Do you even know the history of the country?
Like I don't know...For example they use to execute homosexuals?
You are so ironic. Please...Continue! You humor me!
And for anyone who is curious, in my religion, we worship the four seasons, the four main elements, and dark and light. And my gods and goddesses also say that being homosexual is perfectly fine, and that we should be given the chance to marry as well. But sadly, that freedom was taken away from us because of prejudice and closed minded narrow humans.
Well luckily, the nation wasn't founded upon your religion!
So sorry, I will not be supporting a country who has taken away my rights to be able to marry the one I love. Who knows, maybe I'll meet the right woman and may actualy want to marry her and have children, or adopt with her instead of being a single parent. The possibilites are endless.
Then move. Go to...Denmark or somesuch. They're quite liberal there.
I refuse to argue with you anymore. You haven't brought up good enough points to support yourself, only religious ones, which don't stand very well either. So keep in mind, there are people like me in this world, and eventually, you will have to get used to us, wether you like it or not.
He never used religion in his points.
Secondly, there will always be certain ilk with a world, no one needs to get used to it.
Johosophat...although you are correct that her story about the girl who grew up with an abusive father and then became a lesbean is hardly a valid argument for her case(what a shock, she doesn't like men)...you mostly just disputed her arguments with pot shots and personal opinion...Though I suppose there is little else to argue but personal opinion in this case, because science is basically out the window because of ethical concerns with studies that are attempted.
While I disagree with LilithIshtar on a personal level, and agree that her points are mostly conjecture and insanely obvious results from bad circumstance...you hardly did anything to actually prove her wrong.
LilithIshtar...if it were up to me, you wouldn't be adopting those kids, but it isn't up to me.
If it were up to me, you would be allowed to enter government sanctioned unions with any member of the human race...but it isn't up to me.
If it were up to me, my Christian church would never bend and yeild and eventually cave into the homosexual demand for marriage inside of our churches...and to a certain extent, that IS up to me...and I will probably become physically ill the day that it does happen, and it already has begun to happen in some areas, and it's truly sadening to see people turn away so strongly to the doctrin of their own religion, in order to do what is contemporary and "popular" when the Bible is supposed to be a timeless reminder of how to live.
I am glad that it isn't all up to me, and I disagree that you will be able to raise those children with the same effectiveness as a real family...and yes, I just said that what you will have will not be a real family, that is my opinion...a single mother raising two adopted kids isn't a real family, it's a woman who wants to experience motherhood without any of the help from the outside, and maybe wants to help some kids, which is great...but it isn't the only way you could be helping those kids.
I believe that humans have an inate knowledge of God, and some people deny that...but to each his own, we will see who is right when we are all gone from the world...my bet is on my religion, yours is on yours. But what you described as your religion is Wicka(sp?) Or the "earth religion"...I'm not sure why you didn't just come out and say what the name of your religion is, it was almost as if you were ashamed to say it, perhaps afraid of riticule, I don't know.
Anyway, I'm rambling...I'm not going to take any of this back, so do with it what you will...While I agree with JoHosephat's overall point, I simply felt that he didn't do a very good job of conveying his thoughts...and I happened to feel like giving mine. I've had a long night, and have been helping an agnostic friend of mine through some hard times...it can be a bit draining.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by JoHosephat Doesn't matter whether you follow the same religion or not. The nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. I'm given freedom of religion, you're given freedom of religion. But at the end of the day, Judeo-Christian principles influenced the law-making of this nation. And even going back further, Plato, who lived in one of the most hedonistic, sexually promiscuous/ambiguous nations for the time, saw the need to sanctify marriage and for in his opinion, that homosexuals should after awhile, come to terms to put away their egocentric desires, and to marry(opposite sex), and have a family.
I have grown so tired of hearing about this "Judeo-Christian" founding principle B.S.
First off, why don't you explain to me how "Judeo-Christians" could ever found a country and agree on anything in the first place. Christians from that period mostly looked at Jews as the killers of Christ. Do I need to remind you that Jews do not look at Christ as their savior or the Messiah? And Christians don't expect anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah to even have a chance of getting into heaven.
Protestants in the new world looked at Jews the same way they looked at Deists of the time. As evil. Do some research and find out what Protestants were writing about Thomas Jefferson at the time he and the rest of his Deist friends were drawing up the founding documents for America. I have a feeling you're going to more than surprised at the venom the Protestants spit towards Jefferson and his kind (Franklin, Paine, etc.). There was absolutely no love lost between Protestants and Deists. That holds true even today.
And as far as these "egocentric homosexuals" go and your demand for them to put away their desires. Why don't you put away your desires to use the government to try to avert peoples actions that you find offensive and try accepting the fact that for equal freedom there has to be tolerance. Without that freedom for everyone is never going to be reality. And I also wonder why you can't put your egocentric opinions aside and understand that these people don't want to marry the opposite sex. They want to marry who they love.
Originally posted by JoHosephat Originally posted by LilithIshtar
And even going back further, Plato, who lived in one of the most hedonistic, sexually promiscuous/ambiguous nations for the time, saw the need to sanctify marriage and for in his opinion, that homosexuals should after awhile, come to terms to put away their egocentric desires, and to marry(opposite sex), and have a family.
I'd like to see where you got that about Plato from. Especially since from what I've read there was no Greek word for homosexual in Plato's time.
**EDIT**
I did a search on Plato and homosexuality and came up with this...
"Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle."
And I also came up with this...
"The term homosexuality was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert."
So, I'm not even totally sure how the Bible could have been translated correctly when someone tries to put a modern word on an ancient text. I've read plenty that says the Bible of modern times is a complete mistranslations when it comes to the issue of same sex partners. It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love. And to take gay prostitution and extrapolate gay love from it would be the same as taking verses from the Bible about straight prostitutes and say straights are wrong.
Originally posted by gnomexxx It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love.
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by DraenorOriginally posted by gnomexxx It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
We can play that game back even further. Do you know where Christian principles come from? Do you know where Judaic principles come from? They come from people millennia before them. Those principles are rehashed from religions gone past. Even the idea of monotheism isn't a Jewish principle. That came from Zoroastrianism. Which is also where most of your Bible stories come from. Again, rehashed.
To say our country is based on Christian values is denying where those values came from. Why not say our country was based on Zoroastrian values? Or any of the other religions that Christianity borrowed from? Not to mention the ideas of our government came from Greek and Roman times. Are we going to say that because we use the form of government that the Greeks and Roman's gave us we are based on polytheistic values?
The values this country is based on are human rights values. We created our own set of values from those that we call American values. Those are values that cross all religious lines. They are the basic rights that we all deserve. And those are what the founding fathers were trying to protect. And I feel like they were doing it in a sort of weird secular way. They may mention God, but what God? Thomas Jefferson's God? Thomas Paines God? Ben Franklin's God? Or the Baptist God? Or was it the Anglican God? Remember, the evangelicals had damned the Anglican's to hell as well.
And, I was talking more about the Deists of the time in what I wrote. They had the ideas of personal freedom and a country founded on the progress of new ideas and philosophies. The evangelicals of the time were adamantly against their ideas.
If you want to learn more about it there is a book called "Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt" that I read. I recommend it. It spells out exactly what the evangelicals of the time thought about most of our founding fathers. And the founding fathers didn't have much love for the evangelicals either.
Comments
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
I mean are we feudal friggin Japan here and have honor suicides? (haven't seen that many disembowelment suicides)
So yeah, Emo kids that blow their heads off because nobody loves em are many of the suicides... Also emo old folks that have no reason to live any more. (I think old folks had more suicides then teens last year)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. (Mark Twain)
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. President Bush
Sorry all, I have to agree with the President on this one.
We have married couples who don't even have children.
We have married couples that adopt instead.
We have married couples who don't even want children, and/or can't have any.
We have single parents.
We have people who don't even want children at all ( I'm one, fuck that. )
How is allowing homosexuals to marry going to "undermine" families? Oh right, it won't.
You do realize there are homosexuals couples that adopt too of course. And guess what? They can be just as happy and "great" as a straight couples family. I would know, over half of my friends have homosexuals parents. And there's nothing wrong with them at all.
Next!
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
That's just the modern world though.
I presume 100 years ago it would have been around 1%
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Gay people adopt children and raise them. Using your logic, denying them marriage would be hurting the prospects of children a gay couple is taking care of.
Beside that, if you look at marriage historically, it has no set definition in time. Look at how many different ways marriage has been interpreted.
Plus, if a gay couple get married it's not going to effect my interpretation of marriage one bit. I'll still be able to marry a woman and live however I want. Even if my next door neighbors are a gay married couple it wouldn't effect my marriage one bit.
Let these American's live the way they want with the equality and freedom they deserve. They're citizens that are just as important and deserve just as equitable treatment as any other citizen.
===============================
That's not what I was implying at all...the thought hadn't even crossed my mind.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Doesn't the adoption of a child by any kind of couple deny the child their biological mother or father?
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I am adopted, my sister is adopted and my brother is adopted. All three of us.
What I am trying to say is a child needs a loving mother and father.
Same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.
I dunno...i just am a firm believer that Rosie O donnel shouldn't be allowed to have any kids...ever.
I truly feel bad for that woman's kids.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well, looks like the gay people will get what they want. In New Jersey at least.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Johosophat...although you are correct that her story about the girl who grew up with an abusive father and then became a lesbean is hardly a valid argument for her case(what a shock, she doesn't like men)...you mostly just disputed her arguments with pot shots and personal opinion...Though I suppose there is little else to argue but personal opinion in this case, because science is basically out the window because of ethical concerns with studies that are attempted.
While I disagree with LilithIshtar on a personal level, and agree that her points are mostly conjecture and insanely obvious results from bad circumstance...you hardly did anything to actually prove her wrong.
LilithIshtar...if it were up to me, you wouldn't be adopting those kids, but it isn't up to me.
If it were up to me, you would be allowed to enter government sanctioned unions with any member of the human race...but it isn't up to me.
If it were up to me, my Christian church would never bend and yeild and eventually cave into the homosexual demand for marriage inside of our churches...and to a certain extent, that IS up to me...and I will probably become physically ill the day that it does happen, and it already has begun to happen in some areas, and it's truly sadening to see people turn away so strongly to the doctrin of their own religion, in order to do what is contemporary and "popular" when the Bible is supposed to be a timeless reminder of how to live.
I am glad that it isn't all up to me, and I disagree that you will be able to raise those children with the same effectiveness as a real family...and yes, I just said that what you will have will not be a real family, that is my opinion...a single mother raising two adopted kids isn't a real family, it's a woman who wants to experience motherhood without any of the help from the outside, and maybe wants to help some kids, which is great...but it isn't the only way you could be helping those kids.
I believe that humans have an inate knowledge of God, and some people deny that...but to each his own, we will see who is right when we are all gone from the world...my bet is on my religion, yours is on yours. But what you described as your religion is Wicka(sp?) Or the "earth religion"...I'm not sure why you didn't just come out and say what the name of your religion is, it was almost as if you were ashamed to say it, perhaps afraid of riticule, I don't know.
Anyway, I'm rambling...I'm not going to take any of this back, so do with it what you will...While I agree with JoHosephat's overall point, I simply felt that he didn't do a very good job of conveying his thoughts...and I happened to feel like giving mine. I've had a long night, and have been helping an agnostic friend of mine through some hard times...it can be a bit draining.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I have grown so tired of hearing about this "Judeo-Christian" founding principle B.S.
First off, why don't you explain to me how "Judeo-Christians" could ever found a country and agree on anything in the first place. Christians from that period mostly looked at Jews as the killers of Christ. Do I need to remind you that Jews do not look at Christ as their savior or the Messiah? And Christians don't expect anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah to even have a chance of getting into heaven.
Protestants in the new world looked at Jews the same way they looked at Deists of the time. As evil. Do some research and find out what Protestants were writing about Thomas Jefferson at the time he and the rest of his Deist friends were drawing up the founding documents for America. I have a feeling you're going to more than surprised at the venom the Protestants spit towards Jefferson and his kind (Franklin, Paine, etc.). There was absolutely no love lost between Protestants and Deists. That holds true even today.
And as far as these "egocentric homosexuals" go and your demand for them to put away their desires. Why don't you put away your desires to use the government to try to avert peoples actions that you find offensive and try accepting the fact that for equal freedom there has to be tolerance. Without that freedom for everyone is never going to be reality. And I also wonder why you can't put your egocentric opinions aside and understand that these people don't want to marry the opposite sex. They want to marry who they love.
I'd like to see where you got that about Plato from. Especially since from what I've read there was no Greek word for homosexual in Plato's time.
**EDIT**
I did a search on Plato and homosexuality and came up with this...
"Plato, in the
Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex
lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes,
formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for
their valor in battle."
And I also came up with this...
"The term homosexuality was coined in the late
19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert."
So, I'm not even totally sure how the Bible could have been translated correctly when someone tries to put a modern word on an ancient text. I've read plenty that says the Bible of modern times is a complete mistranslations when it comes to the issue of same sex partners. It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love. And to take gay prostitution and extrapolate gay love from it would be the same as taking verses from the Bible about straight prostitutes and say straights are wrong.
===============================
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
We can play that game back even further. Do you know where Christian principles come from? Do you know where Judaic principles come from? They come from people millennia before them. Those principles are rehashed from religions gone past. Even the idea of monotheism isn't a Jewish principle. That came from Zoroastrianism. Which is also where most of your Bible stories come from. Again, rehashed.
To say our country is based on Christian values is denying where those values came from. Why not say our country was based on Zoroastrian values? Or any of the other religions that Christianity borrowed from? Not to mention the ideas of our government came from Greek and Roman times. Are we going to say that because we use the form of government that the Greeks and Roman's gave us we are based on polytheistic values?
The values this country is based on are human rights values. We created our own set of values from those that we call American values. Those are values that cross all religious lines. They are the basic rights that we all deserve. And those are what the founding fathers were trying to protect. And I feel like they were doing it in a sort of weird secular way. They may mention God, but what God? Thomas Jefferson's God? Thomas Paines God? Ben Franklin's God? Or the Baptist God? Or was it the Anglican God? Remember, the evangelicals had damned the Anglican's to hell as well.
And, I was talking more about the Deists of the time in what I wrote. They had the ideas of personal freedom and a country founded on the progress of new ideas and philosophies. The evangelicals of the time were adamantly against their ideas.
If you want to learn more about it there is a book called "Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt" that I read. I recommend it. It spells out exactly what the evangelicals of the time thought about most of our founding fathers. And the founding fathers didn't have much love for the evangelicals either.
Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt