What Do You Want Us Gays To Do ?

Finwe · November 2008

Originally posted by porgie

Originally posted by Torak

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Torak

what exactly are you trying to tell us?

My ethics command me to be against the homosexual agenda?

Ok, but homosexuality is not a choice.

Ethics have nothing to do with homosexuality any more then it's a moral or ethical choice of how tall you are.

What is the "homosexual agenda"? To be treated no different then anyone else and not be discriminated against? Who has the moral issue here? The people who prevent that or the ones who want it?

I think you need to go back and read some of that Bible you hold so dear. Nowhere in it does Jesus say to be intolerant and oppress those who are different from you and deny them equality.

Although I don't believe in any religion Jesus was a pretty good guy who made a lot of sense. Its really a shame that religion has twisted his message of peace, love and tolerance into what it is today.

At one time the Christians where the champions of the oppressed, not so much these days.

There is a story in the Bible where Jesus heals a Roman soldiers male lover. If he were against homosexuality, I think he would have said something at that event to make his statement clear. But he didn't. So, I imagine to him, it really made no difference about what kind of love he saw, just that he saw love.

You know, that's flat out intellectual dishonesty. It did not even hint to a homosexual relationship, and the greek word pais was continuously used throughout the new testament to denote servitute(a servant).

Here's one instance of the word pais being used

Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Mat 12:18 Behold my (pais)servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

declaredemer · November 2008

Originally posted by Mylon

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Mylon

Question, in the story where Jesus encounters a man that identifies himself as Legion, how do you interpret that? Is the man possessed, crazy, or something else?

Christ was silent on the issue of homosexuality, no matter how post-liberal, liberal, conservative, anti-conservative, or otherwise theologians "interpret" the story.

I interpret is as written, which is a story of faith and healing. Nothing - at all- about gays.

Aside: at first blush, I thought you were referring to "Legion" - for we are many.

That's exactly the story I was referring to.

I am not scholar on possession. I read on book, written by the Chief Exorcist at the Vatican, and it might be the ONLY book in my lifetime I did NOT finish reading.

I know from reading from the Chief Exorcist in Rome that demons are fallen angles and exist in "the void" - and their descriptions of hell are not the least interesting but make you faithful. Haunting.

Possession is real - and real prices are paid for it. From my brief, and very brief, reading on the subject, it requires an acceptance to be possessed. It requires an obliteration of one's identity for that of the demon's, and it is not uncommon to find those that undergo sex change operations to either have (1) psychological problems or (2) possession. It is an accepted erasure of one's own identity - being, really.

Satanist covens, and other cults, are extremely violent and dangerous. Many of these covens will have "specialization" of ogres, homosexuality activty, or lesbian activity. The devil is an equal opportunit employer regarding sexuality. Known as "Black Masses" every week they engage in rituals that are, indeed, anti-Christ. Typically, penalty for leaving a coven is - death, often by stabbing. Many covens, and I apologize I have no links available, will cremate the "sacrafice" or the victim by fire or incineration. It has been shown they have used crematoria for their very, very dark deeds.

Possession exists when one has an emotional, social, and psychological aimlessness. Or, rather, one is vulnerable to it - when one's self-interest is so dominant. The question raised in that kind of culture is, "What can you do for ME?" What can my parents, my friends, my enemies, my government, my country do for ME? Obviously, no one could possibly answer that to satisfy the question.

It is understood that demons "prowl around like a lion seeking whom he can devour."

One possessed is confronted with a bodiless, genderless creature. "The Father of Lies and a Murderer from the Beginning." Lucifer was the archangel who led a rebellion against God with legions of angels and was condemned to Hell. The hell, if I did not mention, is "the void." Outright separation. They are known as demons.

We understand, in God's mysterious providence, Lucifer and demons have liberty. They are allowed to thwart God's will. Scripture tells us, however, Good or Evil, God's will be done. If YOU serve evil, you will serve God's will. Good or bad, right or wrong, God's will be done. No escaping it - not even through our free will, demon or human.

Hatred of life, happiness, truth, beauty is the celebration of Satan.

No will capable of identify evil can resist evil. Ignorance is camo for evil.

The plight of the possessed, or evil, can been seen in context such as Pentagrams, broken crosses, and Satanist graffiti.

The Order of Exorcist, however, has been removed from the ordination of of priests. Most Catholic dioceses have not official Exorcist, and the Rite of Exorcism is becoming less known.

As to how one becomes possessed:

one does not become possessed "suddenly"'
possession is an ongoing process;
and it impacts the soul and mind.

It is a voluntary collaboration by an individual with one of the bodiless and genderless creatures - demons.

Factors that could lend one's self to possession - Ouija Board, Spiritual Seance, Transcendental Meditation, and the Enneagram Method. A person is an "aspiring vacuum" by mind and will to possession. Ouija shows this opening by two words:

French - Oui - Yes

German - Ja - Yes

Yes, yes.

The Enneagram Method is the most harmful and common method. I will not detail it here. Enneagram, of course, means "nine points" or "marks" - within a circle. It represents the lotus as a symbol of the endeavour to unite the self.

"Perfect" possession is when a person is absolutely controlled by evil and gives no outward, none, indication of that possession. None at all. No hint - whatsoever. No sense of the demonic presence residing within. The person will not cringe at the sight of a crucifix or a Rosary. They will not bridle at the touch of Holy Water or hesitate to discuss religion. Usually, they, when convicted of crimes, will acknowledge the "badness" of it and request death.

How are you fallen from Heaven,

Lucifer! Son of the Dawn!

Cut down to the ground!

And once you dominated the peoples!

Didn't you say to yourself:

I will be as high as Heaven!

I will be more exalted than the stars of God!

I will, indeed, be supreme leader!

In the privileged places!

I will be higher than the Skies!

I will be the same as the Most High God!

But you shall be brought down to Hell,

to the bottom of its pit.

And all who see you,

will despite you ...

-Isaish 14:12-19

... "Lord! In your name, even evil spirits are under our control!"

And He said to them: "I saw Satan falling like

lighting from Heaven.

You know: I gave you power ....

over all the strength of Satan ....

Nevertheless, don't take pride in that fact

that spirits are subject to your control,

but, rather, because you belong to God ...

The Father sas give Me all power....."

-Luke 10:17-22

Process

Church autorities require thorough examinations, including medical doctors AND psychiatrists.

Exorcism is ONLY done in the name of, aby the authority and power, of Jesus of Nazareth.

Aside: the Church's examination, outside doctors, is rigorous.

The exorcist must ensure the assistants (often family members and a doctor and/or psychiatrist) are not consciously guilty of personal sins at the time of exoricism, or they can be attacked by an evil spirit, and any sin will be used as a weapon.

The demon is intensely cunning, supremely intelligent,, but also capable of crass stupidity.

The evil spirit knows the most secret and intimiate details of lives of everyone. The demon, however, will have gaps in knowledge. (Sometimes I think it is questionable whether the demon just reads the mind, and conscience, of the person - including subconscience).

The priest peforms an utmost sacraficial virtue: his owns sins, blunders, and weaknesses will be shouted for all to hear. His loveliest memories are fingered by ultimate filth and contempt. It is a stream of non-restrained attack, abuse, physical violence, biting, etc.

Many Exorcists are themselves possessed, hospitalized, and killed in the process. Most will vomit, uncontrobablly, during the ritual.

Confusion - the weapon of evil. Confusion of everything - anything.

Finwe · November 2008

Originally posted by frodus

Jesus was not silent about homosexuality. Indeed, Jesus not only spoke to his apostles about homosexuality, Jesus also promised salvation for homosexuals.

In the book of St. Luke in chapter 17, Jesus discusses the second coming with his disciples. To enlighten his apostles, in verse 34 of chapter 17, Jesus claims, "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

This, then, is the mystery, the parable of his telling, for Jesus used this example of two men in one bed for his disciples to understand. Jesus could have said, "a man and woman in one bed", or "two men fishing", or two men doing anything else but being in bed. Jesus does go on to state in verse 36 that, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Why then did Jesus specifically say two men in one bed? Why this example? Jesus knew the truth.

In the time of Jesus, homosexuality was condemned, punishable by death. The law of Moses so stated (Leviticus 20:13). This law, however, in no way diminished homosexuality, and this is the point that Jesus wished to make to his followers. That even the most hated and reviled, those condemned by the law, were subject to salvation by a loving God; not bound by the laws of Moses.

True, Jesus did not state the the two men had engaged in or were having sex, yet neither is there to be found a denial in the illustration. Jesus knew this "abomination" had been practiced,and would continue thousands of years following his death. Jesus spoke not only of past homosexuals, or homosexuals contemporary to his time, but Jesus also included those homosexuals yet to live.

Jesus, on the other hand, is the living Son of God. He could speak not but the truth.

In all those verses the word man, as well as woman, was inserted into the scripture to allow more grammatical fluidity. The correct word translation is, " I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

Fishermage · November 2008

Originally posted by Mylon

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Sharajat

I don't see how the fact that the book is an incomprehensible muddle that even the true believers who think its the word of God can't understand is being brought up as a good thing here.

I didn't bring it up as a good thing or a bad thing. I'm simply stating that my interpretation of the bible is at odds with other people's interpretations.

Jesus' love is pretty limited - the man died a long time ago, if he ever really existed in the first place.

So, why are we still talking about him? The messenger may have died, but the message perseveres.

As for what people have done in his name, well, that hasn't exactly been the most loving record. If you have an airplane design that keeps getting built, blowing up, and killing everyone involved, after a few such explosions you stop blaming the people building the airplane, and start blaming the design.

refer to: "...all factions of christianity want to bind their beliefs to his message. They want to marginalize his teachings with their movements."

I'm certainly no exception. I have formed my opinion of what Jesus promoted and was willing to die for. I will only offer my opinion, formed through my interpretation of his message.

I'd say Christianity has more than a few such explosions in its history. Maybe the fact that its incomprehensible and can be read however you want isn't as good as all that?

The message and teachings are what they are. The way people interpret them governs their actions. I interpret them as inclusion, acceptance, and forgiveness. This doesn't mean that I may not be wrong. Perhaps Jesus intended for people to go out and kill in his name. Who's to say? As I've said, don't expect people not to pass the scripture through their personal filter. I just don't happen to prescribe to that theory.

I've been craving a good theology debate in a while, so how about it...

You say that you interpret the message to mean inclusion, acceptance, and forgiveness. What about people that are walking down an unrighteous path? The Bible lays out a pretty long list of sins. Jesus didn't say they're all okay now.

And, what happens to sinners? Well, a terrible and eternal fate. To allow someone to continue walking down that path and not step in and try and set them straight (bad pun) would be a great offense to your fellow man, turning them away in the tiny window they have in this life to save them from eternal damnation. To accept a sinner for what they are would be awful thing indeed, because you give them temporary comfort in this life but turn away and leave them to their eternal fate. Many may not know how to respond to such sinners, and most shun them to try and isolate themselves in case they catch the sin, resulting in much of what we see now. But there is a reason they are not readily accepted, and that is because that would be encouraged on their sinning path, and being partly responsible for an eternal fate is the same as being fully responsible, due to its infinite nature.

Christianity is a scary thing.

In other words, Christ's work on the cross was a failure, and He did not reconcile all to Himself. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Everyone sins every day of His life. Either all are forgiven, or none are.

When an infinite being atones for the finite sinfulness of man, the infinite wins every time, and has some left over.

patri0tz · November 2008

Originally posted by CrueKnight

I agree we are all equal in God's eyes, but note what Romans 3:10-11 says:
"10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
I do not believe I am better than anyone else, I just believe that the Bible is true and that many others are lost and don't want to believe in it. If you don't want to believe it I don't fuss at you.
But I do believe that God wrote the WHOLE Bible, not 6-7 authors like qazyman and Porgie suggested.
2 Timothy 2:16 says:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
and 2 Peter 1:21:
"21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
So that is what I believe. I will not condone anyone who disagrees.

Just FYI - 2 Timothy 3:16 has nothing to do with the new testament. Paul was a Pharisee that studied under one of the most respected rabbis in Jewish history, and the only Scripture that existed at the time of Paul's writing was the Tanakh (the Law & Prophets, a.k.a. old testament). The gospels and Acts were historical accounts from the perspectives of their writers, and the rest of the Catholic-chosen inclusions were letters to individuals and churches.

That doesn't mean that the writing in the new testament isn't divinely inspired (obviously, the entire Christian & Messianic faiths depend on it), but Paul wasn't referring to the letters he was writing when he talked about Scripture.

Scandalphon · November 2008

I don't see what religon is doing here, Religion didn't invented marriage, so I consider the Church should have nothing to say about this, we're talking about human beeings and I can't see why we sould have differents rights, homosexuals have feelings, eat, and work like every other people, this is so retarded to see them as something else, it's like blaming someone because he prefers soup than bread, I mean, come on...if you can't understand this or don't want to, then there's nothing to do , if you have faith in god, this is your problem but acting like that seems more like evil to me.

What if homosexual were more than heterosexuals and that they wouldn't give the same rights to you ? Don't say you'd be okay with it, and that you wouldn't like people to care about it, I wouldn't believe you.

Fishermage · November 2008

Originally posted by Scandalphon

I don't see what religon is doing here, Religion didn't invented marriage, so I consider the Church should have nothing to say about this, we're talking about human beeings and I can't see why we sould have differents rights, homosexuals have feelings, eat, and work like every other people, this is so retarded to see them as something else, it's like blaming someone because he prefers soup than bread, I mean, come on...if you can't understand this or don't want to, then there's nothing to do , if you have faith in god, this is your problem but acting like that seems more like evil to me.
What if homosexual were more than heterosexuals and that they wouldn't give the same rights to you ? Don't say you'd be okay with it, and that you wouldn't like people to care about it, I wouldn't believe you.

Actually, it seems that religion DID invent marriage, or at least marriage, in it's earliest incarnations, was inseperable from the religious practices of the people.

Religion didn't invent people hooking up and pairing up, but religion, being where the first contracts and laws were spelled out among people, created marriage as an institution in the earliest societies. Civil Marriages were at first the product of societies where church and state were one, so originally, even civil marriages were also religious.

The notion of a purely secular society is a very new one on the historical stage.

As I have said before, I favor same-sex marriages, but that is no reason to falsify the history of marriage.

altairzq · November 2008

lol religion didn't invent marriage, economics did.

Fishermage · November 2008

Originally posted by altairzq

lol religion didn't invent marriage, economics did.

BOTH had a hand in what came to be known as marriage. To say "religion didn't" and then add another factor is just silly.

Most things in existence have multiple causes. To argue against one cause by adding another is no way to make a legitimate case. It's like saying, sex doesn't produce babies, fertilization does.

declaredemer · November 2008

Originally posted by altairzq

lol religion didn't invent marriage, economics did.

If you study the tax code, you know that alimony or support payments are tax deductible.

Get divorced?

Get a tax deduction. LOL.

Edit: Child support, however, is non-deductible.

Fail to pay alimony or child support?

Not even a trust, not even those from Alaska or Nevada (or Cook Islands), can shield your assets or payments from claims.

Impacatus · November 2008

Pretty difficult to determine what exactly caused the beginning of marriage, seeing as how we weren't there. But if religion did universally play a role, we know if was many religions, not just one. Cultures all over the world have vastly different ideas about marriage and sexuality.

Why should marriage be legislated according to the beliefs of just one religion?

Maybe civil unions are the solution, but then all marriages should be civil unions. The word "marriage" can keep whatever cultural/religious meaning people want.

Fishermage · November 2008

Originally posted by Impacatus

Pretty difficult to determine what exactly caused the beginning of marriage, seeing as how we weren't there. But if religion did universally play a role, we know if was many religions, not just one. Cultures all over the world have vastly different ideas about marriage and sexuality.
Why should marriage be legislated according to the beliefs of just one religion?
Maybe civil unions are the solution, but then all marriages should be civil unions. The word "marriage" can keep whatever cultural/religious meaning people want.

I agree, but the person above was making a false statement, so I felt I should help steer the discussion to be more in line with the facts.

Actually, marriage is now being legislated according to the beliefs of one faction of one religion, not one religion. There are Christians who support gay marriage, myself being one of them. Those who support it should be free to perform those ceremonies.

slask777 · January 2009

I personally couldn't care less if gays and lesbians is allowed to marry or not. I don't see the harm in it, but I also don't believe in marriage at all. Marriage is a christian tradition and I don't believe in religion either. Ofcourse you can marry under the state aswell and skip all this religious mumbo-jumbo but it's still meaningless to me.

There is one thing I got a problem with when it comes to gay/lesbian marriage though. If they are allowed to marry they would get the same rights as heterosexual couples and that means they will be allowed to adopt children of their own.

I've heard the argument. Gays and lesbians should have the same right as heterosexuals but what both sides seems to forget is, it's not about gay or lesbian rights, it's about the rights of the children. What would a child benefit more from? Having a mom/mom or dad/dad or having influence from both sexes? In my head, the heterosexuals win this one. Yes I know, there are divorces which can tear a child in two, but I know how merciless children are. They will be bullied cause they got a mom/mom or dad/dad most of the time.

Another thing that most probably will happen to these children is that they will experience gender confusion, depression, suicidal tendecies and promiscuity. I know there are studies that work to counter these arguments but I personally believe that the odds of children experience this with same sex parents is quite high.

In the end though, I will believe in what science tells us, but there still are conflicting studies in this, so I will stay on the sceptic side on this particular discussion.

On a last note, I am a norwegian and in Norway gays/lesbians are allowed to adopt children. I might not like it, but it's my country's laws. USA need this discussion ended once and for all. I know you guys got alot of religious nutjobs that will object to anything that smell of gay/lesbian whatever, but it's the diversity that make us what we are Also I'm heterosexual so my views are biased, but if I was gay my views would be biased then aswell, only in the opposite direction.

Edit: Wow..When the hell did I get so god damn deep???

Oh, a necro. I just clicked on general discussion and figured this was still alive It's a worthy necro though, and still valid. I don't know if the proposition is done down there, but I hope it all turned out for the best. Irony is that everything happening down in the old US of A got an influence on the whole world.

Cleffy · January 2009

O.O you morgued an old political thread. I wish I voted differently on prop 8 then I did in November. After thinking about it, I think I was wrong to vote for Gay Marriage. I am all for homosexual couples having the same rights in the guise of the state. That being an agreement between 2 people to share all their assets and recieve some benefits from the state in the form of filing jointly. Something like a Civil Union. In my eyes this is the type of attittude a state should have towards civil unions(marriage being a form of civil union), cold and technical without any involvement of emotions.

However, marriage to me is a religious institution and the state has no right to tell a religion what it can believe in and follow as long as it doesn't endanger the life of another person. Adoption I think of the same way. Most adoption agencies are run by religious entities, and if they don't feel the couple is fit in terms of the agencies religious beliefs then the state should not interfere.

altairzq · January 2009

Come to Catalunya (it's in Spain, south of France) you can get married here and adopt children.

Reklaw · January 2009

Originally posted by upallnight

I'm seeing Prop 8 pass in California. I see bills like the one in Arkansas squared directly at not allowing gay loving couples to adopt. I watch people who call themselves Christians take aim at us every day in so many ways.
They ARE ignorant.
I wonder, what exactly do you want us gays to do?
Life your live and be as happy as you can be in life.
Would you like for us to remain in the closet and hide from who we were born as?
See no reason why.
Would you like for us to be celibate and never have sex or experience sex for our entire lives?
again....see no reason why
Would you like for us to ignore the only way we can love another person and instead when we find someone that we fall in love with deny it to each other and live a complete life of loneliness?
No never, every person regardless if they are straight or gay has the right to love. A person loves another person, and yes sometimes this can be a man loving another man or woman loving another woman, it;s well accepted that if its a man/woman relation ship, but it's ignorant to ignore that some people might feel different about it and take the gay path. It's what makes a person happy which that person should follow and not what is so-called normal, I find it abnormal that people can't respect each other, even the POPE is someone that I find pretty ignorant in how he practice his religion.
Would you like that we feel so dispicable about ourselves that we find each day a struggle to carry on?
Again never would I want a person to feel that way about themselfs.
Or would you like for us not to carry on and instead play out that internal hatred that society teaches us to feel and go ahead and end it by taking our own lives?
No, why listen to ignorant people, it's fear of the unknown, they simply do not understand
Or, would you rather take it for us by rooting out who we are in society and having us all exterminated like you would a disease or an annoying insect or rodent?
No cause it aint a disease.
I'm confused about what you want from us. It is completely out of any concept I can grasp when we come to you and honestly ask for your understanding and you deny it to us. We tell you with all honesty that we did not choose to be who we are, that we are capable of only falling in love with someone of the same sex, and that we don't want to feel the unbearable agony of being alone while having to go through life being scorned and called wicked and evil.
I don't get it. I can't. I am unhappy at what I was born into.
Follow your heart and ignore the ignorant, don't be unhappy, and definitly do not see it as being a fault, it's not, I admit it's what this society might make you think it is, but it isn't.
I love my God, but I do not understand my fellow humans. I cannot believe that God has taught us to hate one another or to put limitations on love for another adult. I cannot believe what I see when I look at people executed, denied liberty, denied freedoms, or told that they'd rather us just go hide somewhere and leave them alone.
There are many things in live I don't really understand in the way people can be to eachother
I am happy we have a black president now. It's nice to see that we can at least get over our racism. But I wonder how long it will take us, if we ever do, to get over the hatred that is for gay people. And I wonder what is going to happen to us.
It does happen, but you have to let it happen to yourself, like I said life your live the way you feel happy and not how society tries to dictate what you must do or can't do when it comes to loving who'm ever you please
Would another holocaust aimed at us make some people happy? Or does it make you happy just to know that you can keep us in a spot where we cannot experience a good life, just one you "let" us live?

I'm not gay myself, got a few friends that are, got more friends that arn't and out of them there is only one person that doesn't really get along with gay's and dislikes them for what they love, I must admit I don't really like gay-men that act like woman. To me they just attention whores...sorry to say, but the common gay person either man or woman i have no problems with them, aswell people who ARE born in the wrong body, it seems it happens and can respect those who want a sexchange in order to fullfill their lives and become happy.

Every person deserves a happy and fullfilling live.

Man1ac · January 2009

If some people wanna be gay let em, but I know genes influence ones sexuality but there are other factors too.

Gameloading · January 2009

Originally posted by xxvicexx

Live your lifestyle choice without trying to force society to ratify it as normal and beneficial to society when it is not.

I'd also like to see a ban on all homosexual couples adopting children. I find that to be a crime against the child. In a sense mental abuse.I find it exceptionally bad do to the simple fact that its not for the childs benefit its for the activists benefit.

I'm also sick and tired of people claiming its discrimination or in somehow violating a persons "Rights".
If you want to get married there are stipulations. Various other lifestyles(ie polygamy) will also be rejected. A heterosexual man cannot marry another heterosexual man is another example.
As for the Rights bit....meh these people throwing it around need to learn wth they are talking about instead of relying on playing up simplistic lines in ignorance. You know they don't know what they are talking about simply by the way they use it. Its a slogan ..easy to put on a sign..doesn't take much thought..easy to remember..etc.

You have the Right to get married..as long as you meet the stipulations for the license. That is your Right.
Your Rights are not being violated if you do not meet those stipulations anymore then the polygamists or the "heterosexual" that wants to marry a dog. Or the person rejected for a passport or car license etc.

As for why this proposition had to be re-voted on and approved and why similar bans are on State Constitutions across the country.
1. Most people do not view your lifestyle as beneficial to society.
2. Most people do not view your lifestyle as something codify as correct within their society.
3. Various activist groups found fit to ignore the will of the people the legislators and run off to courts until they found judges who deemed fit to make law instead of apply law-This pissed alot of people off.
The first 2 are universal/global in nature. The 3rd is USA specific.
If you do not understand why the 3 points above do NOT make someone a bigot or whatever term is in vogue atm..well then all you have to do is find some lifestyle YOU would not wish to codify and tada you're a bigot too...maybe then it will sink in.

This post is actually a perfect compilation of all poor excuses anti - gay marriage people use.

First of all you talk of a lifestyle choice but it's undeniable homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

I'm sure a close minded, ignorant person such as yourself would love to see a ban on homosexuals addopting children. Unfortunately for you, research proves that homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as straigth parents are. But I suppose you think children are better off in a home?

Don't give that "stipulations" bullshit because it's those stipulations are whats the problem in the first place. There has never been a valid reason to not allow gay marriage. It doesn't harm anybody and it is beneficial to society. Research shows people who are in love and have a relationship are enjoying life more than people who don't. Not only does affect mood which in return has a positive effect on social skills, it also increases productivity.

Saying "Well there are laws" is a poor argument if those laws are discriminating in the first place. You want to compare it to a person who wants to marry his dog? Are you really such a big that you can't see the difference between homosexuals who want to get married and bestiality? Are you truly this ignorant?

Saying "it is not beneficial to society" is a bad argument to start with. There are lots of things that are not beneficial to society, including you posting this ignorant bullshit on this forum.

Also, I hate to remind you, but it's not global. Multiple nations are in full support of gay marriage. It's not a question if gay marriage will be accept globally. The question is when. Tolerance grows with each generation, just as we now accept interracial marriages, we will at one point accept gay marriage.

mike470 · January 2009

Originally posted by xxvicexx

I'm also sick and tired of people claiming its discrimination or in somehow violating a persons "Rights".

So you don't like hearing the truth?

Not allowing gays to marry is no different then not allowing blacks, asians, whites, or any other ethnic group to marry. Why? Becuase none of this is a choice, being gay is something that a person is born with, and whether you like it or not they should have just as many rights as anyone else.

Not allowing someone to marry and adopt children *is* a violation of rights.

hvc801 · January 2009

I was surprised to see this forum come back to life after 2 months.

But I want to put in my two words. I am not against gays or gay rights or anything that has to do with being gay. I am also not a religious man what so ever.

But the act of being gay, or born gay, what ever the case may be.... Its an act against god. Its a sin, and therefore the homosexual person will not inherit the kingdom of god. Theres quiet a few passages about this in the bible.

I'm done.

hidden1 · January 2009

It takes a long time for Human civilizations to adopt changes in their grass roots "traditions." As western civilation adopted modernity as it's philosophical model for it's various socialogical, societal enclaves, whether they are large cities, small towns, or countries in-and-of-itself, one socialogical phenomenon can be observed by any discerning mind, that with any advent of change, or introduction to change of a current "traditional" societal rule/edict, will come some modicom of resistence at first. This of course is almost akin to nature and and the struggle for life. It would appear that in the U.S.A. alone this seems to be a prodominant reisistance towards homosexual lifestyles as an acceptable part of the agreed upon ethic of that society in general, but take that resistance as a good sign. For that resistence is an obseverable proof that the forces of change are at work. Nothing comes easy in life, progress and change with us knuckle dragging straight people, so please forgive our inabitity to rapidly change with the times. However this change is inevitable as more and more christians like myself are seeing the obvious pain and suffering that our hatred in denying your rights as equals in a society that is based on the foundations of such a spirit of equality.

My best wishes in your struggle, and keep up the faith that change will happen, and is currently happening as a force to better us all in the long run.

AsprnBtl · January 2009

I don't even see why this is an issue. They're people like you and me, who just have different partners.

As for the christians posting here. Isn't your entire religion centered on acceptance, compassion, loving thy neighbour? Then why the hangups on whether someone is or isn't a bloody homosexual? Instead of desperately looking for and interpreting any passage of the bible that might validate your fears, why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide.

Keep fighting for your rights, and for acceptance in society. Each step you take makes us all better for it.

hidden1 · January 2009

Originally posted by AsprnBtl

I don't even see why this is an issue. They're people like you and me, who just have different partners.

As for the christians posting here. Isn't your entire religion centered on acceptance, compassion, loving thy neighbour? Then why the hangups on whether someone is or isn't a bloody homosexual? Instead of desperately looking for and interpreting any passage of the bible that might validate your fears, why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide.

Keep fighting for your rights, and for acceptance in society. Each step you take makes us all better for it.

I agree with you, well said.

As a Christian myself I've been taught to love our neighbors and enemies. What that means to me is that love is all emcompassing and hence unconditional. With that said, then why do we Christians continue w/ the rhetoric of hatred and preaching inequality and bigotry is right? I must say I am very much ashamed to call myself Christian when I see to be a VERY small minority of Chrisitian who see's the obvious hypocracy of Love that we teach through indoctrinating our children, as well as the Hate that we create by saying it's okay to deny anyone else equal rights. The bottom line is the obvious hypocracy that most of my fellow Christian refuse to see in themselves! It almost angers me, as Jesus was angered at the Scribes and the Pharases of their Roman Empire's times for a very similar hypocracy. Did not Jesus befriend all save the hypocritical scribes and pharases, and dogmatics of their age and time?

Let me state here and now, I am a straight, Christian, and am proud to see my own teachings conflict w/ the hypocracy of hate taught by my fellow Christians, and I voted in favor of Gay Marriage. Why, equal love for equal rights... because it's the right, and civilized way to respect ourselves as not just "gay" or "straight" but as human beings.

eagles12555 · January 2009

this is a tough topic to discuss, so i wont.

ste2000 · January 2009

Originally posted by AsprnBtl

I don't even see why this is an issue. They're people like you and me, who just have different partners.

As for the christians posting here. Isn't your entire religion centered on acceptance, compassion, loving thy neighbour? Then why the hangups on whether someone is or isn't a bloody homosexual? Instead of desperately looking for and interpreting any passage of the bible that might validate your fears, why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide.

Keep fighting for your rights, and for acceptance in society. Each step you take makes us all better for it.

Church seems more concerned with homosexuals than the ever increasing number of pedophile priests who abuse children.

The church don't seems to make a big fuss about them, which is worrying.

I think the pope should fix his own house before preaching against homosexuals.

I am all in favour for gay marriage and all, except for adoption.

I don't believe that it will be fair on the child, I am not doubting that gay people can be good parents, but I don't believe is fair to the child who will be bullied at school because he/she has gay parents.

Well at least for the moment society is not ready for this.

When the time will come where gay relationships will be considered normal, then it will be ok for gays to adopt kids as well.

But not now IMO.

Howdy, Stranger!

What Do You Want Us Gays To Do ?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

What Do You Want Us Gays To Do ?

Comments