Hi all.
We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
I doubt any person in their right mind would appoint a horse as an advisor (so, source?) and two, he was said to be mad because of his aggressive reign, not because he was actually crazy.
But, there was also Elagabalus, not to mention the god Apollo, who have prominent same-sex relationships (of course, Apollo being the work of myth.)
I dont know about Sweden, but in Canada, the Canadian dictionary still maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman. Though I am sure soon enough an activist will notice that and ask for it to be changed. Anyway gay marriage is pretty much acceoted here, though there is still that percentage that disagree with it... but everyone I have met from that percentage simply thinks a different term should be used
Right now there is a serious wave of homophobia going through the african continent, and while Africa has always been homophobic, now it has gone to extremes that people actually go LOOKING for gay people to kill.
I always am looking for a way for everyone to get what they want with the least amount of friction necesary, because gay people are country citizens, and when you are fighting yourown country, you have a weak country, and I think patriotism is important.
You don't reward people for committing hate crimes, you punish them.
incase you have not noticed, religious fanatics are the most dangerous.
muslim extremists attempt to blow up the US and Israel all the time
christian extremists are killing homosexuals just as in the past, black people were kiled
Russian supremacists kil all foreigners in thier country. Black people, chinese people e,t.c.
so yes, i think appeasing them is important in order for one to stay alive and keep thier community alive. I do not agree with them, and they are the type of people who will hate homosexuals all thier lives, however, if you can get them to go back to just hating gay people and not acting out on it and still get the human rights you deserve, then it should be aimed for.
Here's a question for you. If you had to choose between an oppressed life or death, are you saying that you'd want to spend your life forever miserable?
Sure they might be alive in a physical sense, but inside, in their hearts they're as good as dead.
And sorry, but you can't claim that you're supporting equality and then offering a new term for them. It's one or the other.
Just to comment on the bolded bit. I said things changed to accomodate them in the sense that they got the same benefits as uniracial couples and as for ceremony, ceremonies differ from person to person. A chinese/black wedding will be very different from a chinese/chinese wedding, that is what imeant by different ceremonies.
So then, you admit that interracial marriage was a redefinition. Because that is part of the rest of what I was saying. In the time of that redefinition, I postulated, it was as painful for a part of the populace that creates popular definition, as it would be for us to embrace bestiality.
and as for calling gay marriage... well... gay marriage, the problem is the word marriage.currently gay is seen as an adjective for the word marriage, they are not seen as one word, or one term. But essentially yeah, what you are saying is correct.
So wait, in the other example I provided, do you consider "wo-" an adjective to "-man"? Because in many other languages, and words in which we have taken from other languages, adjectives are blended into the word - ours is not, but that doesn't mean the adjective has less of an influence on the word than say an adjective that has been blended into its noun.
Also, one word is one word. But one term can be two words, like "gay marriage". That's one term.
But I mean, say you replaced "gay marriage" with another word. Right now gay marriage in the form gay rights activists want it is functionally the same as marriage. Would it stop being marriage if you called it by another word?
And if you called it another word when it essentially is the same as heterosexual marriage, wouldn't people generally realize they are functionally the same and just go back to calling it "gay marriage", if not for the fact that the term "gay marriage" already exists and is highly convenient, for the fact that language is a thing that is not centrally governed and usually changes in ways that accommodate the most people speaking it?
Like you just said, changing a definition is a lot more hassle than it's worth. I think some people trying to fight for their vision of marriage have to realize that gay rights activists have already won, they have already changed the definition in the eyes of the populace - to try and fight what people see as "gay marriage" even if just trying to change it to another word would be just that, trying to change a definition.
And as far as tradition goes, we have to ask whose tradition you're referring to - to speak in authoritative monologue and infer that there is only one universal tradition is to not acknowledge that the people you debate have traditions too. (Thank you Bahktain!)
No, but you don't see Muslims wanting to get married in Christian churches. At any rate I wasn't even talking about the marriage aspect much anyway.
Okay, that doesn't answer my question, and honestly I have no idea what you're trying to respond to, so uh. I never said that all Christians were against gays. I'm aware of many that aren't. They're not who I'm talking about.
My point was that you're saying that Christians who are against homosexuality are homophobic. I was bisexual, Christian, and believed that homosexuality was wrong and I can tell you that I clearly wasn't homophobic.
The meaning of the word homophobic has developed to go past meaning fear. If you want to deny that, then you'll have to point me to the rule that says the English language can't develop
Okay, really? Then what do you define homophobia as? And this whole argument about words, semantics, etc. That words can change, etc. Yes the English language develops over time, yes words change meaning over time. Fine. That doesn't mean we should go and re-arrange every word and dictionary to make sure no group feels discriminated against.
But okay, heterosexist. The belief that heterosexuality is superior and homosexuality is inferior. The beliefs Christians hold absolutely fit this definition. Good luck denying that.
Studies have shown that this opinion is wrong. You'd think they'd hear about this kind of thing if they spend all this time condemning them to hellfire, in which case their excuses are pretty much limited to willful ignorance.
It's not, really. But isn't that what this whole thing is about, just that, semantics? It seems like splitting hairs, but apparently words and definitions are more powerful than what we give them credit for. Personally, I don't care what marriage for the same sex is called, as it means little to me. Civil union, "garriage" (lol), etc. As long as I know that I'm entitled to the same rights then I don't feel like there is any injustice. Yet others maintain that offering separate terminology runs the inherent risk of "separate but equal" deal. Yes, its just a word, but it seems to carry enough significance to be talked about at least.
I'm pretty sure gays have accepted that that's not always going to happen. I think most of them would just be okay with a legal one as opposed to a religious one that takes place in a church.
And this whole argument about words, semantics, etc. That words can change, etc. Yes the English language develops over time, yes words change meaning over time. Fine. That doesn't mean we should go and re-arrange every word and dictionary to make sure no group feels discriminated against.
This forum linked to an article basically stating that; the link's broken, but the article appears to be copied and pasted onto the forum.
This site has a large collection of summarized reports that pretty much all point to it being pretty much set by birth, with maybe a few outside causes having a possible effect on orientation.
It's not, really. But isn't that what this whole thing is about, just that, semantics? It seems like splitting hairs, but apparently words and definitions are more powerful than what we give them credit for. Personally, I don't care what marriage for the same sex is called, as it means little to me. Civil union, "garriage" (lol), etc. As long as I know that I'm entitled to the same rights then I don't feel like there is any injustice. Yet others maintain that offering separate terminology runs the inherent risk of "separate but equal" deal. Yes, its just a word, but it seems to carry enough significance to be talked about at least.
This forum linked to an article basically stating that; the link's broken, but the article appears to be copied and pasted onto the forum.
This site has a large collection of summarized reports that pretty much all point to it being pretty much set by birth, with maybe a few outside causes having a possible effect on orientation.
Finished discussing most of the points but, here I think I misunderstood you. I wasn't skeptical that homosexuality wasn't a choice, I thought you meant that there were studies that show Christians that disagree were homophobic, which I found dubious. My bad.
Oh, no, sorry. Should've been a bit clearer on that matter.
One thing I'd like to say before I drop this: I'm not the only one who uses that definition of homophobia. Googling define:homophobia brings in a handful of different definitions depending on the source - some limited to fear only, some relating to prejudice and discrimination, and even one relating to fear or hatred of humanity in general (lolwut).
You know, when I was in junior high, I was picked on and harassed by a gay student. He hit on me in class constantly for a few months. I had to tell him off to get him to shut the hell up. But I am not stupid enough to think that that means all gay people are like that, and that because of the way one gay person acted, all gays should be denied basic rights.
What you described is not a problem with gays; that's a problem with individual people. If a heterosexual had done that, I highly doubt you'd be preaching the evils of straight sex and arguing against straight marriage. Same as if the stalkers had been women. Same as if the stalkers had been of a different race. Why are gays so different?
Ok, I'll agree to that. But let me ask you, do you think that you and my friend would have been hit on if homosexuality was accpeted and, in some cases, encouraged as it is today?
What about them? We have tests for that kind of thing, which, if I'm not mistaken, we provide when straight people give blood, but for some reason decide to deny when gay people try to donate blood (oh wait, they can't because everyone's convinced that all gays have AIDS). And again, you may as well use this argument to argue against letting black people donate blood.
This section disproves your first point. It only applys to men who hav had sex with men. I may be wrong, but I don't think they can ask your orientation in the screening process. They may be able to ask if you have had sex with a man (when asking a man) or if you have had sex with someone who has (when asking a woman).
Please note that I never said that gays can't adopt anywhere in the U.S. I'm pretty sure those states that allow individual gay parents to adopt are (correct me if I'm wrong here) operating under the principle that if they don't have a partner then it's fine. I love how single parents are given higher priority than two gay parents, because guess which one's probably going to have a harder time paying for the kid's needs?
No, it doesn't, because it has no more to do with morality than gravity does. If you feel like ignoring my rebuttal to what you said, then feel free, but don't bother spouting the same crap over and over again because you think it's a valid point.
Actually, the law of gravity dictates things that we should and should not do. For example, is pushing someone off a cliff immoral? What about principles of bouancy? Is it wrong to give the guy down the street cement shoes?
. If you're going to discount evolution for being immoral, you may as well refuse to believe in gravity, nuclear physics, and pretty much everything we know about biology and nature.
Evolution has no more immoral implications than gravity or nuclear physics do. Complaining about evolution being immoral is the lowest form of argument against it, because it means you don't actually have any argument against it. Trying to drag it kicking and screaming into a completely different debate on which it has no bearing is somehow even worse. Kudos on accomplishing that.
It has many more implications because it describes what humans are and where we came from. Nuclear physics has applications to our morals also. Should the the military (or anyone for that matter) nuke someone when less force can be used to accomplish the same thing without excessvie loss of life on either side?
They can by either donating or receiving donated sperm, depending on their gender. Even if they couldn't and/or you don't count those examples, does it matter? And before you jump into the "it's unnatural lols" argument, stop for a second, look at your computer, and ask yourself how natural you think it is.
My point is that even though they are similar to sterile couples in that they can't reprodcue normally, if examined from an anatomical standpoint, homosexuals can never reproduce without aid from the opposite gender. A sterile human being is not the norm for humans. No ability to reproduce (without outside aid, mind you) is the norm for homosexuals. Also, how would homosexuals have had children before we had sperm banks or in vitro fertilization?
And hell, marriage in itself is unnatural. I've never seen a wild animal have a big lavish marriage ceremony that wasn't orchestrated by humans. This is why the "it's unnatural" argument is so stupid - pretty much everything about our life is unnatural, why is this one so special?
Keep in mind that computers, fashion and plastic surgery are inventions of man, not emotions or desires. Wedding ceremonies that are big productions are (I believe) an invention of mankind also.
Our sense of morality is part of our evolution. When we were hunter-gatherers, our intelligence led us to realize that, hey, we work better in packs and groups. We needed the help of others to survive and get food. Over time, this developed into morality - our sense of protecting our pack for the sake of protecting ourselves. This carried with us to modern times.
These animals do. These animals have developed a society, morals, and laws to keep the species as a whole alive and happy. Does this mean we're not animals? No, we still are, unless you want to make the argument that we're fungi or something.
J.T, your argument is essentially, "our ancestors did it", which boils down to an appeal to tradition which is not a good reason alone. After all, people say that religion shouldn't govern our actions because it's old and outdated.
Finally, let me clarify my stance on homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality is partly genetics and partly choice. I believe that some people are more inclined to be attracted to the opposite gender than others.
I also feel that homosexuality is partly choice in that no one makes you act on your desires, whether they be wrong or right. I also believe that our society shapes what people think about themselves. For example, if lying was completely accepted and encouraged by society, it would not be surprising for someone who is more inclined to lying to do exactly that.
I do not hate homosexuals. I believe that their attraction to the opposite gender is wrong and harmful to themselves, if no one else. I still believe that homosexual people need the love of Jesus Christ. I do believe that they can be saved.
You're not answering my point. How the hell is being gay like being anti-sociable in the military? Also you haven't showed me how it can end up negative, or even where.
Ok, I'll agree to that. But let me ask you, do you think that you and my friend would have been hit on if homosexuality was accpeted and, in some cases, encouraged as it is today?
Possibly. However, rejecting them would be no different than rejecting someone of the opposite sex, except replacing "sorry I'm not interested" with "sorry I'm not gay". And if we got into situations similar to the ones we've both had before, then there's a bigger problem - one that does not apply to all gays, and in fact probably only applies to an extremely small minority.
I dunno, how many gay people want to take care of themselves and their wellbeing. I'm not saying if you have gay sex you'll get AIDS, I really don't care if you want to. I could just as easily ask how many straight people would want to stop having sex in order to avoid AIDS.
Which is why I asked for corrections if I was wrong, meaning I was giving possible reasons. I never said I was absolutely sure this was why it's happening. You can stop making assumptions any time too.
I don't know concretely why they do, no. I do know, however, that it's ridiculously stupid.
Actually, the law of gravity dictates things that we should and should not do. For example, is pushing someone off a cliff immoral? What about principles of bouancy? Is it wrong to give the guy down the street cement shoes?
Are you freaking kidding me? Gravity doesn't tell us what's right and wrong, for chrissakes, our morality does. Gravity only tells us what will happen when you do this kind of thing. Gravity tells you that when you push someone off a cliff, they will fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2 (or something to that effect, it's been a while since I took a physics class). Gravity doesn't tell you that it's immoral to push someone off a cliff - gravity really couldn't give less of a **** if you push them off a cliff, because gravity is not a conscious being. It is a force. It is a scientific theory. It is a scientific law. It's not some set of rules on how to live. This is seriously one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, and I've listened to Kent Hovind's "lectures", so that's saying a lot.
First, no, it doesn't. It describes how we and all other organisms became the way we are today. It doesn't seek to explain an origin of life or anything like that. You're thinking of abiogenesis or creationism.
Second, if it did, so what? All evolution says is how we became the kind of creature we are today. It says nothing further. It says nothing about morality, ethics, or anything except how we evolved into the organisms we are today. Anything further is developed by fools' misunderstanding of what evolution seeks to explain.
Nuclear physics has applications to our morals also. Should the the military (or anyone for that matter) nuke someone when less force can be used to accomplish the same thing without excessvie loss of life on either side?
Nuclear physics are not in and of themselves related to morality. Its applications might be, sure, but it's a science, so it doesn't have any sort of morality inherent in it.
My point is that even though they are similar to sterile couples in that they can't reprodcue normally, if examined from an anatomical standpoint, homosexuals can never reproduce without aid from the opposite gender.
Okay, so? Once again, what is the problem with a few individuals not popping out kids? I don't plan on having kids, am I just as ****ed up as you seem to think gays are? Oh, wait, I'm still capable of having sex with the opposite gender and producing kids if I really want to. Well, hey, guess what? So can gays!
Keep in mind that computers, fashion and plastic surgery are inventions of man, not emotions or desires. Wedding ceremonies that are big productions are (I believe) an invention of mankind also.
No, it doesn't. All I did was present an answer to your question. It wasn't an appeal to tradition any more than any other part of evolution is. I don't think you understand the meaning of appeal to tradition, because I'm not saying that we should do this and that because it's what our ancestors do.
You don't choose who you fall in love with, you choose whether or not to approach them. Don't you think it's a bit cruel for someone to repress such an important part of themselves which harms no one at all?
I also believe that our society shapes what people think about themselves. For example, if lying was completely accepted and encouraged by society, it would not be surprising for someone who is more inclined to lying to do exactly that.
Oh, that's so pleasant. How does it harm themselves? If one is careful and gets checked for STIs before going at it like monkeys, then what's the problem?
Dude hung out with twelve guys all day. I don't think he's the best example.
The "love of Jesus"? The same love that has caused gays to be forced to repress themselves for fear of being rejected or even ostracized? The same love that's caused gays higher rates of alcoholism, depression, and suicide? The same love that tells them they're sinners and they'll burn in hell for something that harms absolutely nobody? The same love that orders them to repent and change something which has never been proven to work and in pretty much all cases ends up with them repressing themselves more? The same love that forces them to marry people they don't love so they're accepted by society? That love?
Yeah, just like those guys who started Exodus International, the organization for "curing" homosexuality! Oh, wait, no, all the founders came out of the closet later on (two of them even had a life commitment ceremony together), apologized for their role in the foundation, and admitted they'd never seen a gay be "converted" to heterosexuality.
Well, what about all these sites that get brought up about how you can change gays? Like NARTH... oh, wait, that site's blatantly biased. Or Biblebelievers! Oh, wait, so's that one. Well, ****, so much for that.
It's believed (and in some cases has been proven) that people who claim to be cured of homosexuality are really repressing themselves. Given the number of cases where that's turned out to be the case, I'm more inclined to believe that. Especially considering some of the cruel methods used to cause these conversions, like ranging from intensive therapy to abusive exorcisms.
On the matter of this subject,I would have to say no.I feel that why people are turning gay is that they are taking full of the Gettysburgh Address especially this line--
Yeah, let's try to force people to love someone they don't.
If a man is attracted to another guy, he can't help it. You can't control who you fall for, whether it be of the opposite sex or same sex. And nobody will (or should I say since people try to control others.. should have the right) to tell you who you can or cannot be with.
If people hold back because they're afraid of others judging them about their sexuality, they're hurting themselves. And it's not worth it. If you love someone, you should be able to be with them. Screw the people, Screw the 'right' thing, screw what anybody else says/thinks about it.
I hate when people bring their religion into this, like they really think what they believe is the real thing.
Today, this shouldn't be an issue. We shouldn't even be discussing this.
If you seriously want to use science as an argument to discourage homosexuality, then you're looking in the wrong direction. There have been many gay animals seen already. If anything, that encourages us to legalize it if you want to look at it from that perspective.
Seriously cannot understand why anyone would be offended by Gay Marriage. It's not like we're running around throwing confetti in your face and painting the streets pink =/
And if I want to marry my boyfriend, I shall. And if he doesn't want to get married, that's tough.
My point is that even though they are similar to sterile couples in that they can't reprodcue normally, if examined from an anatomical standpoint, homosexuals can never reproduce without aid from the opposite gender. A sterile human being is not the norm for humans. No ability to reproduce (without outside aid, mind you) is the norm for homosexuals. Also, how would homosexuals have had children before we had sperm banks or in vitro fertilization?
I lol'd. From a strict anatomical standpoint, gay men have a penis, which is one major part of reproduction. Sure homosexual couples can't produce their own chidlrne together, but as individuals, they are capable of reproduction, such as with the aid of surrogates.
I also feel that homosexuality is partly choice in that no one makes you act on your desires, whether they be wrong or right. I also believe that our society shapes what people think about themselves. For example, if lying was completely accepted and encouraged by society, it would not be surprising for someone who is more inclined to lying to do exactly that.
On the matter of this subject,I would have to say no.I feel that why people are turning gay is that they are taking full of the Gettysburgh Address especially this line--
Yes, gays choose to be gay. Gays choose an orientation that is persecuted against daily in countries around the world. Gays choose to have less rights than straight people. You've got it all figured out, they're all gluttons for punishment.
How so? The fact that gays exist and want equal rights is somehow why your country's dying? Because let me tell you, I live in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a while here, and we haven't imploded as a country.
Yes, gays choose to be gay. Gays choose an orientation that is persecuted against daily in countries around the world. Gays choose to have less rights than straight people. You've got it all figured out, they're all gluttons for punishment.
If they want to,They just go and do what floats their boat.But,That`s not how marriage intended to be.Just One Man and One Women not 2 of the same sex.
=]How so? The fact that gays exist and want equal rights is somehow why your country's dying? Because let me tell you, I live in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a while here, and we haven't imploded as a country.
If they want to,They just go and do what floats their boat.But,That`s not how marriage intended to be.Just One Man and One Women not 2 of the same sex.
This is contradictory. You're fine with them getting married, but you're not fine with them getting married? Also, marriage was originally little more than a business deal; men would get paid with their associate's prettiest daughter rather than a hefty sum. It's been redefined as a bond of love between two individuals.
Definitions change. That much has been said already.
So, what? Did advocation of homosexuality lead to Lehman Brothers collapsing? Do you seriously believe Hurricane Katrina is God's punishing America for accepting same-sex love? I live in the UK; we decriminalised homosexuality in 1967, and aside from Section 28 in the 1980's - which would have made teaching about the acceptability of homosexuality illegal, another thing to thank Thatcher for - it's been going uphill. 90% of all citizens believe against discrimination based on a person's sexuality. The only downside is gay marriage isn't legally recognised, but I believe civil unions fill that, like in the USA, and some religious organisations are petitioning to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
So far, none of this has sent my country down the drain. And this has been going on for over 40 years officially. Odds are, this isn't going to affect the US's moral fibre, and may actually strengthen it. You can't claim to be an equal society if you discriminate on any level.
On the thing about that marriage should be between One man and One women,It`s in the Bible.I do recomnd this to people how don`t understand the conncept of marriage.
On the thing about that marriage should be between One man and One women,It`s in the Bible.I do recomnd this to people how don`t understand the conncept of marriage.
