Speaker Geeks! discussion

54 views
Law/Policy Debates > Gay Marriage

Comments Showing 1-50 of 107 (107 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments I recently have been made to be proud of my country but what is your opinion on gay marriage?


message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

Kaylee wrote: "Well. I've stated before, I couldn't care less if you married a goat.

Marry whomever you love. Marry as marry times as you choose.

Does it harm anyone? Nope. Does it personally affect you? Nope..."


Couldn't have said it better myself :)


message 3: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Kaylee wrote: "Well. I've stated before, I couldn't care less if you married a goat.

Marry whomever you love. Marry as marry times as you choose.

Does it harm anyone? Nope. Does it personally affect you? Nope..."


I agree with you!


message 4: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments I think that marriage should be between anyone. As long as they are both consenting and love each other. Then I see nothing wrong with it.


message 5: by Victor (new)

Victor (ace-geek) I recall an article somewhere about homosexuality being beneficial to society. It argued that in a society with a very high population it was better to have fewer couples actually producing children, and that it leveled out the child:caregiver ratio a little better with more gay couples adopting already-born children.


message 6: by ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, Lend me your ears! (new)

ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱ (charlie_awesome) | 91 comments Mod
It saddens me that this is still a problem. If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to be gay married! I can't understand how people can be so cruel and judgmental.


message 7: by ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, Lend me your ears! (new)

ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱ (charlie_awesome) | 91 comments Mod
H99 wrote: "ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮-ωα ⊰♡1017 & ♡ Tardis!⊱ wrote: "It saddens me that this is still a problem. If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to be gay married! I can't understand how people can be so cruel an..."

That's such an awesome letter lol


message 8: by ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, Lend me your ears! (new)

ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱ (charlie_awesome) | 91 comments Mod
Yeah. Some people just remain ignorant no matter who surrounds them.


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

Kate wrote: "I can try? Devil's advocate?

*not my actual beliefs*

Homosexuality should not be legal. As humans, it is our job to ensure the well-being of the world, and of our country.

I think we can all a..."


Hey I just wanna say that I accept gay marriage now, and I didn't before.
So can I explain why?
Okay, so first. I think that most people that do not accept it don't think that way. Yes, there are people who thin homosexual people are disgusting, which they aren't, but there's always going to be someone like that.
But I think that a lot of people that don't accept it only because they aren't comfortable with it. I mean, my mom, she was strongly against the marriage between two people of the two sex just a few months ago, because yeah, she didn't think it was right. But I can see that she's accepting it now. Honestly I think people need to accept it on their own.
Facts didn't help me-- they were too emotionless, ya know? I thought it was wrong because I guess I was weirded out by it to be honest. And now I bet most people here will be mad and disgusted with me, but Im just being honest. I had absolutely no problem with gay people, and now I have no problem with gay marriage! :) It really does just take some time if you're willing to try to accept it. So yeah. The people who are disgusted by gay people in general are very stereotypical and cruel, low-life people.


message 10: by ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱, Lend me your ears! (new)

ℂᖺαᖇᒪἷ℮ ⊰1017 &Tardis⊱ (charlie_awesome) | 91 comments Mod
Weirdo wrote: "Kate wrote: "I can try? Devil's advocate?

*not my actual beliefs*

Homosexuality should not be legal. As humans, it is our job to ensure the well-being of the world, and of our country.

I think..."


Good thoughts. It's nice to hear a different point of view once in a while.


message 11: by Emily (last edited Nov 07, 2013 01:02PM) (new)

Emily | 45 comments So,I actually have the opposite opinion of all y'all. Reading these posts has insulted me. I've been called ignorant, cruel, a low-life, stereotypical, and apparently it is the side of the devil if someone stating my side of the argument (though not with my reasoning) says they are playing devil's advocate. You cannot generalize so harshly like that, and I try really hard not to generalize about other people.
I refrained from posting here for awhile because I am afraid of being judged. Supporting gay rights has become socially mandatory. This is quite evident seeing as I am the first person to post in opposition. There is a double standard when speaking of acceptance. People have told me that they hate people who don't support gay rights. I heard a different friend say that there are some "crazy Catholics" who don't support gay rights. This is so wrong on so many levels.
I say hate the sin, but love the sinner because we all are sinners, so nobody can tell me I hate gay people just because I am against gay marriage.
I believe this because it is what my Catholic faith tells me. Religion is not a trail mix; you can't pick out the pieces you might not like. I embrace my whole religion. People say that the Bible and religion has no place in politics, but to the people who believe in it, the Bible and religion definitely have a place in politics because they are the basis for our morals, and morals are what determines our political views. This situation is not comparable to the civil rights movement because this involves religion. I am not ignorant, crazy, or the devil. I am just a person, and this is a real issue. Gay marriage is not the obvious answer.


message 12: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 07, 2013 01:41PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments I'm not completely sure but as far as I know the term "devil's advocate" originates from early modern Catholic church which merely means someone arguing for a position s/he may not agree with, and has nothing to do with devils or anything else. Also, are you sure the civil right movement did not involve religion? In almost every political movements in the US from abolition to occupy wall street, ppl on both sides do tend to believe that God is on their side.


message 13: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Sure they may have believed God was on their side, but did the Bible tell them to enslave or be racist towards African Americans? No. So in that way the two movements are not parallel and cannot be compared.


message 14: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments H99 wrote: "Emily, there's no one disagreeing here because we're all similar. Look at any other discussion somewhere and it'll be more even.

Sorry, but my opinion is that a person is ignorant and cruel for ha..."


Speak for yourself. Maybe you don't think I'm ignorant or crazy, but I've heard it with my own ears from so-called friends.


message 15: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 07, 2013 02:05PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Emily wrote: "Sure they may have believed God was on their side, but did the Bible tell them to enslave or be racist towards African Americans? No. So in that way the two movements are not parallel and cannot be..."

I do agree in that these two movements have a lot of differences & may not be comparable. For example, I don't think any other social movement in the last half century in US has as much socioeconomic impact as the civil rights movement.

Just curious, do you have any argument against same-sex marriage beyond "because my bible/church told me so", that can appeal to ppl not sharing your faith? How about civil unions?


message 16: by Victoria (new)

Victoria (ouija17) | 103 comments I believe that marriage should stay strictly between a man and a woman. From a moral and ethical stand point, I believe it is wrong. However, if someone isn't religious they may say well that doesn't apply to me. Think if it this way. A woman and a woman or a man and a man cannot make a child. Sure, they could get a surrogate etc, but they cannot actually reproduce. I agree with a comment that was said earlier that in today's society, socially when asked you feel as though you have to be for it. I am not saying judge people. I have plenty of friends who are gay, so I am not attacking people who are. I am just saying that I don't agree with gay marriage.


message 17: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 07, 2013 02:23PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Victoria wrote: "I believe that marriage should stay strictly between a man and a woman. From a moral and ethical stand point, I believe it is wrong. However, if someone isn't religious they may say well that doesn..."

So do you believe that if an opposite-sex couple can not or do not want a child for whatever reason they should not be allowed to get married? Also, for the "I have plenty of friends who are ..." stuff, cf. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php... and http://www.newrepublic.com/article/po...


message 18: by Victoria (new)

Victoria (ouija17) | 103 comments Not exactly. I was just saying that if you don't have certain religious beliefs, there is another point of why some people don't agree with gay marriage


message 19: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 07, 2013 02:32PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Victoria wrote: "Not exactly. I was just saying that if you don't have certain religious beliefs, there is another point of why some people don't agree with gay marriage"

What I meant is that your supposedly secular argument based on the ability of having children doesn't make sense, unless you think the only conceivable objective of marriage is to produce biological offsprings.


message 20: by Victoria (new)

Victoria (ouija17) | 103 comments @xdyj. I understand your point. It is just hard to put everything into words.


message 21: by Victoria (new)

Victoria (ouija17) | 103 comments Yeah sort of. I just don't agree with it. But hey, it's America land of the free, so


message 22: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Lia wrote: "Emily wrote: "So,I actually have the opposite opinion of all y'all. Reading these posts has insulted me. I've been called ignorant, cruel, a low-life, stereotypical, and apparently it is the side o..."
1. I don't care what the official definition of devil's advocate is. It does not feel kind, and it probably originally had a meaning more along the lines of what I am thinking.
2. I meant that supporting gay rights is becoming socially mandatory especially in my own community, and I am trying to stop any point of view from becoming socially mandatory. There are probably others who feel this way as well. So, no, sorry. I was not generalizing.
3. I never said anything about everyone in this debate only agreeing because they feel they are socially mandatory. That wasn't a generalization because I never said it. All I said was that me and some other people I know feel like it is socially mandatory and that we have to hide our views because people will judge us too harshly.


message 23: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Lia wrote: "In reality, idgaf if someone is anti-gay anti-homosexuality or whatever, as a friend of mine (and I have said already): The LGBT community neither needs or cares about your approval of them, what t..."

Politics is the ongoing debate over how to promote the common good. I am not trying to shove my religion on anyone else. I am merely saying that religion determines my morals, and my morals determine what I think should be done to promote the common good. Isn't that what everyone is doing? It's the common good I'm interested in, not someone else's business.


message 24: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Lia:
I know that the common good does not pertain only to me, but I think that what I believe would promote the common good of everyone. Isn't that what you think> So let's drop the whole concept of forcing religion and getting in other people's business because the common good is everyone's business.
I don't appreciate your sass regarding my offense about the devil's advocate situation. Originally, Devil's Advocate was the term used for a lawyer arguing against the canonization of a saint. He was in opposition to the lawyer called God's Advocate. Clearly the term has a negative connotation if he was opposing God, so clearly I have every right to be offended that someone taking my side of an argument says they are playing devil's advocate.
In response to this statement, (If that's not generalization about the people of this group, I don't know what is.), you are right; you must not know what a generalization is. You must not understand what I was trying to say.
There are many secular reasons against gay marriage. For example, people should have their tax dollars used for something they think is wrong because it violates religious freedom. Also, many believe that marriage is a privilege not a right and that it was created to support couples in procreation.


message 25: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Lia wrote: "All right let's drop the whole religion thing but the thing is that we used the term devil's advocate to refer to ourselves and neither Kate or I set out to offend, so you just took it upon yoursel..."

Let me use your own logic by applying it to you feeling insulted by my last post. I did not set out to offend, so you just took it upon yourself to feel offended.
You still misunderstood my "generalization." I was just saying that there are most likely some people who choose not to get involved in this discussion because they are afraid of being verbally attacked because in Some communities it has become socially mandatory to support gay rights.
Taxes have to do with it because married couples receive benefits paid for by tax dollars. "On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019." That's just a small part of the issue.


message 26: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 09, 2013 10:22AM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Emily wrote: "Lia:
I know that the common good does not pertain only to me, but I think that what I believe would promote the common good of everyone. Isn't that what you think> So let's drop the whole concept o..."


Both of your "secular" reasons are somewhat flawed imho. If the freedom of homophobes are infringed by same-sex couples getting the financial benefit of marriage b/c it is forcing them to fund the so-called "gay lifestyle" with their tax dollars, then why should ppl who are not in a heterosexual relationship, or who are critical to marriage in general, be forced to fund heterosexual lifestyle with their tax dollars?

That marriage is only for procreation is indeed a position held by many cultures but if you subscribe to it consistently then those opposite-sex couples who do not or can not have biological children (e.g. old ppl) can also be barred from getting the privilege of marriage.

Also, citing "common good for everyone" as justification is not necessarily contradictory with "forcing" religion or ideology onto others or "getting in other people's business". Even Fascists, Stalinists, or disciples of political Islam or political Christianity will proudly tell you that they are working for the common good & for their love of humanity.

imho you did generalized a bit in your original post, although I think it's kind of understandable as there is a misconception among many Americans that everyone they talk to on the Internet is from their country.:)


message 27: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Emily wrote: "So,I actually have the opposite opinion of all y'all. Reading these posts has insulted me. I've been called ignorant, cruel, a low-life, stereotypical, and apparently it is the side of the devil if..."

I suddenly am looking forward to being an atheist at a catholic school! Thanks Emily! I can tell you now I will/have never agreed with you! So Emily my point is as long as your not running along with large signs and doing hate crimes I don't really care. It still pisses me off but I don't care.


message 28: by Janelle (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Emily wrote: "Lia:
I know that the common good does not pertain only to me, but I think that what I believe would promote the common good of everyone. Isn't that what you think> So let's drop the whole concept o..."


Emily, they were simply trying to express that they were attempting to see the other side and assess the arguments. That is the way they were using the term. Personally I am against gay rights as well, but I understand that the term "devil's advocate" was being used to express that the person was trying to argue for the opposition of her views. That is basically the only way the term is used in today's world... so you were twisting it to make yourself seem more victimized.


message 29: by Som (new)

Som For me being a homophobic is equal to being a racist. You can't object the nature. Even if you do in these contexts, it's extremely offensive. So it's always better to keep that hatred to yourself instead of going public with these 'putrid' opinions.

About the religion's involvement; talk about Westboro Baptist church; talk about priests molesting kids...etc etc...So I don't believe anything they deciphered from your holy books.

Bring all the cons on the table but end of the day; I, publicly pity those who proudly claim that they are against gay marriage. Would deffo avoid talking to these people in real life.


message 30: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Gee, thanks to the the two people who used the term homophobe. That is quite derogatory and inaccurate. That term implies a fear. There is no fear involved in my opinion. Also, thanks to all of the other people posting negative comments especially Somnambulist:
I have no hatred towards anyone; I merely disapprove of some people's choices/ lifestyles. I can't possibly hate anyone because we're all sinners just like the pope said. And remember that you shouldn't judge the entire Church based on the mistakes of a few.


message 31: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 10, 2013 07:23PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Emily wrote: "Gee, thanks to the the two people who used the term homophobe. That is quite derogatory and inaccurate. That term implies a fear. There is no fear involved in my opinion. Also, thanks to all of the..."

I was told that the word "homophobia", when first used in the 60s, did imply fear, however since the 70s its meaning has expanded quite a bit to include all types of negative reaction towards same-sex relationship as well as lgbt ppl in general. However as I'm not a native speaker I may not fully understand all the intricacies in its meaning so sorry if I didn't use it appropriately.


message 32: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments I was not expecting positive comments, but I was also not expecting comments that attacked my character and me as a person.

I know what homophobe means. I am not ignoring the definition. I feel no contempt for them as a person. Like I said, I know that we are all sinners.

Second, your argument about the bible containing practices that we no longer follow so we shouldn't follow what it says about gay marriage is flawed.
Some random people didn't just say "Let's not follow this anymore." When Jesus was alive, He contradicted a lot of the old practices and set out new ones like the seven sacraments. Also, the pope still says that gay marriage is a sin. When speaking on issues of the faith, he has infallibility, so we follow what he says.

Since, I see Acting on homosexual feelings as a sin, of course I would not support their right to sin. Even though some people say that homosexuality is not a sin, and even if this were true, nothing is forcing them to act upon these feelings. It is the action that is a sin not the feelings.


message 33: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments H99 wrote: "The pope has infallibility on the matters of God, the Bible, Jesus, etc. and that infallibility isn't going to count for much if you don't already believe in the Bible and Jesus."
I know that, but it does destroy the argument "There are crazy practices in the Bible that we don't do anymore. Why is gay marriage different?"


message 34: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Kate wrote: "Emily wrote: "I was not expecting positive comments, but I was also not expecting comments that attacked my character and me as a person.

I know what homophobe means. I am not ignoring the definit..."


What a double standard?! I'm laughing now because if I weren't, I would be crying! You would avoid me for my opinion?! You're promoting acceptance while not accepting my beliefs! You could at least tolerate my beliefs! And I have no contempt for the people only their actions! That is a huge difference! I am still friendly towards homosexuals at my school and the people who have told me that hate people who don't support gay rights! Again, what a double standard?! "I can't."


message 35: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments H99 wrote: "I suppose it could... But the Pope is still a human who can make mistakes, right?"
To clarify:
We believe that he can make mistakes, but not when making a declaration on the faith (on issues of God, the Bible, etc). (Most popes rarely ever do this because it takes a long time because it involves lots of research and tons of prayer and meditation.)


message 36: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 11, 2013 05:54PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments Emily wrote: "I was not expecting positive comments, but I was also not expecting comments that attacked my character and me as a person.

I know what homophobe means. I am not ignoring the definition. I feel no..."


The problem is, a lot of the things you do and believe in are considered sinful by other people who hold different beliefs. If we all aggressively mess with other people's life to prevent them from sinning then very soon there will be no individual liberty. Why not live & let live & leave our sins to be judged by God alone.

Most ppl are capable of being friendly towards others regardless of anything, and imho this is just basic human decency. Also c.f. http://ask.metafilter.com/31504/Me-bi... on why "I have X friends so I can't hate X ppl" is a cliched and unconvincing defense.


message 37: by Sarah (new)

Sarah Saqib While I personally don't hold anything against gay marriage, I don't think I'd look down on someone who was against it. As long as they kept this belief for them self to follow and didn't try to enforce others to follow them. Idc if one didn't show up to pride parades and all that but at the same time, one should not be (as I've seen done before) doing hate crimes such as picketing a funeral of a gay soldier. That is what I find thoroughly disgusting. And I don't see how any God could approve of someone hating and bashing one of his creations.


message 38: by Janelle (last edited Nov 11, 2013 06:16PM) (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Kate wrote: "Emily wrote: "Kate wrote: "Emily wrote: "I was not expecting positive comments, but I was also not expecting comments that attacked my character and me as a person.

I know what homophobe means. I ..."


My opinion is valid. You can't simply say it is not. I know that gay marriage is not right, but I still accept gay people. I do not see them as evil. People are people and no one is better than anyone else- we all make mistakes. I know that gay marriage is wrong because it obviously defies nature. That is the main reason, not the only. People have the power of will, they have been given the ability to make choices and obviously we don't always make the right choices. Sometimes we don't understand if our choices are wrong because we are blinded by what we want to believe. One thing I want to point out is that there are virtually no instances instances in history (as in prior to 1950s) where gay people existed. In the 18th century I doubt anyone would even fathom the existence of gays and lesbians; homosexuality was definitely unfathomable.
People who believe they are transgender resent their gender and want something else. Have we not all seen other people or situations and thought that they were better than ours? Have we not all resented something about ourselves?
LGBT has become something indirectly socially expected to be accepted. It has become extremely popular in today's society... which is odd considering the past...
Why wouldn't there have been more LGBT cases in the past if "people can't help who they love". Why is it that gay as and lesbians exist all of a sudden? Why is it that humans evolved? The only way to have children without technology is with a male and female. If homosexuality was the way everyone was, we would not be here; humans would not have thrived past those initially created. Humanity itself is proof that people are not meant to be homosexuals.

I am not trying to offend anyone who reads this, I am simply literally stating my opinion because I could not bear to read someone outright say my opinion is not valid.


message 39: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Thank you so much, Janelle! You said it so eloquently.


message 40: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Sarah wrote: "While I personally don't hold anything against gay marriage, I don't think I'd look down on someone who was against it. As long as they kept this belief for them self to follow and didn't try to en..."

I agree with you 100% that no hate for another person is acceptable.


message 41: by Som (new)

Som @Emily

As I've said before; some skeletons are best kept in closet; you don't flash those in public with lots of pride. Feelings tend to hurt from both sides...Majority's opinion don't invalidate with some 'biased' opinions.

Welcome to the moral circle. Where bringing religion is unhealthy. Where humanity comes first. Viz: You don't blame Islam as a whole for the terrorism; it's the peculiar stuffs some decipher from the holy books. Too bad, 'radical' religious scums are the real pain in the ..... When they try to control people's choices and reign some kind of mental supremacy, they become more despicable.

You hate the person by hating their sexuality; it's an evolved theory; so as the definition of 'Homophobic'.. So being friendly to them is just a mask?

And again, I would definitely avoid the person for her/his opinions (primarily when it's homophobic and racist); without wasting too much time correcting them especially when they are too stubborn about it. You think it's a sin, well that circle too small, almost negligible...Still if you're really serious about it please be careful when you give a public speech against gay marriage. Some people aren't tolerant enough, especially when you condemn their sexuality being 'sinful'.

PS: Read these posts with a voice of a zen monk, you wont find them 'attacking' anymore... (:

..... ...


message 42: by Janelle (last edited Nov 12, 2013 04:00PM) (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Kate wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Kate wrote: "Emily wrote: "Kate wrote: "Emily wrote: "I was not expecting positive comments, but I was also not expecting comments that attacked my character and me as a person.

I ..."


Kate- First off I want to specify that I completely understand that the terms are new, but I was using them to describe people in the past who were like lesbians and gays... I was not implying that the terms didn't exist, I was implying that the actual fact of being LGB or T was extremely rare, if at all existant. Next, yes Kate, it did occur to me that they may have existed and did not feel they could come out in their society. But, the thing is that they didn't... AND there are basically no historical documents (diary entries, letters, etc.) as proof that there were people who believed they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, t or transgender. On the last one... I just have to note that one can not simply change their gender because they say it is wrong- a boy is not created a boy by accident (likewise vice versa of course). If you are born a male, you are naturally a male, anything one tries to do to change that is artificial. That is another reason I don't believe LGBT is right- it is artificial, contrived and yes, unnatural. Ignoring the fact that it is unnatural is ignoring the fact that it is wrong...


message 43: by Janelle (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Somnambulist wrote: "@Emily

As I've said before; some skeletons are best kept in closet; you don't flash those in public with lots of pride. Feelings tend to hurt from both sides...Majority's opinion don't invalidate ..."


I am against gay marriage, yes. But for me being nice to gay people is not a mask. I am not a hypocrite. Just because I believe that their homosexuality is wrong, I do not believe they are bad. I believe cheating is wrong; I would not believe the person is bad because they cheated. Everyone makes mistakes, anyone can be deluded or confused without knowing it. I understand that not everyone understands my perspective. But I do see both sides, and that is why I understand LGBT is not right.


message 44: by Som (new)

Som @Janelle

'Against' how? Do you protest against it?
or Do you give advice to homosexual people that what they are doing is wrong and they'd remain single for the rest of their life, they have no right to be happy; just cause it's not with an opposite sex?

'Cheating' and 'Gay marriage' are completely different things..It's not really OK to call gay marriage a 'mistake' on that light of comparison.
Who decides what's natural? What if LGBT think straight are the wrong ones....
The most probable destruction of world will be because of 'straight' people; because of insane marital breeding. So who says you're the right one?
How do you see both the sides then?

and...
http://www.godandscience.org/evolutio... ...


message 45: by Janelle (last edited Nov 12, 2013 11:57AM) (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Lia wrote: "Being gay is unnatural and therefore immoral?

Are clothes wrong then? Human beings are born naked, so putting on clothes is unnatural. So,by that argument we should all shed our clothes as if we'..."


I am obviously not talking about tangeable items and the lack of Substancial evidence proves it was not prominent as it is today.


message 46: by Janelle (new)

Janelle Rae (janellerm) | 53 comments Somnambulist wrote: "@Janelle

'Against' how? Do you protest against it?
or Do you give advice to homosexual people that what they are doing is wrong and they'd remain single for the rest of their life, they have no r..."


Neither really... I simply know that it is wrong.
LGBTs May think straights are the wrong ones but that is obviously invalid since straight relationships are the reason why humanity has survived past original creation... obvi
I see your side clearly because I understand why it is wrong and how people are delusionally attempting to justify it. Please read my original post to read the basis of my understanding.
"The most probable destruction of the world...?" I am sorry, but I do not think I can answer that question since it really does not make sense... and it's a bit weird...


message 47: by Emily (new)

Emily | 45 comments Somnambulist wrote: "@Emily

As I've said before; some skeletons are best kept in closet; you don't flash those in public with lots of pride. Feelings tend to hurt from both sides...Majority's opinion don't invalidate ..."


I'm seriously crying right now.

"As I've said before; some skeletons are best kept in closet; you don't flash those in public with lots of pride. " What?! So I have to keep my feelings in the closet yet gays who come out of the closet are applauded?! How is that not a double standard?!

You say religion is unhealthy and doesn't belong in moral circles?! I never thought I'd ever hear that! It is so totally completely absolutely utterly wrong!

And so now I'm radical, scum, despicable, homophobic, racist, a pain in the a**, stubborn, and hate people?!
No! How can you say that while you claim to be in "the moral circle"?!

I do not hate anybody, once and for all! I love everybody (even you) because that is what it means to be a Christian/Catholic!

(I don't know what a zen monk sounds like.)


message 48: by Xdyj (last edited Nov 12, 2013 03:50PM) (new)

Xdyj | 127 comments It is true that western lgbt identity as we see today is largely a post WWII and post Stonewall phenomenon. However, same-sex romantic relationships has been around since forever. Historical accounts of such relationships can be found in ancient Greece as well as many eastern countries like Japan, Thailand and China (although mainland China today is not very tolerant towards lgbt ppl, partly because of the dictatorship). The word "lesbian" is named after Sappho of Lesbos who wrote romantic poetry directed at other women. Germany before 1933 was one of the most tolerant European countries in terms of sexuality & had a rather visible & vocal gay community, until they were all rounded up and sent to concentration camps by the Nazis. Even in the conservative Victorian Britain, social reformers & enlightenment thinkers like Bentham had advocated for greater tolerance towards gay ppl.


message 49: by [deleted user] (new)

Hey guys, just a note, I can see why Emily didn't want to post, and I think she was right when she said something alone the lines about agreeing with gay marriage is now pretty madatory. It use to be mandatory you didn't. I think we need to find somewhere in the middle. :) Like, with respecting people's opinions. Don't insult anyone with their own opinions. I might not be caught up with this debate because I haven't read a lot of this page two, but from what I say, it was basically everyone debating her. That's kinda hard to handle.


message 50: by Som (new)

Som @Janelle

(I read that in Oracle's voice) hehe nvm
So you just happen to 'know' it is sinful.....that's kinda poetic!

@Emily

Hey hey now, don't cry!!!

I didn't say religion is unhealthy; I said bringing religion into this is unhealthy.

Though I did directly imply that religious extremists are mostly 'scums'; as they often interpret stuffs from the holy books differently, in extreme ways; that mostly lead them to to harm someone; physically, emotionally..

Viz: Some extremists of a certain religion may think; if you're a woman and someone sees you naked it's a massive sin; you just immediately burn yourself for forgiveness. Foof! gone!
But a non radical with some positive aura tells you that this sentence right here meant that you 'just cover yourself', instead of all that burning. Maybe for most radicals it doesn't really sound like an exciting option

All I'm asking, why do you have to vent your hatred publicly; when they are happy and it's not doing you any harm. Isn't it like saying 'Being black is a sin'? And expect people to respect your opinion...
And, being gay is mostly not a choice that's why it's being legalized even the countries we've never even heard the names of.
It's also sad to see that you feel being homosexual is having skeletons in closet.

@Ashley

Hitting others is like being homosexual?
What d'you think? On a 'sin' scale which one is more sinful?


« previous 1 3
back to top