The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Dan]

It's a problem for them.

Heterosexual is normal, that's why they call us "normies".

So what's wrong about being homosexual when it has been identified in over 1,500 animal species?

 

[Famine]

Human is normal. Sexuality is a massive rainbow (no pun intended) that goes from outright uberstraight to completely ultragay right through the middle of totally mega-bi - and very few people are at the ends of that spectrum.

If you find it impossible to become aroused watching porn with straight sex in it, you might have a case for being at one end or the other - but otherwise neither the furry cup nor the caber and marblepouch are putting you off...

 

[Danny]

It's a problem for them.

Heterosexual is normal, that's why they call us "normies".

Care to elaborate?

 

[Dan]

Sexuality is a massive rainbow (no pun intended)

That had me in stitches. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, isn't that the same problem with religious groups also? I'm sorry, but the USA is the only country I know, which is so dazzled by religion and religious beliefs.

Really?

Really?

That's the reason, why gay people still do not have the same rights as straight couples.

Because we bicker over change. It isn't like we outlaw it, by penalty of death.

It's a problem for them.

Is this kind of like saying you aren't homosexual so it isn't your problem?

Heterosexual is normal, that's why they call us "normies".

I've never heard that term before from homosexuals. I've been called a norm by a disabled person.

Now, "breeders," that is a term I'm familiar with.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

Is this kind of like saying you aren't homosexual so it isn't your problem?


I've never heard that term before from homosexuals. I've been called a norm by a disabled person.

Now, "breeders," that is a term I'm familiar with.

I am saying that there wasn't a problem with our laws until they pointed it out as being a problem. The laws do not affect me, I'm married with tax deductions. It affects them and it becomes a problem because they say, "Hey, we've got a problem here...."

"Breeders"? Never heard that.

Not directed at you, but I find it alarming that if I don't agree with gay rights, that I am immediately flagged as a bad person. I can choose to not agree with someone's lifestyle but still like them as a person. I see no reason in having to adopted every habit, every religious, every social flavor to be a good person.

I will vote against gay rights, but I will not throw rocks at them. They have the right to vote the way they seem fit. Doesn't mean I hate them.

There is no normal when it comes to sexuality. It isn't just gay or straight, there's at least fifty shades of grey.

At least 50 huh?

 

[nobuffalo]

I will vote against gay rights, but I will not throw rocks at them.

Kinda the same thing in my opinion.

 

[Famine]

Not directed at you, but I find it alarming that if I don't agree with gay rights, that I am immediately flagged as a bad person. I can choose to not agree with someone's lifestyle but still like them as a person. I see no reason in having to adopted every habit, every religious, every social flavor to be a good person.

I will vote against gay rights

If you think your tax dollars should go towards forcibly preventing any human from enjoying the same treatment as you from the government that should represent you equally and to which you both contribute without prejudice, you can't like them all that much.

 

[Pako]

Kinda the same thing in my opinion.

Ok, let me throw rocks at you or vote my opinion and you tell me again that it's the same thing.

If you think your tax dollars should go towards forcibly preventing any human from enjoying the same treatment as you from the government that should represent you equally and to which you both contribute without prejudice, you can't like them all that much.

I go back to what I just said, just because I don't support their lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate them. Not supporting them, and hating them are two different things. Supporting their lifestyle is condoning their lifestyle and my morals will not allow me to do that. I do, however, support their right to fight for what they believe.

 

[nobuffalo]

Ok, let me throw rocks at you or vote my opinion and you tell me again that it's the same thing.

I said kinda.

You are refusing to allow or trying to take away their rights.

 

[Pako]

I said kinda.

Ok, let me kinda throw rocks at you then....

 

[Danny]

It affects them and it becomes a problem because they say, "Hey, we've got a problem here...."

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that you don't want people who are different to you to have the same rights that you have freely, and that you equate homosexuality to bestiality.

Heterosexual is normal, that's why they call us "normies".

Care to elaborate?

Is that a no, then?

 

[nobuffalo]

Ok, let me kinda throw rocks at you then....

By voting against gay rights you are.

 

[Pako]

Ok, so...let me get this straight. Unless I am willing to accept gay rights, I am not allowed to voice my opinion nor share my beliefs because it is contradictory to someone else's belief? Furthermore, I will be brow beaten until I change my mind?

@Danny,
"bestiality", what????

 

[nobuffalo]

Ok, so...let me get this straight. Unless I am willing to accept gay rights, I am not allowed to voice my opinion nor share my beliefs because it is contradictory to someone else's belief? Furthermore, I will be brow beaten until I change my mind?

Voicing your opinion and voting against someone's rights isn't the same thing, neither is allowing them and accepting them. I don't accept your opinion but I allow it.

 

[Danny]

Ok, so...let me get this straight. Unless I am willing to accept gay equal rights, I am not allowed to voice my opinion nor share my beliefs because it is contradictory to someone else's belief? Furthermore, I will be brow beaten until I change my mind?

ftfy.

The bottom line is that you don't want other people to be afforded the same rights that you are. How Christian of you.

@Danny,
"bestiality", what????

Old quote. Still relevant.

So is it a question of morality then? I suppose that bestiality is morally acceptable as well? Shall we teach that as a morally acceptable action which is ok in the privacy of our own home?

 

[Joel]

I go back to what I just said, just because I don't support their lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate them. Not supporting them, and hating them are two different things. Supporting their lifestyle is condoning their lifestyle and my morals will not allow me to do that. I do, however, support their right to fight for what they believe.

Supporting equal treatment under the law does not go against Christian morals. It's not about "condoning a lifestyle", the key word in what Famine said is forcible. You're OK with forcibly denying equal rights to people because your personal religious-based morals say it's wrong. Don't be surprised that people have an issue with that.

This isn't about a for or against argument about a "lifestyle". This is either being OK with your laws discriminating for arbitrary reasons, or being for equality.

 

[Dennisch]

I do, however, support their right to fight for what they believe.

Ehm...

I will vote against gay rights,

If you support their fight for equality, you should vote for their right, not against.

Missed a complete page! Never mind!

Actually, it still stands!

 

[Pako]

Old quote. Still relevant.

To put it into context, I was showing that the moral line of what is acceptable is shifting, and will continue to shift. Where do you want that moral line to stop?

 

[Famine]

I go back to what I just said, just because I don't support their lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate them. Not supporting them, and hating them are two different things.

Not supporting an individual's lifestyle and actively requesting your tax dollars go to forcibly preventing them from having the same treatment from a government that's supposed to represent and treat them equally are not the same thing either.

Voting "against gay rights" is voting against equal treatment for law-abiding humans by the body that's supposed to represent them equally.

Would you vote for a proposition that stripped homosexuals of the right to vote on the basis that allowing them the right to vote supports their lifestyle? Or would you think that's ridiculous and vote against it on the basis they're just people and they should be allowed the same say in who's in charge as everyone else.

Would you refuse 10% of any tax rebate on the basis the money came from homosexuals and taking their money is supporting their lifestyle? They contribute to taxation without prejudice after all...

Would you refuse to acknowledge the roles of gay servicemen (and there's a little more than 10%) in fighting to give you the freedom to vote against them having the same rights you do on the basis that lauding them condones their lifestyle?


Being treated equally by the body that is supposed to treat people equally isn't condoning or supporting anything. It's not even an acceptance of it. It's an acknowledgement that a human deserves the same treatment as any other human by a body that is supposed to treat humans equally. You don't have to like or understand why they put their genitals where they do to this.

And if you don't think they deserve equal treatment, you can't like them very much. Of course the USA has a chequered past with quantifying how much less equal treatment some of its citizens should have...

 

[Danny]

To put it into context, I was showing that the moral line of what is acceptable is shifting, and will continue to shift. Where do you want that moral line to stop?

Well yes, that does depend on your point of view and what behaviours you equate to each other. I imagine bigotry does have it's own parameters.

 

[G.T.Ace]

To put it into context, I was showing that the moral line of what is acceptable is shifting, and will continue to shift. Where do you want that moral line to stop?

That moral line stops where one of the parties involved can't say no, or doesn't know what's going on.

EDIT: By the way, what's your religion?

 

[Joel]

To put it into context, I was showing that the moral line of what is acceptable is shifting, and will continue to shift. Where do you want that moral line to stop?

I'd like the moral line to stop when governments stop forcibly intervening between consenting adults. That's the line. There's no jump to having sex with dogs by allowing gay marriage, that is just silly.

 

[Pako]

@Famine,
There are tax dollars going to things I don't condone all the time. Things I voted against, but my dollars are still getting spent. Is that fair? I don't think so, but it is what it is. Why can't I allocate my dollars to the programs I want to support and know that none of my money is going to things I do not? I would say the system is being pretty equal to both parties on that topic.

I'd like the moral line to stop when governments stop forcibly intervening between consenting adults. That's the line. There's no jump to having sex with dogs by allowing gay marriage, that is just silly.

Since when does the government have any say of intervening between consenting adults?

Since when is it against the law to have homosexual relations with consenting adults? I know of no law in the US, do you?

 

[Danny]

Since when does the government have any say of intervening between consenting adults?

Since when is it against the law to have homosexual relations with consenting adults? I know of no law in the US, do you?

Why can one group get married and one group cannot?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Since when does the government have any say of intervening between consenting adults?

Then why should the government be allowed to say "you aren't allowed to marry your partner" when both are consenting adults?

 

[Pako]

Why can one group get married and one group cannot?

We will be getting into definitions again, but the state's definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not between two consenting adults.

Gay rights would have the definition changed. They will lobby for it and it will be voted on.

 

[Joel]

Since when does the government have any say of intervening between consenting adults?

Since when is it against the law to have homosexual relations with consenting adults? I know of no law in the US, do you?

It's against the law for gay men and women to be married and combine their finances, act as each other's next of kin, handle medical emergencies, inheritances in case of deaths, and that is not OK.

There's a video out there of a gay couple who had lived together away from their parents for years, when one died in an accident. The deceased's family who didn't "approve of the lifestyle" cut his boyfriend out of the funeral, any of his possessions, shared income, and tried to erase any record of these men living together and loving each other. This is what the laws now lead to. This is what you are voting for. If this is a "moral line" then it damn well needs to be shifted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-bitney-crone/an-american-love-story_b_1631465.html

 

[Famine]

@Famine,
There are tax dollars going to things I don't condone all the time. Things I voted against, but my dollars are still getting spent. Is that fair?

No. That's an issue with the very concepts of government and democracy - that springs from the notion that government is meant to control and people should not be treated equally by it... I think you can see what road bigotry took us down, so I'm surprised it's even suggested we should go down it again.

I don't think so, but it is what it is. Why can't I allocate my dollars to the programs I want to support and know that none of my money is going to things I do not? I would say the system is being pretty equal to both parties on that topic.

Yet you want to vote for it to be more unfair - to say "This human must never have what this human has".

You didn't answer if you'd vote against gay votes. I'd assume you would, for fear of condoning their lifestyle...


Incidentally I don't understand gay men either. They like to do things with their genitals - and the genitals of other men - that freak me out.

But there's more than a handful of folk here who have straight girlfriends that do exactly the same things. They seem to like it too. Are we to vote against women's rights now?


Seriously... voting against equal rights by portraying them as gay rights? The only thing that should be in your head is "Is this human a human?". If the answer is "Yes", they should have the same rights as you - until they give them up by showing they have no idea that other people should have them too.

 

[Pako]

It's against the law for gay men and women to be married and combine their finances, act as each other's next of kin, handle medical emergencies, inheritances in case of deaths, and that is not OK.

There's a video out there of a gay couple who had lived together away from their parents for years, when one died in car accident. The deceased's family who didn't "approve of the lifestyle" cut his boyfriend out of the funeral, any of his possessions, shared income, and tried to erase any record of these men living together and loving each other. This is what the laws now are fostering. This is what you are voting for. If this is a "moral line" then it damn well needs to be shifted.

It sounds like that man's family had their own moral obligation to honor their son but failed to do that. Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions and be a loving parent/family?