The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Liquid]

This type of nature would never happen if satan the devil would never came to the earth. Gays wouldn't ever exist, if Satan never came here

Enlighten us, oh great one.

 

[Motorcycle54]

I've been brought up to believe that sex is the most beautiful, natural, and wholesome thing, that money can buy. I dont see why homosexuality should be an exception.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

I've been brought up to believe that sex is the most beautiful, natural, and wholesome thing, that money can buy. I dont see why homosexuality should be an exception.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This type of nature would never happen if satan the devil would never came to the earth. Gays wouldn't ever exist, if Satan never came here

I wonder if Satan has a Green Card or if he's an illegal alien?

Since it was brought up, if Gay marriage represents equal treatment for all citizens in terms of marriage rights, why not polygamy? If I can marry a guy now, what's the difference between marrying one guy or marrying two, three or more women, or men for that matter?

 

[Liquid]

Since it was brought up, if Gay marriage represents equal treatment for all citizens in terms of marriage rights, why not polygamy? If I can marry a guy now, what's the difference between marrying one guy or marrying two, three or more women, or men for that matter?

As long as there is no deception involved and all parties are in agreement, I don't see why not.

 

[FoolKiller]

I wonder if Satan has a Green Card or if he's an illegal alien?

Since it was brought up, if Gay marriage represents equal treatment for all citizens in terms of marriage rights, why not polygamy? If I can marry a guy now, what's the difference between marrying one guy or marrying two, three or more women, or men for that matter?

If you want to punish yourself, have at it. One and a half people all up in my business 24/7 is more than enough for me, thanks.

To put it seriously; whatever consenting adults wish to do with each other is fine by me. I'd ask you why you are appearing to say polygamy would be a problem, but that's another thread.

 

[Scaff]

Since it was brought up, if Gay marriage represents equal treatment for all citizens in terms of marriage rights, why not polygamy? If I can marry a guy now, what's the difference between marrying one guy or marrying two, three or more women, or men for that matter?

Its no more or less possible that when only a man could marry a woman.

Gay marriage is no more of a slippery slope to polygamy than hetorsexual marriage is.

 

[counter345]

So I asked one of my friends, who was a Christian, what he thought about the news (UK.) He said that as he is a christian, the term "marriage" hold religious values and that demonstrates it being a man and a woman.

What my friend doesn't understand is that the term "marriage" has been used for millions of years, way before Christianity, but also there are quite a few times where the term marriage has been changed. For example, inter-racial marriages.

Marriage, for a lot of people, isn't religious at all; rather than a message to show true love and commitment between two people.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So I asked one of my friends, who was a Christian, what he thought about the news (UK.) He said that as he is a christian, the term "marriage" hold religious values and that demonstrates it being a man and a woman.

What my friend doesn't understand is that the term "marriage" has been used for millions of years, way before Christianity, but also there are quite a few times where the term marriage has been changed. For example, inter-racial marriages.

Marriage, for a lot of people, isn't religious at all; rather than a message to show true love and commitment between two people.

A slight exaggeration perhaps.

Other than that, good post.👍

 

[DK]

And as He Who Posts In Indigo will tell you, the word "marriage" stems from the French (or was it Latin?) word "mariatare", i.e. to provide with a husband or wife. It didn't explicitly say "to provide a man with a wife" or "to provide a woman with a husband" AFAIK.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you want to punish yourself, have at it. One and a half people all up in my business 24/7 is more than enough for me, thanks.

To put it seriously; whatever consenting adults wish to do with each other is fine by me. I'd ask you why you are appearing to say polygamy would be a problem, but that's another thread.

Not sure how you make the leap from me asking a question to appearing to say it's a problem but whatever.

If gay marriage is a "rights" issue then to me it's basically an open door to legalized polygamy. I see no difference. Not saying that's good or bad, but one is a natural extension of the other. The argument for legalizing polygamy will be coming soon I guarantee it and based on the logic used to justify gay marriage I don't see how one can reasonably deny it.

 

[homeforsummer]

The argument for legalizing polygamy will be coming soon I guarantee it and based on the logic used to justify gay marriage I don't see how one can reasonably deny it.

Well, that's because it's not really a big deal if polygamy becomes legal. As FK says, if you're loopy enough to want more than one partner you should be welcome to it.

It doesn't devalue anyone else's marriage if someone decides to enter into a polygamous marriage, no more than it devalues any current marriage if two gay people are allowed to marry.

If all parties are consenting - as they are in a regular marriage (hetero or homosexual) - then that doesn't seem like much of a big deal to me.

Little enough of a deal that bringing it up sounds suspiciously akin to "it's all just a slippery slope", which is one of the usual arguments against anything new. Like interracial marriage, or women getting the vote. I.e. any other scenario in which one party or another previously lacked equal rights.

 

[PeterJB]

Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't really bother me too much, what does bother me is the government banning the Church of England from being able to do so. While yes most clergyman would be opposed to same-sex marriage, it seems like a bit of a stretch to say the Church can never conduct it, because this means that any gay couples that want Anglican wedding ceremonies (one or two of which I know personally) no longer can.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Little enough of a deal that bringing it up sounds suspiciously akin to "it's all just a slippery slope", which is one of the usual arguments against anything new. Like interracial marriage, or women getting the vote. I.e. any other scenario in which one party or another previously lacked equal rights.

Please don't suggest I'm insinuating it's a slippery slope. I don't mince words. If I thought it was a slippery slope, I'd just say it's slippery slope, I wouldn't beat around the bush. If you want to know, you only need ask me to clarify.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not sure how you make the leap from me asking a question to appearing to say it's a problem but whatever.

The wording makes it seem that way, which is why I said it gives the appearance, not that I assumed your stance on the issue.

If gay marriage is a "rights" issue then to me it's basically an open door to legalized polygamy. I see no difference. Not saying that's good or bad, but one is a natural extension of the other. The argument for legalizing polygamy will be coming soon I guarantee it and based on the logic used to justify gay marriage I don't see how one can reasonably deny it.

Ok. And? Consenting adults, any consenting adults, should be able to have any kind of partnership that any other consenting adults can do.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The wording makes it seem that way, which is why I said it gives the appearance, not that I assumed your stance on the issue.


Ok. And? Consenting adults, any consenting adults, should be able to have any kind of partnership that any other consenting adults can do.

No the wording doesn't make it seem that way, you make it seem that way. You chose to read that into it. As I said, if I wanted to indicate a slippery slope I would have said it outright, expressing an opinion is not something I'm afraid of.

And? ...is not a question I can answer without insinuating or extrapolating your meaning...a slippery slope...

 

[playnthru]

Is that what the kids are calling it these days? Slippery Slope?

 

[Minty]

And? ...is not a question I can answer without insinuating or extrapolating your meaning...a slippery slope...

You could, perhaps, address the bit that follows "And?"?

He's asking what you're point was when you said:

If gay marriage is a "rights" issue then to me it's basically an open door to legalized polygamy. I see no difference. Not saying that's good or bad, but one is a natural extension of the other. The argument for legalizing polygamy will be coming soon I guarantee it and based on the logic used to justify gay marriage I don't see how one can reasonably deny it.

So even if this leads to arguments for polygamy, what makes that a bad thing?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You could, perhaps, address the bit that follows "And?"?

He's asking what you're point was when you said:



So even if this leads to arguments for polygamy, what makes that a bad thing?

I could address the part after "and?" but it's a statement not a question.

I don't know what makes it a bad thing, as I said, "Not saying that's good or bad.."...lol...

I threw out the polygamy angle because I've never heard it mentioned as a logical extension of the gay marriage debate and it just occurred to me that the same logic used to contenance gay marriage is the same argument that would be used to promote the idea of polygamy. Sooner or later someone in the public eye is going to begin a campaign for polygamy and I wonder if the same groups that advocate now for gay marriage will also advocate for polygamy.

 

[Famine]

Yep.

More specifically, the end-point is to have the government butt out of saying which consenting adults can draw up a marriage contract with each other - but if they won't do that, having them recognise the existence of that contract no matter which consenting adults it's between is a reasonable second best.

 

[FoolKiller]

I could address the part after "and?" but it's a statement not a question.

Responding to a statement with, "And?" is a shorthand American way of saying, "What's your point?" You have adamantly said you aren't judging, which leaves us with wondering why you brought it up at all.

I threw out the polygamy angle because I've never heard it mentioned as a logical extension of the gay marriage debate

This is our confusion. You have used nearly the exact same wording as the anti-gay pundits, who argue against gay marriage by saying it opens the door (your wording - which in their context is the same as slippery slope) to polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. So, perhaps you can understand how we may be confused when you appeared to be echoing bigoted arguments. How do we know you haven't heard something so common that even comedy shows have been mocking it for years?

Sooner or later someone in the public eye is going to begin a campaign for polygamy and I wonder if the same groups that advocate now for gay marriage will also advocate for polygamy.

Some will and some won't. I think polygamy will have an easier case internationally due to the fact that some of the same countries that kill homosexuals already allow polygamy. There are also non-muslim religions in the US that allow polygamy, and even a reality show and a drama about it.

Polygamy has been in the public eye and had a movement to legalize it for ac while. They just lack the lobbying strength homosexuals have, possibly because it is hard to maintain four or five stable relationships and still be able to focus on other things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Responding to a statement with, "And?" is a shorthand American way of saying, "What's your point?" You have adamantly said you aren't judging, which leaves us with wondering why you brought it up at all.

This is our confusion. You have used nearly the exact same wording as the anti-gay pundits, who argue against gay marriage by saying it opens the door (your wording - which in their context is the same as slippery slope) to polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. So, perhaps you can understand how we may be confused when you appeared to be echoing bigoted arguments. How do we know you haven't heard something so common that even comedy shows have been mocking it for years?

Some will and some won't. I think polygamy will have an easier case internationally due to the fact that some of the same countries that kill homosexuals already allow polygamy. There are also non-muslim religions in the US that allow polygamy, and even a reality show and a drama about it.

Polygamy has been in the public eye and had a movement to legalize it for ac while. They just lack the lobbying strength homosexuals have, possibly because it is hard to maintain four or five stable relationships and still be able to focus on other things.

Sorry, it may be American or Canadian shorthand and I'm well aware of that, but if someone can't take 10 seconds to type out an actual question they want me to answer, then I won't take 10 seconds to make an assumption as to what they might mean.

And no offense, but if you can't tell the difference between my response and an anti-gay pundit, then it's back to English 101 for you. This may be hard to believe, but some people do raise issues without having an agenda. And when someone posts a comment that doesn't blatantly side one way or the other on an issue, and specifically states they aren't saying it's "good or bad" , then it's likely they are just raising an issue for discussion.

And seriously, you had to include bestiality and pedophilia in your response? I never mentioned that or alluded to either of those in any way, why would you include that in your response to what I said? It would make about as much sense as you posting in a thread about corporal punishment in child rearing, saying a little tap on the bum is ok once in a while, and me saying, "You have the same attitude as people that like to rape and molest little boys"

 

[Scaff]

Sorry, it may be American or Canadian shorthand and I'm well aware of that, but if someone can't take 10 seconds to type out an actual question they want me to answer, then I won't take 10 seconds to make an assumption as to what they might mean.

And no offense, but if you can't tell the difference between my response and an anti-gay pundit, then it's back to English 101 for you. This may be hard to believe, but some people do raise issues without having an agenda. And when someone posts a comment that doesn't blatantly side one way or the other on an issue, and specifically states they aren't saying it's "good or bad" , then it's likely they are just raising an issue for discussion.

And seriously, you had to include bestiality and pedophilia in your response? I never mentioned that or alluded to either of those in any way, why would you include that in your response to what I said? It would make about as much sense as you posting in a thread about corporal punishment in child rearing, saying a little tap on the bum is ok once in a while, and me saying, "You have the same attitude as people that like to rape and molest little boys"

I have to be honest when I first read your post it came across to me in exactly the same way,as its a line that has been repeated endlessly around the world. As such my first reaction was that your post was in a similar vein.

Oh and FoolKiller didn't say that you shared the same attitude and views as people who like to rape and molest children, he said that the same people who use the slippery slope argument also use the child abuse, incest polygamy, bestiality, etc, etc. as part of the slippery slope.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have to be honest when I first read your post it came across to me in exactly the same way,as its a line that has been repeated endlessly around the world. As such my first reaction was that your post was in a similar vein.

Oh and FoolKiller didn't say that you shared the same attitude and views as people who like to rape and molest children, he said that the same people who use the slippery slope argument also use the child abuse, incest polygamy, bestiality, etc, etc. as part of the slippery slope.

People have all kinds of reactions to all kinds of things posted, I can't control that. One need only ask for clarification and I've already clarified without being asked.

To paraphrase what's been thrown my way, expanding gay marriage and polygamy to be associated in anyway with bestiality or pedophilia is known in my books as guilt by association. To even include those remarks in a response to something I said, is the typical debate strategy you get from someone looking to back you into a corner and make you defend something you never said, or an association you never made or hinted at.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry, it may be American or Canadian shorthand and I'm well aware of that, but if someone can't take 10 seconds to type out an actual question they want me to answer, then I won't take 10 seconds to make an assumption as to what they might mean.

I initially tried to just ask you to clarify your point. Now you are being argumentative about figures of speech? Can't we all just get along?

And no offense, but if you can't tell the difference between my response and an anti-gay pundit, then it's back to English 101 for you. This may be hard to believe, but some people do raise issues without having an agenda. And when someone posts a comment that doesn't blatantly side one way or the other on an issue, and specifically states they aren't saying it's "good or bad" , then it's likely they are just raising an issue for discussion.

After my first response why not peacefully explain that your point had nothing to do with an opinion and just leave it? At this point I'm left explaining why I asked for clarification and you are arguing against that. Telling me that your wording doesn't leave room to imply anything and challenging my reading comprehension is a bit much.

And seriously, you had to include bestiality and pedophilia in your response? I never mentioned that or alluded to either of those in any way, why would you include that in your response to what I said?

Because I was describing other people, not you.

It would make about as much sense as you posting in a thread about corporal punishment in child rearing, saying a little tap on the bum is ok once in a while, and me saying, "You have the same attitude as people that like to rape and molest little boys"

When did I directly accuse you of having the same attitude of anyone? I asked for clarification, even being sure to say your wording has the appearance of a certain opinion, not claiming you held that opinion.

That said, if you ever go into a parenting forum your description is t far off from the truth. They even made it a joke on the finale of 30 Rock.


You seem like you could use a drink. It is Cupid-themed dress up night at Hooters. If you leave now you might make it in time for me to buy you a drink as a peace offering. Technically, my friends and I split pitchers, so I'll just pay for your portion.

 

[Scaff]

To paraphrase what's been thrown my way, expanding gay marriage and polygamy to be associated in anyway with bestiality or pedophilia is known in my books as guilt by association. To even include those remarks in a response to something I said, is the typical debate strategy you get from someone looking to back you into a corner and make you defend something you never said, or an association you never made or hinted at.

And had he associated you with it you would have a point, however it reads to me as an explanation of why he read your post in that manner originally. Please keep in mind that he is not the only one to read you post as ambiguous and certainly its the same argument that the Catholic Church has used...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/10/us-vatican-gaymarriage-idUSBRE8A90H820121110

...so I'm sure you can see (as FoolKiller says) how this can be seen as confusing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I initially tried to just ask you to clarify your point. Now you are being argumentative about figures of speech? Can't we all just get along?

After my first response why not peacefully explain that your point had nothing to do with an opinion and just leave it? At this point I'm left explaining why I asked for clarification and you are arguing against that. Telling me that your wording doesn't leave room to imply anything and challenging my reading comprehension is a bit much.

Because I was describing other people, not you.

When did I directly accuse you of having the same attitude of anyone? I asked for clarification, even being sure to say your wording has the appearance of a certain opinion, not claiming you held that opinion.

That said, if you ever go into a parenting forum your description is t far off from the truth. They even made it a joke on the finale of 30 Rock.

You seem like you could use a drink. It is Cupid-themed dress up night at Hooters. If you leave now you might make it in time for me to buy you a drink as a peace offering. Technically, my friends and I split pitchers, so I'll just pay for your portion.

Really, initially you asked me to clarify my response? This is your initial response, please show me where you ask me to clarify my response. You asked me nothing, you only made statements. You said you might ask me something but it was for another thread, so why would I respond to that?

If you want to punish yourself, have at it. One and a half people all up in my business 24/7 is more than enough for me, thanks.

To put it seriously; whatever consenting adults wish to do with each other is fine by me. I'd ask you why you are appearing to say polygamy would be a problem, but that's another thread.

This is your next response. The only question in it is ,"Ok And" which isn't a question to me, it's more of a sarcasm undeserving of any direct response since I have no idea what you might be referring to in particular.

The wording makes it seem that way, which is why I said it gives the appearance, not that I assumed your stance on the issue.

Ok. And? Consenting adults, any consenting adults, should be able to have any kind of partnership that any other consenting adults can do.

I'll end this by saying, we're only going in circles, it's not getting anywhere, so lets just move along shall we?

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming....

 

[FoolKiller]

Really, initially you asked me to clarify my response? This is your initial response, please show me where you ask me to clarify my response. You asked me nothing, you only made statements. You said you might ask me something but it was for another thread, so why would I respond to that?

You're right. I indicated the question could be there, but I didn't want to drag the thread off topic...

 

[Liquid]

FOX News uses photo of homosexual couple to illustrate article about heterosexual marriage

 

[counter345]

FOX News uses photo of homosexual couple to illustrate article about heterosexual marriage

Made my day. Thanks for that. 👍