You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
I have been reading this thread and can not stay quiet any more.
Spider - what the hell are you talking about??
Question: Do you think 100 people should be able to get married to each other or than a man should be able to marry his horse?
what does this have to do with anything. If I said that I thought it was OK to have anal sex with donkeys, how in the world would that relate to gays having the right to marry. This is a silly question above that just further demeans and puts down gay Americans who just want to live a normal life and be happy, like everyone else. Are you saying that gay men and women enjoy beastiality?? If not, why bring up the question in this thread and give that impression.
Aren't you supposed to actually think, consider what you are going to say - BEFORE actually saying it, or in this case, posting it???
I have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two?
MH0825 wrote: I have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two?They both fall into the grouping of sexual immorality. Nature did not intend for man to try to reproduce with other species, and nature did not intend for homosexual people.
And before you target me about grouping homosexuality with sexual immorality, keep in mind that a child can only be concieved between a man and a woman. Bestiality and homosexuality cannot be compared, and you cannot form your thoughts as you did, LPSpider; it is offensive. I know you're a Christian, we're supposed to respect our neighbors, sinful or not.
And lets say a homosexual couple adobts a child. Don't you think that the child would develop some type of psychological issues there? If not by the parents, then by sheer rejection by society. I know that my school would shun a kid with homosexual parents. That arrangement implicates severe social pressure.
Now, what I brought up in the previous paragraph is probably an entire different issue. I do not, under any circumstances, support any type of gay adoption or children receiving homosexual guardian couples.
I saw the word child in the thread and immediatly spit that out, forgive me if it doesnt fit.
There are no studies that show gay parenting will result in a kid being of the same sexual orient. It's hogwash. I have numerous friends with gay parents and they do not share the same sexual preference. (this brings me to another topic that I will post separately)
Saying that gay parents will not raise their kids good is hogwash as well. Show me proof!!!
MH0825 wrote: There are no studies that show gay parenting will result in a kid being of the same sexual orient. It's hogwash. I have numerous friends with gay parents and they do not share the same sexual preference. (this brings me to another topic that I will post separately)
Saying that gay parents will not raise their kids good is hogwash as well. Show me proof!!!I'll give you living proof. I go to school most of the calendar year. Our school is one of the best in our state (PA), both in behavior and test scores, so we are probably one of the better schools. Homophobia is extremely prominant. This fuels prejiduce, hatred, and the like toward homosexuals. I could not even imagine what kind of social implications a child would have to go through if his or her parents were homosexual.
As I have said, I do not mind the right of Gay's to get legally bonded, outside of a church. However I do not support Gay Marriage, homosexuality is distasteful in my eyes, and I am a strong Christian. I am a strong believer in liberties, in almost all cases, but I will not support a liberty if it has chance of infringing on the pursuit of happiness of another man.
BUT it's not because of the parenting skills. It's because of the idiotic approach to people that are different from yourself that they sustain this damage. It's not the actual fact that the parents are gay, it's the outlook of fellow peers that makes this happen. Has nothing to do with the parents not being capable.
MH0825 wrote: BUT it's not because of the parenting skills. It's because of the idiotic approach to people that are different from yourself that they sustain this damage. It's not the actual fact that the parents are gay, it's the outlook of fellow peers that makes this happen. Has nothing to do with the parents not being capable.Indirect or direct consequences are still consequences. I never actually said the parents would not be capable, just that there would be implications to do such.
So because the people at your school are immature and dont have respect for other people, that the other people should be the ones looked down upon? NO! The people that don't have the decency to respect other people's life decisions should be the one's who are looked down upon.
MH0825 wrote: So because the people at your school are immature and dont have respect for other people, that the other people should be the ones looked down upon? NO! The people that don't have the decency to respect other people's life decisions should be the one's who are looked down upon.They don't respect them though and that's the point I have been trying to make.
Cole wrote: MH0825 wrote: So because the people at your school are immature and dont have respect for other people, that the other people should be the ones looked down upon? NO! The people that don't have the decency to respect other people's life decisions should be the one's who are looked down upon.They don't respect them though and that's the point I have been trying to make.
Cole wrote:I'll give you living proof. I go to school most of the calendar year. Our school is one of the best in our state (PA), both in behavior and test scores, so we are probably one of the better schools. Homophobia is extremely prominant. This fuels prejiduce, hatred, and the like toward homosexuals. I could not even imagine what kind of social implications a child would have to go through if his or her parents were homosexual.
As I have said, I do not mind the right of Gay's to get legally bonded, outside of a church. However I do not support Gay Marriage, homosexuality is distasteful in my eyes, and I am a strong Christian. I am a strong believer in liberties, in almost all cases, but I will not support a liberty if it has chance of infringing on the pursuit of happiness of another man.
Are you saying you don't support it because it would infringe on your happiness? Or it would infringe on the happiness of the gay couple?
roadkill wrote: Cole wrote:I'll give you living proof. I go to school most of the calendar year. Our school is one of the best in our state (PA), both in behavior and test scores, so we are probably one of the better schools. Homophobia is extremely prominant. This fuels prejiduce, hatred, and the like toward homosexuals. I could not even imagine what kind of social implications a child would have to go through if his or her parents were homosexual.
As I have said, I do not mind the right of Gay's to get legally bonded, outside of a church. However I do not support Gay Marriage, homosexuality is distasteful in my eyes, and I am a strong Christian. I am a strong believer in liberties, in almost all cases, but I will not support a liberty if it has chance of infringing on the pursuit of happiness of another man.
Are you saying you don't support it because it would infringe on your happiness? Or it would infringe on the happiness of the gay couple? I don't mind it, I do not support it, however I am not in my right to tell anyone how to live their lives, just to suggest and give support. But the child, through the social truamas he or she may go through may be infringing on his or her right of pursuit of happiness.
Society always attacks what is out of the norm. It is apparent all around us.
As a Christian, what I want is for the Homosexual activists to stop trying to change Biblical doctrine and start embracing it.
I know several homosexuals and their sexual orientation does not get in the way of their pursuit of happiness at all. Believe it or not, but they're just like you and me!
You're looking at them as if they're lepers or disabled, or mentally challenged.
Yes, their lives and maybe their children's lives may have some hardships, but everyone has their own issues to deal with. Your parents don't have to be homosexual for you to get picked on. People in school went through all sorts of shit for dumb reasons and in some cases no reasons. They all got through it. How many people do you see traumatized today, all because of what happened to them in school?
have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two? Sergio wrote: I have been reading this thread and can not stay quiet any more.
Spider - what the hell are you talking about??
Question: Do you think 100 people should be able to get married to each other or than a man should be able to marry his horse?
what does this have to do with anything. If I said that I thought it was OK to have anal sex with donkeys, how in the world would that relate to gays having the right to marry. This is a silly question above that just further demeans and puts down gay Americans who just want to live a normal life and be happy, like everyone else. Are you saying that gay men and women enjoy beastiality?? If not, why bring up the question in this thread and give that impression.
No, I'm not saying that. You're making assumptions.
I'm saying that if we can change the deffinition of marriage to include man to man why can't we make it man to man to man? or 10 men and a woman? Or a man and his hourse? And so on? I'm reffering to the deffinition.
EDIT: If that explaination of mine will suffice (which logically, it should) then I'd like an answer.
Cole wrote: MH0825 wrote: I have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two?They both fall into the grouping of sexual immorality. Nature did not intend for man to try to reproduce with other species, and nature did not intend for homosexual people.
I'd like to clarify a point - while I do think they both fall into the grounds of immortality, that's not the reason I brought up the example. We were discussing why we should or shouldn't be able to change the deffination of marriage. My point was only that if we can change it for one thing (gay marriage) why can't we change it for others (beastality?)
You're being a little ridiculous with that example though. If you give a horse rights for marriage you're then stating it should have human rights. If that's the case, no more buying or selling horses because you can't do that with humans.
Lpspider wrote: Cole wrote: MH0825 wrote: I have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two?They both fall into the grouping of sexual immorality. Nature did not intend for man to try to reproduce with other species, and nature did not intend for homosexual people.
I'd like to clarify a point - while I do think they both fall into the grounds of immortality, that's not the reason I brought up the example. We were discussing why we should or shouldn't be able to change the deffination of marriage. My point was only that if we can change it for one thing (gay marriage) why can't we change it for others (beastality?)
With all due respect - because your argument is completely silly, pointless, and to be honest irrelevant . Marriage is two humans. the debate here is if it can be man and a man or woman and a woman, as well as man and a woman. Your bringing up the horses and the bestiality just exposes your obvious and blatant prejudice that you are trying unsuccessfully to hide behind silly thoughts of a human marrying an animal.
Spider, it is people like you who will always refuse to grasp that this is not a new thing. While not the majority, these types of relationships have been around for thousands of years. And it is the institution of religion that has used its make believe prophets and as someone else posted on this site mythical fairy tales to further a prejudice that has existed for hundreds of centuries. Let's not forget for one second that religion as a whole is "a business" and always has been. Simply put allowing homosexual marriages would be bad for business and bad for the institution they are trying so hard to protect, but failing more and more in recent times...
Sergio wrote: Lpspider wrote: Cole wrote: MH0825 wrote: I have to agree with Sergio. Comparing gay americans to people who want to have sex with a horse is just totally left field. Where and how do you come up with any kind of correlation between the two?They both fall into the grouping of sexual immorality. Nature did not intend for man to try to reproduce with other species, and nature did not intend for homosexual people.
I'd like to clarify a point - while I do think they both fall into the grounds of immortality, that's not the reason I brought up the example. We were discussing why we should or shouldn't be able to change the deffination of marriage. My point was only that if we can change it for one thing (gay marriage) why can't we change it for others (beastality?)
With all due respect - because your argument is completely silly, pointless, and to be honest irrelevant . Marriage is two humans. the debate here is if it can be man and a man or woman and a woman, as well as man and a woman. Your bringing up the horses and the bestiality just exposes your obvious and blatant prejudice that you are trying unsuccessfully to hide behind silly thoughts of a human marrying an animal.
Spider, it is people like you who will always refuse to grasp that this is not a new thing. While not the majority, these types of relationships have been around for thousands of years. And it is the institution of religion that has used its make believe prophets and as someone else posted on this site mythical fairy tales to further a prejudice that has existed for hundreds of centuries. Let's not forget for one second that religion as a whole is "a business" and always has been. Simply put allowing homosexual marriages would be bad for business and bad for the institution they are trying so hard to protect, but failing more and more in recent times... You showed a great deal of prejiduce against religious folk in that post as well. You also showed ignorance and you need to clarify your argument.
First off, you need to distinguish the difference between 'religion' and 'organized religion'. For example, the organized body of the Catholic Church has severely deviated not only from Biblical beliefs, but it has gone onto something totally different entirely. Religion, on the other hand, would be Christianity in general, which is governed by the teachings recorded in the compiled Bible (whether you want to observe the Bible of Sinai or the Bible of Nicea as your Bible, it does not matter, however I doubt anyone here has ever layed eyes on the Bible of Sinai, including me).
Second off (trying to keep up with consistancy), I do not understand how you can easily annouce the prejiduce that organized religion has against homosexuals, but you refuse to show your own prejiduce against religious folk. How can you denounce ignorance in general when you are ignorant yourself? To denounce prophets of God as 'make believe' and to label our Holy Book as a nonsense book of 'Mythical Fairy Tales' is pure and simple prejiduce not only against what we believe, but who we are. You are generally denouncing the whole of men who believe in God as ignorant and without intelligence.
If you want to express any viewpoint that includes accusing another of prejiduce, do not express your own prejiduce, that makes you look like a hypocrite.
And I usually do these disclaimers late at night: It is 2:30AM; when I stay up this late I usually find myself in an extremely cloudy and unhappy mood, if any of my post offended you at all, I apologize. I am sure you are a very intelligent and independant individual, I am just trying to point out my perspective.
Thanks!
And Good NIGHT!
(Post Script: Sergio, how about you register? You have a couple posts here, it may be nice to register at this point.)
Cole wrote:You showed a great deal of prejiduce against religious folk in that post as well. You also showed ignorance and you need to clarify your argument.
First off, you need to distinguish the difference between 'religion' and 'organized religion'. For example, the organized body of the Catholic Church has severely deviated not only from Biblical beliefs, but it has gone onto something totally different entirely. Religion, on the other hand, would be Christianity in general, which is governed by the teachings recorded in the compiled Bible (whether you want to observe the Bible of Sinai or the Bible of Nicea as your Bible, it does not matter, however I doubt anyone here has ever layed eyes on the Bible of Sinai, including me).
Second off (trying to keep up with consistancy), I do not understand how you can easily annouce the prejiduce that organized religion has against homosexuals, but you refuse to show your own prejiduce against religious folk. How can you denounce ignorance in general when you are ignorant yourself? To denounce prophets of God as 'make believe' and to label our Holy Book as a nonsense book of 'Mythical Fairy Tales' is pure and simple prejiduce not only against what we believe, but who we are. You are generally denouncing the whole of men who believe in God as ignorant and without intelligence.
If you want to express any viewpoint that includes accusing another of prejiduce, do not express your own prejiduce, that makes you look like a hypocrite.
And I usually do these disclaimers late at night: It is 2:30AM; when I stay up this late I usually find myself in an extremely cloudy and unhappy mood, if any of my post offended you at all, I apologize. I am sure you are a very intelligent and independant individual, I am just trying to point out my perspective.
Thanks!
And Good NIGHT!
(Post Script: Sergio, how about you register? You have a couple posts here, it may be nice to register at this point.)
I have only made 2 total posts on this site and an unsure if I will register, but thanks for the offer. Personally I enjoy the opportunity to post anonymously.
Back to the topic. I have no "prejudice against religious folk" as you stated, but I am willing to look at it with open eyes that see both ways, unlike you, who seems to only see it one way and one way only. I am not saying you are incorrect, but I just don't believe the same thing. You will NEVER see/read/hear me telling you not to believe in your religion, gods, books, or telling anyone of any other faith that. I respect the beliefs of others, while not practicing or believing the same things. OK, that said let's move on.
Why do I have to distinguish between organized religion and religion. That is irrelevant in my opinion for this discussion. My point all along is that gay marriage should be allowed. It should not be compared to the marriage of a human and an animal.
Maybe I should not have jumped on Lpspider for any specific "religion" issue related to this topic, but his post did say: If the issue at hand (gay marriage) deals directly with an issue directly associated with religion (marriage) then yes.
Question: Do you think 100 people should be able to get married to each other or than a man should be able to marry his horse? So I made the wrong jump to where I did. But regardless of if I think anyone's religion, gods, or stories are real or not does not change the fact that everyone should be allowed to marry who they want to and be happy with their own lives. This practice has been around for thousands of years.
And I think you Cole have said that if marriage is an accepted government union then you are OK with it, but not if it is a religious accepted union. OK, I can live with that IF the religious lobbyists and supporters would stay out of the issue and just let the different states legalize gay marriage. But every time the issue comes up it is the religious protesters that do everything to defeat it.
As you said you posted late at night, well it is the same for me early in the morning, lol
