Same sex marraige resumes in California

[zinfamous]

No it isn't. If they are attracted to each other, it means that there is a problem somewhere. Because humans are not purposely made to be homosexual. That is where the defect comes in.

no living creatures, including humans, are purposely made to be anything.

Science!

 

[woolfe9998]

Who cares if something is an "evolutionary defect" or not. It's an argument over semantics. In the real world, we don't exactly have a problem with under-population. Indeed, more people being gay might help with population control. It's not like there will ever be a time when everyone is gay and the species dies out. So what exactly is the concern here?

 

[zsdersw]

If you have sex with men and women you are bisexual. I don't know what is difficult to understand about that. Its pretty much the definition of bisexual.

What if you are 30 years old, have had many sexual partners, and only one or two have been of the same gender? And these same-sex encounters were in the distant past and not the recent past or the present? What would you, apparently the authority on who is gay, straight, and bisexual, say their sexual orientation is?

How far to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale I provided does someone have to be for you to say they're gay or straight?

 

[Craig234]

I won't object to homosexuality being viewed in some sense as a biological defect. That's not getting into the science, that has a level for the rate of a defect that interferes with reproduction at which evolution eliminates that aberration and homosexuality has long existed at a level far exceeding that - let's put aside the scientific details and say 'it's in some sense a 'biological defect'.

That's doesn't make it a moral issue. That doens't make gays less than human. That doesn't make gay love inferior, gay citizens second-class.

I agree with recognizing the importance of reproduction to the species. Homosexuality in no way threatens the species on that issue, unless it becomes contagious. It's not.

I agree with people's right to have their own reaction to others - to disgust with gay sex, heterosexual anal or oral sex, masturbation, any sex at all, whatever.

I do not agree to their moral right to discriminate against others because of that reaction.
That is no better than racism.

I have no problem with people thinking there is something 'unnatural' about less common states for human beings - gay, asexual, transgender, hermaphrodite, etc. On a scientific level, those things are 'natural'; I understand that people can view them - I won't say I don't in ways - as conditions not ideal for people. I do not agree that that opinion justifies discrimination against those people - any more than it would for someone who wishes everyone was white and wants to discriminate over it.

The problem with this discrimination is with the discriminator. They're the ones who are arrogant, cruel, close-minded, ignorant, bigoted, small-minded, unjust, a majority mob.

Cultures 'get used to' some views, prejudices, discriminations.

There are some cultures where girls are seen as less valuable than boys - and girls being drowned when born happens repeated. Where girls are enslaved, denied education. Not many people in the cultures get up on morning and say 'hey, let's rethink our culture on this issue', and someone does, he faces a big project to change others' views. They are used to it, it's what they're comfortable with. If someone challenges it, they react with excuses for not changing it. People don't like change generally.

It's similar with gays similarly to how it was with race. People are used to views that gays simply are 'wrong' and should be discriminated against.

Approving of gays feels like approving of any criminal - it feels unnatural and wrong to be tolerant if you are used to not being tolerant and accepting.

There really isn't that much pressure to change - gays can't 'make you' change your views and choice to discriminate, which these people don't really view as a choice.

They have little ability to consider the issue in a fresh light and decide it's wrong. Instead, they react as if their whole culture is under attack, and they fight back.

As always in these issues, it results in good but misguided people defending a status quo that is unjust, making them unwitting warriors for evil.

When you look back at the white mobs who marched and attacked protestors for civil rights, there's not much pride in their actions today - but then there was.

Save234

 

[alzan]

Yes it does, but we were on the topic of same-sex relationships, were we not?

Ah... but you think we (I) am ignoring the other prohibitions!! I recognize this sort of call out.

Nope... I am not. I adhere to it, not perfectly, but as closely as I can.





I am not in favor of executing anyone -- but if God exists and He will execute "wrongdoers", who I am to question him?

Obviously through the Bible, he isn't asking for human permission/approval, so he knows what he's doing.

I think we have a break-through.🙂

 

[alzan]

Opposing? No, I do not oppose gay marriage.




I am not in favor of executing anyone, anymore than you are. I am, however, in support of God's right to do so shall he choose to.

Why do you think those things are even listed? So that those who care about God can see what he DOESN'T like, make changes, and make him happy you did.

I am convinced God doesn't want to execute anyone for the simple fact of (1) warnings concerning the things he doesn't approve of, and (2) telling you what you need to do to avoid those things. That was a good part of Jesus' teaching as well. But... you have the freedom to choose otherwise... so it's up to you.

People who don't care don't bother to warn you... they just let you walk right into stuff without warning.




Wait, what?

What action have I taken outside of staying out of the political part of it? Yeah, I talk about it, but I don't vote against it nor support candidates/politicians/laws banning gay marriage.



I don't "Do" anything against gay marriage either... nothing. Yes, before I support what I think is wrong, SSM, I will simply not support it -- the harm caused isn't done by me, its done by active opposers.

I think its contrary to nature, and when I think about and I see a gay or lesbian couple in public, one looks and acts like a person of the opposite sex (with two women, one has "manly" qualities and looks and even dresses like a guy in some cases -- with men, one or sometimes both are really feminine).

Now this isn't universal by any means, but why does one lesbian need to be like a dominate male, and with two guys, one is the dainty female type?

This is what I sometimes see, and wonder how natural it can be if one still has the resemble the opposite sex in some fashion.



Lol -- we're talking about gay marriage, not the other issues. If we were talking about habitual drunkards and fornicators, I'd comment the same way.



Not my call, that's God's call. Like I said, who I am to question him? What if I am worthy of execution by his hands? If God is real, that's his call.



I take it upon myself not to support gay marriage.



Being merciful doesn't mean accept any and everything someone does. In fact, being merciful is closely tied with being kind. I've never mistreated a gay person in my life. Gay or not, we're part of the human family, and I extend them the respect they deserve as citizens.



No, it just speaks about people of the same sex lying with one another -- pretty clear cut. It doesn't make a distinction because gay or not, same sex relations isn't approved of, according to the passage.




A person who denies rights is a person who fights to withhold them, a person who doesn't get involved cant deny nor grant rights.

🙄

We all have feminine/masculine qualities in varying degrees, no matter how much we may want to deny it. As has been stated before, human sexuality is more complicated than what's between your legs.

True a person who doesn't get involved can't deny/grant rights. They're self-centered and somewhat cowardly imo. Choosing which side of the fence has the greener grass is a tough choice I'll admit, but a worthwhile and even self-esteem building in some cases.

 

[busydude]

What if you are 30 years old, have had many sexual partners, and only one or two have been of the same gender? And these same-sex encounters were in the distant past and not the recent past or the present? What would you, apparently the authority on who is gay, straight, and bisexual, say their sexual orientation is?

How far to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale I provided does someone have to be for you to say they're gay or straight?

Also don't forget that many folks may have faced social pressure to conform to normalcy. It is pretty clear that Nehalem isn't going to acknowledge any of that.

 

[shortylickens]

The only reason people hate gays is because they've been trained to, by an ignorant parent or teacher or minister or whatever.
If we could go one whole generation without those teachings then the bigoted old bastards would seem like raving idiots and young people would not listen to them.

 

[randomrogue]

Its interesting that the bigots in this thread don't understand that human sexuality is not black and white but is on a spectrum. Lots of people experiment with the opposite sex so its not really that crazy. Just look at college women having that lesbian experience. Suddenly they want rights though if they stick to the homosexual or bisexual side of the spectrum and want a same sex partner and its just not acceptable to them. These bigots try to come up with excuses to justify their discrimination. I don't care how much homosexuality disgusts you since the real disgust lies in your ability to discriminate against your fellow man for no good reason. Homosexuals don't have kids? Get real. If they want kids they can have kids. Its not like their sexual organs don't work. If they're 100% on the homosexual side of the spectrum we have science to help them out.

 

[Murloc]

the bigoted old bastards would seem like raving idiots and young people would not listen to them.

I've never met anyone who was anti-gay in real life and that's the generally accepted view for young people.

 

[Retro Rob]

We all have feminine/masculine qualities in varying degrees, no matter how much we may want to deny it. As has been stated before, human sexuality is more complicated than what's between your legs.

True a person who doesn't get involved can't deny/grant rights. They're self-centered and somewhat cowardly imo. Choosing which side of the fence has the greener grass is a tough choice I'll admit, but a worthwhile and even self-esteem building in some cases.

That's not what I mean, and I think you know that.

I don't think those have anything to do with what I said about one being the dominate male, and one being the passive female, type.


One a side note, I was listening to a program before bed and I heard something interesting: Paula Dean was dropped as quickly as she was for using the "N" word because whites would have us think racism and discrimination is a "thing of the past", so they wish to distance themselves from people who ever used the N-word as quickly as possible. They're fooling people into thinking the US doesn't have this second-world issue anymore.

Personally, I think SSM advocates are headed down the same path -- distancing themselves from people that may verbally disagree with it, and saying stuff like "young people won't care if you're gay"... well, that's until they have a way to find out their unborn's sexual orientation with the option to abort. I don't share many people's faith in humanity as abortions are sometimes done simply because a woman/parents don't "want to be bothered right now". 🙄

I think there's one thing that's worse than having second-world issues, and that's acting as if they don't exist and promoting this fantasy of a current utopia on the horizon should gays be able to marry in every state.

I personally believe in anti-discrimination laws and making it illegal to fire someone for something as stupid as their sexual orientation, but I am not a believer in all this "cheering" as if some real progress is being made.

 

[nehalem256]

What if you are 30 years old, have had many sexual partners, and only one or two have been of the same gender? And these same-sex encounters were in the distant past and not the recent past or the present? What would you, apparently the authority on who is gay, straight, and bisexual, say their sexual orientation is?

You don't need to have sex to reproduce, but aside from that some men identify as "gay" even though they occasionally, even if only very rarely, have sex with women.

The situation you described is not really consistent with the claim you were making. You were obviously talking about a "gay" person having recent straight sexual encounters that they would engage in again, because otherwise it is irrelevant to the topic of gay men procreating with a woman. Not an experiment in heterosexuality a decade in the past that they don't wish to experience again.

How far to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale I provided does someone have to be for you to say they're gay or straight?

If you have sex with men and women you are bisexual.

Lets make this clear for you. A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. If you say occasionally eat meat you are not a vegetarian. Having ate meat once 10 years ago to see what it was like does not invalidate you making a vegetarian currently.

 

[nehalem256]

Its interesting that the bigots in this thread don't understand that human sexuality is not black and white but is on a spectrum. Lots of people experiment with the opposite sex so its not really that crazy. Just look at college women having that lesbian experience. Suddenly they want rights though if they stick to the homosexual or bisexual side of the spectrum and want a same sex partner and its just not acceptable to them. These bigots try to come up with excuses to justify their discrimination. I don't care how much homosexuality disgusts you since the real disgust lies in your ability to discriminate against your fellow man for no good reason. Homosexuals don't have kids? Get real. If they want kids they can have kids. Its not like their sexual organs don't work. If they're 100% on the homosexual side of the spectrum we have science to help them out.

No science allows 2 men to create a child together.

 

[zsdersw]

The situation you described is not really consistent with the claim you were making. You were obviously talking about a "gay" person having recent straight sexual encounters that they would engage in again, because otherwise it is irrelevant to the topic of gay men procreating with a woman. Not an experiment in heterosexuality a decade in the past that they don't wish to experience again.

The two quotes of mine you used are not related.

If you have sex with men and women you are bisexual.

An un-nuanced generalized position consistent with people, like you, who don't think properly.

Lets make this clear for you. A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. If you say occasionally eat meat you are not a vegetarian. Having ate meat once 10 years ago to see what it was like does not invalidate you making a vegetarian currently.

Let me make this clear for you: you're not a dispensary of knowledge about which I am not aware. You're nobody. You don't know a thing about human sexuality and the range of behaviors and desires that comprise it, as evidenced by your incredibly naive and altogether stupid assertions about them.

Have you ever met, personally, a homosexual man or woman? Do you have any gay or lesbian people with whom you're familiar ? If the answer to either or both of those questions is "no", then it is quite obvious that, as I've said, you don't know what you're talking about. Experience is key to understanding.

 

[nehalem256]

The two quotes of mine you used are not related.

The second quoted is what originally started the discussion. The first you attempting to change the conditions to argue that a gay person could have engaged in sex in the PAST.

An un-nuanced generalized position consistent with people, like you, who don't think properly.

Its not a complicated concept.

If you have sex with people of the opposite sex you are straight
If you have sex with people of both sexes you are bisexual
If you have sex with people of the same sex you are gay.

If you had(notice the past tense) sex with someone of the same sex(or opposite sex for gays) in the past, determined you didn't like, that does not make you bisexual. It means you experimented at one point.

 

[futurefields]

I think its okay to discriminate in this situation and I know discrimination is usually wrong and discrimination at the word has a very negative connotation but I don't think gay men should be allowed to raise children and when people get married one of the main reasons they too so its just start a family and I don't want to gay men starting families. Then will be more gay children.

 

[futurefields]

Sorry, speech to text makes mistakes but my point is made.

Lets leave marriage and family building to husband and wife.

 

[smackababy]

The second quoted is what originally started the discussion. The first you attempting to change the conditions to argue that a gay person could have engaged in sex in the PAST.



Its not a complicated concept.

If you have sex with people of the opposite sex you are straight
If you have sex with people of both sexes you are bisexual
If you have sex with people of the same sex you are gay.

If you had(notice the past tense) sex with someone of the same sex(or opposite sex for gays) in the past, determined you didn't like, that does not make you bisexual. It means you experimented at one point.

In order to "be gay" you have to be attracted to the same sex. Performing intercourse does not mean you are one or the other. A gay man can, and will in order to keep their identity a secret, have sex with women. Does that mean they are bisexual? If they have no attraction to a person of that sex, of course they are not.

Quite a few gay porn "actors" don't identify as gay, because they are not attracted to men. They simply are performing an act as part of the role they play.

 

[smackababy]

I think its okay to discriminate in this situation and I know discrimination is usually wrong and discrimination at the word has a very negative connotation but I don't think gay men should be allowed to raise children and when people get married one of the main reasons they too so its just start a family and I don't want to gay men starting families. Then will be more gay children.

That shows your blatant ignorance on homosexuality. People are not raised to be gay. People are, however, raised to be ignorant.

As far as discrimination sometimes being okay, that is true. Age discrimination happens all the time and is perfectly okay. A good example is driving a car or consuming alcohol. Nobody can rationally argue an 8 year old has the motor capabilities and decision making to drive a car without significantly increased danger to everyone around. And nobody can rationally argue an 8 year old has the mental capabilities to responsibly drink alcohol without causing harm to their bodies.

 

[nehalem256]

That shows your blatant ignorance on homosexuality. People are not raised to be gay. People are, however, raised to be ignorant.

As far as discrimination sometimes being okay, that is true. Age discrimination happens all the time and is perfectly okay. A good example is driving a car or consuming alcohol. Nobody can rationally argue an 8 year old has the motor capabilities and decision making to drive a car without significantly increased danger to everyone around. And nobody can rationally argue an 8 year old has the mental capabilities to responsibly drink alcohol without causing harm to their bodies.

And nobody can rationally argue that a gay couple is anywhere near as likely to procreate as a straight couple.

In order to "be gay" you have to be attracted to the same sex. Performing intercourse does not mean you are one or the other. A gay man can, and will in order to keep their identity a secret, have sex with women. Does that mean they are bisexual? If they have no attraction to a person of that sex, of course they are not.

Quite a few gay porn "actors" don't identify as gay, because they are not attracted to men. They simply are performing an act as part of the role they play.

I don't think zsdersw was trying to refer to gay people that were hiding their sexual identity.

In fact lets go back to what he said initially:

You don't need to have sex to reproduce, but aside from that some men identify as "gay" even though they occasionally, even if only very rarely, have sex with women.

Does the gender you're predominantly sexually attracted to determine your sexual orientation or does the gender that you predominantly have sex with determine it?

Note his usage of the word "predominantly". Seems pretty clear he was referring to people who were say 80% attracted to the same sex and 20% attracted to the opposite sex. He wasn't referring to people who hated the idea of straight sex, but did it for money or to hide themselves.

 

[futurefields]

I dont have anything against gay men i just dont think we should allow them to raise children because then the child will think being gay is way more common and normal than it is, they wont realize how big of a deal it is that somebody would completely change their life because they arent aroused by women, or having to think about their father knowing they would rather insert the penis into the anus of another man and ejaculate into it, how that might affect things.

 

[smackababy]

And nobody can rationally argue that a gay couple is anywhere near as likely to procreate as a straight couple.

I wasn't aware anyone was.

I don't think zsdersw was trying to refer to gay people that were hiding their sexual identity.

In fact lets go back to what he said initially:


Note his usage of the word "predominantly". Seems pretty clear he was referring to people who were say 80% attracted to the same sex and 20% attracted to the opposite sex. He wasn't referring to people who hated the idea of straight sex, but did it for money or to hide themselves.

You seem awful set on arguing semantics rather than substance. He was arguing that having sex with a gender does not mean being attracted to said gender. They are not mutually exclusive. His question was whether we base sexual orientation on attraction or acts.

 

[smackababy]

I dont have anything against gay men i just dont think we should allow them to raise children because then the child will think being gay is way more common and normal than it is, they wont realize how big of a deal it is that somebody would completely change their life because they arent aroused by women, or having to think about their father knowing they would rather insert the penis into the anus of another man and ejaculate into it, how that might affect things.

Actually, you do any something against gay men. It is blatantly clear.

And your "argument", if we can even call it that, about them considering homosexuality to be more normal is a bad thing, shows you are either trolling or incredibly stupid.

While we teaching children to hate gays, why not teach them to hate all minorities? Blacks aren't as common as whites, nor are Asians or Latinos(thought Latinos are catching up in America). We wouldn't want our precious white children to get the misconception that minorities are just as common or normal as white people...

And who teaches children about ejaculating into anuses anyway? If anything, I'd think gay people teach their kids to be more tolerant of others and more patient with morons who think they are better because of chosen ignorance.

 

[futurefields]

Its not about hate, its about not wanting to condone/license/support what I believe to be perverted behaviour.

 

[smackababy]

And the reason you don't "condone/license/support" gay behavior is why exactly?

EDIT: And for the record I don't condone/license/support Bible thumping morons pushing their fairytales on people, but I am not advocating we discriminate against them. If they wish to believe in such nonsense, they are free to.