What are homosexual values?

[Steeplerot]

No, it is just that there are less people in this forum who are christian. This forum had it's day being conservative and public opinion has changed.

Now what you have is many many people who have been betrayed by conservatism and some christianity.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

Oh really? Good for you. :roll:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year.

OMG! People are having consensual sex!

Just because you lack the ability to have that many partners. you need to condemn other people who do as wrong so you can feel better about yourself. You're so transparent.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

Other than one citing of "religious zealotry" (which could be Christianity, Muslim, or pick one) as an issue for gay people, where did I once throw Christians under the bus? You pick on Aidanjm, but he is only ONE of the gay people here. I am one of the others. I would like you to cite, specifically, where I was unfair and imbalanced in my replies and further, where exactly I advocated intolerance to Christians. I even advocated TOLERANCE towards biased questions from Tab because I am giving him the benefit of the doubt--that he simply needs to challenge his own assumptions and I don't believe he was coming at gay people from a "it's just wrong" standpoint. Two other guys, who I believe are straight, were calling him out on it and then I got us all to agree that we need to stop and understand and learn from each other. We admitted to being hardened to the point that we simply react before thinking sometimes. All of us do.

What your little "experiment" did here was FAIL. UTTERLY. What it showed was that gay and straight people are willing to learn and challenge their assumptions equally. We DEMONSTRATED that we work and play well together.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

Further, you demostrate what your real thoughts are here. Your use of the word "homosexual" in nearly every way you address gay people is a standard way of making gay people feel as though they are ill or something. The reason being that the word "homosexual" was used by the "establishment" years ago in the clinical sense to describe a mental illness. The APA came to the conclusion that it is not a mental illness.

The use of the word "homosexual" and the way in which you use it is almost like the "N" word to an African American--highly offensive.

You continue to offend, whether you know it or not. I ask you to please stop using the term and please use the commonly accepted vernacular of gay or lesbian when referring to us.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this issue.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: aidanjm
If you are worried about promiscuity in the gay community, why not support same-sex marriages? That would be an excellent way to support and promote monogamous committments among same-sex couples.

Agreed, however not until recently same-sex couples often didn't speak out about their on going relationships. I know one specific individual who has had an on-going relationship with his partner for over ten years; of course this isn't common.

Aidanjm, I know you're gay. Why do you think there's more promisicutiy in the homosexsual community compared to the hetrosexsual community? Why are gay monogamous relationships rare?

EDIT: It seems that ChiPCGuy is gay as well, if you don't mind that'd be nice if you could address my question.

Is there? You're making statements of Fact with nothing backing it up. Even if it were true, don't you think the past need to remain secretive would have something to do with it? You know, in order to avoid suspicion.

Give Tab some leeway here. Yes, he did generalize based upon, most likely, popular assumption and rhetoric and spun the question as: "Sir, do you still beat your wife?" but I don't think he did it from a bigoted point of view. I have seen Tab post elsewhere regarding this topic and I think he is asking, from his point of view and experience of what he knows, a legitimate question.

Fortunately, he asked two gay guys what we thought as well. He is, from what I can see, trying to get educated on the topic rather than simply continuing with the assumption and shrugging off information that would challenge the assumptions he has had up to this point.

You are correct. P&N has a way of hardening the soul and in this case I seem to have exposed that hardening in myself. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Both the sexual preference issues and abortion issues are highly charged because they deal with the contol of other individuals by those that oppose their individuality.

That was not supposed to happen in the U.S.

It is so sad that it has.

So very true. My soul has hardened more than I would like too. But, you two like many other posters on this board (and even with their equally hardened souls) restore my faith in people every time. Thanks to you, as well.

Edited to say: MoonBeam restores my faith in other people on a regular basis. I just wish I could figure out exactly what sort of drugs he is taking.....

By the way Welcome to P&N, you seem pretty new around here.

Thanks. I am not that new. I used to post under ChicagoPCGuy. I usually don't get directly involved in one of these threads unless it is really over the top. Aidanjm seems to more often than I do, but when I decide to get involved I usually come in "guns blazing" and make my presence known.

I typically post in the Motherboard or General Hardware forums. I am pretty active on the PC hardware scene and build quite a few PCs per year. I am a major hardware junkie! That is my drug.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Other than one citing of "religious zealotry" (which could be Christianity, Muslim, or pick one) as an issue for gay people, where did I once throw Christians under the bus? You pick on Aidanjm, but he is only ONE of the gay people here. I am one of the others. I would like you to cite, specifically, where I was unfair and imbalanced in my replies and further, where exactly I advocated intolerance to Christians. I even advocated TOLERANCE towards biased questions from Tab because I am giving him the benefit of the doubt--that he simply needs to challenge his own assumptions and I don't believe he was coming at gay people from a "it's just wrong" standpoint. Two other guys, who I believe are straight, were calling him out on it and then I got us all to agree that we need to stop and understand and learn from each other. We admitted to being hardened to the point that we simply react before thinking sometimes. All of us do.

What your little "experiment" did here was FAIL. UTTERLY. What it showed was that gay and straight people are willing to learn and challenge their assumptions equally. We DEMONSTRATED that we work and play well together.

Did I say anything to that effect? No. I simply stated - very clearly - that the response to the two threads have been markedly different, then attempted to qualitatively describe the trend of said responses. No where did I mention anything about any gay person being intolerant or otherwise. Nice herd of strawmen though.

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Further, you demostrate what your real thoughts are here. Your use of the word "homosexual" in nearly every way you address gay people is a standard way of making gay people feel as though they are ill or something. The reason being that the word "homosexual" was used by the "establishment" years ago in the clinical sense to describe a mental illness. The APA came to the conclusion that it is not a mental illness.

The use of the word "homosexual" and the way in which you use it is almost like the "N" word to an African American--highly offensive.

You continue to offend, whether you know it or not. I ask you to please stop using the term and please use the commonly accepted vernacular of gay or lesbian when referring to us.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this issue.

'Gay' does not mean 'loves men, not women'. Thus, its use in this manner would be simply incorrect. Sorry if you're offended by my use of correct language in discussing this issue, but it's not going to change. I'm offended by your statement that calling someone a homosexual is in any way equivalent to calling a black person the N-word. Such a statement is ludicrous at best.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Other than one citing of "religious zealotry" (which could be Christianity, Muslim, or pick one) as an issue for gay people, where did I once throw Christians under the bus? You pick on Aidanjm, but he is only ONE of the gay people here. I am one of the others. I would like you to cite, specifically, where I was unfair and imbalanced in my replies and further, where exactly I advocated intolerance to Christians. I even advocated TOLERANCE towards biased questions from Tab because I am giving him the benefit of the doubt--that he simply needs to challenge his own assumptions and I don't believe he was coming at gay people from a "it's just wrong" standpoint. Two other guys, who I believe are straight, were calling him out on it and then I got us all to agree that we need to stop and understand and learn from each other. We admitted to being hardened to the point that we simply react before thinking sometimes. All of us do.

What your little "experiment" did here was FAIL. UTTERLY. What it showed was that gay and straight people are willing to learn and challenge their assumptions equally. We DEMONSTRATED that we work and play well together.

Did I say anything to that effect? No. I simply stated - very clearly - that the response to the two threads have been markedly different, then attempted to qualitatively describe the trend of said responses. No where did I mention anything about any gay person being intolerant or otherwise. Nice herd of strawmen though.

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Further, you demostrate what your real thoughts are here. Your use of the word "homosexual" in nearly every way you address gay people is a standard way of making gay people feel as though they are ill or something. The reason being that the word "homosexual" was used by the "establishment" years ago in the clinical sense to describe a mental illness. The APA came to the conclusion that it is not a mental illness.

The use of the word "homosexual" and the way in which you use it is almost like the "N" word to an African American--highly offensive.

You continue to offend, whether you know it or not. I ask you to please stop using the term and please use the commonly accepted vernacular of gay or lesbian when referring to us.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this issue.

'Gay' does not mean 'loves men, not women'. Thus, its use in this manner would be simply incorrect. Sorry if you're offended by my use of correct language in discussing this issue, but it's not going to change. I'm offended by your statement that calling someone a homosexual is in any way equivalent to calling a black person the N-word. Such a statement is ludicrous at best.

The very tone used in each OP of eachh thread is quite different.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

See, the sad thing is that the original post was not an experiment... good try though. This thread should serve as a reminder to people on this forum that it is pointless to debate things with some people.. some people will refuse to see anything but what they want to see.

It is also sad to see more of the "war on christianity" nonsense... More than 80% of the USA is Christian... Christianity is the majority, and that same majority, throughout the world, has persecuted others for 1000s of years now, including those of their own kind! Their new tactic is this nonsensical assertion that THEY are the ones being persecuted! Meanwhile they control the friggin white house! Yeah, talk about christianity really being in a world of hurt right now!

 

[ChiPCGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Other than one citing of "religious zealotry" (which could be Christianity, Muslim, or pick one) as an issue for gay people, where did I once throw Christians under the bus? You pick on Aidanjm, but he is only ONE of the gay people here. I am one of the others. I would like you to cite, specifically, where I was unfair and imbalanced in my replies and further, where exactly I advocated intolerance to Christians. I even advocated TOLERANCE towards biased questions from Tab because I am giving him the benefit of the doubt--that he simply needs to challenge his own assumptions and I don't believe he was coming at gay people from a "it's just wrong" standpoint. Two other guys, who I believe are straight, were calling him out on it and then I got us all to agree that we need to stop and understand and learn from each other. We admitted to being hardened to the point that we simply react before thinking sometimes. All of us do.

What your little "experiment" did here was FAIL. UTTERLY. What it showed was that gay and straight people are willing to learn and challenge their assumptions equally. We DEMONSTRATED that we work and play well together.

Did I say anything to that effect? No. I simply stated - very clearly - that the response to the two threads have been markedly different, then attempted to qualitatively describe the trend of said responses. No where did I mention anything about any gay person being intolerant or otherwise. Nice herd of strawmen though.

Originally posted by: ChiPCGuy
Further, you demostrate what your real thoughts are here. Your use of the word "homosexual" in nearly every way you address gay people is a standard way of making gay people feel as though they are ill or something. The reason being that the word "homosexual" was used by the "establishment" years ago in the clinical sense to describe a mental illness. The APA came to the conclusion that it is not a mental illness.

The use of the word "homosexual" and the way in which you use it is almost like the "N" word to an African American--highly offensive.

You continue to offend, whether you know it or not. I ask you to please stop using the term and please use the commonly accepted vernacular of gay or lesbian when referring to us.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this issue.

'Gay' does not mean 'loves men, not women'. Thus, its use in this manner would be simply incorrect. Sorry if you're offended by my use of correct language in discussing this issue, but it's not going to change. I'm offended by your statement that calling someone a homosexual is in any way equivalent to calling a black person the N-word. Such a statement is ludicrous at best.

I suggest you re-read my response. You did say that and I quote "What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals."

My responses, and me being a real true to life gay person, indicate that your experiment revealed what you thought you wanted it to reveal. Not what it really revealed. That herd of "straw men" as you put it, are real people who have real responses and demonstrated understanding and tolerance for each other. I bet you hated that, but I am only guessing.

The fact that I have informed you that the word "homosexual" is highly offensive, and akin to using the "N" word with an African American, and your indication that you will continue to use it regardless shows extreme hate and bias. Very extreme. You actually now know that something you did and are doing is offensive to GLBT people, yet you have no intention of changing your behavior.

The societally accepted terminology today is gay or lesian or GLBT for some others. It is not "homosexual" -- unless you have an agenda.

Further, you have no right to be offended that GLBT people are offended to the use of the word "homosexual" and considering it to be in the same vein as using the "N" word with African Americans. Unless you are GLBT or African American, you have no right to even comment on it, other than to acknowledge that your terminology is highly offensive you should STOP using it.

If you persist in using the term "homosexual" like you do, then you damage your credibility from this point forward and I will shadow every thread in which you post and remind you of it where you use the word. I will cite this thread as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

I haven't read 'the other' thread.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

There is one key flaw in your "study" (though I admire your intent).

"How did Jesus' message become so twisted in the hands of these people?"
"How did the average homosexual's message become so twisted in the hands of these people?"

These are the real issues at hand in both posts. Your study simply shows that people here don't think that the homosexual message has been twisted, nor is it wrong, while Jesus's message has been twisted by Republicans. This is a reflection of the liberal-ness of people on the boards.

Neither of these conclusions holds any weight, since we are talking about the twisting of ideology:

1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I haven't read 'the other' thread.

Neither have I. I am judging this thread based upon it's own merit. I don't care about the other thread as I did not post in it and have no intention of doing so.

 

[BenWilliams]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize what you did as an experiment...

Sexual orientation and religion aren't comparable at a base level because one is chosen and one is not. Personally, I think a person's choice of religion or natural sexual orientation are both deserving of respect, but it's an important thing many of your political orientation tend to miss.

Also, as for hostility towards Christians... think for a moment... what are the gays trying to do that personally affects you? If a gay guy adopts a kid, does that affect you? If a gay guy marries another guy, does that affect you? If a gay guy is protected from being fired because he is gay, does that affect you? Of course not. Nothing the gays want affects others (to my knowledge, being one of them).

On the other hand, what do Christians want? Flip on Fox News and take a peek. It can cause some warranted hostility.

Enlightened persons tend to be aware of a realistic threat from religion and the absolute lack of a threat from equal rights. I think that's pretty much reflected in the threads of your 'experiment'.

 

[Jmman]

For me, civil unions are not a problem but I do not see the need to change the institution of marriage to accomodate a small minority of the population. Marriage has a vast tradition of being a union of a man and a woman, and I see no need to revise it.

"Sexual orientation and religion aren't comparable at a base level because one is chosen and one is not. Personally, I think a person's choice of religion or natural sexual orientation are both deserving of respect, but it's an important thing many of your political orientation tend to miss. "

Not so sure about that distinction you are making there, my friend. Haven't seen definitive proof that sexual orientation is not a choice or at least partially a result of social influences.....

Seems likes slippery slope to me. If I kill someone, am I naturally inclined to be a murderer? Child molestor? Like having sex with goats? Couldn't everything be justified because I might have some natural proclivity towards it....

 

[BenWilliams]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Not so sure about that distinction you are making there, my friend. Haven't seen definitive proof that sexual orienation is not a choice.....

Definitely an arguable point. I don't have a document in front of me with proof and I don't know where the gay gene is. You also don't have proof to the contrary.

It comes down to a question of logic. Do we assume that homosexuality is a choice (and try to disprove it) or assume that it is not a choice (and try to disprove it).

Being gay puts a person in a singularly disadvantaged position in this country and much of the world. Occam's Razor -- does it make more sense that there is just a segment of the population that logically and methodically chooses to give themselves a much more difficult life, all the while collectively insisting that it was not their choice? Or does it make more sense that it just wasn't their choice?

My evidence comes of personal experience -- my desperate desire to change when I was coming to terms with who and what I was and the subsequenty inability to do so - and from the logic above.

It's not a slam-dunk case for sure, and it won't be until I've got that scientific study on my desk, but it sure as hell makes a great deal more sense than the opposing opinion - even without my personal experience.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
For me, civil unions are not a problem but I do not see the need to change the institution of marriage to accomodate a small minority of the population. Marriage has a vast tradition of being a union of a man and a woman, and I see no need to revise it.

Then you go right on ahead with keeping the institution of your marriage intact. You have no right to say whether or not to legally consenting adults can marry, this isn't afghanistan

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Jmman
For me, civil unions are not a problem but I do not see the need to change the institution of marriage to accomodate a small minority of the population. Marriage has a vast tradition of being a union of a man and a woman, and I see no need to revise it.

Then you go right on ahead with keeping the institution of your marriage intact. You have no right to say whether or not to legally consenting adults can marry, this isn't afghanistan

Actually, we do. The law clearly defines marriage as between as man and a woman. What you want is a change in the law, and I doubt that is going to happen.......


Anyway, if you want, nobody is saying you can't call your relationship marriage or whatever you want.....if you want to call it marriage, go right ahead....

 

[Paratus]

The part that always gets me is that sames sex couples can get a religious 'marriage' already from certain churches. It's the civil benefits they are denied. Against the 1, 9, & 14 amendments I might add

Frankly it's just a matter time till they get them.

posted via Palm Life Drive

 

[Stunt]

Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

I would argue that those aren't 'values' per se, and that as heterogeneous as 'christians' are, homosexuals are even less cohesive as a group.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

Those are not "values" they are basic civil rights not afforded to them.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Jmman
For me, civil unions are not a problem but I do not see the need to change the institution of marriage to accomodate a small minority of the population. Marriage has a vast tradition of being a union of a man and a woman, and I see no need to revise it.

Then you go right on ahead with keeping the institution of your marriage intact. You have no right to say whether or not to legally consenting adults can marry, this isn't afghanistan

Actually, we do. The law clearly defines marriage as between as man and a woman. What you want is a change in the law, and I doubt that is going to happen.......


Anyway, if you want, nobody is saying you can't call your relationship marriage or whatever you want.....if you want to call it marriage, go right ahead....

In a technical sense you're absolutely right, however I find that to be an affront to the ideals our nation was founded; freedom from persecution, pursuit of happiness, etc. Generally, the impression I get from the ideals our nation was founded on was "you do your thing, I do mine, and as long as we don't harm eachother stay the fvck out of my business." Seems fair, right?