|
|
Post by teghan62 on Jul 26, 2004 20:05:15 GMT -5
Wow, Al, I didn't know you were gay! *blinkblink* Wow. Agreed... but Al, you have guts. I admire you for that. And many other things, but mainly that right now. :P |
|
|
|
Post by kittykid101 on Aug 3, 2004 7:44:33 GMT -5
I'm really sorry to bring something up that was posted a while ago... but:
The church WILL NOT get over gay marriages easily. If you didn't know, (for the Christtian religon) the bible has been around for 2000 years, so you think that maybe in a year or so, we'll forget it? I seriously don't think so. I also think that we SHOULDN'T call gay marriages "marriage" because it isn't the same. That's just what I think, so if you are offened, tell me and I'll apologize unless it's about religion. If you are gay or a les, I'm sorry if I offened you aswell.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 3, 2004 7:59:44 GMT -5
Hmm... Al, you just severely hurt my theory   Anyway, even though I disagree, I still say that took courage. Ok, my piece: Homosexuality will NOT be forgotten. It is in Leviticus 18, 21, throughout Romans, and I believe 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians - both Testaments. Interracial marriage is nowhere. Unlike many prejudices people have thrown up because it's "in the Bible", this one really is. Again, homosexuality, "is" a choice. I'll only change my ideas a bit if I can find animals that are homosexual. (Dogs and monkeys mounting each other do it for dominance. So do others, I believe.) No, the choice thing - some homosexuals make a conscious choice. Few, but some. No, others (these are my opinions, people, and my limited knowledge) slowly make the decisions overtime. Rarely does someone decide, I'm a homosexual! Far as I've learned, it's more like making small decisions that lead to more decisions until you ultimately wind up being a homosexual. But the genetics thing - I don't get that. Why would one just out-of-the-blue go against the natural scheme? I'm sorry, but I'd like more proof. Oh, and one thing - I didn't read this entire thread, but if anyone wishes to argue that the Bible approves homosexuality, (I know they did in Boston at some meeting or something, saying Ruth and Naomi - mother-in-law and daughter - were lesbian and David and Jonathan - great friends - were gay), it doesnt. Read aforementioned verses. My piece. |
|
|
|
Post by teghan62 on Aug 3, 2004 13:12:21 GMT -5
Oh, and one thing - I didn't read this entire thread, but if anyone wishes to argue that the Bible approves homosexuality, (I know they did in Boston at some meeting or something, saying Ruth and Naomi - mother-in-law and daughter - were lesbian and David and Jonathan - great friends - were gay), it doesnt. Read aforementioned verses. The Bible disagrees with sexual acts within homosexuality. It doesn't disagree with the love. Once during one of my conversations with Annette this came up, and we were looking through our Bibles - I don't remember what she said about your Old Testament (the wording is a bit changed from my Jewish Bible) but mine didn't say love between homosexuals was bad, just sexual acts. I have no clue what or if your New Testament says on it though, but that's what your Old Testament says. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 3, 2004 16:07:09 GMT -5
Again, homosexuality, "is" a choice. I'll only change my ideas a bit if I can find animals that are homosexual. (Dogs and monkeys mounting each other do it for dominance. So do others, I believe.) No, the choice thing - some homosexuals make a conscious choice. Few, but some. No, others (these are my opinions, people, and my limited knowledge) slowly make the decisions overtime. Rarely does someone decide, I'm a homosexual! Far as I've learned, it's more like making small decisions that lead to more decisions until you ultimately wind up being a homosexual. But the genetics thing - I don't get that. Why would one just out-of-the-blue go against the natural scheme? I'm sorry, but I'd like more proof. Oh, and one thing - I didn't read this entire thread, but if anyone wishes to argue that the Bible approves homosexuality, (I know they did in Boston at some meeting or something, saying Ruth and Naomi - mother-in-law and daughter - were lesbian and David and Jonathan - great friends - were gay), it doesnt. Read aforementioned verses. *hands you a homosexual hedgehog* There's videos of hedgehogs, ducks - many other species too, but ones that I can't remember ^^ As for genetics, who knows? Why are some people infertile through genetic diseases? Why are there genetic diseases at all? Why have people with blonde hair when you could have brown? It doesn't necessarily need a reason. People ignore large parts of the Bible anyway, but kind of latch onto the bits they like. Besides, surely the commandments to "Love thy neighbour" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" are more important. Supposedly, we all sin anyway. Oh, and I also admire Al ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Aug 6, 2004 18:52:57 GMT -5
There is no reason why there shouldn't be gay marriage. Don't talk to me aobut religion; there's a separation of church and state here.
You're uncomfortable? Gays and leasbians are people too. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. They've got rights.
Rights. I mean rights. Not privileges. Doesn't the Declaration of Indpendence say, "All men are created equal"? Yes, it is put down in very sexist terms. But that could be interpreted that only men could marry (each other). If you're squirming in your seat now, I couldn't care less.
Beyond Al, I'm sure almost everyone here is not gay nor lesbian. So let's give gays and lesbians marriage and get on with it. We're so busy making laws for them, and we don't even know what it's like to be like them! Do you what that's called? Discrimination. Yeah. Discrimination. I'll demonstrate.
How would you like it if, say, all heterosexuals are not allowed to marry? Hm? I see no argument as to why that is illegal, based on previous arguements made by others.
EDIT by Buddy: Let's refrain from using that phrase, please.
EDIT by TAA: Sorry. I'll keep my language more tame in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by belgiumardennes on Aug 6, 2004 20:28:13 GMT -5
I've had this discussion many times with lots of different people with many different views.
One of the main arguments I've heard is that marriage is a religious thing, and as a religious thing it is sacred. A lot of people say that they should be allowed something with similar benefits under the legal system, but call it something different.
Here's my problem with that. Yes, the concept of marriage comes from something religious. But if you're going to say that, then, marriage should only exist as a private, religious thing, and the legal equivelant of marriage would be the same for everyone, gay or straight--a civil union. If your religion calls that marriage, fine. If you personally call that marriage, whether or not you are religious, fine. If you are in a same-sex civil union and want to call it marriage, fine. Because marriage has grown to be more than a religious thing. It can still be sacred to you personally, even if you are an atheist or gay or anything.
That way, the entire issue is out of the hands of the government. Whether or not you are 'married' is entirely left up to what you personally call your civil union. If the church has a problem with gay couples saying they are married, well, then their problem can be with those couples and not with the government.
Because, really. I could go buy myself a ring and walk around and say I'm married. And nobody but government records would know otherwise. I just don't think whether or not someone is married is something that should have anything to do with the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Aug 6, 2004 20:54:03 GMT -5
I've had this discussion many times with lots of different people with many different views. One of the main arguments I've heard is that marriage is a religious thing, and as a religious thing it is sacred. A lot of people say that they should be allowed something with similar benefits under the legal system, but call it something different. Here's my problem with that. Yes, the concept of marriage comes from something religious. But if you're going to say that, then, marriage should only exist as a private, religious thing, and the legal equivelant of marriage would be the same for everyone, gay or straight--a civil union. If your religion calls that marriage, fine. If you personally call that marriage, whether or not you are religious, fine. If you are in a same-sex civil union and want to call it marriage, fine. Because marriage has grown to be more than a religious thing. It can still be sacred to you personally, even if you are an atheist or gay or anything. That way, the entire issue is out of the hands of the government. Whether or not you are 'married' is entirely left up to what you personally call your civil union. If the church has a problem with gay couples saying they are married, well, then their problem can be with those couples and not with the government. Because, really. I could go buy myself a ring and walk around and say I'm married. And nobody but government records would know otherwise. I just don't think whether or not someone is married is something that should have anything to do with the law. Actually, married couples do get some tax benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by belgiumardennes on Aug 6, 2004 21:50:31 GMT -5
Actually, married couples do get some tax benefits. That was part of my point ... |
|
|
|
Post by ecicca on Aug 7, 2004 8:53:37 GMT -5
Right, I apologise right now if I get angry in this. I'm just EXTREMELY for gay rights.
Okay, those who say it's a choice. If it were a choice, I'd choose to be straight. Actually, maybe bi, because then love to all! And love makes the world a happy place. But, with the way SOME people are acting in this world, homosexual love can be horrible because of the teasing.
The teasing can be awful. If choice were a matter, then I wouldn't get teased. I never wanted to be ganged up by a group of year 9s/10s and called for about 20 minutes until it was time for class. If choice were a matter, I wouldn't be asked a billion questions by everyone.
Yes, you choose to ACCEPT it. You choose to be OPEN about it. But you don't choose who you love. You can't. It's impossible to choose what you're attracted to.
I'd love to get married one day. I go past bridal shops (I'm sad) and look at all the pretty dresses, and imagine what being wed in one/to someone in it would be like. If
you loved someone so much, (insert quote from Friends)
you'd marry them because "they love each other and want to celebrate that love with the people around them".
There's nothing wrong with love now, is there? Love is what this world needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Aug 7, 2004 9:15:54 GMT -5
There is no reason why there shouldn't be gay marriage. Don't talk to me aobut religion; there's a separation of church and state here. You're uncomfortable? Gays and leasbians are people too. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. They've got rights. Rights. I mean rights. Not privileges. Doesn't the Declaration of Indpendence say, "All men are created equal"? Yes, it is put down in very sexist terms. But that could be interpreted that only men could marry (each other). If you're squirming in your seat now, I couldn't care less. Beyond Al, I'm sure almost everyone here is not gay nor lesbian. So let's give gays and lesbians marriage and get on with it. We're so busy making laws for them, and we don't even know what it's like to be like them! Do you what that's called? Discrimination. Yeah. Discrimination. I'll demonstrate. How would you like it if, say, all heterosexuals are not allowed to marry? Hm? I see no argument as to why that is illegal, based on previous arguements made by others. EDIT by Buddy: Let's refrain from using that phrase, please. EDIT by TAA: Sorry. I'll keep my language more tame in the future. Being equal means only you can marry to someone of that gender? How are those to points even related? And all this seperation of church and state stuff and how God can't be part of the argument- He bloody well can! How much do you think God cares about separation of church and state? Is some flimsy law gonna make Him listen? No. And it IS a matter because what people believe affects how the marriage thing will turn out. Also, Ami, you said it's not a choice, but you said you choose to accept it - what do you mean by that? If you don't believe you're gay, your'e denying it? How is that possible? If you say in your mind you don't like guys, and believe you don't like guys, then you don't like guys! And about love - there are many many many different kinds. Love for your mom, dog, wife/husband, kids, friends - all different, all equally strong. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 7, 2004 10:39:16 GMT -5
Also, Ami, you said it's not a choice, but you said you choose to accept it - what do you mean by that? If you don't believe you're gay, your'e denying it? How is that possible? If you say in your mind you don't like guys, and believe you don't like guys, then you don't like guys! Have you ever been in love, IDL? I'm straight as a board, but I can tell you from experience that this argument makes NO SENSE. I try to tell myself that I don't like him that way, that we can just be friends, like we've always been. I try to tell myself that it will never work, and I should just stop being attracted to him, that I should find someone I have a chance with. And still I can't forget him. I still can't push him out of my mind, no matter how much I try to deny my feelings, to hide from them. You can't choose who you fall for. And you know what? If I were a lesbian and he were a girl, it wouldn't make a flippin' difference. |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Aug 7, 2004 11:15:58 GMT -5
Being equal means only you can marry to someone of that gender? How are those to points even related? And all this seperation of church and state stuff and how God can't be part of the argument- He bloody well can! How much do you think God cares about separation of church and state? Is some flimsy law gonna make Him listen? No. And it IS a matter because what people believe affects how the marriage thing will turn out. Also, Ami, you said it's not a choice, but you said you choose to accept it - what do you mean by that? If you don't believe you're gay, your'e denying it? How is that possible? If you say in your mind you don't like guys, and believe you don't like guys, then you don't like guys! And about love - there are many many many different kinds. Love for your mom, dog, wife/husband, kids, friends - all different, all equally strong. You missed my point. There is a separation of church and state because not all people are the same. Leave God out of this. You seem to be under the same impression as white slaveholders in the 1800's; they're different, and they are therefore inferior. That's not how it works. Do you think a black man chooses to be black? It's pretty hard not to accept that. You can tell yourself all you want you're not black, but when you look in the mirror your skin is still brown. We live in a Caucasian-dominated society. And you still haven't answered my challenge. Why shouldn't there be a constitutional amendment that disallows heterosexual couples from marrying? I'm playing the devil's advocate here. If religion and morals are all you can think of, you have a very weak arguement. Here we have two non-heterosexual forum members, and you are saying point-blank that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Like they're not people. They are people, too. You seem to think they can choose. I guess that means I can choose too. Look, I'm straight. Bam, now I'm gay! Ooh, back to straight. Gay again! Straight again! Do you really think it works like that? |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Aug 7, 2004 11:56:10 GMT -5
Being equal means only you can marry to someone of that gender? How are those to points even related? If you honestly can't see that reasoning - that it's unequal to have to have one group of people (hetrosexuals) allowed to marry and disallow another group (homosexuals) - then you don't deserve to have it explained to you. I don't see how that even has to do with anything... It's like having terminal cancer - you can either accept that you have it, and try to make the best of the time you have left, or you can go on believeing you're absolutely fine untill you keel over and die. Although, Ember did a better job of explaining it than me. Yes, so what makes love of one man for another man any less strong or untrue? |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 7, 2004 13:04:08 GMT -5
You people are beating a dead horse.
No one is going to convince the other of this. Period.
So why do you continue this extremely futile debate?
|
|
