There is one part of the homophobic argument i've never understood, and this is something i'd like to directly ask flymike if he'll answer the question because I genuinely would like to know the answer.
See I generally don't ram my sexuality down peoples throats, it got raised on this forum when I was in hospital recovering from an operation and doped up on numerous drugs, and has been discussed openly since as the forum, I guess the wording would be "came to terms" with my sexuality, and I guess the openess this has brought has resulted in it being mentioned periodically.
Thing is, other than when im rebuffing advances (odd as that may sound I do get them ) and the odd bit of office banter my sexuality is just something that's there but isnt really what im all about.
If anything, I consider my sexuality to be (name substituted) chantalsexual. What I get up to is between me and her, infact in this thread i've now twice purposefully not used her name as she's a very private person.
The thing is, what I get up to involves only me and her.
So what should it matter to an outsider? Why should Flymike, or other persons holding the same viewpoint, have an opinion?
If somebody feels entitled to judge my sexual activities, perhaps also they should list their own perversions and kinks so I can judge theirs?
See, i'm not more 'homosexual' than I am a Christian. I grew up in a Christian country and have been in many churches, and even read the good book a few times (except that whole list of begatting thing, I always skipped that part) - does that make me a Christian? I dont think it does, I certainly dont consider myself a Christian.
So I sleep with women, but specifically, I sleep with "A" woman. That woman is a person, particularly she gets annoyed when I referr to her as a woman because she says it makes her sound old, but the point is i'm committed to a person, like any other person in a relationship.
Now sometimes a friend of mine will date somebody I dont much like, so lets assume for the moment that Flymike and I each dont like each others partners - what right have either of us to impede on the rights and civil liberties of the other just because we dont like each others partner.
My point being, am I really gay? I am in love with somebody who is very special to me, is that really homosexuality? It's not like i'm sleeping with every woman I see. Why is my choice of partner so odd that it needs a special name to describe it?
In my opinion, that is not necessarily homosexuality. To be homosexual is to be sexually attracted only to those of the same gender. However, I don't believe that love is necessarily sexual attraction. There can be many different kinds of attraction other then in a sexual nature. Therefore, two people of the same gender getting married is not necessarily homosexual marriage unless the two people are actually sexually attracted to each other. I mean, people "love" their siblings and family members, but when most people say they "love" their parents, they do not mean that they are sexually attracted to them. So if a woman loves a woman, it in no way means that either of them are sexually attracted to each other necessarily.
Even if they two people of the same gender are sexually attracted to each other, I don't see why anyone would care. Why should the government act upon the beliefs of a religion? Jews and Muslims are not permitted to eat pork according to their bibles. But that doesn't mean that pork should be banned for everyone in a country.
Phew where to start. Being at school all day gave you guys some time to really lay it on thick.
Most churches in CA don't care either way in fact the Episcopalians are known for having homosexual ministers and routinely marry people of the same sex. In any case, since you are obviously quite the theologian, I won't quote verse to you but I will remind you that like all texts, the Bible is open to interpretation. Neither me nor my church actively campaign against homosexuals, that is something reserved for the Bible Belt. I know gay people, I don't try to convert them or in any way bring up or mention their sexuality, that is my definition of tolerance.
Ah, but that is not in the Bible. People can think whatever they like.
I don't doubt that you can defend your interpretation as well as I can.
For the sake of the flying spaghetti monster spell intolerance right if you plan to accuse me of it.
I completely agree with this Becky. The problem is, children who are truly too young to be considering or exploring sexuality are being introduced to concepts they cannot yet comprehend. Imagine you are a young boy around 7 or 8. You don't play with little girls because they are still icky and have cooties. Now someone comes along and says its totally normal to love boys. I really think i would be confused because I'm thinking, "I only play with boys, girls suck. Do I love boys?" Puberty (late puberty imo but lets not split hairs) is an excellent time to introduce those concepts. I think you'll agree that there is an age where it becomes appropriate to talk about sexuality.
Please, I never even came close to advocating that. In fact, I only use religion as a frame of reference for the issue. I myself am not very religious. The extent to which I believe in God only goes as far as believing in a higher moral code of ethics.
At what age, may I ask? I only feel strongly about not discussing homosexuality with children >12-13 because of the reasons I have already stated.
I guess I won't mention religion when discussing this issue as there are many other more legitimate reasons to be against gay marriage. I don't want to come across as a religious fanatical because I'm really not.
I honestly don't know who is qualified to teach homosexuality. I would prefer parents do it but I agree some parents would not do a good job teaching the extremely complicated issue to their children. But, I don't think it is the job of the government either as it is well known they break everything they touch and would probably do a bad job. The CA school system is fanatically, unabashedly liberal and would probably be no more objective than anyone else. the question is who can teach the concept of homosexuality objectively and without influencing their students in any way. That is also why I believe only kids over 13 should be taught it because they are more aware of when they are being spoken to in an objective way and when they should form their own opinions and feelings about the subject.
Its possible, who is to say?
I've already said how I feel about ignoring anyone and I hope i can seem more reasonable to you in the future, even if you don't agree with the logic i present.
eh, you could be right but ~83% of Americans consider themselves christian and CA in particular has the largest Catholic population in the US.
I sincerely hope tax exemption is not eliminated out of spite. While my church makes hundreds of thousands of dollars, the money goes to paying the ministers and administators (it is a large church and they don't make very much, a little less than high school teachers) and the rest goes to charity functions that the church runs, such as its soup kitchen for the homeless in the county as well as mission trips to 64 different countries each year for aid and medical assistance. If the church was taxed, it would not suffer, only the thousands of people that it gives aid to every year. In fact, churches are the main source of aid all around the world and give vastly more money to charity and medical aid than any other group could come close to matching. If they are a business, they are in the business of charity. Should all those people the church gives aid to suffer because you don't like religion?
Thats the point of this forum, no should ever take that right away from us.
The constitution is a funny thing. It guarantees equal rights for all and imo prop 22 was not against that. Everyone in CA had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Obviously thats not what the gay community wants, but saying it isn't equal may not be exactly true. Besides I'm about to explain below that its all in the name anyway, so this point is moot because the proposition will not ban same sex domestic partnership.
It is very confusing, no doubt. Proponents of prop 8 are fine with gay couples having the same rights as married couples. That issue has had its own legal cases and propositions and such. they don't agree with it being called marriage for hundreds of reasons that even I cannot comprehend. I only disagree with it because of the possible ramifications it could have in the schools. In my opinion, EVERYONE should be domestic partners in the eyes of the government and then get married in the church. That, I think, would effectively solve the problem.
Look at it from both perspectives. You wonder why straight people care so much about the word marriage if everyone has the same rights but also question why gay people want to be called married? Who knows!
Of course I'm a whiner!. I whine against religion and government intervention Becky whines about religion and conservatism. Who said whining got you no where? Whining has indeed changed the course of history quite a few times.
I care because people of the opposite sex are supposed to be together. Children should be brought up by men and women. I've learned valuable life lessons from both my parents that separately they wouldn't understand themselves. Heterosexuality is not the way God intended, it is the way nature intended. I notice an argument for natural homosexuality is the fact that there are animals that are occasionally homosexual. This proves no point. my dog is always humping other male and female dogs. He'll hump anything, but does he love only male dogs? Is he monogamous with one male dog? no. If homosexuality was normal and intended by nature wouldn't humans be asexual and able to reproduce with either sex? On a biological level, humans couple to reproduce and raise offspring. Anything other than that is not normal. (btw that was not the main point of this rebuttal and I don't want to see the next 20 posts linking to gay animal sex)
Now, humans coupling together to share love is normal and acceptable but when homosexuality tries to become the norm, it is a problem and really the only problem I have with the gay agenda in CA (not even individual gay people). Children under 13 do not need to be taught homosexuality because they are still more under the influence of nature than subjectivity. They will decide what they are and when they go through puberty they will be taught what that possibly could be, gay or straight.
good for you; true monogamy seems to be a rare thing these days.
I'm fine with your partner unless they support legislation that I believe could be harmful for the healthy development of pre-pubescent children.
I really tried to be more reasonable but I know there will still be parts that will seem offensive to some people and I will be criticized for it. The one thing I ask is that we keep the name-calling out of it. I never use derogatory names when referring to a group but I haven't received the same respect from some of you.
homosexuality wouldn't become a norm even if you teach about. It's not a life choice, it's just something that happens to be that way.
homosexuality is natural in its cause, whether it is intentional in the sense of an intelligent design is questionable, I personally believe not all natural creation are perfect and it's actually natural that you get some unexpected variations. So I think it is natural.
The fact that no other animal being exhibit the homosexual behavior identical as human is obvious...human are unique, we can't even prove whether a dog has the intelligence to grasp the concept of human love, or monogamy. when it involves love you can't make direct comparion between animals and human, but for the basic sexual attraction between individuals, it can be a reference.
and as mentioned many animals exhibits sexual interest in same sex, accross different species or even beyond living organisms. some animals practices prostitution, provides sex in exchange for materials
It may look weird but it is natural, why would mantis cut off their mate's head? why would dophins performs nasal sex? all of these have no benefit to their purpose of reproduction and yet it happens, and it is very natural, why wouldn't human have the same behavior?
Human are evolved to have two opposite sex, its logical that boths sides should come together for reproduction. But sex isn't only about reproduction and if you count the number of intercourse, most ain't for the purpose of reproduction. human "make love" instead of "mate".
Unless you claim it is not normal to have sex beyond the purpose of reproduction, there's really nothing abnormal about having sexual attraction and developing love towards another individual of the same sex.
because on the most basic level, in terms of impulse and sexual attraction, homosexuality is not at all abnormal, it is not the majority but it is not "abnormal".
and before you argue Heterosexuality is the way god intended, think about plants, plant has no sex at all, yet they reproduce. and they make up a huge biomass on earth. if you think Heterosexuality is the way god intended only for animals....think about asexual organisms like aphids, some turkey can also lay fertile eggs on its own.
btw if you look at the majority of animals and think about "god's intention", polygamy would be the norm ...wouldn't it?
I got a huge kick out of that. Talk about tolerance! These guys are opposing-viewpoint-o-phobes. Better plug your ears and shut your eyes! someone on a message board disagrees with you!
I'd say that flymike91 has the most right to say anything in this thread, as it's a thread ABOUT him (and his people). He lives in California—he actually has a physical vote on the issue, and whether or not you choose to listen to him, his government will. :haha:
For the record, I think Mike makes some very valid arguments. Additional, kudos to him for actually posting a significant argument without resorting to the petty name-calling that seems to engulf every thread on this forum that goes so far as to even mention religion. :up:
Dyslexic typing this so please read a few times so you dont missunderstand anything
Hey id keep same sex marriage at leased i don't get gay knocking at my doors
with a book on gay sexual positions with a bunch of shit that has no prof of who wrote it and so on from back in the early 1650s when everyone was so literate and could speak perfect English .
in the end all i can say is one word and ill write it in big and its something we are taught at school and something we are all encouraged to do
Acceptance
also i was once told a story by a Christian about people from all religions walking by a river who could see a man drowning and would not help this man because they said you will die because you did not do something right you are being punished by the gods
Bar the one man who was a Christian who jumped in to save him because god loves all people..........
from what i can see ive never read the bible and i sure wont be doing so anytime soon it seems that the book is a book for the insecure and stupid people who need direction in there lifes (sorry if i have offended anyone by saying that) (also the song a beautiful lie by 30 seconds to mars works for me now )
but after seeing this and reading what people are saying this is how i feel about this subject.....
i went to a christian school when i was little and i recived the wine and bread i prayed every day and things..... but after year 5 i did not go to that school no more and i dont feel that i sin every day. i dont feel that god smites me as i write this message. having a smoke and drinking a coke.
i just do not understand the message that is being said here that it is wrong for two people of the same sex to love each other?????
that its god's wish and will to have people unhappy and sad that we should all get down on our knees and pray hoping that after the time we live on this earth that he will give me a great big hug as i arrive at the perly gates!! that we have done as all good little boys and girls should! that we have pleased his every wish
sounds evil and twisted to me that we are all little puppets on strings playing to a game. following the words of a sh*&T book that tells us 10 comandments that we are to follow
what the f000k so if i choose to belive in somthing diferance i should die in a fire or somthing???
7.
You shall not commit adultery.
lol stop the tens of thousands doing it and the christians
9.
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
hey dont we sue people for anything these days? most times its got a lot of false things put into it makes the case more interesting and helps you getting the money you so desire
10
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
dont bad mouth other people
now for all them people who said that its wrong that its discusting you broke the last law you just coveted your neighbor or another person
in the end this just does not make sence and i can leave with some words of my own 2 cents
I'm not going to get into the man-on-man and girl-on-girl action debate that seems to get everyone's hormones working around here.
However...
Actually, it is.
Traditionally speaking, it is one of your strict obligations as a democratic citizen to vote - regardless if the system finds it easier to not impose it legally and thus bring on a loose and careless oligarchy. A fine mechanism for dumbing down the population and making them not care - works much better than any sort of propaganda in the long run.
Firstly: Wow, seriously, what is your point? I thought we were talking about homosexuality, not how much you dislike the ten commandments...
Secondly:
How are you intending on posting relevant, contextual arguments against the Bible if you actually have no idea what it says in it's entirety.
If you don't believe it, what's your problem? If you believe it's true, maybe you have an issue, but if you don't, why are you concerned? To me it just seems like stirring up trouble for the sake of it.
As an aside: I do find it amusing (as has been mentioned above), that tolerance is 'preached' by most in this thread, but only if it excludes people who disagree with your viewpoint...
Just so you understand, one of my best friends is straight.
Infact, this is something of a joke to a gay person, i'll let you figure out why.
Indeed the bible often is interpreted, but when it comes to homosexuality the bible is consistently miss-interpreted, this is why earlier I was suggesting that the anti-gay interpretations of the bible where an act of imposing ones own view on the bible, and not as a result of reading it.
*sigh* no.
Is this really the case, the CA school system is introducing sexual education at the age of 7 or 8? You where talking about grades earlier which I just dont relate too as i'm not American, i've no idea how grades equate to years. It sounds to me like the sex education is coming a bit earlier than i'd expect, but then again, that's probably because kids are having sex younger than i'd expect.
May I ask, what age should children be taught about heterosexual activity? I would suggest that puberty is the time to be discussing these issues, what age the CA state does it I dont know.
Oh really. Would you care to elaborate on some please?
The point of the schools teaching it is to bring about social change, parents teach their world view, if parents are still living with 'higher moral ethics' as you put it, by a miss-interpretation of a code that went out of date with the Ming dynasty.
With the church itself being a charity it is quite easy to cook the books in this regard. Most of your money goes to the Vattican, it is used to fund Ferrari Enzo's for the pope which mysteriously go missing.
God can take care of everything, see everything, he can cure illnesses and he can grant you that hot little blonde you've been praying for. But for some reason he can't handle money, he needs money. Why is that?
Clearly not, what is said and what is in the fine print are clearly different things. As I understand the issue the marriage would be absolved outside of CA, that's not exactly fair is it. What if you became ambassador for America and had to go to Beirut and the local Shake said, "sorry dude, your not married by our laws so your wife has to go back home"... Except when the problem is between American states it becomes even more pronounced. I dont know many Americans, only online, but I do know a few that have moved states...
Surely then the real issue is the age that sex education is taught, and nothing at all to do with the teaching of what homosexuality is?
WHAT!? I'm very close to putting that what in big bold red letters too. Firstly, people of the opposite sex are not "supposed" to be together, if they chose to spend their lives together that's grand - I wont judge them - if they're doing it against every instinct they had, they're only hurting themselves.
Gay parenting is wrong in your eyes? Well my partner has a child, so watch how you justify that one. You seem to be implying that together we are unable to teach her fundamental life basics. I rather hope you would deem my partner intelligent enough to have a little understanding of how to prepare a child for life. I dont consider myself a step parent at this time, maybe in the future, but I dont see why the many valuable lessons i've learned would be of no use either. Why am I less qualified than a 16 year old sraight married christian girl who giggles when she sees a 69 cent price tag? Please put considering into this point before arguing it.
With all due respect (which sadly is not a lot) if you had any idea what God intended you wouldnt be living your life in fear of him, but according to your beliefs God made me, and my choices are my own but my sexuality as we know was not a 'choice' its just something that is, which means: According to Christian doctrine, that God chose for me to be homosexual. Therefore God intended for me to be homosexual.
I think you have a very cynical, and sadly very Catholic, view of couples. We couple for love, we couple to support one another, to care for one another, to share in life together. We couple because our partners are the most precious things we've discovered in this world, because the smell of CK-1 reminds us of her, because the things she does, the way she says things, that funny way she says her U's, that little smile, that despairing look when I dont dont something important as serious. We couple for a lot of things before the basic task of procreation.
Firstly the "gay agenda" annoys me, personally. I have no agenda per se, any more than anyone else. Less of all one that could be lumped in with other gay people. I simply see an injustice and, as is my habbit, feel I want to step in for the persecuted. It's as much an impulse as my sexuality that when I see injustice I have to step in, that's probably why i've so many scars...
The bible has harsh things to say for those who are not monogamous, it's funny how gay-hating elements of Christian faiths have as much infidelity as any other cross section of the community, but for some reason things that are not written in the old fairy tales are the subject of their hate... Sad world isn't it? But yes, i'm monogamous, strictly so. I think it's quite likely that I probably live my life closer to how the bible says I should than many Christians, despite my abhoration for the concept... Oh the bitter irony :/
It would be a catastrophic disaster, and other cliches with redundant wording, to not be tolerant towards intolerance - and no one likes failing a Turing test like that.
Firstly: Wow, seriously, what is your point? I thought we were talking about homosexuality, not how much you dislike the ten commandments...
sometimes there are only pictures and saying it again that can explain something to people who don't read or misunderstand stand the point of it was in big again
Acceptance
cant people accept the way gay people feel? that was the point in BLACK AND WHITE IN 7 POINT TEXT i mean if u dint get anything i thought that was obvious
Secondly:
How are you intending on posting relevant, contextual arguments against the Bible if you actually have no idea what it says in it's entirety.
Do i need an idea when all i can see is people disliking other people because they are different or choose to do or feel different ?
now to the fact that i raved on pointlessly about that was because i got carried away in thinking that people would understand my mumbo jumbo point is that i don't believe in that book of the perfect denial you don't believe in gay couples = argument or discusion how ever its veiwed(SP)
about my point about the book
point is most people dont make a fuss about that and its taught to kids that their is a god and so on bla bla bla can go on for hours but im running out of coke and will play some cs soon but the kids get to choose if they do it or not belive in god so why cant the kids learn and choose them selfs?
im out now no more for me this goes on for like a life time and no verdic will be reached and its the internet to me is now pointless because wtf am i arguing for i dont live in the us lol
Ahh, so if I disagree with you, or challenge what you said, I'm dumb? Excellent.
I don't see anyone denying that that's how they feel, nor do I see anyone refusing to accept they feel that way.
I was talking about your reference to the 10 commandments... I made no comments about your views on acceptance.
I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - but evidently not. In order to argue against something competently, it's generally advised that you know what it is you're arguing against.
I said nothing of the sort, so stop putting words in my mouth.
hm does the dutch sex education in primary school include homosexuality?
extremely complicated? theres 2 sexes some will spend thei lifes with the other some with the same the end... phew that was really hard to explain
apparently because his body will continue with the sex longer without its head
of course they do have a sex... granted they are usually intersexed but they do have sexual "organs" with a clear distinction between female and male bits
) and the odd bit of office banter my sexuality is just something that's there but isnt really what im all about.
