I am not for being gay but

I am not for being gay but i do think and agree that a person bedroom life should be private. And they have the right to love who ever they like.

 

How can you be for or against the existence of people? I'm a homosexual. I did not choose to be what I am, just like I did not choose my green eyes.

But thank you for at least acknowledging we deserve equal rights.

 

We are to presume we are all equal before the law, but it seems some of us are less equal than others

 

I guess I just don't get it. People are what they are. None of us decided to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. We just are what we are.

 

I am not against you I am a Independent voter who says your life is what you choose to be. Just like your job. I would not mind being around you as long as you respect me.

 

But homosexuality is defined by a set of 'behaviors'. Your green eyes are not. Behaviors can be controlled, mitigated, learned...can they not? Homosexuality is not a 'physical' feature. Why should a fringe set of behaviors get special treatment?

 

So is heterosexuality .. so what is your point?

I don't believe that homosexuals are trying to get "special treatment" they are simply trying to achieve the same treatment as heterosexuals in all things .. as it should be.

 

Are homosexuals NOT allowed to marry people of the opposite sex? And are heterosexuals allowed to marry people of the same sex? Of course not. So what's the difference? Why should there be special treatment?

 

Then you miss my point, no person should be excluded from marrying whomever they wish to marry regardless of their sexual orientation.
Being against homosexual marriage is no different from the time when people were against mixed race marriages, there is no logical reasoning behind it.
I've heard all the arguments against homosexual marriage and not one of them makes logical sense when placed under scrutiny.

 

What if they want to marry a 10 year old, or a duck? What the difference?

Except that a mixed race marriage can result in prodigy. That is very logical. Are you implying that interracial prodigy is less important than individual rights?

What about how destructive it is to the fabric of society? Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece adopted homosexuality, and they crumbled. Why don't you think this would happen to us?

 

Well for one thing I said "whomever" so the duck doesn't even come into it.
We have other laws that govern when a person is considered mature enough (physically and emotionally) to marry or indulge in other activates, such as consensual sex, so there is a vast difference.

Not at all, but are you implying that a "barren" man or woman should not be able to marry?

You are attributing a single item to the collapse of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece .. really!!

History would disagree with you -

In fact the final demise of Ancient Rome was around the same time they adopted Christianity .. was this the one of the reasons for it's collapse.

Ancient Greece collapsed due to the rise of the Roman Empire, at no time in it's history was Ancient Greece anything other than a divided country and as such was fairly easily conquered by regimental Roman legions.

 

Hey, "gay" isn't something you DO, it is something that you ARE. (Sheeesh!!)

Even so, I have to agree with you overall.

 

Consent.

Some heterosexual relationships don't or can't produce prodigy either, and yet they aren't denied. A gay couple and a sterile/infertile/elderly heterosexual couple are totally equal in that regard, yet only the straight couple are allowed access to 1000s of rights. Want to explain how that fits in with the principles of equal protection?

You're implying a cause and effect with no proof whatsoever. Christianity brought about the downfall of Rome if anything, and the "homosexuality" you refer to is nothing like the type of same-sex relationships being embraced today.

 

Do you understand the IMPORTANT difference between being a "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior"?

Really, that distinction is critical.

So, what do you know?

- - - Updated - - -

What?!! LOL!! Is this your first day on these fora?

Come on, you should probably know the answer to the question you asked.

 

Neither can consent....really you want to talk about marrying ducks? Are you just trying to sound ridiculous?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

No but not all marriages create children. So is that your standard.

Because the fall of those cultures had nothing to do with homosexuality...

Perhaps if you are going to make a full-throated argument you should probably have, you know, facts.

 

Okay, folks - today's grammar lesson:

Infinitive: To be
Meaning: To exist; sometimes used in characterizing some quality of existence.
Present tense: am, is, are
Present Progressive form: am being, is being, are being

Which makes it interesting that people use 'being' when describing some action or behavior, as in, "Percy was being a dick, again". Clearly not a literal description of some aspect of Percy's existence, but a figurative one concerning his actions. (Then again, it could be a figurative description of that existence, if "being a dick" was a sort of personality trait in Percy's case. Sometimes it's hard to separate passively being from the action of doing based on some aspect of being).

Wait, what? :mumbling incoherently to self as I read back what I just wrote:

Oh, right. Got it.

So as Johnny-C correctly observes, 'being gay' isn't something we do, but instead describes some aspect of our existence.

 

Even if there is nothing that can be done about homosexual 'being', something can be done about homosexual 'doing'...which is destructive to body and healthy social structures.

 

This is true , christianity brought moral and social decay , backwardism , racism and some form of early nationalism, near the end christian church became so oppressive that people start to massively converting to islam .

 

Oh really? What can be done? Oppression, violence and imprisonment? Please tell us what is to be "done".

 

Maybe you can do something about the 'heterosexual doing', which has given society more problems than we can likely cover well in 20 threads. This is a perfect example of the bigoted and homophobic thinking that is causing so many issues that should not be there at all.

What you suggest above is simply disgusting.

BS. Get real, please.

 

If that guy is truly serious, that is why we must keep on fighting at every level and every way necessary.

That kind of bigoted nonsense simply infuriates me.

 

Why should anything be done? Cars are 10x more destructive to body than unsafe homosexual anal sex, yet there's no movement to ban them...

The bottom line is that gay people are going to engage in relationships and have sex regardless of any laws put there to prevent that from happening. Surely if you care about the health of gay people, you'd want to encourage a them to take part in a conservative institution that promotes monogamy, i.e. marriage?

 

They don't want to marry you. That's the difference. Also, in the case of the ten year old, it's only a temporary restriction. If they genuinely do want to marry you, all they have to do is wait 6-8 years, depending on where they live, and they can.

You're confusing causality with correlation. There is no evidence that the acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of the collapse of any civilization.

If they did collapse it was most likely for reasons far removed from homosexuality.

 

Education?

- - - Updated - - -

In nearly all cultures, chastity is considered virtuous. There is nothing disgusting about it.

 

Brainwashing?