Your attitudes toward gays and gay rights (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Jayrod, if you were the dictator of this country, would divorce be illegal?

 

[mad sweeney]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

Sweeney's blowing a gasket because you keep ignoring him. The more you ignore, the more he tries to berate you because he can't stand it.

Everyone on these forums has run into Sweeney at one time or another. It's never a pleasant experience because he's so militant in his views.

Everyone knows Max doesn't know jack spit. You can't but help to jump in and show how wrong you are, everyone's had you do it to them. Case in point, the very fact that jayrod ignored me means that I beat him because that's the exact behavior I was describing. I gave jayrod the opportunity to elaborate on his views. With each passing reply he made, it became clear that he didn't deserve to be labeled anything but a bigot hiding behind the Bible, precisely because he wouldn't answer, because he couldn't truthfully answer it. I didn't address that post to him, in fact it was made directly after and in response to TPW's post/viewpoint. But the guy who's supposedly infuriating me by ignoring me answers it... yet you decide that I'm the one somehow mad about jay? You can't even get this very simple concept right?

But hey, every opportunity you take to show us how little you know is comedy gold.

 

[tonydead]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm not saying that a % of the homosexual population aren't born that way and had absolutely '0 chance' of being heterosexual. However, I don't believe it is as common or as normal of a behavior as the media and society plays it off to be. And because it is being viewed as "normal", I think more young people are now looking at it as a potential lifestyle choice whereas in the past they wouldn't have.

Again, agree to disagree but I am a 22 year old male living this a world where the white male is being demonized and men are becoming more and more feminine...

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not that people see it as a more acceptable choice they can make. They see it as they don't "have to be scared of being dragged behind a truck until they're dead just for being who they are so they never come to terms with themselves and live life as a miserable fraud and make their beard family miserable as well" anymore.Unfortunately, closeted, self hating guys like you will always be around to still make people second guess themselves and live in fear. And while we're talking about manliness, it takes a thousand times more courage and balls to stand up, even in today's world, and be proudly gay than it does to be a whiny stock boy who asks the internet if he should show a minute amount of spine at his minimum wage job. Or how to get a girlfriend. Have you ever laid down at night, alone again, and wondered if your problem with girls is because deep down you don't really want a woman?

You realize you're flat out insulting me and calling me gay, right?

That's what pisses me off the most about America nowadays. I can't have an opinion about this subject without being accused of being a closet homosexual if I don't agree that being gay isn't natural.

It's like this bud, a ###### is a million times more appealing than some dudes #######; any dude's #######.

That's common sense. That's the way that nature made it, it's the ultimate reward for being a man. It's a body part that through evolution or creative design was made to fit your ####.

All of our ancestors understood this concept pretty clearly or none of us would be here today to talk about this. My family line could have died about millions of years ago but it didn't and here I am.

What is it 6% of the population that is actually homosexual? Seems to me that there is something WRONG with that portion of the population.

Something is wrong with their head that they are literally programmed to go against nature itself.

Now, I don't even believe that. Like I said before, I only knew one gay kid growing up in middle school and he didn't have a father. He only had a mother and sister.

That to me is too much of a coincidence and doesn't add up with "being born that way". It shows to me that there is a certain degree of conditioning involved.

I'm not going to support a behavior that isn't 100% natural to a person. If you grew up without a father figure or were raped, then I could see how your mind is forever altered and conditioned to be attracted to the opposite sex.

However, I also fear that the normalization of this lifestyle and its portrayal in the media is also a form of conditioning that is set to target young men.

No Mad Sweeney, I'm not a closet homosexual. I've dated and fooled around with many women, my #### has been in a ###### and every day I think about ways to get it back into one.

There is something inherently wrong and peverted with today's society.

When you consider that 6% of the population is homosexual and that there are twice as many gay men than women, you have to start asking questions.

I don't believe there is anything natural about homosexuality and I am dumbfounded by the fact that because I support what 94% of the population practices and what ALL of our ancestors practiced; that that apparently makes me a homosexual.

And it's ignorant thinking and accusations like that which is only going to cause this epidemic to grow.

I bet you think Adrian Peterson and Phil Robertson are gay as well? They've both spoken publicly against homosexuality.

It's maddening to me to see how welcomed an act that is clearly against nature is being accepted and glorified.

It's maddening that in the Land of the Free, minorities have more power, sway, and protection than the majority.

It's maddening that I can't have a countering opinion on this subject without being villainized as a bigot or closet homosexual.

Maybe I feel there is something special and sacred about the family unit. Maybe I believe God created man and woman for a certain cause.

But those 'maybes' don't matter in 2014. The only thing that matters nowadays is this Liberal Agenda that is being shoved down our throats.

I should be able to say whatever I like and have whatever opinion I want, but I can't because freedom is dead.

Welcome to the New America, where you can think as freely as you'd like as long as you agree with the agenda of the Powers that Be.

Momo says what?

 

[RBM]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

 

[Ilov80s]

If a man having ######l intercourse with a woman is natural because it makes babies and that is the natural way the world was intended to be, then I have done many unnatural things with my ####.

 

[tonydead]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

 

[mad sweeney]

If a man having ######l intercourse with a woman is natural because it makes babies and that is the natural way the world was intended to be, then I have done many unnatural things with my ####.

Not to mention that by this standard, sterile men and women shouldn't get to have sex or get married. But they aren't gay, so that standard doesn't apply apparently.

 

[Clifford]

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world. It causes direct and real harm to another individual.

You're misunderstanding what "sin" is. Stealing isn't a sin because it damages another individual (although that obviously makes it a not-very-excellent thing to do). It's a sin because it damages the thief's relationship with God.

There are lots of things that Christianity regards as sinful that have no effect whatsoever on other people. If you open your Bible to a random page in the OT, there's a good chance that the author will be saying something bad about idolatry, but idolatry doesn't hurt anybody else. The only reason why it's bad is because of the effect it has on the idolator.

Thanks, I think I have a pretty good understanding what sin is, and your definition is not some sort of universal truth.

Also, the only reason Christianity is not called Judaism is because Jesus coming to earth was about nullifying the rules of the old testament and making life all about your relationship with God and how you treat others. On these two things hang all the laws of the prophets and all that, but, hey, it's just you know JESUS CHRIST saying that, why should CHRISTIANS pay attention to him?

 

[fatness]

I strongly disapprove of the lifestyle on both moral and common sense grounds but I don't really give a rat's rear what people do in their bed behind closed doors. However, if all the militant activism keeps up people are going to get really sick of it.

Militant activism?

This seems appropriate here.

 

[Clifford]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

Why can't you tell me why homosexuality is a sin?

 

[RUSF18]

If a man having ######l intercourse with a woman is natural because it makes babies and that is the natural way the world was intended to be, then I have done many unnatural things with my ####.

Not to mention that by this standard, sterile men and women shouldn't get to have sex or get married. But they aren't gay, so that standard doesn't apply apparently.

Or guys who particularly enjoy making an emoticon on their partner's stomach.

I'm preferential to the ;-)~ .

 

[Clifford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

Yes. Outside of illegality, what's wrong with having sex with prostitutes?

Seriously? As a habit? For one, very expensive.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Gay rights is the civil rights issue of our era.

There are obviously two camps: gay is a choice and gay is genetic/inborn

Gay is a choice camp can't understand why this would be considered a civil right because being gay is something you chose and should not be a protected class.

Gay is inborn/genetic camp can't understand why civil rights should denied to this class of people.

I can't understand how anybody thinks being gay is a choice.

 

[Clifford]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

Why can't you tell me why homosexuality is a sin?

tap tap

 

[timschochet]

Gay rights is the civil rights issue of our era.

There are obviously two camps: gay is a choice and gay is genetic/inborn

Gay is a choice camp can't understand why this would be considered a civil right because being gay is something you chose and should not be a protected class.

Gay is inborn/genetic camp can't understand why civil rights should denied to this class of people.

I can't understand how anybody thinks being gay is a choice.

If you are a religious Jew or Christian, it HAS to be a choice. Otherwise the Bible is in error.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Gay is a choice camp can't understand why this would be considered a civil right because being gay is something you chose and should not be a protected class.

Is religion something people choose? If so, should religious freedom not be protected?

 

[jurb26]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as. Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

 

[mad sweeney]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

 

[jurb26]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

I meant to say these are better ones to talk about and worry about. Homosexuality is the dumbest thing to be concerned about IMO and helps the media redirect people from other issues that are worth while.

 

[Henry Ford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

Yes. Outside of illegality, what's wrong with having sex with prostitutes?

Seriously? As a habit? For one, very expensive.

Stuff that's expensive is a sin?

 

[squistion]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

I can imagine how that discussion would play out, with 50% of those on this forum in a recent poll thinking that the Redskins should keep the team name.

 

[mad sweeney]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

I meant to say these are better ones to talk about and worry about. Homosexuality is the dumbest thing to be concerned about IMO and helps the media redirect people from other issues that are worth while.

Are you saying that you don't think the oppression of a group of people is worth talking about, even though your third example is pretty much the same thing as this issue?

Or are you saying it's not worthwhile for opponents to be worried about?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

I meant to say these are better ones to talk about and worry about. Homosexuality is the dumbest thing to be concerned about IMO and helps the media redirect people from other issues that are worth while.

lol

 

[jurb26]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

I meant to say these are better ones to talk about and worry about. Homosexuality is the dumbest thing to be concerned about IMO and helps the media redirect people from other issues that are worth while.

Are you saying that you don't think the oppression of a group of people is worth talking about, even though your third example is pretty much the same thing as this issue? Or are you saying it's not worthwhile for opponents to be worried about?

Not worth while for people to oppose.

 

[mad sweeney]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

These ones come to mind as.Corporation/lobbyist accountability in relation to human rights.

NSA and spying on citizens.

Rights of indigenous people.

Contamination of natural resources and human necessities.

Those are all pretty much human rights issues as well.

I meant to say these are better ones to talk about and worry about. Homosexuality is the dumbest thing to be concerned about IMO and helps the media redirect people from other issues that are worth while.

Are you saying that you don't think the oppression of a group of people is worth talking about, even though your third example is pretty much the same thing as this issue? Or are you saying it's not worthwhile for opponents to be worried about?

Not worth while for people to oppose.

I agree. However that lesson could be used to further our progress on several of the other topics.

 

[RBM]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

The playoff games this weekend to start with.

 

[McGarnicle]

If having sex with prostitutes is wrong, I'm Pol Pot.

 

[roadkill1292]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

The playoff games this weekend to start with.

That's old timey thinking right there. Football is another tradition about to die off.

 

[squistion]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage

Any better topic than human rights to get fired up about?

Yes

I'm listening..................

The playoff games this weekend to start with.

Too bad they won't discuss that in the SP...maybe you should start a thread here.

 

[Steve Tasker]

My father in law was probably against gay marriage. He also didn't appear to like black people very much as an abstract concept (individual black and gay people he knew, he appeared to like fine, that's how he was).

In many ways, my father in law was a saint. He was a more generous and giving person than I'll ever be. But it's hard to say that he wasn't a bigot. That's what the word means.

I know someone who could fit this very description. Except the part about being your FIL, of course. Well put.

 

[Jayrod]

Why is it legally called marriage, then? If it is such a different thing.

Why is a strike bad in baseball but good in bowling? Then someone told me about a basketball strike, that sounds bad but I'm not quite sure.Weird how English works like that. Sometimes the same word is used to mean different things. I'm sure you're usually able to manage - why is it giving you such a hard time in this instance?

And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married, if it is just a legal union?

Seriously?

The reason I and others have such a hard time separating the two is because they have never been separate since the inception of our current legal system.

On the contrary, they've always been separate. The package of rights conferred on two people who have the kind of marriage recognized by the state doesn't require a ceremony in a Christian church or anything. The kind of marriage you're trying to "protect" is a religious ceremony performed by a Christian pastor, etc. - but then you still have to go down to town hall and get the other, secular kind of marriage, too. (ETA: You don't literally always have to physically head to town hall, but you know what I mean. Your pastor can do your Christian wedding ceremony, but you still need to fill out and submit a marriage license to the state. You can have a Christian wedding without getting a state-sanctioned marriage, and vice versa.)

I guess, I'm just saying give me (and others) a bit of a break on struggling with the whole concept

Sure, how long do you need? A few minutes? It's not that hard of a concept.

Are you sure that our laws have always been completely separate from the biblical explanation of marriage? Why are ministers allowed to actually designate marriages? And yes, seriously, why then do we need a separate law stating the homosexuals can get married?Whether you like it or not in the majority of the population the two concepts are completely combined into one recognized situation. This is because it has always been that way until recent history, not the other way around.

And if you want to continue this discussion I suggest you get a little less insulting. Just because I have a different point of view does not mean I am an idiot. I am NOT having trouble grasping the concept as you explain it. Im debating whether or not it is truly a completely separate concept or not.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why is it legally called marriage, then? If it is such a different thing.

Why is a strike bad in baseball but good in bowling? Then someone told me about a basketball strike, that sounds bad but I'm not quite sure.Weird how English works like that. Sometimes the same word is used to mean different things. I'm sure you're usually able to manage - why is it giving you such a hard time in this instance?

And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married, if it is just a legal union?

Seriously?

The reason I and others have such a hard time separating the two is because they have never been separate since the inception of our current legal system.

On the contrary, they've always been separate. The package of rights conferred on two people who have the kind of marriage recognized by the state doesn't require a ceremony in a Christian church or anything. The kind of marriage you're trying to "protect" is a religious ceremony performed by a Christian pastor, etc. - but then you still have to go down to town hall and get the other, secular kind of marriage, too. (ETA: You don't literally always have to physically head to town hall, but you know what I mean. Your pastor can do your Christian wedding ceremony, but you still need to fill out and submit a marriage license to the state. You can have a Christian wedding without getting a state-sanctioned marriage, and vice versa.)

I guess, I'm just saying give me (and others) a bit of a break on struggling with the whole concept

Sure, how long do you need? A few minutes? It's not that hard of a concept.

Are you sure that our laws have always been completely separate from the biblical explanation of marriage? Why are ministers allowed to actually designate marriages? And yes, seriously, why then do we need a separate law stating the homosexuals can get married?Whether you like it or not in the majority of the population the two concepts are completely combined into one recognized situation. This is because it has always been that way until recent history, not the other way around.

And if you want to continue this discussion I suggest you get a little less insulting. Just because I have a different point of view does not mean I am an idiot. I am NOT having trouble grasping the concept as you explain it. Im debating whether or not it is truly a completely separate concept or not.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that it is. Nor have you explained how it's anything other than bigotry to allow it for non-Christians but not for gays.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Question for the guys in here who are fed up with the overly-flamboyant gay guys? I've seen this comment from a few people - they're sick of the overly-out-in-the-open flamboyant gay guys.

How many of these people do you actually know? How many do you deal with regularly?

I can honestly say I don't know any really overly-flamboyant gay men. Can you tell that my gay friends are gay by talking to them? For the most part, yes. Are they Carson Kressley wannabes? Definitely not. Not even close.

 

[urbanhack]

Man...if being gay was a choice...think about all those dumb gay people who committed suicide instead of just deciding to be straight.

 

[Jewell]

There are obviously two camps: gay is a choice and gay is genetic/inborn

Gay is a choice camp can't understand why this would be considered a civil right because being gay is something you chose and should not be a protected class.

Gay is inborn/genetic camp can't understand why civil rights should denied to this class of people.

No, there are three camps...

[SIZE=14.399999618530273px]I also believe homosexuality is more often than not a disorder, most often caused by sexual abuse during childhood. [/SIZE]

You can believe that not all gay people were born that way, and yet also believe that most gay people are not making an active, conscious choice to be gay. Instead, events in their life affected them such that they are sexually attracted to members of their same sex.

 

[MaxThreshold]

There are obviously two camps: gay is a choice and gay is genetic/inborn

Gay is a choice camp can't understand why this would be considered a civil right because being gay is something you chose and should not be a protected class.

Gay is inborn/genetic camp can't understand why civil rights should denied to this class of people.

No, there are three camps...

[SIZE=14.399999618530273px]I also believe homosexuality is more often than not a disorder, most often caused by sexual abuse during childhood. [/SIZE]

You can believe that not all gay people were born that way, and yet also believe that most gay people are not making an active, conscious choice to be gay. Instead, events in their life affected them such that they are sexually attracted to members of their same sex.

Oh, boy. You just took the entire lid off of two cans of worms. Prepare for attack.

 

[timschochet]

I have never heard of a man who chose to be gay. I don't believe that such a creature exists.

I do know women who have chosen to be gay. And I know women who have always been gay. And I know women who have engaged in lesbian sex, but don't consider themselves gay. For women, there are many more variables.

I'm not quite sure why this is. Is it cultural or psychological? Or is there something innate in the female makeup that allows greater options, versus men who are either totally straight or totally gay?

 

[Scoresman]

jeez, even the pua meatheads know that attraction isn't a choice.

 

[Henry Ford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

Yes. Outside of illegality, what's wrong with having sex with prostitutes?

Seriously? As a habit? For one, very expensive.

Stuff that's expensive is a sin?

Without a firm answer on this, I'm just going to assume that really cheap hookers are not a sin.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Are you sure that our laws have always been completely separate from the biblical explanation of marriage? Why are ministers allowed to actually designate marriages?

That's the wrong question. Why are couples not required to have a minister to actually designate marriages? Because the state doesn't care about the religious institution of marriage, the state is only interested in the legal construct of marriage. They're two different things. Christian ministers can officiate a marriage, and so can ministers of every other religion, as well as other employees of the state. My buddy is a staunch atheist and he officiates weddings on weekends for extra cash.

And yes, seriously, why then do we need a separate law stating the homosexuals can get married?

You're asking why the laws need to be changed to make a set of legal rights available to a class of people to whom it was not previously available?

Whether you like it or not in the majority of the population the two concepts are completely combined into one recognized situation.

So? That doesn't mean they actually are the same thing. Most people get legally married right around the same time that they have their religious wedding ceremony. They're still two different things. Your minister can talk about how you're forming a matrimonial bond with Jesus or whatever, and you can kiss the bride and walk down the aisle, but you also have to sign some papers and send them down to the courthouse. The state only cares about the legal marriage, not the religious rites in your church.

And if you want to continue this discussion I suggest you get a little less insulting. Just because I have a different point of view does not mean I am an idiot.

I didn't call you an idiot. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain the mistakes you're making here.

I am NOT having trouble grasping the concept as you explain it.

Well then what's the problem? If you understand the concept that there's a difference between your Christian concept of marriage as a special gift from God and whatnot, and the secular definition of marriage that provides certain benefits and rights under the law to married people, then this whole thing should be a nonissue to you. The fact that it isn't a nonissue to you implies that you really are having a hard time grasping the concept. Either that, or you really are just a bigot and don't want homosexuals to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's not the case.

Im debating whether or not it is truly a completely separate concept or not.

Well there's not really much to debate. It is a separate concept. Gays aren't demanding "Christian marriage in Jayrod's church." Gay couples just want the same set of secular rights conferred on straight people that enter a state-sactioned marriage. The fact that homosexuality is offensive to your Christian sensibilities doesn't mean you're compelled to deny people rights under the law. As you said yourself, the state isn't interested in the spiritual implications. It's a legal issue, not a religious one. Your inability to separate the two is the problem.

 

[Clown Car]

Jayrod is working through the same stuff I have been for the last year. Give him time to mull it over. I'm a firm believer that it is wrong, but equally firm in my belief that the law should be applied equally to all. I believe that it is bad for the spiritual state of the nation, but so is abortion, gambling, porn, which are no worse sin. But more than that I believe the law should be applied equally to every person in the country, as we are not a theocracy. I wouldn't want us to be a theocracy. We can not legislate moral belief, relationship with god, etc.

 

[Zow]

I have never heard of a man who chose to be gay. I don't believe that such a creature exists.

I do know women who have chosen to be gay. And I know women who have always been gay. And I know women who have engaged in lesbian sex, but don't consider themselves gay. For women, there are many more variables.

I'm not quite sure why this is. Is it cultural or psychological? Or is there something innate in the female makeup that allows greater options, versus men who are either totally straight or totally gay?

I think it's a combination of both.

Since girl on girl action is generally considered "attractive," women likely don't face the social pressure. So, if they have even the slightest inclination to do it, they are pretty much free to explore it. Heck, it may be even encouraged by a boyfriend or whatever.

Additionally, I do think there is some sort of increased natural penchant for women to be more bisexual than men. While this isn't exactly a large sample size, thinking back I'd say the majority of my past girlfriends admitted to me that they kissed a girl and/or fantasized about sex with a girl. In contrast, I've never even contemplated sex with a man (not even Brady Quinn). I don't know whether this is attributed to men focusing more on physical attraction compared to women seeking more of an emotional connection or what. But regardless it does seem like it's more natural for females to be more bisexual.

 

[timschochet]

I have never heard of a man who chose to be gay. I don't believe that such a creature exists.

I do know women who have chosen to be gay. And I know women who have always been gay. And I know women who have engaged in lesbian sex, but don't consider themselves gay. For women, there are many more variables.

I'm not quite sure why this is. Is it cultural or psychological? Or is there something innate in the female makeup that allows greater options, versus men who are either totally straight or totally gay?

I think it's a combination of both.

Since girl on girl action is generally considered "attractive," women likely don't face the social pressure. So, if they have even the slightest inclination to do it, they are pretty much free to explore it. Heck, it may be even encouraged by a boyfriend or whatever.

Additionally, I do think there is some sort of increased natural penchant for women to be more bisexual than men. While this isn't exactly a large sample size, thinking back I'd say the majority of my past girlfriends admitted to me that they kissed a girl and/or fantasized about sex with a girl. In contrast, I've never even contemplated sex with a man (not even Brady Quinn). I don't know whether this is attributed to men focusing more on physical attraction compared to women seeking more of an emotional connection or what. But regardless it does seem like it's more natural for females to be more bisexual.

All good points.

Unfortunately, the bisexuality of some women is often used by religious people to "prove" that homosexuality is voluntary.

 

[flysack]

When I was a kid, the word f****t was used on Saturday Night Live and in pop music. We used it at school to tease kids who were different. It wasn't spoken of very often, but it was understood that those people were deviants. Pretty remarkable when you consider how far we've come in a couple of generations. Or backward, depending on your point of view.

I'm 42.

I'm 40, so we swam in similar waters. I was raised in a working class environment, though my nuclear family (i.e. mom and dad) were more neo-hippies/new agers. They never spoke about gay people, good or bad, though they preached equality and tolerance for anyone not bent on hurting other people. My extended family were all massive homophobes though, as was the atmosphere at school. I grew up thinking gays were unnatural and disgusting --- oh wait --- make that only male homosexuals; women having sex with other women was the greatest thing in the universe.

Anyway, (I've told this story a few times around here) that all changed when I roomed with an incredibly nice but sexually frustrated guy my freshman year of college. Part way through the second semester he figured out he was gay, and had the courage to come right out to everyone. Seeing how happy he became (his emotional state went from night to day) changed my views forever. Also the way he came out - as if it were the most natural ok thing to do - and the joy he felt, the relief, all of that was one of the most admirable things I've ever witnessed.

I think one the great products of this is the fearlessness and resolve I have when discussing homosexuality with my seven year old son. No, I don't discuss sex or anything graphic (duh). Just that men sometimes fall in love with men and women with women and that's ok. They even get married (it's legal in our state). He thinks the idea is weird (hey, he's seven) but you can see how he's building a foundation of total acceptance, and to me, that's freaking awesome.

 

[flysack]

I have never heard of a man who chose to be gay. I don't believe that such a creature exists.

I do know women who have chosen to be gay. And I know women who have always been gay. And I know women who have engaged in lesbian sex, but don't consider themselves gay. For women, there are many more variables.

I'm not quite sure why this is. Is it cultural or psychological? Or is there something innate in the female makeup that allows greater options, versus men who are either totally straight or totally gay?

I'm only half paying attention to this thread, so sorry if this is been covered, but Timmy, those creatures exist.

I've met several guys who are "bisexual," though that term is really inadequate. Some are like 70% gay but sometimes are attracted to a woman, and others are the opposite, mostly into women but have occasional relationships with men. The artist Jean-Michel Basquiat was this way.

As for it being it cultural or psychological - I wouldn't break those into two separate distinctions. Culture partly creates psychology. I think if there's anything innate in the mix, it's a personality that's rebellious against convention, and convention is heteronormative, i.e. on myriad levels the dominant culture signifies that heterosexuality is normal, so the people that choose homosexual relations generally have a rebellious streak, or a very strong sense of self (i.e. open to their own desire and/or curiosity).

It's easier for women to choose homosexual acts because this has long been more accepted by the patriarchal elements of our heteronormative culture. Hot chicks making out are hot because the more hot chicks the better. Hot guys making out are disgusting because we want to see hot chicks. So female homosexuality (of the lipstick variety) is more acceptable and thus easier to choose.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since girl on girl action is generally considered "attractive," women likely don't face the social pressure.

Link?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hot chicks making out are hot because the more hot chicks the better.

Again, you can't just make these unsubstantiated claims without providing a link. Or multiple links.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Hot chicks making out are hot because the more hot chicks the better.

Again, you can't just make these unsubstantiated claims without providing a link. Or multiple links.

Yeah....gotta' agree with Maurile here. Unless you're a new poster, it's pretty much known and written in stone that you MUST provide links.

So...Link?

 

[flysack]

Hot chicks making out are hot because the more hot chicks the better.

Again, you can't just make these unsubstantiated claims without providing a link. Or multiple links.

Did an admin just ask me for lesbian porn?

Fine, here you go