Gay Marriage, And Homosexuality 569 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,317 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,050 Posts

9 Threads

#21 14 years ago
LocomotorWhy are you two debating "the bedroom". I think you will find, MrFancyPants, that this debate is no longer about outlawing sodomy (it was never about outlawing "homosexual sex", it was about preventing rectal damage from anal sex ;)), it's about defining marriage.

Look at the thread-title, it is about both I think.

Besides, I find discussions about bedrooms more entertaining than those about churches, so I'd like to focus my replies on this part of the topic. Sorry if that is offensive to our more religious users, but I was forced to visit church every Sunday for a rather long time and it was utterly boring.




Fez Boy

L-L-Look at you, ha-cker

50 XP

9th October 2005

0 Uploads

607 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago

Straight people have no more right to dictate what gay people should do than gay people have to dictate what straight people do. And that's a fact.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago

Oh, for the love of God, I agree people! The church, the government, "straight people" should have no authority over "the bedroom". But outlawing sodomy was not at the will of those zealous Christians; it was to prevent rectal damage brought about by sodomozing the anus. It was considered assault, because anal sex is harmful to the body.

However, nobody here thinks the government should "control what goes on in the bedroom". The debate on that is irrelevant anymore. It is about marriage, plain and simple. Yes, this thread may be about "homosexuality" in general, but that doesn't have anything to do with "the bedroom".




Miyamoto_Musashi

Champion Of The Peach

50 XP

22nd November 2005

0 Uploads

202 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago

I don't mind homosexuals, although I do find it irritating when they flaunt their sexuality and then cry about being "victimised". They know that this kind of behaviour annoys straight men, and yet they continue to do it and also claim they're no less of a man than any heterosexual men. The problem for me is that I feel they must go out of their way to act in this manner.

As there are men who suddenly "realise" they're gay, and have been "acting straight" all their lives, it must, then, be a conscious choice. Now, I don't know whether these people were in denial or were merely supressing their behaviour and feelings for the benefit of relatives and friends, or because they felt they would be treated unfairly should they make their true sexuality known. Whatever the case, when they finally do come out of the closet, it's their decision to begin behaving in this manner. If this is the way they are naturally prone to behave, then I have no problem with it. However, given the fact some men go through childhood and adolescence and become adults before then revealing their real sexual tendencies, I find it difficult to believe it is natural; if this were so, surely they would make a mistake, slip up at some point during their life. What about the time they spend as children before they even really understand the concept of sexuality? I'm convinced they would show signs of homosexuality without even knowing it at this stage, although I don't claim to be a scientist, so if somebody can enlighten me on this whole topic, feel free. In any case, the point is that they choose to be victimised. Perhaps this is a sign of "rebellion" against a world which they believe can't, or will not, accept them, but it's stupidity really; they're preventing their integration into society through their actions, rather than making a statement about how "narrow-minded" people are.

Anyway, gay marriage is a completely different matter; It's fine if a gay couple want to express their love, but when it starts affecting children that aren't even technically theirs' [although if the couple in question is female, one partner may carry the baby, and if the couple is male, one partner may donate sperm, what I mean is both partners aren't technically parents, only one can be] then I have to say it's both immoral and irresponsible. A child with homosexual parents is inevitably going to be bullied or isolated at school, and that's just not right. Children face enough problems and obstacles on the way to adulthood without further pressure and circumstances stopping them from being fully accepted. Of course that doesn't mean that I think it's right children with gay parents should be treated in this way, I'm just stating the facts.

Furthermore, there's the fact that gay couples aren't physically capable of having children; isn't that a big enough hint? If they had been meant to have children, surely it would be possible for them as it is with heterosexual couples. Personally, I think the consequences of gay couples having children are simply not fair on the child. Any gay couple who try to raise a child, are, in my opinion, very selfish. Although that might sound harsh, whilst I don't condone gay couples having children, it doesn't mean I don't understand the desire behind such an action.




Primarch Vulkan Advanced Member

For the Emperor! Knights of Caliban!

154,320 XP

16th March 2004

0 Uploads

13,497 Posts

0 Threads

#25 14 years ago
The 13th RaptorThis again? Being gay is as ethical as being straight, no-one and nothing gets hurt. Gay marriage.. i dont care for it, but it should be allowed.

I agree with you, like yes there Gay but who cares? I don't there showing us that the wrold is changing and we should accept them, I accept them some of my friends are gays I like them very much hech they tell me what looks good on me too I don't care if there flitting with it doesn't bother me. I say Let the gays get married and stop all this "Gays aren't part of God plans"


[color=#000000][size=2][b][i]Heralds of the coming doom, Like the cry of the Raven, we are drawn, This oath of war and vengeance, On a blade of exalted iron sworn, With blood anointed swords



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#26 14 years ago

Well if you want to get scientific and biological gays ARN'T natural or "right" they are in fact a detriment to the species as they are incapable of bearing children and so stunt evolution by not contributing their part to the human gene pool.

However humans have become so advanced that we can basically work outside the laws of nature. Nature probaly didn't intend for us to cut down trees, create huge buildings, or fight wars with nuclear weapons, but we can do it all anyways. Because of this I think homosexuality is perfectly "normal" in regards to human society.

On the other hand I don't think marriage should be a legally binding affair. All it should be is two people who agree that they love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They shouldn't have to go anywhere to "get married". I don't think marriage customs should change or anything in regards to the ceremony and other such things. It just say it shouldn't be a legal thing, rather a social thing. Churches or social groups can work out whatever they want in regards to marriage within their social group as well.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#27 14 years ago
NighthawkWell if you want to get scientific and biological gays ARN'T natural or "right" they are in fact a detriment to the species as they are incapable of bearing children and so stunt evolution by not contributing their part to the human gene pool.

That's a joke right? You do know about the birds and the bees? [COLOR=black] [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Its takes both sex’s to make a baby naturally.[/COLOR]

The sperm is the male’s genetic contribution, and the egg is the female’s contribution...

Think before you post..




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#28 14 years ago

Are gays contributing sperm to the gene pool? Are they mating and creating children?

Maybe you should be the one to "think before you post".




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#29 14 years ago

What are you talking about? Earlier you said guys aren’t natural? Why? So you didn’t mean men and women in general, you meant it in homosexual relations? Alright then, let’s look at it from that standpoint. Here is what you said:

NighthawkWell if you want to get scientific and biological gays ARN'T natural or "right" they are in fact a detriment to the species as they are incapable of bearing children and so stunt evolution by not contributing their part to the human gene pool.

So homosexual guys together aren’t natural, they cant have a kid, I agree with that. So how are gay women together natural? Two women can not have a child naturally, unless I missed something somewhere. How do lesbians equate to natural. Because of what, invitro fertilization, an unnatural process that requires a mans donation? Do you see the contradictions? Guys are not natural, straight or gay, and women are, straight or gay? Which is it?

Let me settle it for you, both gay men and women, are equally unable to bear children naturally.




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#30 14 years ago

I despise being around gay people, but hell, let them be and, as far as I'm concerned, people can marry whatever teh hell they want. As for the legal rights it brings to them, well, they should have it.