PDA

View Full Version : Same Sex Marriages



PhinPhan1227
02-05-2004, 12:09 PM
As a possible solution to the dilemma....make "Marriage" a strictly religious definition. And make "Civil Union" the legally recognized state for EVERYONE who is recognized by the State. The two are already defacto seperate entities, so why not make them seperate in mae as well? That way, those Conservatives who are worried about "The Sanctity of Marriage" are covered. They can take it up with thier Pastor if he wants to recognize a same sex union. And the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution is happy because EVERYONE is in the same boat. Lastly, it makes the 1st Amendment happy because it keeps the religious aspect out of the argument.

Dolfan02
02-05-2004, 01:36 PM
It appears now that these over-controlling courts are beginning to rewrite the laws on marriage just as they did with abortion. Once again, our society will be the worse for it. This issue is just as important as other assaults on the dignity of human life. Some people wonder: who is harmed when two people of the same sex decide that they want to be "married"? What difference does it make what word is used to describe the relationship? Is it not discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to inherit property or to be beneficiaries of insurance policies or to make end-of-life decisions for their loved ones? Unfortunately, hidden in many of those arguements is the exploited right to privacy. Just as renaming an unborn child a fetus, it effectively negated the right to life of all unborn children, here it stands to reason that renaming or redifining the natural concept of marriage will have just as equal of a harsh impact on all of society.

Notice I said the "natural" concept of marriage. While some people think marriage pertains to only a religious concept, marriage existed long before sacraments and longer before the church itself. Even in ancient cultures, the lifelong union of a man and a woman for mutual love and support, as well as for the protection of children, was a FACT OF LIFE, not a theological or religious invention. It was considered so natural that it was then included in the first Book of the Bible, the one that seeks to explain the origin and nature of the universe (BTW, not in a scientific way). Marriage should be recognized as the divine plan for humanity, because through the marital act, which is the physical joining of a man and woman, society's very survival is ensured. Also the spouses' lifelong commitment provides a stable environment to which to raise and nurture those future generations.

Same-sex unions do NOT fit any such definition of marriage. They are contrary to natural law. This does not mean we should discriminate against people with a homosexual orientation. Nor does it mean they they cannot enjoy the same legal rights as others. In fact, many of those rights are already available to them! Or can be designed to ensure that, if necessary, but they really do not have to be "married" to do that.

It is important for people to make those dinstictions as the war of words and legal briefs heats up. For when we begin to rewrite the definition of marriage, we are arguing about more than semantics. We are talking about the kind of society we will live in and the kind of future we will leave our children in.

DeDolfan
02-05-2004, 02:31 PM
Probably, the most important thing driving this issue is the right to benefits. i've pretty much always held the opinion that anybody should be able to name anyone else as benficiary to their benfits w/o the obligation of marriage. If a person chose to remain single his/her entire life, is it fair for their co-workers to share their benefits with a spouse while the single person has no right to simply because they are not married? employers are against any such thing because they say it "costs" too much. the cost should not be any more than it would be for a married person. Anyway, if gay ppl would be able to convey "spousal" benfits to their partners, then we probably would have all this hoopla over gay marriages. hetero ppl should be afforded the same opporunities as well. The only difference being that a person should not be able to receive "spousal" benefits from another if they're already recsivng the same from another party tho. So id a person had a decent career with benied out/up the wazoo and had a friend working a dead end job with no benies, shouldn't the firt guy be allowed to extend his benefits to that other person? be they staright, gay, male OR female? It's just something I've often wondered about when this issue pops up.

PhinPhan1227
02-05-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02
Notice I said the "natural" concept of marriage. While some people think marriage pertains to only a religious concept, marriage existed long before sacraments and longer before the church itself. Even in ancient cultures, the lifelong union of a man and a woman for mutual love and support, as well as for the protection of children, was a FACT OF LIFE, not a theological or religious invention. It was considered so natural that it was then included in the first Book of the Bible, the one that seeks to explain the origin and nature of the universe (BTW, not in a scientific way). Marriage should be recognized as the divine plan for humanity, because through the marital act, which is the physical joining of a man and woman, society's very survival is ensured. Also the spouses' lifelong commitment provides a stable environment to which to raise and nurture those future generations.



Actually, the concept of "marriage" is a STRICTLY religious concept. Ancient cultures HAD religion, and wherever monogomous unions were recognized, they were also sealed using religious ceremonies. Heck, you can't even make the argument without using religious overtones("recognized as the divine plan for humanity"). The bottom line is that in OUR society, marriage no longer NEEDS a religious connotation. You can be married without ANY religious ceremony or recognition. And in point of fact, our laws REQUIRE that there be a seperation between the religious recognition and the civil recognition. The two states are and MUST be distinct entities. Thus the solution. Make "marriage" the spiritual definition. If people want to be "marrried" they can pursue that through some religion of their choosing. If people want to be civily joined in the legal sense than they should be allowed to. Otherwise we are in violation of Article 14 of the Bill of Rights. Lastly, procreation can not be used as a defining reason for marriage or civil unions. Barren couples are allowed to marry, as are couples too old to have kids. If they're allowed, than you can't use that as a defining reason.

themole
02-19-2004, 10:45 PM
To put it as gentlemanly as I can....I find it absolutley disgusting! Being that I'm not a gentleman you would have to go to the depths of the sea to see how I really feel.

What one does in his and her or his and his or her and hers bed room is entirely up to them. It's none of my business.

When they take it into the street then they are proselytizing a sick and perverted, demented way of life. It is against all common sense, it does not fit! It serves no purpose but that of self gratification. The next thing in this line of progression is? Well who knows! Name me one society in the entire history of man kind that has allowed this and survived it!

I think those who engage in this life style had better leave well enough alone and remain status quo, before they awaken the sleeping giant that may knock them back into the days of the witch hunters.

Dolfan02
02-20-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by themole
To put it as gentlemanly as I can....I find it absolutley disgusting! Being that I'm not a gentleman you would have to go to the depths of the sea to see how I really feel.

What one does in his and her or his and his or her and hers bed room is entirely up to them. It's none of my business.

When they take it into the street then they are proselytizing a sick and perverted, demented way of life. It is against all common sense, it does not fit! It serves no purpose but that of self gratification. The next thing in this line of progression is? Well who knows! Name me one society in the entire history of man kind that has allowed this and survived it!

I think those who engage in this life style had better leave well enough alone and remain status quo, before they awaken the sleeping giant that may knock them back into the days of the witch hunters.

I completely agree. If you guys choose to do something in your privacy, then go ahead by all means. But don't force your way of life on the rest of society nor should one single state try to impose any kind of law in all other states!

Where will the line be drawn? What about polygamy? Are we discriminating against people who want to get married with multiple partners? Are we to allow a man's right if he wants to get married to 25 women? What about a man's right to get married to himself? Or a man's right to get married to a chimpanzee? Honestly, I start to notice the huge flaws of our "freedom" that American leaders love to glorify. We have a Constitution that's limitless, no boundaries, too vague for justification or privacy. And because of this, we have many situations where a small group of people with their beliefs will override the beliefs of the majority voice. "Freedom".

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 10:20 AM
So those of you who think of homosexuality as a choice or "lifestyle" made the choice to be heterosexual? You woke up one morning and decided that women were attractive and men weren't? See, that's what throws me. I never made that choice. I was just always attracted to women. I can't remember a time when I was ever even curious about men. See, that's what it comes down to. If it is/was a choice for anyone, than it must be a choice for EVERYONE. A human brain is a human brain. So lets get this out in the open...exactly when DID you decide to be straight? When did you decide to stop finding men attractive? I'm quite curious about this because it's something I never experienced.

themole
02-20-2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


I completely agree. If you guys choose to do something in your privacy, then go ahead by all means. But don't force your way of life on the rest of society nor should one single state try to impose any kind of law in all other states!

Where will the line be drawn? What about polygamy? Are we discriminating against people who want to get married with multiple partners? Are we to allow a man's right if he wants to get married to 25 women? What about a man's right to get married to himself? Or a man's right to get married to a chimpanzee? Honestly, I start to notice the huge flaws of our "freedom" that American leaders love to glorify. We have a Constitution that's limitless, no boundaries, too vague for justification or privacy. And because of this, we have many situations where a small group of people with their beliefs will override the beliefs of the majority voice. "Freedom".

There was once a time when our constitution limited us to only a few things that we couldn't do. Everything else was wide open that didn't interfere with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember also there was the flint lock and sword and something called the code of honor "dualing" that generally kept the populace in check.

Sex was kept in the bedroom, homosexuals concealed their sexuality because they new it was wrong and it would not be tolerated. Now they want to march down the streets in parades holding hands, kissing and jacking each other off in public. It's perversion! Plain and simple.

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by themole



Sex was kept in the bedroom, homosexuals concealed their sexuality because they new it was wrong and it would not be tolerated. Now they want to march down the streets in parades holding hands, kissing and jacking each other off in public. It's perversion! Plain and simple.

So your solution to homosexuals being flamboyant and promiscuous, is to NOT allow them to settle down in dedicated relationships? What is that, reverse psychology? Here's a thought, ENCOURAGE people to settle down in committed relationships, and maybe you won't SEE people being so blatant. Isn't that the mind-set for straight couples? Settle down? Someone REALLY needs to explain this "counter-logic" to me, because I reaaly don't understand it.

themole
02-20-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


So your solution to homosexuals being flamboyant and promiscuous, is to NOT allow them to settle down in dedicated relationships? What is that, reverse psychology? Here's a thought, ENCOURAGE people to settle down in committed relationships, and maybe you won't SEE people being so blatant. Isn't that the mind-set for straight couples? Settle down? Someone REALLY needs to explain this "counter-logic" to me, because I reaaly don't understand it.

1227...I have no solution to this problem. I do not see the need to sanction this behavior. Our constitution acknowleges the unalienable individual rights of Man and Woman, not the side reel positions of the gays, fats, skinny, blind, or for that matter blacks, whites,reds or yellows. Just men and women.

Homosexuality is unnatural. As I stated earlier, what they choose to do in their bedrooms is none of my business, I really mean this! I don't care! I do not like seeing it displayed in public and feel they are only asking for society to come down on them if they continue.

The common thief is smart enough to know that his best work is done where no one can see him. Thievery is against the law, so is homosexuality that's why it sould be kept in the dark!

Question: are you one of the log cabin boys?

themole
02-20-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02
It appears now that these over-controlling courts are beginning to rewrite the laws on marriage just as they did with abortion. Once again, our society will be the worse for it. This issue is just as important as other assaults on the dignity of human life. Some people wonder: who is harmed when two people of the same sex decide that they want to be "married"? What difference does it make what word is used to describe the relationship? Is it not discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to inherit property or to be beneficiaries of insurance policies or to make end-of-life decisions for their loved ones? Unfortunately, hidden in many of those arguements is the exploited right to privacy. Just as renaming an unborn child a fetus, it effectively negated the right to life of all unborn children, here it stands to reason that renaming or redifining the natural concept of marriage will have just as equal of a harsh impact on all of society.

Notice I said the "natural" concept of marriage. While some people think marriage pertains to only a religious concept, marriage existed long before sacraments and longer before the church itself. Even in ancient cultures, the lifelong union of a man and a woman for mutual love and support, as well as for the protection of children, was a FACT OF LIFE, not a theological or religious invention. It was considered so natural that it was then included in the first Book of the Bible, the one that seeks to explain the origin and nature of the universe (BTW, not in a scientific way). Marriage should be recognized as the divine plan for humanity, because through the marital act, which is the physical joining of a man and woman, society's very survival is ensured. Also the spouses' lifelong commitment provides a stable environment to which to raise and nurture those future generations.

Same-sex unions do NOT fit any such definition of marriage. They are contrary to natural law. This does not mean we should discriminate against people with a homosexual orientation. Nor does it mean they they cannot enjoy the same legal rights as others. In fact, many of those rights are already available to them! Or can be designed to ensure that, if necessary, but they really do not have to be "married" to do that.

It is important for people to make those dinstictions as the war of words and legal briefs heats up. For when we begin to rewrite the definition of marriage, we are arguing about more than semantics. We are talking about the kind of society we will live in and the kind of future we will leave our children in.

Dolphin02...thank you for saying what I was attempting to say.

Dolfan02
02-20-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
So those of you who think of homosexuality as a choice or "lifestyle" made the choice to be heterosexual? You woke up one morning and decided that women were attractive and men weren't? See, that's what throws me. I never made that choice. I was just always attracted to women. I can't remember a time when I was ever even curious about men. See, that's what it comes down to. If it is/was a choice for anyone, than it must be a choice for EVERYONE. A human brain is a human brain. So lets get this out in the open...exactly when DID you decide to be straight? When did you decide to stop finding men attractive? I'm quite curious about this because it's something I never experienced.

You totally neglected my question about polygamy. I would like to hear your answer on that. I want to know if this country is discriminating against people who marry multiple partners. Remember? When the Mormons were banned on having multiple spouses. So please answer that. Then answer is it okay for a man to marry a chimpanzee. And I'm serious. Let's take your arguement and he claims he did not "choose" to be attracted to another species. Its just in his nature. He "wants to settle down in a loving relationship". What make's any of these situations any different?

You're arguement is very weak when you speak about natural concepts and choices. What about murderers? Are they born to kill? Maybe they were. I've seen news stories of 10 and 12-year old boys killing people without knowing they would hurt someone. Should we assume this is natural behavior and therefore tolerate its continuous in our society? Others get "pleasure" of murdering another. Now here me out as I tie this to the current issue. OK maybe you're right... maybe people are born with personality traits that make them "different" than the norm in some cases. Fine. I'm willing to understand. If a man claims he was born with homosexual tendencies, then maybe its not his fault. But if he commits the act, then it IS his fault, just like abusing or murdering someone else! The Point is as human beings, we need to use a sense of wisdom to determine what is potentially harmful to the survival of human dignity. Perhaps we don't make choices of our human personality, but we DO make choices upon our ACTS. We ALL need to be held responsible for what we do. Homosexuality is not natural and those people who find themselves in those thoughts should present HONESTY TO THEMSELVES that they should seek some help from their thoughts, as opposed to enforcing un-natural concepts to the rest of society.

themole
02-20-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
So those of you who think of homosexuality as a choice or "lifestyle" made the choice to be heterosexual? You woke up one morning and decided that women were attractive and men weren't? See, that's what throws me. I never made that choice. I was just always attracted to women. I can't remember a time when I was ever even curious about men. See, that's what it comes down to. If it is/was a choice for anyone, than it must be a choice for EVERYONE. A human brain is a human brain. So lets get this out in the open...exactly when DID you decide to be straight? When did you decide to stop finding men attractive? I'm quite curious about this because it's something I never experienced.

1227...I didn't not realize you are female...The fact that we are heterosexual had nothing to do with CHOICE and everything to do with the natural order of things! Perpetuation of the species!

Homosexualality, will not perpetuate the species! Therefore the act is unnatural to nature and IMO just and act of comfort and pleasure.

I have no way of answering your question...concerning being attracted to the same sex...it turns my stomach, I quess as much as the natural order of things would to you.

If you are sincere in your quest for an answer, perhaps you should ask professionals, not your internet buds.
:)

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 02:26 PM
Well...so much for a serious discussion. For information purposes, I'm a heterosexual male with a wife and child. My question to you was...if homosexuality is a choice some people have made, than it's obverse is a choice which everyone ELSE made. If a person CHOSE to be gay than you CHOSE to be straight. And the obverse of that is that you COULD have chosen to be gay. So my question stands...when did you make that choice?

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


You totally neglected my question about polygamy. I would like to hear your answer on that. I want to know if this country is discriminating against people who marry multiple partners. Remember? When the Mormons were banned on having multiple spouses. So please answer that. Then answer is it okay for a man to marry a chimpanzee. And I'm serious. Let's take your arguement and he claims he did not "choose" to be attracted to another species. Its just in his nature. He "wants to settle down in a loving relationship". What make's any of these situations any different?
.

I ignored it because it's not related. The law, and the benefits which accrue from thatt law allow for one person and his/her spouce. When I married my wife, the law allows for her and whatever children we produce. If you allow for Polygammy, than you are allowing one person to generate benefits for multiple individuals. And that's NOT equal protection under the law. That's all those people are asking for...equal protection. If you argue against that than you are making the same arguments used to defend segregation. Seperate is NOT equal. As for marrying an animal...chimps don't have human rights, so again, it's an inane analogy. And before you bring it up, there are medical concerns that a brother having children with his sister will incur...so it's for the safety of the offspring that this is disallowed.

themole
02-20-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Well...so much for a serious discussion. For information purposes, I'm a heterosexual male with a wife and child. My question to you was...if homosexuality is a choice some people have made, than it's obverse is a choice which everyone ELSE made. If a person CHOSE to be gay than you CHOSE to be straight. And the obverse of that is that you COULD have chosen to be gay. So my question stands...when did you make that choice?

Actually I'm surprised! I've read alot of your post and agreed with most of them, they were well written and easily understood. The post I replied to led me to believe you were a lesbian. That's why I responed as I did.

I've credited you with sound reasoning so I can't understand why...you don't see the obverse answer to your question. PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES! It is imprinted... meant to be. If it were not so..No one would be here.

Homosexual acts serve no valid purpose other than to comfort and satisfy ones sexual desire. Infact that is why it is known as being QUEER!

BTW..what did you mean by "so much for a serious discussion?"

Dolfan02
02-20-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


I ignored it because it's not related. The law, and the benefits which accrue from thatt law allow for one person and his/her spouce. When I married my wife, the law allows for her and whatever children we produce. If you allow for Polygammy, than you are allowing one person to generate benefits for multiple individuals. And that's NOT equal protection under the law.
WOAH! Let's stop right there. So you can allow for benefits through "whatever children (plural) you and your wife produce" but polygamists can't have benefits for multiple (plural) people? Where's the "equal rights" in that?? And believe me, it would be VERY easy for the government to suit the need of polygamists and the adoption of family benefits through law. So are we discriminating against polygamy? Of course we are! Why? Because when you put benefits aside, we know it is morally and naturally wrong.


That's all those people are asking for...equal protection. If you argue against that than you are making the same arguments used to defend segregation. Seperate is NOT equal.
Race is NOT the same thing as "sexual orientation". Just as gender is not the same thing as age. Just as nationality is not the same thing as insanity. Just as handicap is not the same thing as criminal tendencies. Do you understand the difference? Racisism and judgements on someone's color, blacks, jews, whites was/is wrong. But are we "discriminating" against 8-year olds who want to work in a factory? Most likely, if thats the word you want to choose. Are we discriminating against men who want to work at Hooters? Most likely. And why? Because if you had any sense of wisdom (remember?) and ethics, you should figure out its wrong, and its the wrong message for future generations. Segragation was wrong and so is homosexuality. Its a shame you are unable to separate those two issues, rather than thinking its the same concept. Worse, if you relay that thought only because the gays lead you to believe that.


And before you bring it up, there are medical concerns that a brother having children with his sister will incur...so it's for the safety of the offspring that this is disallowed.
WOAH AGAIN! First let me say I'm glad and thankful you have respect for children and for our future generations. But did you know that there is overwhelming statistics and evidence that says children suffer HEAVILY from same-sex adoption? Yes, In fact some researchers in favor of gay adoption even ADMIT that such children are more likely to be homosexual. Most research shows that kids need both a mother and a father to understand the difference of both genders. Despite the fact that most research (about 90-95%) from doctors, sociologists, pychologists shows same-sex adoption of children is hurtful to a child, they don't care! They want to continue to have adoption for their own purposes. And the only reason why I said "most research" was because some research comes from pro-gay people who take some brief surveys and then it becomes "research" to the general public. And if gay are allowed to be legally married, it will be easier for them to adopt. Now ask yourself, where will our society be in the future if all this continues? Are gay couples corcerned just for themselves or our children as well???????????????? If this continues, I don't think everyone can have David Crosby's child through insemination. I've done my research so I hope you do.

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by themole


Actually I'm surprised! I've read alot of your post and agreed with most of them, they were well written and easily understood. The post I replied to led me to believe you were a lesbian. That's why I responed as I did.

I've credited you with sound reasoning so I can't understand why...you don't see the obverse answer to your question. PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES! It is imprinted... meant to be. If it were not so..No one would be here.

Homosexual acts serve no valid purpose other than to comfort and satisfy ones sexual desire. Infact that is why it is known as being QUEER!

BTW..what did you mean by "so much for a serious discussion?"

Well...when someone calls me a woman I assume that serious discussion has ended. As for the rest, show me where marriage includes propigation? Can a 75 year old woman marry? Can a woman who has had a hysterecomy marry? If the answer is yes than propigation is NOT a requirement for marriage. Further, marriage is not required for procreation...again, that takes that factor out of the discussion. Is homosexuality an aberation of nature? Sure...so is someone born blind. Heck, someone born near sighted has a birth defect and is therefore an aberation of nature. In point of fact, that's exactly how I view homosexuality...a birth defect. And as such I would no more expect those people to be discriminated against than I would someone born blind. Again, I present you with the question....if homosexuality is a "choice", than when did you chose to be heterosexual?

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 06:20 PM
A man and woman can produce a limited number of kids. The national average is about 2.3 right now. That gives the average family a burden of 4.3. Now, add another wife to that and the burden is now 7.6. How is that fair when an insurance company is being asked to foot the bill? All that aside, it's about fairness. The law allowed me to marry THE person I fell in love with. There was never a possibility of me falling in love with another man. For a man born gay however, there's no possibility of them falling in love with a woman. As for race and sexual orientation being different issues...there's a bottom line conjunction between the two. People are born to a certain race(well..not really, but that's a different issue), and the vast majority of people are bron to a specific sexual orientation. I have gay friends and each and every one of them would have given their right arm to have been born "normal". Several of them tried to live their lives "normal" before they accepted who they were. It boggles my mind that anyone can concieve of sexuality as a choice. If you put two seconds of serious thought into that concept you would have to accept the fact that if that's the case, than YOU could chose to find men attractive. So take a moment...search your own psyche, and tell me under what circumstances you could look at another man and say he attracts you sexually. I've thought about it and nothing comes to mind. No matter what I do the only people on the field during a Dolphins game who turn me on are the cheerleaders(female cheerleaders just in case we're playing the Ravens). So enlighten me...what would it take for you to get turned on by Jason Taylors butt?



Originally posted by Dolfan02

WOAH! Let's stop right there. So you can allow for benefits through "whatever children (plural) you and your wife produce" but polygamists can't have benefits for multiple (plural) people? Where's the "equal rights" in that?? And believe me, it would be VERY easy for the government to suit the need of polygamists and the adoption of family benefits through law. So are we discriminating against polygamy? Of course we are! Why? Because when you put benefits aside, we know it is morally and naturally wrong.


Race is NOT the same thing as "sexual orientation". Just as gender is not the same thing as age. Just as nationality is not the same thing as insanity. Just as handicap is not the same thing as criminal tendencies. Do you understand the difference? Racisism and judgements on someone's color, blacks, jews, whites was/is wrong. But are we "discriminating" against 8-year olds who want to work in a factory? Most likely, if thats the word you want to choose. Are we discriminating against men who want to work at Hooters? Most likely. And why? Because if you had any sense of wisdom (remember?) and ethics, you should figure out its wrong, and its the wrong message for future generations. Segragation was wrong and so is homosexuality. Its a shame you are unable to separate those two issues, rather than thinking its the same concept. Worse, if you relay that thought only because the gays lead you to believe that.


WOAH AGAIN! First let me say I'm glad and thankful you have respect for children and for our future generations. But did you know that there is overwhelming statistics and evidence that says children suffer HEAVILY from same-sex adoption? Yes, In fact some researchers in favor of gay adoption even ADMIT that such children are more likely to be homosexual. Most research shows that kids need both a mother and a father to understand the difference of both genders. Despite the fact that most research (about 90-95%) from doctors, sociologists, pychologists shows same-sex adoption of children is hurtful to a child, they don't care! They want to continue to have adoption for their own purposes. And the only reason why I said "most research" was because some research comes from pro-gay people who take some brief surveys and then it becomes "research" to the general public. And if gay are allowed to be legally married, it will be easier for them to adopt. Now ask yourself, where will our society be in the future if all this continues? Are gay couples corcerned just for themselves or our children as well???????????????? If this continues, I don't think everyone can have David Crosby's child through insemination. I've done my research so I hope you do.

themole
02-20-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Well...when someone calls me a woman I assume that serious discussion has ended. As for the rest, show me where marriage includes propigation? Can a 75 year old woman marry? Can a woman who has had a hysterecomy marry? If the answer is yes than propigation is NOT a requirement for marriage. Further, marriage is not required for procreation...again, that takes that factor out of the discussion. Is homosexuality an aberation of nature? Sure...so is someone born blind. Heck, someone born near sighted has a birth defect and is therefore an aberation of nature. In point of fact, that's exactly how I view homosexuality...a birth defect. And as such I would no more expect those people to be discriminated against than I would someone born blind. Again, I present you with the question....if homosexuality is a "choice", than when did you chose to be heterosexual?

I misunderstood your post! It had a few twist and turns in it and I thought you were trying to tell us you were a lesbian.:lol: Reread it and see if it doesn't sound that way.

There are those that argue that serial killers are predesposed to be that way.

You look long and hard enough and you will always find someone to support any arguement you might dream up.

Point is... I would deny them any rights that are not guaranteed them by the constitution! There is no reason "IMO" for them to be married. That's me...old school and hard as nails fast to that opinion!

themole
02-20-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by themole


I misunderstood your post! It had a few twist and turns in it and I thought you were trying to tell us you were a lesbian.:lol: Reread it and see if it doesn't sound that way.

There are those that argue that serial killers are predesposed to be that way.

You look long and hard enough and you will always find someone to support any arguement you might dream up.

Point is... I would deny them any rights that are not guaranteed them by the constitution! There is no reason "IMO" for them to be married. That's me...old school and hard as nails fast to that opinion!

I'd like to add to this though...If a company sees fit to allow benefits to a gay couple, I have no problem with that. Federal or state money???? That's a different story.:nono:

Dolfan02
02-20-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
A man and woman can produce a limited number of kids. The national average is about 2.3 right now. That gives the average family a burden of 4.3. Now, add another wife to that and the burden is now 7.6. How is that fair when an insurance company is being asked to foot the bill? All that aside, it's about fairness. The law allowed me to marry THE person I fell in love with.
Sorry but you have a bad habit of making your own assumptions and taking them as fact. Lets use the flip side of your arguement, what if a man who has 3 wives only have 2 children between all of them. Thats makes it no different than you and your wife who may have 5 children who will receive benefits through law. So do you still want to justify your reasons through national averages? TRUST ME, it would be VERY EASY for the govt and firms to adopt laws for fairness of polygamy if they really wanted to. Did we not rewrite the laws for Afro-American equality? Yes, easily by the stroke of a pen. Don't gays want to rewrite the laws which would in affect force firms to shift their policy? Yes. So the question REMAINS.. why don't we allow polygamy? Because it is WRONG MORALLY., not because of marriage benefit conflicts.


There was never a possibility of me falling in love with another man. For a man born gay however, there's no possibility of them falling in love with a woman.
WRONG!!!! I personally know a man who "thought" he was gay and now lives a happier life with a devoted wife. True story! He was in a real bad shape with perversion of the mind and seeked help to tame the mind. And after a while, he met a woman who he later married and he knows that he will never go back to homosexuality. :)


As for race and sexual orientation being different issues...there's a bottom line conjunction between the two. People are born to a certain race(well..not really, but that's a different issue), and the vast majority of people are bron to a specific sexual orientation. I have gay friends and each and every one of them would have given their right arm to have been born "normal". Several of them tried to live their lives "normal" before they accepted who they were.
People are not born into their "sexual orientation". Just like people are not born into their level of abusiveness, insanity, or any other easily identifiable harms. For your own sake, you have to understand that harm does not come in the form of 2 bullhorns on its head, nor a pitchfork, nor a sign on its head saying "I'm wrong for you". It will invite you, it will lead you to believe its loving and comforting and all the good things that good with it, and it WILL lie to you. You have to use wise judgement to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. Its a very thin line the closer you get where the 2 ends meet. I know someone (who is very close to me) that claims he is gay. :( I knew him since we were in elementary school. I love him and I respect him as a person. But I do not agree with his decisions. And the reason I bring this up is for the following. I remember several girls he use to have huge crushes on when were little kids. AND he had a girlfriend in a very serious relationship for a very long time and I know for a fact they loved each other very much. But since then, they have split and now he claims to be gay. He says all the girls, including the one he loved, was a cover-up for his homosexuality! I'm sorry but that is a straight up lie! There is no way you can be with someone that long then when it doesn't go your way.. you say it was a "cover-up"?! IMO, it IS a choice.


It boggles my mind that anyone can concieve of sexuality as a choice. If you put two seconds of serious thought into that concept you would have to accept the fact that if that's the case, than YOU could chose to find men attractive. So take a moment...search your own psyche, and tell me under what circumstances you could look at another man and say he attracts you sexually. I've thought about it and nothing comes to mind. No matter what I do the only people on the field during a Dolphins game who turn me on are the cheerleaders(female cheerleaders just in case we're playing the Ravens).

Exactly. You've thought about it because you chose to right? Regardless if you liked the idea or not, you chose to think about it. Now what makes you different than gays is that they will chose to CONTINUE thinking about it, even if they initally draw a bland thought. Then it becomes a curiousity for them. And then down the road if they don't snap out out of it, it becomes "I did not choose this". As a straight man, remember that feeling you got in your stomach when you first saw 2 men kiss or hold hands? I do. I felt sick for about 3 days, I was probably 12-year old when I first saw that. I would consider that reaction and feeling to be quite natural agree? Now, with the exposure and promotion of homosexuality in this country, I can look at men hold hands and hug without raising my eyebrow or flinching. Its insane! I've allowed myself to be exposed to such perversion over and over that I've learned to cope with its extremities! And that my friend, is exactly where you lay. You have been exposed to it for so long whether by submission or nelgect, that you overlook or perhaps forgotten its harm. Take for example the Romans: their idea of entertainment was watching gladiators kill each other. They saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. In today's society, we look at them as crazy! I'm sure they would have been able to defend their cause in so MANY ways that you would have remained speechless. But if you judge it from a moral standard, it is wrong on so many levels right? What about how we glorify death on TV and movies? Its almost the same thing but instead we are "acting". I don't mean to be ultra conservative, but I do wonder if 100 or 200 years from now, they'll look at us as barbarians for making movies like The Terminator, Rambo, Jason/Freddy. I'm getting off base, but the point is we are blinder than we really know. Sounds cliche, but I do hope you are not convinced that homosexuality is a natural substance of human life. Its almost absurd to believe that. And then to tie it to my last point, if we CAN agree that its not normal and that it is causing harm to thyself or someone else (like children, such as I was), then that person should be *HONEST AND WILLING* to himself to seek help.

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 11:09 PM
Lol...ok, if you want to look at homosexuality as the work of Satan, there's not a lot of discussion that can follow that assumption. Once the conversation devolves to faith it's pretty much over. Let me set a few things out though.

1)There are individuals whose sexuality was altered by abuse. There are probably quite a few of those individuals. But the vast majority of homosexuals were not abused as children, and so have no such cause for their orientation.

2)I've thought about the "choice" of sexuality, but that does NOT on any way shape or form mean that I MADE a choice in my sexuality. I was just NEVER attracted in any way, shape, or form to another man. My level of revulsion for that coupling has nothing to do with that, it was just never there as an attraction.

3)I've had several friends who were and are gay. Without exception they have told me that when they were growing up they asked God to make them "normal". Several of them even acted normal in order to try and change themselves. One kid even used to go around beating up the "queer" kids because he thought it would make him "normal". Now, how EXACTLY did these kids make this "choice", when they would have given almost anything to be straight?

Lastly...homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Any biologist will tell you that. If you want to deny that fact, again, I won't argue against your faith. I only hope that you're as zealous in the rest of your faith(sex out of wedlock, observing the sabbath, etc). Because as far as I can tell from reading the Bible, God doesn't list sin in order of preferance. I will say this however...the framers of the Constitution established a seperation of church and state exactly because of individuals like yourself. It's one thing to hold fast to your own morals and ethics...God bless you for that. It's quite another to base secular laws on those religious beliefs.

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by themole


I misunderstood your post! It had a few twist and turns in it and I thought you were trying to tell us you were a lesbian.:lol: Reread it and see if it doesn't sound that way.

There are those that argue that serial killers are predesposed to be that way.

You look long and hard enough and you will always find someone to support any arguement you might dream up.

Point is... I would deny them any rights that are not guaranteed them by the constitution! There is no reason "IMO" for them to be married. That's me...old school and hard as nails fast to that opinion!

Predisposed to kill people and predisposed to find a person of the same sex attractive have one glaring difference....the victim. As far as I can see there's no victim between twoo consenting adults. So again, a fallacious compqarison. As for the rest, again, when ypu can tell me the date that you chose NOT to find men attractive, I'll consider the possibility that sexuality is a choice. But also bear this in mind...a choice made once is a choice that can be made again. By making this assertion you are stating that if you so chose tomorrow...you could decide to find men attractive....do tell me how that works?

Dolfan02
02-20-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...ok, if you want to look at homosexuality as the work of Satan, there's not a lot of discussion that can follow that assumption. Once the conversation devolves to faith it's pretty much over. Let me set a few things out though.

1)There are individuals whose sexuality was altered by abuse. There are probably quite a few of those individuals. But the vast majority of homosexuals were not abused as children, and so have no such cause for their orientation.

2)I've thought about the "choice" of sexuality, but that does NOT on any way shape or form mean that I MADE a choice in my sexuality. I was just NEVER attracted in any way, shape, or form to another man. My level of revulsion for that coupling has nothing to do with that, it was just never there as an attraction.

3)I've had several friends who were and are gay. Without exception they have told me that when they were growing up they asked God to make them "normal". Several of them even acted normal in order to try and change themselves. One kid even used to go around beating up the "queer" kids because he thought it would make him "normal". Now, how EXACTLY did these kids make this "choice", when they would have given almost anything to be straight?

Lastly...homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Any biologist will tell you that. If you want to deny that fact, again, I won't argue against your faith. I only hope that you're as zealous in the rest of your faith(sex out of wedlock, observing the sabbath, etc). Because as far as I can tell from reading the Bible, God doesn't list sin in order of preferance. I will say this however...the framers of the Constitution established a seperation of church and state exactly because of individuals like yourself. It's one thing to hold fast to your own morals and ethics...God bless you for that. It's quite another to base secular laws on those religious beliefs.

You know what's funny? I never made one mention of any religion or faith within this thread. Its unfortunate that when I make an arguement, you have nothing else to say but unilaterally call for the end of a debate because you assumed all my views relate to my "faith" and therefore are non-applicable. Is it the description that I used to explain that harmful indignities do not come in the form of an easily recognizable evil-persona such as A devil? Do we not have the word devil all over our pop-culture in this country? Duke blue devils, kids dressed in devils in halloween, etc. Does it scare you that much that when I make a refernce to it, you find it religious-based? WOW. It was an object used to explain how things that are evil do not present themselves as evil. Anyways I guess I wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise because I can almost assure you that you will find any means to stand firm on the thought that my views only pertain to a "faith", so therefore since you have decided to talk about religion, I will join you.

Have you heard about the city of Sodom in the Biblical stories? It was a city about 2500-3000 years ago that was all perverse men and homosexuals according to Biblical authors, some of which make accounts from their own testimonials with their own eyes. Do you know what happened to it? The whole city burned down in a fury minute. The Bible says that God unleased fire from the sky onto the city and burned it down on his own will because these men had no concern for life and did "detestable things before Him". But do you know what the funny thing is? That the ruins of Sodom have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea near present-day Jordan. Scientists and archaeologists believe that the city burned down due to a fire on a main roof of one of the cities main buildings, which then caused a chain-reaction due to the sulfur they discovered at the site.

Find any of this interesting?

PhinPhan1227
02-21-2004, 12:22 AM
Lol...you bring up the Devil, and that's not a refernece to religion? And then you declare that it's absurd that homosexuality might be something people are born to. This despite the fact that homosexuality occurs among animals naturaly? I just assumed from those two references that your opinion was based on religious faith. If that's not the case, than my sincere apologies. So since that isn't the case, perhaps you can show a ratopnal reason for humans to NOT exhibit the same behavior as the rest of the animal kingdom. Perhaps you can also answer my original question and tell me when you chose heterosexuality over homosexuality?

Dolfan02
02-21-2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...you bring up the Devil, and that's not a refernece to religion? And then you declare that it's absurd that homosexuality might be something people are born to. This despite the fact that homosexuality occurs among animals naturaly? I just assumed from those two references that your opinion was based on religious faith. If that's not the case, than my sincere apologies. So since that isn't the case, perhaps you can show a ratopnal reason for humans to NOT exhibit the same behavior as the rest of the animal kingdom. Perhaps you can also answer my original question and tell me when you chose heterosexuality over homosexuality?

Surely.

1. Animal comparisons. Let's kill each other shall we? Let's hunt those that are less stronger than us and eat them, shall we? Cannibalism is right for humans? Let's lick our nuts to clean ourselves, shall we? Let's mark our territory with our urine to defend off neighbors, shall we? Shoot, let's walk around all the time completely nude while were at it. The fact that you would compare a human being to an animal BOGGLES my mind.

2. Hetereosexuality/Homosexuality. I can't believe that after all I written I will have to repeat myself after I already answered the same question. But I will TRY to brief it for you. I did not choose hetereosexuality. Even the word itself IMO, is a mere twist to define a non-exist component. An attraction between a man and a woman is a natural concept. Opposite genders attract naturally. Are you familiar with a battery? A positve and a negative attract to produce electricity. What about a male to female cable?(not assuming adapters or re-configuration) I'm NOT saying human beings are comparable to batteries and cable outlets, but the theory of this yes. People are not "born" homosexuals. HOWEVER, one might encounter homosexual thoughts sometime in his/her life, there's nothing wrong with that. Just like sometimes I feel like bashing-in someone's face until they hurt. But I must realize and *ADMIT* to myself that that is not natural and that I should either seek help or stop the thoughts myself. I will not force the rest of society to except my mental deviations simply because it is convienant for me and difficult to resist due to feelings of wanting and comfort for me. So its up to that person and their CHOICE if they choose to persue its curiousity. So that ultimately does become a choice. Understand?

And lastly, the children are the ultimate ones to get hurt when 2 homosexual "consenting" adults choose to marry. Let's not forget they are people too.

And what did you think about the true ancient city of Sodom?

Dolfan02
02-21-2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Surely.

1. Animal comparisons. Let's kill each other shall we? Let's hunt those that are less stronger than us and eat them, shall we? Cannibalism is right for humans? Let's lick our nuts to clean ourselves, shall we? Let's mark our territory with our urine to defend off neighbors, shall we? Shoot, let's walk around all the time completely nude while were at it. The fact that you would compare a human being to an animal BOGGLES my mind.

2. Hetereosexuality/Homosexuality. I can't believe that after all I written I will have to repeat myself after I already answered the same question. But I will TRY to brief it for you. I did not choose hetereosexuality. Even the word itself IMO, is a mere twist to define a non-exist component. An attraction between a man and a woman is a natural concept. Opposite genders attract naturally. Are you familiar with a battery? A positve and a negative attract to produce electricity. What about a male to female cable?(not assuming adapters or re-configuration) I'm NOT saying human beings are comparable to batteries and cable outlets, but the theory of this yes. People are not "born" homosexuals. HOWEVER, one might encounter homosexual thoughts sometime in his/her life, there's nothing wrong with that. Just like sometimes I feel like bashing-in someone's face until they hurt. But I must realize and *ADMIT* to myself that that is not natural and that I should either seek help or stop the thoughts myself. I will not force the rest of society to except my mental deviations simply because it is convienant for me and difficult to resist due to feelings of wanting and comfort for me. So its up to that person and their CHOICE if they choose to persue its curiousity. So that ultimately does become a choice. Understand?

And lastly, the children are the ultimate ones to get hurt when 2 homosexual "consenting" adults choose to marry. Let's not forget they are people too.

And what did you think about the true ancient city of Sodom?

By the way, I forgot to mention that it is okay if a man or boy is feminine. But what bothers me is that some people believe that feminine=gay. Or in the case of a girl, tomboy/strong=lesbian. NOT TRUE. One thing does not equal the other. When I was younger, many considered me as a "pretty boy". I was into fashion, dressing nicely, combed my hair with gel, etc. But in no way was someone going to make me believe that I was something that I'm not.

PhinPhan1227
02-21-2004, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Surely.

1. Animal comparisons. Let's kill each other shall we? Let's hunt those that are less stronger than us and eat them, shall we? Cannibalism is right for humans? Let's lick our nuts to clean ourselves, shall we? Let's mark our territory with our urine to defend off neighbors, shall we? Shoot, let's walk around all the time completely nude while were at it. The fact that you would compare a human being to an animal BOGGLES my mind.

2. Hetereosexuality/Homosexuality. I can't believe that after all I written I will have to repeat myself after I already answered the same question. But I will TRY to brief it for you. I did not choose hetereosexuality. Even the word itself IMO, is a mere twist to define a non-exist component. An attraction between a man and a woman is a natural concept. Opposite genders attract naturally. Are you familiar with a battery? A positve and a negative attract to produce electricity. What about a male to female cable?(not assuming adapters or re-configuration) I'm NOT saying human beings are comparable to batteries and cable outlets, but the theory of this yes. People are not "born" homosexuals. HOWEVER, one might encounter homosexual thoughts sometime in his/her life, there's nothing wrong with that. Just like sometimes I feel like bashing-in someone's face until they hurt. But I must realize and *ADMIT* to myself that that is not natural and that I should either seek help or stop the thoughts myself. I will not force the rest of society to except my mental deviations simply because it is convienant for me and difficult to resist due to feelings of wanting and comfort for me. So its up to that person and their CHOICE if they choose to persue its curiousity. So that ultimately does become a choice. Understand?

And lastly, the children are the ultimate ones to get hurt when 2 homosexual "consenting" adults choose to marry. Let's not forget they are people too.

And what did you think about the true ancient city of Sodom?


1.Deny it all you want, people ARE animals. It's one of the defining aspects of humans that we ARE animals. We DO kill each other. We DO hunt other animals and eat them for food(animals don't hunt other members of their same species). Humans are one of the VERY few animals that DO practice cannibalism(and lets ignore the fact that recieving the Communion is a form of ritualistic cannibalism...especially for Catholics). MArk our territory? What do you think a fence is? Clothing defines humanity? I can dress my dog in a sweater...doesn't make him any smarter. I don't know how your mind boggles that easily, but all the examples you gave DO define us as animals...except perhaps in cannibalsim where they are actually superior to us.

2.Ok..so we've established that at some point you've had homosexual urges that you've decided not to act on.

"one might encounter homosexual thoughts sometime in his/her life, there's nothing wrong with that. Just like sometimes I feel like bashing-in someone's face until they hurt. "

Personally, I've never in my entire life had a sexual attraction for another man. Honestly I've never even been curious. I've certainly never felt anything REMOTELY like what I feel when I see an attractive woman. I've certainly felt anger, aggression, and all those other perfectly natural feelings, but I've never felt any attraction for another man. The KEY question here is that if all you've had were passing "curiosities", that were easily suppressed, why would anyone else who has had these passing "curiosities" act on them? Was your urge so strong that you would throw away your life over them? Risk ostracization from friends and family? Where's the payoff? Where's the reward for giving in to that mild "curiosity"? I've refrained from hitting someone even when there was a TREMENDOUSLY strong urge to do so. I've never had ANY urge to find a man attractive, much less an urge as strong as I;ve had to commit even mild violence. And yet I would happily risk the repurcussions of an assault charge over the repurcussions of being percieved as gay. So what you're asking me to believe is that people act on a much more insignificant urge, despite it's much greater repurcussions. Do you see the flaw in that logic? Probably not since you don't even recognize that we're members of the animal kingdom. As for Soddom...if you want to go all Old Testament on me I'll ask you if you've ever broken the Sabbath or eaten pork.

PhinPhan1227
02-21-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


By the way, I forgot to mention that it is okay if a man or boy is feminine. But what bothers me is that some people believe that feminine=gay. Or in the case of a girl, tomboy/strong=lesbian. NOT TRUE. One thing does not equal the other. When I was younger, many considered me as a "pretty boy". I was into fashion, dressing nicely, combed my hair with gel, etc. But in no way was someone going to make me believe that I was something that I'm not.


Being homosexual is exacty ONE thing...a sexual attraction for a member of the same sex. It's NOT the sexual act itself, and it's NOT a persons femininity/masculinity. It's solely the attraction itself. Someone who has never had sex with ANYONE is still either **** or hetero sexual. In some few cases that person may he A-sexual, but that's extremely rare(actually it's suppossed to be a gift from God which is where the misguided practice of celebate Priests arises). That's why I find it so funny that people call homosexuality a "lifestyle". It has nothing to do with how someone lives their lives, and everything to do with what's going on between someones ears.

Dolfan02
02-21-2004, 02:19 AM
I certainly do not see human beings compared to a monkey, nor a dog, nor a deer, nor a bird, nor a fish, nor a snail, nor a bacteria. I firmly believe we are in a class of our own not because of any theological or religious concept, but because of self-observation around me. The intellect of human beings is so so so far advanced than any kind of animal you may suggest that I don't even know which human endeavor to begin discussing. Language (hundreds), writing/reading and storing, reverse engineering, Philosophy, Anthropology, DNA Research, Archaeology, Architecture, Forensics, patent law, crypto analysis, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), poetry, Space travel, nano-technology. The fact that you would STILL consider human beings something as animals STILL BOGGLES my mind to the fullest. Set aside your book of evolution and Darwinism because it is poisoning your mind.

At this point, I guess we will have to agree that we disagree.

And for the record, I NEVER said I had homosexual urges. Don't be so childish and stupid. Re-read ALL my posts again and I dare you to find where I suggest such a thing. If you re-read that quote, I suggested that one (meaning somebody who claims to be "gay", not me) might encounter homosexual thoughts. And again, I do not find fault in that. Nobody on this earth is perfect in our right mind. But I do expect people to use wisdom on determining what is right and what is wrong AND act accordingly. I do believe people such as yourself are easily manipulated by statements of gays such as "Oh, how I would give my right arm to be straight, Oh how I did not choose this on myself, Oh can someone feel sorry for me and see how nice and caring of a person I can as a gay". Sorry, but I will not feel sorry for any such person as they hope I do. Nor will I surrender my common sense to undignified and foolish propaganda.

BTW, I'll leave you this website and you tell me if this is right. Remember, its all sense of having some kind of virtue and dignity.
http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=12

FinHeavenAJ
02-21-2004, 03:35 AM
I'm just going to say this, leaving my background with the site behind for this moment...

I agree with PhinPhan1227 on most points. People are born into their sexuality, and there are many scientific studies to prove this so. Additionally, I personally know many gays/lesbians and I highly doubt they woke up one day and said, "You know, I want to be a victim in hate crimes. I want to risk my life when I go out in public. I want to be treated so differently..." To even think that people can make this decision is absurd.

Next subject, many people say that they find it "disgusting" to see two males/females holding hands in public or showing affection. Would the same be true for straight couples? Additionally, there are many straight people who jack off other straight people in public... what about that?

"Homosexuals concealed their sexuality because they new it was wrong and it would not be tolerated"... right, perhaps the more obvious issue is that they knew they would most likely be killed or put in extreme danger...

Also, to say that same sex marriages will bring about people wanting to marry their brothers/sisters, themselves, or polygamy is outrageous... it's very different.

Next subject, children that are raised by same-sex couples are none the more likely to be gay than children raised in a heterosexual marriage. Why? There are gays that were raised by straight parents, and they are straight people that were raised by gays. Fact is that if you were to go to almost any classroom in America, 1 out of every 10 person will be gay.

I'm going to end now because I have to wake up at 8am today and begin my long, dreadful Saturday. I would love to go on this subject forever, as I really can... but time is of issue.

To close, I read that website "Mission: America" and, IMO, is really stupid. It's obviously an extremely anti-Gay in every fashion, heck... they have "witchcraft" under the same category :rolleyes: I've read that page... why don't you check out some websites that talk about the flip side of the coin? This site is a good site that goes over both sides: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

Anyway, I will finally end with something my dad told me a while ago.

1.) "It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round."

He told me this when I told him that my best friend since 3rd grade was gay:

2.) "Just remember, sexuality is 1% of the friend you have grown to know."

PS: If someone replies, sorry if I don't respond back quickly... I have a busy work schedule this weekend :(

PhinPhan1227
02-21-2004, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02
I certainly do not see human beings compared to a monkey, nor a dog, nor a deer, nor a bird, nor a fish, nor a snail, nor a bacteria. I firmly believe we are in a class of our own not because of any theological or religious concept, but because of self-observation around me. The intellect of human beings is so so so far advanced than any kind of animal you may suggest that I don't even know which human endeavor to begin discussing. Language (hundreds), writing/reading and storing, reverse engineering, Philosophy, Anthropology, DNA Research, Archaeology, Architecture, Forensics, patent law, crypto analysis, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), poetry, Space travel, nano-technology. The fact that you would STILL consider human beings something as animals STILL BOGGLES my mind to the fullest. Set aside your book of evolution and Darwinism because it is poisoning your mind.

At this point, I guess we will have to agree that we disagree.

And for the record, I NEVER said I had homosexual urges. Don't be so childish and stupid. Re-read ALL my posts again and I dare you to find where I suggest such a thing. If you re-read that quote, I suggested that one (meaning somebody who claims to be "gay", not me) might encounter homosexual thoughts. And again, I do not find fault in that. Nobody on this earth is perfect in our right mind. But I do expect people to use wisdom on determining what is right and what is wrong AND act accordingly. I do believe people such as yourself are easily manipulated by statements of gays such as "Oh, how I would give my right arm to be straight, Oh how I did not choose this on myself, Oh can someone feel sorry for me and see how nice and caring of a person I can as a gay". Sorry, but I will not feel sorry for any such person as they hope I do. Nor will I surrender my common sense to undignified and foolish propaganda.

BTW, I'll leave you this website and you tell me if this is right. Remember, its all sense of having some kind of virtue and dignity.
http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=12

ROFL!! You can chose to view the sun as a big ball of tofu if you like...it doesn't change the nature of the sun. Man is an animal. He is only distinct from OTHER animals in one area, and that area has nothing to do with technology. In point of fact, for 99.99% of mankinds exiastance our highest technological achievment was the flint cutting tool. All of the stuff you listed has only been around for the last few hundred years at best. Compared with a few hundred thousand years, that's not even a fart in the wind. What differentiates man from the rest of the animals is our soul and our ability to ask "why". Animals don't care about "why", they care about what, when, where, who, and how, but never "why". As for Darwinism, you've just demonstrated your lack of education in presenting that as a conflict with your beliefs. There's nothing in Darwinism which conflicts with the Bible, and nothing in the Bible which conflicts with Darwinism. Darwin in point of fact was a Protestant. He described the mechanism of evolution, he never discussed the implimentation of that mechanism(God). And heck, if you read Genesis, it even follows evolution in the creation of life. What all of this demonstrates however is that I was exactly right when I labled you as someone who was acting out of misguided(in my opinion) faith. We don't have to agree to disagree on this point. Humans ARE animals. If you assert otherwise, you're flat out wrong. As far as homosexuality being a choice, in that respect you are entitled to your opinion. I'd have more respect for that opinion had you not made those other insane statements, but again, I won't challenge a persons faith. Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks that a person would CHOOSE to be gay has obviosly never spent a second considering what a homosexual goes through in life. Boggles my mind how people with supposedly "Christian" values can have that little empathy for their fellow human beings. Christ must be weeping.