Should same sex marriages be legal?

[Apos]

I just thought I'd bring something else up. In order for an animal to evolve, it's features must be made and grow over this long period of time. Yet if an animal only grew part of this transformation because of it's new environment, wouldn't natural selection remove this animal with these weaker and incomplete parts? Something to think about...

Not really, because that's not how evolution works. Animals don't "grow" new features in any sort of deliberate, forward looking manner that envisions a final product but takes many steps to get there. Indeed, it's wrong to even think of evolution happening to an animal: evolution happens to _populations_, not single lines of descent. An example is a population of finches among which are a wide variation of beak lengths (variation). These beak lengths may have different survival advantages, which skew the next generation in a particular direction (selection). It doesn't happen in the way most people seem to think: that there is some finch that magically reproduces a finch with a longer beak because that's what's best.

Each minor change in a population has an advantage, and it adds up over time to larger changes: that's all. In some cases, features that might have served one purpose in one environment can play different roles in another, or side effects of one process can ultimately prove even more advantageous than the original feature.

 

[Apos]

What are these historical facts, and havent these facts changed over the years?

You are going to have to explain what you mean, because it's not clear what you are talking about.

Evolution is a historical fact in the sense that we know it happened on this planet, and that it accounts for the diversity of different lifeforms that we see today.

 

[Asus]

Neither views are overlooked as all voice their opinions. The 'standard' for same sex marriages will probably be determined by the popular opinion. You can't say someone with this opinion doesn't or shouldn't count.

A group who support restrictions or a way of life shouldn't stop their opinion just because the people with the opposite viewpoint feel it's unfair or limiting. Standards are generally or loosely based on majority.

Christian views are not null and neither are anyone elses.

I don't dislike gays but I disagree with what they do and believe. It is not about them being inferior. My Mom's cousin anounced he was gay a few years ago. I didn't change the way I viewed him.

If the standard is that being gay and same sex marriages are immoral then so be it. You will have to live with it. If the standard changes and laws change to allow for same sex marriages then I will have to live with it. Either way we both can keep our opinions and if we wish, voice them.

 

[Neutrino]

Neither views are overlooked as all voice their opinions. The 'standard' for same sex marriages will probably be determined by the popular opinion. You can't say someone with this opinion doesn't or shouldn't count.

But it shouldn't be determined by the "popular opinion". It should be determined by what is legal and constituational.

The "popular opinion" once agreed that blacks didn't deserve the same rights as whites. In cases of minority rights "popular opinion" is not always very reliable or desirable.

A group who support restrictions or a way of life shouldn't stop their opinion just because the people with the opposite viewpoint feel it's unfair or limiting. Standards are generally or loosely based on majority.

Christian views are not null and neither are anyone elses.

No they are not null, but if they cross the line of interfering with another's right to freedom of religion than they are wrong in the context of the laws of this country.

If the standard is that being gay and same sex marriages are immoral then so be it. You will have to live with it. If the standard changes and laws change to allow for same sex marriages then I will have to live with it. Either way we both can keep our opinions and if we wish, voice them.

I agree we can both keep our opinions. However I sincerly hope I do not have to "live with" a law saying that same sex marriage is immoral seeing as such a law would be illegal. I'm very thankful that the founders of this country included a policy of religious non interference into the consitution. This kind of thing is exactly why it is there.

 

[SpuD]

If they love eachother why not, its not hurting me at all

 

[Asus]

For many, the issue hinges on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate characteristic with which people are born. For those who say being gay is a choice, they will not agree with that analogy as they see it as a moral issue and not prejudice. Only those who view being gay as a characteristic you are born with may agree with your statement. The reason I say may is because blacks were treated very poorly and had no rights as a person. This is far from the same issue. Gays are pushing for 'rights' that allow them for the same privilages and status that marriage has. This is hardly human rights.

--
Since religion is a set of beliefs, values, and practices how can they not consider or debate holding the moral standard over giving gay's marriage rights, as our country views being gay as immoral.

--
Morality is not dependant on religion. Many who are not religious hold similar morals. And the traditional family does not jive with the ideals of gay's.

I seriously hope we do not loosen or loose our definitions of what is right and wrong any longer, which is happening every place I look. If we loose our morals and if we loose our direction then our society will imbody everything I see evolution as, pointless existance without a care for purpose or life.

While I am accepting, I am not passive and I do not believe it's wise to wave my beliefs and values. I try to stand up for what I believe.

 

[Phisionary]

Popular opinion is not a legal argument. If popular opinion rules, the winner of 'Survivor' would be the next president. :rolling:

Hmm. I think just about every side of this issue has been covered several times. Maybe we should let it rest awhile?

:thumbs:​

 

[blahblahblah]

I agree we can both keep our opinions. However I sincerly hope I do not have to "live with" a law saying that same sex marriage is immoral seeing as such a law would be illegal. I'm very thankful that the founders of this country included a policy of religious non interference into the consitution. This kind of thing is exactly why it is there.

I'll jump in for a quicky.

How can you seperate opinion from religious beliefs? You can't. Saying there is a seperation of Church and State is absurd. This may go off-topic, but I have and will argue that agnosticism and atheism is a religious belief system. Therefore, your beliefs are affecting the foundation of our country. Believing that same-sex marriage is to be allowed is clearly linked to your belief system. However, you should not say that I can't voice my beliefs about same-sex marriage (in governmental policy) while you go right ahead and voice your opinion.

PS - Sorry if this is a bit scattered, I'm doing something else at the same time. :imu:

 

[merc]

u guys, gay sex marriages are just gay now drop it, no man should be married to another man thats just messed up

-merc

 

[Phisionary]

:flame:​

:x​

​

 

[Neutrino]

I'll jump in for a quicky.

How can you seperate opinion from religious beliefs? You can't. Saying there is a seperation of Church and State is absurd. This may go off-topic, but I have and will argue that agnosticism and atheism is a religious belief system. Therefore, your beliefs are affecting the foundation of our country. Believing that same-sex marriage is to be allowed is clearly linked to your belief system. However, you should not say that I can't voice my beliefs about same-sex marriage (in governmental policy) while you go right ahead and voice your opinion.

PS - Sorry if this is a bit scattered, I'm doing something else at the same time. :imu:

By seperation of church and state I mean in a legal sense, which is spelled out in the first amendment.

Well ya that is a bit off topic. However, religion is based on faith. Agnosticism is not. You could possibly argue that atheism is somehow, but truly it is not even close to the same thing. However, for the sake of the argument I'll accept that atheism and agnosticism are a set of "beliefs" though I think that term is quite misleading. But ok so we non-religious folk have certain opinions or "beliefs" if you want to call it that. Ok with that out of the way...

Ok yes, a part of my views on gay marriage probably do stem from my experiences with friends and family who are gay. But that has never been part of my argument though. I never said you can't voice your opinion on government policy, I just implied that an opinion supporting a policy against gay marriage is unconstitutional. So while you or others can have that opinion it would not be a legal course of action to actually pursue it.

I'm only advocating freedom of religion and freedom of beliefs for everyone in this country. I think every single person should be free to believe whatever they want and to practice those beliefs as long as they do not harm or interfere with others. The only problem I have is when one group's beliefs directly interferes with another group's beliefs. That is a situation in which we all lose in my opinion, because next time it just might be the other way around.

 

[blahblahblah]

By seperation of church and state I mean in a legal sense, which is spelled out in the first amendment.

Well ya that is a bit off topic. However, religion is based on faith. Agnosticism is not. You could possibly argue that atheism is somehow, but truly it is not even close to the same thing. However, for the sake of the argument I'll accept that atheism and agnosticism are a set of "beliefs" though I think that term is quite misleading. But ok so we non-religious folk have certain opinions or "beliefs" if you want to call it that. Ok with that out of the way...

Ok yes, a part of my views on gay marriage probably do stem from my experiences with friends and family who are gay. But that has never been part of my argument though. I never said you can't voice your opinion on government policy, I just implied that an opinion supporting a policy against gay marriage is unconstitutional. So while you or others can have that opinion it would not be a legal course of action.

See what happens when I jump into the middle of an argument?

 

[merc]

You guys, gay marriage is against God and that is sin. It is bad.

-merc

 

[Neutrino]

See what happens when I jump into the middle of an argument?

Feel free to jump in anytime.

Just to add to my last post, I do apologize if it seemed I was saying other's can't have or voice their opinions. That truly wasn't what I meant at all.

--
Since religion is a set of beliefs, values, and practices how can they not consider or debate holding the moral standard over giving gay's marriage rights, as our country views being gay as immoral.

--
Morality is not dependant on religion. Many who are not religious hold similar morals. And the traditional family does not jive with the ideals of gay's.

I seriously hope we do not loosen or loose our definitions of what is right and wrong any longer, which is happening every place I look. If we loose our morals and if we loose our direction then our society will imbody everything I see evolution as, pointless existance without a care for purpose or life.

While I am accepting, I am not passive and I do not believe it's wise to wave my beliefs and values. I try to stand up for what I believe.

I do not really see any relevance in the whole "moral" argument against gays when talking about legal issues.

Creating laws based on morality is really only applicable for moral issues which concern an action which can harm another person. Gays and gay marriages do not harm others.

You guys, gay marriage is against God and that is sin. It is bad.

-merc

This is probably completely pointless, but I'll attempt to explain my position to you, merc. Gay marriage is against God only in some religions and belief systems not all religions or belief systems. Would you like it if you were told you could not do something for the sole reason that it is against some other religion? I would imagine you probably wouldn't like that very much.

 

[Pogrom]

For many, the issue hinges on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate characteristic with which people are born. For those who say being gay is a choice, they will not agree with that analogy as they see it as a moral issue and not prejudice. Only those who view being gay as a characteristic you are born with may agree with your statement. The reason I say may is because blacks were treated very poorly and had no rights as a person. This is far from the same issue. Gays are pushing for 'rights' that allow them for the same privilages and status that marriage has. This is hardly human rights.

How is it not Human Rights? They are asking to be treated equally.

Where is it written that you can discriminate against others because equality is not covered under human rights?

 

[blahblahblah]

How is it not Human Rights? They are asking to be treated equally.

Where is it written that you can discriminate against others because equality is not covered under human rights?

I don't burn homosexuals at a stake. I don't make snide comments at them. I don't make them drink at different fountains. They have the right to own property. What human rights are they lacking? Govermental benefits? Last time I checked governmental benefits (ie tax breaks) is not consider a human right issue.

 

[Phisionary]

i hate to say it but the gay marriage issue probably doesn't qualify as a human rights issue. I don't think...

just a regular old rights issue. ya know. dime a dozen.. :E

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

You guys, gay marriage is against God and that is sin. It is bad.

-merc

Hahahahaha who says it's against God? Did God come down from the heaven's and tell you that himself?? Where does it say in the commandments that being gay and marrying a gay person is a sin?

It's a law that was made by human's, not God. People should get over their conservative beliefs. I'm a Catholic with a heavy Irish background too, I goto Church every week, and i think it's archaic the way the gay people are treated. Especially by religion. People don't choose their sexuality y'know.

 

[Pogrom]

What of the right of equality?

Not important enough to count?

 

[Neutrino]

Ok, I'll weight in on the human rights argument. I suppose that you could technically argue that it is not a human rights issue. However, if you do then it directly follows that the rights granted to the people in a hetrosexual marriage do not fall under human rights either. Personally I think both should be considered to be basic rights of a citizen.

But I'd just like to point out that there is a whole lot more going on here than merely granting gay couples tax breaks. There are many many rights that hetrosexual couples take for granted. Here's an article I just found which covers it pretty well I think:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In many cases, even carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate.

Can you imagine what it would be like to rush to a hospital emergency room where your loved one is lying after being in a car accident and being told that you cannot see them because you're not family?

 

[Yakuza]

I was giving the quote context. That's why my addition was enclosed in the [] brackets.



Banning gay marriage isn't "standing up for what you believe". It's "forcing other people to stand up for what you believe".

You must understand that difference.



You continue to put forward your position that gay marriage should be banned, and yet still said:
"We dont love them any less and dont treat them as infierior."

I said that banning gay marriage is treating gays as inferior. Since you are treating them as inferior, yet still "love" them, then I assume you are removing their rights as a way to show them the 'error' of their ways and send them to heaven, correct?

If you're not banning marriage for the gays, could it be that you are banning it for selfish reasons?


Yes, exactly.


What? I'm not confusing anything.
Here's what I said:


Don't you see the point? God has never said anywhere that you must make changes to the laws of atheists. And yet that is what you are attempting to do.

It's called christian law because it only applies to christians.

You are saying that the secular law must be changed to discriminate against gays, because the Bible says so.
I am saying that secular law must remain seperate from religious law.

I'm not confusing the two. If anything, ban supporters like you are, by trying to make a religious teaching into a secular law.



I'm sorry that I brought up points on Leviticus. I was trying to show you how the concept of "biblical interpretation" works, by showing that not everyone follows the bible's teachings the same way.

And, since it is impossible to make everyone believe in the bible the same way, we must have a seperate set of laws that apply to everyone: Secular law.

I'm sorry if I confused anyone. But my point is still that secular law is secular for a reason, and a gay marriage ban ruins that.


But by Banning marriage, you are judging them. You are judging them to be unworthy of marriage.


You're going to have to dumb it down for me, as I have only a passing knowledge of Christianity.
How does this answer my point that "until god himself comes down and tells us, we are in no position to say which religion is more right"?




Yes, but that is biblical law, not secular law. Since a vast amount of people do not believe that jesus has any authority, we have the american judicial system. That system is secular.

I'm going to be blunt here: I don't care what Jesus said. You still have not put forward any reason why christian law should have sway over secular law.

I think we have strayed from the topic a little. let me sum up what I believe.

I believe that Homosexuality is wrong.
The bible says that it is wrong.
I believe the term marriage is a sacred unity between 1 man and one woman. And it has been since the begingin of this country.
I do believe that gay people have the right to make their own choices and should not be without some benifits that any human should have.
However I disagree with calling it marriage as I believe 2 gay people can not make that covinent under willfull trnsgression of what Gos has said.

Call it what you want but in my opinoin they shouldn't call it marriage.

You're going to have to dumb it down for me, as I have only a passing knowledge of Christianity.
How does this answer my point that "until god himself comes down and tells us, we are in no position to say which religion is more right"?

God did come down and he did tell us.

Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

John 1
The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only

 

[Pogrom]

I think we have strayed from the topic a little. let me sum up what I believe.

I believe that Homosexuality is wrong.
The bible says that it is wrong.
I believe the term marriage is a sacred unity between 1 man and one woman. And it has been since the begingin of this country.
I do believe that gay people have the right to make their own choices and should not be without some benifits that any human should have.
However I disagree with calling it marriage as I believe 2 gay people can not make that covinent under willfull trnsgression of what Gos has said.

Call it what you want but in my opinoin they shouldn't call it marriage.

But you don't believe Christian Law should have sway over Secular Law?

 

[Javert]

Gosh, I thought we had this underlying principle called *gasp*:

Separation of Church and State!

So I better see some psychological, sociological, or economic evidence that same-sex marriage would be a detriment to society.
I have seen the studies of damage done on children with homosexual couples. However, it being done by a partisan think-tank admitting its own abandoning of scientific methods nullifies their studies. However, I want actual case studies, statistics, or professional commentary on the issue.
Bible quotes are dandy for speeches and Tarentino films, but not a social issue discussion.

My Take on the Topic:
Same sex marriage is only inevitable. As we progress, society as a whole becomes more diverse, accepting, and inclusive, which is a good thing.
Remember back in the days when a Christian couldn't marry a Catholic? A White unable to marry an African American? (Feel free to dig up your biblical, religious evidence against the preceding relationships, it isn't hard.) Now we take those marriages and bondings for granted, and so we shall with this one.
Twenty years from now, history will analyze how we were so fearful, stubborn, and ignorant as to oppose same-sex marriages. It will be accepted and normal. That's a bet.
If halflife2.net is still around, and I lose my bet, reset my postcount to 0.

 

[blahblahblah]

Gosh, I thought we had this underlying principle called *gasp*:

Separation of Church and State!

So I better see some psychological, sociological, or economic evidence that same-sex marriage would be a detriment to society.
Bible quotes are dandy for speeches and Tarentino films, but not a social issue discussion.

Apparently you missed my post above. There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State. I argue it is merely an illusion. While government may not openly endorse a religion, it is still heavily affected by a belief system.

I would comment some more, but I am terribly tired.

 

[Javert]

Apparently you missed my post above. There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State. I argue it is merely an illusion. While government may not openly endorse a religion, it is still heavily affected by a belief system.

I would comment some more, but I am terribly tired.

Apologies, won't read 31 pages. That being an illusion for current social issues (especially with the current administration) is in my opinion a huge problem.
Illusion, and accepting that it is just an illusion, should not bind us in our policy-making.

Get some sleep.

 

[Pogrom]

Apparently you missed my post above. There is no such thing as seperation of Church and State. I argue it is merely an illusion. While government may not openly endorse a religion, it is still heavily affected by a belief system.

I would comment some more, but I am terribly tired.

Shouldn't we be trying to move more towards the ideal of separation?

Instead of treating it as inevitable and writing discrimination into the constitution?

 

[blahblahblah]

Shouldn't we be trying to move more towards the ideal of separation?

Instead of treating it as inevitable and writing discrimination into the constitution?

You remove beliefs from democracy and you no longer have democracy.

 

[P-Lo]

Hmm. Even though the principles of the U.S. were founded on ideals and morals that were influenced somewhat on some religions, we must strive to uphold the priniciple of the Separation of Church and State.

btw, is it me or do I find alot of arizonans here? XD :cheers: :stare:

 

[Neutrino]

You remove beliefs from democracy and you no longer have democracy.

Hmm, I must disagree. Practically everything in the constitituation and bill of rights can be argued for from a purely logical standpoint for the most part.

There is a reason I agree with those documents and the idea and ideals of democracy while at the same time trying not to hold any personal beliefs myself.

 

[Pogrom]

You remove beliefs from democracy and you no longer have democracy.

When did the world go crazy and make democracy a Christian-Only invention?

I can't see anything overtly Christian in democracy.

 

[Neutrino]

When did the world go crazy and make democracy a Christian-Only invention?

I can't see anything overtly Christian in democracy.

Well, I don't think he meant christian beliefs exclusively. I think he was referring to "beliefs" in general. Though you are of course welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, blahblahblah.

 

[blahblahblah]

Hmm, I must disagree. Practically everything in the constitituation and bill of rights can be argued for from a purely logical standpoint for the most part.

There is a reason I agree with those documents and the idea and ideals of democracy while at the same time trying not to hold any personal beliefs.

Purely logical from your belief system. Thinking outside one's belief system is impossible which is the reason why I think the seperation of Church and State is false. How can you logically decide something when the logic is founded on your ideaologies?

Anyways, do you really expect the majority of the US population to not use their beliefs when they vote. If they could seperate their beliefs, that is asking for too much.

Well, I don't think he meant christian beliefs exclusively. I think he was referring to "beliefs" in general. Though you are of course welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, blahblahblah.

You are right. When I say beliefs I mean Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists, atheists, and agnosticists all alike.

PS - I'm going to bed this time. I mean it, I think.

 

[Neutrino]

Purely logical from your belief system. Thinking outside one's belief system is impossible which is the reason why I think the seperation of Church and State is false. How can you logically decide something when the logic is founded on your ideaologies?

Again I disagree. I do not think logic is based on any belief system. Logic is merely a tool that is relevant to the way the world works. I will concede that you may have to make some basic assumptions, such as everyone is equal, but from there I think it is quite possible to arrive at democracry using only logic conclusions. Assumption may very well be based on Ideologies, but logic is not. If it is then it is not a purely logical argument.

I also think it is entirely possible to think outside one's belief system. Personally, I do not think I hold any beliefs and I try very hard not to. I have opinions yes, but those I try to base on my understanding of the situation and the evidence that I know of. I'm more then willing to change those opinions if they are shown to be wrong or unlikely. Letting go of these opinions can be hard sometimes, but not impossible. Basically, I'm willing to accept anything if enough evidence is presented in favor of it. My opinion is that truly "believing" anything only serves to limit our understanding of things and make it harder to let go when proved wrong, which often happens if history is any indication. (Not trying to criticize anyone here whatsoever. Just my view on things.) Yes, you could probably try to pin me down and say that by having this view I have a "belief", but that's still not really true at all. It's the way I see things yes, but it could be wrong and I will change it if it is shown to be. However, from everything I've seen and experienced so far it makes sense so I'll stick with it for now.

Sorry for going so far off topic. I need to go to bed too.

As for seperation of church and state, yes it is not truly achieved in this country as politicians are indeed influenced by their religious beliefs. However, I think it is an ideal which one should always reach for, even if it is not always obtained. To go against it hurts not just one religion, but all religions.

That said, it is still not false in the least. The first amendment is still used all the time and is one of the more important aspects of the constitution. I do not know of any major laws that breaks the first amendment, so I think it is still quite alive and well in this country today.

 

[falconwind]

People who quote scripture are lazy in their responsibility as humans. We are the only species on this planet that is blessed with sentience.

They profess that "Here is the word of God, read and memorize, but do not think or consider. Shame upon those who question it. Wrath upon those who reason."

Remember, a few hundred years ago, philosophers were put to death as heretics for thinking outside The Book.

You can't reason with a bible thumper, for his answer will always be to thump the bible. He has all the reasons he wants and needs. You're reasoning means nothing, because the Bible is the ultimate reason to everything.

And any time the Bible does not stand to reason, the reason is, "God works in mysterious ways." The dramatic way of saying "I don't know the reason, and I don't care."

Quoting the Bible is the equivalent of answering a question with "Because." or "It just is."

"Why should we ban gay marriage?"
"Because."

"Why is gay marriage bad?"
"It just is."

Exact same reasoning, exact same content, exact same validity.

 

[scully]

NO... NO.. and NO!

i have nothing against gays, but its not right.. its not normal and its not the way its supposed to be! its like marrying your sister! ITS WRONG!

i know some gay people, and i have nothing against them, what they do is up to them.. but legal marrage? no !! no !! nooooooo

 

[falconwind]

NO... NO.. and NO!

i have nothing against gays, but its not right.. its not normal and its not the way its supposed to be! its like marrying your sister! ITS WRONG!

i know some gay people, and i have nothing against them, what they do is up to them.. but legal marrage? no !! no !! nooooooo

Thanks for posting.

The more you say "no" and the more "!" you use makes your argument (or lack thereof) all the more impressive. I must say I'm reevaluating my stance already.

 

[falconwind]

The physical and emotional response to members of the opposite sex migt feel natural and all but fundementaly you make the choice to act on it. Homosexuality is a lifestyle based on continuing choices, living in the frame of a homosexual mind. If I had sex with a guy does that make me gay or homosexual, No. Homosexuality is a state of being.

Bit of a late response, but I couldn't pass it up.

So you've saying that gays are morally irresponsible because they didn't squash their inner feelings? It is the more I deny myself, the better a person I am? The more I mold myself to the social norm, the better a person I am?

What you propose is that there is a normal archetype which we all must follow, or else be deemed aberrant and miscreant by the public at large. That there is one way, or the highway.

Many gay people do choose to act straight instead of gay. But, in the end, it's exactly that, an ACT. It's not real. They're no more straight than they pretend to be. To deny yourself what comes naturally, it to deny your true self.

People should not have to live a lie for your benefit, so that you can sleep tonight secure in the knowledge that homosexuals don't show themselves in public, because it makes you "uncomfortable."

 

[f|uke]

Ever get the feeling that those proponents of the "Homosexuality is a choice" philosphy are actually themselves latent homosexuals?

I mean no disrespect,. and while I am half joking, there is certainly some seriousness in that thought.

I know, for a fact, that I could not choose to be gay. I know this because of the feeling I had when presented with actual opportunity. I concidered the situation and assessed my feelings. These feelings were not based on morality or any sense of personal identity (as my own sense of identity is far from defined). They were purely inate. I am straight, and nothing could ever change that.

So when someone says its a choice,. it makes me wonder,. how could they possibly think that being straight is not a part of their inner core, unless, perhaps, it isn't.. or perhaps they need to experience this confrontation for themselves to realize that it is not something they could just decide to enjoy.

 

[Phisionary]

i know some gay people, and i have nothing against them, what they do is up to them..

in your opinion, I guess it shouldn't be up to them.

you could at least wait till another post to directly contradict yourself...

 

[CptStern]

Ever get the feeling that those proponents of the "Homosexuality is a choice" philosphy are actually themselves latent homosexuals?

I mean no disrespect,. and while I am half joking, there is certainly some seriousness in that thought.

I know, for a fact, that I could not choose to be gay. I know this because of the feeling I had when presented with actual opportunity. I concidered the situation and assessed my feelings. These feelings were not based on morality or any sense of personal identity (as my own sense of identity is far from defined). They were purely inate. I am straight, and nothing could ever change that.

So when someone says its a choice,. it makes me wonder,. how could they possibly think that being straight is not a part of their inner core, unless, perhaps, it isn't.. or perhaps they need to experience this confrontation for themselves to realize that it is not something they could just decide to enjoy.

ya a guy once asked me to dance, but I said I didnt think it would feel "right" ...that was the moment I knew I wasnt gay ...well maybe if I had actually liked the song I might have danced but my rules are: no hands below the belt and no ear nibbling :E