Common Arguments Against Gays and Same-Sex Marriage…and How to Counter Them

[happycowlover]

Everyone should see this.

“The Bible states-“
Stop right there. I don’t want to offend anyone with the following statements, but they must be said. America is not a theocracy. The Bible is not the Constitution. Christianity, or any other religion, doesn’t rule or govern America. This is not a Christian country; this is a secular country. One religion ruling the country goes against the very ideas of our forefathers. That’s the reason why pilgrims came to America in the first place, to escape religious persecution from the Catholic ruling power. This is why separation of church and state exist in the Constitution.

You’re free to believe, practice, and praise whatever religion you’re a part of; I fully respect that. Religion is a personal, private matter. Once it starts influencing laws and the rights of others, then it becomes public.

Let’s say a politician enacted a law, rule, or plan of action affecting you based on what the Torah or Buddha’s teachings stated. Would that be fair or wise? Not everyone’s Christian or follow the Bible’s teachings. Not everyone adheres to Christian beliefs. You’re banning people’s rights based on something they don’t even follow. Be honest: is that fair? Would you want the same thing to happen to you?

“Marriage is a Christian term/idea. The church should decide if gays get married. Gays can get civil unions and receive the same rights, but they can’t call it marriage.”

When did Christians claim ownership of the term or idea marriage? Christianity didn’t create the idea or the term ‘marriage’. Marriages existed long before Christianity, starting as early as Babylonian times, which began in 3700 BC!

Calling it civil unions is referring to gays as second-class citizens, unworthy of real marriage. Separate but equal really. Gays should have the legal right to call it the same thing their heterosexual family and friends do. Same rights, same name.

I respect the right of churches to choose rather gays can marry in their place of worship. That’s their personal, legal decision.

“Being gay is immoral.”
Your opinion, not a fact. Gay people have the same morals, rules, likes, dislikes, dreams, ambitions, goals, and hobbies like you. They aren’t all promiscuous and they aren’t child molesters. They have the same amount of strengths and flaws you have.

“If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.”
Wrong. Same-sex marriage is between two consenting human adults. Heterosexual marriage is between two consenting human adults. The only thing different are the genders. Gay marriage won’t cause a marriage benefits revision, involve minors who’re still mentally and emotionally developing or unknowing animals.

“It’s always been tradition for a man and a woman to marry. Why fix something that isn’t broken?”
Because it is broken. It’s unfair and unconstitutional. Just because something’s tradition doesn’t make it right. As taxpaying, law-abiding Americans, gays deserve equal rights.

“Being gay is a choice. A gay man can easily leave that life and marry a woman.”
Just like you can leave your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband and become gay. Although scientists haven’t found the exact cause of homosexuality, they believe for certain that it is not a choice. Biological differences between straight and gay men have been found; certain areas of a gay male’s brain react like a woman’s brain. The same is for lesbians, in which certain areas may respond like a man’s brain. Finger length may be different for a gay male than a straight male. Even gay men’s hair whorl may be different; they’re more likely to have a counterclockwise whorl whereas straight men are more likely have clockwise whorls.

Gays do not wake up one day and say, “Today, I’m going to wear my favorite pair of jeans and be gay.” It’s something totally different. Some know when they hit puberty, before puberty, during adolescence, adulthood, or even later. When the realization hits varies from person to person. The only thing they choose is to be true to their selves and others. Besides, who’d choose to be something their family, friends, teachers, classmates, boss, politicians, religion, and society abhors? Where they may face discrimination, rejection, ostracism, and harassment?

Let’s say a man does marry a woman, have kids, and try to lead the straight life. He may be the best actor in the world, but he won’t be able to hide his feelings forever. He may cheat with other men or “be on the downlow” as some people call it. She may discover it and be devastated. Could you imagine what finding out that you’re husband is gay and that your marriage is a lie would do to you? Why lie to yourself, your husband or wife, and your kids in order to live a lie? Society isn’t the one that has to deal with the lies and turmoil, you do.

“Same-sex marriage will drive up the divorce rates.”
So will opposite-sex marriage. A person’s divorce has no effect on you. Your happy marriage won’t suddenly end because your sister got a divorce. If it does, then your marriage wasn’t stable from the get-go.

“Gay marriage will threaten the institute of marriage.”
How? How are two men or women getting married going to affect your marriage in any way? Same-sex marriage won’t cause divorces or infidelity. It will not defile or taint marriage. Actually, it’ll honor marriage. It’ll show that people still value marriage and see it as worthwhile. It could encourage others to get married. It’ll also provide a great market for wedding planners, caterers, and all the other businesses and people involved in making a wedding happen.

“Gay marriage will threaten America’s families and society.”
Again, how? Gay marriage won’t cause adultery, illness, debt, teenage rebellion, or bad grades to occur in your family. It also won’t destroy society. These are all the places that’ve legalized same-sex marriage: Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Mexico City, Portugal, and Iceland.

Even 5 states and 1 district in the U.S. have legalized same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington D.C. Buildings haven’t collapsed, crime rates haven’t shot up, and famine hasn’t ravaged the people. Everyone is OK.

“This is only to influence our children.”
Like how some religious groups influence children to discriminate against gays? Gays don’t want to recruit, convert, warp, or do anything to children; they simply want their American right to marry.

“Why are gays making such a big deal over this? Marriage isn’t that important.”
Actually, it is. Right now, there are 1,100 federal benefits and 400 state benefits granted to married couples. These range from wrongful death benefits to surviving spouse and children to hospital visitation rights. Let’s not forget what private institutions, organizations, and businesses offer. Gays are paying for benefits they don’t even receive.

Plus, marriage is a way to express love and happiness, to let your partner know you truly love and care for them. We all love beautiful weddings, so why not have more of them?

“I don’t think they should marry. Gay people are just weird/freaky/disgusting/scary. They make me uncomfortable.”
This is a poor reason to not grant someone their rights and happiness. Many people were (and still are, unfortunately) uncomfortable with interracial marriage and found dating out of their race weird or disgusting. Have any problems arisen from that? In life, you’ll come into contact with people or things that’re strange or unfamiliar. It’s your responsibility to learn and ask questions when you don’t understand. Sitting in ignorance or fear doesn’t do anyone any good. As long as it’s consensual, loving adults, then there’s really no issue.

“If they want to get married, fine, let them move to where they allow it!”
This is an option but would you really want to lose your doctors, police officers, firefighters, nurses, EMTs, rangers, teachers, sanitation workers, business owners, friends, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, sons, or daughters? Would you like to move away from everything and everyone you love because of discriminating politicians and voters?

“Gays just want special rights.”
Gays just want the same rights you have; nothing more, nothing less. Gay people pay taxes, pay bills, go to work, fight in the military, and vote just like you. So why shouldn’t they be able to get married?

[jooxis]

I think we can all agree on this :anime:

[Nekowolf]

Oh hell, if they ever so much as say "it's in the Bible" I got a few things you can bring up! I had to look up some of the more extreme things for a story I was writing a while ago.

Exodus 21:7, Exodus 35:2, Corinthians 11:14, Leviticus 15:19-30, Leviticus 18:19-20, Leviticus 20:18, Leviticus 21:9, Corinthians 14:34-35, Leviticus 11:10, Proverbs 13:24, Matthew 5:29, Deuteronomy 22:5, Matthew 23:9

I'll get the actual text later

[el_flel]

The thing is, whilst rational people know that there is no valid reason why homosexual couples shouldn't be allow to marry, the people who oppose it won't listen to reason and aren't likely to change their opinion because they are incapable of expanding their minds that teeny, tiny fraction.

[Nekowolf]

That's true, but at the same time, that's also why you should put up a good argument. Not to change their mind, but to hold your own and perhaps persuade the minds of others who are open enough to accept a shift in opinion.

Edit: Also, if they ever bring up how America is a "Christian" nation; Treaty of Tripoli.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You could also go into the declining percentage of self-identified Christians.

[imaeatyaface]

you forgot the other very very common argument, 'homosexuality is a lifestyle', which may be the sillest one yet

but, yeah. i completely agree. while i do respect others opinions, seriously, be more open minded.

[happycowlover]

The thing is, whilst rational people know that there is no valid reason why homosexual couples shouldn't be allow to marry, the people who oppose it won't listen to reason and aren't likely to change their opinion because they are incapable of expanding their minds that teeny, tiny fraction.

True, some are so locked in their ways they wouldn't budge if a social hurricane was to hit.

This could sway those who're on the fence or those who don't know/care much about the issue. It could make them not support groups like Mormons or Evangelicans.

[DarkCougar555]

I remember two mommies told me that they had to drive up to Canada for getting a marriage about eight or seven years ago. As a witness, I saw how awesome their family was, and their kids were behaved so well. I think every couples have a right to marry they love. Let them be happy. =)

[Amtram]

It just goes to show how little the people who oppose same-sex marriage know about the real world. You never hear a peep out of them about banning marriage between BDSM people, or banning marriage between people who like to cross-dress, or between people with (insert any random fetish here).

There are tons of people out there doing things that are just as "icky" as gay sex (and note how often they specify male sex and forget about lesbians. . .wonder why that is?) If they only knew. . .

And that's what it is. The "ick" factor. They like to pretend that it's about morality and protecting the institute of marriage, but it's really all about the buttsecks.

[jooxis]

There are tons of people out there doing things that are just as "icky" as gay sex (and note how often they specify male sex and forget about lesbians. . .wonder why that is?)

It is because the majority of homophobes are male... and are specifically upset about the idea of gay males. I don't know exactly why this is, but I think we have all observed this.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i really dont think gay marriage should even be a government issue.

theres really no room for a third wheel where marriage is concerned.
marriage is private, personal, and intimate.

others have no valid reason for interrupting or dictating a marriage UNLESS it is inflicting harm of the emotional or physical kind upon THE PARTICIPANTS.

basically: its none of the churches business, grow up and butt out.

[kustirider2]

I often find that children brought up within a gay marriage are usually better behaved and have a more positive and expanded look on sexuality. Just let them be.. People can marry whoever they want and It's seriously not harming anyone. I don't think the government should be involved in their choices.

http://io9.com/5577804/a-drug-for-pregnant-women-that-prevents-lesbian-daughters - Anyone seen this drug? This is the most stupid thing I've ever seen, and 29 mothers participated. This terrifies me. How on earth could a mother put her unborn child's life on the line like this? Remember the Thalidomide tragedy? Stuff like this leads towards that.

(Sorry for throwing this thread the other way lol)

[Oaktree]

I'm reading a very good book right now called "The Blank Slate", and it includes an appendix that lists a lot of things that every culture has in common (found through firsthand study of lots of different cultures); marriage is one of these. Clearly, marriage is not a Christianity-specific institution.

[fakepeeps7]

http://io9.com/5577804/a-drug-for-pregnant-women-that-prevents-lesbian-daughters - Anyone seen this drug? This is the most stupid thing I've ever seen, and 29 mothers participated. This terrifies me.

That is scary!

At some point you start to wonder whether these doctors are really doing these things to help people... or if they're just trying to squish everybody into their narrow idea of how they think all people should be. You could say the same thing about opponents of gay marriage, really.

[Neerie]

And while people here mostly agree that there really isn't any good reason to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, some groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM for short) are doing a "national tour" (http://www.marriagetour2010.com/) to promote their opinion that same-sex marriage should be a big no no.

For those interesting to know about what's going on, like me (even though I'm canadian), you can follow up news about the prop 8 trial (http://prop8trialtracker.com/) (currently awaiting a decision from the judge), the blog posts of the first hearings and the closing arguments (and the links to the official docs) are full of those silly arguments as well.

[DarkCougar555]

Neerie - Yeah, I saw that link before. It's very good place to visit. =)

EDIT: Oh, wait. Never mind. I confused with that website with the another website. I thought I saw something that I've visit before. Silly me. ><;

[grumpy_otter]

the National Organization for Marriage (NOM for short) are doing a "national tour" (http://www.marriagetour2010.com/) to promote their opinion that same-sex marriage should be a big no no.

Damn! They are going to be near me, but on July 4. I'm not giving up my fun for a bunch of whackos.

What are these people so afraid of?

[kiwi_tea]

I wish I belonged to an organisation with the acronym NOM. Hmmm... National Organisation for Making Nekkid 'Omosexual Men Needlessly and Ongoingly Makeout. NOMNOMNOM.

Shhh. It's not a stretch. I'll make badges.

[grumpy_otter]

And here's the message from the other side! And they even titled the page "talking points!" I can't even begin to express how idiotic this is. Their claim of "harm" all boils down to --"We define marriage and nobody else can!" Idiots.



http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
Answering the Toughest Questions

Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.



I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.” :)

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

[Black_Barook!]

Why are they called marriages? Why not call all legally binding contracts of such a manner Civil-Unions?

Then any religious unions under a Church/Mosques/Other Place of Worship are called Marriages/Nikahs/Other religion-centered title.

[kiwi_tea]

Because marriage is a civic, not religious, institution.

[Amtram]

Another thing that many gay couples are doing is adopting the children who aren't getting adopted by anyone else. Older children, special needs kids, nonwhite children, and such can stay in the system until they age out, never having known a permanent home. Amazingly enough, there are some very vocal people out there who think that going from foster home to foster home, living out of a bag, and becoming homeless at 18 is a better option than being in a household with two mommies or two daddies. I think that's kind of sick and sadistic.

I've also thought along the lines that if people want to "preserve marriage," then let them. Legally, everyone will have to have a "civil union," which will grant a couple ALL the legal rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage. Then if they want to be "married," they can go to their house of worship and have a separate ceremony, which does nothing but give them an official OK from their religion. Problem solved.

And I love the slippery slope/biblical marriage pairing. "If you let two men get married, then what's to stop them from marrying animals or children?!?!?!" Well, if you let the Bible be the defining standard for marriage, what's to stop men from marrying hundreds of women and keeping others as concubines?

[happycowlover]

Why can Christianity or the church claim ownership of the term 'marriage'? They didn't invent the term or the idea.

Amtram, there's no point in trying to argue with a Christian from a religious standpoint. It's fatih; no matter how much reasoning and logic you use, they won't be swayed, even if they compherend and understand what you're saying.

Saying, "Well, the Bible also states..." won't make much difference. They'll pull out some half-assed mumbo-jumbo. Or better yet, completely deny it, ignore it, or just end the argument.

That's why we have to talk to them from a legal standpoint. We have to get them to see it from an entirely secular, legal POV. Then, we could possibly see some progress.

[fakepeeps7]

NOM's basic argument seems to be that the main goal of marriage is to provide a mommy and a daddy to children. But not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Does that mean that, if those people don't plan on having or adopting any children, they should be banned from getting married (and lose out on all the rights that go along with marriage)?

There are already lots of different reasons why people get married. Sometimes it's to start a family. Sometimes it's for immigration purposes. Sometimes it's just because two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives (or at least the next little while -- let's be realistic here) with each other. It sounds like NOM is the one trying to redefine marriage... not gays and lesbians (and their supporters).

[happycowlover]

NOM's basic argument seems to be that the main goal of marriage is to provide a mommy and a daddy to children. But not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Does that mean that, if those people don't plan on having or adopting any children, they should be banned from getting married (and lose out on all the rights that go along with marriage)?

There are already lots of different reasons why people get married. Sometimes it's to start a family. Sometimes it's for immigration purposes. Sometimes it's just because two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives (or at least the next little while -- let's be realistic here) with each other. It sounds like NOM is the one trying to redefine marriage... not gays and lesbians (and their supporters).

QFT. 100% correct.

[Vanito]

USA fundie christianity shows once again its not much less extreme than muslims trying to get the shiara in the law.

[TBot411]

Perhaps we should be more Dutch and fallow Stalin's example and simple massacre 100 Million westerners.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Perhaps we should be more Dutch and fallow Stalin's example and simple massacre 100 Million westerners.

only if that 100 million consisted of those who made such stupid/disproportionate comments.

[Doddibot]

If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy.

They say this as if polygamy is a bad thing!

[kattenijin]

Well, if you let the Bible be the defining standard for marriage, what's to stop men from marrying hundreds of women and keeping others as concubines?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. Therefore, a man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

Guess we need to throw all those rape cases out of court and hold weddings instead.

[el_flel]

If we let gays marry, then we’d open the door for polygamy.What?! Why would it mean opening the door for polygamy? How have they even linked the two?! And agreed with Doddibot, what's wrong with polygamy? Good grief, they are literally pulling cons out of thin air.

[kiwi_tea]

One gay is like two normal people.

I thought that was common knowledge.

[fakepeeps7]

One gay is like two normal people.

Then why isn't it okay for four gay people to have a group marriage? Oh... polygamy's bad, too. Darn it.

[grumpy_otter]

What?! Why would it mean opening the door for polygamy? How have they even linked the two?! And agreed with Doddibot, what's wrong with polygamy? Good grief, they are literally pulling cons out of thin air.

I think the "reasoning" is that if we redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then what will come next? Marriage to sheep?

I believe polygamy to be one of the most stable ways to create a family--as long as it is not exclusively polygyny, as some religions have promoted--because of the expanded possibilities for support and nurture. (But I don't think the western world is ready to embrace it quite yet!)

[Vanito]

I think the "reasoning" is that if we redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then what will come next? Marriage to sheep?

I believe polygamy to be one of the most stable ways to create a family--as long as it is not exclusively polygyny, as some religions have promoted--because of the expanded possibilities for support and nurture. (But I don't think the western world is ready to embrace it quite yet!)
Thats the "scare tactic" christian reasoning. Just like.. if we legalize people keeping cats as pets.. what will be next.. people keeping crocodiles???

[Amtram]

Oh, and the whole "marriage is for procreation" hoo-ha is quite the joke, also. If homosexuals can't marry because they can't procreate, then anyone who can't or doesn't want to procreate should also not be allowed to marry. After menopause, all women will have to divorce. Infertile? Marriage is null and void. Don't want to have kids? No ceremony for you! Bah.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

What?! Why would it mean opening the door for polygamy? How have they even linked the two?! And agreed with Doddibot, what's wrong with polygamy? Good grief, they are literally pulling cons out of thin air.

" evel knievel couldn't have made that leap! " - bill engvall.

i guess the same way you could raise someone to be gay/straight? LOL

and as far as procreation goes, there is roughly 3.8 billion people on the planet. i dont think we'll go extinct if we just stick with what we've got for a while.

[NatSoteris]

I personally hate the whole it's unnatural bit.
:|
There are many cases of animals being able to have a sexual preference, and some are gay.
You can't get any more natural then that.
Besides straight men should be happy about knowing a gay man, that's one less guy who will hit on his wife.
>D
But Homophobia is everywhere. I almost got suspended from school for wearing a shirt that said "I know what Girls like"

[kiwi_tea]

Appeals to Nature aren't valid anyway. You don't need to use an appeal to nature in return to justify things. Just ask: Is homosexuality harmful?

No.

Then it doesn't matter if it's "natural" or it's not, whatever the hell that word even means.

[fakepeeps7]

and as far as procreation goes, there is roughly 3.8 billion people on the planet.

What planet are you living on? :lol:

[Oaktree]

To clarify fakepeeps' comment, the population of the world is about 6.7 billion.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

To clarify fakepeeps' comment, the population of the world is about 6.7 billion.

wikipedia lies to me, then. T_T

in any case: it was just to sound impressive. all i know for sure is that there are a LOT of us, enough so that if we didnt pop out children at every chance available, we wouldnt die out. we dont NEED every single baby that could exist, to exist.

and the attitude that every child is precious is preposterous.
if every child were truly regarded as precious, blood wouldnt matter as much as it does to most. adoption agencies would have much less children to care for. crappy parents wouldnt be nearly as popular as they are now.

far as im concerned, if gay marriage meant more adoption and less baby popping, it just adds to the list of why i endorse it.

and to answer:
What planet are you living on? :lol:

one with outdated statistic sources, apparently. :report:

[jhd1189]

Hmm... I noticed that several of you brought up polygamy in the context of this debate. Rather than continuing that here, I think it might be an appropriate topic for its own debate, if anyone would like to start a new thread.

wikipedia lies to me, then. T_T


I feel that I must defend Wikipedia's honor: "Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with almost 3.8 billion people." I think you may have just glanced at the wrong sentence. And anyway, you could always just tell people you wrote that post during the early 1970s... it would be accurate then. ;)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I feel that I must defend Wikipedia's honor: "Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with almost 3.8 billion people." I think you may have just glanced at the wrong sentence. And anyway, you could always just tell people you wrote that post during the early 1970s... it would be accurate then. ;)

entirely likely, my eyes have trouble focusing on the screen after long typing sessions. :rofl:

though either way, 6.7bil or 3.8bil is an assload of human bodies, and i think we could stand to set the limit around there. =P

[fakepeeps7]

though either way, 6.7bil or 3.8bil is an assload of human bodies, and i think we could stand to set the limit around there. =P

Agreed. I can't imagine the population getting any bigger, especially since people are tending to move toward the cities. It's already too crowded in most of them!

Unfortunately, I think the statistics are predicting that we'll hit 9 billion or so before we peak. So we're definitely in no danger of going extinct. Unless living squished like sardines leads to the spread of some massive plague that wipes out most of humanity...

[Vanito]

Agreed. I can't imagine the population getting any bigger, especially since people are tending to move toward the cities. It's already too crowded in most of them!

Unfortunately, I think the statistics are predicting that we'll hit 9 billion or so before we peak. So we're definitely in no danger of going extinct. Unless living squished like sardines leads to the spread of some massive plague that wipes out most of humanity...

Living as sardines aint bad. In some countries people have been doing it for years. Now what will happen to THOSE countries when the population keep sgrowing is another question.

[happycowlover]

Living as sardines aint bad. In some countries people have been doing it for years. Now what will happen to THOSE countries when the population keep sgrowing is another question.

I hope you were joking with that statement,

[Oaktree]

Most people find it extremely stressful to live in high population density areas. The people that usually migrate to cities are those looking for lucrative jobs and those looking for better access to social programs. For the most part, these people need to live there to get what they want. The rest of us prefer the suburbs or the country. At least, that's the way it is in the US.

[Vanito]

Most people find it extremely stressful to live in high population density areas. The people that usually migrate to cities are those looking for lucrative jobs and those looking for better access to social programs. For the most part, these people need to live there to get what they want. The rest of us prefer the suburbs or the country. At least, that's the way it is in the US.
Holland doesnt have "suburbs" like the USA has. Suburbs are the USA fix for the fact cities have become a mess. We dont need suburbs unless our cities become a mess too.

Social care is for everyone, city or small town. USA homeless shelters and food kitchens for the loads of people without chances are USA doom scenarios. Lets hope we never get those here.

[Doddibot]

Population growth is probably a topic for another thread, but I just want to say the problem isn't the lack of space. It's the lack of resources (or, more precisely, the inability of the environment to sustainably absorb our waste).

Anyway, back on topic, how about the argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't even be recognised by the state, let alone regulated by it. And if religions refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, that's up to them.

[Oaktree]

But marriage isn't a purely religious institution. Marriage exists in every society, including non-religious ones. It is simply another aspect of social interaction. It did evolve alongside religion, but so did a lot of other aspects of society. Religion may well have created the first governments, but governments do not have to be (and usually are not) religious now. Marriage is something that can be updated in the same way. Marriage is about love and stability; there is nothing exclusively religious about it. Considering the number of governmental benefits of marriage, the churches should not have sole say on whether certain people can be married. If the government is going to provide benefits for married couples, it's going to have to stick its fingers into it and regulate it, taking it out of the church's hands. The churches should still have a say in who they want to perform the ceremony for because it is their choice, but there should be options for people who can't find a church to marry them.

[fakepeeps7]

Anyway, back on topic, how about the argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't even be recognised by the state, let alone regulated by it. And if religions refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, that's up to them.

Unfortunately, marriages are recognized by the state. Marriage is not solely a religious contract. If your marriage isn't recognized by the state, there are a lot of things you might not be able to do (inherit things from your spouse, visit them in the hospital, get immigration papers... all kinds of stuff).

If religions want to refuse to accept that two people are "married" in the eyes of their church, that's their choice. But they should not have the right to deny people privileges that the government definition of marriage would give them.

[Doddibot]

You guys are absolutely right that if the government is going to give extra privileges to married folks, then they need to do this fairly. But I was making the point that the government shouldn't regulate marriage or provide benefits for marriage.

So I'm all for gays having all the extra rights of married couples, I just don't think married couples should have any extra rights. I don't care if homosexual marriage is legally recognised because I don't think heterosexual marriage should be legally recognised either.

All of these benefits given to married couples should be separate contracts (much like prenups). I see absolutely no reason that the state should have anything to do with marriage, and given the number of frustrated people unable to marry under the law, plenty of reasons for the state to just butt out of it.

[kiwi_tea]

I am tempted to agree with Doddibot, except that the marriage can be useful for pro-family social planning. Which I think can be an important function of the state. I agree, though, that in anything like it's current form, marriage discriminates against the unmarried in ways that are not really that justifiable.

[Vanito]

Marriage is usefull in the sense that it fixes all legal issues over kids at once (dads rights, inheritance, adoption etc) which is a big reason people "marry' here. (kids coming age 30 after living together for years). It's practical to have a fix-all-at-once rule, wether its called marriage or not.

For those who hate "marriage" theres "civil partnerships" too, open for both straight and gay "marriage" haters.

[Ledgo]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/massachusetts.gay.marriage/index.html

Thoughts?

[Rectos Dominos]

I have the feeling that the term Civil Unions is an attempt at being Politically Correct "so that way gays have the same benefits as straight people but don't offend those who are uncomfortable and/or against it" :rolleyes:. I saw a sign at a gay marriage protest that said I didn"t ask her to civil union me" :lol: .

[Neerie]

I have the feeling that the term Civil Unions is an attempt at being Politically Correct "so that way gays have the same benefits as straight people but don't offend those who are uncomfortable and/or against it" :rolleyes:. I saw a sign at a gay marriage protest that said I didn"t ask her to civil union me" :lol: .

While some will say "give them the right, just don't call it marriage", you have the senator of Hawaï who veto civil union bill (http://www.khon2.com/mostpopular/story/Lingle-vetoes-civil-unions-bill-watch-read-entire/xSKRejAo9EiLlMvyeUgG4Q.cspx) because it "is essentially marriage by another name" (her exact words).

She's not just against same-sex marriages, she's simply against treating people equally.

EDIT:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/massachusetts.gay.marriage/index.html

Thoughts?
This post by the prop 8 trial tracker (http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/07/08/us-federal-judge-in-massachusetts-rules-part-of-doma-is-unconstitutional/) explains what it all means better than I could.

Although I'm not an american citizen, and my word has no weight about the policies, DOMA and DADT have to go.

[Rectos Dominos]

I immediately thought of this thread when I saw this cartoon.

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8457/dumbasse.jpg (http://img710.imageshack.us/i/dumbasse.jpg/)

[Vanito]

Civil unions commonly do not hold all the rights marriages have (like adoption) and are prone to leave dicriminatory rules in. Especially in the semi-theocracy that the USA is. If christians really cant bear the though of calling gay marriage "marriage" lets all call it civil union, straight or gay.

What many USA people also dont get is that a LOT of gay couples ALREADY have children, especially lesbians. Those children are not well off under the current laws. Now a lot of nuts insane christians will rant those children are not well off anyhow.. not realizing THEY are the main reason those kids are bad off in the USA. Its annoying to see so many rant without even LOOKING at existing gay couples with children.

[Purity4]

What many USA people also dont get is that a LOT of gay couples ALREADY have children, especially lesbians.

Vanito, I would like to know where you get your information about these 'many USAians'. You tend to make blanket statements about the USA frequently, and almost always it's based upon your jaded opinion of the United States, not on fact.

[Neerie]

To Vanito's defence, he did say "many" and not "most". I think it's very safe to assume that "many USA people" don't think gay couples already have children, while I agree that if "most" had been used, a link to a statistical source would have been needed, since "most" means "a majority of".

[Vanito]

To Vanito's defence, he did say "many" and not "most". I think it's very safe to assume that "many USA people" don't think gay couples already have children, while I agree that if "most" had been used, a link to a statistical source would have been needed, since "most" means "a majority of".
I volunteered for a year in a USA based disability program and worked with many, many USA people. Many of them are narrowminded and clueless about what the average gay person is like or does. Even a large part of the category that claims to be openminded has a lot of very narrowminded and strange ideas. (compared to what I'm used to - dutch people) I never faced as much prejudice as in the year with USA people.
From all the loads of USA moms, none claims to have gay children. None. (right...) Some were pretty clear how they would deal with gay kids. Of the less evil half still a large group seemed to think homosexuality somehow could be converted. Accepting? Nah.. most would be tolerating at most. (thats how they described it themself) Some of my good USA friends (the more openminded half) were shocked that the army in holland can function without DADT. Gays able to become minister president? BIG shock. Just imagine Pim Fortuyn would have become minister-president. Majority of gay people on TV out of the closet, including very popular singers or news readers? Big shock. Even of the USA people who claim to be openminded many have these idiot ideas.

On this forum its no different with seeing the most idiotic ideas pass along. Sorry but whats posted here frequently does not add much to the idea many USA people know much about gays/bi.

My dislike for the USA in other fields comes from the same source, helping those USA people. The way the USA treats disabled people is a big, big shame.

[jooxis]

I've lived around these "USA people" for many years and I have a completely different experience, so I think you're generalizing a bit too much.

[Amtram]

It actually depends upon where you live, what the demographic is. Even in Texas, there are small pockets of tolerance, and even acceptance. However, the fact that proposed laws of all stripes that contradict the agenda of the religious right in America are regularly voted down by a substantial margin in predictable geographic areas shows that there's a lot of intolerance in this country.

When people get all the information they need to know from a single media source, and are surrounded by other people who get all the information they need to know from the same source, and they spread it all among their friends, you're going to get a lot of guanophrenia (one of my favorite proposed new words for the OED - push for it! It means "bats**t insane") in a small space.

[DarkCougar555]

I want to point out something too. Not all GBLT people are amoral, sex obsession, sluts, and so on. So I don't understand why some people thought they are. I do think some GBLT people have their innocent minds and want clean stuff too (arts, porn free, clean romance, etc etc). If straights have good morals and prefer clean stuff, then gays do too. I don't think gay parents always will give a bad influence on their kids. If straights can be good parents, then gays are too! Both straight and gay are absolutely no different. I just don't get people... :|

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I volunteered for a year in a USA based disability program and worked with many, many USA people. Many of them are narrowminded and clueless about what the average gay person is like or does. Even a large part of the category that claims to be openminded has a lot of very narrowminded and strange ideas. (compared to what I'm used to - dutch people) I never faced as much prejudice as in the year with USA people.
From all the loads of USA moms, none claims to have gay children. None. (right...) Some were pretty clear how they would deal with gay kids. Of the less evil half still a large group seemed to think homosexuality somehow could be converted. Accepting? Nah.. most would be tolerating at most. (thats how they described it themself) Some of my good USA friends (the more openminded half) were shocked that the army in holland can function without DADT. Gays able to become minister president? BIG shock. Just imagine Pim Fortuyn would have become minister-president. Majority of gay people on TV out of the closet, including very popular singers or news readers? Big shock. Even of the USA people who claim to be openminded many have these idiot ideas.

On this forum its no different with seeing the most idiotic ideas pass along. Sorry but whats posted here frequently does not add much to the idea many USA people know much about gays/bi.

My dislike for the USA in other fields comes from the same source, helping those USA people. The way the USA treats disabled people is a big, big shame.

sorry jooxis, but i have to agree with him.
im no patriot, but i dont hate the country either.
from what ive seen in my town...my town isnt rowdy, and its not a big city. in fact, id say its pinnacle of interest is a mall that really isnt all that large.

now that being said, i have to agree that i am ashamed at how people view difference as unconditionally negative.

hell, sex ed is in the shitter because even "normal" things are somehow construed as taboo and wrong. imagine how much worse people who deviate from that ideal have it. ive seen it first hand.

example is that in one cooking class i took, i was seated next to a disabled boy named Adam.
now, adam was pretty mild as far as disabled people go. i dont know what he had, but he couldnt bend his arm out all the way, was pretty much restrained to an electric wheelchair, and was...less than sharp about certain things. friend guy, though, like a child that just wanted to make people happy.

you wouldnt have known it, though. not by the way people looked at him and whispered about him and said really ignorant, downright mean things about him.
during the time i sat beside him, i wasnt entirely sure of how to regard him either, but after talking with his caretaker i found there really was even less for me to worry about than i had before.
now, did anyone else take the time to ask or listen?
not unless i first 'indicated' in some way that no, he wasnt going to leap out of his chair and start biting people left and right.

it was sad.
it was sad, because this boy was harmless. naturally a cheerful person, from what i could see. maybe a bit slow on the uptake, but there wasnt any of that ill intent to be feared.
yet people still alienated him. treated him like he was a rock or something from a different planet. not even human.

same way people regard most homosexuals ive encountered.
soon as they realize youre gay, either they get the lynchin gear out or they treat you like youre a different species altogether. like you eat different food or have rituals before you go to bed each night to--i dont know, keep The Gay from spreading to the neighborhood. i dont know--point is, what Vanito says is unpleasant.
but its true.
america has a LONG way to go before it can preach an overall tolerance and/or acceptance for those who are naturally different from what is perceived as average.

[Oaktree]

My experiences are quite the opposite. There was a girl in my choir class in high school who was wheelchair-bound. She seemed to be nearly paralyzed because she could only move her arms slightly, very slowly, and very shakily, and couldn't move her legs at all. She was intelligent and extremely nice, though, and everyone in choir liked her. A couple of the other girls would sometimes help her carry her things or open a snack package for her and other things like that. She was treated nicely because she was extremely nice to others.

My high school classmates were nothing like the high school stereotypes; there weren't any cliques, people were generally polite if not downright nice to others, and most people were more worried about grades and extra-curriculars than popularity. I was in a science and tech program, so I realize that it wasn't representative of the general population, but my point is that several hundred students were able to get along together with very little pettiness and intolerance. My high school was able to have a very open gay-straight alliance and I never heard any ill spoken of it. There were several physically handicapped students and a few mentally handicapped students and people were polite to them.

I find college is even better. The people I have met are far too busy with their own goals and responsibilities to devote any time to pettiness. I go to a very culturally diverse school that also has a program that provides a higher education of sorts to mentally handicapped students. Once a year, the gay-straight alliance posts signs all over campus expressing pride for various homosexual historical figures. It's not a utopia, but people are generally polite and sensible here.

I live and go to school on the East Coast, which is generally considered more liberal and diverse. I've never been to the South, which, from my understanding, is where most of the intolerance is, so I don't really see a lot of the intolerance that people complain existing in the US. The legislators haven't really caught up to the general population in tolerance (as demonstrated by the removal of homosexuality as a protected class by the governor of Virginia), but people really don't seem to care that much about other people's quirks here.

[kattenijin]

Marriage is not solely a religious contract.

So far, in no country that I've looked up is the institution even remotely a religious contract. No country ( or subsection of one) accepts a marriage as being valid without the properly executed CIVIL documentation.

While a CEREMONY may have religious components, it is not the ceremony that confers the state of being married. In many places, a person performing a ceremony without the civil documentation can be fined and/or imprisioned for "false marriage".

[comradebunny]

I have a very diverse and interesting family. Our extended family has members of every race and a various countries. When my sister came out of the closet, the only person to say anything was my grandmother (but she also refused to attend my brother's wedding because my sister-in-law is African-American). Nobody else cared.

My sister is planning to get married in the coming year. The thing is, she still has a husband. They remain married because it allows my sister's girlfriend to have a say if anything happens to my sister. My parents love and support my sister, but she still worries that they may pull something if she is hurt. My sister and brother-in-law are best friends. It's an odd situation, I know, but it is where they find themselves. If my sister could legally get married, this odd situation would disappear.

The really funny thing is that my brother and sister-in-law have had more people say nasty things to them than my sister and her girlfriend. Also, I just have to add that my mother said when she was young it was unheard of for a Protestant to marry a Catholic in her town.

[grumpy_otter]

I was getting confused trying to detangle all those relationships. . . but it sounds like you have a great family! And aside from grammy, sounds like everybody is adjusting. Which is a telling point--things change as time goes on; the older generation is resistant, but the young people still keep doing their thing.

What's really interesting to me is that the interracial couple gets more comments than the gay couple--are these comments from strangers or people who know y'all?

[whiterider]

Oaktree, Vanito, SuicidiaParasidia etc. - I don't think this phenomenon of some areas being very accepting and some very guanophrenic (thankyou Amtram :D ) is really restricted to the USA. What you've been describing between you is a global picture - some parts of some countries, like NL and certain parts of the UK, tend to be populated by people who don't really care if a person is gay, straight, disabled or purple; and some others, such as Poland, parts of Spain and, yes, parts of the US are very prone to close-mindedness and irrational phobia of people who are different.

You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.

[fakepeeps7]

You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.

The U.S. kind of confuses me. I don't understand how the individual states can have so much power that some of them can say yes or no to gay marriage... given that some of the things that are affected by marriage (such as taxes) are governed on a federal level.

So, I mean, I can understand the support for gay marriage being different in different places. It's like that in Canada, even though it's recognized by law in every province. But the legality in the U.S.? Shouldn't that be something that's either yay or nay at the federal level?

[Oaktree]

The U.S. kind of confuses me. I don't understand how the individual states can have so much power that some of them can say yes or no to gay marriage... given that some of the things that are affected by marriage (such as taxes) are governed on a federal level.

So, I mean, I can understand the support for gay marriage being different in different places. It's like that in Canada, even though it's recognized by law in every province. But the legality in the U.S.? Shouldn't that be something that's either yay or nay at the federal level?

The US government is set up so that some things are governed at the state level. This is more efficient, as the state generally has better knowledge of its people's needs than the federal government. Generally the larger and more far-flung the government is, the harder it is to fine tune to the needs of the people. The difficulty is in determining which things are appropriate to govern at state vs. federal level. Everyone has a different opinion, so it's sort of a patchwork of everyone's ideas.

[Nekowolf]

@fakepeeps

Though on the other hand, homosexuality could be constitutionally protected; in which case banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, thereby illegal. The US Constitution, of course, applying at a federal level. I think a judge actually ruled that not too long ago.

Ah, here it is: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/massachusetts.gay.marriage/index.html

[fakepeeps7]

Though on the other hand, homosexuality could be constitutionally protected; in which case banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, thereby illegal. The US Constitution, of course, applying at a federal level. I think a judge actually ruled that not too long ago.

Based on that ruling, though, you could conceivably have states that will never allow gays to marry. My question is not whether states are allowed to make these rules, but why.

[Nekowolf]

Mm, if it went to a Supreme Court level (or maybe just federal? I dunno, I'm unfamiliar with the court system) and they agreed, then all states have to allow gay marriage. They have to.

As for why...

The Founding Fathers, from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), wanted a balance of state and federal governments. It's the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So basically, the reason with gay marriage is it has yet to be found as a protected status under the US Constitution at a federal level, unlike race. Therefore, it is a state power whether to allow or ban gay marriage.

[Vanito]

Oaktree, Vanito, SuicidiaParasidia etc. - I don't think this phenomenon of some areas being very accepting and some very guanophrenic (thankyou Amtram :D ) is really restricted to the USA. What you've been describing between you is a global picture - some parts of some countries, like NL and certain parts of the UK, tend to be populated by people who don't really care if a person is gay, straight, disabled or purple; and some others, such as Poland, parts of Spain and, yes, parts of the US are very prone to close-mindedness and irrational phobia of people who are different.

You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.
It depends what you consider to be "developed". Compare West Europe to the USA, and the USA is much more intolerant towards homosexuals, in comparison to its over-all modernness.

Would you rtry and add east Europe to try and balance the number in favor of the USA, numbers will turn since Europe gained many extra countries fast from the former USSR. Most of those countries have been oppressed by the former USSR for years, are backwards in many ways. However, these countries may be considered "backwards" in all values, not just homosexuality.

The USA is often said to have a 'doube standard'; divorces are treated the way modern countries do, but when it comes to homosexuality, the USA is not that modern.

So yeah, when comparing the USA to Afrika, etc, its numbers are no shock; and the USA can cheer its not that intolerant towards homosexuals!

However compared to equally -modern- countries the USA does crappily. It just depends where you draw the line for 'modern'.

Count Afrika as "modern" and the USA all of a sudden is a heaven of peace, but thats not what this debate about the USA-intolerance for homosexuality is about.

[omgrawr213]

Why is it always "about the children"? sure, none of us would be here without a mother and father (whether separated or together), but we ARE given the right to live as we please, so why doesn't the law get with the program as well?

What if you don't want to have children? There are a lot of couples (straight or gay) that don't want a kid, which is for some reason some foreign mindset to America (apparently; not to me though... or maybe this is all some terrible conservative brainwashing telling us all we have to raise children, or else God will damn us all, end off-topic rant). I think it would be pretty pathetic to hear of a couple that solely marries to produce children, and for no other reason, though for ages this was the case. But it's about love now, not just kids.
Sure, the Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply," but with an exponentially increasing population, does EVERYONE have to have children? My answer? No.
There are plenty of people on the Earth already, not to say that we should all stop makin' babies nao.

[Safyre420]

So basically, the reason with gay marriage is it has yet to be found as a protected status under the US Constitution at a federal level, unlike race. Therefore, it is a state power whether to allow or ban gay marriage.

As I've told my friends, parents and some other people, my rights to marry will ALWAYS be limited unless the federal government steps in. Which sadly they won't do because they don't want to piss off their constituents, which really is sad. But luckily the federal government won't step in for the other side either so maybe there is at least a little hope that one day before I die all states will allow gay marriage.

From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.

[Vanito]

As I've told my friends, parents and some other people, my rights to marry will ALWAYS be limited unless the federal government steps in. Which sadly they won't do because they don't want to piss off their constituents, which really is sad. But luckily the federal government won't step in for the other side either so maybe there is at least a little hope that one day before I die all states will allow gay marriage.

From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.

Do you really think the average USA christian would let you get marriage when you have a civil union? Never.

[Simsica]

Would you rtry and add east Europe to try and balance the number in favor of the USA, numbers will turn since Europe gained many extra countries fast from the former USSR. Most of those countries have been oppressed by the former USSR for years, are backwards in many ways. However, these countries may be considered "backwards" in all values, not just homosexuality.

Being a person from one of these "backward" countries, I'd like to see this statement supported with some evidence, since this statement provoked a rather strong reaction in me.

I think some sort of an apology to any one person from these countries reading this thread is in order.

[Vanito]

Being a person from one of these "backward" countries, I'd like to see this statement supported with some evidence, since this statement provoked a rather strong reaction in me.

I think some sort of an apology to any one person from these countries reading this thread is in order.
- Less modern ideas about society, as in compared to the west.
- Less advanced and poorer.
- For the former USSR countries: less time to adapt to the rest of the world too.
- And poor Moldova as a third world country.

I am sorry if the word 'backwards' offends you, no harm is meant.

[jooxis]

I'm from one of these backwards countries and it really sucks in regards to gay rights, tolerance of any kind, etc...

[Safyre420]

Do you really think the average USA christian would let you get marriage when you have a civil union? Never.

Actually yes I do, when the advocates for gay marriage started jumping for marriage that gave the bigots the chance to use fear against them, by going the civil union route first, they would still use fear against them but it would be a hell of a lot less effective. Fear is after all religion's best weapon.

[grumpy_otter]

From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.

The problem with "civil union" is that it is basically "separate but equal," and we've already determined that is unconstitutional.

If civil unions were allowed, I can see future problems with states trying to deny rights based on that.

[Safyre420]

The problem with "civil union" is that it is basically "separate but equal," and we've already determined that is unconstitutional.

If civil unions were allowed, I can see future problems with states trying to deny rights based on that.

Being gay myself, I really could care less, yes I know I'm like the minority, but I'm looking at the best course of action with the bigoted americans, civil union would've been the best course of action, it could've been dealt with at a federal level with relatively little fuss and less "OMG DEATH OF MARRIAGE!!!!11111ONE". Sometimes you have to take baby steps to get what you deserve.

ETA:
By going the civil union route, you effectively remove ALL religious connotations with it, you keep it exclusively secular. The religious CANNOT touch that under the US Constitution. Yes, it would've been separate but equal but it would've been a step to the ultimate goal of marriage. While I'm not particularly upset with the advocates going directly for "marriage" they could've went for civil unions when the whole gay marriage crap started, and then started pushing for marriage.

More Edit:
While America claims to be secular, we really aren't considering that the majority of our government is Christian, Christian morals, values and views will inevitably penetrate law, there is no helping that. It's coming from both the democrats and the republicans. For the most part America is a Christian country, whether we like to believe it or not, we are.

[Nekowolf]

Actually, I would like to make something clear.

Civil unions are different than marriages. They are not the same. Civil unions lack the same rights and privileges as marriage. So, yeah, they're not even equal.

Basically, civil unions are like... Marriage Lite.

[Safyre420]

Actually, I would like to make something clear.

Civil unions are different than marriages. They are not the same. Civil unions lack the same rights and privileges as marriage. So, yeah, they're not even equal.

Basically, civil unions are like... Marriage Lite.

Yes that may be true, but by going the civil union route, that could've changed with the accepting of gay civil unions. While luckily the FMA didn't pass when it was introduced, it would've discriminated against straights and gays alike, it would've affected those with common law marriages and such like that as well as gays.

I personally would've accepted a marriage lite, over real marriage for the reasons I stated earlier.

[thetinhouse]

So yeah, when comparing the USA to Afrika, etc, its numbers are no shock; and the USA can cheer its not that intolerant towards homosexuals!

However compared to equally -modern- countries the USA does crappily. It just depends where you draw the line for 'modern'.

Count Afrika as "modern" and the USA all of a sudden is a heaven of peace, but thats not what this debate about the USA-intolerance for homosexuality is about.

If you are going to use Africa as part of your argument, lets get some facts straight. Africa extends from the Northern Islamic countries right down to South Africa. Africa is made up of a huge number of countries and each has its own consitition and laws with regard to a wide variety of social issues.

In South Africa, gays are permitted to legally marry, which means they are able to claim from each others company medical benefits, pension fund, life insurance policies ect, they are permitted to adopt children, raise children and fight for custody of children, no discrimination is tolerated with regards to sexual orientation in the workplace, or the courts, or society. They have the same rights as any other couple, as any other citizen. In fact discrimination of any kind is frowned upon. So please dont use the whole of Africa as an example of bigotry and prejudice.

Ooopppps..... did I mention too that almost 75% of the country affiliate themselves with the Christian faith? Not bad for an 'unmodern' or 'backward' continent populated by 'bigoted homophobic' Christians! Another stereotype shot to h**l.

Stereotyping and generalisations are almost always inaccurate, and are used to death in debate.

And, I apologise if I seem a bit snippy its because it is SO tiring when people speak with knowledge about people or countries they so obviously have never bothered to check out first hand. We all just get lumped together in a great big ball of assumptions. The more I read others opinions, the more I thank God I live where I do.....amongst those who find it uncool to discriminate against someone just because of their sexual orientation, social standing or the religion they choose to follow.

[Safyre420]

If you are going to use Africa as part of your argument, lets get some facts straight. Africa extends from the Northern Islamic countries right down to South Africa. Africa is made up of a huge number of countries and each has its own consitition and laws with regard to a wide variety of social issues.

In South Africa, gays are permitted to legally marry, which means they are able to claim from each others company medical benefits, pension fund, life insurance policies ect, they are permitted to adopt children, raise children and fight for custody of children, no discrimination is tolerated with regards to sexual orientation in the workplace, or the courts, or society. They have the same rights as any other couple, as any other citizen. In fact discrimination of any kind is frowned upon. So please dont use the whole of Africa as an example of bigotry and prejudice.

Ooopppps..... did I mention too that almost 75% of the country affiliate themselves with the Christian faith? Not bad for an 'unmodern' or 'backward' continent populated by 'bigoted homophobic' Christians! Another stereotype shot to h**l.

Stereotyping and generalisations are almost always inaccurate, and are used to death in debate.

And, I apologise if I seem a bit snippy its because it is SO tiring when people speak with knowledge about people or countries they so obviously have never bothered to check out first hand. We all just get lumped together in a great big ball of assumptions. The more I read others opinions, the more I thank God I live where I do.....amongst those who find it uncool to discriminate against someone just because of their sexual orientation, social standing or the religion they choose to follow.

Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.

[Vanito]

Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.Compared to the rest South Afrika sounds pretty cool. I wonder why no gaysite ever has given this country attention.

Lets not get too enthusiastic about Afrika though - in 38 countries homosexuality is ILLEGAL and in Mauritania, Sudan, and northern Nigeria, homosexuality can be punishable by DEATH. Afrika is quite retarded when it comes to homosexuality. http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf

This South Afrikan dude however catches attention in a positive way:

In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on 18 November 2007, Tutu accused the church of being obsessed with homosexuality and declared: "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

Tutu has lent his name to the fight against homophobia in Africa and around the world. He stated at the launching of the book 'Sex, Love and Homophobia' that homophobia is a 'crime against humanity' and 'every bit as unjust' as apartheid. He added that "we struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins...It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

Now if USA christians (or the rest of Afrika) would go a bit more like this... "just as bad as racism"... "crime against humanity".. "if god would be homophobic I would not worship him".... Thumbs up for this guy.

[thetinhouse]

Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.

Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?

A lot of African countries have traditional faiths and laws that come from ancient times and most times homophobic teachings were already in place long before first world cultures/religion arrived here. Dutch, British and French settlers arrived and brought their own prejudices and wrote them into law. Prejudice is not unique to any one religion or culture, it is not exclusively aimed at homosexuality either, it rears its ugly head against race, gender and religion as so many demonstrate. Prejudice has little to do with any of those things and everything to do with the individual. If enough individuals spread enough poison others are influenced, and if enough are influenced by that poison........well, you get judgement and fear and vicitmisation that has no basis in reality and is undeserved.

@ Vanito, thank you for your positive comment.
I am pleased you quoted form Archbishop Desmond Tutu, he is a man of God who fought for peaceful change in my country and had the grace to back off with his critisism when he saw change come about. That change only happened when opposing sides stopped judging and stereotyping each other and worked together for the greater good of the country and its people, we are all equal and protected, in the eyes of the law, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and yes, even religion. That is exactly how it should be.

[Safyre420]

Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?

I got the impression that you were stating that the majority of countries in Africa were Islamic, that's my bad. But either way, this from the predominately christian country of Uganda....http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946645,00.html <-- that can be blamed on christian bigotry and human bigotry for that matter.

[fakepeeps7]

In light of the recent decision on Prop 8, our news networks ran some stories about gay marriage here in Canada. There were some interesting facts...

We got legal same-sex marriage in 2005. Unlike in the U.S.A., marriage is the responsibility of the federal government... not the individual provinces. A few provinces did not allow same-sex marriage before 2005; I'm not sure how that worked, but that's probably part of what led to the 2005 ruling.

The most interesting thing, though, was that as little as five years earlier, the government had declared marriage to be between one man and one woman. Five years! That is one speedy change... and I don't see us turning back. I think even the people who don't agree with the concept have realized that it doesn't affect them and their marriages at all. They're responsible for the success or failure of their marriages... not the gays.

If we can do it in five years, surely the "greatest nation on earth" can get their act together and make something happen. Of course, by leaving the decision to individual states, it's going to take longer. But I do wonder how many years it will be before it isn't a huge freaking hassle to marry the person you love.

[Nekowolf]

Well, if the case goes to Supreme Court, like predicted, and they rule in favor of gay marriage being Constitutionally protected (in spite of some of their other rulings that questions their nonpartisanship, they DID rule against Texas, saying sodomy could not be outlawed), then it wouldn't matter. All states would HAVE to recognize gay marriage. It would nullify the gay-marriage-is-illegal laws that are out there.

[Safyre420]

If we can do it in five years, surely the "greatest nation on earth" can get their act together and make something happen. Of course, by leaving the decision to individual states, it's going to take longer. But I do wonder how many years it will be before it isn't a huge freaking hassle to marry the person you love.

Which is another reason why I think that the gay marriage advocates should've went with "civil union" instead of marriage, we'd have gotten it sooner and at a federal level because it is exclusively secular. Which in turn would make it slightly easier(not much but slightly) to get marriage later on at a federal level without too much interference.

[whiterider]

Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?This is essentially my original point - both Africa and the US are in a situation which involves huge variations in attitude (and in religion) depending on the region. South Africa is certainly one of the richest and most developed african nations; so I can understand Vanito's point about homophobia being mainly a property of less developed nations - except, of course, for the US; and it does seem, of late, that development and liberalism go hand in hand in most places.

I guess this matches with the stereotype of the southern US states being both very homophobic and very technologically "backwards" - with little infrastructure, much more blue collar industry than elsewhere etc. I don't know if this is an accurate conception though - can anyone who's lived in the south of the US confirm or deny it?

[Safyre420]

I guess this matches with the stereotype of the southern US states being both very homophobic and very technologically "backwards" - with little infrastructure, much more blue collar industry than elsewhere etc. I don't know if this is an accurate conception though - can anyone who's lived in the south of the US confirm or deny it?

Be glad to since I live somewhat in the south, northern south but still the south, still in the bible belt lol

The area that I live in is generally more progressive than say hardcore rural mountain virginia or rural tennessee(yes this is where I'm basing all this from). We have a rather strong economy in this area, our infrastructure is good, the economic debacle didn't really affect us that much here. Coal mining, from what I know, is the largest industry in the area here. Technologically, we're probably better off than most where I am specifically, but go say 2 miles away from where I live and you can barely get DSL let alone Cable internet. For the most part everyone here is southern baptist, the whole gay hate thing doesn't seem to be as prevalent as I remember it being when I was in high school, after high school it was like a whole completely other world. But the general stance for gays and gay marriage that I've gathered from those around here(even them hardcore southern baptists in the area) is pretty much "to each their own" and "hit on me and I'll shoot you" but that seems pretty common with the "treat my daughter badly and I'll shoot you" crowd. They are generally accepting of it as long as they don't have to see it kind of thing.

[thetinhouse]

They are generally accepting of it as long as they don't have to see it kind of thing. So true! And true of most people!

[Vanito]

So true! And true of most people!
Which means: they are ok if it happens elsewhere. Not in their own community, not their own kids.

[LikieSimmy203]

Is this an actual argument? I'm just wondering...I have noticed though that most of the Sims players like the fact that there is no discrimination in the games. That is the beauty of these games... it is almost like real life except instead of talking Sh**ty gossip and hating everyone, there is mostly good and if the sims hate each other is for normal reasons... like cheating, or stealing someones grilled cheese sandwich. =D. Anyways... this will always be an argument with everyone unless all the smart, open-mided(I hate this phrase) people go and start fresh. no hate, discrimination, or any of the such. I love this game because it's not like a war game or anything... you control someone you make up and you can determine their fate. Mostly everyone in this thread post thingy does not hate gays right? well good.... then i guess that's it. Happy simming people!

[spotlight-shure]

Love is love. It's a gift if you are able to find true love and keep it. Does it really matter who someone else loves? Is it really hurting you? If it bothers you so much, drop dead, because someone else loving someone is no judgment of yours.

[LikieSimmy203]

Love is love. It's a gift if you are able to find true love and keep it. Does it really matter who someone else loves? Is it really hurting you? If it bothers you so much, drop dead, because someone else loving someone is no judgment of yours.

well said. well said.

[ElementMK]

Gays should have the right to vote, but we shouldn't call it "voting" for them. We'll call it "supporting", and make them cast their ballots on a different form. We don't want our fellow Americans to think that gays are electing our leaders!

*ahem*

Gays should have the right to marry, but we shouldn't call it "marriage" for them. We'll call it a "civil union", and give them different certificates from the state. We don't want our fellow Americans to think that gays are getting married!

[Rawra]

Gays are human beings. And with that, I said everything.

[funcioná!!!]

You forgot to mention Argentina. The same sex marriage law was approved on July. Of course the Church said that it was an intervention of the devil, and people talked about it for days on TV shows.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, Element Leaf.

[imaeatyaface]

Gay marriage and gay people aren't hurting anyone. I don't really see the big deal and I'm a fairly religious person (by 'fairly religious' I mean that I pray before I go to bed, I believe in God, etc. I'm Catholic, if it matters). Just because you don't like it, or it doesn't work for you doesn't mean you have to take away the rights from a whole community of people. They act as if it's the persons fault they're gay, it's not. You can't help who you love. Don't you think it would be better for homosexuals to marry someone they love rather than live a life of lies which eventually leads to heartbreak and an unceremonious outing? The whole "but if we let gays marry, what's next? pedophilia, bestiality etc" argument is funny because I don't see how gay marriage relates to ANY of them. Pedophiles marrying children and people marrying their dogs will most likely not ever be allowed (at least, I hope not...).

TL;DR there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and marriage isn't a heterosexual privilege.

[ElementMK]

The whole "but if we let gays marry, what's next? pedophilia, bestiality etc" argument is funny because I don't see how gay marriage relates to ANY of them. Pedophiles marrying children and people marrying their dogs will most likely not ever be allowed (at least, I hope not...).Don't be ridiculous! Remember when America banned the ownership of slaves, and then they banned the ownership of livestock soon after? It's a downwards spiral, I tell you!

[jooxis]

Actually I see it quite possible that "ownership of livestock" becomes a thing of the past in a few hundred years (within modern societies), with animal rights slowly advancing. I don't think it's a bad thing though.

Ok that was so off topic, but then again everything has already been already said in this topic in the very first post. :D

[Nekowolf]

@Element Leaf

Soon we will be in the hands of Obama's tyranny! The camps, oh the camps! And America... WILL BE A MUSLIM NATION! A GAY MUSLIM NATION!

They will come for our guns! And our Bibles! And the guns we hide in our Bibles!

(couldn't help adding on to it :P )

[Bchbch Walk]

Gay.

Why is it such a big deal?

There's nothing wrong with it.

[northside down]

Jooxis,

It may not necessarily be animal rights alone that makes livestock ownership a thing of the past, but rather, stem cell research. Specifically, it is already theoretically possible to, basically, grow meat in a vat, by using stem cells to produce muscle tissue. This meat will be easier to control in regard to fat content, and once mass production is economical, it may inevitably replace the idea of livestock. Since meat in a vat doesn't have a face or a brain, it's perfectly humane, because they don't feel pain. (I'm a rapper like T-Pain. My rhymes are so lame, but I like playing this game. Word)

Nekowolf,

Isn't a "gay muslim nation" contradictory?

[kattenijin]

Pedophiles marrying children and people marrying their dogs will most likely not ever be allowed (at least, I hope not...).

Technically, it is currently possible for a pedophile to marry a child in the US, depending on the state. Many states require only parental consent under the age of 16 (sometimes 18, and in two states 19 and 21), although some require a judge's permission, and in some states you can't marry under the age of 14. At one time, the youngest age was 12, which is, what? Junor High (Middle School)? Sounds quite pedophiliac to me.

If Mr. Pedo can get Mommy and Daddy's permission (Bribes maybe?), little Sarah-Jane could be a Mommy too next year.

[whiterider]

Isn't a "gay muslim nation" contradictory?Actually, I know a gay muslim man who goes to Bible study every few months. People are truly a rainbow :p .

[Lemon&Lime]

I don't know if this has been posted yet....

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

[Rectos Dominos]

Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Because we'll use our hockey sticks :lol:.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Oh shit I just got off work today :faceslap:. It is still Sunday in my time right now.

[Nekowolf]

Sorry, these are taken from my notes on a story I was writing, so they were meant just for me, but:

Exodus 21:7 - daughter slavery

Exodus 35:2 - work on the Sabbath, put to death

Corinthians 11:14 - long hair is disgraceful

Leviticus 15:19-30 - women on periods are unclean, and so is everything they touch

Leviticus 18:19-20 - do not approach woman for sex if on her period

Leviticus 20:18 - banishment if you have sex with woman on her period

Leviticus 21:9 - if daughter of priest becomes whore, she must be burned

Corinthians 14:34-35 - women must stay quiet during "church meeting"

Leviticus 11:10 - shellfish are bad

Proverbs 13:24 - beat your son, it's "love"

Matthew 5:29 - something about eye gouging

Deuteronomy 22:5 - no cross-dresssing

Matthew 23:9 - call no one your father

[whiterider]

Some of those are nicked from a positively fantastic episode of West Wing, Lemon&Lime.

[Lemon&Lime]

Are they really? Hmmm. Or perhaps they were in West Wing because they're really well-known? That letter went viral over email several years ago and has appeared in several newspapers, blogs, etc since. No one knows who wrote it. Two or three people were credited with it but that was purely because they signed the email with their name automatically and then that was forwarded on too. One journalist claimed it as her own and edited the words and was fired from the newspaper she worked for.

Dr Laura does exist though, and after that letter went viral she responded directly to it - apologizing for what she said.

[Tempscire]

Technically, it is currently possible for a pedophile to marry a child in the US, depending on the state. Many states require only parental consent under the age of 16 (sometimes 18, and in two states 19 and 21), although some require a judge's permission, and in some states you can't marry under the age of 14. At one time, the youngest age was 12, which is, what? Junor High (Middle School)? Sounds quite pedophiliac to me.

Off topic, but pedophiles go for pre-pubescent children. What you describe, though inadvisable and strange and suspicious in modern society, would be better classified as ephebophilia or hebephilia. It's definitely not uncommon throughout history in pretty much all societies, and strictly biologically speaking, there's nothing wrong with being attracted to an individual who displays secondary sex characteristics.

[geallach]

I'm glad to see that the thread went back to how to counter arguments against gay people. I was starting to think that the only counter being offered was "Christians are bigots". Countering one form of intolerance with another. Yeah, that's not a contradiction at all. :rolleyes:

I reckon that those who hate gay people do so because they find it unnatural, uncomfortable or even repulsive, but use something like religion or children's rights to cover it. After all, there are lots of religious people who are tolerate of homosexuals, and indeed, there are many religious homosexuals. People who are intolerant will always try to find some way of defending it.

Part of the problem is that, subconsciously, society treats being gay as something seperate, rather than normal. Not necessarily as bad, but as seperate nonetheless. Civil marriage is a real flash point around this; civil rights is equal, but marriage is...what, more equal? As for homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children, I say, look at all the parents who abuse children. If a child is adopted by a couple who love him/her, and who treat him/her properly, their sexuality does not matter.

Finally, I also have a gripe with entire groups of countries being branded as being this or that. I come from a country that is often accused of being backward, I know what it feels like. Not many former USSR countries are very poor, and just because they were part of it does not mean that their thinking is backward. I also reckon Russia would have a contention with being accused of being poor, what with being a superpower and all.

[Simsica]

Unfortunatelly, contradictions are very hard to avoid. And they are everywhere. I personally don't see anything contradictory in tolerant people rejecting intolerance in others. As long as they do it to enlarge the tolerance I see it as a necessary thing to do.

Religious people oppose many things they shouldn't, by the tenets of the very religion they swear on, be opposing . I was raised Christian Catholic, and I was tought about God's love. Even if I'm not religious anymore and don't go to church and stuff, I still admire and uphold Christ's teachings. I just don't see anywhere in his words or deeds anything that would justify any intolerance, except the intolerance of the intolerance itself! That's the reason why I believe that this very Christian simbol of faith and indeed their God - Christ - is a figure that can effectivelly be used to fight any form of Christian intolerance.

It was used against slavery - the argument that every person is a child of God, for instance came very early in modern day (last couple of centuries) slavery history. This kind of argument underlines each our view of the world, wether we are practicisng Christians or not. Religion is like that - it permeats all of the society on all levels, it is the corner stone of its respective culture. I wouldn't know much about Islam but I'd imagine they too have arguments against intolerance rooted deep in their beleif systems and stemming from the very religion that at times seems so intolerant, just like Christian religion does.

What I know of the history of civil society's progress, it too shares many tenets with Christian religion - this is not contradictory, it's a matter of historical development and cultural belonging. So I say - and in my private dealings with the people I deem intolerant, I always do this, when I feel tolerant enough, at least - let's fight Christian intolerance using their own God's intolerance for intolerance. This strategy is well suited to actually get their attention, and I believe it's working, and - in my private dealings - since I myself acknowledge Christ's teachings as a very important part of my own belief and moral system, when I apply it I myself come out as honest and this goes a long way in any private communication.

As for a global solution, since religion is, as I said, such an important, even if often unconscious, part of Western (or, I'd imagine) any other culture - it lends itself to the task on this level as easy as it does on the interpersonal level. This strategy would itself show tolerance for the religion on the part of all, even non-religious, tolerance advocates so the contradiction (of them behaving intolerantly in fighting intolerance in others) would be minimized.

Of course, anyone attempting this "global solution" should, in Sims 2 terms, have many, many friends in high enough places, as well as have their Charisma and Creativity skills maxed, and have at least 6 personality points in their Nice tab :) I myself often fall short of this as my grouchy self (more often than not) soon takes over - and there goes the argument!

BTW, the phrase "global solution" reminds me of the Nazi "final solution" to "the Jewish question"... :wtf: Talking about contradictions...

[kattenijin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

And, what is your point exactly? Other than seeing that most of the European countries that were once "behind the Iron Curtain" and under Russian domination (and possibly still are considering Zakayev's arrest) are fairly backwards in their views. Maybe it's time the Polish peoples decide to start looking forwards to the future and not back to the past and actually enter the 21st century. Just because it was good enough for your grandfather dosen't mean it should be good enough for you.

[teejay09876]

OK i am prob gonna get smacked in the mouth cause i am a non believer.

But Why dose the bible have to come in to it? We are in the year 2010. and shouldn't be going by a book that was written thousands and thousands of years ago!

I believe that a same sex relationship is much deeper than the sex, I feel that most same sex relationships have a much stronger mental bond than most married couples because its not just about sex.

No i am not Gay or Bi i am straight. but have many gay friends.

[geallach]

Maybe I was not clear in my post. I was not saying that being intolerant to intolerant people was contradictory, because intolerance should not be tolerated, what I was saying Simsica was that it was a contradiction to to believe that being intolerant to gay people was terrible, while at the same time being intolerant of all Christians by labelling them all as "bigots". As I said, there are many Chrisitians who are not homophobic in the slightest, and tarring them with the same brush as those Christians who are homophobic is unfair and wrong.

Arguing with homophobic Christians using Christian teachings may initially seem like a good counter, but bear in mind that among them are many people whose homophobia has nothing to do with their religion, but who, like every other homophobe regardless of beliefs or moral pretensions, loathe homosexuality for the reasons I said before.

That kind of deep-rooted hatred is hard to fight. But you see some of the reasons why this kind of thinking exists all the time. For example, every time a celebrity reveals or is revealed to be gay, this is treated as something really alien and fascinating.

Sorry for repeating myself a bit, I was just clarifying my position.

[ElementMK]

As a true believer of marriage as a male/female right, I am against such homosexual discussion. In fact, I am against any use of the prefix "homo-" from now on. Homo sapiens? No thanks, HUMANkind isn't a gay-sin-sausage-fest. We should call ourselves hetero sapiens from now on, as Jesus intended it.

Homogenous? Are you kidding? All things should be heterogenous from now on, even if they are completely mixed together. Science be damned.

[Simsica]

I agree with most you said - not contradicting you there, gaellach :) I just like to believe that maybe (and this is something I really have to believe since not believing it would turn me into a misanthrop, a hater myself) hatred is not as common as it seems, not as prevalent. Most hatred is actually fear of the unknown - or in other words: of the alien and the fascinating. My strong belief is that education can help.
I have faith that most ordinary people are benign enough to be taught to tolerate others, to accept the motto "live and let live". This is why I mentioned "friends in high enough places": institutions of the state and religion are the ones responsible for this education. And if they already preach tolerance, we can take them at their word and demand that tolerance - human rights in other vocabulary - for all that merit it.

And with the people that hate someone who has never ever done them anything wrong - well, with those you can't debate anything. And this is another one of my beliefs: those shouldn't be asked anything, no matter what position they defend. Their "position" shouldn't be debated, because debating it would acknowledge their mindless ramblings as "arguments". They have none. So they should be treated as the dirt they are - mindless, thougtless dirt that has nothing to contribute.

[HystericalParoxysm]

A lot of the hate really is fear of the unknown and alien.

This is one area where I'm thinking maybe the whole crazy gay pride parades are actually pretty harmful. People who already harbor some level of hatred see glitter-and-boa queens in platform heels strutting down the street and go, "WTF, I don't want THAT anywhere near me!" I wish there were some sort of low-key pride parades. Where casually dressed folks of "alternate" sexuality could say in an organized way, "Hey, look, we already live in your communities and buy carpet cleaner and sell real estate, just like you fine folks. Can we just drop all this craziness and get on with our lives?"

Which of course is not to say that I have anything against the glitter and boas, but when it comes to making strides politically and in society, maybe leave the leather bondage gear at home?

[Nekowolf]

Two things:

1. I don't get what you mean by this: "Nobody influences young peoples' opinion especially old people whose attitudes are even more conservative." - of course they do. Just about everything influences opinion, otherwise, you would truly have no opinion.

I would go as far as to say I may be more moderate if I was not influenced by the further-right shifting of the Republican Party here in America. My opinion of them may well be very different if they had not had an influence in my opinion.

2. "Your attitude is backward if you cannot respect the opinion of people who are different." - this isn't really a point to anyone in particular, but this is sort of what I'm talking about regarding the philosophy of culture.

[whiterider]

But Why dose the bible have to come in to it? We are in the year 2010. and shouldn't be going by a book that was written thousands and thousands of years ago!Well, the Bible has just as much right to come into the discussion as any other published opinion - but as with any other opinion, it requires evidence and logic to back up its claims. And so does Wojtek's opinion, as it happens - I'm quite happy to respect, if not agree with, your beliefs; but the only rationalisation you've given for them so far is "because that's how it is" - unless I've missed something, in which case I apologise.

HP, yes, I agree - pride parades don't help with the political side at all. There are other events which are much more politically aware and motivated; they're not well-known at all, though, nor do they get any real media coverage.

[fakepeeps7]

You'll never understand our attitude when the only thing you do is merely criticizing it and offending us claiming our attitude is backward. Your attitude is backward if you cannot respect the opinion of people who are different.

:lol:

Pot, meet kettle.

:rolleyes:

[Lemon&Lime]

I just want to play devil's advocate here. This is based on something I read while looking around a catholic forum, and there is a section in which non-catholics can debate with catholics on any subject they choose.

One of the Catholics gave this reasoning for not allowing same-sex marriages (this is not his exact words by the way) "Marriage is a religious institution. Our religious institution teaches that homosexuality is against God's law, as well as other Christian faiths. Why should we allow same-sex marriage in our churches when they are not following what we teach?"

I hate to say it but I kinda saw his point. It's like owning a club in which you're only allowed to come in if you follow the dress code, and then having a group of people stood outside it saying they should be allowed in anyway even though they're dressed inappropriately.

I just want to say for the record that I am pro-gay rights and I believe that discrimination against them is very very wrong. All I mean to say by this post is that I understand where he's coming from, not that I agree with his logic.

What do people think about that argument?

[Tempscire]

One of the Catholics gave this reasoning for not allowing same-sex marriages (this is not his exact words by the way) "Marriage is a religious institution. Our religious institution teaches that homosexuality is against God's law, as well as other Christian faiths. Why should we allow same-sex marriage in our churches when they are not following what we teach?"

Still fails, because the U.S. government (and many others) are not Catholic institutions, nor any sort of religious institution, Christian or otherwise. Churches can refuse to wed a couple if they want (the same way they can refuse female priests if they want and not get gender discrimination lawsuits), but that is absolutely not even close to a reason for there to be laws amendments passed by the supposedly secular governments forbidding it.

Besides, Catholics are far from the only sect out there. Other churches who teach different things should be allowed to wed gay couples if they so choose and if that's how they interpret God's will.

[fakepeeps7]

If you want to be respected, Wojtek, that's NOT the way to go about it.

[whiterider]

I tend to agree with Tempscire. Some parts of both the Catholic and Christian churches - though not all parts by far - believe that homosexuality is a sin; fine, I disagree, but it's their right to be wrong. And similarly, if they want to refuse to marry gay couples in their particular church (by which I mean church as in "St John's on the High Street" not "The church as a whole"), then again, I disagree, but it's their right to take that view.

However, every legal system that I know if is proscriptive not prescriptive. The law deals with those things that must be done or must not be done; it doesn't tell people what they are allowed to choose to do. Therefore, if marriage is a religious institute, there cannot be a proscriptive law forcing churches to perform gay marriage, nor can there be one forcing them not to allow gay marriages; because the religious institution is not united in its view on homosexuality. Law works in tandem with morality; the law that murder is illegal works only because the vast majority of people already believe that murder is wrong; the law obeys that morality and sets down the specific rules - such as the differences between murder and manslaughter, and how a murderer should be punished - which could not be achieved by morality alone. On issues where morality is split, such as whether or not it is wrong to drink, or whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry, it is the duty of proscriptive law to remain silent.

And, furthermore, marriage is no longer solely a religious institution. Yes, many marriages are performed within and by the Christian or Catholic church, or within or by other major religions; many marriages are performed within and by secular organs such as registry offices, some are performed within and by smaller "religious" groups such as wicca. In countries wherein there is a separation of church and state, the law must be formed based on the interests and morality of all citizens, not just this or that group - not just the church.

[whiterider]

This is the debate room, Wojtek - you don't need to change your opinion, but wasting an entire post to call someone stupid without actually contributing to the debate is not debating. Thankyou for deleting the post, do not repost it in the other thread.

[pinketamine]

Whenever I see homosexuals in TV I have an impression that they come from a different planet because they act as if they were mentally ill. They don't try to calmly explain what homosexuality is but shout and lose their temper when someone disagrees with their awkward opinion. They will not improve their situation acting like that.

Some people act like that, many other people don't. I don't think an homosexual has to explain at this point what homosexuality is, I think most of us already know it. What is exactly their "awkward opinion"? If you are refering to their homosexuality, then well homosexuality is not an opinion.


Edit: Oh, and being mentally ill does not really have anything bad.

[fakepeeps7]

I think losing my temper is not a good idea when it actually comes to debating or umm...dealing with people who cannot understand that we're not all the same. I only want people to actually understand that. I don't want you to praise me or kiss my feet. I only expect you to understand my opinion and my decision. Nothing else. Is it that much for such 'tolerant' people like you?

Give it a rest. Haven't you offended enough people for one day?

[Tempscire]

So... Ever notice how nowadays intolerant people go grabbing for the flag of "tolerance" as a way of protecting their intolerance? It's like ethical debates went meta. :p

Sorry but I'm not going to tolerate people who impose their own point of view and yet dare to offend us this way.

So, you have a thing against rude boors, but not homosexuals per se? Not an uncommon stance.

[fakepeeps7]

You've called me ridiculous. You've called me stupid. (Yes, I saw that picture before you deleted it and claimed you'd put it in the wrong forum, even though you'd attached it to my quote in this thread. Nice try.) You've insulted those with mental illnesses. You've insulted homosexuals. You're basing your view of all gay people on the actions of a few (who obviously need to make a big fuss if they want to get any sort of rights if all the people in your country are as intolerant as you are). You claim we are intolerant when we call you on your prejudice. And you continue to act like the biggest hypocrite I've ever encountered.

If you're allowed to voice your opinions against homosexuality, then I'm allowed to voice my opinions about bigots. Which you are. That's not me being intolerant; it's just a simple statement of fact. You're allowed to be a bigot if you so desire. Just don't expect me to ever agree with you.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Who did I offend? You're being ridiculous and obviously want to be offended. I only referred to a group of people who were invited by Ewa Drzyzga to her studio to talk about homosexuality. They behaved very aggressively when she wanted to disagree with their opinions about the Church and Polish people. They attacked the Polish people and started calling them names. The psychologist told their reaction had been very inappropriate and would only deteriorate their position among the Poles. Do you feel offended by a bunch of stupid, arrogant and self-centered people or about a psychologist and Ewa Drzyzga who cared to disagree with them? What can I think about homosexuals who behave like that? How can I tolerate them when the only thing they do is insulting straight people.

The next talk about homosexuality ended up with people who came wearing clothes that would suit a whorehouse and who were giggling like lunatics and telling stupid stories like kindergarten children. Stories about how they were poor and that people MUST tolerate that because they think so. When the psychologist told them they had to take into consideration the way the society perceives them and figure out why it is like that they took the offense and started insulting this psychologist and the audience who disagreed.

Sorry but I'm not going to tolerate people who impose their own point of view and yet dare to offend us this way.


in Jerry we trust?




seriously--youre basing your info on homosexuals as an entirety off of a talk show which is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to create and perpetuate drama?

...hoy.......... hoy.................. hoyyyyy.

[whiterider]

If you want people to understand why there's such intolerance, why not explain it? That would contribute, at least, to the task of getting this thread back on-topic.

Indeed, SuicidiaParasidia - you'd have to be a hell of a lot of an attention seeker to go on that kind of show anyway; I don't think I've ever seen anyone on a chat show who I'd consider representative of the population of x. Jerry Springer happily makes out that all black women are uneducated sluts - whatever the UK equivalent is makes out that all gypsies are thieves and vandals - and this Polish show makes out that all gay people are flagrant idiots. There's no reason to take any of it seriously. What's the gay person who lives round the corner like? You may well not know - because unless someone tells you their sexuality or, y'know, lives with their same-sex partner, it's usually impossible to guess a person's sexuality just by looking at them or interacting with them normally. Sure, there are gay idiots, and gay slags, just like there are straight idiots and straight slags... but to restrict your concept of gay people to include just the loud, obvious ones is missing an awful lot of the picture.

[ElementMK]

Who needs to debate the legality of gay marriage when you can simply make being gay illegal (http://www.newser.com/story/100902/montana-gop-platform-its-illegal-to-be-gay.html)?

[Nekowolf]

Yeah... Texas tried to do that with sodomy. It got overturned.

[whiterider]

For the americans among you (or anyone really - but I'm most interested in the US as it's in such legal turmoil) - did the Wolfenden report have much impact over there? It was pretty much the defining catalyst of legal equality in the UK, but I've no idea about elsewhere.

[Nekowolf]

Uh... I haven't ever even heard of it.

[kiwi_tea]

It's not a solution at all. Everything made by force will not be approved by the society be it homosexual rights or economic changes. I wanted to highlight that nobody has right to judge and force people to accept things they deny no matter what reason they have.We, as societies, tend to enforce a variety of laws based on broad and mutual agreement. We judge and we enforce and it's a good thing we do. For example, we criminalise and punish paedophilia, because it has a clearly defined victim. Similarly, we tolerate no murder. No fraud. Homosexuality has no victims. Heterosexuality has no victims.

Perhaps what you're trying to say is we, as a society, don't reserve the right to force people to accept crazy laws that criminalise harmless shit.

[pinketamine]

It is not only illegal in Saudi Arabia, but in some more countries too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory).
That law is anyway agaisnt American Constitution, isn't it?

[ElementMK]

If you want t know more about what influences our attitude i suggest reading an article about Poland and its people.Since when did you become the voice of 38 million people? Nations aren't hive minds.

@pinketamine: Isn't it great how female homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in most nations, but male homosexuality isn't? Ewwie, ewwie, buttsex!

[pinketamine]

Yes, that is something that has always surprised me, but it is pretty common. Homophobic attitudes tend to be directed to homosexual men much more than to homosexual women.

Edit: I'll certainly read that article about Poland, and I'll read about my own country too, to see what it says about it xD. I don't know if it will help understanding your point of view, but I like reading things xD

[unalisaa]

A lot of the hate really is fear of the unknown and alien.

This is one area where I'm thinking maybe the whole crazy gay pride parades are actually pretty harmful. People who already harbor some level of hatred see glitter-and-boa queens in platform heels strutting down the street and go, "WTF, I don't want THAT anywhere near me!" I wish there were some sort of low-key pride parades. Where casually dressed folks of "alternate" sexuality could say in an organized way, "Hey, look, we already live in your communities and buy carpet cleaner and sell real estate, just like you fine folks. Can we just drop all this craziness and get on with our lives?"

Which of course is not to say that I have anything against the glitter and boas, but when it comes to making strides politically and in society, maybe leave the leather bondage gear at home?
I see your point, and in some sense I agree, but the whole point of those parades is to confront people with "alien" sexuality or gender-perception. To make people accept homosexuality but only when it is nice and tidy to me appears as it would yield similar results as if people agreed to accept Black people completely, but only on the condition that they were to "act White" (Yeah, I don't know what that means, either, but I hope it gets my point across) at all times.
I.e enforcing normativity instead of making what is considered normal more inclusive.

Yes, that is something that has always surprised me, but it is pretty common. Homophobic attitudes tend to be directed to homosexual men much more than to homosexual women.


I think that particular attitude has something to do with the fact that "hot lesbians" are supposed to be considered sexually titillating by your average heterosexual man. The tolerance for lesbians doesn't stretch all that far; "butch" lesbians are considered about as wrong or gross as gays are.
This is my impression, anyway.

Yeah... Texas tried to do that with sodomy. It got overturned.
I'm awfully sorry for exhibiting such a terrible sense of humour, but was that pun intended? I am giggling immaturely over here.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

It's not a solution at all. Everything made by force will not be approved by the society be it homosexual rights or economic changes. I wanted to highlight that nobody has right to judge and force people to accept things they deny no matter what reason they have.


double edged blade, there.

[Nekowolf]

@unalisaa

Uh, nope. Didn't even realize I made a pun. But if I did, awesome!

[Lemon&Lime]

I think that particular attitude has something to do with the fact that "hot lesbians" are supposed to be considered sexually titillating by your average heterosexual man. The tolerance for lesbians doesn't stretch all that far; "butch" lesbians are considered about as wrong or gross as gays are.
This is my impression, anyway.


I agree. "Butch" lesbians are bad because they're not attractive to men. "Normal-looking/hot" lesbians are good because they are attracted to men, and because they look good/like "normal" women they must be attracted to men too right?

I think the actual act of male homosexual sex is the main reason historically that gay men were the most disliked. It is because it was percieved as a mockery of/poor imitation of heterosexual sex (which obviously should only be for concieving). Lesbians are still outlawed though in religion for example - but the absense of sodomy is the key point I think.

[Nekowolf]

@Lemon&Lime

"Normal-looking/hot" lesbians are good because they are attracted to men"

I think you may have misspoke there.

[unalisaa]

So one says one's country/society tolerates homosexuality. One says that because the majority accepts it. It's not a surprise people in my country do not accept homosexuality. You try to say everyone in Poland is so tolerant towards the homosexuals but me. That's not true. I asked my friends about it and the answers were all the same "We dislike and don't accept it, it's sick". We treat our long-lasting traditions as holiness and it excludes homosexuality. You don't understand it because you live in countries where people reject religion. Religion has always been very important in my country and it influences the way people think and behave. We don't want you to change your mind, we want you to understand that we have various reasons not to accept homosexuality and have right to do so.

In Our country, every single person votes for the party Venstre. This is the reason we have a state minister from that party. From that, We can only conclude that every single person from Our country shares his views. This is how majorities work.
Our country is also non-secular. Every single inhabitant of Our country is a religious nut: We know this because a huge percentage of citizens are members of the national church.

We also happen to know that everyone had a bagel with chorizo for breakfast and has an account at MTS.
All my friends had English last period at school today. Surely, this must be a national thing.

No, right?

What people are trying to say is not that everyone but you believe something, but rather that there is a difference between cultural/national tendencies and actual consensus, and that you should be careful with generalising like that; it makes your argument difficult to argue, and people will be more likely to misunderstand you.

[kiwi_tea]

Wojtek, is interracial marriage sick, in the light of the story of Ham? How is this different?

[nea200pl]

We treat our long-lasting traditions as holiness and it excludes homosexuality. You don't understand it because you live in countries where people reject religion. Religion has always been very important in my country and it influences the way people think and behave. We don't want you to change your mind, we want you to understand that we have various reasons not to accept homosexuality and have right to do so.

Enough of *we* already. I come from Poland and please don't speak for me, as I read some of your posts in various threads showing how Polish supposedly behave towards certain things and what they all supposedly believe and I really get angry. You portrait Poland like narrow-minded, racist and intolerant people only, hiding behind religion, old traditions and questionable values. And I can guarantee that many Polish would not agree with your views. Don't paint everyone the same. Me for example, despite growing up in Poland I have been brought up differently.

I'm very curious what *other reasons* and *rights* against homosexuality apart from religious blindness you think Polish have? But don't tell me about Polish rich culture and traditions - they are all rubbish and in my opinion in many cases contribute to many problems Poles have with modern thinking. I can't find anything in Polish culture being against homosexuals or same sex marriages. Priests contributing to it? I do agree - one of the many reasons why I left Church many years ago and never look back.

As kiwi_tea ask - do you think interracial marriage is sick too? It was banned in many countries for many, many years. If it still was my husband and I could never get married.
People wanting to enter same-sex marriage should have the same freedom and acceptance as other do, not facing life being ostracized for who or what they are. Homosexuality is not sickness or something to be ashamed of.

[Lemon&Lime]

@Wojtek - you need to learn the art of not offending everyone.

[el_flel]

They might be her words, but they're completely true.

[Safyre420]

You're not Polish so you have no idea what the situation looks like.

You're not a Homosexual so YOU have no idea what the situation looks like.

[el_flel]

You're not Polish so you have no idea what the situation looks like.That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. nea200pl is right when she says you are painting Poland in a bad light, because you are.

EDIT: You seem to be under the illusion that people are annoyed with you because they don't agree with your opinion. That's completely wrong. People are annoyed with you because you have said some offensive and ignorant things. Saying that homosexuality is weird and not natural or normal is ignorant and offensive. Saying that homosexuals should earn equal rights by doing charity work is offensive. Saying that homosexuals have nothing to complain about is offensive and ignorant. Saying that all homosexuals behave badly is offensive and ignorant. You also don't do yourself any favours by behaving like a three year old and e-screaming at people.

Perhaps you're the one that needs to go back and read through these posts.

[Safyre420]

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. nea200pl is right when she says you are painting Poland in a bad light, because you are.

I would have to agree, until nea200pl posted, I was beginning to think that Poland was full of intolerant religious assholes.

[el_flel]

Exactly my point. And I don't think we're the only ones, Safyre420.

[nea200pl]

...You claim to be so 'open-minded' but don't understand the fact that some people have different points of view. If you keep attacking me I'll become even more resistant to what you say...

You are a lost case, aren't you?
I DO understand people have different points of view and I respect it. Everyone is entitled to expressing their own opinion but should be prepared to deal with it when someone does not agree with them and it seems to me it is you who have problems with it.
Where in my post did I attack you? I merely spoke my mind and ask you not to claim to speak for nation of almost 40 million people.

And as for you becoming *more resistant* to what others say, well...all I can say is good luck with this kind of attitude.

[starved4pizza]

Jesus Christ, you're a cry baby. If you don't want people screaming at you over your dumbass opinion, then here's an idea, DON'T FUCKING POST IT.

Good luck with anybody supporting your creations, on top of that. People over on MS3B are starting to catch up to your posts, and they're not liking what they're seeing.

[Princess Leia]

Wojtek, can you tell us what it is that you're trying to argue exactly? It's difficult for many of us, myself included, to look past statements like "Homosexuality is sick and abnormal and we don't want to accept it." and uncover any valid (or... errr, debatable, at least) points within the sea of hateful words.

Are you trying to argue that the difference in how we treat gay people is merely a cultural difference and that we have no right to impose our culture on you? Kind of like how I can't really argue -- not objectively, anyway -- that Irish jigs are better than Polish folk dances just because I'm Irish?

Or are you trying to argue that there's no reason to give homosexuals more rights because the majority of people in your country think it's unnatural and it's always been that way? (Geez, can you imagine if everyone resisted progress just because "that's not how things are"? We'd still be stuck in the Stone Age.)

[Lemon&Lime]

You need to learn the act of not offending people who disagree with you.

I'm not aware that I have ever personally offended someone just because they disagreed with me... are you going to provide proof of that or apologise for making up rubbish?

And I am just going to repeat my original point - Wojtek, you have to learn the art of not offending everyone.

[pinketamine]

I was thinking about bringing the question of what do you think about same sex adoptions, but maybe I'll create a total war... seeing some of the previous posts.

The other day I was discussing with a friend and he told me that a kid needs to have a man and a woman as references for developing as a "normal" person. Apparently, in his opinion, single moms or divorced parents cause their kids to be criminals or people with conduct problems in general. This brought various questions to my mind.
- Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
- Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
- Do you agree with single people adopting?

Personally, I have always thought that there isn't any problem with same sex couples adopting, but the adoption seems even more controversial than marriage, so I thought that it was a good idea to add this topic to the debate.

[appelsapgodin]

I think kids need parents that love and are happy with each other.

[el_flel]

It's a good question, pinketamine, and one that often gets overlooked in debates because so frequently the debate is over the basics of homosexuality - such as whether it's 'natural' or not.

- Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
Personally, I am in full support of same-sex adoption. AFAIK any research on the differences between children of same- and opposite-sex parents hasn't found any significant differences, and it definitely doesn't appear that children are worse off for having two mums or dads instead of one of each.

A lot of the argument against it is 'kids need a mum and a dad' and 'they'll get picked on at school'. The former I think is a sort of reluctance to accept that families are changing - many children grow up in single-parent families nowadays and they do just fine. Additionally, many people hold the sterotypical view that the father is the disciplinarian and without that role in their lives, kids will grow up to be deviants - that's simply not the case. The latter - kids get picked on for anything and everything, I don't really think this is a valid argument because this will only be an issue until same-sex adoption is more widely accepted.

- Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
Yes, but those gender models don't have to be parents. Aunts or uncles, siblings, grandparents, family friends - any will do.

- Do you agree with single people adopting?
Yes. So long as a person can emotionally and financially support a child then why not?


I saw a documentary a while back about a gay (male) couple who had five children through fertility treatment using egg donors and surrogate mothers. The kids were brilliant; completely normal, loved their family set-up, didn't feel they were missing out by having two dads and no mum and were so open-minded and accepting that it was just wonderful.

[starved4pizza]

Poland isn't the only country in the world. 99% of the rest of the world could give a shit about what Poland thinks. Also, that family you're talking about is a STRAIGHT family. Not a good example. Try again.

[appelsapgodin]

Honestly, I don't think Wojtek is that representative of what most Polish think. The Polish people I know here do actually realise it is 2010.

[Princess Leia]

Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
No, I think we should do away with strict gender models and realize that the differences between men and women are less defined than we think they are. I'm not saying there are no inherent differences in the way we process information when studies have shown that there are, but... why do certain things and activities need to be associated with one gender and not the other? A lot of the so-called differences between men and women are culturally dependent and have no biological basis whatsoever. I think 90% of chick flicks are dumb and space movies are awesome but I don't think I should be labelled as less feminine than someone who wears a shitton of makeup and cries at the drop of a hat since I myself identify as female.

What we need to do is raise well-balanced children: teach them to be independent and to analyze issues critically but also teach them the value of compassion and being with people. To raise well-rounded children, we need well-rounded parents -- not one parent who is traditionally male and another who is traditionally female.

Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
Yes. This is kind of related to my answer above.

I find it kind of ridiculous that one of the most common arguments opposing same-sex adoption is that "the children will be ridiculed". Uh, the reason they're being ridiculed is because you don't approve of homosexuality. YOU'RE the problem, asshat.

Do you agree with single people adopting?
From a logical perspective, I can see why a single parent might have a harder time taking care of a child (Time issues -- they need to invest twice as much work and energy into the kid. Plus, they're the sole provider so if they were to lose their job, it would have a larger impact on the child's standard of living. Just simple numbers) but if they're able to meet the financial requirements and are psychologically fit to take care of a child, I don't see why not. They certainly shouldn't be excluded due to some moralistic belief that children must have two parents.

[starved4pizza]

Honestly, I don't think Wojtek is that representative of what most Polish think. The Polish people I know here do actually realise it is 2010.

I know, but he's making it sound like 'Well, ALL of Poland thinks like this, therefore it's THE way, THE truth, and THE LIGHT!' He's not doing his country any favors, he's making Poland look like an intolerant shithole with nothing but evil people as the populants.

[el_flel]

I only stated why I don't find homosexuality suitable in the place I live.Suitable? How you can find it not suitable? I really don't get that statement.

I didn't even refer to homosexuals from your countries or to those of you who are gays. I stated that if Polish homosexuals want to be respected they should do something the society will approve instead of organizing pointless parades that make people upset and turn the society against them.But why should they have to prove their worth in order to be given equal rights? Why do you think that people have to earn the right to equality, when that inequality is completely unjust? And why do Pride parades upset people?

They prefer complaining about how poor they are and also offending people who don't want to agree with them as a group of them proved talking to Ewa Drzyzga. A perfect strategy I admit. I wish them luck. They will go far behaving like that. Sit with your arms crossed and wait until someone shows mercy to you and stroke your head. The world is cruel.Do you not think that there's an enormous possibility that the people you are basing your entire opinion on are a very specific, tiny section of that demographic, and therefore not representative of all homosexuals?

Ignoring that last paragraph because it's irrelevant to this debate.

The way it comes across from you is that homosexuality is bad and something to be feared. So any gay people who try and get recognition for their sexuality are portrayed in such a way that it reinforces that negative stereotype. You think gays should change who they are because their natural behaviour makes you uncomfortable, and that they should be denied equal rights based on this irrational 'fear' until they can prove that they are 'worthy' of them. I find that pretty appalling tbh.

[jerin8]

Everyone should see this. could you indicate where this quote is from? What is the source? who wrote it plz. You can message me if you wish with this info.Thanks!

[el_flel]

The homosexuals do nothing to be viewed as people worth recognition.You see that statement, right there? That is just one of the many reasons people are pissed off with you. That is such a horrible, offensive thing to say, and you deserve all the backlash you get from coming out with that utter rubbish.

I'm also still failing to see the relevance of a British couple living off the state in a debate on homosexuality. What, exactly, are you trying to prove with that particular example? They aren't gay so why are you bringing it up?

Additionally all your links do is support everyone's theory that you live in a country of great intolerance. Was that what you were trying to do by posting them?

[pinketamine]

Wow, there is a BIG number of practicant catholics in Poland.

79% of Poles opposed gay marriage, with only 16% in favor. Meanwhile, 93% of Poles opposed the adoption of children by gay couples, with only 5% taking the opposing view
That is actually a lot of people for such a recent date, that study is from this year... I guess that the big influence of the Catholic Church is really important there.

Maybe one of the problems about Poland (and some other european countries) is that legalizing gay marriage would mean modifying the Constitution itself. In Spain, homosexuality has been legal since as later as 1979, and nowadays you can see that marriage and adoption are legal. Maybe it is a matter of time that Poland and other West Europe countries legalize it. In the map of Europe it can be seen that in the west zone there are many countries having a Constitution that defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman.

In my opinion, in countries having that situation (low acceptation of homosexuality in the general population, unexistance of legal marriage or other kind of legal unions, etc), homosexuals should fight for their rights.
I have never been a fan of the gay parades as a way to fight for your rights. I think that, as HystericalParoxism pointed some pages ago, all that leather indumentary can help making the bad stereotypes people has about homosexual even stronger and worse.
I'm not saying that they should "gain respect", because I think that every human being should be respected without needing to do anything for it. What I mean is that there are other and better ways to fight for your rights that glittery parades that make "old fashioned" people scream in horror.

[appelsapgodin]

Reverend Will Dexter: Every day, here and at home, we are warned about the enemy. But who is the enemy? Is it the alien? Well, we are all alien to one another. Is it the one who believes differently than we do? No, oh no, my friends. The enemy is fear. The enemy is ignorance. The enemy is the one who tells you that you must hate that which is different. Because, in the end, that hate will turn on you. And that same hate will destroy you.

[el_flel]

I'll quote and translate a part of the article where the British mother has her say. Here we go:

Mother: "The costs of living are so high while the benefits are getting lower. My benefit will rise about 80 cents but gas is so expensive that I'm afraid we're not going to handle this situation"

The mother once again: "I don't care that people work for our benefits. If it hadn't been for the help of the others we wouldn't have been able to live off. As long as my children are fulfilled I don't feel to be egoistic. Majority of parents live off from benefits at school."Yeah, that still doesn't answer the question: how is that relevant to this debate in any way at all? You're clearly trying to deflect this argument onto other countries, so you've started the England-bashing again. Knock it off.

Great example to follow in an "open-minded" country. This is SICK! You seem to have a problem where you base your opinions off of a very small, extreme, unrepresentative proportion of society. That's a very dangerous thing to do because then you end up spouting narrow-minded nonsense and people get pissed off with you.

If you want to have some rights you have to work for them.Which is what gay people do when they protest against the discrimination they face. It's not acceptable that they should have to live like that and they shouldn't have to prove that they are worthy of equal rights when it's something they should have anyway.

[jerin8]

And here's the message from the other side! And they even titled the page "talking points!" I can't even begin to express how idiotic this is. Their claim of "harm" all boils down to --"We define marriage and nobody else can!" Idiots.



http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
Answering the Toughest Questions

Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.



I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.” :)

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”


What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

I could say a million things about their talking points but I will say just this about point A above: The constitution nor the Bill of Rights or any portion thereof nor any God given law allows for the "right to define marriage". People established marriage as a contract either for love or money or property or politics according to their historical social context. So that's just plain ignorant.
Define Ignorant: Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1
a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2

[ElementMK]

What do you know about my country besides the anti-Polish propaganda you hear all the time?You're right. Why, when I was down by the college I saw a state-sponsored "Shaft The Poles" protest. Afterwards, I came home, turned on channel 26 and watched a documentary about the one time the Poles blew up the Moon and ate all of our children.

Oh, wait. That's not right. Poland is a new member of the European Union that has been trying to find its place in the modern world ever since the dissolution of the USSR. While the culture of the Poles has existed since the 9th century, the Polish constitution is a little over 12 years old. It's a confusing mix of tradition and progression that every Pole is trying to figure out, and I hardly think you have the right to speak for any of them.

By the way, if I based my knowledge of Poland purely off of what you've said, I'd think it was a broken and backwards place. You'd better take your hand off of the "sweeping generalization" button or you're going to continue making an ass of yourself.

[pinketamine]

I just want to say that polygamy itself is not bad, but most people defending polygamy are defending an unbalanced way of polygamy, which would basically mean that men would have the right to have as many wifes as the would please, but women would not be allowed to do it.
The problem with polygamy is that it is usually "forced" to the women, and therefore, it is not fair.

[jerin8]

Okay I would like for the sake of logic in this argument and bias that there is something being said consistently by many posters that is not in keeping with logical argument and is in fact Fallacy. First let me say that I myself am gay among many many other things that I am so you cannot say that I am not sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage. BUT this is the problem. MANY in this debate are saying things akin to this "Thats the "scare tactic" of christian reasoning.".
I would specifically like to point out the " Christian" part. Here is the fallacy in the argument (in case you don't know there are actual rules to creating valid arguments) Here is the problem.
A. this is a Christian (or Democrat, Republican, whatever) group (or individual)
B. This Christian ( Democrat, Republican, whatever) group (or individual) uses scare tactics(or insert anything else here, bigotry etc)
C. Therefore all Christian Groups (or individuals) ( Democrat, Republican, whatever) use scare tactics.
This is false and is called Hasty Conclusion and is an invalid argument.

This is an UNFAIR and UNTRUE argument. Some portion of some Christians believe in some ways. But that does not lead to the conclusion that ALL believe or behave in those ways.
Either way its just plain WRONG and dangerous and is the same kind of attitude of which you accuse the "Christians" of exhibiting. Perhaps simply say "this Group" or "groups like this"say such and such would be better. Other wise you are no different then the very group you accuse. Which is to say, ignorant.

[el_flel]

Wojtek - Why are you telling me things about my own country that I already know? Seeing as I've asked the question at least twice and you're yet to actually answer it, I'm concluding that my country's welfare system has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Seeing as you are apparantly only exposed to unrepresentative homosexuals, why don't you actually go off and do some research about it? Find out what "normal" gay people have to say on the subject?

Actually I don't have anything against polyamory and polygamy, providing all parties are happy with the arrangement, so if it were to become legal I wouldn't have a problem with that. However homosexuality is, obviously, not the same as polygamy. And yes, of course, everyone deserves equality, why wouldn't they?

As for the whole 'why do the English hate the Polish' thing - we don't. This is something which the media is mostly to blame for; they are the main perpetrators of anti-Polish nonsense, and whilst of course there is racism amongst the public, it is no more prevalent towards the Polish than it is to any other race. And in any case this isn't a debate about Poland, as the mods have already had to say, so best to stay on topic.

[whiterider]

If you don't read the Daily Fail, you won't hear much about anti-Polish sentiment in the UK. And, well, if you do... then I sincerely hope you're reading it to feel superior, because I'm pretty sure they've already declared that fruit, exercise, and newspapers (and probably Poland too) all cause cancer.

[Princess Leia]

The problem is that 'normal' homosexuals don't show off but only those extreme ones who wear strange clothes that nobody else wears and that's why they're thought of weird and abnormal. They make us think this way. 'Normal' homosexuals do not give interviews in TV or radio and I don't know why.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the majority of Poles believe that they should not have the right to be openly gay? (Link (http://fakty.interia.pl/polska/news/polacy-nie-chca-parad-homoseksualistow,1123562)) You said it yourself; it's not socially acceptable to be gay in Poland. Therefore, only the most extroverted and outspoken individuals will dare to speak out. Why would moderately shy, non-confrontational people (your "average" citizen, so to speak) subject themselves to unwanted negative attention?

Also, I don't have a problem with polyamory providing all parties are happy with the arrangement and are of legal age. But of course, that's not always the case as many women are forced into these marriages and are then kept on a tight leash by their husbands. I'm against spousal abuse, not polygamy. Do you see the difference? This oppressive form of polygamy has victims. Homosexuality has no victim.

[starved4pizza]

Wtf does the lower income of England have to do with it? They've done nothing to you, just like gay people haven't done a fucking thing to you.

Shut your damn mouth or leave. You're bashing of other countries is just as bad as the gay bashing. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you, but you need to get your head out of your intolerant ass, and open your damn mind. I don't give a fuck if it's because you're Polish or not. JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY.

And no, this isn't my hyper sensitive western attitude talking, this is me talking as one pissed off bisexual woman.

As I've mentioned, as a woman who is bisexual, and as someone who was NOT raised in a conventional mommy-daddy household, your posts sicken me. I wasn't raised around my father because he was a drug addict and a pedophile. Do you think that shit is okay to grow up around? NO! My household of a mother, uncle, grandmother and sometime my grandfather may not have been the most stable, or the most conventional, but damn it, they love me and did everything in the damn world to make sure I was clothed, fed and safe.

I'll be damned if I ever raise a child with someone who's some twisted sicko, just because it's what society views as 'normal' and 'traditional'. SCREW TRADITION. SCREW 'NORMALITY'. What is 'normal'?????? What YOU might think it weird, I and many other people here view as NORMAL. Being gay isn't simply a state of mind, like some passing fad, it's a way of life! It doesn't hurt anybody!

Your views are disgusting and skewed. With your attitude, you best stay in Poland, because you wouldn't get on very well anywhere else, what with your bashing of England, and the western world, in general. Stay in your close minded, intolerant icebox of a home. We don't want you, and even if England and the west in general still has it's share of backwoods rednecks or chavs, your views are NOT welcome.

Usually the people who are loudest against homosexuality have a lot of self loathing and exlpaining to do about themselves (aka, they're closeted GAY). But I doubt you really are, because you probably would have jumped off of a bridge, just judging by your posts. I can only hope that you'll change your mind, but I doubt you will. You'll just grow up bitter within your hatred. When the rest of Poland catches up, you'll be left behind, just like you are with a great deal of the world.

[nea200pl]

...You quote Polish person who left Poland claiming our culture is rubbish only to suck up to you? Brilliant! That kind of people will be a great example of what a Polish person is not like.
...
You describe your countries like "open-minded" but I believe the anti-Polish propaganda in Britain (the Jews, Nazi concentration camps, drinking stereotype etc.) is not an example of the tolerance you want to highlight so much.

I believe you were referring to me. Thanks for looking at my profile, as I can bet there you have discovered that I live in England and have done so since 2001.
Trust me people like you are perfect example of what Polish are not like and more important should never, ever be like. I just hope people reading this thread wont regard you as *the best what Poland has to offer*.
And I suggest I make something perfectly clear to you - I do not suck up to anyone, and you actually really offended me by writing this.

:blink:
As for anti-Polish propaganda in Britain - well, no one here claims that Jews and Nazis were Polish doing, get your facts right. Have you ever visited Polish War Memorial? Or any other memorial in honor of all Polish people who die fighting for Britain? Since I moved here I never experienced bad treatment because I'm Polish, quite the contrary. Because here no one cares where you have come from, how you look and what you like, you can be yourself. And before you ask I live in suburbs on London.

Drinking? - People here drink a lot, regardless of their nationality. Binge drinking is particularly popular form of weekend entertainment. Nobody ever claimed drinking in the UK is Polish only thing and Polish implemented it and brought to Britain.

My point is that one Polish person wrote that Polish people were not intolerant. I have no idea what she based her opinion on...

Well mate...on every single friggin' post you have made up til now? I'll ask you again - stop Poland bashing and providing some links to articles that paint Poland as still in middle ages.

Back to topic:

- Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
I never really gave it too much thought. When I look at models quite honestly I look at what they wear or advertise not the model, so I guess for me is either way.

- Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
- Do you agree with single people adopting?
My answer to those is the same:
As long as child loves and is being loved and has safe and secure environment to grow and live it should not matter if people/person she/he depends on are two women, two men, one woman or one man.
If you have financial means and good heart to love the child than by all means. There are way too many children in this world waiting to have a family.

[HystericalParoxysm]

"And I suggest I make something perfectly clear to you - I do not suck up to anyone..."

I totally read that as "And I do not suck tampons." I think I need more coffee.

[whiterider]

Right, guys, last warning, seriously

Wojtek, I appreciate that you're just trying to make a point, but you need to start doing it in a calm and polite fashion. Make sure your points are relevant, thoroughly explained, and rational. Ensure that they offer an opinion on the topic of the thread, with logical reasoning or evidence to back them up. Don't insult or attack other posters, and if you want to use analogies and examples, please make them make some kind of sense. If you don't think a thread is creating worthwhile debate, then don't post on it - just ignore it. If you've said something time and time again and people still disagree, then restating your point isn't going to help - you need to build on it, and improve it.

Everyone else, a person making posts which don't contribute to the debate isn't a reason to attack them - it's a reason to ignore said posts. I understand that a lot of you are angry, fine - but debating is not about anger, and if your post isn't at least 95% well-reasoned arguments for or against the subject at hand - not for or against Wojtek's attitude - then they don't belong in the debate room either. If you're trying to disagree with someone and they just won't see your point of view, then shouting louder and swearing more isn't going to change that. Sometimes you just have to filter out the crap.

For the very last time, it's time to get back on-topic.

[Lemon&Lime]

I'm not going to apologize to anyone for what I said. I only stated why I don't find homosexuality suitable in the place I live. I didn't even refer to homosexuals from your countries or to those of you who are gays. I stated that if Polish homosexuals want to be respected they should do something the society will approve instead of organizing pointless parades that make people upset and turn the society against them. They prefer complaining about how poor they are and also offending people who don't want to agree with them as a group of them proved talking to Ewa Drzyzga. A perfect strategy I admit. I wish them luck. They will go far behaving like that. Sit with your arms crossed and wait until someone shows mercy to you and stroke your head. The world is cruel.

Gaining respect is not a matter of a day or two. People work whole their life to gain a tiny bit of respect but what they have in return is only low salary and even more work. There are so many people who spend whole their lives helping people who need help and they often have no time for themselves or their families. They don't want anything in return for their hard work. Do you want to be respected for doing nothing?! The world is cruel! Nobody's ever going to trust you unless you prove you're worth it. "Work ennobles". When you sit with your arms crossed and expect people to pay or like you you're selfish, arrogant and self-centered. While it's widely accepted in the west it's unacceptable in the east. This article only shows that such people are greedy and only want money from the government and do nothing to develop their career. It's generally about a British family who have 7 children + one unborn. Both the parents have no jobs but receive money from the government for having more children and yet dare to complain how "unhappy" and "not fulfilled" they are. That's incredible how ignorant and selfish people can be.
http://www.figa.pl/Moj-zawod-Rodzenie-dzieci-a393

I'm just going to say I didn't read any of that apart from the beginning. I wasn't saying that your opinons were rubbish (even though they are) I was saying that it was a load of rubbish that you accused me of personally offending everyone who disagreed with me, and I asked for evidence of that!

And comment on the British people like that again and I am going to be seriously, seriously, annoyed.

[Nekowolf]

Alright, alright. Let's get this back on topic. I'd hate to see topics closed.

[pinketamine]

I just noticed that I just forgot to reply my own questions about adoption.

Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
I don't really like the traditional gender models, and I think nowadays society is not that based in "women are sensitive and stay at home taking care of the children" and "males are rude and work hard for their family". I think that kids need to learn that all people are multidimensional, learn important values like respect, self steem and so on.

Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
Yes. I haven't seen any proof saying that same sex couples adoption is bad for the kid, and I'm talking about investigations based in facts, not in opinions.
A common argument is that "kids are cruel" and will make fun of those children. That argument is pretty stupid in my opinion. If you teach your kid (not directly) that being fat is bad, he will laugh at fat classmates. If you teach your kid that homosexuality is something that is not bad at all and treat it with naturality, then he will see it as normal. Kids tend to be much more tolerant than adults.

Do you agree with single people adopting?
I do, as long as the person can take care of the kid properly. I made this question because most people thinking than a man and a woman are the only formula to have kids, are against single people adopting too.

I would summarize my opinion saying that, sadly, in the world there are a lot of kids who don't have parents to love them nor take care of them. If a person has all the needed conditions to adopt, I don't really see any reason for not allowing them to do so. Children need someone to educate them and look after them, they need a family, they need friends, and they won't care if the person who loves them is a woman or a man.

[Lemon&Lime]

If you don't read the Daily Fail, you won't hear much about anti-Polish sentiment in the UK. And, well, if you do... then I sincerely hope you're reading it to feel superior, because I'm pretty sure they've already declared that fruit, exercise, and newspapers (and probably Poland too) all cause cancer.

Have you seen the blog which keeps track of what the Daily Mail says causes cancer?

Coffee causes cancer. But it cures it too.

Fruit causes cancer, and cures it as well.

I'm so glad the Daily Mail is there to give me advice on what to eat so I contract/repel cancer; but then I do have medical advice...

[el_flel]

When talking about the importance of gender roles I think more along the lines of having someone older to identify with, rather than be taught what a man/woman 'should' be like. I hadn't even thought of traditional roles. Even if a family does stick to a traditional role, that's not necessarily a bad thing and it also doesn't necessarily mean that the kids will grow up thinking that is how they should be. My mum was a stay at home mum whilst my dad worked to support us, but because of various other factors I've got no intention of following in my mum's footsteps (and neither does my sister).

[pinketamine]

I meant that I don't think you should educate your kids saying things like: "don't play with dolls because that is for girls", "don't cry because that is for girls" and viceversa.

[el_flel]

Oh I totally understood what you meant and I agree - that way of thinking isn't really appropriate in modern society - but people seemed to be making the assumption that teaching gender roles means teaching outdated traditions about what males/females 'should' be like, but that isn't necessarily the case.

[Princess Leia]

Well, what does 'teaching gender roles' mean to you then, if not that? Why include the word gender at all unless you wish to imply (not YOU, I mean you in the rhetorical sense) that certain roles are associated with one gender and not the other?

I'm not even necessarily talking about teaching kids outdated concepts like "Women should stay in the kitchen." I think that even implying that say, certain colours are inherently feminine or that certain instruments are inherently masculine (something I learned in my music psychology class -- surveys show that people associate tubas and bassoons with male players even though there's nothing that makes males genetically predisposed to playing those instruments) is pointless. They're little things and probably not worth getting upset over but... I still wonder why we hold these little gender-biased assumptions.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I was thinking about bringing the question of what do you think about same sex adoptions, but maybe I'll create a total war... seeing some of the previous posts.

The other day I was discussing with a friend and he told me that a kid needs to have a man and a woman as references for developing as a "normal" person. Apparently, in his opinion, single moms or divorced parents cause their kids to be criminals or people with conduct problems in general. This brought various questions to my mind.
- Do you think it is totally necesary to have both gender models?
- Do you agree with same sex couples adopting?
- Do you agree with single people adopting?

Personally, I have always thought that there isn't any problem with same sex couples adopting, but the adoption seems even more controversial than marriage, so I thought that it was a good idea to add this topic to the debate.

oh, hell, i'm game.
here are my answers:
*no. i do not. having one gender model can be just as destructive/constructive as having two, but its all situational.
*yes. i dont have an argument against it unless they seek adoption for the wrong reason(s), though i would also have a problem with that if they were straight, too.
*again, granted that they could provide all of what the child(ren) need(s), yes.



You see that statement, right there? That is just one of the many reasons people are pissed off with you. That is such a horrible, offensive thing to say, and you deserve all the backlash you get from coming out with that utter rubbish.

I'm also still failing to see the relevance of a British couple living off the state in a debate on homosexuality. What, exactly, are you trying to prove with that particular example? They aren't gay so why are you bringing it up?

Additionally all your links do is support everyone's theory that you live in a country of great intolerance. Was that what you were trying to do by posting them?

what i would like to know is why homosexuals need to "prove their worth" for the simple reason that they are...homosexual?

granted i am referring to homosexuals whom you would not know were homosexual unless they were to announce their preferences. (plenty of those, although Wojtek may disagree until he/she is blue in the face.)

why must one group of people be put to the test when others are simply granted such privileges for being like one another?


oh and; side note...
Wojtek.
nobody here is responsible for your "deepening intolerance of homosexuals". thats aaaaaaaall you, buddy.

[el_flel]

It's more sort of having role-models of both genders so you can understand that there are some differences between the sexes, what those differences are, and what to expect being male/female. I don't think there are any behaviours etc. that are inherently gender-specific, but there are differences, so it's important to understand what they are from first hand experience. So it's still about gender, but a much looser definition than has been used for previous generations.

That makes sense in my head but putting it into words is different so probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else!

[fakepeeps7]

what i would like to know is why homosexuals need to "prove their worth" for the simple reason that they are...homosexual?

Because basic human rights are conditional in some people's minds.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Because basic human rights are conditional in some people's minds.

(there needs to be a "sad, but true" button..)

[Princess Leia]

It's more sort of having role-models of both genders so you can understand that there are some differences between the sexes, what those differences are, and what to expect being male/female. I don't think there are any behaviours etc. that are inherently gender-specific, but there are differences, so it's important to understand what they are from first hand experience. So it's still about gender, but a much looser definition than has been used for previous generations.

That makes sense in my head but putting it into words is different so probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else!
Are you talking about biological differences? Like how it may be useful to have mum around if you're a girl so she can explain about periods? In that case, I kind of agree; I'm sure mum can explain how to put on a tampon better than dad since it's impossible for him to have any practical experience in that area...

In my ideal world though, I'd want both parents to feel comfortable talking about boobs and wet dreams to their kids. After all, that's just encyclopedic knowledge -- I want kids to know about basic biology for the same reason I want them to know why the Earth has seasons or why water boils at 100 C.

But if you meant like, teaching girls to move a certain way or teaching boys that they shouldn't cry in public simply because they're boys (or stuff like that, I dunno), then I disagree.

/I'm kinda getting off-topic, whoops!

[el_flel]

Are you talking about biological differences? Like how it may be useful to have mum around if you're a girl so she can explain about periods? In that case, I kind of agree; I'm sure mum can explain how to put on a tampon better than dad since it's impossible for him to have any practical experience in that area...Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Phew, I did make some sense! There are going to be certain situations in your life that are best dealt with by a specific gendered parent. Like how if you want parental advice about dating you're more likely to go to the same-sex parent, or how your mum will be the person you go with to get measured for your first bra, etc. They are the better choice for the simple fact that they've been there and done that themselves. This is what I meant by saying "what to expect being male/female".

But if you meant like, teaching girls to move a certain way or teaching boys that they shouldn't cry in public simply because they're boys (or stuff like that, I dunno), then I disagree.No, definitely did not mean that kind of stuff. I think that way of thinking is silly.

[Vanito]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Phew, I did make some sense! There are going to be certain situations in your life that are best dealt with by a specific gendered parent. Like how if you want parental advice about dating you're more likely to go to the same-sex parent, or how your mum will be the person you go with to get measured for your first bra, etc. They are the better choice for the simple fact that they've been there and done that themselves. This is what I meant by saying "what to expect being male/female".

No, definitely did not mean that kind of stuff. I think that way of thinking is silly.
When it comes to dating straight parents cannot give much usefull advice to their gay children. Problem is in the minds of many people gay children are still semi non existant.

[Safyre420]

When it comes to dating straight parents cannot give much usefull advice to their gay children. Problem is in the minds of many people gay children are still semi non existant.

Not really true, my mother has had lots of good and useful dating advice for me.

[shanalovesbooboo]

It's not a solution at all. Everything made by force will not be approved by the society be it homosexual rights or economic changes. I wanted to highlight that nobody has right to judge and force people to accept things they deny no matter what reason they have.

This is kind of old but I truely needed to put my opinion on this.

The answer to your Why is: Because it's wrong ? It is simply wrong to have prejudices against certain group of people. I don't claim myself to understand everything ( for example; muslims. No hate on them but I don't understand their beliefs on certain subjects) but not because I don't always understand some people I should think it's right to simply let it be like that. I try to understand and everybody should do the same.
Yes yes yes poland doesn't accept homosexuality.. But why should it be that way simply because.. it is ? With that kind of mentality women would still be slaves to men. Same for ethnicity.
Hey another example: excision.
The act to cut a woman's clitoris because she has no rights to gain sexual pleasure. In africa it's a tradition.. but not because it is a tratition it makes it right. So no, discrimination ( against ANYTHING ) isn't right, even if it is strongly implemented in your country.
I grew up in a family where tattoos are wrong and guess what ? I don't think they are. I actually have 2, and still I want a lot more.. Why should I think like my parents simply because I was educated that way ?
Yes, it happens, people tend to have the same beliefs as their entourage but as I said, it doesn't make it right.
Wow, I have so much examples for you.

I just can't understand how you really believe what you say. You say " Don't judge me because I judge homosexuals "
Are you aware of the paradox here ?
People in general should not ask to be understood on their lack of tolerance.


I live in Canada and I don't know how gay marriage is handled in USA. Is it the community that choose to not make it legal or is it the state ?
I think it should simply not be democratic if it is the case. I can't find any reason to be against gay marriage, so if it's not legal in one state it's because of intolerance ?
That kind of subject remind me of my luck. I'm so lucky to live in a society that accepts difference.
We even have a gay village( gay village is the actual name of that area) in my town.

[ElementMK]

When it comes to dating straight parents cannot give much usefull advice to their gay children. Problem is in the minds of many people gay children are still semi non existant.Same-sex dating isn't a strange, alien ritual. Parents can give the same exact advice, because people still learn about each other through the same outlets any straight person would (e.g. dinner and a movie, meeting at a party). The only place where things could be awkward is discussing sex and protection, but that's awkward for everyone.

[panther00567]

I'm really bugged when people label all Christians as anti-gay. I support anyone who gets married and is in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship... both straight and gay. The church might not agree, but I guess that's something to work on.

I believe I saw Wojtek say something about how a child becoming gay is the worst thing a Polish mother can experience. Well, my mother is Polish, so I wonder how she would feel if I were gay... :P But it just seems ridiculous. Shouldn't family come first?? If your son/daughter turns out to be gay, you should be encouraging and proud of them, instead of arguing and panicking about it. I can't see why a parent would be distraught at their child being gay... unless they're a slut or something, which would be a problem to most parents regardless of sexual orientation. :lol:

[Rectos Dominos]

I can't see why a parent would be distraught at their child being gay... unless they're a slut or something, which would be a problem to most parents regardless of sexual orientation. :lol:
Only if their homophobic than they would fear that more than 15 year old pregnant daughter "cause least she was with a boy" (insert stereotypical redneck accent). Whenever a homophobe has a gay son/daughter, I always wonder if it is the work of Karma.

[zakkp]

Whenever a homophobe has a gay son/daughter, I always wonder if it is the work of Karma.Absolutly not. Do you know ho hard that is for the kid?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

When it comes to dating straight parents cannot give much usefull advice to their gay children. Problem is in the minds of many people gay children are still semi non existant.

i dont agree with what hasnt been bolded, but with the bolded area i can see where youre coming from...

and i really hate that attitude of, " i dont hate/fear homosexuals, but my child could not POSSIBLY ever be homosexual! "

a bit contradictory, no?

personally, id love to have a gay child. it would narrow down the possibility of there being accidental pregnancy.

EDIT: also, as far as physical expectations go, i would hope that a gay couple who decide to adopt/in vitro a child would at least stock up on knowledge about that childs' bodily functions. example, if two fathers decided to adopt a little girl, i wouldnt say that completely disables them from caring for her womanly needs either, later in life; everybody is capable of research. there is direction for everything, should one search for it.

[Rectos Dominos]

Absolutly not. Do you know ho hard that is for the kid?
Are you trying to make me out as a homophobe? I was saying Karma on the parents part hoping Karma will teach them a lesson on how they treat homosexuals.

I never said or implicated that "homosexuality is bad".

[Tempscire]

Are you trying to make me out as a homophobe? I was saying Karma on the parents part hoping Karma will teach them a lesson on how they treat homosexuals.

I never said or implicated that "homosexuality is bad".
Zakkp's point was that such an act of "karma" would not only affect the homophobic parent, but also the homosexual child. Maybe the parent would learn a lesson about homosexuals as actual people, maybe they wouldn't. Before either possibility could occur, though, there would be a period of the child realizing their burgeoning sexuality and feeling terrified of ever confessing to their disapproving parent, and until such a confession took place, the parent could never experience the change of heart you say you hope the situation would bring.

Besides, people usually don't wish for karma to take its toll on others just so they can have a change of heart and become better, more tolerant people-- they're usually hoping for cosmic punishment for misbehavior. Punishing a homophobe with a homosexual child is to also punish the homosexual child with a homophobic parent.

[wickedblue]

i dont agree with what hasnt been bolded, but with the bolded area i can see where youre coming from...

and i really hate that attitude of, " i dont hate/fear homosexuals, but my child could not POSSIBLY ever be homosexual! "

a bit contradictory, no?

personally, id love to have a gay child. it would narrow down the possibility of there being accidental pregnancy.

EDIT: also, as far as physical expectations go, i would hope that a gay couple who decide to adopt/in vitro a child would at least stock up on knowledge about that childs' bodily functions. example, if two fathers decided to adopt a little girl, i wouldnt say that completely disables them from caring for her womanly needs either, later in life; everybody is capable of research. there is direction for everything, should one search for it.

Yes. It seems in these discussions, people completely forget the experience of single parents who have to raise a child/children that are their opposite gender and deal with those issues too. It is done in those homes and is done in homes of homosexual couples raising children as well.

And FWIW, my mother never taught me how to use a tampon. I figured that out on my own by reading the directions. I'm sure any young woman, whether there's a female in the house or not, is capable of doing just that.

[fakepeeps7]

And FWIW, my mother never taught me how to use a tampon. I figured that out on my own by reading the directions. I'm sure any young woman, whether there's a female in the house or not, is capable of doing just that.

Isn't that how most girls learn? Or is there some sort of hands-on teaching involved? :blink:

[whiterider]

My mum taught me how to use pads, because I kept trying to tear the adhesive back off as, well, it was all nasty and sticky... I figured tampons out on my own about five years later :p .

I know a gay couple (men) who adopted recently, and they did do the research and think carefully. They were originally planning to adopt a boy, but they met a brother and sister, both under ten years old - when they decided that they were going to adopt them, they planned out quite carefully how they'd cope with issues from the kids' behavioural difficulties to, yes, handling being two men looking after a little girl; and they've done a stunning job so far. It's really no obstacle to them now.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Yes. It seems in these discussions, people completely forget the experience of single parents who have to raise a child/children that are their opposite gender and deal with those issues too. It is done in those homes and is done in homes of homosexual couples raising children as well.

And FWIW, my mother never taught me how to use a tampon. I figured that out on my own by reading the directions. I'm sure any young woman, whether there's a female in the house or not, is capable of doing just that.

i thought of that after i left the keyboard...but good to know at least someone else did, too.

[Rectos Dominos]

Zakkp's point was that such an act of "karma" would not only affect the homophobic parent, but also the homosexual child. Maybe the parent would learn a lesson about homosexuals as actual people, maybe they wouldn't. Before either possibility could occur, though, there would be a period of the child realizing their burgeoning sexuality and feeling terrified of ever confessing to their disapproving parent, and until such a confession took place, the parent could never experience the change of heart you say you hope the situation would bring.

Besides, people usually don't wish for karma to take its toll on others just so they can have a change of heart and become better, more tolerant people-- they're usually hoping for cosmic punishment for misbehavior. Punishing a homophobe with a homosexual child is to also punish the homosexual child with a homophobic parent.

True. I understand that gays and lesbians who have a homophobic parent(s) the possibility of being kicked out or disowned and would have a harder time coming out than those with parents who are tolerant of homosexuals.

Little OT. I believe Karma can used to teach someone a lesson as much to punish someone but's my opinion.

[LE102071]

I volunteered for a year in a USA based disability program and worked with many, many USA people. Many of them are narrowminded and clueless about what the average gay person is like or does. Even a large part of the category that claims to be openminded has a lot of very narrowminded and strange ideas. (compared to what I'm used to - dutch people) I never faced as much prejudice as in the year with USA people.
From all the loads of USA moms, none claims to have gay children. None. (right...) Some were pretty clear how they would deal with gay kids. Of the less evil half still a large group seemed to think homosexuality somehow could be converted. Accepting? Nah.. most would be tolerating at most. (thats how they described it themself) Some of my good USA friends (the more openminded half) were shocked that the army in holland can function without DADT. Gays able to become minister president? BIG shock. Just imagine Pim Fortuyn would have become minister-president. Majority of gay people on TV out of the closet, including very popular singers or news readers? Big shock. Even of the USA people who claim to be openminded many have these idiot ideas.

On this forum its no different with seeing the most idiotic ideas pass along. Sorry but whats posted here frequently does not add much to the idea many USA people know much about gays/bi.

My dislike for the USA in other fields comes from the same source, helping those USA people. The way the USA treats disabled people is a big, big shame.

I know this thread is a bit old, two weeks since there's been a post, but I wanted to address this...

As an American, and gay to boot, I can definitely understand your beliefs of the American people.

However, I would like you to note:
United States Population: 307,006,550
Netherlands Population: 16,570,613

Given the generally accepted notion that 10% of a group can be considered gay, our gay population 30,700,655 is almost double the entire population of the Netherlands.

Now, consider that number, and then expand on the *huge* surge of support that the LGBTQ community has garnered in the last few decades, and you're realize the number of people that do, actually, have open-minded acceptance and support of the LGBTQ community.

Your assertions of our population is slightly skewed.

As for the topic being debated... As I said, I am a gay man. I fully support the repeal of DOMA, DADT.. and the eventual passage of marriage equality to include same-sex unions. Civil Unions are "separate-but-equal" the same as the blacks experienced during the Civil Rights movement (which was also, eventually found discriminatory, and unconstitutional.)

Hmm.. I think that's everything..

Peace

[dramamine213]

In the OP, gender =/= sex. They are two different things, however, gender is word commonly abused to mean sex (the physical differences between male and female).

Homosexual children reared by homophobic parents is hell. An ex of mine, before he came out to everyone but his family, was beaten as a kid daily for "acting/walking like a fag" and it caused loads of grief for him as he got older. We dated for nearly 3 years when we were around 5th grade and were the closest of friends until he came out to me in private. He spent hours unloading to me about the abuse his dad and mom unleashed on him for SUSPECTING he might be gay; that just wasn't allowed in their Christian household. It broke my heart, still hurts 13 years later, but I know he's happier with the man he chose to spend his life with.

Karma doesn't really play a role in all of that unless it's just as evil and merciless as the Christian God. Pre-daming someone just ain't cool.

[Safyre420]

In the OP, gender =/= sex. They are two different things, however, gender is word commonly abused to mean sex (the physical differences between male and female).

Homosexual children reared by homophobic parents is hell. An ex of mine, before he came out to everyone but his family, was beaten as a kid daily for "acting/walking like a fag" and it caused loads of grief for him as he got older. We dated for nearly 3 years when we were around 5th grade and were the closest of friends until he came out to me in private. He spent hours unloading to me about the abuse his dad and mom unleashed on him for SUSPECTING he might be gay; that just wasn't allowed in their Christian household. It broke my heart, still hurts 13 years later, but I know he's happier with the man he chose to spend his life with.

Karma doesn't really play a role in all of that unless it's just as evil and merciless as the Christian God. Pre-daming someone just ain't cool.

I'm not religious, but stating that the Christian God is evil and merciless(while true) is uncalled for, this viewpoint is held by a less than majority of the christian community.

Gender and Sex DOES mean the same thing essentially now, due to language evolving, applications for anything don't ask your gender they ask your "sex", they are synonymous now regardless of what their definitions were 20 years ago. Words change, take "gay" for example, first used to describe happiness, now described as happiness AND homosexual males(how it's just males that's generally accepted in this is beyond me, even being a gay male) depending on how it's used.

[unalisaa]

Gender and Sex DOES mean the same thing essentially now, due to language evolving, applications for anything don't ask your gender they ask your "sex", they are synonymous now regardless of what their definitions were 20 years ago. Words change, take "gay" for example, first used to describe happiness, now described as happiness AND homosexual males(how it's just males that's generally accepted in this is beyond me, even being a gay male) depending on how it's used.
Dunno, there appears to have been a rise in the tendency among laymen(/women/people :p) to differentiate the past couple of years as gender issues and general rights movements have gained more leverage.
The difference itself was only acknowledged as recently as 1955, and didn't become widespread before the 70s. There's a reason it's not called "sex roles".
Forms asking for your sex as opposed to gender are not being radical with their language use, they're being backwards and cisnormative with their questioning.

In addition to that, definitions of words or grammatical distinctions usually change or fall out of a language when they are rendered unnecessary, unsuitable, or otherwise unsatisfactory by the majority of its speakers. Hence "gay" changed its meaning: it started as a euphemism, but the English language *needed* a non-offensive way to refer to homosexual males. Likewise, now that there's more focus on gender roles and trans-acceptance, I think we need something to describe that having, say, male reproductive organs does not necessarily equal having all the other things typically associated with maleness.

EDIT: upon further research of my asspull claims, I see that the US Food and Drug Administration officially uses "gender" instead of "sex", and that "gender" is, indeed, commonly used to mean "sex" in non-gender studies-contexts.
However, in a discussion like this one where it's pretty important to make a distinction, I think it's worth keeping it in mind.


In short: your statement is true, and I'm sad it is.

[wickedblue]

Karma doesn't really play a role in all of that unless it's just as evil and merciless as the Christian God. Pre-daming someone just ain't cool.

I was right with you until this line. The Christian God is not evil and merciless. It is, in fact, the very backbone of the Christian faith that their God is loving and merciful. That's the whole point of the faith. Unfortunately, there are people that present themselves as Christians who have taken God's word and twisted it to serve their own evil and unjust agenda which would lead one to believe that their God is evil and merciless and it's really tragic that those are the loudest of the bunch.

I do not want to derail this thread but I felt like something needed to be said to counter the assertion that was made.

[Safyre420]

I was right with you until this line. The Christian God is not evil and merciless. It is, in fact, the very backbone of the Christian faith that their God is loving and merciful. That's the whole point of the faith. Unfortunately, there are people that present themselves as Christians who have taken God's word and twisted it to serve their own evil and unjust agenda which would lead one to believe that their God is evil and merciless and it's really tragic that those are the loudest of the bunch.

I do not want to derail this thread but I felt like something needed to be said to counter the assertion that was made.

From my understanding, you are incorrect, it's not the christian god that is loving and merciful it is Jesus Christ that is loving and merciful, a simple reading of the old testament can show you that the christian god is everything but loving and merciful, the flood? god's work...sacrificing of jesus? again your Loving and Merciful Christian God...the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah? Yep that'd be your childish Christian God yet again trying to prove a point by being an asshole(though I don't disagree with why it was done sodom at least[that is where lot was right?] was full of hateful asshats that wanted to rape the angels, not cool in my book). If the past isn't sufficient enough, let's flash forward to Revelations...God is going to annihilate us for not following what it wants us to follow? Well I'm sorry but God hasn't been around since the time of Jesus Christ, so God has no say in what we do now, God is a hypocrit for even thinking that we HAVE to follow it when it won't even make it's presence known.

ETA: Failed to mention that God can't even seem to follow it's own commandments that it gave us, so how are we to follow it if it can't even follow it's own laws?

[wickedblue]

This is not a religion thread and I am not going to be bated into an argument about religion. I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to the assertion up there that the Christian God is evil and merciless. You have your opinion and it's one I strongly disagree with but this is not the appropriate place to discuss it and since the entire opinion hinges upon a belief that not everyone will share, it's not like it can be proven anyway.

[Safyre420]

This is not a religion thread and I am not going to be bated into an argument about religion. I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to the assertion up there that the Christian God is evil and merciless. You have your opinion and it's one I strongly disagree with but this is not the appropriate place to discuss it and since the entire opinion hinges upon a belief that not everyone will share, it's not like it can be proven anyway.

And I was only providing points as to why the Christian God seems evil and merciless, I wasn't trying to bait you into an argument about religion.

[pinketamine]

Well, technically, gender and sex are not the same, people use these words as if they meant the same. Gender is the sociological views or expectations about your sex, which just depends on biology.
For example, you are a female (sex) and therefore you should "act like a female"(gender). I think that this view is the most accepted in general, at least that is what I have always studied.
Just wanted to point this. I know you were not denying this, but I think those terms should be used as different because they ARE different.

I'm somehow angry about something that has to do with this. As some of you maybe know, same sex marriage and adoption is legal in Spain since some years ago. If the Popular Party wins the elections on 2012, they have decided to make it illegal again, what are your views on this? The Popular Party identifies itself with the Christian values, and they manifested their disagreement when the law was approved.
Do you think it is correct to modify laws this way?

[hjkjr2]

Several very small points...

Marriage was invented a very long time ago, and had more to do with titles, heirs, & inheritance among royalty & nobility.

Marriage IS broken anyway...How many marriages fail? What, Half? Even after people take vows (and who keeps their word anymore?) for a lifetime together. Why can't EVERYONE just do Civil Unions?

The first homosexuals I ever met were other kids in primary school. It was just a natural thing for them...they were what they were, and had NO choice in the matter. Attraction is something you can't control. It's an automatic reaction. You can only control what you do about it.

When a gay person is attracted to the opposite gender, and wonders why, it's just biology. Their instincts know that they cannot procreate with the same gender, even if, mostly they're attracted to the same gender.

You always hear about straight people abusing kids, of either gender, and almost never hear about gay folks doing so. Because they so rarely do.

From what I've seen, "sex", and "gender" were used to define only the physical attributes, not the inner self, until recently.

[kattenijin]

It's your choice: would you rather conform to society and make society happy or make yourself happy?
Just because the majority says something is right, dosen't make it so. Actually, from what I've learened of Eastern cultures, while the people in controll of the government have managed to convince the majority of the populace that society is more valuable than the individual, they certainly don't apply that to themselves.

In the West, you will obviously make yourself happy. After all, Westerners value personal happiness and independence. Now, if you live in a country that value family over the individual and a country unaffected by the Abrahamic religions who view homosexuality as sin and that same country is affected by the one-child-per-family policy which requires parents to hope for the children to marry a person of the opposite sex, then you would not treat homosexuality as such a big deal.

If you are Confucian, and you hold to the begetting of children as being "dutifull", with modern-day technology, there really is no need to mary a person of the opposite gender to ensure the continuation of your family line. You can be gay, married to a person of your same gender, and still provide a genetic child to continue the line.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I think conformity is better than personal happiness. It's your choice: would you rather conform to society and make society happy or make yourself happy?

so, wait...
let me get this straight. youre advocating a mass of misery as better than individual happiness?

how is it better to do something that masks who you are for the sake of someone/everyone elses contentment, if that person themselves arent content as they are, for they are not allowed to be happy, either? and if theyre never an involvement in your life? would it be worth it to 'blend in' if you seek to impress people who dont bat an eye at you, usually?

and isnt it a form of selfishness in itself to say that someone shouldnt be allowed to be that way, because it bothers you?

if someone else isnt happy about you being the way you are, i dont think that would change if they never knew you were that way. you would still know that they did not approve, and if they knew about you, they would not treat you as they do everyone else. what exactly is the gain in that situation? to hide a part of you that cant be changed, thus making yourself unhappy, when really, you have no control over other people's happiness anyway?


...that was probably way more questions than ive ever asked in a singular topic, but to be honest, it all boggles me.

[Oaktree]

I think conformity is better than personal happiness. It's your choice: would you rather conform to society and make society happy or make yourself happy?
:alarm: Utilitarianism Alert! :alarm:

Have you considered that personal happiness may be what is best for the group as a whole? If people are happy, they're less likely to do anything drastic in a failed attempt to improve their situation. Because people will try to improve their situation if they are unhappy. That, or they'll go mad. Either way isn't good news for society.

[simbalena]

I think conformity is better than personal happiness.

Two questions:

1. Why?

2. Have you had to deal with a situation where you had to choose between the two?

[whiterider]

Further to the above points - since when does a lack of gay marriage make the majority of people happy? It does for a minority, sure, but while I'd agree that the majority of people aren't out campaigning for gay marriage, they are sitting at home not giving a shit either way. If you can create happiness, freedom and a true implementation of human rights, plus a reduction in mental illness and suicide rates for one minority (I know gay marriage is not the only issue there - but it is a big contributor to the "us and them" delimitation, and reducing that is a worthy goal) while annoying and offending another minority, it doesn't matter how big the respective minorities are; from a utilitarian point of view, the benefits outweigh the harm.

[whiterider]

Well, I think people use "you" because you're the one expressing the opinion; how else would they address the argument, except by asking questions to the person posing it?

As regards your tale of left-handedness, and I'll use you here because it's a personal story :p , I really don't feel there's an analogy. Left handed people aren't incapable of using their right hand, and vice versa; when I recently embedded a penknife a little over a centimetre into my right index finger, I sure got good at typing left handed for a week or so :p . Gay people are, however, incapable of ceasing to feel attraction (both physically and emotionally) to members of the same sex, and they are incapable of creating attraction to members of the opposite sex. They can pretend, sure, but that doesn't lead to real change; you can now use your right hand easily because you've practised so long, but all a gay person can gain by "practising" pretending to be straight is an excellent skill at hiding their feelings and never opening up to anybody.

At any rate, wouldn't it have been better, for you, if instead of having to go through all that discomfort and awkwardness, and feeling out of place - as a young child, no less - you could have just been able to say "I'm left-handed. Big whoop?". We've got to that stage for handedness now, and no-one has suffered, and left-handed kids have gained. So why shouldn't the same be done for gayness, especially given that gayness stays with a person for life?

[Oaktree]

I am just wondering why people are directing the posts at me (the person) rather than the arguments displayed. It seems to me that in every debate that combines sex, religion, and politics, people don't agree or disagree with the arguments displayed; they question the person behind the arguments.

Example 1: Have you considered that personal happiness may be what is best for the group as a whole?

Example 2: Have you had to deal with a situation where you had to choose between the two?

I do not think it is right to disagree or agree with the person behind the opinions. In a debate, you should disagree or agree with the opinions. Seriously, you are arguing against opinions, not the person behind the opinions. Just because I made those opinions doesn't mean I am a bad person who would advocate mass misery. I am only thinking an alternative way. And that alternative opinion just happens to be contradicted by pretty sound arguments.

Therefore, in the end, I rest my case. You have made very sound arguments that have contradicted my argument. However, I would appreciate if you haven't used the term "you". If you use the term "you", I can easily assume you are talking about me, the person, rather than my argument.

I wasn't trying to attack you personally; I felt like being a little silly with the Utilitarianism alarm, but the only way in which I may have been personal in my response was in using a Utilitarian argument. I normally would not argue from Utilitarianism, but I was addressing the points raised within the same philosophical framework to avoid having arguments that don't address each other. I don't have any opinions on you personally for your argument and I apologize if my response appeared to indicate any personal judgment.

In addition, I would like to answer Example 2. Example 2 asks a personal opinion and thus deserves a personal response. Here is my response.

Have you had to deal with a situation where you had to choose between the two?

Yes. When I was in elementary school, I was originally left-handed. Handedness, as according to my Biology textbook, remains a controversy whether it is genetic or caused by societal and environmental factors. I admit that I can relate to this myself. I felt awkward using my left hand in a right-hand-dominant world. Then, when I was 11 or 12, I had enough. I decided to encourage myself and train myself to use the right hand properly. It was tough using my right hand to write at first, because it felt so weird to control the pencil. Eventually, I learned and became good at it. Nowadays, I am mostly right-handed, even in cooking and playing ball! I feel happy this way, because I am more adjusted to the environment at large. The reason why I laid down my claim in the other post was that I thought homosexuals could adjust themselves to the environment. If they are better adjusted to the environment, perhaps they will feel happier. :)

Just as whiterider, I will have to address this personally; you felt uncomfortable with your difference, but not everyone does. In your case, you felt happier conforming, so there is nothing wrong with doing so because it satisfies your own criteria for happiness.

Conformity is often deplored in our society, but I think this is an unreasonable stance. A degree of conformity is necessary, as it is impossible for people to all adopt entirely different behaviors and it makes communication and compassion difficult; if you have nothing in common with others, you are less likely to relate. However, total conformity is also impossible. People have innate differences and it is wrong to force people to alter harmless differences against their will. Ultimately, I would say to you that there is nothing wrong with your desire to conform, just as there is nothing wrong with my choice to remain left-handed (insofar as I can; my first grade teacher made me write with my right hand, so I continue to do so, but I remain left-handed in all other activities).

To relate to the topic, homosexuality is a harmless difference. The existence of homosexuals would have very little impact on my life if I wasn't friends with so many and the impact my gay friends have on me is generally positive, so it is good for my well-being. Many people feel the same. For those who have a problem with homosexuality, there is always the option of avoiding it. Therefore, homosexuals should not be forced to change themselves to conform to the majority.

[DigitalSympathies]

Just to go on about the environment I'm in right now regarding the matter.

At my school, it's very boring but at the same time very open-minded. No cliques, popularity, racism, homophobia, sexism or bullying on the surface or under the surface - none at all. There's a lot of gangs, fighting and drug trading, but that's about it. It's a "hard school" at best, but at least everyone is open-minded about things. We have a GSA and I remember going to a meeting about who got to sign the form to ask permission - there were 13 different people claiming to want to start one including me, and the club is now the biggest on campus with just over 150 people at 3 different grade-level meetings. Sure, nobody cares about their grades and the level of teaching is so bad that half the time they just sit there showing us news clips or YouTube videos, but we are educated to be street smart.

From the time I was little I was told that dividing people into groups like "homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/pansexual" or even "female/male/transgender" was wrong and just as bad as racism. Not everyone identifies with these groups - I am attracted to multiple genders but don't label myself "bisexual" because I find it restricting. It means I like males or females. Well, world, there's more than just 2 genders now. There's people with both "parts", transgenders (this is considered a gender in my family planning textbook), born both genders and choosing one or the other, and the list goes on.

There was a girl in one of my classes who was from the Middle East and had strict views on homosexuality. She thought it was "unnatural". We were going through a magazine and she saw an ad for the TV show "Ellen". She asked me "Well, did they both wear a tuxedo at the wedding? I mean, she chose to be gay so she must dress like a man," and I kindly informed her - my very emotionally sensitive lesbian friend was sitting in the seat ahead of us - that being gay isn't a choice and that there's scientific proof to back it up. She told me that it was a disease. And I told her, "No. You have a disease. It's called ignorance."

[Sunbee]

I'm somehow angry about something that has to do with this. As some of you maybe know, same sex marriage and adoption is legal in Spain since some years ago. If the Popular Party wins the elections on 2012, they have decided to make it illegal again, what are your views on this? The Popular Party identifies itself with the Christian values, and they manifested their disagreement when the law was approved.
Do you think it is correct to modify laws this way?

If it was correct to change the law in the first place, then how can it be incorrect to change it again, as long as they follow the appropriate procedures?
This is why we have the ongoing debate in the US about inalienable rights versus government granted privileges. For the record, I don't think that government should have anything to do with marriage or adoption.

[el_flel]

If it was correct to change the law in the first place, then how can it be incorrect to change it again, as long as they follow the appropriate procedures?It's a good question and I would say that IMO it's wrong to change it back because the law was initially changed to give people equal rights and now this other party want to change the law to revoke these rights.

[Rafe Weisz]

Gays just want the same rights you have; nothing more, nothing less. Gay people pay taxes, pay bills, go to work, fight in the military, and vote just like you. So why shouldn’t they be able to get married?

If that is true... why I still can't marry my dog? Now gays have rights I do not have! It is so unfair... :cry:
If they want equality, they should think about every other choice too.

And besides, they always had the same rights as everyone else. Where it says that gay people can't marry like everyone else always did? The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules, but when they got to change them, they did only for them, forgetting everyone else choices. They are selfish people that shoud not be allowed to mess with politics and laws. (I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)

[unalisaa]

If that is true... why I still can't marry my dog? Now gays have rights I do not have! It is so unfair... :cry:
If they want equality, they should think about every other choice too.

And besides, they always had the same rights as everyone else. Where it says that gay people can't marry like everyone else always did? The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules, but when they got to change them, they did only for them, forgetting everyone else choices. They are selfish people that shoud not be allowed to mess with politics and laws. (I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)
I will merely ask one question, and I would be grateful for an answer.

In which regards is gay marriage the same thing as marriage to dogs?
A list of aspects should do.

[pinketamine]

If that is true... why I still can't marry my dog? Now gays have rights I do not have! It is so unfair... :cry:
If they want equality, they should think about every other choice too.

And besides, they always had the same rights as everyone else. Where it says that gay people can't marry like everyone else always did? The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules, but when they got to change them, they did only for them, forgetting everyone else choices. They are selfish people that shoud not be allowed to mess with politics and laws. (I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)

You can't marry a dog because a dog isn't a human being and, as far as we know, can't make the rational decision to marry you. Gay couples what marriage between two consenting adults, who both have freely CHOSEN to marry each other.

They can marry like everyone else? Marrying someone you don't like is not marrying "like everyone else". What would you think if your only option was marrying someone of your same sex? I guess you wouldn't like it.
Gays and lesbians don't make it compulsory for you to marry someone of your same sex, they just want the right to be able to marry the one they love, that's all.
How does this affect your personal freedom?

[whiterider]

Does your dog pay taxes and vote in general elections? Seriously, now, I want an answer to this.

[Oaktree]

If that is true... why I still can't marry my dog? Now gays have rights I do not have! It is so unfair... :cry:
If they want equality, they should think about every other choice too.

And besides, they always had the same rights as everyone else. Where it says that gay people can't marry like everyone else always did? The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules, but when they got to change them, they did only for them, forgetting everyone else choices. They are selfish people that shoud not be allowed to mess with politics and laws. (I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)

When women tried to get the right to vote, they didn't concern themselves with trying to get children the right to vote. Was that wrong of them? When people lobby for political change, they aren't obligated - legally, socially, or morally - to try to get change for any other group at the same time.

Further, gay people can't legally get married,which means that all of the benefits of marriage aren't available to them. In a married couple, when one partner is in the hospital, the other can visit and can make medical decisions for the hospitalized partner. Gay couples don't have these rights. Sometimes gays are denied visitation rights, even in cases of serious illness. If the parents of the ill person don't approve of the partner, they can withhold visitation and medical choices from the partner, which doesn't happen in heterosexual married couples.

And, while I suppose I'm answering unalisaa's question for you, you can't compare gay marriage to marrying an animal. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. An animal can't consent. Any sexual relations you have with an animal are essentially rape. The same reasoning applies to those who might want to have sex with a child. Children aren't able to provide informed consent. The same can't be said of gay relationships.

[Tempscire]

This just has to be a troll...has to be...

The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules,
Because the "rules" are unjust and largely hinged on a premise (religious, and Biblical in particular in the U.S.) that has no right to be affecting laws in secular government.

What about when miscegenation laws were in effect and blacks and whites couldn't marry each other? Should those still be on the books? I mean, they each had the equal right to marry...others of the same color. How dare they want to marry someone they loved regardless of skin color!

(I had nothing against gays and lesbians
Yeah, right.

until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)
Until they didn't want to stay secret and hidden out of sight and wanted to be treated as actual human beings who don't deserve to have their lives ruined and be outcast from society because of who they love.

Oh, but do please elaborate on gay marriage (and from the sound of it, gay acceptance/tolerance in general) harms you in particular and society in general. Try to avoid the same arguments used against racial integration 60 years ago. (But then again, you are the same poster who wanted to know how to make a whites-only Sim world...)

[wickedblue]

If that is true... why I still can't marry my dog? Now gays have rights I do not have! It is so unfair... :cry:
If they want equality, they should think about every other choice too.

And besides, they always had the same rights as everyone else. Where it says that gay people can't marry like everyone else always did? The thing is... they wanted to marry outside the rules, but when they got to change them, they did only for them, forgetting everyone else choices. They are selfish people that shoud not be allowed to mess with politics and laws. (I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs)

Uh...well, okay then. The issue of consent has been covered so I won't repeat it again. On second thought, it's worth repeating: animals cannot give consent, adult humans can.

But this: "I had nothing against gays and lesbians until they forgot that there are other choices besides theirs" is just such a reprehensible argument. They have not forgotten that there are other choices besides theirs. Just - what?! No one is trying to take away marriage between opposite sex couples and only give us the option to marry the same sex! No one is even suggesting taking away those privileges. What we are trying to accomplish is giving homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples already have. Because they are human beings and deserve to have the same choices as every one else. We didn't stop being human beings the moment we decided to love someone of the same sex. So why are you even trying to compare homosexual people to animals?

[Rafe Weisz]

Does your dog pay taxes and vote in general elections? Seriously, now, I want an answer to this.

You are right... We have to change that. Dogs already have some rights, we must give them some obligations too, like paying taxes, so they will have to work, and that will lead in them having the right to vote.

We really can't go around denying rights just because they do not share enough genes with us, or because they are hairy, or because they are four legged, with no hands.

My dog wants to kiss me in the mouth sometimes, that clearly means love. It even sleeps next to me when I'm in my bed, and I would like to have all the rights of married couples for us too. Hey, gays can't get pregnant of each other either, but that stops them? No.
So, I demand the same rights they want, for me and my dog too.
We deserve to be happy! :giggler: