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

[unalisaa]

I call troll.

[ElementMK]

Rafe's no troll; she just has some undisclosed desires for her dog that need to be addressed.

[wickedblue]

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:

When your dog can give informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent), we'll get right on making that happen.

[kattenijin]

Hey, gays can't get pregnant of each other either, but that stops them? No.

So, I take it youare one of those "marriage is for procreation" people. Well, what about all those infertile couples who are married? Shouldn't we make all their marriages null and void? How long should a couple be allowed to wait to have children before their marriage is made null because they don't have any? Maybe the bride needs to be pregnant at the time of the wedding, with genetic testing to be sure the groom is the actuall father.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

So, I take it youare one of those "marriage is for procreation" people. Well, what about all those infertile couples who are married? Shouldn't we make all their marriages null and void? How long should a couple be allowed to wait to have children before their marriage is made null because they don't have any? Maybe the bride needs to be pregnant at the time of the wedding, with genetic testing to be sure the groom is the actuall father.

or heterosexual couples that are fertile, but choose* not to have children (the term ive heard to describe them is "childfree")? lets face it, there is no dictation that all whom marry are required to reproduce....and is reproduction alone that great of a reason to get together with them? wouldnt love be a bigger factor? and in that case, shouldnt it not matter what junk someones got between their legs, if love is cultivated and reciprocated between the adults in question?

im not arguing with you, just adding on to your point(s).
*yeah, freedom of choice. remember that? not many people seem to. thought it could bear to be pointed out.

[TurtleLover]

Did you know that Homosexuality is found in every species on earth but homo-phobia is only in are....man its sad.

[rcranger9]

@TurtleLover: so true. i know that i read somewhere that chemicals dumped from a plant can alter an animals sexuality. a larger number of some type of bird became gay than is usual.

[TheCrossfireX]

So, I take it youare one of those "marriage is for procreation" people. Well, what about all those infertile couples who are married? Shouldn't we make all their marriages null and void? How long should a couple be allowed to wait to have children before their marriage is made null because they don't have any? Maybe the bride needs to be pregnant at the time of the wedding, with genetic testing to be sure the groom is the actuall father.

I can't speak for this person but i think what they may have tried to say (rather poorly perhaps) is that man and woman were made to procreate, whilst two of the same gender were not, thus making marriage between a man and a woman a natural process. The fact that some couples choose not to procreate, or physically cant, doesn't account for the fact that it's the main purpose of their union - to multiply and fill the earth. The fact that gays cannot do this without other, artificial means, may be why a lot of people disagree with such a union, as it may be deemed (and please do not be offended by this wording, I read it from an article on this subject years ago, so im simply quoting) "wasteful".

However, considering the fact that people are having babies all over the show these days, whether they are married, partners or indeed single, it doesn't really validate that point. It's just how some people look at it.

but whoever made that comment can jump in and speak for themselves if i'm wrong.

[whiterider]

Yes, I've heard that point. It's entirely divorced from reality - and, furthermore, if you're saying that God made straight people to make babies and God made gay people to not have babies... then presumably God also made infertile people not to have babies, and thus not to marry. It's not exactly a surprise that that argument could be knocked down with a feather.

[leo06girl]

I may get crap for say this, but I'm saying it anyway.

I haven't read the entire thread, but intend to do so later.

I think gay marriage should be legal because who am I to tell others how live their lives? I admit it is not something I would do myself, but I have no problem with others doing it.
It's okay for people to thinks it's gross and not want to be around it. It's just not okay to think you have the right to tell others how to live their lives and who to love. Honestly, I think it's a little weird that some care so much about others' sex lives. Gay marriage wouldn't be hurting anyone, so what's the problem? They (gays) just want to live their lives and not in fear.

The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

IMO gay marriage being illegal goes COMPLETELY against this. Gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. They should have the liberty to pursue what causes them happiness in their life.

I also think those who oppose gay marriage are a little hypocritical. I say this because those who are against it are perfectly fine with straight marriage being legal. It's hypocritical to say "It's okay for me to marry whomever I choose, but it's not okay for you to marry whomever you choose."

[leo06girl]

Did you know that Homosexuality is found in every species on earth but homo-phobia is only in are....man its sad.

I was just reading about that (homosexuality) in other species the other day.

Like I said in my last post in this thread, it's okay for people to not agree with a gay lifestyle, but it's NOT okay to hate, ostracize, cast off etc.;or to tell others how to live their lives. There are ways to overcome homophobia, IF the homophobics were willing; that is one of the saddest parts of homophobia is that so few homophobics are willing to overcome their fear. A guy I went to school with was run out of HS Senior Year because there was a rumor that he was gay. People who called themselves his friends were horrible and ran him out of school when he was a good guy. Another girl I went to school with came out of the closet and a guy who called himself one of her best friends completely turned his back on her. It wasn't just sad, it was sickening.

[el_flel]

A friend of mine has only recently come out at 25 but he's still really sensitive about it. He won't go places with his boyfriend if he'll be meeting people. He was badly bullied at school for being slightly effeminate which is how he ended up at my school, and I suspect this, and the fact that his dad is a bit funny about it, is why he's having such a hard time accepting it. It's really sad that the sole reason for this is the disapproval of others about something which, frankly, is none of their bloody business.

[leo06girl]

A friend of mine has only recently come out at 25 but he's still really sensitive about it. He won't go places with his boyfriend if he'll be meeting people. He was badly bullied at school for being slightly effeminate which is how he ended up at my school, and I suspect this, and the fact that his dad is a bit funny about it, is why he's having such a hard time accepting it. It's really sad that the sole reason for this is the disapproval of others about something which, frankly, is none of their bloody business.

EXACTLY!! A person's sexuality is NONE of anyone else's business. Like I said before I find weird and a little creepy that someone would care so much about another person's sex life.

A girl from an IMDB thread, said once how she doesn't think it's right for straight people to be able to go out in public and flaunt their relationship/sexuality. I.E.- how it's acceptable for straight couples to hold hands, kiss, etc. in public (she also included pregnant women), but a gay couple doing any of this is not as well accepted. She and I never got along and rarely agreed, but one of the only things we agreed on is gays should be left alone and allowed to marry.

[kiwi_tea]

EXACTLY!! A person's sexuality is NONE of anyone else's business.

I think is slightly the wrong attitude. The point should really be that a person's sexuality *doesn't matter*. That it can be anybody's business without ramifications. That it's a non-issue. There's this culture of sexual privacy that means, in some senses, sexuality itself ends up in the closet.

One of the most troublesome effects of the "it's none of anyone's business" attitude is that it can make queer kids more private and insular than they need to be. They don't need to put themselves in hard and fast categories, but labels on sexuality are pretty much essential both personally and politically, unless perhaps you're bi or straight. If you're gay, the pool of people is very small. There is a small sense in which gay people - especially isolated gay teens - need to find ways of making it other people's business that they're gay just so that they can meet people for romance or sex or even just solidarity and mutual understanding. Gay kids need to know that their sexuality can be public - can be other people's business. That it's safe for queer girls to say "my girlfriend" to strangers, that they don't need to be constantly monitoring their own speech to avoid making someone uncomfortable or agitated.

[Haleighrocks236]

Anyone who has an issue with gay people is either bible-beating religeous, has had mom, dad, grandma, and grandad's opinions shoved down their throats, or has had gay thoughts and are afraid of them. Among other things, I suppose, but those are the main ones I've gathered from my homophobic peers. Lack of tolerance is detestable. People who can't except change are . . . I would finish that with what I really thought but I think that might get me in trouble with either side of the arguement.

Anyhow, it shouldn't matter what someone's gender preference is. If you really love a person you should be allowed to be with them. I've seen straight marriages happen with the two holding something a lot less than love for each other.

[leo06girl]

I see your point kiwi_tea.

I didn't mean gays should be any more private or closed off or whatever about their sexuality than anyone. Someone's sexuality can be someone else's business if they want it to be. I didn't mean that they should monitor their speech or anything like that. I think they should be allowed to be as open or closed about it as the individual chooses. If they want to be open about it fine and if they want it to be private, fine. I didn't not mean they shouldn't discuss their sexuality at all; they should be able to do so (without fear of persecution) if they choose. If they choose not to discuss it, then it's no one's business. Another part of what I meant was also unless you are the person's partner, you have no real right to know a person's sexuality (unless they choose to say).

I.E.- I had a friend my Sophomore year of HS who was gay. He only came out to me and a few others. He never discussed it further or with anyone else because he felt it was no one's business.

[leo06girl]

Anyone who has an issue with gay people is either bible-beating religeous, has had mom, dad, grandma, and grandad's opinions shoved down their throats, or has had gay thoughts and are afraid of them. Among other things, I suppose, but those are the main ones I've gathered from my homophobic peers. Lack of tolerance is detestable. People who can't except change are . . . I would finish that with what I really thought but I think that might get me in trouble with either side of the arguement.

Anyhow, it shouldn't matter what someone's gender preference is. If you really love a person you should be allowed to be with them. I've seen straight marriages happen with the two holding something a lot less than love for each other.

I believe in the Bible, but I completely support gay marriage.

I agree lack of tolerance for a lot of things is detestable. I also think lack of tolerance for a LOT of things is hypocritical. I said a lot of things and not all because I don't think it's hypocritical to not tolerate druggies, child abuse, etc.

[whiterider]

I believe in the Bible too. I've seen lots of them, even read bits of a few, so clearly the Bible does, in fact, exist.

Sorry, that phrasing has just always irked me slightly :p .

[leo06girl]

Ok, I'll rephrase,
I believe in God and I believe His word.

[Julieryc]

Ok, I'll rephrase,
I believe in God and I believe His word.

Better phrasing: "I believe in [the Judeo-Christian] God and I believe that the Bible is His word." Because you need to define what you think "His word" is. Is it the Quran? The Torah?

(Of course, this also requires clarification - for one, do you think the Bible is literally God's own word - as in, God dictated and all human authors simply transcribed? Or do you believe that the human authors were simply inspired by God? While thus inspired, were they infallibly transmitting God's commands, or were they prone to human error and putting their own spin on the text?) Also, which parts of the Bible do you believe? All of it, literally? Some of it literally and some figuratively? I know this isn't a religion thread, but it can be difficult to specify, and it's interesting to see what different people mean by such a simple statement.

Completely OT comment: One of my favorite stupidly ironic pictures is one of some idiot showing off their tattoo of whichever verse of Leviticus that's anti-homosexuality, because a couple verses down from that, Leviticus also bans tattoos.

As for gay marriage, I'm completely for. Haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I think a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage have never actually known or befriended a gay person. I mean, I don't know how you could get to know someone and still want to deny them the right to the benefits of legal marriage. Of course, I'm probably a bit naive in that respect - I went from a very liberal undergrad school to a more conservative grad program and was stunned by the fact that, in one of my electives, I was literally the only person who was vocally on the pro-gay-rights side. The amount of ignorant comments, and the number of people who were willing to use hurtful epithets, especially during the anonymous commenting parts of the class, really astounded me.

[Shadowside]

I think is slightly the wrong attitude. The point should really be that a person's sexuality *doesn't matter*. That it can be anybody's business without ramifications. That it's a non-issue. There's this culture of sexual privacy that means, in some senses, sexuality itself ends up in the closet.


While I appreciate the point that society needs to reach a stage where gender preference doesn't matter, I do genuinely think that whatever I'm doing in my bedroom isn't anyone else's business, and that people shouldn't feel compelled to disclose that information to anyone who asks.

Example of what I mean: There was a guy in my class who I'll call Creepy Sexual Harassment Guy. He would ask women in our class, me included, how many partners we'd had, how many dates it would take before we'd sleep with someone, etc. I told him that to mind his own business, because anyone who needed to know that information already knew. While I think that we should live in a world where everyone can state their orientation and relationship status without fear, I don't believe we should have to live in a world where everything about our sexual activity is automatically everyone else's business.

[leo06girl]

I believe in the Christian God and that the Holy Bible is His word. I don't see myself as any domination. I was raised Baptist, but I have attended both a Baptist Church and Church of Christ. Like I said, I believe in the Christian God.

I think the ORIGINAL Bible was dictated by God and transcribed by humans. The Bible has been reprinted and translated by humans who probably put their own spin on the text. I would love to know what the original Bible says.

I believe the Bible figuratively, as does everyone I know who follows It.

Reply to your completely OT comment: Didn't Britney Spears get some religious tattoo at one time when the religion it symbolized forbid tattoos? I vaguely remember something like that.

I knew a few gay people, we have lost touch over the years. I liked all of them and they were good people. One says he's straight (his family is what some may call Bible Beaters) but I would NOT be surprised if he we closeted. It doesn't matter if you get to know them or not, you have no right to tell others who to love and who they can marry. It's not something I would do myself, but I will NOT try to stop others from doing it. I think it's hypocritical of anyone to oppose gay marriage when they are perfectly fine with straight marriage. I was going to say something about how wrong I think the Westboro Baptist Church is, but I don't even want to get started on that. All the hate people spew at gays is sickening.

[SimsLover50]

The arguemnet I hear a lot from reading cnn forums, aside from the religious- arguement: is this:

"They can't reproduce." To which I always say, neither can infertile couples, elderly or others with certain conditions.

or

"Its a sin, Love the gay hate the sin"

[fraroc]

One thing I hate is when those damn Jesus freaks intrude on gay pride parades with counter protests. Some of my friends went to the NYC gay pride parade and they didnt get any trouble from the Prop 8 supporters but they said that the Jesus freaks were the worst. They were holding up signs that said "GO HOME FAGS" ,"FAGS MUST REPENT", and "ITS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" and there was this one sign that had a picture of Govoner Cuomo with devil horns and another one with a portrait of Cuomo and in big letters "THE ANTICHRIST IS HERE". and they kept chanting over and over again "Put Jesus in front of you! put Satan behind you! put Jesus in front of you! put Satan behind you! put Jesus in front of you! put Satan behind you!" over and over and they wouldnt stop!

If you are a radical, fire and brimstone christian and you think that homosexuality is "disgusting" and "immorral"... THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING AT A GAY PRIDE PARADE?!?!

[kiwi_tea]

If you are a radical, fire and brimstone christian and you think that homosexuality is "disgusting" and "immorral"... THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING AT A GAY PRIDE PARADE?!?!
Um... ...protesting?

[whiterider]

"Put Jesus in front of you, put Satan behind you"? At a gay pride parade? Aren't threesomes also outlawed by the magical mystery own-brand version of the Bible these people read?

[jrpthepixie]

I have very strong believes when it comes to marriage and Im angry I had to miss my sisters wedding to her wife because I was to young to travel to LA from Canada since then Ontario is allowing same sex marriages but that did not change i never got to see my sister on her wedding day and I do not live in Ontario Im an Alberta girl or sorry women.
I do believe in God I just have a serious issue with organized religion and honestly some scriptures in the Bible I think its been screwed with

[SimsLover50]

I was raised in a very christian conservative household and taught being gay was bad, and this I learned from a young age. As I grew older, I learned from a hippie sister that this was not neccessarily true and grew to like her gay friend and made gay friends too. After I did, I became quite tolerant of gays and changed my opinion on the matter. I think many folks with fear/worry about gays are are raised this way by their parents.

I believe in God, but I do not believe much in the words in the bible. I lean towards the deist view of God. I don't obsess about sin, or fret about fire and brimstone stuff. I think religion, particularly christianity is a bit of a downer for me, with its over emphasis on sim, redemption guilt etc. I don't like the guilt trips.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

They were holding up signs that said "GO HOME FAGS" ,"FAGS MUST REPENT", and "ITS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" and there was this one sign that had a picture of Govoner Cuomo with devil horns and another one with a portrait of Cuomo and in big letters "THE ANTICHRIST IS HERE".


It’s harder being gay than it is being black. It is, because there’s some things that I had to do as gay that I didn’t have to do as black. I didn’t have to come out black! I didn’t have to sit my parents down and tell them about my blackness.I didn’t have to sit them down:

‘Mom, Dad, I gotta tell ya’ll something… I hope you still love me… I’m just gonna say it… Mom, Dad, I’m black.’

‘What?! What did she just say?! Oh, Lord Jesus, she didn’t say black, lord, did she say black?!’

‘Mom, I’m black!’

‘OH, LORD, SHE SAID BLACK, FATHER GOD! OOH, NOT BLACK, LORD! ANYTHING BUT BLACK JESUS! GIVE HER CANCER, LORD, GIVE HER CANCER! ANYTHING BUT BLACK, LORD.
No! You’ve been hanging around with black people and they got you think that you’re black! They twisted your mind! What did I do? What did I do? I knew I shouldn't have let you watch Soul Train. Was it Soul Train??’

‘No, Mom, this is just how it is, I was born black. That's just how it goes.’

‘Nuh, uh! Don’t gimme that ‘I was born black’. No, the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mary J. Blige!’

just thought this was worth including.

[unalisaa]

It’s harder being gay than it is being black. It is, because there’s some things that I had to do as gay that I didn’t have to do as black. I didn’t have to come out black! I didn’t have to sit my parents down and tell them about my blackness.I didn’t have to sit them down:

‘Mom, Dad, I gotta tell ya’ll something… I hope you still love me… I’m just gonna say it… Mom, Dad, I’m black.’

‘What?! What did she just say?! Oh, Lord Jesus, she didn’t say black, lord, did she say black?!’

‘Mom, I’m black!’

‘OH, LORD, SHE SAID BLACK, FATHER GOD! OOH, NOT BLACK, LORD! ANYTHING BUT BLACK JESUS! GIVE HER CANCER, LORD, GIVE HER CANCER! ANYTHING BUT BLACK, LORD.
No! You’ve been hanging around with black people and they got you think that you’re black! They twisted your mind! What did I do? What did I do? I knew I shouldn't have let you watch Soul Train. Was it Soul Train??’

‘No, Mom, this is just how it is, I was born black. That's just how it goes.’

‘Nuh, uh! Don’t gimme that ‘I was born black’. No, the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mary J. Blige!’just thought this was worth including.
I don't think it's fair to play One-up The Oppression. Oppressions are all different, and comparing them to each other like that makes things awkward and marginalises the people whose oppression is suddenly deemed the "less serious" one. For one, to take your list, it could be countered with "You can't hide being Black. Gay people can pass for straight easily, whereas Black people are judged the moment they step out in public. It's harder to be Black than it is to be gay."
But it doesn't matter who has it worse, because no one ever wins no matter what conclusion is reached. Can't we just agree that everyone should be treated with the respect they deserve on the basis that they are human?

Of course, there's the argument that we're already doing that, but that the problem is that the mainstream opinion on who is human and a "real" person is simply too narrow.

[Mistermook]

Maybe it's not fair, but fairness doesn't make for a stand up comedy routine. Not saying it's not a good general insight, but in this case I'm inclined to just wave it away. A professional comedian can, and should, get a little bit of a pass for not having the clearest or most concise points in a strong political debate...since they're comedians and all that, right? I might agree with a lot John Stewart says, but if he misspeaks it's a little different than when a real political analyst or politician does.

[unalisaa]

Maybe it's not fair, but fairness doesn't make for a stand up comedy routine. Not saying it's not a good general insight, but in this case I'm inclined to just wave it away. A professional comedian can, and should, get a little bit of a pass for not having the clearest or most concise points in a strong political debate...since they're comedians and all that, right? I might agree with a lot John Stewart says, but if he misspeaks it's a little different than when a real political analyst or politician does.
I didn't actually know that Wanda Stykes was a comedian. I've never heard of her before. I replied to what SP posted because it was unclear whether they agreed with the routine or disagreed or something else entirely.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I don't think it's fair to play One-up The Oppression. Oppressions are all different, and comparing them to each other like that makes things awkward and marginalises the people whose oppression is suddenly deemed the "less serious" one. For one, to take your list, it could be countered with "You can't hide being Black. Gay people can pass for straight easily, whereas Black people are judged the moment they step out in public. It's harder to be Black than it is to be gay."
But it doesn't matter who has it worse, because no one ever wins no matter what conclusion is reached. Can't we just agree that everyone should be treated with the respect they deserve on the basis that they are human?

Of course, there's the argument that we're already doing that, but that the problem is that the mainstream opinion on who is human and a "real" person is simply too narrow.

i dont think she was trying to play one-up the oppression, i think she was trying to point out that even though the racism against black people is still alive and well, its even worse for gay people of any color. in a way, i think shes trying to point out that a lot of people are treating gays the way black people were way back, like they arent human and need to be ashamed of being gay. i think shes trying to help people who are open minded enough to see her message to avoid making that same horrible faux-pas against another group of people when we should have all learned our lesson from black oppression.

she is a comedian, but i think all good comedians promote thought in their listeners rather than trying to tell them straight-out what to think. lewis black and george carlin are also favorites of mine for that reason.

and it was my fault for not being clear.
i mostly just wanted to point out the correlation between her "its adam and eve, not adam and mary j blige" sentence, because it seems like people against a certain group of people always come back to that and parrot out "its adam and eve" like thats some actual excuse to discriminate against them. similar to how the person i quoted noted how they use "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" to discriminate against gay people.

[whitewaterwood]

I love this thread. <3 It's lovely to see so much acceptance for gays.

Also, once of my favorite quotes ever was from my friend Davey. He was talking about how he didn't go to gay pride parade,s and someone berated him for not taking part in his community. He said: 'What community? My community is the human race.'

[christx101]

I find it quite disgusting that people still wanna use the bible to justify discriminating against other human beings If same sex couples wanna get married why not?Its not hurting anyone I'm hoping that California the state I love and live can follow in New Yorks footsteps and legalize same sex marriage!

[Nekowolf]

Er, I thought the bill got taken to court and then overturned? Or was it for civil unions?

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, too.

[kiwi_tea]

You're thinking of California's Prop 8?

There's all sorts of legal complications there. Judge Walker found that the state of California had no vested interest in or rational basis for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. But there's a stay of execution in place pending appeals, meaning that gay marriages can't happen. Oral arguments over that start sometime later this year. Given that the experts the anti-gay marriage folks presented in the original trial were flagrantly, blatantly insane and/or incompetent, there's a decent chance any appeal will fail.

So I'd risk saying California is just a matter of time, now.

[Nekowolf]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[kattenijin]

You're thinking of California's Prop 8?

There's all sorts of legal complications there. Judge Walker found that the state of California had no vested interest in or rational basis for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. But there's a stay of execution in place pending appeals, meaning that gay marriages can't happen. Oral arguments over that start sometime later this year. Given that the experts the anti-gay marriage folks presented in the original trial were flagrantly, blatantly insane and/or incompetent, there's a decent chance any appeal will fail.

So I'd risk saying California is just a matter of time, now.

Didn't they also have to decide that since the state isn't making an appeal, whether anybody else had the right to do so? Or is that going to be part of the upcoming oral arguments?

[kiwi_tea]

Actually, that's right. I thought that had already been decided, though. Or perhaps that's what's coming up. Thanks for the reminder.

The state isn't appealing, but the fundie crazy nutbags want to. Forgot that.

[happycowlover]

I just wanna pop in and say that I'm proud that a year later, this thread is still alive and going on. It makes me happy that people are so passionate about this and that you guys really do care, so thank you. :)

[KindGenius]

I am agaist gay/lesbian marriage and adopting children.They can do everything they want,but not this.If they adopt children,more and more children will become homosexual.And I think marriage is a decicion of the souls,so this must be decided by church.But the church will never allow them to do this!And I think love between two men/women can't be real love.

[unalisaa]

I am agaist gay/lesbian marriage and adopting children.They can do everything they want,but not this.If they adopt children,more and more children will become homosexual.And I think marriage is a decicion of the souls,so this must be decided by church.But the church will never allow them to do this!And I think love between two men/women can't be real love.
And I think love between letters and punctuation is sinful and wrong; God created spaces to separate them! It's letter and breve, not commasteve.

[pinketamine]

I am agaist gay/lesbian marriage and adopting children.They can do everything they want,but not this.If they adopt children,more and more children will become homosexual.
Do you have any proves of what you're saying? I mean, all the homosexuals I've know (and they have been lots) have heterosexual parents... and they are still homosexuals. How can you know that homosexual parents will result in homosexual kids? I think you are just making claims based on your belief of homosexuality being something you choose because you're a "sinful human".


And I think marriage is a decicion of the souls,so this must be decided by church.But the church will never allow them to do this!And I think love between two men/women can't be real love.
No, marriage is mainly a contract, you sign a contract, which gives you some rights and obligations, with your couple, that is the actual meaning of marriage and it is a totally civil act. If you are religious, it can also have a religious meaning for you, but socially marriage is simply a contract which implies a long term compromise but can still be broken or dissolved if needed.
Plus... you are saying "the church", which one? Because there are many different religions, not just one.
Lastly, if you have never loved someone of your same sex, how can you even say that "that can't be real love" What is "real love" from your point of view and why can't two people of the same sex love each other.

[whiterider]

To add to pinketamine's last point, many churches perform gay marriages, in places where to do so is legal.

[SimsLover50]

"I am agaist gay/lesbian marriage and adopting children.They can do everything they want,but not this.."

Medical psychologists have reached a consensus that children raisedby samesex couples are just as well adjusted as children raised by straights. So please give us more detail of why gays shouldn't adopt?

Gays and lesbians don't even need to adopt if they want children though. Right now a gay or lesbian parent can use a surrogate or go to a fertility clinic (at least in california), to make a child. Legally.Single people can also adopt.

"And I think marriage is a decicion of the souls,so this must be decided by church."

Nope. Marriage is a legal contract. There are Millions of people who marry worldwide without church sanction and are happily married to boot.

And not everyone believes in a soul and neither does every religion.

"And I think love between two men/women can't be real love."

So because you disagree or have religious objections to homosexuality, you think it 'can't be real'? Every human being has the capacity for love, why is it difficult for you to believe that two people, regardless of gender could love eachother?

[Mistermook]

I think love between two men/women can't be real love.
If two straight people don't "really" love each other, then I suppose you're equally against them getting married as well. So I propose you come up with a qualitative and informative test for "love," something that disregards any nonsense about people "just" saying that they love someone - obviously that's not good enough for you so I think people getting married should take brain scans. Of course, if two (or more, let's not parse things simply) could produce the brain scan, I guess they'd be allowed to marry, right?

Or are the only people who really love each other the people you say love each other? I'm not saying you don't have that unique and terrible responsibility, but if you didn't and you were in any way suggesting that you did, that would make you an enormous asshole, wouldn't it?

Hey, I take it that a lot of your objections are based on faith and religion, right? What happens when we start making laws based on opposing religious viewpoints? What if the Pastafarians decided that straight people couldn't possibly love each other, and declared it illegal for straight people to have children and marry? Or black people, or any other variety of person that they decided was lying, because they said they were lying when they declared they were in love?

[Perfectionist]

I am agaist gay/lesbian marriage and adopting children.They can do everything they want,but not this.If they adopt children,more and more children will become homosexual.And I think marriage is a decicion of the souls,so this must be decided by church.But the church will never allow them to do this!And I think love between two men/women can't be real love.

What's wrong with more and more kids becoming homosexual? If God does exist, he created the homosexuals too, and doesn't he love everything her creates? And he teaches the christians to love everyone, including homosexuals.

[shoo_flee]

And I think love between two men/women can't be real love.

Why? I want to hear your reasoning behind this, and really your whole post in general before i begin picking your post apart.

[Mistermook]

Unfortunately at some point culture wars have been known to provoke suicide bombers and terrorists. It wasn't THAT long ago I spent a long day in traffic thanks to a nutjob shooting the doctor at the women's clinic up the street from my house, and things have only gotten worse as ultraconservatives have shot more folks, and blown buildings, and continue to kill people.

I think it's important to constantly keep up the wall of reason against them, because it's not a fight you can slack off on. There's always some small-minded idiot willing to go the extra mile to murder someone thanks to "the way it's always been" or "that disgusts me" or some book written back in the day when common morality allowed you to sell your extra daughters to slavers. Education, it's the reason and the way out.

[SimsLover50]

I think way to start a discussion is to try to get the other person to be in the other person's shoes. However if a person, is not ready to, or cannot challenge their own longheld beliefs no progress can be made.

Learning to question the status quo or empathize with another is important. A friend once told me "How can I know how that would feel, since I've never had to go through that."

I think learning to walk in another person's shoes, and questioning longheld beliefs is essential to moving towards enlightenment..

[kattenijin]

I draw a line between someone who doesn't understand but wants to and someone who just hates homosexuals. I think it is wrong to call everyone a "homophobe" just because they ask questions about homosexuality.

Most people aren't atempting to ask questions and learn. They simply post a verison of "teh gay=ick!, so says my family/priest/whatever; and I believe!". Naturally, they will be labeled. I haven't seen anyone who is truely questioning be labeled as a homophobe.

[Drakesecaravdis]

I have an aversion to religion for this reason. I hate the fact that irrational people can use it as a weapon to judge.

Really though, I think that people have problems with anyone who is different. I think an episode of the cartoon Fairly Oddparents demonstrates this. The dentist still found a way to pick on people even though every person was a gray blob. This dentist represents society. In other words, if we were all gray blobs a lot of people would still find something different about us and pick at it.

This is not to say we should still try to debate. If we do not try, the world has no chance of changing.

Love can happen with any human being. It can happen with two teenagers (though rare it can happen), it can happen with people with vast age differences. Love has no boundaries so of course two people of the same gender can love. As long as both of them are feeling the same way (and not related. still find incest creepy) , it is perfectly healthy

For the argument, being gay is a sin which does seem like a common argument: if you are using the bible as evidence, apparently everything is a sin. sounds like we are screwed either way so what difference does it make? it's not part of the seven deadly sins.
also if being gay is a sin, why would God make people that way? why would he doom people from the start? that makes him evil. why would you worship someone like that?
I agree with my friend when she says that she thinks that God created gay people so people can learn to be tolerant of different lifestyles.

I used to be homophobic myself but never like the extremes, I mostly just found them creepy and did not want to be around them. after I watched a gay youtuber, it really opened my eyes.
now I have to say that even though gay people are different than us, essentially they are the same. "we are one" (Lion King 2)

[simrae92to7]

Amen simmer. I agree with that.

These people, the whole prop 8 thing, it makes me mad! I read a true story in one of my mom's old college text books and know what it was about? Gay/lesbian marriage. It was a case around early 2000 and the court went so far to give the father coustdy of the child because the mother was a lesbian, even though the father recently got out of jail for serving ten years for murdering his ex-wife. Hmmm, goverment messed up you think? So I full heartly support the gay/lesbian marriage. The goverment shouldn't even have a say in this, marriage again as some people say, is a private thing.

P.S. Sorry for bad spelling.

[Tempscire]

The goverment shouldn't even have a say in this, marriage again as some people say, is a private thing.
There are a LOT of legal benefits to marriage due to government's involvement, and I don't think we should make it so that everyone has to manually create those benefits (some argue that gay couples don't need marriage because they can "just" create a system of contracts for the same thing): stuff like sharing insurance benefits or having medical decision-making power for your spouse. Marriage as a legal process is a shortcut to having those benefits, and a secular government has no business in restricting its scope.

The two TAs in my first semester of French in college were from France, and they once explained that France has several forms of "marriage." I have forgotten the specifics, but it was something like there is religious marriage, legal marriage, and a civil union that's available for everyone, even siblings, because it was a legal shorthand for being able to manage another person's affairs or some such. Rather than the US government getting out of marriage, I think a clearer division between the legal and religious aspects of marriage needs to be established. Churches can refuse to marry gays if they want; the government should not.

[efolger997]

A lot of homophobia is due to ignorance, I think. For example, until I was about 16 I believed everything certain people in the Church told me about everything, including that homosexuality is bad. Then I started to think for myself. Also, it helped that my sister discovered she is a lesbian; obviously that's going to make me a little more open-minded! (or it should, at least). She still thinks that having a girlfriend is "bad" however, which is really quite sad.
But I also agree that just because you don't support gay marriage doesn't mean you're homophobic. My pastor, for example, says he loves his gay friends and thinks they're great. At the same time, he says that homosexuality is not in line with what the Bible teaches. So he'd never be hostile to a gay person, but he just doesn't agree.
I agree with Tempscire that legal marriage has many benefits. In my opinion, gay marriage should be legal, at least with the government. I belong to this group on Facebook--Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented--that's really big on homosexual rights and gay marriage, and supports Christians who support these things. And now because my church is a bit too conservative for me (and for other reasons as well) I am going to the Unitarian Universalist church in my area that supports all religions and sexual orientations. :)

[DrowningFishy]

Arguement: Gay marriage violates traditional marriage.
Response: Well blacks, slaves in paticular, where not allowed to marry. Same goes for interacial couples. Well go back further to the mideval times and evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Actualy outside of Western (Christian) culture many stances on gay marriage where neutral. So what your looking for in that arguement is traditional CHRISTIAN marriages, in which the bible preaches seperation of church and state.

Arguement: Well gay marriage negitively influances our children, and i want no gay man teaching our children.
Response: Sure, because teaching our children tolerance and accepting other people who they are is such a horrible thing. Plus do you REALLY think all those kids with two daddies or two mommies are fucked up? Please speak to them before you ramble off this non-sense. Oh wait you don't want your jack or jill associating with those kids; real good of you to teach your kid discrimination and intolerance.

Argument: It's against God.
Repsonse: Agian, seperation of church and state, go back to your bible and re read it. Plus if anything else gays are a form of birth control for the planet. Humans breed like rabbits if everyone was straight think how fast the population would rise.


Arguement: They might turn other people gay.
Response: Recent studies show it's in your DNA along with the other inherited behavor. No body can turn gay, no one can turn straight, however they can ride the fence.

Seriously I find the arguements against gay marriage as weak. Goverments that legalized gay marriage have discovered that it is actually benifical to the economy. More weddings equal more money being put into businesses. Plus there really is no big differance between divoices between straight and married couples. Divorice rates were going on up well before gay marriage became an issue. Just because two poeple of the same gender get married does not mean at the same time a straight couple gets a divorice. Life-doesn't-work-that-way.

For all you god loving poeple remeber the story of the tower of babel (sp?). Don't you think gay marriage is kind of like that situation. We as a people are dividing because things like this. Many (but not all) christians are forgetting the teachings that want you to love thy neighbor, and ask you not to judge another person. When your calling someone a sinner, saying it's against god are you not making judgements? Yes in the bible it mentions against homosexuality but that was back when the planet was not filled with people. Good Chrisitans would reach out to those who are in angsih. Remeber the story of the good Samaritin? No one else stopped but that one guy. That is what liking a gay guy and accepting a gay guy is like in some churches. Your going to do something that everyone frowns apon but in the end it's worth it.

But you know it's not just a christian thing. They are just the ones who scream the loudest. There are non-christians who scream it's vile and disgusting; but they don't have to live that life. How would they like to deprived of the chance to be with the one they love (or currently love).

[efolger997]

I'm a Christian and I'm 100% in support of gay marriage. :) Also, for any Christians here who are in support of it as well, there is an excellent article here that explains a view on the Bible's teachings about homosexuality: http://www2.cathedralofhope.com/general/15-about-us/67-homosexuality-a-christianity
(It's a bit long, but well worth the read.)
Here are some arguments I've actually heard about gay marriage:
"People 'decide' to be gay. It's from who you hang out with." (my former youth pastor)
No, they do not. If they really did, would people really want to be? Would they want to face the prejudice they do? Would they want to only have the option of dating only 10% of the population who is also gay?
"It is not what the Bible teaches." (My former pastor)
That article I posted above makes a good argument against that. When Paul mentioned homosexuals, he had no knowledge of loving homosexual relationships. He was most likely talking about gay prostitutes and cults.
"People weren't gay a long time ago." (My parents)
Yes, they were. It was just better hushed up, since you probably would've been killed if you said you were gay.
"Marriage is no longer sacred."
Jesus specifically mentioned divorce; he didn't mention gays at all. Also, in my opinion, the current divorce rate is much more a threat than gay marriage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes have good reasons for divorce, but sometimes they don't, and a longtime loving homosexual relationship seems much less a threat than (for example) Kim Kardashian's--what was it?--70-day marriage.
Of course, we'll never know the true intent of Paul when he wrote that passage, but another important argument here is that Paul isn't Jesus, he is just a man. Jesus Himself said that we should love others as ourselves. Last time I checked, I wouldn't want someone telling me I was going to hell for loving someone!
Also, sorry for the long post and sorry it only really applies to Christians, but I hope it explains some things. ^_^

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm a Christian and I'm 100% in support of gay marriage. :) Also, for any Christians here who are in support of it as well, there is an excellent article here that explains a view on the Bible's teachings about homosexuality: http://www2.cathedralofhope.com/general/15-about-us/67-homosexuality-a-christianity
(It's a bit long, but well worth the read.)
Here are some arguments I've actually heard about gay marriage:
"People 'decide' to be gay. It's from who you hang out with." (my former youth pastor)
No, they do not. If they really did, would people really want to be? Would they want to face the prejudice they do? Would they want to only have the option of dating only 10% of the population who is also gay?
"It is not what the Bible teaches." (My former pastor)
That article I posted above makes a good argument against that. When Paul mentioned homosexuals, he had no knowledge of loving homosexual relationships. He was most likely talking about gay prostitutes and cults.
"People weren't gay a long time ago." (My parents)
Yes, they were. It was just better hushed up, since you probably would've been killed if you said you were gay.
"Marriage is no longer sacred."
Jesus specifically mentioned divorce; he didn't mention gays at all. Also, in my opinion, the current divorce rate is much more a threat than gay marriage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes have good reasons for divorce, but sometimes they don't, and a longtime loving homosexual relationship seems much less a threat than (for example) Kim Kardashian's--what was it?--70-day marriage.
Of course, we'll never know the true intent of Paul when he wrote that passage, but another important argument here is that Paul isn't Jesus, he is just a man. Jesus Himself said that we should love others as ourselves. Last time I checked, I wouldn't want someone telling me I was going to hell for loving someone!
Also, sorry for the long post and sorry it only really applies to Christians, but I hope it explains some things. ^_^

i always thought, from the minute i heard that uttered from the lips of a misguided soul, that it sounded so similar to the ever-popular, "no girls/boys allowed in our clubhouse!" ...only in real life, among adults, its more like, "no gays allowed to marry!"
then rational thinkers step in and make them share, and it turns into, "but now that they can do it, its not special any more..."

what people fail to grasp is that its still special. its just not exclusive. inclusive activities are no less special and meaningful than exclusive activities, just less about them and more about all.

[CinderEmma]

I was thinking deeply about this, and I wonder if my thoughts have any truth to them at all. I'm not homophobic at all, my sister is a lebsian and I LOVE her and her wife and my niece. They are a part of my family.

I was just thinking about people who are flamboyantly gay, you know the stereotypical butch female or the girly and loud male. Is it a type of protection against more prejudice in a way? I mean, it's just like those girls who are like Snooki and are super artificial and are obsessed with boys and name-brand shoes and stuff. Sure, that's a facet of their personality, but do they push it forward as the ONLY part of their personality for protection. What people can't see, they can't judge, right?

And I think people generally like stereotypes. There's an expected way to deal with a stereotypical person, like with a flamboyant man, girls can giggle over shoes and not worry about saying the wrong thing because all flamboyant gay men love shoes. Obviously that's a pretty lame example, but in the smallest interactions people do this all the time. For example, nobody jokes around with me except my mom and sister because I'm stereotyped as a serious person. While I'm sometimes serious, I can appreciate a good joke, and can be as giggly as anybody.

I don't mean to say that people who are stereotypically gay are bad or anything at all. I'm just saying that perhaps they're not really as open about who they are as they seem to be. Does anybody get what I'm saying?

[simbalena]

I don't mean to say that people who are stereotypically gay are bad or anything at all. I'm just saying that perhaps they're not really as open about who they are as they seem to be. Does anybody get what I'm saying?

It sounds like you are saying they are doing it to fit in and be accepted which is a normal human trait. It applies to gay people just as much as it applies to heterosexual women who act stereotypically feminine and heterosexual men who act stereotypically masculine.

[CinderEmma]

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. That sometimes people think people who are gay/lesbian are more open then others (unless they're in the closet still), but they're human. I think it's a bit of a protection thing too. My sister kind of has this defensive tough gal wall that protects her from getting attacked more by people (since she's a married lesbian with a child), since nobody really wants to mess with her. Yet, she's the sweetest person around me and her family, only regaining the tough gal persona when she's defending us. I guess maybe I'm just looking at this realistically, that people who are gay should be equal to those who are straight, not more or less. It's hard because one of the people I admire (sister) is gay, and I haven't in my life seen a successful straight marriage that I want to emulate, but my sister has a wonderful (not perfect, but very great) marriage. So I want to put gay people up on a pedestal, that they're better then "normal" overall. Opposite problem then most, huh?

[Birdhouse]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

[pinketamine]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

In that case I don't understand why you post here to say you aren't going to say anything, it doesn't make sense to me.

[kattenijin]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

Says the (wo)man with the rainbow flag avatar. Before you just go "ooh! Pretty! Rainbows!", you might want to understand the significance.

He**, they even let murders in jail get married; why not gays and lesbians?

[whiterider]

I'm not sure I'd class My Little Pony as being less fabulous than rainbows...

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

nobody in this discussion has been flamed...merely beaten about the head and shoulders violently with solid counter-arguments.

[Elyasis]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

Ironically this kind of statement is more likely to incur flames than a general statement of opinion.

[hello2u08]

To me, even though I am straight myself, I actually don't mind if there are gay people and gay marriage. It is their choice, and it shouldn't be interfered with. Also, in Christian communities, Divorces are considered as bad as being gay, but nobody is EVER freaking out about how bad divorcing is.

[DrowningFishy]

I'm not going to state my opinion, as I would probably get flamed out of here.

Then what is the point of a debate? It's like starting a debate in which everyone agrees adn no one disagrees it is absolutely pointless. Though of course if your the one to go agianst everyone else be prepared and do not later on whine that your being "picked on"... Your just the only one with the differing opinion and thus leaves little choice but to consintrate on you.

Seriously I feel like I need to define Debate.

de·bate/diˈbât/Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

Verb: Argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner.

Synonyms: noun. discussion - dispute - argument - disputation
verb. dispute - discuss - argue - deliberate - canvass

So please say it I am not curious.

[hyonilikos]

hmm... Time to pit my two-sense into this no win argument...

As for the bible, I hear one more thing about it, and about it being involved in this argument, I'll lose it. It is true that the bible is written by man, and rewritten by a few people I believe. With this in mind, isn't it possible human's just put stuff into the bible to better control the masses? I don't want to sound paranoid, but what's better to control people's beliefs than a unified religion? So to me religion is completely out of the argument, no offence mean't. Also, Who is anyone here to define an emotion like love? Seriously, I mean, It's an emotion, how can you say what and who someone can love? Human's can't completely comprehend emotions, so thus we have no room to say how we can feel them, and towards who we can feel them, whether it be towards someone of the same-sex, opposite-sex, or even different species. With those points now laid down, lets look at a few ironic things....

Churches holding rallies against gay's, telling them they're going to hell and such, judging them. Last I heard judgment is a sin, so most Christian groups break one of the most fundamental rules of their religion... just found that funny.. sorry...

With all this in mind, I find it dumb that we continue to even argue this point, cause when looked at with a logical viewpoint, it is simple a point in which there is no winning or losing side, just a never ending opinionated fight, which in itself is crazy, at least in my mind.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Also, Who is anyone here to define an emotion like love? Seriously, I mean, It's an emotion, how can you say what and who someone can love? Human's can't completely comprehend emotions, so thus we have no room to say how we can feel them, and towards who we can feel them, whether it be towards someone of the same-sex, opposite-sex, or even different species..
I pretty much agree with you but don't you find bestality creepy though? it's one thing to consider animals your children (because I so do that) but it's another thing to be sexually attracted to them.
it's better than incest but idk...something about it just doesn't sit right and I know you may say it's because society considers it taboo but I feel there's something more to it than that. I just can't explain what it is.



As for the bible, I hear one more thing about it, and about it being involved in this argument, I'll lose it. It is true that the bible is written by man, and rewritten by a few people I believe. With this in mind, isn't it possible human's just put stuff into the bible to better control the masses? I don't want to sound paranoid, but what's better to control people's beliefs than a unified religion? So to me religion is completely out of the argument, no offence mean't. With those points now laid down, lets look at a few ironic things....

Churches holding rallies against gay's, telling them they're going to hell and such, judging them. Last I heard judgment is a sin, so most Christian groups break one of the most fundamental rules of their religion... just found that funny.. sorry...

With all this in mind, I find it dumb that we continue to even argue this point, cause when looked at with a logical viewpoint, it is simple a point in which there is no winning or losing side, just a never ending opinionated fight, which in itself is crazy, at least in my mind.
duh to your question in the first paragraph. this is why I hate religion
it's not only barbaric but some of the things don't make any sense at all.
I no longer find it THAT funny. I find it predictable but I love catching them on it and watch idiots go quiet on me when I make points like that. that's what I find hilarious. when you make a point against a religious zealot and they don't say anything back

when religion is involved, common sense goes out the window and here enters hypocrisy so I agree with you that it's a no win situation.
I know you think of it as dumb to argue considering this but idk...I still debate with people trying to get sense knocked into them. I know it may not happen but I am stubborn when it comes to peace loving. if someone's hating then I'm not just gonna sit and be quiet. I am also highly opinionated
I think I'm not too horrible at knowing when to throw in the towel though. if I'm talking to the same person and we seem to be going in too many circles, I believe I stop.
I know it's fruitless to continue debating this when I would be making the same points over and over again to various people but idk...maybe the arguments are of a similar nature but they are not identical. I feel that it's mostly a different experience each time because not everybody is going to say the same thing.

[hyonilikos]

I pretty much agree with you but don't you find bestality creepy though? it's one thing to consider animals your children (because I so do that) but it's another thing to be sexually attracted to them.
it's better than incest but idk...something about it just doesn't sit right and I know you may say it's because society considers it taboo but I feel there's something more to it than that. I just can't explain what it is.




duh to your question in the first paragraph. this is why I hate religion
it's not only barbaric but some of the things don't make any sense at all.
I no longer find it THAT funny. I find it predictable but I love catching them on it and watch idiots go quiet on me when I make points like that. that's what I find hilarious. when you make a point against a religious zealot and they don't say anything back

when religion is involved, common sense goes out the window and here enters hypocrisy so I agree with you that it's a no win situation.
I know you think of it as dumb to argue considering this but idk...I still debate with people trying to get sense knocked into them. I know it may not happen but I am stubborn when it comes to peace loving. if someone's hating then I'm not just gonna sit and be quiet. I am also highly opinionated
I think I'm not too horrible at knowing when to throw in the towel though. if I'm talking to the same person and we seem to be going in too many circles, I believe I stop.
I know it's fruitless to continue debating this when I would be making the same points over and over again to various people but idk...maybe the arguments are of a similar nature but they are not identical. I feel that it's mostly a different experience each time because not everybody is going to say the same thing.

Well, for the first part, it's sort of two different things, cause after actually looking into the subject, I find that these so called sick minded Zoo's, aren't as sick and crazy as people think. As I said, who are we to define an emotion and say who can feel it and to who or what you can. Society just dismisses what it doesn't understand and calls it abnormal, and as for zoophilia, it's mostly due to people separating humans from animals more and more. Isn't it basic biology that we all are animals? So what is wrong with loving another species. Yes, most do consider their pets their children, but, because of this people think that they themselves are mature. I find it crazy that a common argument is that animals have the mentality of a child, but yet these animals mate and bear children, the fight and hunt for food. I'm sorry, but to me, there is nothing wrong with Zoophilia, and yes, there a a few people out there that do hurt and abuse their pets, and those people I wish the worst on, but Zoo's do truly love their pets, and would never do anything that can harm them. I dunno, I support any and all Sexualities, except Pedophilia of course.

[tovasshi]

Adult people can consent, animals cannot.

Zoos do hurt their pets, they may not think they are but they are. The mentality people use to justify their actions is "they like it, there for I'm not hurting them" is all in the head of the abuser. it is the same line of reasoning used by pedophiles. They have a scewed perception of reality and believe the relationships they are in are more intimate or consensual than they really are. Animals do not have the full capacity to think things through, therefore they cannot consent. Most animals in the wild only mate during mating season or when the females are in heat, they do it because of a natural drive to do it at that time. Very few animals actually have sex for pleasure or as a recreational activity. Most pets have been fixed, therefore no sex drive, yet zoophiles still abuse them too. Dogs will do anything for approval, doesn't mean they really want to have sex with their master, it just means the zoophile is taking advantage of their loyalty. Zoophilia is not a sexual orientation, its a fetish.


Sexual orientation has actual brain structure behind it

[Rawra]

^I'm popping in just to say this: screwing a dog is sick in ways I can't even imagine. Whether you love the dog or not, it's still sick as fuck.

[KKiryu007Joker]

I agree with the Creeper! Beastiality is disgusting, and you'll get arrested for it just like you'd get arrested for pedophillia. How can you support zoophilia? That's abuse!

[hyonilikos]

Adult people can consent, animals cannot.

Zoos do hurt their pets, they may not think they are but they are. The mentality people use to justify their actions is "they like it, there for I'm not hurting them" is all in the head of the abuser. it is the same line of reasoning used by pedophiles. They have a scewed perception of reality and believe the relationships they are in are more intimate or consensual than they really are. Animals do not have the full capacity to think things through, therefore they cannot consent. Most animals in the wild only mate during mating season or when the females are in heat, they do it because of a natural drive to do it at that time. Very few animals actually have sex for pleasure or as a recreational activity. Most pets have been fixed, therefore no sex drive, yet zoophiles still abuse them too. Dogs will do anything for approval, doesn't mean they really want to have sex with their master, it just means the zoophile is taking advantage of their loyalty. Zoophilia is not a sexual orientation, its a fetish.


Sexual orientation has actual brain structure behind it


Sexual Oientation has brain structure behind it?! Again, you're trying to define feelings, which no one can, they're feelings. You say no animal get pleasure out of mating?? So only humans get pleasure? Can you prove this fact? I'm quite sure that it's impossible to prove that they can't feel pleasure, and so you stating an unsupported claim. Oh, and look at men that have gotten "fixed", most of them still have a sex drive, don't they?! Alas another trying to separate humans from animals, WE ARE ANIMALS, period, no argument there, sorry. Consent, so you can have a dog killed just because you don't want it without needing their consent, and yet you pitch a bitch about something that can't even be proven t be at all harmful towards them?! I swear... there's some hypocrisy there... oh, and it's a sexuality, not a fetish, sorry, but you have no factual evidence to prove other wise. Besides, define "Sexual Orientation", I believe the definition is this:
one's natural preference in sexual partners. So I think Zoophilia follows that definition quite well.

[KKiryu007Joker]

Did you ever commit actions that in any way contributed to the sexual abuse of animals? It is illegal to have sexual contact with them on a check that establishes that sexual exploits with animals are illegal based on the fact that they cannot give out sexual consent. If you can get your chimpanzee to give consent in certain states, than molesters of animalia can presumably carry out sex with them in the states (you an American?) where you can establish they have given out consent, but it is impossible to do so constituting rape of animals which is a crime. Do you follow your laws? You say you believe in "one's natural sexual partners", but that could constitute pedophilia, a severe crime, which you have previously disagreed with. One's natural sexual partners may be illegal.

[hyonilikos]

Did you ever commit actions that in any way contributed to the sexual abuse of animals? It is illegal to have sexual contact with them on a check that establishes that sexual exploits with animals are illegal based on the fact that they cannot give out sexual consent. If you can get your chimpanzee to give consent in certain states, than molesters of animalia can presumably carry out sex with them in the states (you an American?) where you can establish they have given out consent, but it is impossible to do so constituting rape of animals which is a crime. Do you follow your laws?

I said I support Zoo's, not that I am one, so no, I have never engaged in any sexual acts towards any other species, and with that being said, like I stated before, why is it we can have a dog euthanize just for the fact it's a stray and we don't want to pay for it, but people pitch a bitch about this when it's more than obvious most Zoo's understand their animals better than anyone. People can throw opinionated stuff around such as that animals don't feel pleasure, but a Zoo goes and tries to explain the significance of body language, and is asked to prove this? Double standard there, I still want someone to show animals can't feel pleasure, since there's no evidence supporting that. Oh, yes, I am American, though I don't see why that matters...

[KKiryu007Joker]

I am American, though I don't see why that matters...

Your location has to with your laws. It does matter.

[Rawra]

How can you support people who screw dogs? HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THEY SUPPORT SUCH A THING? It's so damn disgusting and sick and... I don't know. It's awful!

[KKiryu007Joker]

Yes, besides being illegal, it is a detestable act.

[hyonilikos]

Your location has to with your laws. It does matter.

Meh, fair enough, I forget there's actually area's of the world where Zoophilia isn't illegal... So your right, forgive me for being negligent in that, and seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I failed there, big time. Now, back to the debate at hand, anyone have the proof I've so made clear I want to see, or does this proof not exist and it is all crap spewed out by the masses to try and prove that Zoo's are.. in fact.... just sicko's.

[Rawra]

Well, they are sickos.

[hyonilikos]

Well, they are sickos.

Evidence, you neglect it, statements of opinion hold no power over other's, at least I'd hope not, in that case they're just a couple of weak-minded people, not listening to proper evidence and basic logic... *sigh* Is this truly what our society has boiled down to, a bunch of judgmental people with claims only supported by opinion alone? Sad, just sad....

[KKiryu007Joker]

My claims are not supported by sole opinions. They hold ground in laws that you may not be aware of, which may eventually lead to your downfall. If you accidentally finger a chihuahua you may face jail time of a year. Failure to abide by your laws is a neglectful and very sad thing in day to day life. You believe in zoophilia, but are not a zoophiliac, therefore making you a holder of opinions. You believe in support for zoophilia, and forget its laws, again making you solely based in opinions. What do you have to say for yourself?

[Rawra]

No, no, the question is -- is this truly what our society has boiled down to, a bunch of people who support and/or practice zoophilia?

[hyonilikos]

My claims are not supported by sole opinions. They hold ground in laws that you may not be aware of, which may eventually lead to your downfall. If you accidentally finger a chihuahua you may face jail time of a year. Failure to abide by your laws is a neglectful and very sad thing in day to day life. You believe in zoophilia, but are not a zoophiliac, therefore making you a holder of opinions. You believe in support for zoophilia, and forget its laws, again making you solely based in opinions. What do you have to say for yourself?

And yet my opinions have evidence to support them, you are using laws as your backbone, when in fact laws are not at all exact and always right. How many laws have been taken and put in, obviously that is nothing to consider when trying to figure out if something is truly O.K. or not, if it was then what would be the point of debating? Laws are usually based off of peoples opinion on the matter, thus why it is judged by people, and thus are flawed.
(P.S. Have you seen some of the completely dumb laws we have still, I mean, take a moment to look up dumb laws, I assure you, it's dumb what you will find.)

[KKiryu007Joker]

I cannot understand or support zoophilia, and I do not understand that person's 'reasins' (OOO look at my spelling sic!) for doing so. The only criminal action I support is this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

[hyonilikos]

I cannot understand or support zoophilia, and I do not understand that person's 'reasins' (OOO look at my spelling sic!) for doing so. The only criminal action I support is this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Alright.... that was good, very well placed there lol :lol: :gjob: . But no, seriously, if one cannot understand something, then they have no place debating it.

[KKiryu007Joker]

Alright.... that was good, very well placed there lol :lol: :gjob: . But no, seriously, if one cannot understand something, then they have no place debating it.

This thread's name.... look at it again. Do you understand it?

[Tempscire]

Hey guys, what's going on in this --- oh lawd.

People aren't allowed to have sex with animals because animals cannot give consent in a way that's meaningful to humans. Full stop. Since homosexuals are in no way related to zoophiles, this is not the thread for debating whether they're really "sickos" or not, don't you think?

[KKiryu007Joker]

Exactly so, and what I just said.

[hyonilikos]

Bleh, fair enough your right, not a place to be arguing such a thing ^^' I'm sorry for antagonizing it ^^'

[pinketamine]

I will never understand why you even brought it to the table, as is homosexuality and bestiality were even remotely related. It is really insulting for homosexuals/bisexuals, in my opinion.
This isn't something specifically directed to you, hyonilikos, I'm saying it because I'm sick and tired of people doing that "comparison".

[Tempscire]

Exactly so, and what I just said.
:) Yeah, a couple more replies popped into the thread while I'd been typing my own response. I'd initially written more before I decided nope, not getting into it at all, hence my slowness.

[hyonilikos]

I will never understand why you even brought it to the table, as is homosexuality and bestiality were even remotely related. It is really insulting for homosexuals/bisexuals, in my opinion.
This isn't something specifically directed to you, hyonilikos, I'm saying it because I'm sick and tired of people doing that "comparison".

I never mean't to intentionally do so, someone simply picked out a piece of what I was said while stating what I thought towards the actual homosexual point here, and elaborated on it, but I do take the fault on continuing the conversation. Oh, and I never mean't to compare the two at all, it annoys me also when they are compared also.... They are two highly differing things, and hold no similarity at all.

[OHHxbby]

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.

I am going to have to point out, not all Christians are this conservative. I am a Christian, however I am also fairly liberal. I dislike the fact that you would lump all Christians together and assume that all of our heads are stuck up our asses.

While there is not a "real, legal reason" that Christians will argue that is against same-sex marriage, it's a sin. As stated in the Bible.


But let me also make this point clear, I am absolutely FOR same-sex marriage, and a whole plethora of issues that would require one to choose a liberal or conservative stance. And I do find the logical fallacy in the 'points' that the religious groups make. I, however, do not agree with the fact that you would lump all Christians together.

There are some of us who are perfectly reasonable and believe that the teachings in the Bible can change to fit today's changing society. :beer:

[bassoon_crazy]

While there is not a "real, legal reason" that Christians will argue that is against same-sex marriage, it's a sin. As stated in the Bible.

A "sin"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't directly forbid same-sex marriage as a sin, it just says "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman" or something like that.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible can't dictate what marriage is when 1. marriage wasn't even of Christian origin (meaning, it's just another thing that already existed and the Bible tried to define it) and 2. regarding the US, there is (supposed to be) an separation of church and state and marriage is institutionalized by the government.

I, however, do not agree with the fact that you would lump all Christians together.

Despite the wording of the above member, I don't think that's what they were meaning. We all know that there are Christians and even conservatives that support same-sex marriage. The above member was referring to a specific type of Christian - the type that argues against same-sex marriage.

There are some of us who are perfectly reasonable and believe that the teachings in the Bible can change to fit today's changing society. :beer:

However, unfortunately, for every one like you there seem to be five that instead take their irrational hatred toward people of different groups and hide it behind the Bible as an 'religious belief'. They can't be ignored, because they end up in positions of power, and also end up getting laws passed.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

A "sin"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't directly forbid same-sex marriage as a sin, it just says "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman" or something like that..

and this is also ignoring that the bible only applies to those who choose to embrace it. its not universal. it doesnt apply to everyone. why everyone should be made to step to the tune of a rule book to a game they do not play is beyond me.

[kattenijin]

A "sin"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't directly forbid same-sex marriage as a sin, it just says "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman" or something like that.

Actually, there are several types of marriage in the Bible. The regulations defining it being one man and one woman is a fairly recent development, even if the observation of that condition has been in effect longer.

Technically, according to the Bible, a woman who's husband passes away without male heirs is required to marry her brother-in-law. If, somehow he doesn't have a brother (and why not??! You should be being fruitful and multiplying!) then the next closest male relative takes his place. Even better, virgins who are raped (and why aren't you a virgin if you aren't married?!) are required to marry their rapists. Try enforcing that one in modern society.

The entire concept of marrying for love is "new" in historical terms. Your parents used to tell you who you were going to marry, and that was that. If you were a female, you were the property of your father, and became the property of your husband. If you were a male, you were sub-ordinate to the elder males of the family, and would only rise up as the preceding generations passed away.

Marriages possible according to the Bible:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u159/kattenijin/marriage.png

[iCad]

While there is not a "real, legal reason" that Christians will argue that is against same-sex marriage, it's a sin. As stated in the Bible.

Well, actually, same-sex MARRIAGE isn't a sin, according to the Bible. Same-sex SEX is, according to some people's interpretation of Scripture, a sin. It is theoretically possible to be married to someone and never have sex with them. Ask anyone who has a so-called "marriage of convenience." ;)

Really, Christian uptightness about the issue is all, IMO, a result of the fact that the Old Testament was written by Bronze-Age people (not God) for Bronze-Age people. Not for people living in the 21st century where, for instance, sex isn't commonly used in fertility-god worship rituals anymore. *laughs* Nor is pederasty widely practiced anymore, as it was in, say, Paul's time in Greece. (And MOST of the stuff he wrote that made its way into the Bible, he wrote while in Greece, where, at the time, love/sex between an adult man and an adolescent boy was considered the most spiritual kind of love there was. Paul, of course, was not a native of the area AND he was a converted Jew; it's no wonder he was a bit appalled by the behavior, eh?)

But hey, your "average" stereotypical Christian isn't up on cultural practices in the Near East during the Bronze Age or in 1st-century CE Greece, so I guess I can't entirely blame them. I just wish they'd get their faces out of their Bibles (and their heads out of their asses) and educate themselves, for heaven's sake.

(And I say all of that as a fairly conservative, in the main, Christian. :) )

[SuicidiaParasidia]

today i read someone comment on a youtube video saying...
Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.

...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex. "UNLIKE HETEROSEXUAL INTERCOURSE" makes it sound like straights only do it one way, or something.

i think this is just one of the biggest glaring assumptions i see being widely embraced as an excuse to "hate on" homosexuals.

[kattenijin]

...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex.

Or, the contra-positive: "If gay people only had anal sex." There are many gays out there who have just as much an ick factor to "teh buttseks" as anyone else, and don't have it as part of their usual sex repertoire.

I always find it interesting how people talk about the "bizarre and deviant" sexual practices of gays, when most every...fetish I guess... that I can think of, I know just as many heterosexuals as homosexuals who engage in it. Even some of which, only the heterosexuals are practicing. Think "a-la-cup". *shudder* Yes, Virginia, those people really DO exist.

(Not that there aren't gays who do the "cup" thing, I just don't know of any.)

[SimsLover50]

...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex. "UNLIKE HETEROSEXUAL INTERCOURSE" makes it sound like straights only do it one way, or something.

i think this is just one of the biggest glaring assumptions i see being widely embraced as an excuse to "hate on" homosexuals.

Or that all gay men do anal. Not every gay male likes it, just like not every straight likes it.

[whiterider]

In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??

[KKiryu007Joker]

In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??

Must be strapped on armor.

[iCad]

In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??

*laughs* This person obviously has no idea what happens during sex, heterosexual or otherwise. Not to mention the steps leading up to conception. If sperm can't "penetrate the vagina," then where on Earth do all these babies come from? Storks? ;)

Besides...Yeah, I know plenty of entirely straight and very committed couples who enjoy anal sex. In fact, I know more of them than I know committed gay couples who enjoy anal sex, now that I think about it.... (Yeah, my friends and I, we let it all hang out, especially once certain substances come into the picture. :lol: No such thing as TMI. ;) )

[pinketamine]

Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.

What the hell? No, really. WTF?! Where do this kind of people learn biology or... real life? Seriously, if sperm can't penetrate a vagina, how the hell do humans reproduce, for god's sake. If someone is giving this kind of arguments to "prove" that homosexual sex is wrong... well, the are disqualifying themselves.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i actually didnt even catch that part because my brain auto-corrected it to make sense.

now that i see it, though, i cant un-tilt my head.

[KKiryu007Joker]

i actually didnt even catch that part because my brain auto-corrected it to make sense.

now that i see it, though, i cant un-tilt my head.

Yeah I know at first I thought it was normal, and nobody noticed it, and then I realized, wtf is this!

[Lawli-Lawli]

Some people find the oddest things to "hate" or call "unnatural".

And when homosexuals are criticized by Bible worshipers, I just have to laugh. Man+Man and woman+woman is wrong but doesn't your book say "thou shall not judge", and to accept all your brothers and sisters for they are children of the Lord?
What happened to that?

[Yazoo]

In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??

Actually that is not true. I am so going to go into much detail here. During sex, even if a man is having sex with a woman anally, his sperm could still enter the woman's vagina, and she can still get pregnant. A lot of guys think "Its a safe way to go." When actually its not. And that there my friend, is the truth.

NOW, moving along. Marriage should NOT, let me repeat that, should NOT, be based on gender. It should be about love. If straight people want to get married, then they should. If they love someone enough they should be allowed to marry. If homosexuals want to get married, then they should, as long as they know they love the person they are with.

Love is a beautiful thing, but it can also be a very ugly thing. Marriage should have never been based on the ideals of man or woman. Marriage should have been based on the ideals of...Love, and a bond that could melt anyone's heart.

Their is potential in ANYONE's marriage that there can be a divorce. Because either, they do not spend too much time together, or they spend to much time together, or one is overly jealous, or one is cheating, or even both are cheating. It happens in some relationships. But NOT all. Marriage isn't always a sound structure. Its base, that people need to work on, to keep it strong, and to keep it going. It happens in heterosexual marriages, as well as, homosexuals.

Besides, we are only human. Marriage should be about love, not gender.

Enough said

[DigitalSympathies]

I've put a lot of thought into what I'm about to say - for about three months now.

Here goes.

Gay rights is the new war on slavery.

Why?

Because slaves were denied their rights, and there were places where they were accepted as equals and could go live in (relative) peace, but there were also the hostile lands all over the world where they were tortured and protested against, hunted down and jailed, even killed sometimes for what they were. Advocates for abolition of slavery were slammed by religious groups and people who were just plain judgemental and uneducated, and sometimes jailed, killed, and tortured for their beliefs in a brighter future. Eventually, slowly, slavery was abolished in the modern world. That's what needs to happen here.

Replace slaves with LGBT people, were with are, and you have my opinion.

[Celoptra]

People who are anti-gay marriage need to be ask these questions: Would you sell your children into slavery if it was allowed? If you daughter (if you have/had one) was raped would you force the daughter to marry the said rapist? Do you eat seafood? If it was allowed would you allow your husband to have other wives?

the musical (the stage version) of South Pacfic sums it up perfectly "You got to be perfectly taught"

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Some people find the oddest things to "hate" or call "unnatural".

And when homosexuals are criticized by Bible worshipers, I just have to laugh. Man+Man and woman+woman is wrong but doesn't your book say "thou shall not judge", and to accept all your brothers and sisters for they are children of the Lord?
What happened to that?

add to that: i havent seen any of these anti-homosexual people who are supposedly "pro-nature" go amish. there are plenty of things in our world that arent "natural"--not being natural doesnt make it wrong.
(or theres the flip side, that nothing is unnatural, because everything here has to come from someplace...namely, nature. nature gives us the materials, we make up new ways to rearrange it. a rearranged lamp doesnt stop being a lamp.)

if someone earnestly believed that "its not natural" was a good enough reason to shun something, in the way that it didnt grow on a tree, reproduce, or come from an animal.... why are cars still so popular? or air conditioners? those things arent natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

[kattenijin]

Those things aren't natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

Nor do you hear them complain about their "no iron" cotton - polyester shirts, which are against the Bible, one of the same sections condemning gays, and therefore definitely hypocritical.

[DigitalSympathies]

I'm amused and wondering who disagreed with my statement and what argument they have for it. I see nothing wrong with it. Hmm.

Honestly, I've been around so many people in so many different relationship structures (hell, my family is one to talk, my parents are ex-foster-kids who adopted us from three separate countries) that really to me, the only issue is that the people in the relationship are happy, healthy and working towards what they want in life.

End of.

[VerDeTerre]

I'm amused and wondering who disagreed with my statement and what argument they have for it. I see nothing wrong with it. Hmm.
I think there's a random disagreer about on the boards. I wrote in the vent thread that your inbox is full (it is and I can't send you a message :( ) and someone disagreed with that. Go figure. I've also seen the "funny" and "love" button pushed when people share horrible things that no one with any decency would find funny or enjoyable. It's hard to believe that anyone would push buttons like that and mean it.

[Lawli-Lawli]

if someone earnestly believed that "its not natural" was a good enough reason to shun something, in the way that it didnt not grow on a tree, reproduce, or come from an animal.... why are cars still so popular? or air conditioners? those things arent natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

That just leads me to the whole, "Who decides what it natural or "unnatural?"
I mean,really?

the only issue is that the people in the relationship are happy, healthy and working towards what they want in life.
Exactly this.
I never understood the point of making it my life's goal to point out who is accepted and who's not. You're happy, I'm chipper. You're tiny, I'm toony...we're all a little looney.
Add a brew to your day and go on with life.

[leo06girl]

That just leads me to the whole, "Who decides what it natural or "unnatural?"
I mean,really?


Exactly this.
I never understood the point of making it my life's goal to point out who is accepted and who's not. You're happy, I'm chipper. You're tiny, I'm toony...we're all a little looney.
Add a brew to your day and go on with life.


Exactly, what a lot of people NEED to realize is that what is right/natural may not be right/natural for all. Just because I think something is wrong or unnatural for me does NOT mean I think it's wrong or unnatural for everyone. I have no right to tell others how to live their lives, and neither does anyone else.

Example: I don't like to wear jewelry, and when I do it's very small. It would be completely unnatural for me to wear much. But I do not think it's unnatural for others, nor do I think that just because I don't wear jewelry, that no one else should either. It would be wrong of me to think otherwise.

Loved the tiny toons reference.

[VerDeTerre]

I like using nature and what is natural as a reference point when deciding if something is right or not, even if it doesn't lead to perfect arguments.

Homosexuality seems to be natural, so what's the problem? Check out the other species; there are many, if not all, that have a portion of their population that is homosexual. There could well be a reason for this that ties into survival of the species as a whole and population rates. I don't know. Look at some traditional Native American tribes that would allow their members who seemed so inclined to cross dress and live their lives in opposite roles. Now we have examples from the natural world of animals and a minimum of one from our own species when they lived a more natural lifestyle (I'll bet there are more, too).

More important of an argument in this case is not the "natural" argument, but what makes them happy? Are they harming anyone? Yes (happy when allowed to express themselves as they feel they are), no (not harming a single soul)...so why go on with the arguing?

It still always comes back to the same thing: Live and let live.

[Mistermook]

Computer games and hot water heaters aren't natural, but I don't hear many people clamoring to discard them and rush to crap in the woods and die from cholera. "Not natural" is a bullshit argument right from the start. Humans make decisions and that's natural. Anything we decide to do is therefore natural and human, whether everyone likes it or not.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I like using nature and what is natural as a reference point when deciding if something is right or not, even if it doesn't lead to perfect arguments.

More important of an argument in this case is not the "natural" argument, but what makes them happy? Are they harming anyone? Yes (happy when allowed to express themselves as they feel they are), no (not harming a single soul)...so why go on with the arguing?

if you asked them, you would get a different answer than "no". some people do believe that it is harmful to be gay, and many use "its not natural" to support that claim. people seem to forget that nature is vast and ever-adapting, it isnt stagnant and it is not biased.

listed as the #2 reason why "homosexuality is harmful" (http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html)

and here, under "homosexuality", it says "unnatural" within the SECOND SENTENCE of the paragraph. (http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality)

i agree with Mistermook here. "not natural" is a bullshit argument right from the start.

[NollemD]

@Original Poster:

First of all, this is not a debate. The controversy of same-sex marriage is really a battle between the old, traditional way of life (predominately Christian or Abrahamic) and the newer, more liberal way of life (predominately secular or atheistic). It's a battle between values, rather than a battle between facts. So, arguing based on facts and reason is basically useless against religious fundamentalists and socially conservative activists. They don't listen to facts and reason, because all they need is blind faith, unquestioned religious doctrine, and traditional culture.* The only thing we can do about religious fundamentalists and fanatics is not let them have their say in politics on social/cultural issues by not voting for them for office.

Second of all, religious fundamentalism (chiefly in Islam and Christianity, since those are the dominating religions in the world) is not the only reason why people are homophobic or anti-gay. Homophobia is quite broad, actually, and it spans to the irreligious and gay people themselves. Because the effects of homophobia are broad and diverse, the treatment to alleviate the problem may have to be diverse as well. Although at best the hatred of homosexuals would be removed altogether, this may not be possible; therefore, treatment is the key. To religious fundamentalists, they must know that they should separate church and state. They can hate all they want, silently, but they cannot voice out their hateful opinions openly, where the opinions can do harm or even make other individuals, especially non-theistic OR gullible individuals vote against gay marriage. To non-theists, they must be provided with facts and the gay rights activists' reasoning on why gay people should have equal rights, including gay marriage and attack the logical fallacies of the anti-gay movement. To gay people who are anti-gay, they may need psychological advice from a professional psychologist, or they may speak with openly gay people who are already comfortable with being themselves. I think one must understand that treating homophobia is no easy task, as homophobia can be exhibited by different groups.

*Tradition does not necessarily mean good. Traditions in a general sense are societal phenomena (cultural, personal or familial) that are passed on from generation to generation. When societal values change, or when people start valuing individual liberty over collective liberty, traditions change as well, and old traditions are ditched, because they are contrary to current values of democracy, personal liberty, and equality.

[NollemD]

Computer games and hot water heaters aren't natural, but I don't hear many people clamoring to discard them and rush to crap in the woods and die from cholera. "Not natural" is a bullshit argument right from the start. Humans make decisions and that's natural. Anything we decide to do is therefore natural and human, whether everyone likes it or not.

No, the "not natural" argument is not weak because humans make decisions and decisions that humans make are "natural". Rather, the "not natural" argument is weak, because humans know better and should use reason over natural behavior. Studies have shown that confirmation bias is one natural behavior, when there is too much data. So, the best way to think rationally or critically is to go after the opinions that sound contrary to one's own, and that behavior is not natural. Yet, it is morally beneficial, because that's exactly what rational people should do to avoid bias. Moreover, Mother Nature cannot be judged as moral or immoral. Rather, it is commonly believed that Mother Nature has no morality at all. It is what it is. Sometimes, nature brings happy moments for people. Sometimes, nature can cause severe damages to individuals, without the individual doing any wrong at all. The only way to cope with non-moral nature is to make the best of it and try to improve our own lives for the better, or in social Darwinian terms, survival of the fittest. All the best fit in the environment to survive, and for those not fit, help them, which is morally acceptable, adjust to the environment so they have higher chances of survival.

[ButchSims]

I must say, I stumbled upon this forum by accident while looking for something else, but it caught my eye and I read through the whole thing, top to bottom. With the exception of a few people, I am overwhelmed by the level of tolorence and acceptance among the Sims community for GLBT people. When Maxis first made the game, i was astounded that my Sims could have same sex relationships. It was the first time I played a video game where I could see myself in the characters I created. When the later games came out, I was even more pleased by the fact that my Sims could marry each other. No one in Sunset Valley cared if my two guys made a family. No one in Bridgport screams derogatory comments at them from passing cars. Twinbrook is a thriving artist's community, which usually has a high acceptance factor. One of the reasons I love this game is because for the first time in my video gaming life, I could make ME, as I am, with no judgement. It is obvious what side Maxis/EA is on. Maybe some people could learn a few lessons from those little pixels.

[NollemD]

I must say, I stumbled upon this forum by accident while looking for something else, but it caught my eye and I read through the whole thing, top to bottom. With the exception of a few people, I am overwhelmed by the level of tolorence and acceptance among the Sims community for GLBT people. When Maxis first made the game, i was astounded that my Sims could have same sex relationships. It was the first time I played a video game where I could see myself in the characters I created. When the later games came out, I was even more pleased by the fact that my Sims could marry each other. No one in Sunset Valley cared if my two guys made a family. No one in Bridgport screams derogatory comments at them from passing cars. Twinbrook is a thriving artist's community, which usually has a high acceptance factor. One of the reasons I love this game is because for the first time in my video gaming life, I could make ME, as I am, with no judgement. It is obvious what side Maxis/EA is on. Maybe some people could learn a few lessons from those little pixels.

Well... I wouldn't really say that Maxis/EA has chosen a side, as if they are treating the same-sex marriage controversy as a real debate with real debatable positions from two equally valid viewpoints. The truth is, there is no valid reasoning for the opposition of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Because there is no valid reasoning for the opposition of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, because there is a growing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in Western society (America) in general, because EA/Maxis would like to increase profits rather than being seen as bigoted, because it's more technologically easier to make everybody in the Sims 3/Sims 2 game to be treated equally than not (less interactions, presumably), Maxis/EA has allowed simple interactions and reactions for the game. There can be many factors why Maxis/EA has designed the game the way it is.

Opponents of same-sex marriage would like to persuade the general public that there is a valid controversy (same goes for the climate change controversy); however, the real reason why most opponents of same-sex marriage are against the phenomenon is due to religion. Now, if they admit this, then they violate the "separation of church and state" principle, which prohibits any bill that establishes a religion or religious teachings.

[panther00567]

As a Washingtonian, I'm proud to say our state is very close to legalizing same-sex marriages. This will make Washington the 7th state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriages. I myself am not gay, but I've known people who are and it's good to know they will have the same opportunities and rights as straight couples. As the Beatles said, all you need is love.

PS: I just realized one of the civil suits in 2004 involving same-sex marriages was "Andersen v. Sims" :lol:

[Oaktree]

Yeah, I'm rooting for Maryland to finally push the gay marriage bill through. I remember hearing about how they were considering it back when I was in high school. It's about time they finally did something about it. They're looking at it right now, so hopefully they'll finally get it through.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Or, the contra-positive: "If gay people only had anal sex." There are many gays out there who have just as much an ick factor to "teh buttseks" as anyone else, and don't have it as part of their usual sex repertoire.

I always find it interesting how people talk about the "bizarre and deviant" sexual practices of gays, when most every...fetish I guess... that I can think of, I know just as many heterosexuals as homosexuals who engage in it. Even some of which, only the heterosexuals are practicing. Think "a-la-cup". *shudder* Yes, Virginia, those people really DO exist.

(Not that there aren't gays who do the "cup" thing, I just don't know of any.)

I don't really find it that surprising. I used to think that gay people just had anal and that's probly the main reason why I was a homophobe.
now if people who are disgusted don't take the time to understand what gay people do in the bedroom then I think they're being ignorant.
it still doesn't seem natural when you think about it because it just doesn't go in the hole..you have to use outer devices but then again do periods seem natural? not to me (it still baffles me why we women have to have periods. gross)
the word natural just needs to go away when arguing about gays.

they also argue that gay people can't procreate. a) who said sex is purely for procreation b) yes they can. have people never heard of a surrogate?
and I believe that maybe some day people of the same gender will be able to combine their DNA for kids. our technology is really advancing as years go by so you never know what will happen in the future.

Some people find the oddest things to "hate" or call "unnatural".

And when homosexuals are criticized by Bible worshipers, I just have to laugh. Man+Man and woman+woman is wrong but doesn't your book say "thou shall not judge", and to accept all your brothers and sisters for they are children of the Lord?
What happened to that?
right and even if it did say something about homosexuals being sinful (which in looking at the supposed passage, it's unlikely that it does), who cares?
I find it funny that people still use that piece of ancient toilet paper as the word of God.

Yeah, I'm rooting for Maryland to finally push the gay marriage bill through. I remember hearing about how they were considering it back when I was in high school. It's about time they finally did something about it. They're looking at it right now, so hopefully they'll finally get it through.
whoa are you from Maryland? that's interesting
anyway I wasn't even aware that Maryland still hadn't passed but then again I don't pay attention to news and maybe Maryland just sucks like that (I know my city sucks anyway so the rest of MD may not be much better)

[whiterider]

I don't really find it that surprising. I used to think that gay people just had anal and that's probly the main reason why I was a homophobe.
I think this is a big part of it. The majority of people who claim that homosexuality is "wrong" or "gross" or whatever else, when you get down to it, are thinking of gay men having sex.

They're not thinking of a gay person cooking breakfast for their partner, or of agreeing who will walk the kid(s) to school this week, or of sitting on the sofa watching TV together, or of beating the crap out of each other in W40k, a gay person looking after their partner when they're sick or comforting them when a family member dies... they're thinking about SEX. Because obviously SEX is the central part of any healthy romantic relationship, right?

And gay people aren't really gay when we're single, because we're not having GAY SEX. This, at least, is the Anglican church's official position on the matter!

I think Gene Robinson demonstrated this quite neatly. Years ago he was asked by a radio host what he and his husband do in bed (odd thing to ask a bishop, you'd have thought). He answered along the lines of "We've been married 25 years. We do what everyone else does in bed. We sleep."
Suddenly, the whole thing didn't seem so scandalous...

[Drakesecaravdis]

I think this is a big part of it. The majority of people who claim that homosexuality is "wrong" or "gross" or whatever else, when you get down to it, are thinking of gay men having sex.

They're not thinking of a gay person cooking breakfast for their partner, or of agreeing who will walk the kid(s) to school this week, or of sitting on the sofa watching TV together, or of beating the crap out of each other in W40k, a gay person looking after their partner when they're sick or comforting them when a family member dies... they're thinking about SEX. Because obviously SEX is the central part of any healthy romantic relationship, right?

And gay people aren't really gay when we're single, because we're not having GAY SEX. This, at least, is the Anglican church's official position on the matter!

I think Gene Robinson demonstrated this quite neatly. Years ago he was asked by a radio host what he and his husband do in bed (odd thing to ask a bishop, you'd have thought). He answered along the lines of "We've been married 25 years. We do what everyone else does in bed. We sleep."
Suddenly, the whole thing didn't seem so scandalous...

exactly. it's all about da buttsecks like I said before.
anyway I kinda see where they're coming from because most people have sex in a romantic relationship (asexuals are a rare breed)...eventually, that is if they stay together but I wish they'd see other parts as well. like you said cooking breakfast, watching TV together, comforting etc...I guess if we were to think of a relationship as a banana split, sex would be at the most the ice cream not the banana. some people even have sex less than others no matter what their sexuality so sometimes sex could be just the bubblegum pieces.

if a relationship is all sex that would be boring.

I also find it strange that straight guys are the ones that often think about gay people having sex. I mean wth right? if you're straight why are you thinking about two men playing the bedroom game? are you sure you're not in the closet?

[SimsLover50]

I see this topic a lot now that President Obama has come out in favor of the gay marriage. I confess on slow days I like to debate this topic with the anti-gay activists, just on the upchance that I might be able to do some good.

Here are the most common arguements I see from folks who are anti-gay marriage.

1. Cite bible verse as to why it is wrong and against god's plan.
2. Cite that it is not natural or normal for gay people to have sex.
3. Put forth that the 'sanctity' of marriage is violated.
4. Gays can't procreate.
5. Gay sex is gross.
6. Sodom and Gommorah, and the fall of Rome
7. It violates my traditional belief.
8. Gays want to 'ruin it' for others or have an agenda.
9. Gays are forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
10: God says...
11. Inevitable comparison to poligamy, incest, pedophilia etc.
12. Liberal agenda....
13. Its best for the kiddies to....
14. Bad experience with gay person colors judgement of gays in general.

Please note. I am pro-gay marriage. But these are the common comments I see from folks who are anti.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

id still like to know why anal sex is such an evil thing in and of itself, anyway. heterosexuals do it PLENTY--how is it suddenly bad when gays do it?

[Mistermook]

id still like to know why anal sex is such an evil thing in and of itself, anyway. heterosexuals do it PLENTY--how is it suddenly bad when gays do it?
Poop smells worse when there is a beard attached?

;)

[whiterider]

Chicks have butthair too.

[kattenijin]

id still like to know why anal sex is such an evil thing in and of itself, anyway. heterosexuals do it PLENTY--how is it suddenly bad when gays do it?

Anal sex is "evil" because its "spilling the seed" and "killing" potential children. That's why "the church" also frowns on fellatio and masturbation. Its just as "evil" in the eyes of "the church" when its heterosexual as when homosexual, it's just not brought up as much because only "deviants" would do such a thing; not "normal people". Sex is ONLY to be used for procreation. If you aren't intending to conceive a child, you're supposed to abstain.


Poop smells worse when there is a beard attached?

Well, one could always shave, or wax...

[Elyasis]

add to that: i havent seen any of these anti-homosexual people who are supposedly "pro-nature" go amish. there are plenty of things in our world that arent "natural"--not being natural doesnt make it wrong.
(or theres the flip side, that nothing is unnatural, because everything here has to come from someplace...namely, nature. nature gives us the materials, we make up new ways to rearrange it. a rearranged lamp doesnt stop being a lamp.)

if someone earnestly believed that "its not natural" was a good enough reason to shun something, in the way that it didnt grow on a tree, reproduce, or come from an animal.... why are cars still so popular? or air conditioners? those things arent natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

That's because everything that exists is, by nature, natural.


It's not supernatural. It's not like an alien space fairy sprinkled magic stardust and where ever the sparkly crap landed homosexuals started popping up like demented lawn gnomes that can't stop thrusting and gyrating at other magic lawngnomesexuals.

That would be absurd.

[Mistermook]

Someone needs to make these for The Sims...

[Chicken0895]

Mistermook, make what exactly?

[Mistermook]

Mistermook, make what exactly?
demented lawn gnomes that can't stop thrusting and gyrating at other magic lawngnomesexuals.
We need more fabulous gnomes. We need gnomes that turn out every day like a horrifying parody of a Pride parade, littering our Simlawns.

[Chicken0895]

Ok... I don't really understand that...

[SuicidiaParasidia]

We need more fabulous gnomes. We need gnomes that turn out every day like a horrifying parody of a Pride parade, littering our Simlawns.

in case you havent noticed, sim gnomes already appear in a variety of highly questionable (http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab174/nice_days/Bowyer/05/113.png) positions.

/offtopic

[BlakeS5678]

At this point people my thought on Same-Sex marriage is the same as abortion.

"And what the hell is wrong exactly with not having children?"

P.S. I'm a gay marriage and abortion supporter. I get more crap from Catholics on a daily basis than my own ass.

[Drakesecaravdis]

At this point people my thought on Same-Sex marriage is the same as abortion.

"And what the hell is wrong exactly with not having children?"

P.S. I'm a gay marriage and abortion supporter. I get more crap from Catholics on a daily basis than my own ass.

agree totally. if anything having less children in this world is a good thing. it gives less chance of overpopulation.
and what do they think about gay people who want to have children? why isn't adopting enough?

[BlakeS5678]

agree totally. if anything having less children in this world is a good thing. it gives less chance of overpopulation.
and what do they think about gay people who want to have children? why isn't adopting enough?

EXACTLY! As if ALL the children dying somewhere in Africa just wasn't QUITE enough.

I almost wonder that the purpose of homosexuality was to adopt all the poor children?
(You know, assuming that there's some sort of god or something that assigns these types of things)

On, a different topic, I hate how just because I'm christian everyone assumes I'm homophobic. Though a lot of Christians are homophobic. I feel confused. Why can't there just be a group of people that are Christians, AND Pro-Abortion and Gay- Marriage. You always have to choose. Now, I'm just ranting. I feel like Tina Fey. (Go Liz Lemon!)

[BlakeS5678]

I think this is a big part of it. The majority of people who claim that homosexuality is "wrong" or "gross" or whatever else, when you get down to it, are thinking of gay men having sex.

Sometimes straight men can be even "gayer"

[Yazoo]

I apologize for my last post. I will delete my post, seeing I did go off subject. I apologize for doing so.

[Drakesecaravdis]

EXACTLY! As if ALL the children dying somewhere in Africa just wasn't QUITE enough.

I almost wonder that the purpose of homosexuality was to adopt all the poor children?
(You know, assuming that there's some sort of god or something that assigns these types of things)

On, a different topic, I hate how just because I'm christian everyone assumes I'm homophobic. Though a lot of Christians are homophobic. I feel confused. Why can't there just be a group of people that are Christians, AND Pro-Abortion and Gay- Marriage. You always have to choose. Now, I'm just ranting. I feel like Tina Fey. (Go Liz Lemon!)

that could be but I was thinking homosexuality's purpose could also be to make the world more diverse and help people to be more open minded about those who are different (although like we've been saying many people will never open their minds hence this thread but I think it helps some..it makes differences of non-homosexuals less apparent. not that I'm trying to make gay people sound like a stool pigeon or something but hopefully you get my point) also I think if gay people didn't exist there wouldn't be as much advocating against bullies, it would seem less important to society.

yes that's why I have often thought the world would be better without religion. it just makes everything complicated and decent people like you stereotyped

[BlakeS5678]

You think I'm decent! A person who I met over the internet gave me my first compliment today! Thank you.

In my last post I felt it was necessary to include what I did in parenthesis's so I didn't make them sound stool pigeons either.

[SimsLover50]

I was interested to note Marvel Comics announced the gay marriage of Northstar on CNN yesterday. I was suprised at the comments that the sky was falling. I pre-ordered a copy. I always liked northstar.

edited to add: interestingly enough DC has just announced they will also announce another gay character will be coming out of the closet. I'm curious who it will be.