The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[ScouserInExile]

...

It's exactly the same as a man and a women holding hands, but it's not like they are trying to make things said to other people. They hold hands because they feel connected emotionally. I don't care if a gay person holds hands with their partner. I'll probably look and continue on doing what I'm doing. Now with anyone holding hands and skipping basically saying 'Hey everyone, were together!' I would'n't give a ****. Keep it to yourself. Is it something that I'm not getting through here?

No. Not remotely.

Failing to see the difference between the straight and the gay couple here. Both couples are making a statement of connection and togetherness, why is a problem for you if they're gay? Apart from the obvious...

 

[FoolKiller]

I hate to say this but most homosexual guys are inconsiderate pricks towards me.

One of my friends is gay I think. Quoted from 'How was your day?' thread.

"One of my best friends just basically told me to **** off for no reason.

He's turning weird on me and he's hanging out with this other kid. He ditched our whole little group of about 6-7 people... It's been months since we hung out and he hasn't responded to any of my texts ever since then. He erased me from Skype and even got rid of my number. I don't know what his problem is but when people do this kind of **** I just want to smash their ****ing face into a wall. You might know, that indecisive mood and the 'well I have other plans' when that person isn't going to be doing **** for the next ****ing 5 hours excuse. " Sorry for bringing anger here.

I don't know how old you are, and I'm not going to mock you for having what sounds to be an age-related, teenage issue. I will point out that age is likely at play here. I currently stay in regular contact with one (1) friend from my high school years. I had a group of friends as a teenager. Some of my friends from even earlier went different directions with their life than I did. I was on the academic team and taking computer electives. They were smoking, drinking and taking shop classes. Without judging, we just fell apart. As we began our development into adults we went different ways with our life. The fact is that if I had kept hanging out with them I would have had a different social circle. The girls I would have been around wouldn't have been my type, I wouldn't have ever dated, and I might have dropped my grades to avoid being mocked.

Whether your friend is gay or not, what you describe is just what happens as a teenager. If he is gay then his social circle may be changing just because he is finding more in common with others than with you. He could be telling you to go away simply because you all don't have a lot in common and he is following his own path, and if you are showing some form of disappointment or anger he may be trying to give you a clear hint; you are not friends anymore.

The majority of the ones I've known have been just dicks to me, they feel the need to express themselves more because they are 'out of the closet'. I don't care if you're are gay. Just don't come around me with weird gestures and behaviors, also don't make it too obvious.

Oh what a difference a few girls and alcohol will make. Once you are actively chasing tail all the time you will "make it too obvious" that you are straight. We all do. Trust me, I made jokes in a classroom setting that would have me fired in a workplace for sexual harassment. And most people consider me a good guy.

I know I sound like a ignorant prick but that is how I feel.

You just sound like a teenager dealing with teenager issues. In ten years you will laugh at your teenage self. Right now, go listen to some emo or angry music, play a violent video game, and look at porn. That's how I survived.

 

[hogger129]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

 

[BubbleBelly542]

It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

This is completely irrelevant. Whether or not homosexual people get married has nothing to do with having children. Nothing is denied. Just because a gay man can not marry a man he loves does not mean he will go find a woman to marry and have kids with.

 

[Liquid]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

Wrong.

The concept of marriage predates religion, and the word marriage, stemming from the Latin maritare, simply means "to provide with spouse". It does not specify gender roles. The Romans had equal marriage in a number of circumstances; Nero had husbands, and it wasn't until 342AD that it was outlawed. There is also evidence of same-sex marriage taking place in 11th century Spain.

You're also wrong on suggesting that marriage is exclusively for raising children. Marriage is simply a sentimental union, signifying the bond between partners. Tell me, should heterosexual couples who can't have children be prohibited from being married?

Stop being so heterocentric.

 

[hogger129]

Wrong.

Tell me, should heterosexual couples who can't have children be prohibited from being married?

No because that is a man and a woman thus constitutes marriage.

 

[Liquid]

No because that is a man and a woman thus constitutes marriage.

But your own definition is for procreating children, too.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

In the hypothetical example I gave you, this man and woman cannot have children. Both are sterile. Unfortunate, but it happens.

So they can marry but two women or two men can't? Rubbish. Absolute tripe.

And well done on ignoring the rest of my post and not debating any of the other points I mentioned.

 

[hogger129]

But your own definition is for procreating children, too.



In the hypothetical example I gave you, this man and woman cannot have children. Both are sterile. Unfortunate, but it happens.

So they can marry but two women or two men can't? Rubbish. Absolute tripe.

And well done on ignoring the rest of my post and not debating any of the other points I mentioned.

This argument was given by none other than Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan who asked, “Suppose a State said that, ‘Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.’ Would that be constitutional?”

Every time I read or hear the Harvard educated Kagan speak I think of dolphins because everyone tells me dolphins are really smart but there's no actual evidence of them saying or doing anything smart.

But let's be fair here. Major props to the liberal justice for finally tying her job to interpreting the Constitution. You just know Justice Breyer slipped her a note asking, "What's this strange constitution thingie you speak of?"

But the fact that some married people can't have babies doesn't negate the existence of marriage anymore than it negates the existence of babies. Hey, that’s kinda’ weird because babies are another thing the Supreme Court likes to negate the existence of.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Every time I read or hear the Harvard educated Kagan speak I think of dolphins because everyone tells me dolphins are really smart but there's no actual evidence of them saying or doing anything smart.

Can't say I agree with the rest of your stance on marriage, but that's a good line, I'll have to borrow that one...lol..

 

[FoolKiller]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

If marriage exists outside of legal boundaries then quit placing legal boundaries on it, remove it from government control and then let gay people do whatever it is they want to do and let straight people do whatever it is they want to do.

If marriage is what you say it is (proving it would be a cool trick) then the legal debate should be pointless.

It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Wow, I'm glad we got my wife's endometriosis taken care of long enough to have our daughter, otherwise my marriage would be missing its primary purpose. It's a wonder we made it five years without even trying to have a kid.

And to think, all these years I thought the primary purpose of my marriage was a lifelong commitment to a person I love.

 

[hogger129]

If marriage exists outside of legal boundaries then quit placing legal boundaries on it, remove it from government control and then let gay people do whatever it is they want to do and let straight people do whatever it is they want to do.

If marriage is what you say it is (proving it would be a cool trick) then the legal debate should be pointless.


Wow, I'm glad we got my wife's endometriosis taken care of long enough to have our daughter, otherwise my marriage would be missing its primary purpose. It's a wonder we made it five years without even trying to have a kid.

And to think, all these years I thought the primary purpose of my marriage was a lifelong commitment to a person I love.

You chose conveniently to ignore post #3788 in which I addressed this.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I don't care if you're are gay.

And yet...

The majority of the ones I've known have been just dicks to me, they feel the need to express themselves more because they are 'out of the closet'... Just don't come around me with weird gestures and behaviors, also don't make it too obvious.

I don't show off that I'm straight. I don't care at all of what sexuality someone is and that's the problem. Most gay males flaunt the fact that they are out. I don't care about what someone prefers to have intercourse with. It's just annoying and quite disgusting..

So, you do care, then.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman

No, it hasn't.

which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children

I know married couples that not only don't ever want kids, but actively dislike them. Their stance is it's best left to other people. Why did they marry, then?

the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

This, most likely, is the reason. Which, amazingly enough, absolutely can ring true of same-sex marriage just as much as the typical heterosexual ones.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage.

The idea of the sexes as two very simplified, black-and-white compliments is an outdated one. There are various shades of gray; it's not an on-off switch.

It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

I was just at a wedding this weekend; strange, all the vows talked about were loving the partner.

 

[Daniel]

But the fact that some married people can't have babies doesn't negate the existence of marriage anymore than it negates the existence of babies. Hey, that’s kinda’ weird because babies are another thing the Supreme Court likes to negate the existence of.

Nowadays, marriage and procreation are not mutually inclusive events. It's not necessary to have children if you're married, and you don't have to get married to have children.

The idea of the sexes as two very simplified, black-and-white compliments is an outdated one. There are various shades of gray; it's not an on-off switch.

 

[FoolKiller]

You chose conveniently to ignore post #3788 in which I addressed this.

I didn't ignore it, just because I didn't quote it. I pointed out that your definition of marriage exists outside legal boundaries. You can't defend it by falling back on making unintelligent rants against Supreme Court arguments, because your definition doesn't include any law of any nation. It just includes an arbitrary meaning. My point was that you should be arguing for no laws defining marriage if you truly believe it to be what you say it is.

Of course, you didn't really address it. You quoted a Supreme Court justice and then went on a tangent calling her stupid for questioning your definition of marriage. How about addressing her question? Would that be Constitutional? Do you care what is Constitutional if it doesn't fit your narrow view of the world?


But to your 10% of actual substance in that post: No one is trying to negate marriage. I don't know what you are on about. All we are asking you is, how does your provided definition applies to sterile heterosexual couples? Better yet, what if his twig and berries were mutilated in some horrific accident? Not only is he sterile, but has no chance of having any physical sexual interaction with his wife. It could even be possible he can't produce testosterone (I know of cases of this from a pure genetic disorder) and his general masculinity suffers as a result, both physically and mentally.

That would negate this:

This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage.

And now they don't meet your definition of marriage at all.


Here is the deal. You define marriage in a very specific way. I am married and I am calling BS on your definition because that does not define my marriage. If you think your definition of marriage should be the only legal definition of marriage then go down to the courthouse and burn my marriage license, because that does not define my marriage. Even after you take away the legal marriage I will still be married. I will still call it a marriage. My relationship with my wife will be unchanged.

And like my lesbian cousin, who got married outside the law (and in a church ), you will have to kill me before I call it anything else.

 

[Danny]

You chose conveniently to ignore post #3788 in which I addressed this.

In fairness, you haven't actually answered post 3787.

 

[phillgt2002]

And yet...

So, you do care, then.

When I said those things.. I don't care if someone is gay. I won't say anything if a person said that they are gay. I don't like the way some gays I know act but I don't go out of my way to say that they are disturbing me. That's more of the way I'm trying to put it.

 

[Denur]

I don't like the way some gays I know act but I don't go out of my way to say that they are disturbing me.

What a coincidence, I not only don't like the way some gays I know act, I even don't like the way some straight people I know act. Man, I even don't like the way some people act without knowing whether they are straight, bi or gay!!

 

[niky]

Being hit on by a gay man at a bar is one of the few times a straight man will ever feel the kind of discomfort that women feel around men every day.

Men are pigs. And I say that in the nicest way, being a straight, married pig, myself.

 

[Dennisch]

Being hit on by a gay man at a bar

Again. Free drinks all night. I see no discomfort in that.

 

[Jared93]

Being hit on by a gay man at a bar is one of the few times a straight man will ever feel the kind of discomfort that women feel around men every day.

Men are pigs. And I say that in the nicest way, being a straight, married pig, myself.

Hahahaha. I've had my fair share of gay men hit on me. Though I will make it clear that I don't go that way; it's nothing to get mad about in my opinion. I'd rather take it as a compliment than be someone who can't handle the fact that someone finds you attractive. But hey, more than likely that's the shallow narcissist mindset within.

 

[niky]

Casually hitting on someone is fine. I've had that, and laughed it off. It's the touchy-touchy stuff that gets irritating, or worse. And I've had that, too.

If it's a friend and a homosexual-homophobic in-joke, no problem.

If it's an absolute stranger, big problem.

And that's what many women have to go through in public. The reason men don't see it that way is they're accustomed to being in the position of power. Being the object of unwanted attention puts them in the unfamiliar position of being the "woman."

Again. Free drinks all night. I see no discomfort in that.

As long as it's you buying...

 

[Liquid]

For some people, it's charming to get attention from either gender. Y'know, you should take it, the fact that someone shows an attraction towards you, as a compliment rather than an insult.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm kind of upset that there are straight guys being hit on by gay guys, but I had to practically beg to get women to notice me. I've even been to gay clubs (because girls just gotta dance!) and not been hit on. I must ooze straightness.

 

[Azuremen]

For some people, it's charming to get attention from either gender. Y'know, you should take it, the fact that someone shows an attraction towards you, as a compliment rather than an insult.

Basically this.

I'm kind of upset that there are straight guys being hit on by gay guys, but I had to practically beg to get women to notice me. I've even been to gay clubs (because girls just gotta dance!) and not been hit on. I must ooze straightness.

It is the shoes. Dead serious. Style plays heavily into it when out and about (I know some gay guys that aren't too fashion focused though) as it is the first clue. The other just being a mix of mannerisms and how out going you are.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is the shoes. Dead serious. Style plays heavily into it when out and about (I know some gay guys that aren't too fashion focused though) as it is the first clue. The other just being a mix of mannerisms and how out going you are.

So, baggy, faded jeans, slightly too large t-shirt, Univeristy of Kentucky cap, and Nikes (may have been high-top Chucks, depending on the year) isnt going to attract gay guys?

Makes sense, seeing as it barely worked on girls.

 

[niky]

It's less the attention than the "getting slapped on the butt" part.

Though I must admit, in my single days, I had a magnificent posterior.

 

[Zenith]

datass.jpg

 

[DK]

Alan Chambers, head of "Exodus International", a "gay-conversion" group, has decided to shut down his group. Not only that, but he is decent enough to offer an apology for the hurt caused by "gay conversion therapy".

Source

 

[counter345]

Alan Chambers, head of "Exodus International", a "gay-conversion" group, has decided to shut down his group. Not only that, but he is decent enough to offer an apology for the hurt caused by "gay conversion therapy".

Source

I don't understand how these kind of services aren't against the law, considering the extensive psychological and often physical damage their brain-washing services does.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't understand how these kind of services aren't against the law, considering the extensive psychological and often physical damage their brain-washing services does.

Because people sign up willingly, and when they were first started homosexuality was considered a psychological illness, listed in the DSM.