EPTProp 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
| ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
And I do wish people would stop leaning on the Bible for support. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On November 07 2008 05:59 hozz wrote: Hello, i am gay and registered @TL (thought reading for years, amazing site) just to clear some points. 1. My suggestion concerning gay marriage *Spoilered, as it's not my main point. Read if you are interested* + Show Spoiler + There should be two kinds of marriages, independent of each other: Civil marriage: can be done by any two (or more >  ) human adults who want it. Gives you all legal rights and stuff and everything which has something to do with the country/state.Further issues (e.g. adopting children) have to be discussed separately ("would gays be worse parents? etc.") But same civil/legal rights for the married people themselves. No effect on religious things at all. Religious marriage: any religion can have some ceremony and then say "those two are married by us now". Who is allowed to marry that kind of way is decided by the religion (who else, it's their club, they can do what they want - I can create my rainbow church or something if I want religious gay marriage). Has no effect on legal treatment of people at all. So the country/state distinguishes "civil marriage Yes/No" ONLY. Every religion distinguishes "our religious marriage Yes/No" ONLY. E-Z. 2. BEING GAY IS NOT AN EFFING CHOICE!!! This is what pisses me off, people claiming that. It's just not true! NOT TRUE! Which bastard invented that? One is gay whether he/she likes it or not. It is as fixed as being black or white or tall or small. It does not matter which way (or when) it is biologically determined (genetics, or genetics + hormons + whatever we maybe don't even know exists), it is. Period. Believe me. I know it! I don't lie (why should I?). Who still does not believe me, how much sense would such a choice make if it was a choice? None? Right! There is exactly one choice regarding being gay: a) You accept you're gay (or more general, you accept how you obviously are - there are more shades than 100 straight vs. 100% gay). b) You don't accept you're gay and pretend not to be. Which has nothing to do if you are gay, or not. It's only how you live (and basically, wether you are happy or not). If you are gay, marry a woman, have 5 children, never touch a man, you still are gay. If you aren't gay, you can f**k the entire San Francisco male population and tatoo a big "GAY!!!" on your forehead, you still are not. There is no choice how some people think it is. The only choice is how to live with what you are. As well is it not possible to influence somebody to be gay or not (it is only possible to have an already gay person realize and/or accept it). Please tell that everyone who gives arguments like "Gay marriage mentioned at schools will make my kid gay!". Dear parents, you cannot control wether your kid is (there is no "becomes") gay or not, you can only support him/her or decide to not do that. Which may very well break your kid (hint from my side  ).3. @ people like Murk If you say gays are disgusting and you hate them, fine. Really. That's your opinion. Which is perfectly legit. You vote against gay marriage? Not nice. Let's say, if a proposition ("prop" yes? my English is not good enough) passes which makes church service a crime and turns every church into a supermarket, you'd also have to accept that I vote "Yes" on that. Would you? "I hate you, you hate me, but I am stronger (so far)" is not exactly the best argument. My experience is, people claim a lot but get very very very whiny when somebody treats them equally in consequence. Being nice to each other is generally the better way. --- Thanks everyone for reading (you did that, right;)) I just wanted to comment that it has been highly suggested scientifically that being Gay has nothing to do with any choice. An area in the hypothalamus (a part of the brain) has a given concentration of nuclei in strait men, but a much higher concentration in gay men. The same high concentration of nuclei is also seen in strait females, and a much lower concentration in homosexual females. It seems unlikely that any choice could influence the concentration of nuclei in an area of the brain so dramatically considering the nuclei develop at a very young age (the nuclei actually develop during gestation). Thus most neurologist agree homosexuallity could not possibly be a choice. Personally, I don't care much for labels. It seems rediculous to have such a drawn out dramatic debate over what to call something. If people want to say "were married," I could care less. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:00 LG)Sabbath wrote: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM There's my argument, and btw I'm a christian, and I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The fundamental weakness of this argument is that all the "President"s laws are derived from mosaic law, of which I wrote about briefly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81426¤tpage=12 and you will read about their modern applications here according to official Catholic theology in Aquinas' Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article3 All of the penalties mentioned are made obsolete by the new covenant, often directly so by Jesus' own word in the gospels, but homosexuality is not, in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul says with certainty that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore from a Christian (mainstream Catholic let's say for sake of argument) point of view, it's not expressly prohibited to work on the Sabbath, stoning and burning are outright prohibited, pork may be eaten without being defiled, yet sodomy is still a sin. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency. You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:39 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Show me a medical study that proves that homosexuality has any relationship to the contraction of the HIV virus. Show me a study that actually explains that statistic. Simply throwing a statistic out there like that won't convince anyone with half a brain. There is evidence of different HIV transmission rates between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Please note that I'm not condemning any behavior because of the higher rates - it's just a fact. Anal sex transmits far more often than vaginal...that's been proven time and time again. I think the transmission rate can be has high as 100 times as likely, depending on who you ask. Here's an article addressing the differences in HIV transmission rates: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
You new tlnet modrators a fucking disgrace | ||
|
Sadist
United States7237 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:20 Centric wrote: There is evidence of different HIV transmission rates between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Please note that I'm not condemning any behavior because of the higher rates - it's just a fact. Anal sex transmits far more often than vaginal...that's been proven time and time again. I think the transmission rate can be has high as 100 times as likely, depending on who you ask. Here's an article addressing the differences in HIV transmission rates: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data its only because you are more likely to have cuts and abrasions in anal sex therefor its easier to cross fluids. IT has no sexual preference basis, only anal vs vaginal/oral sex. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:26 Sadist wrote: its only because you are more likely to have cuts and abrasions in anal sex therefor its easier to cross fluids. IT has no sexual preference basis, only anal vs vaginal/oral sex. And that's why I said that the evidence had no bearing on whether homosexuality was right or not. It was simply stating that there is a tendency for homosexuals to have anal sex and thus higher rates of HIV transmission. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:02 d_so wrote: fukit ? | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:26 Sadist wrote: its only because you are more likely to have cuts and abrasions in anal sex therefor its easier to cross fluids. IT has no sexual preference basis, only anal vs vaginal/oral sex. this is totally true, however catching aids as a Lesbian is nearly impossible so it evens out | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On November 07 2008 03:00 -_- wrote: You really need to be more accepting of other people's lifestyle choices. His beliefs are his beliefs. He's not hurting anybody typing on a forum. But you respond that he is. And that's the distinction! How? Economically? Would you be happy if gays got the same eco benefits but w/o the WORD of marriage? No? Than what harm? Psych harm? Emotional harm? Don't know how you would classify it? Well, what about the harm to our good friend Murk? The pain it causes him to know gays marry? Maybe you do just want absolute equation of benefits. But we still have Murk's pain. If someone can cleverly convince you your mom was raped to death, you can go after them and get $. Why do the gays have their eco harm > Murk's pain? Hmmm... but couldn't you make my same arg for racists you say. Their pain seeing black people fully participate in society? I say no. Gay are more diff than a straight men than a black men are to white men. It's a genetic fact. Distinction w/o difference you say? Maybe. But I'm getting too far out. You probably disagree with a ton already, so no point in pushing forward. Don't speak about things which you know nothing about. There isn't enough scientific information to actually state with certainty the genetic causes of homosexuality, if there are any at all. So to state that it's a genetic fact that a Black man is more genetically related to White man, in comparison to gay and straight man, is incorrect at this point in time and shows that you're talking out of your misinformed ass. You may be informed about the Law (although I'd prefer to converse with a competent law student such as Hot_Bid) but don't venture into the world of science making claims you have no understanding of. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:49 Masamune wrote: Don't speak about things which you know nothing about. There isn't enough scientific information to actually state with certainty the genetic causes of homosexuality, if there are any at all. So to state that it's a genetic fact that a Black man is more genetically related to White man, in comparison to gay and straight man, is incorrect at this point in time and shows that you're talking out of your misinformed ass. You may be informed about the Law (although I'd prefer to converse with a competent law student such as Hot_Bid) but don't venture into the world of science making claims you have no understanding of. The reason for homosexual behavior is quite clear as I've already stated. There may not be a genetic reason, but simply a developmental reason. However it is more likely a developmental reason correlating with certain genetic disposition like most conditions. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
RAFL | ||
|
hozz
Germany12 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:27 d_so wrote: up till now, i considered homosexuality a genetic predisposition similar to the genetic predisposition to obesity. but if it really is something "hardwired" into you, then i need to reevalute some things. The big difference between obese and gay is that you can easily ignore that pie in the freezer, but not your feelings and sexuality. lol, you got me - I just don't like fat (that's how it essentially is, no offense to anyone:p sry) people, I always think "Just f**king eat less!". "Just love a woman" does not work that way Is there a (genetic) predisposition for obesity? Many people say that, so I believe them. Though I think it's still 75% education/parent role model (eating habits). Being gay is not a (let's say biological) predisposition that some time "breaks out" when triggered, or does not occur else. It's not like people of all ages suddenly become gay at some point of their lives and say "whoa what happened, I was totally fine yesterday and now?". It's just how you are from start (whenever that exactly is) and obviously is not influenced by parents and education at all, too. can i ask you some questions? if you find them offensive, please know it's not my intent. Sure, that's what I intended - inform people. thx  (nothing even slightly offensive for me btw)- me, when i was 9 i realized i liked a girl. did you have a similar realization that you liked boys? Don't know much about others. Personally, I just was never interested in girls at all and interested in boys (emotionally, and then sexually). More and more. Then some time I just said to me "lol I can't get hard thinking of a girl, so I will think of a boy" and it worked (lol, just how it happened, was horny  ). Still remember that moment. That's when I became aware of it. Before that it was just an unconscious thing.But in retrospect lots of stuff makes sense - e.g I can remember many boys from my entire 13 school years (including elementary school), but basically 5 girls or so (those who did something remarkable like kill themselves > ). They just were never interesting.Thing is, being gay is not what you expect as a child/adolescent (or even know of it) so it's harder to realize than realizing you like some girl. This is why concealing that topic is so dangerous. I wish Internet would have been there earlier, would have saved me like 5 years  - often, especially those that are religious, we are told to postpone or deny immediate happiness for future happiness. do you feel your happiness is dependent on your sexual orientation such that you cannot deny it? (if this question sounds completely retarded, like asking "is water wet", i'm sorry -- i just don't know) Self-denial just does not work. As a straight person, just imagine you (believe you) have to be with a man to have a relationship. Sure, if you do that, maybe it can be "nice", just not fulfilling. Not what you want. Pressure becomes more and more. Even if you are not aware of it. If you are aware, there comes the associated rest - having to hide something, deal with how people would react, etc. You can probably stay in denial by equally strong external counter-pressure (religious beliefs,public self-image,...), but that still does not make you happy. --- @ topic and vote result lol, I just realized those two smileys are just next to each other:   | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3022 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:15 MoltkeWarding wrote: The fundamental weakness of this argument is that all the "President"s laws are derived from mosaic law, of which I wrote about briefly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81426¤tpage=12 and you will read about their modern applications here according to official Catholic theology in Aquinas' Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article3 All of the penalties mentioned are made obsolete by the new covenant, often directly so by Jesus' own word in the gospels, but homosexuality is not, in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul says with certainty that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore from a Christian (mainstream Catholic let's say for sake of argument) point of view, it's not expressly prohibited to work on the Sabbath, stoning and burning are outright prohibited, pork may be eaten without being defiled, yet sodomy is still a sin. Ok, if you want to play cat and mouse, let's do it. My argument being that the bible cannot be taken word for word and I as a christian only use it as a second guide, my first guide being my conscience and my own judgement of situations. Anything taken word for word from the bible will eventually suffer from: 1- different versions of the bible say things differently, 2- context is based on opinion and therefore prevents proper judgement, 3- ignoring context makes one look like a retard at best. Therefore by following my own judgement I believe that, in general, people should be allowed the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others willfully or otherwise. Example: gay people marrying each other. So let's take this sentence from the bible, supposedly said by Jesus himself: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!" 1- Does this mean that I should promptly remove my eyes for having many times in my life looked at women and desired them? How about you, will you remove your own eyes? I doubt you have never looked at women with desire, any adult non-homosexual man must have done it. 2- May I desire women without looking at them? Such as in my imagination? That certainly doesn't sound consistent, but it does pass jesus' adultery rule. 3- The Bible says that I may not kill myself, yet Jesus suggests that I remove my own eyes, which will most probably cause my death in a matter of seconds. What should I do then? | ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote: GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is. To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency. You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. In case your wondering why no one is responding to this post, and have the inclination to conclude that it is because you have an once of reason embedded anywhere in that statement, so don't. First no one opposes a straight animal lover getting married, in fact most people have dogs and love them, so please review the animal lover statement. Polygamy should be recognized as legal marriage, simply because it is not pertinent to the dominant religion and social order doesn't mean it should be put aside. IF the USA claims to be a free country, than why is one not free to express his religion in all it's branches that don't cause unconsenting bodily harm (sex can cause bodily harm but if it is consenting it is a freedom), or infringe other individual's freedoms. P.S religious is it's own plural. | ||
|
hozz
Germany12 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote: GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. 2 deliberate and consent humans want equal treatment = a crazy person + a dog/tree/anime character ?????? Or what? Seriously... various people ... AIDS... * a child is a serious and obvious impact on a man's life. So a man tries to prevent that. As well as the woman. AIDS/STDs are much less obvious. * I think we all agree that men show riskier sexual behavior in general. No women, more risky behavior. Plus no child problem possible between to men. * Comparing infection rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals, please DO NOT LOOK AT AFRICA! This is where the HIV problem is, not Europe and the US. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:15 Etherone wrote: In case your wondering why no one is responding to this post, and have the inclination to conclude that it is because you have an once of reason embedded anywhere in that statement, so don't. First no one opposes a straight animal lover getting married, in fact most people have dogs and love them, so please review the animal lover statement. Polygamy should be recognized as legal marriage, simply because it is not pertinent to the dominant religion and social order doesn't mean it should be put aside. IF the USA claims to be a free country, than why is one not free to express his religion in all it's branches that don't cause unconsenting bodily harm (sex can cause bodily harm but if it is consenting it is a freedom), or infringe other individual's freedoms. P.S religious is it's own plural. Nobody was responding to headbangaa's post cause they were waiting for someone who barely spoke english to crash into it like a downsyndrome child going downhill on a bike with no breaks. listen.. you (I hope this isn't a stretch) probably know he wasn't fucking talking about owning a dog and loving it. He was talking about crawling into bed with your legally married black lab and fucking the shit out of its muddy poop hole while holding the leash tightly. And yeah, LOTS of fucking people oppose that not "nobody" like you asserted. Your answer to polygamy was a horrid attempt at sounding smart. It ended up looking like a poop salad made by monkeys. I don't even want to enter the room where you made that dump of a post. The part about USA and freedom and expressing branches of religion.. again.. doesn't make fucking sense. Second time I've had to say this today: Stay out mof malibu lebowski. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:17 hozz wrote: 2 deliberate and consent humans want equal treatment = a crazy person + a dog/tree/anime character ?????? Or what? Seriously... * a child is a serious and obvious impact on a man's life. So a man tries to prevent that. As well as the woman. AIDS/STDs are much less obvious. * I think we all agree that men show riskier sexual behavior in general. No women, more risky behavior. Plus no child problem possible between to men. * Comparing infection rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals, please DO NOT LOOK AT AFRICA! This is where the HIV problem is, not Europe and the US. People can deliberate and consent in suicide but that doesn't make it right. Before you jump on me for comparing homosexual relations to suicide that was not my point. My point is that just because two adults say "ok" doesn't mean suddenly we allow it. Not on a state level anyways. | ||
| ||
