Homosexual rights

Are you joking? What the hell else would it be? Are we to presume that the thousands of people who have been married in Massachusetts and Vermont are just pretending?

Think for yourself...

Yet your basic rights are safeguarded. Theirs aren't.

Which rights, and why not?

Yeah, you're right, anything that goes against your sense of right and wrong is CLEARLY awful and unholy.

IT'S FUCKING SATIRE!

 

About the poll: Don't vote if you do not wish to.
Post:Currently, in most states, they have all the rights of regular people.

 

Maybe this will change your mind:

"We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.
"In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in vain/by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?' Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.
"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.

_+_+_+_+Thank you for reading this article._+_+_+_

I agree with Shredderbeam. If you think the thousands of people in Vermont and Massachusetts that have married Man+Man or Woman+Woman is wrong then you have issues and you should think about gay rights again before you post this post that is very ignorant.

I hate this thread it's racist.

 

I think being gay is TOTALLY not right.

And how is that poll right?

No:60
Yes:46?!?!

That number should be 0!

 

Why?

I know! People disagreeing with you on a controversial topic? Shameless!

 

i cant tell whether the original starter of this is for or agaisnt gay rights but this is my feeling on it

really the whole reason u guys are agaisnt gay marriage and gay rights is that it makes you feel uncomfortable it has nothing to do with religion or anything its the fact that u dont feel right about it. you say its wrong because it makes u feel wierd or its gross or its different. well theres plently of things/people that can meet those characteristics yet what are we doing about them???

 

Not only is it naturally discusting, and wrong, it is also unnatural!

 

It's not naturally disgusting. That would imply that it's disgusting to all people.

How is it just "wrong"?

It is exhibited in nature, and even if it were not, humans do unnatural things all the time.

 

By naturally disgusting I mean that who ever sees 2 guys or girls kissing in the street will react differently than if were it a man and woman.

It is wrong since it does no good for nature in anyway. It is wrong since it is pushing the baundaries to far out, if this continues it could end up with perhaps marriage between animals and humans. It is wrong since the human body is not designed for such thing.

It is seen in nature. But as I have said ealier, animals that are not interested in sex for the sake of pleasur show bisexual behavior, which can only point towards the homo/bisexual behavior being a need and not a choice for them. As you know nearly all animal species have periods of which they are sexually active and will try to reproduct. During the time between each period the male is forced to get his semen out, due to the high amount produced, and since the female is not sexually interested, the male is thereby forced to show homo/bisexual behavior.

In the human case, along with other animals with slightly more intelligense than others, it is done for the sake of pleasur, but that is a choice of which is taken by each animal/individual, thereby it cannot be natural.

I dont really care about some one chosing to be gay. I just dont wanna witness it happening in front of my eyes. Sexual behavior is a private thing, and should not be shown in anyway in public (kissing included), but that is a believe that I have due to my religion. Kissing in public is at least naturally natural.

 

If I see two people of the same sex kissing, I will react differently, just because I hardly ever see it. I'd react the same way if I saw an interracial couple kissing on the street.

There are many things that we do that are no good for nature. For example, I debated with my brother today for no particular reason other than I wanted to.

I don't really think it would, since animals don't have legal standing, and cannot sign a marriage contract.

The human body is not designed for bungee jumping, yet that is not inherently wrong, is it?

That remains a hypothesis of yours, and is not justified. It may be true, but it also may be true that the animals are confused.

Actually, pretty much all homosexuals testify that they do not choose to be that way, but that they always were homosexual.

You'll find that most countries that recognize the rights of human beings will hold personal freedoms above your religious decrees.

 

Well I wouldnt and neither would any of my friend or any person that I have met. If it became a normal thing with gays kissing in the street I doubt it would last for long. The government would not accept such thing, since the people wouldnt either.

Thats weak example lol. You might aswell say, that you spitted on the ground today, since that does not good for nature either.

Debating is a good thing and DOES good for nature since you learn expand your knowledge every single time, in one or another way!
And lets look at debating as were it a "bad" thing, in what way is it related to putting human reproduction and society in danger, or more specifically, in what way is it harmfull ?

The "owner" of the animal could do so for it, and didnt gays start with no rights and legal standing aswell ?

It is not wrong, since it is not harmfull in anyway!
I find it a bit stupid though, but at the same time I can see how exciting it is.
The important thing is, that what is harmfull is naturally not natural.
Homosexuality is harmfull! If it becomes accepted globally, there would ofcourse be more gays, and the media would be filled with even more sex than it already is, since a magor boundary would be broken.
Homosexuality is simply harmfull if it is given the exact same rights as a normal natural relationship.

Confused ? LOL - In what way ? If you literally mean confused, then that points towards homosexuality being ay diesease! Or the result of a disease.

I dont believe in that in anyway! Since homosexuality is unnatural it is not something that would occur from birth. It is the environment around you that concludes wether your gay or not.
Homosexuals may say hoping it not to be looked at as unnatural then, even though it is either ways. In fact were they born with it, it would directly lead to it being a disease.

Yes imperialists and atheist countries basically. If you belive in god, you cannot put what you want in front of what your god wishes of you.
So for a country to put "human rights" in front of religion makes them atheist, which also concludes that there really arent many christian nations left on earth.

 

Your culture being quite different from mine, I wouldn't doubt it.

Nope. I learned nothing new from that debate. But all right, say I spat on the ground. I did it, yet it brings no good to humanity: Is it therefore immoral?

No, they could not, since marriage requires the independent consent of both parties, not one party consenting for both.

No.

Knowing that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, how would there be more gays?

No, just mentally confused. They're trying to reproduce, but failing. Of course, in higher species, some animals are voluntarily gay, yet they were always that way; they didn't choose it.

Suit yourself. It doesn't make it any less true.

Actually, in cases of seperated twins, if one was gay, then the other had around a 33% chance of being gay, showing that genetics does play some part in it.

The idea of God varies greatly, you know.

To allow people to express themselves in public is not to strike against religion. Don't be so paranoid.

Apart from the Vatican city, I don't think there are any Christian nations. Most western nations, regardless of the religious demographics of their people, are generally governed secularly.

 

As a side note to the argument...
Krypton, PLEASE try to use correct spelling and grammar, i am finding it quite hard to follow your posts due to your evident lack of grammatical finesse(For lack of a better claus)

 

What about bisexuals...?? Just wondering lmao.

 

Kind Of Kind Of Not.. Let them do what they want. Its all the governments fault.. ( Its a Free Coutry) LMAO!

 

I dont live in the middle east just so you know. But in europe, and the way I look at gays is how my western friends are looking at gays.

You didnt learn, but it didnt harm you either. What does harm is unnatural and should not be done.

Is that how it works globally ?

Ofcourse both parties has to accept it, but if one of them cannot do that then does that mean that they cannot be married ?

I doubt that homosexuals 50 years ago had any rights.

Has it bin proven that they were born with it ? As far as I know its only them selves who claim such thing.

If they are mentally confused then homosexuality has to be a disease.
By higher species I supose you mean animals who have sex for the pleasur.
No animal has bin born gay, something in their life has made them gay or changed their natural way of thinking. And again - When we are talking about animals, we are talking about bisexuality not homo.

Has it bin proven that they were born gay ? How ?

Again - No gay has bin born gay. If they have, then it is directly pointing towards homosexuality, not only being unnatural, but being a disease!

If you do what ever you want to, instead of doing what your religion wishes of you, and what it has allowed for you - you are an atheist.

Homosexuals should never have the same rights as normal people in public.

To even be gay is against religion! To show homosexual behavior in a religious country is way beyond "striking against religion"

Whole south america along with latin are religious christians, only some of their governments arent. Whole africa are religious aswell along with larger parts of asia.

No one forced you to read what I have written. As I have said a billion zillion trillion times, I AM NOT ENGLISH, so why should i learn the english gramma ?
My text should be readable, if not, then its you who has a problem.

 

Then I am surprised. Europe seems to be even more tolerant of alternative lifestyles than the U.S.

Unless I want to do it anyway, but do homosexual acts harm me?-+

Officially, yes, but I'm sure there are some barbaric places where women (or men) are captured and forced into marriage.

They had all the rights of a regular person. It wasn't "You're homosexual, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to you".

They're not born with it, they're born with a genetic predisposition. Environment determines the rest.

If they're confused, it means just that: They're confused.

Yet genetics give a bias towards whether or not they are gay.

Some animals ARE purely homosexual. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

It is partially genetics, partially environment, with 0% choice involved. That is my claim.

I'd hardly call it a disease. It is sexual preference. Even if it was a disease, people are generally free to do what they want, so if it made them happy, why interfere?

I know plenty of people who are religious, yet still do whatever they want. An Atheist is one who denies the existence of any personal God.

I disagree, and it seems that they have those rights. You can either get used to it, or move to Iran.

Depends what religion you're talking about. If you mean moderate to fundamentalist Abrahamic faiths, then I suppose you have a point. However, there are many sects of Buddhism, Judaism, etc. that have nothing against homosexuality.

To be honest, I'd call it offensive to narrow-minded people.

The nations may be religious, but are the governments officially religious?

 

It DOES harm. Giving them the same rights as normal people will change the enviorement. The same enviorement that your children has to live in and go through daily. Seing 2 guys kissing on the street at the age of 6 is an envioremental change and can only mean the wors for them. More and more children will grow up gay due to the animalistic freedom that homosexuals stand for. More gays means more harm to humanity as a whole.

It might not harm you or some other dude but generally it does harm nature.
In 100 or perhaps 1000 years normal couples will be forced to get more children. This is homosexuality at its early stages since it is in the last 50 years that people have started accepting it and looking at it as were it natural.
Wether it harms humanity today does not make a big difference, but it WILL harm humanity in the furture.

Many places around the world, you do not sign anything at any time, but simply marry, no bs. The only thing you need for marriage is love.
The person loves the dog the dog loves the person. Wether its wrong or not is another story.

50 years ago, homosexuals did not have the same rights, and they were disgusted by the society! Beyond 200 years ago they would be killed.

So its the enviroment that has the most influence.

Some animals ARE purely homosexual. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL[/QUOTE]


Confusion in such way is not normal or natural, it can only be a disease!

Second time you talk about the penguins. The fact that they are incridibly rare makes them a disease or some sort of mutation, perhaps the same way as albinos. Since they are not determined to reproduct, they are braking the animalistic survivel instincts. The natural instincts. By being gay they are not interested in reproduction, meaning that they are not interested in the survivel of their specie. Conclusion: It is a disease or mutation.

Yes they are free to do it, but they cannot expect having equal rights when being in public.

Religious individuals can do what ever they want within some boundaries. Once those boundaries are broken and you have not asked god for forgiveness, and do not regret what you have done, you are no longer Christian, jew or muslim.

I doubt parents would let their children look at 2 homosexuals kissing.
Were it up to the religious people such thing would be forbidden for homosexuals, but ofcourse the atheist governments would not want it that way, since they look at it as natural and unharmfull.

You dont have to be a fundamentalist to believe that it is against your religion. Homosexualism being against religion is not fundamental.
Buddhism is not a real religion lol, they even accept marriage towards animals and god knows what else. The general jews are against gays, it is only the small sects that accept it. The sects that denie half of their religion.

As you wish.

I did actully mention that the people are the religious ones, while some of the governments are atheist and suporters of the imperialists.

 

I have absolutely no problems with gay marriage/rights, for one if they can get married then they are happy, which is a step towards peace. And to Shredderbeam, stop making people think, it makes them look bad =p.

 

Well, first, they have the right to perform whatever acts they want in public already.

Second, if they would only become gay from recognizing that gay people exist, then I don't really care too much.

It's not going to make us extinct. If anything, we need less people being born. Yet, if this does start to harm humanity, we'll fix ourselves. I doubt we'd just sit back and do nothing.

The dog doesn't quite love the person in the same way that one human loves another.

In modern society, to marry, mutual consent IS required.

Oh, they had rights, just not the rights to express themselves they way they wanted to.

Right, but a society that completely prohibits homosexuality still produces homosexuals at only a slightly lower rate.

Some animals ARE purely homosexual. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL[/quote]

Not really. I think it's reasonable to be confused without being diseased.

Well, I hardly think that penguins devote much time to whether or not their actions will benefit their race.

Penguins not willing to reproduce are not automatically diseased.

I rather think they can. And, look at that! The general trend in the world seems to be towards granting homosexuals more and more rights.

Maybe so.

It was up to religious people for millennia. Once they were taken out of power, you can clearly see that society has greatly advanced.

It's certainly not in the liberal range.

Actually, it is a real religion.

To my knowledge, they don't accept interspecies marriage.