Sexuality revisited

[JockoBeans]

As I said, all the major religions have had their fanatics. The Crusades in the Holy Land can be controversial, but the Crusades in the Baltic regions have been mostly agreed on that the Christians there were primarily fanatics.

No, the point of religion is to give people something to believe and have faith in.

I said that was one of the points religion exists for. If religion was just for faith, then we wouldn't need it. Which is where we get modern "spiritualists" or non-denominationalists.

EDIT: Oh I just got ninja'd by the mod.

[Overwatch]

I'll throw my post in the middle of the convo sry!

I'm gay and I've known it for sure since I was 17 but now that I look back to when I was young I was pretty gay

Concerning religions, I'm not that into them It's not only the fact that some book is affecting my life so that I can't get married to my boyfriend (at least yet *hopeful*) but religions are the reason for so many bad things (lack of equality between races/men & women, lack of gay rights, countless murders across the world in the name of God) to be any good IMO. I separated from the church on my 18th birthday when I could do it without parental consent.

What really gets on my nerves is when people say that homosexuality is a choice. I don't know why, I have no proof myself that it can't be a choice but I feel so strongly about being Born This Way that I just can't believe it to be a choice.

Another annoying thing is when someone says "homosexuality is trendy and all the teenagers want to be trendy so they pretend to be gay" It just makes me....*facepalm*

[Moeboid]

Here's a post I made on facebook a while ago:

If being gay was a choice, I don't think anyone would be gay. What an idiotic decision that would be. I don't mean to insult gay people by saying that, I just want to draw attention to what a gay person has to deal with. Think about the amount of discrimination that gay people have to put up with, sometimes coming from people as close to them as their own parents. Think about the difficulty in trying to have children. Currently only one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child. Imagine not being able to have a child with the person that you love. It's a horrible thought. And although this may sound like a silly point to raise, being gay means you're missing some of the "equipment" that heterosexual couples have access to in the bedroom.

So despite all of these disadvantages, people still “choose” to be gay? I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. Besides, if you haven't met someone who has tried and failed to “choose” NOT to be gay, then you're just not looking hard enough.

That was two years ago. I'm a little less aggressive now, but I still think they're good points. I think it's pretty well established that people don't have much/any control over who they're sexually attracted to, so I guess what people are calling a choice isn't the attraction but whether or not people act on that attraction. I guess that is a choice, but I see no good reason for someone to choose not to act on their sexual attraction. None of anyone else's business as far as I'm concerned.

[Overwatch]

Well even if you don't act homosexual, you'll still be gay and lying to yourself. Kinda sad that these people exist. I'm just so happy I can feel comfortable with who I am and live without lying to myself all the time.

[MARS]

Those are good points Moeboid, although I don't think they are true for everyone.

[Тeatime]

being gay means you're missing some of the "equipment" that heterosexual couples have access to in the bedroom.

Wait, what?
That doesn't really make sense.

[JoeyDestructo]

being gay means you're missing some of the "equipment" that heterosexual couples have access to in the bedroom.

Wait, what?
That doesn't really make sense.

Vajj's \(o)/ ........hah

[The Dog Whisperer]

Unless they're women, then they have actual equipment. :trollface:
I think alot of the time people don't take gay as an adjective, which it should be imo since the difference of the two terms [Noun and adjective] comes up alot in gay rights and causes confusion.
Like the thing Moeboid kind of almost, nearly, proxy-mentioned in his quote; About gay couples parenting children.

[Sloady]

Androgynous. Even if I was straight, I'd be doing both

[Samaelthedestroyer]

My thighs are hot for goat felons.

[apploud]

Straight. And I don't understand gay people that think they don't have the same rights as straight people. Looking at it they have the same right to marry a man/woman (whichever is opposite their gender) as any straight person does. Just the same as neither can marry the same sex.

And pushing past that, Marriage (at least here in the states) is a religious ceremony recognized (and to a degree regulated) by the government, not a government institution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government can surely allow a bonding between same sexes, but I don't see that they can "Legalize gay marriage".


*Zips up flame retardant suit*

[Matrim]

The term "legalization" applies to any act of government making a previous illegal or otherwise prohibited act, legal. In many states, it is illegal to wed two members of the same sex. So, "Legalizing gay marriage," does apply. But that is nit-picky.

Straight person here, no problem with gays though.

[Veck]

And pushing past that, Marriage (at least here in the states) is a religious ceremony

It hasn't been that for a long time. Saying it was a religious ceremony would imply that it has to be religious in some way, whereas I, for example, would rather have a wedding that isn't traditional or religious in the slightest. Sure, churches still hold the right to legally wed couples, but overall marriage has moved far, far further than a religious practice.

And as for the 'same rights' argument, you're looking at it fom the wrong perspective. Rights are supposed to confer to people what they want as human beings. Giving people the right to marry the opposite sex when they don't want to is like that scene in The Life Of Brian where they give Stan the right to have babies when he physically can't.

[andhabb]

Straight. Very, very straight.

[Mac of Four Winds]

Yeah, it really does.
......So....Airline food? What's the deal with that?

I got your joke sir. ATHF at it's best. And I love my wife. Great topic by the way.

[apploud]

And pushing past that, Marriage (at least here in the states) is a religious ceremony

It hasn't been that for a long time. Saying it was a religious ceremony would imply that it has to be religious in some way

It doesn't have to be a religious ceremony to be a religious institution.

And as for the 'same rights' argument, you're looking at it fom the wrong perspective. Rights are supposed to confer to people what they want as human beings. Giving people the right to marry the opposite sex when they don't want to is like that scene in The Life Of Brian where they give Stan the right to have babies when he physically can't.

But looking at it that way shouldn't Pedophiles have the right to marry and sleep with children?

[Veck]

Well, no, children aren't consenting, are they? Comparing gay people with paedophiles isn't a valid point.

[MARS]

And as for the 'same rights' argument, you're looking at it fom the wrong perspective. Rights are supposed to confer to people what they want as human beings. Giving people the right to marry the opposite sex when they don't want to is like that scene in The Life Of Brian where they give Stan the right to have babies when he physically can't.

But looking at it that way shouldn't Pedophiles have the right to marry and sleep with children?

That is one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. Like Veck said, children aren't consenting.

[Arch-Mage Matt]

It's always interesting to me that people think they are arguing reasonably when they compare gay people to pedophiles and necrophiliacs.

[nyk45]

People can have rights they don't exercise, though.

[Veck]

It's always interesting to me that people think they are arguing reasonably when they compare gay people to pedophiles and necrophiliacs.

Well, raping children is technically sodomy...

People can have rights they don't exercise, though.

True enough, but would you say it's fair to deny gay people the righ to same-sex marriages, then try and pass it off as fair because they're allowed to marry people of a different gender? On paper it's technically equal rights, but it's really also supression of the freedom of people to marry any consenting adult they want.

[nyk45]

No, I meant gay people should have the right to marry people of the same sex. What I was saying is that they shouldn't be denied it just because a few of them don't want to get married.

[Veck]

Oh, pooh, think I misinterpreted that one. Ignore me.

[BOETHIABADMAN]

Until I read these posts I assumed I was gay. I've "known" since I was about 8 and out the closet for a few months but in the 8 years since I've never been in a proper relationship :/ after reading all of this I may as well be undecided. Oh tonnage years are troubling ...

Also I do not think it is fair to say Christianity or Islam dislike homosexuals. I have friends who are Christian and some who are islamic and they are perfectly accepting of me.

I too dislike gay pride in the sense that straight people do not shove their sexuality down my throat why should lgbt? However it is a source of hope and inspiration for young closeted teens.

[OblivionDuruza]

And that sir is a great philosophy. I think from my point of view, all the rights movements we've seen in recent years have been 'good' causes, but all people have to remember that it's a two way street.

Yes events like the Mardi Gras are positive in inspiring people, but if heterosexual people were to hold an event like that it would probably be labelled 'decadent' and equated to an orgy. So equal rights really should be for everybody.

Something that's always slightly irritated me is 'violence against women' campaigns. All domestic violence is bad, and men can be abused by their wives too. I'm not denying the fact that it is more common for women to be abused in relationships, but again, if people want equal rights, they should also be willing to support equal rights and protections for others.

I'm not sure if that makes as much sense typed out as it does in my head, but what I'm trying to say is that in giving minority groups equal rights, we should also be ensuring that everybody has access to those rights and protections, plus the rights and protections those minorities might have had before hand, which the majority did not.