| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
I posted as md5 earlier.
So what? People always bring this up, but they're just copying what everyone else says. Why does the animal have to give consent? They don't give consent when we slaughter them to eat, so why should they give consent for sex? Just because you feel that it's wrong doesn't mean everyone does. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
You know it's a choice how exactly? |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
People choose to be ignorant. They could choose not to be ignorant by learning about a subject, thereby no longer being an ignoramus about it.
You know it's a choice how exactly?[/quote] |
| judge not lest ye be a moron |
| ||
|
If God hates fags, why did he create them? |
| what?!? |
| ||
|
Read Romans 9. God has created vessels of wrath fitted for Hell, and vessels of mercy fitted for Heaven. The example used by Paul is Jacob and Esau. Why? It's pleased Him to do so. Don't be mistaken, everything going on in the world today is God's work, and I'm deeply thankful for it. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
No, I mean being repulsed by homosexual acts (not their views on gay rights). How do you know that's a choice? |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
When was this said in a post relative to what I posted, about being repulsed by homosexual acts?
No, I mean being repulsed by homosexual acts (not their views on gay rights). How do you know that's a choice?[/quote] |
| Racehorse |
| ||
I never said He hated fags. In fact, I did not call them fags at all. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
You said "And unlike being gay, homophobia is a choice...as in i was born gay but you choose to be an ignoramous." I guess it depends on what you are defining homophobia as then. I am repulsed by homosexual acts, but I think gays should be allowed to do what they want. Am I a homophobe? |
| luv2run |
| ||
I'd say that while 52% of Americans may not be opposed to gay marriage, those 52% certainly aren't evenly distributed across the 50 states, and that the anti-gay marriage crowd to a large extent has a big organizational advantage in that many of them meet as group once a week, every week.[/quote] Good point about the distribution. Yet in every state where a vote has been put to the people, the measures that define marriage traditionally wins out. Even in liberal CA. You assume that everyone that goes to church does not support gay marriage. While most might, I know plenty of church goers who are okay with gay marriage. |
| luv2run |
| ||
|
Back to the OP for a moment: it is okay for you not to support gay marriage as long as your lack of support does not impair another person living his/her life. (That is my libertarian view). |
| open minded |
| ||
|
Sounds like you finally found someone who could really meet your needs. Did you partner understand he was gay before he met you? How did you meet? Sounds like you did a lot of searching before that. [quote]playsfortheotherteam wrote: I respect that you say you are not a homophobe. However, you used it as a screen name, and other gays have apparently called you this before. In your own words you think I am choosing to be gay so in fact you are proving to be an ignoramus as far as homosexuality is concerned. For one, I remember being sexually attracted to men around the age of 5. I was not molested, I wasn't ignored by my father, my mother wasn't at all overbearing. I just knew at that time I loved looking at men's bodies at the beach or when playing sports. Did I choose this for myself at this age? Absoluetly not. Nothing changed as I got older. Most kids my age talked about Playboy growing up. I saw them as a teen. Never got aroused at all...not even once. How could I choose not to be aroused? I had girlfriends in highschool and college. I never got aroused from making out but admittedly with the only girl I was ever with, I was aroused when she touched my genitals. The first time I kissed a guy, about age 20, instant arousal. I dated women after that hoping I could fall in love...never did...never got emotionally attached to them in any way. The last girlfriend I had used to put my hands on her breasts when we were making out. No arousal. I knew at that point I was done. In my twenties I read volumes about why I might be this way. People had their theories...overbearing mother, distant father, molestation..none of them applied to me. I had guilt for a long time, until my early thirties. When I met my partner it went away. I realized I wasn't alone and when I fell in love with him, it felt right and I knew I was doing what was right for me. I could probably go my life without having sex with a man ever again. But I would still be gay and I would be miserable without the companionship of my partner. Noone can choose who they love. Sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, can be an expression of love. It can be an expression of lust, too, I get that, but when you have someone you want to marry, sex is an expression of love. Marriage is also an expression of love, and that is why it is not fair to deny people these rights, whether you agree with the behavior or understand it or not. People should look at how things would be if the shoe were on the other foot. For you straights who oppose this, consider that you were the minority and were not allowed to marry the person you love. That people ridiculed you for how you were born because you were different. Imagine not being able to introduce your family to the person you loved because they were prejudiced against straight people. Ah, but lucky for you though. |
| Dude, where's my brain? |
| ||
I'm deeply thankful that the people who are this delusional are wrong. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
You can be repulsed by homosexual acts and not be a homophobe. To be a homophobe you have to either fear gays or hate them. To me, fear also encompasses fear that they will turn your children gay or that gay marriage will somehow lessen yours or degrade society. I am repulsed by certain sexual acts as well, but I don't fear the people that do them or hate them. To each his own. I had you pegged as a being anti-gay marriage. Damn, you learn something new on LetsRun every day. |
| Dude, where's my brain? |
| ||
|
I am repulsed by obese people and I'm especially repulsed by their acts. Never occurred to me that they should be barred from marriage, though, but maybe I should drink some of that right-wing hatorade. |
| homophobe |
| ||
Just to let you know that I'm not completely close minded, I did find your description of your experience to be the most helpful I've ever read or heard. I have some friends who are gay, and I know for sure one of them was molested as a child so it's hard not to see that as a factor in his adult life now. Please don't be annoyed with me, but I don't trust everything I read on message boards, especially about subjective experiences. It's too easy for people to make stuff up and twist the truth just for effect. But I did find your description the most helpful. I still can't imagine any guy not getting turned on by a Playboy magazine or a hand on a breast. But that's just my experience. Peace to you. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
Like me, my partner knew he was gay at an early age. Also not molested, had a normal life with mom and dad. He was married for about 8 years and they had 2 kids. He knew he was gay all along but did what people expected of him. Ultimately it was his wife that ended it. She cheated on him. He said he enjoyed being married and having a family but ultimately he was emotionally unfulfilled in their marriage. I think a lot of people are in the same boat. They do what is expected thinking they will ultimately be happy. A lot of married men end up cheating with women or other men (check out your local craigslist). If society were more accepting, a lot of these marriages would never happen in the first place and a lot of people wouldn't get hurt. Women and men wouldn't waste years of their lives on someone who can't fully be emotionally available.
|
| yetanotherchick |
| ||
It seems that you're confusing moral values with the primary values of the law in America. Off the top of my head, I can think of three that I would say trump all other values, although there are doubtlessly more: freedom from violence, protection of personal property, equal treatment under the law of all citizens. These are not the same kind of "values" that you might choose to teach your children as your personal moral system, some of which cannot and/or should not be enforceable by the government, because the purpose of the law is not the same as enforcing personal morality. As far as legal rights go, what is the value that is more important than equality? What is more fundamental than that one citizen should have the same rights and privileges as another citizen? Here's your slippery slope: when the government decides that it can and should give different groups of citizens different civil rights based on tradition and one group's version of morality, what will prevent the government from parceling out "rights" however they see fit? This should go doubly for the sort of Christians who believe that they are somehow persecuted and slandered by left-wing politicians, by the liberal news-media and by secular society. If they are so concerned that they aren't being treated fairly because of their beliefs, they should be the first to insist on the impartiality of the law. |
| yetanotherdude |
| ||
|
Gay men already have the same rights as straight men. Gay men have the freedom to marry a woman just like straight men do.
It seems that you're confusing moral values with the primary values of the law in America. Off the top of my head, I can think of three that I would say trump all other values, although there are doubtlessly more: freedom from violence, protection of personal property, equal treatment under the law of all citizens. These are not the same kind of "values" that you might choose to teach your children as your personal moral system, some of which cannot and/or should not be enforceable by the government, because the purpose of the law is not the same as enforcing personal morality. As far as legal rights go, what is the value that is more important than equality? What is more fundamental than that one citizen should have the same rights and privileges as another citizen? Here's your slippery slope: when the government decides that it can and should give different groups of citizens different civil rights based on tradition and one group's version of morality, what will prevent the government from parceling out "rights" however they see fit? This should go doubly for the sort of Christians who believe that they are somehow persecuted and slandered by left-wing politicians, by the liberal news-media and by secular society. If they are so concerned that they aren't being treated fairly because of their beliefs, they should be the first to insist on the impartiality of the law.[/quote] |
| yetanotherchick |
| ||
What rights should be differentiated by gender? There are some that appear inherently differentiated, but need not be in theory (for example, a pregnant man should have the same rights as a pregnant woman). |