Gays and Homophobia

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

 

[Danzaivar]

I never said they couldn't live in peace. I just think its wrong. Does it matter what I think? No. I've been told that a million times here. If they want to live on some island in the Bahamas away from everyone, go ahead, I'm not stopping them. Only when it comes to marriage i will protest. I will continue to believe homosexuality is wrong for as long as i live. If people hate me for it, fine. Criticize me for what i believe, go ahead. I will continue to protest what i believe in.

I care what you think, I'm not attacking you for your beliefs. I want to understand them.

What exactly do you find wrong with a same-sex realtionship; their inability to reproduce, intercourse or the violation of the Church's teachings? And why don't you want homosexuals to be part of society?

I never said they cant be part of society. My main problem with it is how it goes against the natural order. they cant reproduce that's fact. It goes against Church teachings.

My apologise you reference to them going to live on an island gave me the wrong impression. Firstly, how do you define natural order? And why did you select the teachings of the Church over the teachings of Christ to follow?

By Church i also mean Bible. Because it is humanly impossible to fully love. Impossible to fully forgive. Jesus is my teacher, but their are many things we can't do that he could. I try to live my live according to The Bible. But in these days, you'll get persecuted for it.

Christ taught humanity to love another and be tolerent, he tried to bring peace between those with differences and then he asked his followers to do as he did. Why do you choose to listen to the teachings to those that aren't Christ on the subject of homosexuality? Also how do you define the natural order?

I do have tolerance if i didn't i'd probably be criticizing every homosexual i met.

But to be tolerent is to not stand in someones way and instead let them go on with objection or impedment. Why do you believe that people should limit the right of homosexuals?

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

You're in America, arguing with someone in Australia with essentially no time lag. I'm chipping in from the opposite side of the World too.

We're past the point where 'the natural order' applies. By quite a bit.

 

[Swarley]

It's against the natural order!

He said on the internet.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

Ayup. I try to avoid mistakes others have made for me. People are at least useful as cautionary tales, if nothings else.

Do you believe that if humanity was not to heed the words of the past, we demonstrate that we have not developed at all as a race and are held in the dark ages by our prejudices?

Naw, we are still human after all. There are bound to be a sizable portion of us that can't imagine anything that's happening now having happened before. The people paying attention to past mistakes may not try things that were mistakes in the past, but apply differently to a new situation and actually be solutions in the present. Basically, it takes all kinds.

So you believe we must consider the past to aviod obvious repeats of the past but not focus so much not it that we aviod the reapplication of old ideas to new circumstances?

 

[conflictofinterests]

I never said they couldn't live in peace. I just think its wrong. Does it matter what I think? No. I've been told that a million times here. If they want to live on some island in the Bahamas away from everyone, go ahead, I'm not stopping them. Only when it comes to marriage i will protest. I will continue to believe homosexuality is wrong for as long as i live. If people hate me for it, fine. Criticize me for what i believe, go ahead. I will continue to protest what i believe in.

I care what you think, I'm not attacking you for your beliefs. I want to understand them.

What exactly do you find wrong with a same-sex realtionship; their inability to reproduce, intercourse or the violation of the Church's teachings? And why don't you want homosexuals to be part of society?

I never said they cant be part of society. My main problem with it is how it goes against the natural order. they cant reproduce that's fact. It goes against Church teachings.

My apologise you reference to them going to live on an island gave me the wrong impression. Firstly, how do you define natural order? And why did you select the teachings of the Church over the teachings of Christ to follow?

By Church i also mean Bible. Because it is humanly impossible to fully love. Impossible to fully forgive. Jesus is my teacher, but their are many things we can't do that he could. I try to live my live according to The Bible. But in these days, you'll get persecuted for it.

Christ taught humanity to love another and be tolerent, he tried to bring peace between those with differences and then he asked his followers to do as he did. Why do you choose to listen to the teachings to those that aren't Christ on the subject of homosexuality? Also how do you define the natural order?

I do have tolerance if i didn't i'd probably be criticizing every homosexual i met.

But to be tolerent is to not stand in someones way and instead let them go on with objection or impedment. Why do you believe that people should limit the right of homosexuals?

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

Was it that particular post that you thought was trying to change your opinion? Because if the questions and statements are in earnest, as I think they may be, they are aimed more at causing you to examine your beliefs so the two of you can better understand them and all they are built on.

 

[Scde2]

Now, I was wondering in why you believe homosexuals need to have the same rights as straight couples?

Because there is no reason to limit the rights of people in same-sex relationships. There is no need for every last person on the planet to go breed with one another. Come talk to me again when the world is underpopulated. Or are our orphanages not full enough?

A homosexual relationship is a same-sex equivalent, so why can't you rights be equivalent but different?

That sounds like Separate but Equal. That hardly ever is the case.
And if it's different, how the hell can it be equivalent?

One kilogram of feathers weighs the same as one kilogram of bricks, they are different materials of equal net mass. Why not have different rights with slightly different benefits where no one is more disadvantaged then anyone else?

OR, you can give the same rights. <3
It'll leave lesser room for people to complain that other people have more rights.

Why do you believe I was inferring limiting same-sex couples rights and not just giving Homosexual couples some hetrosexual couples don't have and vica-versa?

I not sure what you are asking here. I was using the term same-sex relationships because I didn't feel the need to exclude couples who are in a same-sex relationship and who are bisexual. You asked me why I thought homosexuals should have the same rights as couples in a male to female relationship. What I said still applies.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Ayup. I try to avoid mistakes others have made for me. People are at least useful as cautionary tales, if nothings else.

Do you believe that if humanity was not to heed the words of the past, we demonstrate that we have not developed at all as a race and are held in the dark ages by our prejudices?

Naw, we are still human after all. There are bound to be a sizable portion of us that can't imagine anything that's happening now having happened before. The people paying attention to past mistakes may not try things that were mistakes in the past, but apply differently to a new situation and actually be solutions in the present. Basically, it takes all kinds.

So you believe we must consider the past to aviod obvious repeats of the past but not focus so much not it that we aviod the reapplication of old ideas to new circumstances?

Sounds about right to me.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

Now, I was wondering in why you believe homosexuals need to have the same rights as straight couples?

Because there is no reason to limit the rights of people in same-sex relationships. There is no need for every last person on the planet to go breed with one another. Come talk to me again when the world is underpopulated. Or are our orphanages not full enough?

A homosexual relationship is a same-sex equivalent, so why can't you rights be equivalent but different?

That sounds like Separate but Equal. That hardly ever is the case.
And if it's different, how the hell can it be equivalent?

One kilogram of feathers weighs the same as one kilogram of bricks, they are different materials of equal net mass. Why not have different rights with slightly different benefits where no one is more disadvantaged then anyone else?

OR, you can give the same rights. <3
It'll leave lesser room for people to complain that other people have more rights.

Why do you believe I was inferring limiting same-sex couples rights and not just giving Homosexual couples some hetrosexual couples don't have and vica-versa?

I not sure what you are asking here. I was using the term same-sex relationships because I didn't feel the need to exclude couples who are in a same-sex relationship and who are bisexual. You asked me why I thought homosexuals should have the same rights as couples in a male to female relationship. What I said still applies.

So you believe that there should be no difference, both are relationships between to individuals where gender should not matter and that by giving different laws it aknowledge there is a difference when there really isn't any?

 

[thublihnk]

It's against the natural order!

He said on the internet.

+1 internets to you, sir. And a good day, as well.

 

[conflictofinterests]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

What about polygynous marriage? Polyandrous marriage? Cultures in which some anatomically male people are considered female for all intents and purposes, including marriage and the subsequent sex?

 

[Susano]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

Marriage isn't at all natural at all.
Just throwing that out there.

 

[thublihnk]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

I don't think the 'natural order' of things has a caveat for the entirely human construct of marriage.

Oh, and there are gay animals. Seems natural to me.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

Where have you derived this belief from? It seems to be very specific, have you based this criteria on Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law theory?

 

[conflictofinterests]

This bothers me, but for all minorities, not just gays. I also dislike the in your face attitude that some gay people have. I don't mind gay people, it's not my place to tell people who to love, but what I do mind is when a gay person defines who they are by their sexuality.

I know, right? Some of the louder ones are all "WE'RE PEOPLE TREAT US THE SAME! BUT BTW WE'RE GAY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO YOUR GUYS AND PROUD OF IT"

It really helps the case for equality when you go on about how different you are, keeping in mind it's essentially impossible for different things to be equal. What you want it equity, but that's a whole different issue.

But you know, in this day and age, if you're a minority, your voice DESERVES TO BE THE LOUDEST GARBLE GARBLE GARBLE. Thank you, media.

My vagina-having does not entitle me to be a prick.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

Where have you derived this belief from? It seems to be a specific, have you based this criteria on Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law theory?

Its what i took from my teachings

 

[thublihnk]

This bothers me, but for all minorities, not just gays. I also dislike the in your face attitude that some gay people have. I don't mind gay people, it's not my place to tell people who to love, but what I do mind is when a gay person defines who they are by their sexuality.

I know, right? Some of the louder ones are all "WE'RE PEOPLE TREAT US THE SAME! BUT BTW WE'RE GAY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO YOUR GUYS AND PROUD OF IT"

It really helps the case for equality when you go on about how different you are, keeping in mind it's essentially impossible for different things to be equal. What you want it equity, but that's a whole different issue.

But you know, in this day and age, if you're a minority, your voice DESERVES TO BE THE LOUDEST GARBLE GARBLE GARBLE. Thank you, media.

It is impossible for different things to be equal. Sure. I guess. But it's not impossible for different things to be given equal protection and rights under the law. And, it's not impossible for you to treat different human beings as the sensitive and nuanced creatures they are.

 

[conflictofinterests]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

Where have you derived this belief from? It seems to be a specific, have you based this criteria on Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law theory?

Its what i took from my teachings

Specifically...? In MLA format, if at all possible.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

It's against the natural order! and why are you trying to change my beliefs?

I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely understand them. I'm qeustioning them so I can understand the fundemental basis for them.

Back to this Natural order issue, how do you define the Natural order? What is your criteria?

Natural order: Man marries woman, woman marries man.

What about polygynous marriage? Polyandrous marriage? Cultures in which some anatomically male people are considered female for all intents and purposes, including marriage and the subsequent sex?

I do believe those are wrong as well.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

This bothers me, but for all minorities, not just gays. I also dislike the in your face attitude that some gay people have. I don't mind gay people, it's not my place to tell people who to love, but what I do mind is when a gay person defines who they are by their sexuality.

I know, right? Some of the louder ones are all "WE'RE PEOPLE TREAT US THE SAME! BUT BTW WE'RE GAY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO YOUR GUYS AND PROUD OF IT"

It really helps the case for equality when you go on about how different you are, keeping in mind it's essentially impossible for different things to be equal. What you want it equity, but that's a whole different issue.

But you know, in this day and age, if you're a minority, your voice DESERVES TO BE THE LOUDEST GARBLE GARBLE GARBLE. Thank you, media.

Valid point, you believe that gays become their own worst enemy in their fight for equality by pointing out that they are different. But wouldn't they need to do this so people know who needs to be given better rights? How can the world change if we don't know what the problems are?

PS: Please be careful not to start ranting, sometimes people may take a rant out of context and conflict can result. Thank you for your cooperation