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?

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

Could you please be more specific to what your teachings are, thank you.

 

[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?

I do believe those are wrong as well.

Ok, what about polygamy? And just so we're on the same page here, serial monogamy, like we have here in the 'States. You're only married to one person at a time, but you divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry, to the point where the marriage bed will have been shared by more partners than in most openly polygamous arrangements?

 

[Wade-DeadPool]

I'm straight, and i don't really care if a person is gay/bi/lesbian/straight.
As long as it feel's right too that person, that's all that matters

 

[silver wolf009]

I am not against anyone based solely on their sexual prefrence.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I cannot comprehend how a civilization such as these on earth can be considered advanced while they still allow people who see sexual orientation as grounds for critisizm or riticule to reamain as they are. I know its their choice, but it's one of the few sides of an argument where I can't play devil's advocate.

 

[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.

Ok, what about polygamy? And just so we're on the same page here, serial monogamy, like we have here in the 'States. You're only married to one person at a time, but you divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry, to the point where the marriage bed will have been shared by more partners than in most openly polygamous arrangements?

You shouldnt marry at all if you know youre going to get bored or divorce later on. Polygamy is just so.....wrong, the whole type in general seems more of lust then love

 

[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

Could you please be more specific to what your teachings are, thank you.

Bible, school teachings, politics.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

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

No, I don't think they necessarily do because the media/majority of people will listen regardless, because they are a minority. I just find it annoying. I would personally prefer if they weren't hypocritical.

It's not about their problems. It's the rationalisation for solution. If you say "We deserve equal rights because we are essentially the same" and then turn around and say "Man I'm happy I'm so different to the rest of you", that makes you a bit of a twat.

But I'm so gooood at ranting But I will try.

Thank you.

I concur when talking about gay bullying, all bullying is a problem and should not be examined seperately but what about same-sex marriage or the death penalty for homosexuals, do you believe these issues require media attention?

 

[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?

I do believe those are wrong as well.

Ok, what about polygamy? And just so we're on the same page here, serial monogamy, like we have here in the 'States. You're only married to one person at a time, but you divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry, to the point where the marriage bed will have been shared by more partners than in most openly polygamous arrangements?

You shouldnt marry at all if you know youre going to get bored or divorce later on. Polygamy is just so.....wrong, the whole type in general seems more of lust then love

So love is the basis for marriage in this case? But in the case of homosexuals, who may very well love each other very much, to the point where high-school sweethearts will stick it out through the "till death do you part" part, love is not the case?

 

[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 a specific, have you based this criteria on Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law theory?

Its what i took from my teachings

Could you please be more specific to what your teachings are, thank you.

Bible, school teachings, politics.

Just to change the topic a little, do see a problem in people being different from the norm and what society expects?

 

[Madara XIII]

What I would like to know from this community is:

Who here is gay/lesbian/bi?
Who is against/for gays/lesbians/bi?
And why are you against/for gays/lesbians/bi?

This is not a chance to bash people due to there views and/or life choices. This is to gain understanding and insight, not start a flame war. Thanks for your help

P.S: I wasn't sure where to put this so there has been a repost, if this offends anyone I will remove it immeadiately

Heheheh I'm for the destruction of anyone so I can't discriminate....Hey check it out I found this awesome Mask. Says "Majora" on it.


Oh look the moon has a face

 

[conflictofinterests]

What I would like to know from this community is:

Who here is gay/lesbian/bi?
Who is against/for gays/lesbians/bi?
And why are you against/for gays/lesbians/bi?

This is not a chance to bash people due to there views and/or life choices. This is to gain understanding and insight, not start a flame war. Thanks for your help

P.S: I wasn't sure where to put this so there has been a repost, if this offends anyone I will remove it immeadiately

Heheheh I'm for the destruction of anyone so I can't discriminate....Hey check it out I found this awesome Mask. Says "Majora" on it.


Oh look the moon has a face

Nyaa! But people are too interesting to destroy! D:

 

[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.

Ok, what about polygamy? And just so we're on the same page here, serial monogamy, like we have here in the 'States. You're only married to one person at a time, but you divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry, to the point where the marriage bed will have been shared by more partners than in most openly polygamous arrangements?

You shouldnt marry at all if you know youre going to get bored or divorce later on. Polygamy is just so.....wrong, the whole type in general seems more of lust then love

So love is the basis for marriage in this case? But in the case of homosexuals, who may very well love each other very much, to the point where high-school sweethearts will stick it out through the "till death do you part" part, love is not the case?

Still natural order. If this was ruse to get me to say love then that was sneaky and deviant.

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

Could you please be more specific to what your teachings are, thank you.

Bible, school teachings, politics.

Just to change the topic a little, do see a problem in people being different from the norm and what society expects?

If the homosexuals want to be so different how can they expect rights if one minute they are yelling "we wont same rights" then another minute yelling "WERE DIFFERENT YEAH!"

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

Thank you.

I concur when talking about gay bullying, all bullying is a problem and should not be examined seperately but what about same-sex marriage or the death penalty for homosexuals, do you believe these issues require media attention?

I'm against the death penalty for anything. Off topic, if you think someone deserves to die, you kill them with your own two hands and take the consequences, both legal and moral, don't pass it off to some system. If a death penalty is introduced with any breaching of human rights, it deserves media attention.

However, with most other things, media is biased (with the exception of Fox or whoever, I wouldn't know, I don't live in America) towards gays. It's not a discussion on gay marriage taking place, it's a barrage of stupid rationalisation and no discussion, because if you say anything that isn't positive about the gay rights movement, you're automatically a homophobe. The media sentationalises the issues and prevents progress.

So you are offended by the media becoming over sensitive to the issue of gay rights giving no leighway in the issue, is that right?

 

[Madara XIII]

Nyaa! But people are too interesting to destroy! D:

Hmmmm indeed they are interesting...but still predictable. Bye little play things! MWAHAHAHAHAHA *Sees Moon get tossed back by the 4 Giants*

Oh you Douchebags!!

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

If the homosexuals want to be so different how can they expect rights if one minute they are yelling "we wont same rights" then another minute yelling "WERE DIFFERENT YEAH!"

But from your name and display picture I would guess you would be something of an emo. Wearing dark clothes listening to bands like avenge sevenfold, My Chemical romance or Escape the fate. Many would see that as being different, should your differences change what rights you deserve? Why should ones individuals differences matter to what rights they get?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Nor do you have the right telling me what i should and shouldnt believe in.

No, I don't. But neither do you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. How about we let you believe what you want to believe and you let us do what we want to do?

 

[stormtrooper9091]

i'm straight and completely support any gay/lez/bi activities as anything else and anyone saying otherwise is a crazy bigot

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Nor do you have the right telling me what i should and shouldnt believe in.

No, I don't. But neither do you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. How about we let you believe what you want to believe and you let us do what we want to do?

did i go up to people and say "hey i dont agree with you, heres how you should live your life" no i don't

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

So you are offended by the media becoming over sensitive to the issue of gay rights giving no leighway in the issue, is that right?

Offended? No. Pissed off, yes. I think they're fucking stupid and delaying progress, not always due to sensitivity, just because I think they have a perception of a certain way to treat minorities, i.e. you're not allowed to say anything bad about them.

It's just encouraging stupidity, not rational thought or discussion.

It also helps to instill resent to that minority by the sounds of it. So, you believe that by making people over sensitive about a minority few actually want to touch on the issue due to fear of media back-lash?

 

[conflictofinterests]

Still natural order. If this was ruse to get me to say love then that was sneaky and deviant.

Neither sneaky, nor deviant. I'd put money on people having put money on me pulling that up, and if you want deviant, I'll show you some of the stuff I get off to. Even the tamer bits will curl your little Christian hairs.

In any case, I was just trying to point out there's a disconnect in your rules. They aren't universal. IN THE CASE OF HOMOSEXUALS- No marriage. IN THE CASE OF HETEROSEXUALS- Marriage only with love/only to one person.