Homosexual Rights?

[rawrr.]

Okay, I suggest, before you even CONSIDER posting in this thread, you read this:

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is situated in the DISCUSSION BOARD. Therefore, it is CRUCIAL you DISCUSS your opinions. People simply saying, "LOVE IS LOVE" in response to why homosexual marriages should be legalized, is not a "discussion". Because, although that might be your opinion, it's a tiresome excuse.

Here are some key points you can discuss in this thread:

-Consider the statement, "LOVE IS LOVE". If this statement is true, why should it be applied in order to legalize homosexual marriages? LOVE IS LOVE can also be applied to incest-ual relationships, as well as animal/human relationships and pedophilia relationships. Get my gist?

-Why do you believe homosexual marriages AREN'T ALREADY LEGALIZED in most countries?

-What consequences does legalizing homosexual marriages have on SOCIETY?

-And what are your views on homosexual couples adopting children? Does this provide complications from the child's point of view?

-In what ways - APART FROM SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION (such as public disgrace) - are homosexuals degraded by the government?

These are only SOME topics you may like to discuss.
But, PLEASE elaborate your answers!

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Well, "love is love" does seem to fit pretty well. Bestiality doesn't fit there, because the animal is incapable of giving it's consent for marriage (or any kind of sexual activity for that matter). Pedophilia doesn't work because the child is too young to be making that kind of decision. Not because they don't "love" the person, but because a 7 year-old boy or girl, for example, doesn't understand love in a romantic concept as well as an adult would. Also, it was my understanding that a pedophile does not fall in love with a child, they are only sexually attracted to them. "Love" is not a factor. As for incest, I don't think marrying your second-cousin, for example, would be terribly wrong, and in some countries it's legal. Hey, Teddy and Eleanor Roosevelt were distantly related, weren't they? Marrying those you are more closely related to however, has been known to cause serious problems for the resulting offspring, and that is why I disagree with it.

Homosexual marriages aren't already legalized in many countries, because it's considered different. It's against some religions, and in the 70's homosexuality was believed to be directly linked to the spread of AIDS (which we now know is complete bullshit, and that anyone can get AIDS). People fear that which is different, and due to the fact that it's already taboo in many places, people are just unwilling to even consider the idea. They'd rather ignore it and pretend that everyone is "normal" like themselves.

The only negative consequences that legalizing gay marriage could possibly have on society, is that those against it would be pissed off. This could lead to a temporary uprise against homosexual citizens, but I think that once it is legal and stays legal for a while, things would calm down.

I think a homosexual couple should be able to adopt just like any other couple. Since the two gay individuals doing the adopting were likely raised by straight couples, obviously there's no justification to the theory that gay people raise gay kids. I've heard arguments that a child has to have a mother figure and a father figure to develop properly, but then why not take children away from single parents? I mean, wow, mom just died, now the kid doesn't have a mother figure and the father is unfit to raise them? That's ridiculous, right? So what's different about being raised by two women or two men? It's not like they won't interact with adults of both genders, they just won't live with them. The kid may get picked on, sure. But is that the parents' fault for being gay? I think it's the fault of the bullies' parents, for not teaching them tolerance, and acceptance. If there were a nudist couple, who practiced nudity in the comfort of their own home and never when company over, and they had a kid who was picked on for being their kid... would you say it's the fault of the parents for being nudists? Or the fault of everyone else for not letting it go?

I think we all need to just grow up already. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, tall, short, skinny, fat, we're all human beings. And we have the right to be treated as such.

[redcar]

Oh there hasn't been a thread like this in a while, I miss them.

Well the reason why there is a lack of homosexual rights is because of society changing at a slow pace. What homosexuality is and what it entails is completly irrelevant really. Take 100 years ago, women didn't have the vote, black people were considered second class citizens. Basically unless you were a white male you were a second class citizen, however society changes so it recognises that this is not the case, following this change in society legislation is enacted to ensure that these people previously discriminated against are protected.

All we need to do now is look at society now. Homosexuality is becoming very accepted, so from looking at history legislation will follow to protect what society thinks.

In many countries there are laws already saying you can not discriminate, but they are very narrow and do not afford equal rights that hetrosexual couples can have. So we are on the right path, society is changing and so are the laws. It will never happen over night that total equality occurs, it takes time.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

It's against some religions, and in the 70's homosexuality was believed to be directly linked to the spread of AIDS (which we now know is complete bullshit, and that anyone can get AIDS)

I have to respectfully disagree here. By a very large amount, the people who get AIDS are either people who are/have had contact with A) Homosexuals, or B) Needle Drug Users. A middle aged heterosexual couple wont just randomly get AIDS. Or if they do, It will be a statistical anomaly. You cannot just say that it is everyones disease, because it isnt.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Well, I'm not saying everyone has it. But you can't say that a gay guy is more likely to get AIDS from an infected man than a straight female who has sex with the same man. It is not transmitted based on your sexuality, it is transmitted through bodily fluid. It's not as if straight people can't get the disease too.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Well yes, anyone can get it; the disease does not discriminate. My point was that it is directly linked to the homosexual and needle drug using communities

[Mannequin]

I actually have failed to hear a good reason as to why it should NOT be legalized. How is it harming those oblivious fucktards?

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Be that as it may, my point was that you cannot assume that simply because a person is gay that they will have AIDS. You can get AIDS a variety of ways, not just through gay sex. Hell, you can be born HIV positive and have it develop into AIDS later on in life, without having ever met someone who was homosexual. And regardless of the origins of the disease, homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of it.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Of course, I agree with you 100% Teeny:D

[Antares]

In my opinion I think that it should be legalized. Point 1: Who and or where in the law does it say a union between a man and a woman. Granted that in some laws it specifically says that but most do not. Point 2: WHO GIVES A F***! I know I am a liberal and I do not care who gets married. Now if it was like a man and a worm...then NO but if it is between 2 people why would anyone care. Because THEY ARE HOMOPHOBIC! They let some false view of religion get in there way or they are just...weird. If anyone has a reply to this please do it and explain to me why anyone cares about gay marriage. What is so bad about it because I really dont understand.

[theOperaGhost]

In my opinion I think that it should be legalized. Point 1: Who and or where in the law does it say a union between a man and a woman. Granted that in some laws it specifically says that but most do not. Point 2: WHO GIVES A F***! I know I am a liberal and I do not care who gets married. Now if it was like a man and a worm...then NO but if it is between 2 people why would anyone care. Because THEY ARE HOMOPHOBIC! They let some false view of religion get in there way or they are just...weird. If anyone has a reply to this please do it and explain to me why anyone cares about gay marriage. What is so bad about it because I really dont understand.


I don't know why anybody cares. I am kind of a homophobe, but hey gays are people too. If they want to get married why not. Isn't marriage just a piece of paper anyway. I don't see any problem with a guy marrying a guy or a girl marrying a girl. The only thing that makes me a homophobe is that I don't want to be hit on by a guy or anything.

[redcar]

I am not saying it is bad, but there are some very strong cases for it not to be legalised.

I hate mentioning it but religion. Whatever opinion you have on it, it plays a massive role in peoples lives for a variety of reasons and Christianity in particular is not a fan of homosexuality.

Another thing as well, we are a new generation. But the generations that preceeded us are the ones that make the laws and that generation was not brought up with homosexuality being something that is accepted. It's like being told the sky is blue your whole life then suddenly being told its actually green, its hard to get around. I am not saying everyone is like that and it is a very general sweeping statement and I know a lot of people don't fall under it.

[rawrr.]

...They let some false view of religion get in there way..

I agree.
On exactly what page in the Bible did say, a man can only marry a woman?


...I hate mentioning it but religion. Whatever opinion you have on it, it plays a massive role in peoples lives for a variety of reasons and Christianity in particular is not a fan of homosexuality.

Centuries pass, mostly everyone still bases their beliefs on religion, I'm not saying everyone. One good thing is, religion isn't very strong in United States unlike some other places or back in the history. Aside from religious people, pushing their beliefs to everyone and the church there's really not much reasons not to legalize gay marriage.

[Atonement]

I agree.
On exactly what page in the Bible did say, a man can only marry a woman?


Oh! Bible! I can answer on this!

In the Bible, not once does it say that it can ONLY be between a man and a woman.

But, it does specify against homosexual acts and sex. Just as... somewhere in Leviticus... 19 maybe, it says "A man shall not lie with another man as he does a woman."

So technically, the bible doesnt talk about marriage, only sex.

[*Dissident*]

The laws of the republican congress and executive and judicial branches concerning Homosexuality are horrendous. They are all based on a single bible verse, and is fueled by prejudice and personal experience. I am appalled at the attitudes of our government, how they can deny such a large portion of our population their right to the benefits of marriage.

I am even more appalled at homophobes. Personally I can understand if someone was for real hitting on you and comeing on to you. that is not fair, and you should ask them to stop. But getting nervous anytime any man, gay or not, comes within a foot of you and you start freaking out about it, thats just stupid.

And gay is NOT a synonym for stupid or semi-feminine .

[A.J.]

I think not allowing gays to marry is like not letting interracial couples marry. Its unfair.

[Underage_Thinker]

I would like to pose the question do you think that Priests, Rabi, Caliphs should have the choice whether or not to wed gay couples or if they should be required to wed regardless of sexual orientation even if they don't want to.

[redcar]

I would like to pose the question do you think that Priests, Rabi, Caliphs should have the choice whether or not to wed gay couples or if they should be required to wed regardless of sexual orientation even if they don't want to.
If that happened it could cause the collapse of organised religion. In most religions the clergy follow directives. It is like in an organisation the management set rules and then employees decide to go about it their own way. Unless you are, pardon the pun, singing off the same hymn sheet things would fall apart.

So to answer the question, absolutly not, they should not be allowed to think on their own.

[Maverick]

I agree with Alex.

[The Batman]

I believe that no matter what if its a love shared between two adults than pretty much love is love and go for it simply saying no because you don't believe in the practices is pretty closed minded if you ask me.