Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Other
  3. General Discussion

Do you believe in gay rights?

posted
Total Posts
92
show more
Hika
1,553 posts
Joined February 2010
Hika

Miracle Lotus wrote:

Gay people already have more rights than straight people.
Tell me where this is so I can live there.

My state is considering kicking homosexuals out of school for extra money going toward education. It's one thing to not let them get married, but it's another to let their education be denied based on their sexual orientation. I'd be damned if I got kicked out of school because I like other females. I don't see this as 'more rights' than straight people.
Miracle Lotus
Miracle Lotus

Hika wrote:

Miracle Lotus wrote:

Gay people already have more rights than straight people.
Tell me where this is so I can live there.

My state is considering kicking homosexuals out of school for extra money going toward education. It's one thing to not let them get married, but it's another to let their education be denied based on their sexual orientation. I'd be damned if I got kicked out of school because I like other females. I don't see this as 'more rights' than straight people.
Canada.
Them having more rights as in, being protected by activists.
TamaraMarie
115 posts
Joined October 2010
TamaraMarie
favorite thread right here

A while ago, during the week right before the presidential elections (in November 2012), my church decided to release a "guide" to voting for the "correct" president if you were still contemplating. I was outraged when I seen it because at the top of the list of things you shouldn't even consider (as in you should be against them no matter what) was Homosexual Marriage.

After raging over it for a while, I went to my aunt who is the Director of Religious Education and pretty much demanded to know what right she and the other officials of the church have to tell people who to vote for based on Homosexual Marriage and Gay Rights. Her response was something similar to "the Bible says that being gay is wrong," and "God clearly says that being homosexual is a sin."

I definitely wasn't going to stand for that because as the only open-minded Catholic kid in my church, I believed it wasn't gay rights, it was human rights. And although I can't vote yet, I believe I have the right to have my own opinion. So, for the next week or so, I searched the Internet and read the Bible for myself to find these words my aunt was proclaiming existed.

And lemme tell you, they don't. Not once in the Bible does God outright say "homosexuality is wrong, sinful, and you will absolutely be condemned to hell for it."

I really believe that most Christians are making it out to be a sin while God has never said anything of the sort. This is why I definitely feel trapped being a member of the Roman Catholic religion where I'm one of very few who actually think this way. ;___;

Anyway, sorry for the long essay-type thing! XD I seen a discussion on gay rights and absolutely had to rant all over it.

tl;dr: I'm Catholic and I believe homosexuals should get married and adopt babies. :D
Miracle Lotus
Miracle Lotus
You do know that marriage is a religious act, right?
Homosexuality is not allowed in any of the main religions as far as I know.
Hika
1,553 posts
Joined February 2010
Hika
I had a friend who told me something about the bible regarding homosexuals because I was highly curious.

I think she said that there was a town that someone had to purge if there was no order or something along those lines? That man went down to the town and noticed that men were having sex with men, women were having sex with other women, and things were chaotic, so the man burned the city down with his wife, and God told them not to look back. The woman looked back and she was turned into stone.

That's what I heard, not what I read.

EDIT: nah i think she was turned into sand or something actually
Loves
446 posts
Joined December 2012
Loves
I think everyone can do whatever they want, provided that it doesn't harm anyone or anything.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

BRBP wrote:

I want to marry my dog.

Can you people support me and my human rights the same way you support gays?
That'd be great, thanks.
There's no way to prove the dog has consent over the marriage, so there's a reason why you can't marry your dog. Gay couples aren't vegetables and are consenting and willing to mutually get married. Plus, bringing up interspecies marriage is just like saying "HO HO I'M A PASTAFARIAN" (aka. Bringing up extremes to try to prove a point wrong), since I've never been wholly aware that people have been heavily desiring to engage in a fully commited LEGAL relationship with an animal in a huge ceremony plus legal responsibility and stuff (I know there's people who would want to have crazy sex with animals, but it's pointless to make that legal except for jokes.) With homosexual relationships, it's actually legitimate and not pastafarian-esque nonsense.
TamaraMarie
115 posts
Joined October 2010
TamaraMarie

Miracle Lotus wrote:

You do know that marriage is a religious act, right?
Homosexuality is not allowed in any of the main religions as far as I know.
Of course, lol.
Well yeah, but the thing is although it isn't allowed, a church shouldn't be able to tell its members what to do. It's like taking away their individuality. Although I was mad over the fact that no one accepts homosexuals in church, I was mostly angry that the church basically tried to tell everyone who to vote for with subtle hints, saying that's it's basically a sin if you vote for the other guy who "supports sinful things."

Hika wrote:

I had a friend who told me something about the bible regarding homosexuals because I was highly curious.

I think she said that there was a town that someone had to purge if there was no order or something along those lines? That man went down to the town and noticed that men were having sex with men, women were having sex with other women, and things were chaotic, so the man burned the city down with his wife, and God told them not to look back. The woman looked back and she was turned into stone.

That's what I heard, not what I read.

EDIT: nah i think she was turned into sand or something actually
Oh! That's the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's something along those lines.

The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God and Lot, his wife, and his daughters were the only ones saved. His wife was the only one who looked back when they were fleeing and turned into a pillar of salt.

However, it wasn't exactly destroyed because of homosexuals having sex with each other. Before the destruction of the two cities, God tested the people. He sent three angels disguised as regular men to the cities. They lived with Lot as he was the only proclaimed righteous person in Sodom. A group of local rapists heard that new people had entered and bargained with Lot to give the disguised angels over to them. Lot offered them his daughters, but they still broke down the door and threatened to kill everyone.

I believe there was a lot of corruption in the two cities and the people were committing crimes such as rape, violence, thievery, etc. I don't really think homosexuality was the problem. But, everyone has their own opinions about the story. No one knows for sure why the two cities were destroyed.
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

Miracle Lotus wrote:

You do know that marriage is a religious act, right?
Homosexuality is not allowed in any of the main religions as far as I know.
It can be religious or secular; I'm sure you've seen straight couples have weddings outside of churches with no mention of religion. Separation of church and state is a pretty laughable concept when it's all too obvious that religious culture has a huge impact on marriage rights among other things.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

Hika wrote:

I had a friend who told me something about the bible regarding homosexuals because I was highly curious.

I think she said that there was a town that someone had to purge if there was no order or something along those lines? That man went down to the town and noticed that men were having sex with men, women were having sex with other women, and things were chaotic, so the man burned the city down with his wife, and God told them not to look back. The woman looked back and she was turned into stone.

That's what I heard, not what I read.

EDIT: nah i think she was turned into sand or something actually
The story is talking about Lot. Lot, his wife, and I believe his daughters (I'm guessing because I know the story after it regards his daughters) were living in the town of Sodom that was very much not following God, and Lot is asked in Genesis 19:5 to have homosexual relations with the guests, and being angered at Lot's offering of his two virgin daughters instead. There's also stuff about like oral/anal sex, etc. Anyways, God says that he is going to destroy the town for not following his ways, but he will save Lot, since Lot and his family follow God deeply. However, God tells them to not look back when they run. They flee the town and go to the town of Gomorrah, which meets a similar fate and they flee in a similar fashion, but in Gomorrah they flee, Lot's wife looks back. Because she didn't follow God, she was turned into a pillar of salt. The story was meant to show that if one was not obedient to God's commands, they would be met with terrible consequences.

The story after it is when Lot's daughters get him drunk and have sex with him to continue their family line.

I've honestly never heard anybody quote that book, though. When most people quote homosexuality, they use these.

"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" 1 Corintians 6:9
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27
So pretty much, it's an issue of Church and State. Homosexual activity, in a legal sense, has literally no economic downfall to society, and does not injure it directly. Unlike issues very similar to this (ie. Women's rights, Black rights, Immigration laws), the issue at hand won't really affect the workforce, it'll just make people allowed to have a cute little ceremony and get legal benefits such as Social Security.

However, in a Biblical sense, many believe that "Oh, well America should be crafted like a Christian country", because it's the "most popular and correct religion". Which is just silly. If anybody would try adding influence from the Quaran (I'm no good at spelling) or Torah or any other religious point, it'd be laughed at, even though there's supposed to be freedom to practice religion. But since it's Christianity, which has had so much influence in the past in America, the points of Christians still weighs so much politically.

It's also an issue with parents of exposure. It's kind of like why prostitution isn't legal. It's a perfectly profitable business, it supports the economy by circulating high amounts of money in the economy, and supporting groups who support brothel houses (ie. Hair Stylists, Make-Up companies, The government itself for purchasing a license to run a brothel house). However, parents would never want their kids to think that prostitution would be ok. They want to steer children out of the way by having the government help. As with gay marriage, parents don't want children exposed to the "horrors" of gay couples being supported by the government, so they wish for the government to hinder gay rights to help show their children how "wrong" it is to be a homosexual.

But it's silly, really, if you look at it from a country standpoint. If you want to make the laws after the bible, go live in a Christian country. Although I'm not even sure if one exists in the purest form. Ruh roh.

Miracle Lotus wrote:

You do know that marriage is a religious act, right?
Homosexuality is not allowed in any of the main religions as far as I know.
I think it's lost its impact as a religious act. Mostly because plenty of atheists get married without any hinderance. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the definition of what marriage has changed over time.
Andrea
Beatmap Nominator
16,650 posts
Joined August 2008
Andrea

Lily-Kun wrote:

I think everyone can do whatever they want, provided that it doesn't harm anyone or anything.
I pretty much agree with this, nothing else needs to be said.
Liiraye
1,354 posts
Joined December 2011
Liiraye
Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
she_old
she_old

GladiOol wrote:

12 reasons gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
lold
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,945 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
nobody whom is healthy of mind, religious or otherwise, will have any conscientious objection to gay rights.

i'll be frank - i find it pretty gross, but that doesn't mean i hold any overt feeling towards people who don't deliberately shove the stuff in my face. denying them otherwise standard human rights is an absolute atrocity.
dNextGen
4,689 posts
Joined May 2010
dNextGen
GOD TOLD US TO LOVE THE OPPOSITE SEX OF YOUR SEX

BEING GAY OFFENDS GOD,SO NO

CASE CLOSED

well whatever,just let them be,the worlds going to end soon anyway,so it doesnt really matter,still fucking disgusting though

dunno if those gay people are just loser in love or just naturally gay,but most of the gay people i know are handsome,they can just be chick magnet yet they choose the wrong path,what a shame
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

Ephemeral wrote:

nobody whom is healthy of mind, religious or otherwise, will have any conscientious objection to gay rights.

i'll be frank - i find it pretty gross, but that doesn't mean i hold any overt feeling towards people who don't deliberately shove the stuff in my face. denying them otherwise standard human rights is an absolute atrocity.
Is there any reason in particular you find it gross? Aside from religious arguments, that's the second thing I hear (mind you, it's never said about lesbians). The only answers I've heard are basically "dunno" or "it's not right/natural".
Apex_old
736 posts
Joined May 2010
Apex_old
I found gay sex disgusting and disturbing until I found out my lover liked yaoi material.

Then, I was confused to be one or not.
VoidnOwO
1,256 posts
Joined August 2012
VoidnOwO
:)
Last edited by VoidnOwO , edited 1 time in total.
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

BRBP wrote:

Jarby wrote:

Is there any reason in particular you find it gross?
Do I really have to bring up the dog discussion again or will you stop asking stupid questions?
Gay people: LITERALLY ANIMALS

btw dogs can't give consent
Elly-chan
969 posts
Joined January 2011
Elly-chan
if anybody has time, you should watch a documentary called 'fish out of water' if not watched already. it's about gay marriage / rights concerning the churches power and the bible writings somehow interpreted as 'condemning' gays or whatever you may want to call it. i found it pretty interesting to be honest.
VoidnOwO
1,256 posts
Joined August 2012
VoidnOwO
:)
Last edited by VoidnOwO , edited 1 time in total.
GladiOol
4,475 posts
Joined August 2008
GladiOol

Apex wrote:

I found gay sex disgusting and disturbing until I found out my lover liked yaoi material.

Then, I was confused to be one or not.
it's completely irrelevant wether you find it gross or not. i think it's gross as well, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Kaona
494 posts
Joined August 2010
Kaona

TamaraMarie wrote:

This is why I definitely feel trapped being a member of the Roman Catholic religion where I'm one of very few who actually think this way. ;___;

TamaraMarie wrote:

tl;dr: I'm Catholic and I believe homosexuals should get married and adopt babies. :D
My Mum is Catholic and she supports gay marriage.

You're the 2nd Catholic I've heard of which also supports it. Makes me happy to know. :D
maal
maal
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay


am i late
MoonShade
487 posts
Joined February 2010
MoonShade
So, my little story on that subject:

A friend of mine is Muslim and at the central railway station of my city (which is a big place) we somehow got into that topic - he believes that homosexuality is a sin. So we're standing there at the railway station, talking hours and hours about why it should be a sin or not, or why these people are either sick or made a personal choice in their lives.

Now that you have that image, I'll share some parts and thoughts from that discussion. I'm a person who believes in the freedom of people. I'm also a person who doesn't believe in god anymore, but was raised as a Catholic. So in my opinion, all rules we set for our society were created by us - there is no absolute right or wrong, it's all a matter of perspective. With this, there can't be an absoulute "sin" - a sin is only what we want it to be.
Think about incest for example, why is it forbidden, why do we go all "eww" when we think about that topic? Incest was pretty normal in older ages, for example in the Middle Ages. But we as a society saw at some point that incest leads to new born children which mostly are handicapped, so we created a rule/sin against it. (Not supporting incest or anything, but just thinking rational about it.)

Also, according to my friend to whom I was talking, being homosexual could be a mental disease. He brought up that if you are for example suffering from depression, we say that this is a mental disease which should be cured. And that's right - you could define everything which let's people drift from the norm, in my case e.g. being a brony, as a mental disease. We as a society and we as individuals can define what freedom or personal life choices are and what mental diseases are.

So it all really comes down to wheather you believe that being homosexual is an "absoule wrong" thing to be or not, which according to my friend, in his religion is in fact a sin also in order to somehow protect society. Or wheather you believe that being homosexual is not a personal choice, but a disease, somehow mentally triggered and should be cured. In my opinion, being homosexual is absolutely a matter of freedom and personal choice, and I don't even have the right to tell anyone otherwise. That leads to the conclusion, that homosexuals should in fact have the same rights as anyone else on this planet.

But I also respect people who say otherwise, IF they just think that this is a sin/disease/not good for our society and don't try to actually go against those people and steal their rights. After this discussion, me and my friend shook our hands and we still like each other, regardless our thoughts on this topic :)
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

CDFA wrote:

BRBP wrote:

I want to marry my dog.

Can you people support me and my human rights the same way you support gays?
That'd be great, thanks.
There's no way to prove the dog has consent over the marriage, so there's a reason why you can't marry your dog. Gay couples aren't vegetables and are consenting and willing to mutually get married. Plus, bringing up interspecies marriage is just like saying "HO HO I'M A PASTAFARIAN" (aka. Bringing up extremes to try to prove a point wrong), since I've never been wholly aware that people have been heavily desiring to engage in a fully commited LEGAL relationship with an animal in a huge ceremony plus legal responsibility and stuff (I know there's people who would want to have crazy sex with animals, but it's pointless to make that legal except for jokes.) With homosexual relationships, it's actually legitimate and not pastafarian-esque nonsense.
@BRBP.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.
silmarilen
5,581 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.
no thats a wedding, which is just for show. the realy thing is just a piece of paper you put your signature on.(at least in the netherlands)
JAKACHAN
684 posts
Joined March 2011
JAKACHAN
(Insert something about if I can marry another man why can't I marry my dog)

JK JK JK

The funny part about this whole argument is: Gay rights do not affect a single person negatively. Not having Gay rights does affect people negatively.

In other words I do support "Human" rights.
MoonShade
487 posts
Joined February 2010
MoonShade

silmarilen wrote:

no thats a wedding, which is just for show. the realy thing is just a piece of paper you put your signature on.(at least in the netherlands)
Jup, you can get married without believing in god and this whole glory church wedding stuff in Germany too.
Liiraye
1,354 posts
Joined December 2011
Liiraye

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.

Well just as another guy said, that's a wedding. Not a marriage. Now, don't splat your undies, but marriage actually did exist BC and was mainly used for trading property (daughters were considered property at that time). Religion adopted (just like many other common events now claimed religious to begin with) marriage as a holy tradition when in fact it's an ancient act, just like christmas for example.

Yes, in a country like the US where the population consists of up to 80% christians I see how most marriages are as you described them.

I'm trying not to sound smug as much as I can, but when people make false claims I can't help it :/ I should seek rehab about that.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,945 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral

Jarby wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

nobody whom is healthy of mind, religious or otherwise, will have any conscientious objection to gay rights.

i'll be frank - i find it pretty gross, but that doesn't mean i hold any overt feeling towards people who don't deliberately shove the stuff in my face. denying them otherwise standard human rights is an absolute atrocity.
Is there any reason in particular you find it gross? Aside from religious arguments, that's the second thing I hear (mind you, it's never said about lesbians). The only answers I've heard are basically "dunno" or "it's not right/natural".
i can't really say, to be perfectly honest. same way some people don't really like looking at spiders, i guess. i don't really find men aesthetically pleasing (including myself). psychologically speaking, the disgust/dislike reaction is something people don't really have much control over - seeing two dudes making out in public may elicit "ew gross" internally, but i'd probably do the same thing if i saw a really bogan heterosexual couple making out in public as well. honestly, it may be a better representation of my dislike of observing other people's physical intimacy than anything overtly related to anything else.

my point is, apprehensions or otherwise, i don't let my base instincts dictate how i moderate complex social issues internally. a normally functioning human being would do the same thing.
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

Ephemeral wrote:

Jarby wrote:

Is there any reason in particular you find it gross? Aside from religious arguments, that's the second thing I hear (mind you, it's never said about lesbians). The only answers I've heard are basically "dunno" or "it's not right/natural".
i can't really say, to be perfectly honest. same way some people don't really like looking at spiders, i guess. i don't really find men aesthetically pleasing (including myself). psychologically speaking, the disgust/dislike reaction is something people don't really have much control over - seeing two dudes making out in public may elicit "ew gross" internally, but i'd probably do the same thing if i saw a really bogan heterosexual couple making out in public as well. honestly, it may be a better representation of my dislike of observing other people's physical intimacy than anything overtly related to anything else.

my point is, apprehensions or otherwise, i don't let my base instincts dictate how i moderate complex social issues internally. a normally functioning human being would do the same thing.
Your attitude itself doesn't bother me, but I hear a fair bit related to the concept that's problematic. One theory I have about this is how women are so overly sexualized in media compared to men; reversal of this trend is played for laughs, but male sexuality is far more tame when it is utilized. The Hawkeye Initiative (sort of nsfw) shows off this discrimination in comic books in a rather blatant way. Portrayal of heterosexual couples engaging in romantic and/or sexual shenanigans is far more likely to focus on the woman's body too of course.

Anyway my point is that this common trend of disgust is almost certainly a cultural one and it makes me sad.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,945 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
that's a fairly valid point. part of the social training regarding sexuality is done through instrumental conditioning and modelling foremost, which would certainly support such a hypothesis.

can't really be helped, sadly.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

Liiraye wrote:

Now, don't splat your undies
This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.
Liiraye
1,354 posts
Joined December 2011
Liiraye

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Now, don't splat your undies
This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.

How does that small, completely unrelated, sarcastic remark invalidate my main statement?

Sure, it might've come off a bit rough from your personal point of view (it was ment to be an innocent joke so I honestly didn't imagine anyone taking offence from it). However, my statement is valid nonetheless.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

Liiraye wrote:

CDFA wrote:

This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.

How does that small, completely unrelated, sarcastic remark invalidate my main statement?

Sure, it might've come off a bit rough from your personal point of view (it was ment to be an innocent joke so I honestly didn't imagine anyone taking offence from it). However, my statement is valid nonetheless.
The word I should have used was credible, not valid. Sorry about that :3.
dkwon8715
15 posts
Joined December 2011
dkwon8715
gays are nasty.
eww.
boat
2,369 posts
Joined February 2010
boat

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
You'll have to elaborate on that, assuming that it is not your intention to remain as the most ignorant asshat on earth.
Foxtrot
1,165 posts
Joined April 2012
Foxtrot

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
drinking piss is pretty nasty too.
Shohei Ohtani
Shohei Ohtani

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
birra
359 posts
Joined May 2011
birra
i'm a Muslim and yes i do know about the fact that it's actually a Sin in my religion. but my mum has ever said that God is fair (and yes i do believe that God is completely fair). how if the person was actually really born that way? you can't change it at all if it really is like that already from the first place because God made it that way at the first place. unless if (just like what MoonShade's friend said) it's a mental disease which makes him turn into a gay, we need to try to cure him no matter what instead of saying shits. but even so, again, i do believe that God is fair which also makes me believe in people's freedom of choosing their own path in their life and i do respect them no matter who they are.
boat
2,369 posts
Joined February 2010
boat

sacchann wrote:

i'm a Muslim and yes i do know about the fact that it's actually a Sin in my religion. but my mum has ever said that God is fair (and yes i do believe that God is completely fair). how if the person was actually really born that way? you can't change it at all if it really is like that already from the first place because God made it that way at the first place. unless if (just like what MoonShade's friend said) it's a mental disease which makes him turn into a gay, we need to try to cure him no matter what instead of saying shits. but even so, again, i do believe that God is fair which also makes me believe in people's freedom of choosing their own path in their life and i do respect them no matter who they are.
Taste and preference isn't something you're born with. Although you might have inherited traits and whatnot genes that could contribute to how you develop your tastes and preferences, I do firmly believe that it is ultimately decided by the circumstances under which you lead your life under, and to some degree also a choice. There are studies which show that circumstances such as having an older brother, in comparison to a sister or no siblings at all, more often leads to the younger being homosexual.

Regardless of all this, live and let live and each to their own. There is this thing called not "giving a shit" which can be fairly handy at times. No need for people to cause a ruckus, if something isn't to your preference then simply lead your life knowing that you're not "as bad as them", and do it silently.

My first post in this thread is there for a reason, and that reason being that this needs no discussion. Both the people arguing for and against are too dense for their own good and the reason for why things are a mess. Agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Ekaru
3,617 posts
Joined July 2008
Ekaru
For those who don't know, marriage is a legal status. This status is obtained nowadays by going to city hall with your spouse and signing a piece of paper. Weddings are just an elaborate celebration of the act of obtaining this legal status.

Being married gets you all kinds of rights. It gets you tax reductions. It factors into insurance stuff. It gives you control over your partner's dead body. Etc.

The wedding where the pastor goes, "YOU GUYS ARE NOW HUSBAND AND WIFE!" and all that fun jazz? That means jack shit. The pastor's involvement is only out of formality and for religious reasons. It has jack shit to do with the actual act of signing the piece of paper, and weddings don't even need a pastor to work since they're just a celebration and formality and shit.

So, my opinion on the matter is that any couple who wishes to live together should be able to go down to city hall and sign that piece of paper. There is no reason that a hot pair of lesbians should have a harder time living together than a straight couple, because my god most lesbian pairs are so fucking hot.
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

Ekaru wrote:

There is no reason that a hot pair of lesbians should have a harder time living together than a straight couple, because my god most lesbian pairs are so fucking hot.
Oh fuck do I hate hearing this shit from straight men.
Kyonko Hizara
2,855 posts
Joined August 2010
Kyonko Hizara

Jarby wrote:

Ekaru wrote:

There is no reason that a hot pair of lesbians should have a harder time living together than a straight couple, because my god most lesbian pairs are so fucking hot.
Oh fuck do I hate hearing this shit from straight men.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,945 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
porn lesbians are hot maybe, the true reality is most of them are just as ugly as the rest of us
fartownik
2,189 posts
Joined December 2008
fartownik
"Live and let live"
Jarby
2,963 posts
Joined August 2008
Jarby

Ephemeral wrote:

porn lesbians are hot maybe, the true reality is most of them are just as ugly as the rest of us
Well, yeah, it just goes back to the idea of fetishizing and sexualizing women which is ironic in this case since lesbians aren't going to be having heterosexual sex anyway. But you can surely imagine my frustration that in this very thread people are outright saying that lesbians are "so fucking hot" but gays (albeit not specifically referring to men) are "fucking disgusting". This doesn't necessarily affect things like marriage equality directly, but there are obviously issues to come from making a person with an incompatible orientation to yours a sex object without delving further into matters like rape culture, body shaming and transphobia.
Bittersweet
2,031 posts
Joined February 2010
Bittersweet
Like P!nk said one of those days, i can't understand why it bothers someone if two people they don't even know wants to use nice clothes, sign a piece of paper and give a party, in which their friends and family will be there, sharing happiness. Its noone of your business, really, let them be happy as everyone should be.

I can understand they may have reasons to be against adoption, but turns out I believe gay couples would give a more stable family for a child then most of straight couples I know. But it's kinda offtopic, so ill stop here :D

(Still trying to understand how from gay rights, op went to belief in gay love and we are talking about marriage :D)
Josh The Biker
16 posts
Joined January 2013
Josh The Biker

skibblesx wrote:

**petition to change form Gay Rights to Humans Rights**
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
42 / 92