1. osu! forums
  2. Other
  3. General Discussion
show more
posted
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.
posted

Jarby wrote:

BRBP wrote:

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
Depending on what we're talking about, dogs can start it. That counts as a consent.
I should stop posting now.
posted

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.
posted

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
posted
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay


am i late
posted
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 :)
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted

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)
posted
(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.
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted
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.
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted

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.
posted
gays are nasty.
eww.
posted

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.
show more
Please sign in to reply.