Hate Crimes

[Stormfury]

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity." - The New York State Legislature.

I was watching a programme the other day (American Justice with Bill Kurtis (http://www.aetv.com/american_justice/aj_castcrew.jsp?index=0&type=actor)); and of course noticing how sad people really can be. Take the case of a young homosexual male. Who basically was a good kid and all. But society as a whole couldn't stand such a thing. Said societal homophobe, murders young homosexual male because Said societal homophobe feared he'd be raped by young homosexual male. He gets a non-premeditated murder charge. With'a circumstantial sentence. Was this really premeditated murder ? Or paranoia? Let's get one thing straight; Murder is Murder, period!

[Katari]

Well, I'm not going to endorse homosexuality, but no one, and I mean no one has the right to kill a homosexual just for being homosexual. Murder is murder is murder, as S0nique said.

However, having not seen the program, I can only comment second-hand. If the "societal homophobe" was actually in the process of being raped by the homosexual, then he should be all means defend himself (what would you do in that situation, huh?). But, if it was only his biases (or paranoia) thinking, then he should be charged for premeditated murder, in my opinion.

Look, he obviously thought through it enough to garner: [the guy] equals homosexual, which (in his mind) equals attempted rape, which (in his mind) equals "kill the guy before he rapes you." You can't go through that train of thought and not call it premeditated; again, in my opinion.

Our society as a whole needs to come to grips with the definition of hate crimes. In this instance, the borderline between self-defense and murder lies on the edge of a knife. Again, if he was being assaulted, he should have defended himself -- but, is killing a human being actually necessary? Surely, if he was capable of killing the guy, he was capable of merely subduing him and taking the correct legal conduits.

Arggh, I can't put my thoughts into words properly at the moment. If someone replies back, maybe I'll have a more clear line of reasoning, instead of just a disjointed ramble. :confused:

[Tiikeri]

Legalising gay/lesbian partnerships in the UK is the best thing our government has done in recent years. As a gay, I am not exactly "worried" about being a victim of hate crime however it does play on my mind sometimes. I'm not open about it, in fact I'm quite withdrawn so nobody at work, none of my family and most of my friends know that I'm an uphill gardener as it were.

However, I can't really buy that crap about straight people saying they're "worried" about being raped, even if that's the excuse they give in court. No, I believe the real reason is because most of the people who commit murders are total psychos, and thus they believe that being gay is wrong/weird etc, so they gotta kill off these people who are a "disgrace to society" in their words. Although quite honestly, they are the disgraces to society by being the ones who go round killing people for being proud of who they are.

I've not heard that many hate crime stories myself, although I know it happens and I've heard a lot of hurtful comments on the subject. Things like the sudden use of the word gay as a slang term for "weird" or "lame" as well as the traditional plain insulting comments.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Tiikeri
However, I can't really buy that crap about straight people saying they're "worried" about being raped, even if that's the excuse they give in court.

Didn't you hear? All gays are sex-obsessed fiends with no morals when it comes to sex, and are all attracted to every single person of the same sex as them.

[Darkslash]

Of course it's premeditated murder. It would be regardless of whether he killed the guy because he was gay or for other reasons.

Would there have been a different punishment if it had been found premeditated, Sonique?

[Dare]

In a nutshell, typically premeditated murder carries more severe punishments than...say...manslaughter. Premeditated murder can and is oft considered capital/murder one and you can get life in prison or the death penalty.
At least...I think...
:confused:

[Shadow]

its preety simple really...

everyone need someone to blame and if you are a tiny bit diffrent its you...

and if your even more diffrent its even worse "gay for example "

and its horrebul...i cant say sweden really has this problem " as far as i know" i know a whos bi in school and befure i knew it i made this joke that "he was gay" and he said " yeah so what?" and then added he was bi....

i laughed my shoes of becuse my "friendly ditch" just turned around and ***** slaped me i wish ppl could be more ...less caring...and look more at themselfs on what there doing....but as said the human need someone to blame for the suckness of the world our there lifes and some use the tactics of blaming an other and so they take a gay becuse they got supporters around the world....atleast thats my thougth....becuse if it was really becuse they didnt think it was "right" to be gay they wouldent kill becuse thats wrong...nore hate " you shall threat like you want to be threated yourself" god says (note i dont know the exakt words translating from swedish here and no am a none beliver)

just leaving a message to all those who use god as excuse that he say its wrong...well the result of what your doing is exaktly that ....

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Of course it's premeditated murder. It would be regardless of whether he killed the guy because he was gay or for other reasons.

Would there have been a different punishment if it had been found premeditated, Sonique?

The judge would've ruled murder in the first-degree. And more than likely a death penalty sentence. Because of the judicial system doesn't fully govern hate crimes, like the quote from the New York State Legislature says: "Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause." So... you can't ensue "prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity." Quote unquote.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Katari
Well, I'm not going to endorse homosexuality, but no one, and I mean no one has the right to kill a homosexual just for being homosexual. Murder is murder is murder, as S0nique said.
Of course, by suggesting homosexuality is something wrong and problematic, you yourself are conducting your own form of intolerance.

Not a hate crime because you have done nothing illegal. But you're certainly doing a good job of expressing hate.

[Darkslash]

you yourself are conducting your own form of intolerance
Yay, thought police!

If intolerance of intolerance is the new intolerance, I'll gladly be labeled as such.

@Sonique: I'd say it should be handled on a case-by-case basis -- if there's evidence the would-be murderer did the crime out of a preconceived hate for a general class of people into which the victim fell, then there's a case for premeditated murder. If there's no such evidence, there's no premeditated murder.

I don't see a compelling reason to codify a new slew of hate crime laws -- it just invites courtroom controversy (e.g., the charge is a "hate murder," while there is specious evidence that the "murderer" once said something bad about, say, gays (if the victim was gay)).

The only substantial change to the legal system I'd suggest would be instead of codifying hate crimes, to elevate all murder charges to a mandatory death sentence if guilty.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Yay, thought police!

If intolerance of intolerance is the new intolerance, I'll gladly be labeled as such.


Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here...

If she had said, "Not that I'm condoning being black" everyone would be up in arms. But if I dare get upset because she makes a statement like that about homosexuality, I get sarcasm in response?

Why, do you condone bigotry?

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Why, do you condone bigotry?

Darkslash's point was that you can't tell someone what to think. If someone has racist thoughts, that's fine; if someone has homophobic thoughts, that's fine; however, the problem only arrises when those thoughts turn to works and actions which offend, harm and hurt others. No one has to be tolerate, they just should just keep their prejudices to their selves.

[Darkslash]

Yeah, Nephilim pretty much hit my point.


Why aren't [sic] gays be equal to black people?
In the eyes of the law, they are. Everyone is equal, in fact. To write laws specifying crimes against certain groups of people as "more heinous" destroys equality before the law and ensures injustice.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Didn't you hear? All gays are sex-obsessed fiends with no morals when it comes to sex, and are all attracted to every single person of the same sex as them.

nice life

Anywho,

I agree with what people say, people can hate others, can want to kill them, can want to do whatever they want to the people they hate, but those are meirly thoughts, and we don't know what others are thinking, but when those thoughts become actions its when it does become a problem.

Back to Neph:

Most gay's are probably the most gentle people you'd find (y)

also what you say Neph could probably ring true to about 10% of gay's around the world, but as you did say in the other post, Loud minorities stand out?

Don't judge an entire flock of sheep by one stray

Kovu

[Katari]

SpiritWolf77: Look, if disagreeing with other people's values and lifestyle choices is a sign of hatred, and a bad thing to do, then kill me now, please, because this world isn't worth living in anymore. Look, just because I feel moral qualms about what other people do doesn't mean I hate them or want to kill them. Did my post imply hatred to you, perhaps? It's not like I've never known any gay people before.

In fact, I could well accuse you of hatred towards me, for accusing me of something I'm not guilty of. But I won't, since hatred is not something I practice. And, must we term all dislike as "hatred" in the first place?

Oh, and my condoning or not condoning blacks is rather a moot point -- blacks are people, just as human as whites, Asians, or whatever ethnic/color group you want to bring up. Gays are people, too, but it is their lifestyle that makes them different -- people that hate gays do not do so because they are black or white, typically, but because they are homosexuel. There is a difference between those two forms of prejudice.

And waddya mean, "If she said"? :eek: I think it says very clearly in my profile that I am male. :cheese:

People can think whatever they want, okay. Think what they want about me, think what they want about gays, about blacks, about whatever. But the law doesn't govern thoughts, only actions. And, while I do think there is a morality connected with thought life, I don't think it can be regulated by the government, the courts, or anyone but the individual doing the thinking.

I have absolutely no hatred for any group. I just disagree with some groups on different points. Is that so bad? Have you never disagreed with anything before?

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of gay=right or wrong. That's not the point of the thread, and I hope nobody gets too offended with me over my own viewpoints. I don't get mad at yours.

Peace out.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
nice life

Anywho,

I agree with what people say, people can hate others, can want to kill them, can want to do whatever they want to the people they hate, but those are meirly thoughts, and we don't know what others are thinking, but when those thoughts become actions its when it does become a problem.

Back to Neph:

Most gay's are probably the most gentle people you'd find (y)

also what you say Neph could probably ring true to about 10% of gay's around the world, but as you did say in the other post, Loud minorities stand out?

Don't judge an entire flock of sheep by one stray

Kovu

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading your post in favour of laughing terribly at you. =] Please learn sarcasm.

[Darkslash]

Being gay is no worse than being black; just people educe unubiquitous animadversions to anything they don't understand
And being straight is no different than being black or gay or white. Kumbaya!

Dividing people based on sexuality, race, or a multitude of other factors is a bad idea, which comes back to the point of this thread. Writing special "hate crime" laws will not solve a "police bias" or a prejudice on behalf of a segment of population.

[Pnt]

I don't have much of an opinion on hate crime protection either way because I don't know much about it. I'm pretty sure Ohio, along with some other US states, doesn't have protect homosexual people from hate crimes. I also know that there was a protest of people trying to get hate crime protection for homosexual people repealed a few years ago when I was in West Virginia on a trip.




Originally posted by Katari
SpiritWolf77: Look, if disagreeing with other people's values and lifestyle choices is a sign of hatred, and a bad thing to do, then kill me now, please, because this world isn't worth living in anymore. Look, just because I feel moral qualms about what other people do doesn't mean I hate them or want to kill them. Did my post imply hatred to you, perhaps? It's not like I've never known any gay people before.

In fact, I could well accuse you of hatred towards me, for accusing me of something I'm not guilty of. But I won't, since hatred is not something I practice. And, must we term all dislike as "hatred" in the first place?

Oh, and my condoning or not condoning blacks is rather a moot point -- blacks are people, just as human as whites, Asians, or whatever ethnic/color group you want to bring up. Gays are people, too, but it is their lifestyle that makes them different -- people that hate gays do not do so because they are black or white, typically, but because they are homosexuel. There is a difference between those two forms of prejudice.

And waddya mean, "If she said"? :eek: I think it says very clearly in my profile that I am male. :cheese:

People can think whatever they want, okay. Think what they want about me, think what they want about gays, about blacks, about whatever. But the law doesn't govern thoughts, only actions. And, while I do think there is a morality connected with thought life, I don't think it can be regulated by the government, the courts, or anyone but the individual doing the thinking.

I have absolutely no hatred for any group. I just disagree with some groups on different points. Is that so bad? Have you never disagreed with anything before?

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of gay=right or wrong. That's not the point of the thread, and I hope nobody gets too offended with me over my own viewpoints. I don't get mad at yours.

Peace out.

I completely disagree with what you think about gay people, but don't feel like you're not allowed to have an opinion lest you offend someone. No one, in America at least, has the right to not be offended, nor do they have the right to take away your freedom of speech to keep others from getting upset. As long as you don't try to harrass me, take away my rights, or otherwise cause harm to me, I really don't care what you think about GLBT people. I would advise you to look beyond groups of people to see the individuals, but only you can do that.

[Aurelian]

I'm pretty sure that most hatred against homosexuals stems from biblical religions. You should here some of the sermons I have heard in church! You'de think the world was going to end because to people of the same gender want to mary!

I KNOW that most hatred against black people(AT least in America, though probably to a point elsewhere) steme from the days of black slavery. I do believe that a lot of the the black population get bad reputations for being aquanted with the hip-hop movement. People hear these people singing/rapping about sex(Both willing and non), violance, murder, ect. and degrading woman and such, and they immidiatly picture a black guy in a sports jersey, two baseball caps stcked on top of eachother or a bandana, and tons of "bling". Unfortunatly, you have a hew individuals giving the entire group a bad name.

While the two different forms of hate come from different places, they seem the same to me.

I'm suprised nobody mentioned hate crimes against the Jewish population. They tend to be one of the most targeted groups. After 9/11, Muslims and Middle-Easterners have it bad too.

As has been said, everybody has the right to their opinion, to hate homosexuals, blacks, or whoever, if they want to. It's when opinions turn to actions that it becomes wrong.

Actually, the homosexual part reminds me of a funny, but sad, story. Two gay partners moved into a high class neighborhod together. At first they kept quiet about themselves. The two young men were ideal neighbors, mowing all the lawns, shoveling snow off the sidewalks, walking people's dogs, ect.

One day, after a few years, one of the young men was leaving for work. His partner walked him to the car, and kissed him. At the same time, one neighbor came outside to collect the morning paper. When she saw the two men kissing, she freaked. Next thing the men new, a petition was going around the neighborhood to force the men to move. The local judge rightly refused to even aknowledge the petition, but the men realized they were wanted. They refused to by pushed out, however, from then on, they had to deal with insults whenever they went out, vandalism to their property, rejection in public places, and general hatred. The two became reclusive, keeping to themselves, and staying indoors.

One morning that winter, the nextdoor neighbor who saw the kissing noticed that the freshly fallen snow had not been shoveled from her driveway. getting angry, she through on her robe and went to the men's house. When one man answered the door, she started ranting about them being to different and not helping out around the neighborhood anymore. When politly asking the woman to leave did not work, the partner still inside called the police. The woman was arrested for criminal trespassing and disturbing the peace.

I honestly don't remember where I heard this or if it is true or not.

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by Roquivo
I'm suprised nobody mentioned hate crimes against the Jewish population. They tend to be one of the most targeted groups. After 9/11, Muslims and Middle-Easterners have it bad too. What hate crimes are against the Jews? I don't hear of any in the US, and the terrorism in Israel could be arguably more of a political conflict rather than a religious conflict.

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Xinithian
What hate crimes are against the Jews? I don't hear of any in the US, and the terrorism in Israel could be arguably more of a political conflict rather than a religious conflict.

Are you kidding me? Ever hear of Neo-Nazis? Some people still hate jewish peole over the holocaust. The Swastica is STILL a symbol of hatred against Jews and Gypsies.

Also, regular American Citizens who are of Middel Eastern decent or Muslim religion still get attacked(Both physically and mentally) by uneducated people who blame all terrorism on the countries of the middle east(Afghanistan, Packistan, Iraq, Iran, Palistine, ect.) or the Muslim religion. Being born in a certain country or believing in a certain religion does not make a person a terrorist.

Edit: If you still don't buy that second part, as Pheonix how bad his people get treated somtimes.

[Only-now]

I also agree...thoughts are seperate from actions. Someone can think homosexuality is the worst thing in the world...and that cannot be compared to a hate crime...nor does someone disagreeing or not accepting that lifestyle be compared to "hate". Toleration is not the same as acceptance. Tolerance means I can hate everything you stand for, and do...but I allow you to be there without taking action against you. Acceptance means I accept what you stand for, can agree with it or understand it....and that shouldn't be forced on anyone. That is why I strongly dislike when gay or bi people make it a point to let you know that they are gay or bi..without you asking or even wanting to know. The same goes for parades and such that are soley there to shove that fact in people's faces and try to force acceptance...which shouldn't be a goal in the first place.

I think people look at hate crimes the way they look at racism. A lot of people will actually claim that blacks can't be racist agianst whites because they are a minority. The same would go for some people when looking at hate crimes. If a gay person decided to kill a straight person...because he was straight...some people wouldn't want to label that as a hate crime, when it is one in fact. I am not accusing anyone of that here...just pointing out that fact..and that it is a very bad misconception.

About the Jewish stuff...just because you don't hear of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen...and I can definitely state that the conflict in the middle east with Israel is definitely not political. Not that it doesn't have arms in that area...but the Muslims there HATE the Jewish people...as stated by their own contries many a time. Plus, you have the Holocaust..which is pretty much the biggest hate crime of all time (not even solely against the Jews, but homosexuals, blacks, handicapps and anyone-Hitler-didn't-like).

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Darkslash's point was that you can't tell someone what to think. If someone has racist thoughts, that's fine; if someone has homophobic thoughts, that's fine; however, the problem only arrises when those thoughts turn to works and actions which offend, harm and hurt others. No one has to be tolerate, they just should just keep their prejudices to their selves.
Well, I have just as much of a right to tell people I find their thoughts to be intolerant as other people do to make intolerant statements/have intolerant thoughts.

This is a circular argument. It's intolerant to be intolerant of someone who is intolerant. It's impossible to be 100% tolerant of everything.

Sure, if someone only thinks something and never acts on said thoughts, then in the end, there's no problem. But there's no garuntee that thoughts won't ever translate into actions, even if said action is as simple as persuading other people to believe the same thing or voting in a way that does social harm to a group of people. -My- point was that intolerance does not just take the form of active hate crimes, and that hate crimes ultimately begin with intolerant thoughts.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
But that's the thing - in reality they're not, at least not here in England. The police force is biased in many situations.
This is correct. However it varies from place-to-place. And Darkslash is correct about equality in the eyes of the law.

Unfortunately, not everyone is equal in the eyes of individual people, and that's where the problems arise. For example, I come from Los Angeles and we have had some serious hate crime problems towards blacks and hispanics. There's still a lot of awful prejudice in the city, even on the part of the police force. A Los Angeles police officer is far more likely to be suspicious of a black male than a white female, for example.


Originally posted by Katari
SpiritWolf77: Look, if disagreeing with other people's values and lifestyle choices is a sign of hatred, and a bad thing to do, then kill me now, please, because this world isn't worth living in anymore. Look, just because I feel moral qualms about what other people do doesn't mean I hate them or want to kill them. Did my post imply hatred to you, perhaps? It's not like I've never known any gay people before.

In fact, I could well accuse you of hatred towards me, for accusing me of something I'm not guilty of. But I won't, since hatred is not something I practice. And, must we term all dislike as "hatred" in the first place?

Oh, and my condoning or not condoning blacks is rather a moot point -- blacks are people, just as human as whites, Asians, or whatever ethnic/color group you want to bring up. Gays are people, too, but it is their lifestyle that makes them different -- people that hate gays do not do so because they are black or white, typically, but because they are homosexuel. There is a difference between those two forms of prejudice.

And waddya mean, "If she said"? :eek: I think it says very clearly in my profile that I am male. :cheese:

People can think whatever they want, okay. Think what they want about me, think what they want about gays, about blacks, about whatever. But the law doesn't govern thoughts, only actions. And, while I do think there is a morality connected with thought life, I don't think it can be regulated by the government, the courts, or anyone but the individual doing the thinking.

I have absolutely no hatred for any group. I just disagree with some groups on different points. Is that so bad? Have you never disagreed with anything before?

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of gay=right or wrong. That's not the point of the thread, and I hope nobody gets too offended with me over my own viewpoints. I don't get mad at yours.

Peace out.
Well, first of all, since you're making dramatic comments like "Kill me now," I'm not sure you're avoiding getting mad at my views...but whatever...

I never once said I thought you wanted to kill gay people. I said that disliking who someone is is the same thing as disliking them. I far too often hear people say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Which is all well and good if the thing you're hating is an active decision. Yes, it's an active decision to have gay sex. It is not an active decision to <i>be</i> gay. So if you're saying it's immoral to be gay, then you are essentially saying it's immoral for gay people to be who they are.

Which in my eyes is problematic, since, in any real-world scenario, the simple act of being gay does not hurt anyone.

You can say dislike if you want. Hatred is just a more extreme version of it. Just because "disliking" something is milder doesn't really make it any better.

There is no difference between racism and homophobia. You are disliking someone, or an aspect of someone, that they did not choose. I'm guessing you consider them different because you think people decide to be gay? If it's so easy to decide attraction, I challenge you to pick a random person off the street whom you have no interest in, and -be- attracted to them.

Sorry for saying she...didn't see the gender box in your profile.

I am very glad to hear you feel there should be a separation between personal feelings that don't necessarily affect others and government laws which affect others. But I still can't help but be concerned when I hear someone make these statements, and, as I said earlier, can't be sure said feelings won't eventually translate to actions. If you voted on a gay marriage law, for example, maybe you would take the, "It's not my business, I don't condone it, but that's their choice," stance and vote to allow it, and I'd be glad. But if you'd vote against it, because of your personal view on this, then I consider it problematic.

Yes, I have disagreed with things before (I'm doing it right now, I disagree with homophobia). I just personally tend to not disagree with aspects of who a person IS that they cannot actively decide, when said aspects of their personality do not harm anyone.


Originally posted by Darkslash
And being straight is no different than being black or gay or white. Kumbaya!

Dividing people based on sexuality, race, or a multitude of other factors is a bad idea, which comes back to the point of this thread. Writing special "hate crime" laws will not solve a "police bias" or a prejudice on behalf of a segment of population.
Agreed.


Originally posted by Only-now
I think people look at hate crimes the way they look at racism. A lot of people will actually claim that blacks can't be racist agianst whites because they are a minority. The same would go for some people when looking at hate crimes. If a gay person decided to kill a straight person...because he was straight...some people wouldn't want to label that as a hate crime, when it is one in fact. I am not accusing anyone of that here...just pointing out that fact..and that it is a very bad misconception.
I see that a lot around here and it drives me insane. "Reverse" racism is still racism. I wish more people would realize that.

[Darkslash]

A Los Angeles police officer is far more likely to be suspicious of a black male than a white female, for example.
See, that's an example of a good prejudice -- it's not something a police officer brings to the occupation from the start, it's an observed trend that is obvious from their experiences as an officer of the law. It is true that more crimes are committed by black males than white females. A good officer, of any race or gender, would do well to realize that if they hope to prevent crime. It's not something they just made up in their heads, it's something they can see every day.

But back to the subject...

In my opinion, homosexuality is wrong. Those who disagree can complain all they want, but that does not give them the right to attempt to use a governmental organization to force me to change my beliefs. To put it another way, the day I can be brought to court for saying "I think homosexuality is wrong" is the day this country goes down the tubes.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Nephilim
I'm sorry, but I stopped reading your post in favour of laughing terribly at you. =] Please learn sarcasm.

Most people use Sarcasm as a backup because they failed,

Did you fail at life Neph?

[Only-now]

You can dislike an aspect of a person and not hate the entire person. Basically you are saying that someone being gay is what defines them...which is not the case. People argue against homosexuality being what defines a person when someone is using that to define them. Such as a homophobe hating someone because they are gay...they are using it to define that person. Now..you are using someone being gay as their definition, so that people who only dislike it are also in the wrong.

I think it is possible to dislike part of who a person is without disliking them completely. I don't like the furry fandom...but I converse with a lot of people who are furries. Doesn't mean I have to like that part of their life to be able to like them as a person. I have to disagree that disliking that means you dislike the person...being gay should not be all of what makes you who you are.

Voting against gay marriage is not problematic. That is someone making a choice to influence law making because of their beliefs. As I explaining...disliking homosexuality (and in this case gay marriage) does not mean you dislike gay people. I have things against gay marriage (and voted against it) and it has nothing to do with disliking gay people.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
In my opinion, homosexuality is wrong. Those who disagree can complain all they want, but that does not give them the right to attempt to use a governmental organization to force me to change my beliefs. To put it another way, the day I can be brought to court for saying "I think homosexuality is wrong" is the day this country goes down the tubes.
Shouldn't that go both ways though? I.e. the gay marriage example.

I'm not for governments forcing people to change their beliefs, however, if by changing your beliefs you mean letting gay people get married, then I disagree. Them being gay is not affecting you, whereas prohibiting gay marriage does affect them.


Originally posted by Only-now
You can dislike an aspect of a person and not hate the entire person. Basically you are saying that someone being gay is what defines them...which is not the case. People argue against homosexuality being what defines a person when someone is using that to define them. Such as a homophobe hating someone because they are gay...they are using it to define that person. Now..you are using someone being gay as their definition, so that people who only dislike it are also in the wrong.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying disliking someone for an uncontrollable and harmless aspect of their personality is intolerance on the same level as racism and sexism. If you generally like a person, but dislike the fact that they are black, or a woman, then you are practicing intolerance/bigotry. I'm trying to say that saying, "Well, I don't like gayness, but I have no problem with gay people," is a cowardly way of trying to make your intolerance "okay."


Voting against gay marriage is not problematic. That is someone making a choice to influence law making because of their beliefs. As I explaining...disliking homosexuality (and in this case gay marriage) does not mean you dislike gay people. I have things against gay marriage (and voted against it) and it has nothing to do with disliking gay people.
Actually, it is legally problematic in the United States. There is no justification for being against gay marriage except for religious justification. And this country's first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Banning gay marriage on solely religious grounds is unconstitutional. And it is placing judgments and restrictions on a group of people based not on a lifestyle, but part of who they are. It would be just as terrible as voting against interracial marriage (which was illegal at one point in time, fyi).

[Darkslash]

Shouldn't that go both ways though? I.e. the gay marriage example.
Nope -- whether or not gay "marriage" is legal has no bearing on whether or not someone is gay. If anything, the gay "marriage" example only serves to support my point -- that the use of the government to force a change in people's behavior is wrong. At this point in time, gay "marriage" is not "prohibited" as you say, but simply not codified, along with human-goat marriages.


There is no justification for being against gay marriage except for religious justification.
According to you. This is the intolerance I spoke of!

By-the-by... the First Amendment has little application here, since all it prohibits Congress from doing is establishing a national religion.


BUT! I have a solution to the entire "gay marriage" crisis in the US:

Take the government out of the business of marriage! Dole out benefits person-by-person (the majority of people in this country, as of 2005, aren't married anyway), charge income taxes on each income, no "joint filing" with the IRS. Let churches marry as they see fit. This way, nobody has to care who is gay or not. Live with who you want, do what you want -- and nobody can legitimately get up in arms since at the end of the day, everyone's on equal footing. I'm serious about this proposition.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Nope -- whether or not gay "marriage" is legal has no bearing on whether or not someone is gay. If anything, the gay "marriage" example only serves to support my point -- that the use of the government to force a change in people's behavior is wrong. At this point in time, gay "marriage" is not "prohibited" as you say, but simply not codified, along with human-goat marriages.


Allowing gay marriage would not force people to change their behavior, instead it would allow any consenting couple to establish a union of marriage that would be legally recognized by the state. To state that the legal recognizing of gay marriage would force people to change their behavior seems to be a non sequitur to me. And the "human-goat marriages" comment comes off as a false analogy which has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Other than that, speaking in general in regards to recent discussion, we are all allowed to have our own opinions on issues such as homosexuals, etc, but when you make your opinion public it is also in the right for other people to disagree with your opinion and vice versa.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by S0nique
Because of the judicial system doesn't fully govern hate crimes,

Section 245 of Title 18 of the US Code:

Current legislation allows federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, religion, national origin, or color. In addition, the assailant must intend to prevent the victim from exercising a federally protected right. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 (see revisions), passed by the Senate in July 1999, seeks to expand federal jurisdiction over these crimes.

The only other federal law in existence which addresses prosecution of hate crimes against LGBT people is the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (Sec. 28003 of the Violent Crime Control Act and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). This Act increases the sentence an offender receives, on average, by one-third, for crimes which are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to manifest prejudice against a member of a protected class. However, federal law enforcement agencies do not have jurisdiction over these anti-LGBT hate crimes unless the occur on federal property, such as a national park. Without jurisdiction they cannot investigate and prosecute those committing anti-gay crimes.

Hate Crimes Prevention Center:http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt
Nat'l Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP):http://www.avp.org
Sexual Orientation: Science, Education and Policy:http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes.html

---

You shouldn't hate someone because they're different. Difference is what makes things unique. It's OK not to like somethings; well that'd be ill-heard of if you didn't. Hatred is blind, in all aspects. No matter what.

[Darkslash]

crimes which are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to manifest prejudice against a member of a protected class.
Why should we protect certain classes of people over others? Equal protection under the laws...

[Katari]

SpiritWolf77: If there was a vote right now on homosexuality, I would immediately vote against forcing them to change. In a second -- there's no question about it in my mind.

As far as being gay vs. choosing to be gay goes, well, I feel that nobody is born gay. If you can show me a study where that is proven, then I'll recant, but homosexuality, to me, is a personal choice, not the whim of some cosmic force (meaning God). Saying that someone is born gay is simply a means of making them not responsible for their actions. Now, attraction is a different story. While no one is born gay, they can develop those tendencies and attractions based on their own personalities and/or events in their life.

As I said, I don't want to interfere with people that are gay...I may feel that it is not right, but I can't force anyone to believe me, and I don't wish to. I may wish you would agree, but I'm not going to kill anyone for that purpose. I think, not only of those that kill gays, but also of those that bomb abortion clinics.

Dramatics...well, I was a little miffed, I'll admit, and I apologize for that. I hope we can get on well, even if we disagree. :) Oh, and I've been randomly attracted to people before, but never to anyone of my own gender, if that's what you were trying to say. Anywho, no hard feelings on my part.

Darkslash: I agree with you on most all points. The government should give equal protection to gays, straights, everybody. My dad says that we may not like what people do, but because we live in a free country, we must be willing to live and let live.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Most people use Sarcasm as a backup because they failed,

Did you fail at life Neph?

I can neither use sarcasm as "backup" or because I "failed," simply because I wasn't in an arguement at a time.

I was simply using satire to comment on a common school of thought.


Katari

As far as being gay vs. choosing to be gay goes, well, I feel that nobody is born gay. If you can show me a study where that is proven, then I'll recant, but homosexuality, to me, is a personal choice, not the whim of some cosmic force (meaning God). Saying that someone is born gay is simply a means of making them not responsible for their actions. Now, attraction is a different story. While no one is born gay, they can develop those tendencies and attractions based on their own personalities and/or events in their life.

This always reminds me of good ol' Queen Elizabeth: "What?! Lesbians? Well, I don't see how a woman could possibly be attracted to another woman, therefore it can't possibly exist!" Basically: you're basing this on your "feelings" and not actual proof.

Anyway: you're quite right, there have been no studies to prove that you're born gay. But don't get too excited, because a) there are no studies a prove that people are born straight, and b) there are studies which show that defining sexuality as "heterosexual," "bisexual," and "homosexual" is ridiculous and inaccurate, because that isn't the way human sexuality works. No one is 100% straight, no one is 100% gay, and bisexuals aren't in the middle at 50%.


Only-Now
That is why I strongly dislike when gay or bi people make it a point to let you know that they are gay or bi..without you asking or even wanting to know. The same goes for parades and such that are soley there to shove that fact in people's faces and try to force acceptance...which shouldn't be a goal in the first place

Because gay people should be forced to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs quietly, and hope that someone finally takes pity on them. Because God forbid they go out and protest for what they believe in and try to get equal rights, or just you know, go out to meet other gay people.

And well, it's not as if straight people don't point out their sexuality. I doubt a lot of people do it on purpose. You're telling me you've never see a girl and said to someone "Corr, she's a bit of alright?" (or whatever you Americans say on the subject) or talked with a friend about liking someone. :hmm:


Voting against gay marriage is not problematic. That is someone making a choice to influence law making because of their beliefs. As I explaining...disliking homosexuality (and in this case gay marriage) does not mean you dislike gay people. I have things against gay marriage (and voted against it) and it has nothing to do with disliking gay people.

"Hey, I like you, but I'm only to purposely try and rule out one of the things in life that could really happy. Er, have a nice life, despite the fact that you living together versus you being married won't make much of a difference to me anyway."

[Katari]

Nephilim: Okay, so I can't prove that people are not born gay, because I'm not gay myself. That's fair; I can't disprove, say, evolution, either, because I wasn't there to say yea or nay.

Queen Elizabeth can say what she wants. I cannot deny the existence of homosexuality and be considered a sane, level-headed human being. As you rightly said, there are no studies that prove we're all born straight.

My sister feels that gays should be allowed to get married, simply because "they're going to do it whether they're married or not." But I remember reading studies where gays were "rehabilitated" (the study's term, NOT mine) into being straight. I'll try and dig it up if anyone wants to see. If they truly born gay, how could they become straight without seriously messing up their mental state?

And what about the gays here in America that want to kill Christians like myself, just because they think we all want to destroy them? I read an incredible quote about, among other things, ripping out the hearts of cowardly straights. Now, I don't lump any of you in that category, certainly, but what are we to do about them? If we give them a special protection, will this 5-10% of fanatical gays become even more angry? When they're the ones who say this about us, why should we be naturally inclined to feel kindly toward them? Of course everyone must be judged by their individuality, though.

Some also feel that gays play the "gay card" too often, wanting special treatment because they are gay. Well, why shouldn't I demand special treatment for being straight? Because it's selfish and spoiled, for one thing. And because, if no one is considered equal, then we're in big trouble as a world.

Oh, and Neph, I would like to see that study which says that no one is 100% straight or 100% gay. 'Twould be an interesting read.

[Only-now]

This thread is already going to go WAY off topic, I can see that. Not to mention, gays are not the ONLY group of people agianst which hate crimes are commited.

Anyways...first, I will state AGAIN..I am not "intolerant" of gays. I don't make fun of them, or shun them, etc. Gay people can exist, talk, live, and be with one another..and it is fine by me. Whether you want to believe me or not is up to you...but I am stating that once more.

Gays ask for toleration...not that we all like them (nor should we have to). We can dislike whomever we want for whatever reason we wish to. Most people DO tolerate gay people...the government does as well. Now...since they have gotten toleration, they want acceptance. There is not a problem in wanting it....everyone wants to be accepted...but you cannot force people to accept you..and they shouldn't ever HAVE to accept you. That is societies choice alone. So...can I tolerate gays and still vote agianst gay marriage? Yes! I believe gay marriage is bad for society...it is bad to change this tradition that has lasted since the beginning of civilization unchanged, and I believe it will lead to more demands (seeing as civil unions weren't good enough for gays because it wasn't called marriage *sighs*). I have plenty of reasons (non-religious too mind you) why I do not think gay marriage is good for society...nor do I need a reason other than my own feelings (if that were the case). I still however..tolerate gays and have nothing against them...so yes it IS possible if you set your sights where they need to be.

Liking someone is based on the individual. I think that racism and homophobia are a bit different. Being black or white, etc...is an external feature that is constantly present. Someone who dislikes this always has to deal with just seeing it, and it constantly being there. Thus..they would never even come in contact with a potential friend who has these external features they dislike. They would never meet a person, and then find out they were black or white afterwards...nor is being black or white something that is seperate from friendships etc (afterall, it is how you look).

Being gay however, is an internal feature..that no one can pick up on unless you tell them, or make it obvious yourself. So...you can meet someone, get to know them and like them...and then find out they are gay. Also...being gay is a sexual preference...it is something that matters to someone who is your mate, or you are interested in (and who is also gay). It is not important to being friends with someone, nor in liking that person for thier mind, spirit, advice, creativity, etc. I am in no way saying that someone who is gay..and has a non-gay friend who doesn't agree with homosexuality should hide it if they don't want to...but even if you don't...it doesn't mean that your friend has to accept it in order to be your friend. I don't see how that is a hard concept to get. Me being straight is not all of who I am..and anyone here would laugh at someone if they disliked someone for being straight (or gay for that matter). So...obviously you dont think being gay makes you who you are....or do you..because you are saying both depending on which one benefits your argument.

Now...onto the whole showing of being gay. I never said I was against protests...or against them trying to get more rights etc...but what purpose does a gay pride parade have? That doesn't protest anything but the fact that society doesn't accept you...which once agianst shouldn't be expected. That only tries to force your "culture" and lifestyle upon people who have to make the choice to accept it themselves. The same goes with people who talk with the feminine voice, or dress in a way that makes is obvious. What is the point? Why does that benefit you to make everyone around you aware of your sexual preference? Just because you are different, you have to make it obvious to us all? You are using a comment on who someone is attracted to and comparing it with marching down a street in tight leather half naked? Those aren't even close. You would have to compare it to a gay person saying something about who they were attracted to...which is perfectly fine. If straight people went marching down the street half naked in leather to promote being straight...I would call them an idiot too. Talking about who you like as a straight person is not the same as dressing in a skirt and talking with a feminine voice JUST to promote that you are gay. The comment is obviously much more innocent and normal (as would be a comment by a gay person about who they like) than the latter. Not to mention, we need not forget that the majority of people are straight...so the level of action needed to express ones sexual preference would be greater since it is already assumed that most people are straight. You can be gay and be happy with it..that is fine...but why exactly do you HAVE to make sure that I know it? A complete stranger with no hand in your life? It annoys me very much so.

Oh, and one thing about the gay marriage I found interesting in your last post there Neph:

".....despite the fact that you living together versus you being married won't make much of a difference to me anyway." Alright..now that that "me" in there..and change it to a "you". Being married versus living together won't make much of a difference to gay people either (as apparently they don't care about the rights..since when you try to give those to them seperately, they refuse). The only purpose by these few active gays (most gay people don't even care about gay marriage) is to destroy the establishment/tradition/religious values of marriage methinks.

~Kiva

[Katari]

STL: Okay, fine, but have you made an active, conscious effort at becoming straight? If not, how do you know that you were born with it? All that would mean is that being gay is the only thing you've tried yet. I know, this arguement can go the other way, too: you could say that since I've never tried being gay, I don't know if I was born straight. But would that not prove I'm born 100% straight?

However, statistics show that the broad majority of people are heterosexual. With that being the case, and if being gay is an inborn thing, why are more people not born with it? Please explain that to me.

Only-now: I'm not sure if it was me you were accusing of using both sides of the coin, whichever worked for my arguements, but if so: I'm struggling here to keep my personal feelings out of this discussion as much as I can -- to be tolerant, and yet not abandon my views entirely. If that leads to talking out of both sides of my mouth, then maybe I shouldn't be taking part at all.

[Nephilim]

Only-Now: Haha, okay. I'd love to meet these estabishment destroyin' gays sometime, really I would. But not make a difference? Sure. But then why do straight people want to get married? Straight people living together and being married won't make a difference by that logic. Your reasons for marrying aren't going to change whether it's a man or a woman: you do it out of love and committment, and occasionally for money. I don't believe that most gays don't "care" about getting married (even if they don't want to personally, they still may support the idea because friends and family would want to) but then again, we are in a generation where a lot of people don't 'believe' in marriage, regardless of sexuality.

Re: men in skirts. Why can't men wear skirts? Women wear men's clothes. Unless, you know, all Scotts are gay now all of a sudden or something.

Katari: Re: rehab study. I've seen a lot about this too, and it's very controversial indeed. A lot of it's done by fundies, and as such it's sometimes put down to brainwashing, people not being gay in the first place (either being straight and experimenting or bisexual) or just a plain hoax for propaganda purposes. I mean, if you're lectured, scared and want it enough, influential people can be convinced of pretty much anything within reason. I'm very... skeptical of these cases. (Besides, wasn't it only something like less than 1% of the subjects who were "cured?")

Some gay people want to kill Christians. Some straight people want to kill Christians. Some Christians want to kill gay people. Some Christians want to kill straight people. The important word is "some," and these people are just idiots making their side look bad. Quotes are bad things to go by, because I can pick out a handful of anti-gay quotes too, but at the end of the day it's simply one person's view:

?[Homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.?

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
All that is required to disprove a theory is one counter-example.

Your theory is that gay people are not born gay.

I am gay, and I know perfectly was that I didn't choose to be gay - I was born this way ^_^ ...

Is that good enough for you? Or are you going to take the view that somehow you know me better than I know myself :p ?

Ask a Geneticist:http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

:hakuna:

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Katari
STL: Okay, fine, but have you made an active, conscious effort at becoming straight? If not, how do you know that you were born with it? All that would mean is that being gay is the only thing you've tried yet. I know, this arguement can go the other way, too: you could say that since I've never tried being gay, I don't know if I was born straight. But would that not prove I'm born 100% straight?
WTF?

You don't choose your sexuality, it is determined by the way you feel towards people of other genders. If STL likes males and dislikes females, then that means he's gay and nothing will change that other than if his views change, which is unlikely. You can't force yourself to become anything, it just happens. STL is gay, and he is happy like that, so why try and persuade him to give that up and become something he doesn't want to be? You may not like it, but then again, it's his life, not yours, so don't go meddling.

As the saying goes "if it aint broken, don't fix it". In other words, if people are happy being bi/gay, then leave them be and don't try to change them.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Tiikeri


As the saying goes "if it aint broken, don't fix it". In other words, if people are happy being bi/gay, then leave them be and don't try to change them.

Amen (and I mean that in a secular way). ;)

Kind of reminds me of the stories I used to hear about people trying to turn left-handed people into right-handed people...because the left hand is the hand of Satan, ya know.

*nodnods*

[Vekke]

Darkslash: I agree with you on most all points. The government should give equal protection to gays, straights, everybody. My dad says that we may not like what people do, but because we live in a free country, we must be willing to live and let live. [/B]

That's hypocrisy if I've ever seen it. You think gays should have equal protection but when they ask to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, to have custody of their child if their partner dies, anything like <i>that</i>, then oh no, it's bad. How does gay marriage affect you? Only thing it does is make sure that all human beings are truly equal.

Civil union doesn't necessarily give a person the same rights as someone who is married. And if it did, then why not <i>call it marriage?</i> Remember what happened last time people were "Seperate But Equal?"




My sister feels that gays should be allowed to get married, simply because "they're going to do it whether they're married or not." But I remember reading studies where gays were "rehabilitated" (the study's term, NOT mine) into being straight. I'll try and dig it up if anyone wants to see. If they truly born gay, how could they become straight without seriously messing up their mental state?

Newsflash: they DON'T. There's no way to prove someone has no more attractions to somebody of the same gender. They're probably repressing it. However, sexuality is fluid, and I think it's possible for some of these people to be happy with someone of the opposite gender. There are straight people who have suddenly found themselves attracted to someone of the same gender, and vice versa. gay and straight are not just black and white, I think a lot of people are at <i>least</i> incidentally gay or incidentally straight if they identify as gay. So maybe these "rehabilitated" people were so lucky . . . or maybe they're just lying to themselves. :\


Originally posted by Katari
[b]STL: Okay, fine, but have you made an active, conscious effort at becoming straight? If not, how do you know that you were born with it? All that would mean is that being gay is the only thing you've tried yet. I know, this arguement can go the other way, too: you could say that since I've never tried being gay, I don't know if I was born straight. But would that not prove I'm born 100% straight?

Sexuality can change. But it isn't conscious. Attraction doesn't work in such a way that you can start saying "I'm going to be attracted to this type of person" and it'll work. Too many people think gay people are attracted to anything of the same gender that moves, but that's not true. It's no different than straight people being attracted to people with, say, red hair. It's a <i>trait</i> someone has you find attractive. A gay person and a straight person are no different than a girl who likes really muscular guys and a girl who finds that idea repulsive and instead likes, maybe thinner guys.

There are so many people who found it hard to deal with their being gay. They try to repress it and then they try to be attracted to the opposite sex. But they probably never truly <i>stop</i> being attracted to people of the same gender.

I tried it for a while. I couldn't bear the idea that I was gay so I denied it until it was just unrealistic to do so. And then being gay became a part of my identity, so when I found myself attracted to a guy, I passed it off as an "incidental" attraction. But then it happened again. So I can't force myself into being completely gay rather than bisexual now either. I guess you could say I tried to make the "choice" to be completely gay and it <i>failed</i>.



Some also feel that gays play the "gay card" too often, wanting special treatment because they are gay. Well, why shouldn't I demand special treatment for being straight? Because it's selfish and spoiled, for one thing. And because, if no one is considered equal, then we're in big trouble as a world.

define "special" treatment, please?

[King Simba]

Originally posted by Katari
STL: Okay, fine, but have you made an active, conscious effort at becoming straight? If not, how do you know that you were born with it? All that would mean is that being gay is the only thing you've tried yet. I know, this arguement can go the other way, too: you could say that since I've never tried being gay, I don't know if I was born straight. But would that not prove I'm born 100% straight?
Nobody who chooses to be gay has to make an "effort" in being straight. If STL's sexual preference is in males and not females, then so be it. It's part of who he is and who he wants to be. It's not up to other people to go dictating to him and trying to persuade him to change his sexuality. It's like someone trying to persuade someone to like someone else, when they're not actually interested and/or showing any interest or what have you. If STL ever wanted to change his sexuality, then it's his choice, not yours or someone elses.

Anyhow, on the subject of hate crimes, I've heard of certain individuals being hated by straight people because of their sexuality. I think it's sad and stupid for others to hate and dislike people for their sexuality. They choose what they want to be, it's completely fine. It's nothing to do with anyone else, just the individual. I mean I'll never hate a gay person for their preferences. A lot of gay people (guys in particular) tend to be really wonderful and sweet people with a lovely personality, so there's no reason why anybody should hate them.


Well, I'm not going to endorse homosexuality, but no one, and I mean no one has the right to kill a homosexual just for being homosexual. Murder is murder is murder, as S0nique said.
Disliking someone who's gay is one thing, murdering them is another. I too, think it's completely wrong to do such a thing. It's bad enough murdering a straight person, but murdering someone who chooses to be gay is even worse, especially if it's for that only reason and that reason only.

[Stormfury]

I really don't think you can change your sexual preference1. I think it is an inherent trait. Being born a preference2 isn't my say, but the likeliness of it doesn't add up. Though I still believe to some extent that everyone may indeed have tendencies towards a multi-preference3 sexuality. It may be Nature's intentions to do so4.

</offtopicness>

[Katari]

After reading the views in this thread, some of which are irrenconciliable with my own, and having tried to put forth my views and failed, I feel there is nothing for me to do but leave this discussion. It's off-topic for one thing, and for another, I'm afraid that if I keep going, I'll either behave poorly (which I should not do) or betray my views (which I cannot do). I have given all posts thus far a careful consideration, and I hope some have done the same with my posts, such as they are.

I truly care about you all, whatever you may think of me, and I hope you'll all find happiness in your lives -- though I feel that true happiness comes only from God, not a sexual experience. Please don't mock me for that; mocking someone for religous beliefs is just as wrong as doing so for color of skin or sexual preference.

To the gays out there: I respect you all as human beings, and for having the gut to post your beliefs in a public forum. I wish that same loyalty could be found among those who believe as I do.

Please don't look down on me as a person for my beliefs...I don't wish to hurt anyone, and surely we're all mature enough not to be permanently offended by what others post on the internet.

I'm sorry that I couldn't have been more civil in my discussion, but I did the best I could on short notice and frayed nerves (and little sleep ;)). It just...didn't come out the way I wanted. And that's why I've decided to withdraw before I say the wrong things. I will continue to follow the posts, but I won't be replying, for your sakes and for my own.

See you all around.

Sam Groover/Katari

[Darkslash]

I will continue to follow the posts, but I won't be replying, for your sakes and for my own.
And there's no shame in that! That's what I tend to do after a while... it becomes futile -- nobody's convincing anybody.

I've learned quite a bit about hate crimes and fleshed out my stance on it, which is a positive outcome. I also know more about the other side of the issue, which strengthens my belief in mine.

It has been a civil discussion, which I can't say for most of the hot-button issues around here.

[Aurelian]

Can I just point out somthing that everybody seems to have overlooked?

Nobody can be born gay or straight. In fact every living creature in the entire world is born un-sexual, meaning not-sexually-active. Nobody even thinks about sex until that particula species puberty, which is when the hormones associated with "mating" activate.

As for the arguement of whether homosexuality is natural or manually choosen, I can not say, as I have never been homosexual. My being straight was not a mental choice, however. I never looked at photographs of the male and female body and said "I think I will live as a straight person". As far as I know, my sister, who is gay, never actively decided to be gay. She tried dating severel guys in her school years, but it never managed to get beyond casual friendship. When she first met her partner, it seemed to click pretty fast.




Katari: I'm a Christian - I too believe that true happiness comes from God. God made me the way I am - and he made me this way for a reason. God wants me to be happy, and wants me to feel like I'm a worthwhile person - he has given me the privilege of being alive, and has let me exist as one of his children.

I'm 100% positive that God doesn't want me to be sad; he loves me, and wants me to be happy. I don't feel any attraction to the opposite sex whatsoever, and I wouldn't feel happy with a female as my partner. God created me as a gay person; if he didn't want me to be gay, he simply wouldn't have made me this way to begin with!

God never makes any mistakes. However, humans do. The bible in my view is simply man's interpretation of the word of God, rather than God's exact word itself. That's why there are parts that contradict themselves, and silly things in there - about shellfish being an abomination and the like.

God is perfect - he simply wouldn't have made me this way if it was wrong, or if it was bad.

I both agree and disagree with that, STL. You are correct in saying that God doesn't make mistakes and made us how we are for a reson. However, God doesn't care all that much about our hapiness. He expects us to keep ourselves entertiened in this world. he is more concerened about our faith.

I don't think God wants you gay THAT much. I KNOW he doesn't want to torture my by creating me with Asperger's Syndrome. I believe that God made most of the population with flaws(Not nesseceraly homosexuality) with the hope that we would learn to be accepting and tolerant of different people. He wanted us to show we can help eachother. Whether or not homosexuality is one of these "flaws" he created, I don't know. I suppose if you are non-religious, it doesn't matter anyway.

Now, as Only-now wisely pointed out, this thread was about hate crimes, not gay rights. lets get back on topic.

[Only-now]

@ Katari - No, my comment wasnt to you about being doublesided..that is to those who are arguing for gays....in that they use it as a definition, but also argue against it being one depending on what benefits the particular argument they are having.

@ StL

The majority of what I said IS true, even if it isn't your experience. I see that you do that often...use your own experience to define what happens everywhere....isn't a good habit to get into. I will still go over your list though:

1) Alright...one I can point out the word "school" there. These are children...young people etc. They tend to be the most cruel and uncaring. They also make fun of people who have acne, or hate the "gothic" people...and don't like people simply because of the way they dress or look. All of those are examples of course..but relevant. They also can just be making fun of you to make fun of you and fit in themselves..not because they personally don't like gay people. It isn't justified but it is better than the alternative. Also...you only hear from the people who "hate" you. You don't hear from the people that don't...the people who are tolerating you which is the majority of your school I am guessing. Not to be mean or anything....but unless they specifically said they don't like you...or did something etc....and made it obvious it was because you were gay...you can't assume. You say some things that bother me...and I can't say we are friends...but it has nothing to do with you being gay. I have more to say on this, but it is getting long.

2) Notice I said "liking" someone....not "disliking". You can dislike someone much more easily than like someone...just like the saying it is easier to destroy than create. I am completely sure that people can dislike you because you are gay....but it is also possible for people to like you even though you are gay. Like and dislike have different bounds.

3) I highly doubt that they KNEW you were gay..and if they did, I highly suspect it was of your doing. I know you will directly compete with this, but I can simply state that I don't believe you. One..because if you were 11 and didn't know what "being gay" was (although I think most people were somewhat familiar with it) then I doubt your classmates would. Also this would be a new discovery...because this would mean that somehow, maybe magically, these people could tell you were gay without you having ANY difference in physical appearance, dress, etc from any other male....that is highly unlikely. So...i disagree with this because it is unlikely and I don't believe you.

4) You are contradicting yourself in #2 because you are now saying that people didn't like you even before they knew you were gay...which would mean that the people who dislike you, have disliked you regardless of your sexual preference (thus being your personality).

5) Again....somehow they must magically know you are gay (I can't say it is because of the way you speak, because in another number you say that is natural and isn't an expression of being gay) from the moment they meet you or you make a point of making sure they know you are gay. The only way this could be true is if you are living your sexuality in your habits, clothing, demeanor, and speech etc...thus annoying people...or turning them off...but then..that really is more your fault than theirs.

6) Despising someone is much more intense than disliking...or thinking something is distasteful. I hate to use him as an example...but when Jespah used to be on these boards...I was close friends with him..and he was gay. I can't say that I like homosexuality...but even though that was the case and is it still...I was still very close friends with him (and was when we met in person too. I started to dislike him for other reasons based on his personality. I doubt my case was rare (on a side note...you also couldnt tell he was gay from his look or talk..he was just a normal guy who happened to be gay).

7) I agree, it does come naturally to SOME people...but not to all people...and MANY gay guys talk that way. I would say a very small amount of people actually have that as their natural voice...so the majority of the time I am correct in that the person has purposely talked that way (to the point in which they then usually talk that way....the same goes with blacks using ebonics and then they continue to always talk that way). When you purposely go our of your way to make your sexuality a major part of your life...you can expect that people will be turned off by it because it is annoying to them, and put into the face of someone who is NOT intune or comfortable with that lifestyle. Straight people don't purposely make their sexuality known for that purpose. They do it naturally because the majority of people are straight..thus when talking about sex, or each other...it is automatically expressed. By expressed, I mean it is obvious it is there. The actual sexuality however is NOT expressed....straight people do not go out of their way to make sure everyone knows they are straight. This could be because it is assumed...but regardless...gay people have no reason to make it known purposely to anyone but potential "mates". So...when a gay person makes it know they are gay by dressing that way, talking feminine like, or making comments etc....they are doing it unnecessarily..and for the sole purpose of shoving their personal sexual preference out in the open where it doesn't need to be.

8) Yes..I already said talking about who you like as a gay or straight person is the same..it can be compared and both are alright....but you cannot compare a comment about who you like as a straight person with wearing leather and carrying whips etc. One is EXPRESSION...one is normal.

Also...about your last post. Something my dad suggested...with gays. Well...God does not say that homosexual people are bad...he says homosexual acts are. So...if he made us all..and you included..then maybe he intends for you not to participate in homosexual sex acts....as that is what the Bible actually states as being wrong. I havent answered the question on why God would make someone with those urges then...but it is an interesting topic.

@ Nephillim

I see what you are saying...and I will try my best to explain it. Men and women have been getting married for centuries...for love, money, better life, etc. It is a human tradition that has been carried on for a long time. Two people who love each other want to make the commitment to spend their lives together, and have God and society recognize them as such. Religiously...it is then assumed that since they are now married, they would be able to have sex...and thus produce children. The children are good for society as is the marriage and so the government gives them tax breaks, and incentives. This is why it is better for straight people to marry. Now....gay people, have NOT had the tradition of being married for thousands of years (and they have done just fine). They have existed since there have been humans as well. Religiously...God says that sex between two meen or two women is not right. Thus...marriage (which allows such because of the commitment towards that person) would not be needed since it is assumed that these people are not able to have sex (able if they are following this religion). If they are...then they are already sinning....so marriage wouldn't be important. Since they don't produce children..they wouldnt need incentives from the government either. As I said..they have also gone all this time WITHOUT intruding on marriage...so why now? I barely see any gays who want marriage because they want God to accept them as a couple...(you don't hear that as a reason). All is left is that they want the benefits...which we have tried to give them in civil unions but they refuse? Or..that they want to force society to accept them as a couple. They want to intrude on something that has been traditionally done within mainstream society (and supported by pretty much all mainstream religions) in order to force society to actually have to recognize two gay people being together. It isn't good enough that they can live their lives and no one intrudes on them and tells them they can't be gay, can't live together, etc (not saying individuals dont..but the government and society as a whole doesn't). It isn't enough they can have clubs, shows, and pretty much everything else. I want to ask..what are they getting from it, if God, and benefits aren't really important to them?

Now...I state again...most gays don't feel that way. Not that they don't want to get married...but I don't think most gays actually care much about that issue. I don't think they strive for marriage much...and if not many want to get married...then what is the point? I also ask..as this came up in my head...think on those religions. Why would pretty much ALL religions only recognize marriage between a man and a woman? Even if they are not from actual gods...but men...why would they only endorse that type of marriage....from so long ago? They weren't homophobes (as homoseuxality was widely practiced in many cultures in Europe and in ancient ones like Rome and Greece).

You know what I meant about men wearing skirts..and kilts aren't even close to what I was talking about..not to mention they are culturally significant (not like a gay teenager shaving his legs and wearing a denim skirt to gym class).

~Kiva

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Roquivo
Nobody even thinks about sex until that particula species puberty, which is when the hormones associated with "mating" activate.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong about this. Puberty is not when sexual behaviour begins, simply when people become more "aware" of their urges, so to speak.

Children are capable of reflexive sexual responses from birth; for example, male children are able to get erections, female children are able to experience vaginal lubing, and both are very common. Studies show that children as young as eight months will make thrusting pelvic movements, at a year will purposely stimulate themselves, and in many cultures are taking part systematic masturbation by the time they're around six. Around 50% of boys can reach orgasm by the age of three. Further cross-cultural evidence shows that in western cultures with a more uptight view of sex children will engage in "sex-play" with each other from about two(you know, playing House or Doctor, whatever) and in other cultures children who are able to observe sex between adults will happily engage in copulatory behaviour at around six.

Of course, there's a lot more to it than this, but I just wanted to pick out the few examples I remember and clear up that strange misconception: children most definitely are not asexual. Plus, there are also cases of going through puberty very early (the worlds youngest ever mother was five years old). I know one boy who had a full beard by the time he was eleven. ;P

[Nephilim]

[Double post to make my points clear, sorry.]

Kiva: Not everyone who gets married is religious. Christianity has not always "owned" marriage; when I get married, whether it is to a woman or a man, there will be nothing religious about it. Many people who get married don't have children, don't want children, or can't have children; does this mean they have less right to marry? In this day and age, people have sex when they wish to: I certainly haven't waited and have done no wrong by it, and in my mind marriage and sex aren't synonymous. A lot of people would agree, unless you're trying to tell me that straight couples all wait until marriage for have sex or children. If you think marriage is about sex that's a rather narrow minded view; you know, the whole “sex-is-not-love” deal. And as for God? Yeah, thousands of atheists and agnostics marry every year, so your whole point about the God and the Bible is completely rendered irrelevant by straight people, so there's no need to apply those theories of yours to gay people either.

The only thing I can read into you “traditions” is at the end of the day you just don't want change. Why introduce it now? Because now is probably the first realistic opportunity you've had as a society to do so – if you jump back just ten or twenty years ago, people were even less accepting than they are now. Slowly, things are leveling out and the playing field's becoming fairer, and you're not going to get (as much) abuse as you would in the past. It's not that people haven't wanted it in the past: it just hasn't been possible. And no, you know what? Living together isn't enough for some people, and just because you don't understand their feelings doesn't make marriage any less special or fulfilling for other people.

Also, I don't think you understand how homosexuality worked in the ancient world. As for religions in the past: while humans haven't completely past the whole “God-in-the-Sky” phase, there's been progress, and Hell, why do we need to stick to the past like that anyway? The more we learn, the smart we become, and therefore more understanding and tolerant. Old religions have died out, and so should their views.

And I can see why people wouldn't want "civil unions." Because it's not the same, no matter how you dress it up: just call it the same damn thing. I don't think women would have been happy if their right to vote was called “Women expressing an interest politics,” or interracial marriages were called “Cross-racial unions.”

As for wearing skirts? People can dress as they damn please, but if they turn up to gym in a skirt they're an idiot, plain a simple. I mean, come on – you can't do much more than walk in a skirt.

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Nephilim
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong about this. Puberty is not when sexual behaviour begins, simply when people become more "aware" of their urges, so to speak.

Children are capable of reflexive sexual responses from birth; for example, male children are able to get erections, female children are able to experience vaginal lubing, and both are very common. Studies show that children as young as eight months will make thrusting pelvic movements, at a year will purposely stimulate themselves, and in many cultures are taking part systematic masturbation by the time they're around six. Around 50% of boys can reach orgasm by the age of three. Further cross-cultural evidence shows that in western cultures with a more uptight view of sex children will engage in "sex-play" with each other from about two(you know, playing House or Doctor, whatever) and in other cultures children who are able to observe sex between adults will happily engage in copulatory behaviour at around six.

Of course, there's a lot more to it than this, but I just wanted to pick out the few examples I remember and clear up that strange misconception: children most definitely are not asexual. Plus, there are also cases of going through puberty very early (the worlds youngest ever mother was five years old). I know one boy who had a full beard by the time he was eleven. ;P

Wow! :scream: Just wow! I guess I don't get out much... Not that I ever had anybody to give me "The talk". Everything I know comes from what I learned on television and the internet. I probably have a lot to learn.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Roquivo
Wow! :scream: Just wow! I guess I don't get out much... Not that I ever had anybody to give me "The talk". Everything I know comes from what I learned on television and the internet. I probably have a lot to learn.

Hehe, I wouldn't worry too much about not knowing. When we began looking at this in psychology a few years ago some people actually protested about it, even when presented with proof. :ayecapn: I guess our society just likes to paint children as asexual innocents.

[Only-now]

@ Neph:

I was not claiming that those religious reasons and what I mentioned about God were the sole purpose as to why people get married. Maybe I made a mistake in explaining well enough. I was trying to explain various aspects of marriage and how they relate to one another...as well as how gay marriage is different. I know that not every individual or couple wants to get married for religious reasons...also...you cannot say that religion has not had a part in marriage. Not just Christianity (which I referred to simply because it is the most prominent in the US)...but many religions have something dealing with this. Marriage has a religious aspect to it to those that view it in that light. It also has social, economic, and other arms and legs that extend into society. Religion is part of marriage just like other areas..it is up to the couple as to why it is desirable. Nonetheless, a gay marriage is still not the same in those areas as the type that has been going on for centuries. It does not produce the same economic, social, or religious values that the normal one does.

I can't know what gays feels about marriage...and I struggle to understand WHY they want it. I was trying to point out that many of the advantages and things that straight couples look for in marriage is not there, or is completely different in a gay marriage. When people say it is because they love one another...well, that can be true..but you get married because you love someone..not to start loving them. Marriage does not change people's affections..it is supposed to express them..and it does because it is either God, society etc (depending on your reasoning) recognizing you. So..as I said..I feel that gays want marriage because they want society to accept them. I don't think it is bad to want acceptance..but I don't think it is good to tamper with something like this.

I admit too..I don't feel like I want change. I am resisitant to it, because I myself don't see any need TO change it. I guess that comes with not being part of the gay movement there...but I also don't see any reasons from the outside, why it is so important for them to have such..when it seems to upset a lot of people.

I'm not holding on to old religions....Im showing from ones that exist now and did back then as well. You speak of the "God in the sky" thing as if we are somehow ignorant...or that is an uneducated point of view. I have to disagree..but if I post anymore I will write too much..and my food is cold. I'm just gonna read some posts from now on....StL rubbed me the wrong way with a comment, so I would prefer to just watch for a while. My point of view in all of this is being written as is now...as I learn more and such, I think I will be exposed to more and maybe...hopefully...come up with a nice understanding of the world. (just rambling..that last part is).

~Kiva

[Vekke]

Originally posted by Roquivo
Can I just point out somthing that everybody seems to have overlooked?

Nobody can be born gay or straight. In fact every living creature in the entire world is born un-sexual, meaning not-sexually-active. Nobody even thinks about sex until that particula species puberty, which is when the hormones associated with "mating" activate.


Nephilim has already replied to this, but I'd like to state that I've felt attraction to women from a prepubescent age (like when I was about 6 or something). So yeah, I was born with pretty much similar attractions to what I have now. Just never realized what it actually was until I got older. Actually, I think a lot of gay people realize in hindsight that they've pretty much always been attracted to members of the same sex.


Originally posted by Only-now

5) Again....somehow they must magically know you are gay (I can't say it is because of the way you speak, because in another number you say that is natural and isn't an expression of being gay) from the moment they meet you or you make a point of making sure they know you are gay. The only way this could be true is if you are living your sexuality in your habits, clothing, demeanor, and speech etc...thus annoying people...or turning them off...but then..that really is more your fault than theirs.
...
7) I agree, it does come naturally to SOME people...but not to all people...and MANY gay guys talk that way. I would say a very small amount of people actually have that as their natural voice...so the majority of the time I am correct in that the person has purposely talked that way (to the point in which they then usually talk that way....the same goes with blacks using ebonics and then they continue to always talk that way). When you purposely go our of your way to make your sexuality a major part of your life...you can expect that people will be turned off by it because it is annoying to them, and put into the face of someone who is NOT intune or comfortable with that lifestyle. Straight people don't purposely make their sexuality known for that purpose. They do it naturally because the majority of people are straight..thus when talking about sex, or each other...it is automatically expressed. By expressed, I mean it is obvious it is there. The actual sexuality however is NOT expressed....straight people do not go out of their way to make sure everyone knows they are straight. This could be because it is assumed...but regardless...gay people have no reason to make it known purposely to anyone but potential "mates". So...when a gay person makes it know they are gay by dressing that way, talking feminine like, or making comments etc....they are doing it unnecessarily..and for the sole purpose of shoving their personal sexual preference out in the open where it doesn't need to be.
So a person being bullied for not conforming to the gender stereotype is that person's fault? Sorry, but what if they are effeminate for the same reason some people dress in gothic style or preppy style-- because they LIKE to speak or dress that way? To say an effeminate gay man is asking to be bullied is very closed-minded. Maybe you believe there is a thick line between genders, but not all people do, so why say that everyone should fit within a little box that is completely a human invention? It's kind of asking someone not to be who they want to be, not so much as telling someone to supress their homosexuality, but it still is an unfair demand/request, all the same. "Men Don't Wear Skirts" is dictated nowhere in nature, and, to the best of my knowledge, Christian God didn't say so either.

Maybe you think homosexuality is immoral, maybe you think that men and women should act as society dictates, but you shouldn't ask others to do the same because it makes you or someone else uncomfortable. :\

And maybe not everybody on the street does it, but we have straight people, straight relationships shoved in our face every day. Turn on the TV. And it's automatically assumed people are straight, the reason why some gay people show that they're gay. To make people think outside of their heterocentrism. Or deter some members of the opposite sex from hitting on them. 8| I daresay that happens more to gay people than someone of the same sex hitting on a straight person.



I see what you are saying...and I will try my best to explain it. Men and women have been getting married for centuries...for love, money, better life, etc. It is a human tradition that has been carried on for a long time. Two people who love each other want to make the commitment to spend their lives together, and have God and society recognize them as such. Religiously...it is then assumed that since they are now married, they would be able to have sex...and thus produce children. The children are good for society as is the marriage and so the government gives them tax breaks, and incentives. This is why it is better for straight people to marry. Now....gay people, have NOT had the tradition of being married for thousands of years (and they have done just fine). They have existed since there have been humans as well. Religiously...God says that sex between two meen or two women is not right. Thus...marriage (which allows such because of the commitment towards that person) would not be needed since it is assumed that these people are not able to have sex (able if they are following this religion). If they are...then they are already sinning....so marriage wouldn't be important. Since they don't produce children..they wouldnt need incentives from the government either. As I said..they have also gone all this time WITHOUT intruding on marriage...so why now? I barely see any gays who want marriage because they want God to accept them as a couple...(you don't hear that as a reason). All is left is that they want the benefits...which we have tried to give them in civil unions but they refuse? Or..that they want to force society to accept them as a couple. They want to intrude on something that has been traditionally done within mainstream society (and supported by pretty much all mainstream religions) in order to force society to actually have to recognize two gay people being together. It isn't good enough that they can live their lives and no one intrudes on them and tells them they can't be gay, can't live together, etc (not saying individuals dont..but the government and society as a whole doesn't). It isn't enough they can have clubs, shows, and pretty much everything else. I want to ask..what are they getting from it, if God, and benefits aren't really important to them?


So if marriage is only for people who will have babies, what about childfree straight couples? Or infertile straight couples? Or older straight couples? Should they not be allowed to marry either?

And the idea that marriage is religious is a moot point. The fact that it's legally enforced and the fact that religion is not imperative in a marriage ceremony makes it so. Also, to allow same-sex couples to marry legally does not force any church to do so as well. Churches can do as they please when it comes to that topic.

Although I hope that someday every state in the US will grant gay people the exact same rights to marriage contracts as straight people, civil unions are a step ahead and I certainly won't complain if my state put them in place, even if they don't have all the rights of an actual marriage (which is what bothers me most, not only is it seperate, it's not equal either).

By the way, where have you been? Gay people are fighting like crazy for the right to marry. That's the reason why it's an issue in the first place. They want the right to marry, they want the state to recognize their family as such, they want that security if something happens.

Also, gay couples can have children. There is artificial insemination, adoption, and children from previous partnerships. Why, then, should they not be entitled to those same benefits any other family with children has?

Why now? Uh, okay. Why did interracial couples want to get married all of the sudden? They'd been around before that issue came up, so why did they want it THEN and not before?

Because before, gay people were not allowed to even gather in public. Fighting for equal rights isn't an overnight process. First people had to stop burning gays at the stake. Later, we had Stonewall. And until very recently, some states sentenced people to life in prison for having sex with someone of the same sex in the privacy of their own home. Do you think gay marriage was going to be such a big issue when even more basic rights were being infringed upon? Even now, we're still working on including homosexuality in discrimination laws; there are still states where people can fire a person because they are gay.

One more question. Why does the idea of gay people marrying bother you so much? Nobody will be telling you to have a gay marriage. You won't even have to go to one. It won't affect you in any way. If you were to vote on a poll asking whether to legalize gay marriage, would it be that much of an effort to check the box only millimeters away from the one you would initially check, just so that people can be free to live life as they choose? Or if you couldn't even bring yourself to do that, couldn't you pass the box by? Maybe you disagree with gay marriage. There are things people do I don't like, that make me uncomfortable, but I will defend their right to do so as long as it can't potentially impact myself or others in a negative way.

Edited because BBCode is evil and < HTML. >C

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Katari
I feel that true happiness comes only from God,

God Himself would concur that happiness comes from the heart; not just from Him.

---

There are manifestations or subliminal messaging from religious anarchy that enthuse/stimulate the hate-crime psyche. People use God or their deity to invoke or help inane hate crimes. There are those who use "in the name of" -I had to do it because He said so, or it was His will. The Bible teaches that God Doesn't Interfere! Or at least that's one interpretation. It is those excuses that make a man a coward, and someone who isn't true to theirself and to God. There isn't really no relevancy to hate crimes, except^ a downward spiral of hate and imprisonment.

I think the biggest hate-crime of all time would be a man being God Himself and afflicting said circumstances: for example, I believe someone mentioned a_ European Holocaust. Given the enormity; one could be truly a monster from Hell.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Hitler_ueber_Deutschland_1932.jpg

[Nephilim]

Kiva: Well, pretty much everything you said came back to God. And you will also note that no where in my post did I say religion and marriage have nothing to do with each other; I simply said they weren't exclusive to one another. And personally, I do not see how these economic, social or religious values are any different. I don't see why you have to go so deep into the hows and whys of marriage either.

What's so hard to accept the fact that people get married because they want to?

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Katari
SpiritWolf77:
As far as being gay vs. choosing to be gay goes, well, I feel that nobody is born gay. If you can show me a study where that is proven, then I'll recant,
It's not been proven that it is 100% certainly an inborn trait, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting genetics do play a role:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm


but homosexuality, to me, is a personal choice, not the whim of some cosmic force (meaning God). Saying that someone is born gay is simply a means of making them not responsible for their actions. Now, attraction is a different story. While no one is born gay, they can develop those tendencies and attractions based on their own personalities and/or events in their life.
Being gay is not a choice. If you believe it is, then I challenge you to choose to become attracted to someone you were previously not attracted to via active decision. Yes, actions are a choice. But then you're simply saying it's wrong for gay people to act on their feelings with no clear basis for this reasoning. For example: Pedophiles probably do not choose to be attracted to children. Obviously, just because you don't choose to be a certain way doesn't make it right. Pedophilic feelings may not be a choice, but pedophillic actions are obviously extremely wrong. There are piles of scientific evidence supporting the emotional trauma abused children experience.

However, there is no scientific evidence that a consenting relationship between two adults of the same sex causes emotional trauma.

The ONLY argument anyone has against homosexuality is from the religious perspective. Now, I'm not saying religious arguments are invalid, but the problem with this one is that there's very little Biblical evidence to actually support this argument. I'm going to copy and paste what I said on this topic in another thread here:


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
And on the subject of Christianity condemning homosexuality, there are (as far as I know, it's been a while since I read the whole Bible in full) only two Biblical passages which allude to this.

The first is Leviticus 18.22:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Of course, various portions of Leviticus also say the following:
"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

And:
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

So unless you also never cut your hair/shave and never eat ham/bacon, and believe it is wrong to do these things, condemning homosexuality based on Leviticus is hypocritical. Why accept only one portion of it as true and not the others?

The other passage that is cited as proof of God's opinion of homosexuality is Sodom and Gomorrah. However, if you have read the passage, you will note there is a rather extensive description of the many sins these people committed, but nothing that is clearly specifically suggesting homosexuality is one of those condemnable sins. It can be interpreted that way, but that is only one interpretation and not necessarily the correct one. You can read about the various interpretations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorra

It can be debated that the passage condemns homosexuality, but it is not proven and I don't feel it's a strong enough argument that so many Christians should be steadfastedly condemning it.

Anyway, I am very pleased to hear that despite your personal feelings on the matter, you do not consider it right to force those beliefs upon others. I am still going to debate my reasoning for why I feel it's unnecessary to even be against homosexuality in the first place though. Hope you don't mind. ;)


Originally posted by Only-now
The only purpose by these few active gays (most gay people don't even care about gay marriage) is to destroy the establishment/tradition/religious values of marriage methinks.
And where, may I ask, does this "informed" opinion of yours come from? Have you taken a survey of a large percentage of the gay population of the world, ans asked them how they feel about marriage? Because most of the gay people I know do hope they can get married some day, because just like a lot of people, they see marriage as an important commitment in life.

Your "Gay Agenda" theory is pure paranoid propaganda. Why in the world would they want to do that?

You also seem to be basing a lot of your assumptions on gay people on overdone stereotypes. Do you actually know any gay people? Not all of them crossdress. Homosexuality and transvestiteism, or homosexuality and transgenderism, are not the same thing. Some gay people are transvestites or transgender, but they can most certainly be mutually exclusive. Not a single one of my gay friends is a transvestite.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
8) Um, I never said you could. But things like the voice are natural, and can't be changed.
That's actually technically incorrect. A person's voice is affected by the structure of their vocal chords, but also by their influences. Otherwise accents wouldn't exist.