Hate Crimes

[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"? I think it says very clearly in my profile that I am male.

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/rainbo...te_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.

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 ?

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

[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*