Hate Crimes

[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 preference[SIZE=small]1[/SIZE]. I think it is an inherent trait. Being born a preference[SIZE=small]2[/SIZE] 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-preference[SIZE=small]3[/SIZE] sexuality. It may be Nature's intentions to do so[SIZE=small]4[/SIZE].

</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. 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.

[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.