100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Same Sex Marriage goes down in California ! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do?
Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exsist? It reminds me of the quakers that didnot believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can easily justify being for gay marriage, just as easily on can justify being against it. It seems to me, constantly harping on people that are against it, is not much different from harping on people that are for it. There is a pattern here. Is gay marriage really the issue? Being close minded is a huge issue in this country. Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem. If someone doesn't like homosexuality, fine. They should have no right to tell them they aren't allowed to do things though, because they don't believe in it or think it's normal. in regards to gay marriage...you say that " Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem."...ummmm...isn't it the other way around ?...I'm going to post an article by a good consevative writer...how makes some good points on this subject... No. I'm not saying you need to think the way I do or to change your beliefs. But, those beliefs are yours. Go to church if you'd like. Hang out with straight people if you'd like. But let others live their own lives without telling them what they want to do shouldn't be legal. I agree...I guess I just see it at as two differing opinions...and...two people with strong convictions...now...when it turns into unsolicited criticism, name calling, and advice...well...I think that's where it get's off the track...of reasonable debate and discussion... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can easily justify being for gay marriage, just as easily on can justify being against it. It seems to me, constantly harping on people that are against it, is not much different from harping on people that are for it. There is a pattern here. Is gay marriage really the issue? Being close minded is a huge issue in this country. Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem. If someone doesn't like homosexuality, fine. They should have no right to tell them they aren't allowed to do things though, because they don't believe in it or think it's normal. in regards to gay marriage...you say that " Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem."...ummmm...isn't it the other way around ?...I'm going to post an article by a good consevative writer...how makes some good points on this subject... No. I'm not saying you need to think the way I do or to change your beliefs. But, those beliefs are yours. Go to church if you'd like. Hang out with straight people if you'd like. But let others live their own lives without telling them what they want to do shouldn't be legal. I agree...I guess I just see it at as two differing opinions...and...two people with strong convictions...now...when it turns into unsolicited criticism, name calling, and advice...well...I think that's where it get's off the track...of reasonable debate and discussion... Of course, when you don't like it, it's unsolicited criticism. Where was the name calling, though? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can easily justify being for gay marriage, just as easily on can justify being against it. It seems to me, constantly harping on people that are against it, is not much different from harping on people that are for it. There is a pattern here. Is gay marriage really the issue? Being close minded is a huge issue in this country. Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem. If someone doesn't like homosexuality, fine. They should have no right to tell them they aren't allowed to do things though, because they don't believe in it or think it's normal. in regards to gay marriage...you say that " Sure, people can have their own beliefs, but when they want a whole group of people to conform to their beliefs, that's a problem."...ummmm...isn't it the other way around ?...I'm going to post an article by a good consevative writer...how makes some good points on this subject... No. I'm not saying you need to think the way I do or to change your beliefs. But, those beliefs are yours. Go to church if you'd like. Hang out with straight people if you'd like. But let others live their own lives without telling them what they want to do shouldn't be legal. I agree...I guess I just see it at as two differing opinions...and...two people with strong convictions...now...when it turns into unsolicited criticism, name calling, and advice...well...I think that's where it get's off the track...of reasonable debate and discussion... Of course, when you don't like it, it's unsolicited criticism. Where was the name calling, though? not in our case...I was generally speaking... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can think of a few...like...
try self control.. to protect children... it's against the law... And if I may be allowed to add another one....it's morally reprehensible. I'd like to see two men or two women try procreating on their own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people have spoken and decided same sex marriage can't happen in their state. Gays have taken to the streets in protest...if you were there, would you pick up a sign and protest with them...or tell them to "Shut up"...you should have got married when you had the chance ? All I have to say is PRAISE THE LORD! The most liberal state is coming to its senses!!!! LINDYY 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exsist? It reminds me of the quakers that didnot believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All a Christian has to do to know thr TRUTH is to read the Holy Bible....... For all others.....males & males and females & females CANNOT reproduce.........SOOOOOOOOOOOO where would the existance of mankind be if one were to follow the liberal views of homosexuality and lesbianism..... LINDYY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to what you said here: "i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered the norm in Socrates' time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? what harm does it do it harms no one so it needs not be wrong good it may make someone happy that is reason enough after all pursuit of happiness is a right as long as it hurts no one else pursuit of happiness is not the issue - that right is guaranteed [supposedly  ] i have no problem with anyone wanting to be or find happiness. nor am i arguing wrongness - I'm stating it cannot be called or accepted as marriage as to definition. If people want to love each other and live together forever, that's fine - but to try to extend their relationship to be a "marriage" is as wrong as two heterosexuals living together wanting to have the benefits of marriage without being so - they are NOT entitled to it either!! neither are they or hetero couples allowed to ADOPT, have any special tax breaks, etc. they are no more than a couple, marriage will always be defined as a right that exist between a man and a woman - and that's the issue. even in Greek times men did not marry men or women women. It has never been and never will be seen as marriage even if the name is attached falsely to it, it can be no more than a civil union, as it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All a Christian has to do to know thr TRUTH is to read the Holy Bible....... For all others.....males & males and females & females CANNOT reproduce.........SOOOOOOOOOOOO where would the existance of mankind be if one were to follow the liberal views of homosexuality and lesbianism..... LINDYY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sat 11/08/08 11:20 AM
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again, this is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindyy, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gays have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answer is clearly NO. if In socrates time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted those people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe Winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindey, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gys have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answers clearly NO. if In socraes time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted tohse people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. I agree with you! I just like to have factual proof when a declarative statement is made...."assumptions of fact" are pointless.... Lindyy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindey, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gys have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answers clearly NO. if In socraes time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted tohse people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. I agree with you! I just like to have factual proof when a declarative statement is made...."assumptions of fact" are pointless.... Lindyy
AGREED! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again, this is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindyy, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gays have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answer is clearly NO. if In socrates time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted those people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe Winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. In the ancient world there was no homosexuality because most people(especially men) were bisexual. In the times of Socrates,people believed that true love was only between men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again his is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to what you said here: "i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm." It was considered the norm in Socrates' time. In the time of Socrates,true love was something that only men engaged in with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what purpose or good does homosexuality do? Outside of sexual preference for the same sex, it serves no purpose for life itself. To me, this is not about rights, it's about life. let's say the whole world was gay, how long would humanity exist? It reminds me of the Quakers that did not believe in sex they saw it as wrong and needless to say in time they were no more. A gay world would be a short lived world as to humankind. If it were how things were meant to be - then it would be that way - don't you think? I can't explain homosexuality, i know it exist and has for thousands of years in all cultures therefore it can't be denied as to its happening. But i know of no civilized cultures that ever looked upon it as the norm or as a way to build civilization or family. I think its just a manifestation of sexual desire gone wrong. Again marriage was, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. If the country wants to make ""special provisions"" for others then it needs to be for all kinds of sexual preferences, not just homosexuals. unions would have to include unmarried heterosexuals in it also. It was considered normal in Socrates' time. then you and i have a disagreement as to what is considered "normal". If it was normal back then it only means it was acceptable within the entirety of the population, not that the majority of people were. Again, this is far different than the OP, which is talking of "Right to >>marriage<<" not as to it's acceptability. Go ahead, ask the individual where the posted information that it "was normal in Socrates' time" comes from..... Lindyy
sorry lindyy, i'm not trying to make this a religious contention, to me it's about "rights" do gays have a right to be in union with one another and call it a "marriage" - to me the answer is clearly NO. if In socrates time it was concidered "normal" all that means to me is they accepted those people who were attracted to one another as acceptable - BUT!!! - they did not MARRY one another, they were no more than a couple, i will have to look to see how rampant this was or maybe Winx as you say can give me her source for her statement - post it please. In the ancient world there was no homosexuality because most people(especially men) were bisexual. In the times of Socrates,people believed that true love was only between men.
 Mirror
Lindyy |
|
|
|
|
