Jump to content

Home

What rights should homosexuals have?


mur'phon
 Share

what rights should homosexuals have  

53 members have voted

  1. 1. what rights should homosexuals have

    • The same rights as heterosexuals
      40
    • The same rights, except for adoption
      4
    • The same rights, except for mariage and adoption
      5
    • They should get the same rights, once they are "cured"
      3
    • other
      1


Recommended Posts

I know, thats why I said,"Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state?"

 

Gays can live where ever they want. Federal anti-discrimination laws say so. Some states simply don't recognize gay marriage liscenes. Ie: it says, "well, over there you are married, here you are not".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know I guess that I will say it again...

Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state? Because the state's political...people, I guess... think that it is for the most part wrong, otherwise they would let them reside in that state.

Might not have been the best way to say it, but that is what I said. I fully know that gays can live where ever they want to, but if they decide to get married they can only live in several states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I guess that I will say it again...

 

Might not have been the best way to say it, but that is what I said. I fully know that gays can live where ever they want to, but if they decide to get married they can only live in several states.

 

No, that's WRONG. They can only get married in a few states. And only several states recognize gay marriages. They remain married, and as soon as they move out of the state that does not recognize their marriage to one that does, they will be considered married again.

 

Yes, if they want to remain considered married, they are limited in choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God may have said homosexuality is wrong, however, He still hasn't said that Homosexuals are wrong. Remember the whole: Hate the sin, love the sinner?

Destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

 

And your prior biblical quotes were in reference to punishing sinners. Judgement in that case is supposed to be reserved to God. However the bible also says to respect the laws of the land. Thus acknowledging the place of law in serving judgement of its own. This in turn gives US as people of the land the ability to pass judgement as well.

 

By the bible, homosexuality is wrong. It also says that they should be judged by the people to be wrong. However, it also states that masturbation is wrong and prostitution isn't(it is better to cast thy seed unto the belly of a whore than to spill it upon the ground).

 

Don't get me wrong, the bible is a pretty good place to get morals, but it isn't very practical in every case. Many who follow the bible aren't really aware of how they are not following it in its entirety.

 

The New Testament actually isn't the worst offender on contradictions, but it is the easiest to find. Much of it is explaining how it isn't a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. That being said, I don't think marraige itself falls within the sphere of government regulation; it's a purely religious affair. I think all marraiges should be "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, and marraige should be left to the inividual and his/her religion. Furthermore, I think civil unions should be available to any group of people who want to merge their assets, whether it's a married couple, an entire extended family, or even a commune. All these should only be entered into voluntarily, of course, and should be able to be voluntarily left.

 

 

I support this message! Very well put indeed!

 

 

I said i meant no offense Web Rider.

I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...

 

 

You know, I've seen much more disturbing things in Pentecostal worship services than men dressing up as women....but that is merely a personal matter. What I find atrocious is the idea that someones rights should be restricted on the basis of someone else's comfort level. And that brings up another point. I wish anti-gay/homophobes would just admit this truth to themselves. Their stance is based less on religion and more on gut instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...
So in our world of terrorism, global warming, horror flicks, wars, torture and other gruesome features... a couple of cross-dressers is what you're the most afraid of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with those saying it really shouldn't be the most horrific thing. At least to me it is far down the horrific scale. You must not get the premium channels. Funny thing is that a majority of cross dressers are in fact straight males with a fetish for women's clothes(you'll just have to trust me on my sources, because I have worked "in the industry" for a while). The majority of gay males tend to enjoy wearing mens clothing. Heck, J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser. I even knew one full on female impersonator that was married(to a very lovely woman I might add). Funny thing is most rock stars wear women's clothing on stage. I understand your confusion though. At one time it was considered wrong for a woman to wear men's clothing. Strangely enough, men wearing dresses isn't very new. The taboo on it comes from those stereotypes of gay men wearing women's clothing.

 

If I were to run down the list of gay and bi-sexual men in film and TV, you might be shocked to learn just how many of them there are... I mean even George Takae(aka Sulu or Hiro's dad) is gay.

 

Oh and +1 on John Galt's proposal. I agree with it 100% Marriage is a religious thing. The government can only control Civil Unions without impeding on religious ground.

 

aside: I want my rainbow back. Can the GLBT community pick a new symbol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stateed my opinion of this and i will not change it. and when i said it was the most horrific thing i'd ever seen that was rhetrical or whatever the word is. maybe a better word is it was revolting? (sorry for blutness in words, i see no other way to fully establish my veiws without such words though, even though that isn;t bad language)

i realize terrorism and other things are much bigger things than homosexuality in the sense of being horrific. i'm not actually really afraid of anything, except for havign a slow, gruesome, painful death. but death itself i am not afraid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then....

 

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

 

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then....

 

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

 

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

Thank you.

 

Thank you.

 

That make me laugh so hard I nearly choked. Thank you for making my day.

 

On a serious note:

 

Don't try to play off that you were right and the world is after you and your beliefs when you obviously read a paragraph wrong and do not want to admit it. You read it wrong and tried to use it as proof to back up your arguement and found out that you were wrong, and instead of admitting it like a good debator you simply state that the proof is there but we simply cannot see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then....

 

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

 

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

As an internet detective working for the FBI, I will be looking into this matter personally as I believe that the APA site may have been a victim of an anti-Christian hacker organization based in Montana. I will also be questioning this "Rouge Nine" privately as I believe he may have vital information concerning this particular attack.

 

You can rest assured the FBI will not stop until this cyber-bandit is brought to justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true_avery: what the heck is your problem?

jeez. this debating is really starting to get me hot-tempered over all the people making me mad (mad/hot-temped in use of as a lighter word thna i wish to say)

jmac7142: that's not funny.

 

okay. i admit i read it wrong. happy?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then....

 

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

 

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

 

In the 1970's the DSM IV(that's 4 in Roman numerals), classified Homosexuality as a mental disorder, based on a hormonal imbalance. During the 1970's much more research was done into homosexuality and it was agreed that homosexuality was not caused by a hormonal imbalance. The DSM IV has reflected this change since...the 1970s.

 

So unless you were reading from an old psychology book, the APA has not said homosexuality was caused by a hormonal imbalance for some 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm just kind of gettign tire dof these debates. allt hey do is make me mad now. but it's like i'm addicted to debating here. it's just starting to make me P-offed at everyone.

Lets see...

 

You have not given any actual facts to back up your opinions but the claims that you are right and we are all wrong. That is not debating. That is throwing your ego around trying to hit as many people as possible with it.

 

Any apparent evidence you have given has been non-existent, wrong, or claimed by you to be true with nothing solid behind it. Debating is presenting your opinion with proof to back up your claim from books, the Internet, etc.

 

So far you have done a good job of "I hve a religon, I beleive it is hey only tru relgion", throwing everybody else's evidence out the door or manipulating other opinion's proof into your own argument by twisting words.

 

And please, work on your spelling. A spell check takes about 5 minutes to download and it is really hard to take someone seriously when they have no concept of a full sentence.

 

This applies to not only this thread, but all other threads you have made in Kavar's Corner. You make wild claims and outright punches at other people's religions with absolutely no regard for their personal feelings, and their right to their opinion. You are right, and screw everybody else.

 

I am normally a person who sees an opinion and can understand the viewpoint and allow myself to say "They have a right to their opinion", but I cannot and will not respect someone who makes the claims and accusations you make.

 

And with that, good day!

 

~snipped~

 

The 'cute' pictures are flame-baiting, True_Avery, please avoid those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see...

 

You have not given any actual facts to back up your opinions but the claims that you are right and we are all wrong. That is not debating. That is throwing your ego around trying to hit as many people as possible with it.

 

Any apparent evidence you have given has been non-existent, wrong, or claimed by you to be true with nothing solid behind it. Debating is presenting your opinion with proof to back up your claim from books, the Internet, etc.

 

So far you have done a good job of "I hve a religon, I beleive it is hey only tru relgion", throwing everybody else's evidence out the door or manipulating other opinion's proof into your own argument by twisting words....

 

...You make wild claims and outright punches at other people's religions with absolutely no regard for their personal feelings, and their right to their opinion. You are right, and screw everybody else.

 

 

 

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Fundamentalism! :sign2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm just kind of gettign tire dof these debates. allt hey do is make me mad now. but it's like i'm addicted to debating here.

There is an easy way to resolve this.

1) Admit defeat and give credit to superior debaters. If you cannot win the debate, simply admit you were wrong, and move on.

2) RESEARCH YOUR OWN SOURCES!!! Don't demand proof from us when you have not given us a single valid piece of evidence in support of your views and "facts"

3) Choose a topic you can defend well. Become an expert in what you are debating. If you are too broad, it makes the debate too hard to keep track of.

4) Spell check is your friend. It is hard to tlak to soemnoe siriusly if tehy cna nto understnad waht yuo are sayign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to address the topic from a different angle.

 

What I want to ask is, "why do you think your views should be imposed on others?" It's perfectly fine to have opinions and make decisions on what sorts of things you want in your life, but why do you feel it is good to force others to live according to your views? What do you think justifies telling others how they can or cannot live?

 

The whole ideal of America is one of freedom, "live and let live." Don't you think it goes against this to attempt to limit the lives of others, and for no better reason than the "ick" factor? Because, let's be honest here, the reason people oppose gay rights is not because, "it'll harm the children" or, "it'll destroy marriage!" It's because when people think of gays, all they think of is gay sex, and gay sex is icky, so we must oppose it!

 

Religious arguments regarding homosexuality only apply to members of that faith, not anybody else. By using a religion's position on sexuality (of any kind) to argue enforcement of same is to attempt to force others to follow/obey your faith. That works for theocracies, not republics.

 

Gays having rights won't affect heterosexuals at all. Marriage won't disappear, the economy won't collapse, the population won't die out, and children won't be scarred for life. I simply fail to see how someone can argue relegating someone to second-class citizenship and think themselves good for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...