...Yes, that's why I said constitutionally forward thinking. I won't pretend for one moment that just because it's written law in a place like South Africa that it's enforced and defended without fail. Unfortunately, only a very small part of South Africa is made up of modern cities. The rest of the country is indeed third world, and poverty stricken.
I don't like seeing gay. I don't care about people being it, but I don't like seeing it. I don't like how gays preach "tolerance" but are themselves completely intolerant of anyone's viewpoints but their own. No different than anyone else, I guess - they're interested in forwarding the gay agenda and what I or anyone else wants want doesn't really matter.
Look at it from the other perspective your gay you turn on TV how many gay story lines are there other than story lines just to make the show edgy. Listen to the radio and how many pop songs have a guy singing about another guy? Walk down the street how many gay couples do you see walking hand in hand compared to straight? Pretty much every aspect of everyday life including the media is screaming straight straight straight at you, you rarely see anything gay. It's pretty simple if you "don't like seeing gay" if you're watching Will & Grace switch over to another of the 5000 channels that are showing straight story lines, don't attend a gay pride event which you'll have to watch out for once a year and don't watch the gay film of the year like Brokeback Mountain because for every Brokeback Mountain there is millions of Romeo and Juliets for you to choose from. The pragmatics of the word agenda is hysterical, gay people do not all meet up in a bunker and plot the worlds downfall contrary to Fox news' opinion. By "completely intolerant of anyone's viewpoints" I fail to see who you are talking about other than religious organisations and lets be honest they started it with the whole your living in sin and you're an abomination, you'll burn in hell for all eternity, It's not really surprising that the two groups often don't see eye to eye.
They're only being intolerant of intolerance itself. Like I said in the other thread, you can't be bigoted against bigotry. They only people gays oppose as a whole are people who oppose gays. Who's the real narrow minded group here? The group that says "You people are wrong and sick and can't get married" or the group that says "'scuse me, but we can do whatever we want, leave us alone okay?"
To clarify my earlier statement, I reserve the right to not like something and the right to say it. Finances aside, this isn't anyone else's planet any more than it is mine. If you believe you don't have a stake in the world, it belongs to everyone else, and they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do and like, I wish you well with that. It's not how I feel. Yet I have to fight for the simple right to not like something. To call my distaste for seeing guys kiss and other gayness "bigotry" is extreme and exactly how a gay would handle it. You can't just not like gay stuff - you're a homophobe or a bigot or whatever the screw ever... it's wonderful. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's inflammatory. Then the accused spends most of his time backpedalling, "explaining himself further" and apologizing rather than stating his opinion and being heard. The point is what bugs me, not only with gays but with other groups, it's never a simple case of "I want my due" for some reason. I could live with that, you know? Okay, gays want a legal, recognized union, give them one, end of story, blessed be. But no. They had to have it just like the churches - they had to change the existing marriage standard in place. It's a case of "I want mine and you can't have yours." And yet somehow, Lord Have Mercy, I still spend more time getting flack from heterosexuals for stating my opinions on this than I ever will from gays. :nope:
I most certainly did not call that reaction "bigotry". I don't like seeing gay guys go at it any more than the next guy. I'm pointing out that homosexuals aren't being narrow minded in pursuing the marriage. This is because most of the time in these situations, "the accused" didn't say "well, I don't really like seeing gays kiss, but if that makes 'em happy, more power to them, right?" they most likely screamed "faggot" at the top of their lungs and was accidentally overheard by someone who isn't a bigot/moron/frat boy. No, it isn't. It's quite the oposite, in fact. What in the name of your mystical invisible sky giant does gays getting married take away from you? How is it you "not having yours"? Oh, I'm sorry, is it robbing you of your ability to tell a group of people how they can and can't live their lives? All gays want is the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. It isn't going to change anything, it isn't going to hurt anyone except those with the archaic belief that they are right and their views must be forced upon everyone else. Tell me, son, are you married, engaged, have a girlfriend? You wouldn't like it if a group of Muslims moved in and demanded your girl permenantly hide her face and all of her body, would you? Denying her the freedom to dress as she pleases regardless of what she wants and what she believes, simply because they believe differently? There is absolutely no difference in this and denying gay people the right to marry, just because your scriptures say so.
You really do get heated, don't you? Let's just use this one excerpt I chose from your diatribe. To be a real comparison of what we're talking about, we'd have to talk about one group forcing their opinions on another in a normal situation. So with Muslims, there are groups that come over here to America and dress in their traditional fashion and they are, I believe, almost entirely left the hell alone by the Christian community. We each do our own thing, live and let live. The Christians may not agree with the Muslims, they may even believe they're going to hell for their beliefs, but by and large they don't go making a big show of it, standing in yards, burning and throwing things - they just let people be. But under certain conditions, polygamy is allowed in Islam. Now let's say Ahmed comes to St. Peters and asks Father Brown to marry him to his second or third wife. This is where Father Brown draws the line. No, you do things your way but we don't believe in that and will not take part in it. This is a comparable situation. This is where either Ahmed leaves the Father to his own way and goes to get his third wife in a place where it is accepted - live and let live - or he creates a global stink over it, rallies millions of people to his cause (at least fifty percent of which have no stake in what is being fought over and no real idea what it's about anyway, they just love to get fired up) and crushes the Father and his beliefs. In point of fact, Muslims don't do that. Gays will, though. It seems like someone is always winning, someone's opinion always trumps someone else's - that's life I guess; that's the world. Either the Christians are excluding gays or gays are shitting on Christians. There can be such a thing as plain acceptance, but not like this. A "forced acceptance" is a takeover. It's domination. Do you understand the hypocrisy? I guarantee you that Gay Rights activists do, and they go right ahead with it anyway. They aren't "trying to get you to see things their way" - I guess that would take too long and be a lot of work. What a drag. No, it's a battle. Not my battle, but still - I really do wish sometimes that people would open their eyes and see things as they really are.
That is most certainly not a comparable situation, and if you were truly learned on the situation, you would know why. I'll explain to you though, and I'll try not to get "heated"...although if that's simply your way of acknowledging your points being defeated with simple logic, then it's certainly about to get very hot here. It is not a comparable situation because polygamy is not a right already afforded to other people who meet certain requirements. There is no "You can have three wives, but only if-", there's just "You cannot have more than one wife". There is no favourable treatment, no discrimination. But illegalising gay marriage is discrimination because marriage is a right afforded to some people - if they meet the right requirements, I.E., they're heterosexual and marrying a person of the oposite gender. I'm sorry, I had to edit my post, I just caught this little snippet of gold. Are you honestly trying to suggest that Muslims don't rally horrendous amounts of people to object to anything they dissaprove of? Have you seen any form of media recently? Or within the last ten years? Do you own a TV, have you seen a newspaper ever? If we weren't already discussing this over the internet I would strongly doubt a person who has suggested such a thing of having access to any kind of source of information.
I accept homosexuality -- i myself am heterosexual -- but i don't think it is natural. Basic anatomy shows us that men and women were meant to be together; men with men or women with women just aren't compatable in that way with regards to anatomy.
Yes, and forgive the rather crude example, but basic anatomy also shows that genitals weren't designed to go in a partner's mouth either, but good luck getting people to give up oral sex.
Sorry if I seemed agressive in the slightest in my prior post; I'm not calling for people to "give up" homosexuality, I'm just saying that it isn't a natural thing.That's why I am personallyheterosexual.
I think that people should be what ever sexuality they wish to be. If someone feels attracted to someone of the oppisite sex, they can't help it. They don't have control over it. They have control over telling people. Although i find it fine, i don't like to think of people of the oppisite sex kissing etc. :nope:
I thought i would offer a brief psychological perspective on homosexuality: 1. studies have shown that homophobics are more aroused by gay porn than even the openly acknowledged homosexuals! This study used instruments designed to measure blood flow into the penis, so the truth is most that are heavily against homosexuality are those who are externalizing an inner threat. 2. Homosexual drives have been shown to be a normative part of development. Its not uncommon at all for people of the same gender to experiment. We all have to learn to attune to our own body before we can begin to understand the other. It makes sense that our early sexual experiences have some orientation towards things that are similar to our own, like training wheels! 3. Denial of homosexual drives has been shown to result a whole range of bad outcomes including agression and most interestingly a rebound effect ie. where the repressed desire comes back stronger than it did the first time! Which ironically means that our repressive society may be encouraging homosexuality! 4. Homosexuality is not "un-natural", it can be seen right throughout history and the animal kingdom. Any argument of anatomical distinction or religious persuasion is flawed without a clear understanding of our evolutionary history. Put quite simply individuals don't have to re-produce to be a part of the natural cycle, these individuals rather than reproduce look to enhance the survival of the species in other ways. So a homosexual may provide additional resources that aid in the raising of someone elses child. Homosexuals have often played a supportive role throughout history. (not that they cant play other roles) Diversity is key to natural survival, so homosexuality is very natural. I do believe that homosexuality is the result of a complex relationship between nature and nurture. There may be a genetic predisposition or vulnerability that may make homosexuality more likely or it may just make it more likely that that individual has the necessary formative homosexual experiences. Homosexuality is a threat to our current social structure, which is man-woman dominated. But this is a threat which we must accept. I am frustrated by the "camp" elements of homosexuality which are nauseating to be around, but thats just personal opinion. I also desperately hope the world can quickly get through this period of adjustment to mainstream homosexuality because the violence, negativity and aggression is taking a real life cost of people who could be productive members of society. I'm not homosexual, but i recon I'd have more fun if i was!
I know many people you are attracted to people of the oppisite sex, and some both. People shout things at them, like they are wierd, or just stupid. But, its like not un-natural to be gay, or whatever?
I haven't read any of the posts on this thread yet. But I just wanted to say, most people say they are born gay. However, it has been proven that the people who go to single sex schools are more likely to be gay than people who don't.
I've heard people say that, but I've never seen any solid evidence? I'd be inclined to believe it, but could your share your source?
I'm gay, i don't think its caused by nuture you're gay/bi/or str8 when born deal with it people you cant? then dont talk to gay/bi people about it >.>
Then why do you see two male dolphins having intercourse? (haha, interco... nevermind) Homosexuality is found in nature and honestly, why should you have a problem with it? Is it your bunghole being plugged, or do you just not want to see two men kiss? If the ladder is the case, then should we not allow ugly people to date/marry either? Experimentation is more active. I have a lot of friends who tried to 'fool themselves' into being straight by dating members of the opposite sex, but it didn't work. Mkay. I have a little experiment for all the straight guys out there. I'll show a picture, and you force you self to like it. 'Kay? Okay, so did it work? Could you find that guy hot? do you get my point? forgive me, but I would think the reason you were heterosexual would be because you are attracted to the opposite sex, not because 'Part A' fits into 'Part B'. so would you become attracted to the same sex if the new medical journal proved that it was more natural?