Homosexuality

[Jeff]

oihuioh

[Sailormars Obsessed fan]

wow its one thing like you said to go after predators, but since when did liking Yaoi mean molester? thats another thing that bothers me, they always try to lump homosexuals in with child molesters and im sorry from all the psychological profiles and studies ive seen most of them are older males who are in straight relationships. And a. homosexuality has nothing to do with being attracted to children. B. Everyone I know be it gay or straight are just as appalled at the thought of abusing children. And its always bothered me how people try to lump gays in with that. Its just pure bs IMO.

Groups like these arent trying to help prevent child molesters, they are merely using that as a cover. Their main purpose is to enforce their beliefs on others, using a legit cause as their rallying call. They add the "gays are child molesters" to the mix because they personally believe being gay is against god or whatever it is they believe in and want to take every opportunity to side people against it. It's a form of propaganda and is very common with groups like this which is why groups like this are so dangerous. There was a group like this that got power once, and their motto was Sieg Heil. Gay does not = child molester and never will, and I'm sure these groups know that, but they dont care. they are attempting to kill two birds with one stone, and it's really sad how many people fall in line to their cause.

[Senshi_of_Vision]

Groups like these arent trying to help prevent child molesters, they are merely using that as a cover. Their main purpose is to enforce their beliefs on others, using a legit cause as their rallying call. They add the "gays are child molesters" to the mix because they personally believe being gay is against god or whatever it is they believe in and want to take every opportunity to side people against it. It's a form of propaganda and is very common with groups like this which is why groups like this are so dangerous. There was a group like this that got power once, and their motto was Sieg Heil. Gay does not = child molester and never will, and I'm sure these groups know that, but they dont care. they are attempting to kill two birds with one stone, and it's really sad how many people fall in line to their cause.

that is a very scary thought there to, I love how people focus on that form of "evil" when others go around on an everday basis. Its because its easier to shake a bible or throw moral retoric at a homosexual who most likely will feel powerless to fight at times then it is to go after people who create mass genocide, brutally rape and torture women and children and willingly spread diseases. I wonder what "morally right " people would target if they did get their wish and made homosexuality disappear?

To me Id like to think god is abit more worried about the sickos of the world who are in power and use it to harm others then he is about gay people but thats just my opinion.

[Cardcaptor Takato]

LJ has updated their news and they are now in the process of undeleting the journals that were deleted that didn't have anything to do with pedophilia and they have given an apology for their actions. You can read more about it here: http://news.livejournal.com/99515.html I'm glad this mistake is being corrected but I'm still keeping my profile's interests deleted just to be safe in case this ever happens again.

[Yasha Kodachi]

I was amusing myself on Conservapedia the other day and came across this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda
Oh my.

I don't really think the arguments (that I've heard) against homosexuality are that good...For example:
--"It's a sin!" (etc) is the probably worst there is, considering that the "7 Deadly Sins" are pretty much traits that drive human civilization and make us human in the first place. That's my observation, anyway.
--"It's disgusting!". I think bodybuilders and porn stars are gross, a lot of people do, and they can marry. EACH OTHER, EVEN. My god, a male porn star and female bodybuilder can get married. Ew. But disgust is a matter of opinion, not fact.
--"It's unnatural!". No, the shirt I'm wearing is unnatural. It was made in a factory; therefore, it does not occur by nature. The only unnatural things are physical and created by humans (of course, not everything a person makes is fake.) But regardless of what they are or how they came to be, what a person thinks and feels can't be made up. (What they say and do is a totally different matter.)
--"It's weird!" It's different. I like cats more than dogs and animation over live action, and maybe you like the opposite. I can give a dozen reasons as to WHY I think cats and animation are better, but it all boils down to "I just do, cry about it". Other people may not be able to understand that, but they can just cry about it, because I'll always like cats over dogs, etc, and others will always like their gender over the other one. Everyone who can't accept that will just have to deal with it. Or go on an unnecessary crusade while ignoring truly important issues.

Did I make my point? (Seriously, did I? I have vagueness issues and can be confusing at times.)

I also think that people shouldn't define themselves or others as just "gay". Diamonds don't have just one facet, after all.

[SeiUsa]

Haha...that reminds me of something I got in a bulletin the toher day...

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[Tiff]

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

*sits beneath her sweet, sweet central air vent* come again?

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

...k, that one broke my brain.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

..Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate. In a way, I agree with this. Since marriage always has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, changing it suddenly COULD open all kinds of doors for people to want loopholes in their own much, much stranger marriage practices..such as, for example, marrying their pets (which there have been stories about in the news. I myself read a story where a woman married a dolphin. wtf, yo.) It could also give people a way to marry someone for reasons that really shouldn't be included in marriage...to gain certain rights, paperwork, etc.

Again, not saying that I'm against gay marriage..just that I sort of understand this argument. ]

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

¬_¬; Wow.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

That's...the most insensitive fucking thing I've ever seen. Good god.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

...Brain broken again.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

HEY, JEWS, CATHOLICS, MUSLIMS, BUDDHISTS, AND HINDUS! YOU'VE JUST BEEN INVALIDATED!

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

And every single-parented child in the world is hanging their head and weeping. Sorry, kids. You have no choice of success. Give it up now.

[Cardcaptor Takato]

The difference here between gay marriage and marrying your pets that so many people seem to forget when they use this excuse that annoys me to no end is that a gay couple can consent to a marriage but an animal cannot consent to a marriage because animals do not understand what marriage is. The only way for you to "marry" your pet would be to force them to marry you and if you're going to treat beastiality as the same thing as marriage between consenting adults, then that should be counted as rape.

Even if you were to somehow marry your animal, that's not going to stop your animal's natural instincts from kicking in and stop the animal from going off and having sex with other animals. In which case, since you'd be treating beastiality the same as a relationship with humans, then that should be treated as an affair, in which case you'd have to get a divorce, so your marriage to that animal wouldn't last a day anyway if we're going to treat it the same as a relationship between humans. And what would be the point in marrying an animal anyway? If someone is that desperate to abuse that poor animal, they'd find a way to do it anyhow. And it's not as if you'd get any legal benefits like a gay couple would if they got married since the animal wouldn't understand what to do with it. Not to mention there's all the health factors of risking getting some disease from your animal going out and having sex with other animals, which unlike humans, cannot be stopped without forcing your animal to stay in-doors, which if we're going to start treating a "marriage" between humans and animals as the same as a relationship between humans it would have to be counted as abuse. I hate it when people try to use this excuse because it's like they've run out of ideas for their inane reasoning and they're using it as a last minute resort. It's just really childish to me. I'm not trying to say you're childish Tiff, since you're just playing devil's advocate but I'm talking about the people who seriously believe in this. To me blaming gay marriage for other people's sick and not to mention unhealthy actions is like blaming violent media for creating violent people.

[Tiff]

^^; Calm down, Cardcaptor Takato. As I said, I'm not against gay marriage...I'm just trying to take an objective view here, and i'm saying that I do understand where the concern may lie. That's all.

[Jeff]

Just heard a story today about Israel refusing refugee status to gay Palestinians. However, if a Palestinian person has an Israeli husband or wife, they are granted entry. This doesn't extend to same-sex couples. And people wonder why we want equal marriage rights.

[Senshi_of_Vision]

I think the only loop hole I could think of that only sickos would try is incest marriage and since legalizing homosexual marriage should not be classified as illegal since it no longer is considered that way people who try to argue against it really dont have much to stand on. The whole natural thing makes me laugh, in this day where technology rules natural things take a second place. In fact since the days men began living in "houses" instead of out in the wild or caves "natural" has been an wild animal only thing. I think its insensitive period to restrict two people who are adults and in love from joining on religious behalf when there is no one official religion. So why should a decision on allowing it to be legal be based on that? Last I checked though many may want it to be Christianity is not America's only religion nor is it even really the official religion. Sure a lot of christians are americans, but there are alot of Jews, Catholics, Muslim and other faiths including mine Pagans.

I think of it this way, if I had a life partner and something happened to me where I was hospitalized, I would that person to be able to have the same rights a husband or wife would have.

If I died and custody of my child (ren) came into play I would want my partner who helped me raise said offspring to have full rights to them.

If Im living with someone and willing to pledge my heart body and soul to that person and they are another consenting adult, I dont see why I should have to worry about legally being told no. I think its funny in this day and age how people can be so restricting of two adults wanting to join in a union when there is so many other things out there that need attention that could be stopped.

It goes back to my earlier comments if homosexuality could be dissolved then what? how long before the next "sin" and what would that sin be? Interacial marriage? Oh how about fat people how long before our big asses are lynched because we are sinning as well?

Its why I could never classify myself or ever would want to be a moralist. I know im not without sin, I know alot of the sinful things ive done and may continue to do bring pleasure to me in some compacity. And I dont think it would be fair for me to judge someone just because I dont like their attitude or belief or who they choose to love. It just amazes me how so many out there think they can and do deem themselves worthy to judge others and decide what "natural love" is. If it wasnt natural for love to be expressed by people then Homosexuality, or even straight relationships would be null and void IMO.

I just think if two consenting adults want to deal with the complications or joys of marriage then they should be allowed to.

[Cardcaptor Takato]

^^; Calm down, Cardcaptor Takato. As I said, I'm not against gay marriage...I'm just trying to take an objective view here, and i'm saying that I do understand where the concern may lie. That's all.

Sorry if I sounded angry or anything like that in my post. I know you aren't against it and you were just playing devil's advocate here. Your post just got me thinking about the subject and I got a little carried away with my thoughts. ^^;;

I think its insensitive period to restrict two people who are adults and in love from joining on religious behalf when there is no one official religion. So why should a decision on allowing it to be legal be based on that? Last I checked though many may want it to be Christianity is not America's only religion nor is it even really the official religion. Sure a lot of christians are americans, but there are alot of Jews, Catholics, Muslim and other faiths including mine Pagans.

What annoys me most about this is how hypocritical people can be about all this. The government claims they don't allow gay marriage to be legalized because it goes against what the bible says but then they turn around and legalize divorce even though Jesus himself said that divorce is a sin. I don't understand why the government recognizes one form of sin with no problems at all yet they ban another "sin" because of their personal religious beliefs just because one involves two people of the same sex. And unlike gay marriage, divorce has actually been proven to hurt families, and isn't the U.S. supposed to have one of the highest divorce rates?

[Senshi_of_Vision]

exactly cardcaptor and to add to that its funny how they want a seperation of church and state, will scream it in schools but when it comes to adult decisions they throw religion up as an argument. Its very hypocritical and it shouldnt be. If we are going to seperate religion and politics it should be on all levels.

Unfortunately considering a politians faith can make or break then and how the only president who was not christian was catholic I dont see much getting done about changing the mentality or attitude anytime soon.

[yoshmaster5]

...

just out of sheer, morbid curiosity... I want to know what century the person who made the bulliten board lives in. Obviously it's not the 21st century.

As for teh seperation of Church & State... of course politicians are hypocrites. I can't think of one in todays society that isn't one. In our day, their entire career is spent GETTING into power, and then STAYING in power. What's the use if you're elected to a six-year term in the senate, and do stuff that ticks off your voters? You don't get re-elected, even if you WANT to do these things that ticks off your constitutiants. The recent Immigration bill... the only hint of statemanship I've seen in teh past 7 years. What happens? Everything that happens with a compromise--NO ONE likes it. And it'll repeat over and over... and it's the same thing with Gay marriage.

I agree with Tiff's points, and I can see why they are being made. Granted, allowing Gay marriage might open a pandora's box... but only a few nutcases would even WANT to try something that insane. AKA, PETA, demented people, etc... but it's less than 0.001 % of the american population. That can be dealt with. However, this rampant flaunting of Church and State is not going to fade away. Religion had a profound influence on teh Founding/Framing fathers, adn it still does, even if we hate it. Americans fear change in our way of life, and way of mentality. There has only been one non protestant-episcopalian-whatever president, and he was Catholic (JFK). And still, they're kept out of the presidential race. Mitt Romney, I doubt will get the nomination because of the stigma against Mormans/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It boils down to this fear of mental and life-style change in our own lives. The thought of Gay marriage is a different ideal to americans, and one that is believed will "drastically alter american society"... And the Society is what people want to change least. (I want most, but oh well.) Hard-line bible-thumpers will always oppose this, and others will always support. As always, those in the middle will be crushed by both sides, and nothing will be solved.

[Tiff]

I agree with Tiff's points, and I can see why they are being made. Granted, allowing Gay marriage might open a pandora's box... but only a few nutcases would even WANT to try something that insane. AKA, PETA, demented people, etc... but it's less than 0.001 % of the american population.

That's exactly what I meant by my post. It's a SMALL percentage, but a percentage nonetheless, and it gives some people legitimate concern (and I don't mean the insane fundies here.)

[SeiUsa]

...just out of sheer, morbid curiosity... I want to know what century the person who made the bulliten board lives in. Obviously it's not the 21st century.

...um, guys, I'm pretty sure that that whole bulletin was satire. That's why I said "haha" when I posted it. The whole "Britney's 55-hour marriage would be meaningless" is what gave it away for me. I think whoever wrote it was pointing out the hypocrisy of some of these "arguments." Like, there actually are people out there who use the "gay couples can't procreate" as an excuse, when it doesn't make any sense because infertile and elderly couples can't produce children either, so should we ban them from marriage as well?
And I guess I should have mentioned that the title of the bulletin was "EQUAL RIGHTS" and at the end it said "Repost if you belive in equal rights."

[Cardcaptor Takato]

So now there's another person who speaks out against gay rights but is being suspected as being involved in a homosexual affair this time in a public place: http://www.idahostatesman.com/larrycrai ... 44280.html I just don't get people who speak out against couples in perfectly healthy relationships from receiving the same legal benefits other couples do, then turn around and become involved in illegal acts with unhealthy relationships. Even if it turns out that Craig isn't guilty, the fact he pleaded guilty to a crime in the hopes that it would go away quickly to me shows that he cares more about his own selfishness than about the reputation of his marriage or his family. And I don't know why he thought it would ever go away quickly if he's such a well-known political figure in his state. It didn't go away quickly for Ted Haggard and scandals don't go away quickly for celebrities, so what made him think he was so special that it would go away quickly for him is a mystery beyond me.

[Senshi_of_Vision]

Its just another version of when Politics and Homosexuality collide and almost always has to deal with some hypocritical senator or official. The sad part is this is not just a left wing or right wing issue, plenty of politicians are hypocrits on the whole "Homosexual issue" from the ones who have the perfect family while secretly having sex with their male aides, to the men like Mr. Craig who get busted in raids like that. The sad thing is Homosexuals are the nations scapegoat and also a bargaining tool for "Liberals" who know that the whole issue of Gay marriage is like dangling a carrot in front of a hungry rabbit. Its sad its hard to trust those politicians who are for Gay marriage cause most of them are just out to further their careers and will relent the moment opposition leans on them or the "moralist" threaten to push their runner more. Then you have the Opposition "Conservatives" who will claim its so wrong quote the bible even thought there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. The whole issue is laughable as long as politics continue to be a popularity race instead of a real attempt for people to get a person in the office that will run the damned country issues like Gay Marriage will continue to be a way to make a popular figure more popular or a hated figure villified IMO.

[the*blue*girl]

Ok, I don't have a link for this, but I was watching the news the other night and they had this thing about America's most controversial books. One was a kids book called And Tengo Makes Three and it was about two male penguins raising a baby penguin together (it's a true story too). Apperently people are freaking out about this because it "promotes homosexuality".
-_-
Because there aren't a bizzilion stories about strait couples. And because reading about gay penguins will totally turn your kids gay. Honestly, people just make me want to ram my head against a wall.

[Cardcaptor Takato]

Ugh, I hate people: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20825559/ This just completely reeks of hypocrisy. These people supposedly believe in teaching kids about tolerance yet gay and lesbian couples don't deserve to be treated the same? "Those who fought to have it removed from the curriculum in Evesham say they’re all in favor of teaching diversity, but many parents say it should be up to them to decide when to tell their children about same-sex parents and what to tell them about such households." So in other words, never? My parents tried to hide the issue of sexuality from me as a child and a lot of good that did them. And I'd like to point these parents to this little country called Japan where homosexual characters are not all that uncommon in kid's cartoons yet that doesn't somehow magically stop Japan from being over-populated or stop the Japanese from being homophobic. And speaking from personal experience, no matter how hard you try to hide homosexuality from your kids, if your children are going to be gay when they grow up, they're going to be gay whether you like it or not. Seriously if they're so obsessed with wanting to hide the real world from their kids, why don't they do us all a favor and go live in a box? Besides, doesn't the bible teach to love the sinner, not the sin? So, even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, that's still no excuse not to teach your kids to treat gay people like human beings nor is it an excuse to call a kid's family "disgusting" just because you have different beliefs like that one parent. I just think this is all really silly and a big waste of time and it's people like this that are part of the cause of intolerance against the LGBT community in the first place. How ironic that the people speaking out against this video are the ones responsible for it being made in the first place.