Homosexuality

Post by **Tiff** » Fri May 28, 2004 7:49 pm

Migiwa wrote:
Some people are really funny, though. My father used to make jokes about gay people. . . . until he found out I had a girlfriend. Then he suddenly had no problem with gay people. -_-; He was like "I never said that!" LOL

You know, it's interesting how family can be...My father used to make jokes, too, and then he'd cringe when he saw gay people on tv and the like...but when he knew I was bisexual, he was just sorta like "Eh *shrug* I kinda figured." o_O; wtf. Same with my mother. The first time I told her i thought i MIGHT be bisexual, she flipped out. The second time I told her I WAS, she didn't seem to give a damn LOL

Artemis · Post by **Artemis** » Sun May 30, 2004 1:03 am

Jusenkyo no Pikachu wrote: Of course, the aforementioned dickhead (who is also a disbarred lawyer) claims he's doing God's work by picketing gay pride stuff and gay people's funerals...

PICKETING GAY FUNERALS?!? WHAT THE FUCK??! I'm sorry, but that just crosses the line. That's not God's work-that's human bigotry.
What an asshole.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu · Post by **Jusenkyo no Pikachu** » Mon May 31, 2004 8:46 pm

Migiwa wrote:What is so threatening about love? People who use the Bible to justify it just sadden me so much. Didn't Jesus want us all to love and accept eachother? How the messages get so skewed. . .

Oh- that guy with the "God Hates Fags" website. . . has issues. Serious issues. He's up there with Chick.

What, were they dropped on their little everything-phobic heads as babies or something? Like, from two stories up?

Actually, the New Testament does have something about that...

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(1 Corinthians 6:10-12, New International Version)

Of course, homosexual offenders doesn't necessarily mean all gays. The other fundie bible, the KJV, states "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" which is even more vague.

And Phelpsie? Phelpsie was a misguided child abuser, liar, thief (and heck, even murderer) who just turned his hatred to the outer community. And insulted a real Canadian church while he was at it. He's more NFBSK-ed up than Chick ever will be.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Mon May 31, 2004 11:39 pm

The seventh circle of Hell has a place reserved for sodomites as well, according to The Divine Comedy. Granted, as Dante was merely human, this isn't irrevocable fact. But, as his work is the leading document on Hell, it's something to consider.

Granted, if I really would be forced to lay on a hot beach with fire raining down upon me (which is supposedly what happens to sodomites) just because I'd like to sleep with a man if I truly love him. Which brings up another point.

According to both the Bible and The Divine Comedy, sodomy is bad. Homosexuality, however, is not. Men are allowed to be gay. They just can't have gay sex. Lesbianism seems to be allowed, though. I've never seen anything to say that it isn't. Except of course, for the pre-maritcal carnal sin factor.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:44 am

ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:The seventh circle of Hell has a place reserved for sodomites as well, according to The Divine Comedy. Granted, as Dante was merely human, this isn't irrevocable fact. But, as his work is the leading document on Hell, it's something to consider.

(snip)

According to both the Bible and The Divine Comedy, sodomy is bad. Homosexuality, however, is not. Men are allowed to be gay. They just can't have gay sex. Lesbianism seems to be allowed, though. I've never seen anything to say that it isn't. Except of course, for the pre-maritcal carnal sin factor.

LOL, well I wouldn't really call Dante an inspired writer (or in other words, a prophet of God), so anything he says about hell is merely Dante's personal scripture, and not actual. As far as my knowledge of scripture goes (which is still a work in progress), I don't think any different "levels" of hell are stated, although who knows, maybe there are. As far as my faith is concerned, "Hell" or Outer Darkness (or those who dwell with Satan), is only reserved for those who have an undenying testimony of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (ie - they SAW him and witnessed his divinity to where there is no question in their mind that he was the Son of God) but still choose to reject him. I'm pretty sure this constitutes like......0.0000001% of people, since most people don't have a divine witness of his divinity. (wow that was kind of redundant). But then if you want to get REAAAALLY technical and take into account the "Many Mansions in my Father's house" and the Third Heaven that Paul got "caught up in".....Well. Nevermind, I wont get into that just yet =P

As for homosexuality and lesbianism. I believe (don't ever quote me on this though, since I'm not a prophet or anything) that "being" homosexual isn't really REALLY bad, as long as you never act on it. Although we are taught to keep our thoughts pure, so in that sense it is bad, but nothing really terrible. Of course, it is hard to control your thoughts sometimes, and sometimes things just "pop" into your head. This is ok, as long as you ignore it and banish the thought from your head. When it becomes a problem is when you dwell on that thought. At least that's what I've been taught or the understanding I've come to.

And as for gay men not being allowed but lesbians are, if you want to get technical, fornication (sex before marriage, or adultery), is looked on as the second most serious sin aside from taking a pure man's life. Now, since marriage (in a biblical sense, let's not bring what the government defines as marriage) is defined as strictly between a man and a woman, all male-male, female-female, and male-female sex before marriage is fornication, the second most serious sin. And since male-male and female-female couples can not get married, their sexual relations will always be fornication. There is no allowing it unlike male-female relations. So in that way, male-male and female-female sexual activity is sinful.

But that is in no way a justification for any anti-homosexual sentiment. We are taught to love everyone, because we're all God's children. Plus, it's not our place to judge. We don't weild the javel (i think that's what it's called, the hammer thing that the judge has), Christ does. So yeah, these people who severely persecute gay people in the name of God are actually going exactly against what the bible teaches. Anyways, I'm gonna stop here before this gets too long =P

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:07 pm

(snip) Bob (snip)

That's what I tried to explain, just in not as much detail. I don't believe in what Dante says, but it's something to mention. And as for the rest of it... I just don't worry about it. I'd rather live while I'm alive, and not live my life preparing to be dead.

LadyFlameSniper · Post by **LadyFlameSniper** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:35 pm

But that is in no way a justification for any anti-homosexual sentiment. We are taught to love everyone, because we're all God's children. Plus, it's not our place to judge. We don't weild the javel (i think that's what it's called, the hammer thing that the judge has), Christ does. So yeah, these people who severely persecute gay people in the name of God are actually going exactly against what the bible teaches.

THANK YOU for saying that. I'm so glad when other people realize this.[/quote]

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:54 am

fwefeg

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:06 pm

Well, there's something happening in France right now that belongs to this topic, and I don't think I should have made a new thread.

In France, when they don't have "anything" to talk about on the news, they'll bring up any excuse to draw attention.

And, a few days ago, started a big "war" about... gays wedding. Yup, you read that.

See, in France, it hasn't been decided yet as to whether it would be allowed or not. Other European countries have, and France wonders if it should do the same.

One mayor, called Noel Mamère (translate as Christmas MyMother... LOL XD sorry about that u_u) though decided to celebrate the first gay wedding in France, without any authorization from the administration whatsoever. He's probably going to be on trial because of that.

That happened this weekend, yesterday to be exact. There were images of the two men involved, and it looked like a normal wedding, and by normal I mean with two people in love wanting to spend their life together.

Now, just because it has triggered "angry" discussions again at home (Dad says it's soo gross, my sister says it's awful for children who're going to be adopted cause gay parents will make their lives horrible since they will be laughed at or worse), I just wanted to say again, if I haven't, my opinion about that.

To me, two people being in love, whether they marry or not, and have children or not, is the same to me as long as there is love, and respect. Man man, woman woman, man woman, it's all the same. If the children are going to be harassed one way or another, having gay parents, or alcoholic, "old", "fat", "poor" or anything else, is all the same. I'd rather have gay parents, whatever sex, than having an alcoholic father and a "bi***" for a mother. I'm quite sad that people in France don't seem to understand this for the moment... and now it has become more political (this question of gay weddings) because the left side says it's good, when the right doesn't.

*sighs at the stupidity wandering around*

yamijounouchi · Post by **yamijounouchi** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:14 pm

i hate it when people play the "unhappy kids" card. fact is: kids are assholes. they will mock another kid whether he is fat, skinny, dorky, has gay parents or is just gay himself. no matter what, they will find something to make fun of you for, so that argument really doesn't have much behind it.

Anthy · Post by **Anthy** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:24 pm

Jeff wrote:The real irritation comes from "propositions." Seriously, just because I am gay does not mean I am going to have sex with you and your friend. I've been seriously propositioned for threesomes several times, and it really offends me.

This is more common for bi girls than for guys, I think, but I feel your pain nonetheless. I hate telling guys I'm interested in that I'm bi because I so often get the assumption that I'm into threesomes with them and another girl. I find the idea positively revolting, personally, so I move on to someone else. If I find someone special enough to do the act with, why would I want to share that person with someone else? But I digress.

Yeah. AIDS sux. Use condoms, people.

As for gay marriages, all I really would like to ask for would be the benefits of marriage, like visitation in the hospital or whatever. It doesn't have to be called a "marriage," really, since the true marriage is between the partners and the union is just a state/federal recognition of it. Civil union, whatever.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu · Post by **Jusenkyo no Pikachu** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:32 am

Anthy wrote:
Jeff wrote:The real irritation comes from "propositions." Seriously, just because I am gay does not mean I am going to have sex with you and your friend. I've been seriously propositioned for threesomes several times, and it really offends me.
This is more common for bi girls than for guys, I think, but I feel your pain nonetheless. I hate telling guys I'm interested in that I'm bi because I so often get the assumption that I'm into threesomes with them and another girl. I find the idea positively revolting, personally, so I move on to someone else. If I find someone special enough to do the act with, why would I want to share that person with someone else? But I digress.

Yeah. AIDS sux. Use condoms, people.

As for gay marriages, all I really would like to ask for would be the benefits of marriage, like visitation in the hospital or whatever. It doesn't have to be called a "marriage," really, since the true marriage is between the partners and the union is just a state/federal recognition of it. Civil union, whatever.

Actually, Prime Minister John Howard says that while he wants marriage to be between a man and a woman (and sadly, the Libs aren't the only ones behind this. This means that I'm voting for the Greens in the Federal Election), he's letting gays get superannuation benefits like those you receive in marriage.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:55 am

Jusenkyo no Pikachu wrote:Actually, Prime Minister John Howard says that while he wants marriage to be between a man and a woman (and sadly, the Libs aren't the only ones behind this. This means that I'm voting for the Greens in the Federal Election), he's letting gays get superannuation benefits like those you receive in marriage.

We've got the same problem in the US (though the language is different--here it's a liberal view to support gay marriage). The Democratic politicians (for non-Americans, they're the left wing; think Labor) refuse to out-and-out declare gay marriage as a right, for fear of angering the mass of conservatives, whose support they're not going to get anyway.

My take is: government didn't invent the concept of marriage; it already existed and they decided to make it "official." So they've got to offer it to everyone, regardless of whether it's not what they intended it to be. The issue of rights and benefits is more serious, but I think it should all go under the same heading of marriage. Fortunately, we have semi-independent state governments so some homosexual marriages can take place some places, and I'm highly doubtful that the federal constitutional amendment banning the marriages will pass.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:58 am

Personally, I think the government has abosultely no right meddling in the issue of marriage at all. I don't think there should be any benefits for marriage at all, and that the government has no right recognizing it/not recognizing it. I'm totally for a limited government. I think they put their noses in a lot of things that they shouldn't (don't get me started on social security or welfare).

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious thing. That's how it started, that's how it usually is taken care of (99.9% of marriages are in a CHAPEL, or a MINISTER is present). Thus, if the church you're a member of doesn't support gay marriages, the tough nuggets. Don't get married. If it does, then yippie go for it. I think it's retarded for the government to give benefits for being married, but like I said above there's a lot of things the government does that I don't agree with.

Now, I'm going to be very honest and blunt with my opinion here, and I know I'm going against probably everyone here when I say it, but oh well deal with it (BAN BAN BAN! mwa. J/K). Personally, I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't support it and I don't agree with it. Unfortunately I think our culture has warped what marriage actually is and it's turned into a more symbolic thing of what it once was. It's turned into more of a "commitment ceremony" than something that is ordained under God. And even from that level, it's turned more into just a "ceremony" than anything having to do with commitment (since what is it, 70% of marriage end in divorce?). Looking at what marriage is and once was and what marriage is to me, I can't support it being other than something between a man and woman (and in that sense, lasting for time and eternity, NO DIVORCE.)

I do support civil unions (or in other words, gay couples getting the same tax benefits a married couple gets). I support "commitment ceremonies", something that's different than marriage, that's not under God (The God of the Bible, but if your religion constitutes a different God that supports homosexuality, then by all means go for it), but where the two partners commit to be with one another until death do them part.

But that's just my opinion. Saying that doesn't mean that I don't like gay people. I think that from a governmental standpoint they should have every right that every other person has, but at the same time i don't think marriage should be a governmental institution. oh well, I'm getting things all complicated now so there you have it folks.

Post by **Tiff** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:43 pm

AnimeGuru0 wrote: Now, I'm going to be very honest and blunt with my opinion here, and I know I'm going against probably everyone here when I say it, but oh well deal with it (BAN BAN BAN! mwa. J/K). Personally, I don't agree with gay marriage...*SNIP*...Looking at what marriage is and once was and what marriage is to me, I can't support it being other than something between a man and woman (and in that sense, lasting for time and eternity, NO DIVORCE.)

I do support civil unions (or in other words, gay couples getting the same tax benefits a married couple gets). I support "commitment ceremonies", something that's different than marriage, that's not under God (The God of the Bible, but if your religion constitutes a different God that supports homosexuality, then by all means go for it), but where the two partners commit to be with one another until death do them part.

To a point, Guru, I agree. Marriage originally was something purely religious and binding, something that meant a lot more than it does now. Many marriages were arranged, and it was those marriages that ended up together..and a lot of people in arranged marriages were HAPPY. They didn't meet, get married a month later in vegas, and then divorce 2 more months later.

You hit the nail right on the head with Civil Unions and commitment ceremonies. To me, gay people should be allowed that, becuase the original concept of marriage was meant to be done in the eyes of God, and we've already proven what the bible says about homosexuality (i'm not going to go into that again, and try to analyze the bible sentence by sentence. I don't claim to be a very religious person, but I at least know how to read).

My take is: government didn't invent the concept of marriage; it already existed and they decided to make it "official." So they've got to offer it to everyone, regardless of whether it's not what they intended it to be.

Ah, but be careful there. The original concept of marriage was, as Guru mentioned, a religious bond between a MAN, and a WOMAN. Government didn't invent the concept of marriage, but humanity has managed to skew and twist marriage to mean a bond between ANY two people. Had a man and another man approached the Puritan community asking to be married, they probably would have been killed or driven out of the community. So it isn't really fair to say "Well, marriage existed long before our government, so it should belong to everyone".

Nope. It didn't before, so why should it now? It was only offered to a man and a woman before...so why should it be offered to everyone now?

Now, i'm not saying that's MY view...rather, I'm seeing the views of all sides. Many people strictly believe that i just said above.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:30 pm

Bob wrote:snip

Tiff wrote:snip

I completely support that. From a religious viewpoint, homosexual marriage is wrong. I not only understand that, I believe it. However, I also think that the government should not use religion as a basis for its laws. It's one of the basic points in the constitution. Also, I would like to hear one reason why gay marriage is wrong from the government that doesn't involve religion.

Post by **Tiff** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:35 pm

ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:
I completely support that. From a religious viewpoint, homosexual marriage is wrong. I not only understand that, I believe it. However, I also think that the government should not use religion as a basis for its laws. It's one of the basic points in the constitution. Also, I would like to hear one reason why gay marriage is wrong from the government that doesn't involve religion.

And that right there is where the argument lies, and where I agree as well. Religion has no place in government, and vice versa..which is why when shit goes down about prayer in schools and the like, I get edgy, too.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:43 pm

OK, Tiff and Parakisu stole my thunder and said most of what I wanted to say about church and state better than I could, so I'll just put in a few points:

Let me be cynical for a moment: Is it just possible that the reasons very few divorces occured in the past and marriages lasted till death are that A: 50% of the marriage had no way of supporting herself if the marriage broke down and B: people didn't live that long anyway? Marriage is not what it once was, where a woman often exchanged servitude and sex for room and board, and I think that's a kind of progress.

Nope. It didn't before, so why should it now? It was only offered to a man and a woman before...so why should it be offered to everyone now?

Now, i'm not saying that's MY view...rather, I'm seeing the views of all sides. Many people strictly believe that i just said above.

Well, if the government does its job and keeps religious ideas and secular ones separate (Animeguru0's suggestion of no-government-sanctioned-marriage is the best, morally philosophically) then the way society deals with it is a smaller issue.

Society can incur a backlash against gay marriage and call it something derogatory, while supporters can stubbornly refer to it as marriage. But here's the crux: Animeguru0 thinks homosexuality is a sin. That's cool, free thought, however you want to go. But I think homosexuality is a positive thing, because I take a utilitarian/libertarian view of the world (If it makes you happy, as the singer said, it can't be that bad), and want to laud it where appripriate. But if it pleases one group to call it marriage and it pleases another group to call it sin and the two groups aren't actively fighting each other and we can settle the matter of government involvment, then that will be a compromise that everyone but the lunatic fringe (on both sides) that wants to shove their views in the other groups faces will accede to.

Post by **Tiff** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:53 pm

Sailorasteroid wrote: Let me be cynical for a moment: Is it just possible that the reasons very few divorces occured in the past and marriages lasted till death are that A: 50% of the marriage had no way of supporting herself if the marriage broke down and B: people didn't live that long anyway? Marriage is not what it once was, where a woman often exchanged servitude and sex for room and board, and I think that's a kind of progress.

A) That is simply the way society was run. It isn't fair to compare that to today's society, as they are two very different things.
B) *Blink* And that has to do with the sanctity of marriage...how? We're talking about the MARRIAGE lasting based on its santicity and strength, not based on life expectancy.

And come on... aren't we being just a bit TOO cynical with the whole "exchanging sex" thing? It was more than that, far more than that. If you'd actually research a bit on the first puritan communities, sex was generally done purely for reproduction. It wasn't like the evil man came in every night and demanded pleasure from his poor, cowering wife. Women were HAPPY to serve their husband becuase that's what their religion and family beliefs taught them. By acting as though that's a bad thing, you're in turn bashing their religious and moral beliefs.

Well, if the government does its job and keeps religious ideas and secular ones separate (Animeguru0's suggestion of no-government-sanctioned-marriage is the best, morally philosophically) then the way society deals with it is a smaller issue.

But here's the crux: Animeguru0 thinks homosexuality is a sin. That's cool, free thought, however you want to go. But I think homosexuality is a positive thing, because I take a utilitarian/libertarian view of the world (If it makes you happy, as the singer said, it can't be that bad), and want to laud it where appripriate.

....That is precisely what I just said. You're simply repeating me. I said that the government has no place in religion, and vice versa.

And I think Animeguru0 was moreso analyzing what he believed the bible and his religion's beliefs to say. Although, I really don't see how comparing yours and AnimeGuru0's beliefs on homosexuality is relevent to whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.

peachvampiress · Post by **peachvampiress** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:25 pm

AnimeGuru0

snip

I don't know what Christian religion you are, so you might not be able to answer my question, but didn't the pope and all the higher ups say that civil union is okay, because I know a lot of Catholics support gays having civil union.

Sailorasteroid

Let me be cynical for a moment: Is it just possible that the reasons very few divorces occured in the past and marriages lasted till death are that A: 50% of the marriage had no way of supporting herself if the marriage broke down and B: people didn't live that long anyway? Marriage is not what it once was, where a woman often exchanged servitude and sex for room and board, and I think that's a kind of progress.

No, look back at attitudes towards sex, respect for others, and responsibility back then and today. Decades ago people saved sex for marriage (which has been proven to help a marriage last longer), people were more considerate of other people and were responsibile for the choices that they make. Now look at today's soceity. The majority of people have no respect for others and only think of themselves and their well being. A lot of people today seem to blame everyone else but themselves for their own choices (it's my parent's fault, it's soceity's fault, it's the school's fault, it's everyone elses fault but mine). People today just don't care about anything anymore. That's why so many people cheat on their spouses, why people tend to leave a marriage if they're having money problems, why people marry someone they've known for a month and "Are in love" with and then divorce them a month later, hell, that's why some men leave their wives if they get in an accident are aren't attractive anymore. It's because the morality of soceity has diminished and people are more inconsiderate and selfish.

What's to stop things we think are wrong and immoral today from becoming socially acceptable in twenty years?