EXCUSE ME!? Do you mean to tell me that since my husband and I got married and we're not religious you think that's sad!? Just who do you think you are saying something like that? I cannot believe the nerve of your post and quite frankly it sickens me to see close minded people like this on the forum. You really need to watch you say. My husband and I have been happily married for 5 years this July and I'm here to tell you, we're NOT christians, so you've cooked up in your closed little mind that it's wrong?! As far as I knew in the court system, judges are perfectly legibel to marry those happy couples who are in love and want to join together in Holy Matrimony. Marriage just isn't based on religion so you need to slap that idea of your thick skull and watch what the hell you say before you REALLY offend other people because you have HIGHLY offended me. I think you needed to be aware of that. There ARE people who aren't gay and married on this forum and I for one am one of those people. I'm beyond upset by what you have said.
Homosexual marriage - do you agree?
- Thread starter Davey Gaga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
EXCUSE ME!? Do you mean to tell me that since my husband and I got married and we're not religious you think that's sad!? Just who do you think you are saying something like that? I cannot believe the nerve of your post and quite frankly it sickens me to see close minded people like this on the forum. You really need to watch you say. My husband and I have been happily married for 5 years this July and I'm here to tell you, we're NOT christians, so you've cooked up in your closed little mind that it's wrong?! As far as I knew in the court system, judges are perfectly legibel to marry those happy couples who are in love and want to join together in Holy Matrimony. Marriage just isn't based on religion so you need to slap that idea of your thick skull and watch what the hell you say before you REALLY offend other people because you have HIGHLY offended me. I think you needed to be aware of that. There ARE people who aren't gay and married on this forum and I for one am one of those people. I'm beyond upset by what you have said.
Feeding the Abscess
Ex-Soldier
K_Unit, gays don't get a disease from being gay; they (like straights) get diseases from sexual contact.
I stated in my previous post that marriage isn't much of a religious institution anymore, it's pointless to delude ourselves into believing that. Much like Christmas and Halloween were pagan holidays, they are no longer held in such a light by the majority of the Western world, and do so is quite silly and counter-culture for the sake of rebelling. Give and get, it's the way of politicking.
I stated in my previous post that marriage isn't much of a religious institution anymore, it's pointless to delude ourselves into believing that. Much like Christmas and Halloween were pagan holidays, they are no longer held in such a light by the majority of the Western world, and do so is quite silly and counter-culture for the sake of rebelling. Give and get, it's the way of politicking.
Then how come a LAW had to be passed before they could get married? People were being stopped doing what they wanted to do for the simple fact that people in power believed it was wrong and didnt allow it. they were stopping them from doing what they wanted for years
Oaft! Someone touched a nerve, Mandi? 
"I don't feel disgusted when I see two girls doing something they shouldn't."
Two things here. Firstly, these two statements contradict one another; you can't be against Homosexuality, yet be in favour of Lesbian's, presumabely in Porn [forgive me if this is untrue]. The Lesbian's are still homosexual so, basically, what you're saying is that you're against Male-Male relationships, but not Female-Female relationships. That, I do believe, is in fact a sexist comment ... or just massively contradictory.
"Bring up kids." I assume you mean for a man and a woman to have sex and for the woman to get pregnant, yes? That is the only reason for marriage, according to you. So if a couple, where one of the two are infertile, want to get married, is this not allowed?
No. Some men CHOOSE to like woman. Other men CHOOSE to like men. The same can be applied to woman.
I'm not exactly fond of such things; do you think that I'm homosexual?
Bisexuality is out of the question, then?
*Points to rant on "opinions"*
"I do not agree with homosexuality" ...
"I don't feel disgusted when I see two girls doing something they shouldn't."
Two things here. Firstly, these two statements contradict one another; you can't be against Homosexuality, yet be in favour of Lesbian's, presumabely in Porn [forgive me if this is untrue]. The Lesbian's are still homosexual so, basically, what you're saying is that you're against Male-Male relationships, but not Female-Female relationships. That, I do believe, is in fact a sexist comment ... or just massively contradictory.
Rofl.
I meant exactly what I said.
No, because "Lesbain" refers directly to Homosexual woman. "Gay" can involve both. However, let's not split hairs over a minor difference in terminology.
I see OmnscientOnus gave you his own retort, but I'll just emphasise that you can't prove that without physical evidence to support you. Seriously, even a link to an Internet article would do wonders for you.
Say that beforehand then, rather than posting ambiguously.
Right to freedom, right to free speech and right to individuality includes Marriage. The Bible can only be taken into consideration if you believe every single word written in that book. I question the reliability myself.
So what you're saying is that Marriage is not something that everyone in the world SHOULD have, but only for Christians?
"Bring up kids." I assume you mean for a man and a woman to have sex and for the woman to get pregnant, yes? That is the only reason for marriage, according to you. So if a couple, where one of the two are infertile, want to get married, is this not allowed?
Clear, it is not.
Under and earlier post, I'm gay. Under this post, I'm not even a man. Oaft.
But the female kind of homosexuality is all right if it's being watched by a male. Right.
What makes you so sure that's impossible?
I don't fall into this stereotype; because "we men" in each of your posts stereotypes a man. You can't possibly speak for every single male.
Remind me to start counting up whenever I say such things as "Stereotyping +1."
Abnormalities; referring to behaviour, or mutation?
OmniscientOnus
Blue Mage
Lady Aerith,
While I hate to get in between a heated issue between two people without need be, especially when one of said people is a moderator, but, I believe K_Unit was referring to priests and pastors who marry secular couples in a church, which implies, and clearly states, that God's blessing is involved.
I do not believe he was saying that marriage between two people who do not commit to a religion should not be allowed. I think he was just trying to say that the church should not let their beliefs be compromised so readily. I think K_Unit would agree that atheists and agnostics should be married directly through the legal system and not in a church setting.
Sorry to butt in, but I saw this as possibly being blown up over a misunderstanding and felt that, as a morally obligated human being, I should step in, if only for a brief moment.
While I do not agree with many of K_Unit's ideas and beliefs, I don't think he intended to offend you, or any other person who does not commit themselves to a religion, and something gave me the idea that he may not respond so calmly and rationally in order to defend himself.
QuickSilverD
I Think... Therefore You Are
Damn! you people, you are so into defending homosexuality that now you question humanity own nature?
I was meaning in general
I haven’t address bisexuality a single time in my posts, why do you bring the subject up?
People you are misunderstanding me, girl-girl relationships are not better than male-male ones, I didn’t say that, just that it is more tolerable for me (a man) as I said, men are programmed to like girls, that’s a fact that we have always know, but why, why do you want to get rid of it (the fact)?
I bet most people use the word “gay” to refer to male-male these days
you misunderstood what I said, and I was doing some generalizations, that is by the way not the same thing as using stereotypes.
No, is not I didn’t say that, you seem to assume that the reason for what I was against homosexuality in the first place was because I felt disgusted by it, but this is not the reason
Because there is nothing that can prevent it, at least not now, I can’t believe you are not even sure if it will be a dawn tomorrow
I’m talking for experience and general knowledge every time I make an assumption, I see you don’t like me using the phrase “we men” even when what I say is commonly accepted as true for most people and I’m a man
There is a little difference between using stereotypes and speaking in general
both
I really don't feel it was your place to step in. K-Unit did not directly say that marriage with homos was wrong, he stated that anybody who is not religious and gets married is wrong. I am highly offended by that quote because I for one, am NOT religious and I still got married. I wish people would watch what they say in these threads and keep it on topic instead of dragging people who have nothing to do with a homosexual situation, into it by saying that I'm in the wrong for having married my husband and I'm not some kind of religious person. I have my beliefs but it doesn't mean I have to go to church just so I can get married.
Addict56
Newbie
NO, its sick, wrong and in the bible it's stated that homosexuality is an abomination..............i AM catholic, and thats my belief. its not right, and its gross, and just plain unnatural.
i dont agree with marriage but i dont mind them being together just so laogn as they show nopublic displays of affection
ouch omni just got bit bad lol
ouch omni just got bit bad lol
Last edited:
Heres how i think of it - the bible was written about 2000 years ago - its rules are pretty outdated so why follow it? but then again im not religious so meh....
And quite honestly i couldnt give a damn whether they have PDA - i dont have to look at it so they can do whatever they want - it really is that easy - if you dont wanna watch them snogging or whatever then dont look. after all it cant harm you in any way shape or form.
And quite honestly i couldnt give a damn whether they have PDA - i dont have to look at it so they can do whatever they want - it really is that easy - if you dont wanna watch them snogging or whatever then dont look. after all it cant harm you in any way shape or form.
im atheist so i couldnt really give a damn do what they want i dont thinkits wrong its not a disease (as some might out it) its just something you want to do i take back what i said earlier im not against marriage becasue they can do what the hell they want they have the same rites as us its just people think of them as different even though they can be just the same as you and me only they prefer same-sex relationships hell for all you know you're best friend could be secretly gay
Do you ever think without referring to the Bible, think with your own mind? Don't mean to be rude, just curious.To say just that is not good enough especially here, without better reasoning, I don't really allow. Not saying what you are posting is wrong, but try elaborating on following posts.
And for those who feel it necessary to insult others here, I suggest you proof read posts before sending them. If arguing continues, I will close the topic for good.
*sigh*
Humans are nurtured to have specific beliefs...
I'm willing to bet that "Addict56" doesn't have his own opinion on the matter, and rather he's just following what mommy and daddy or his friends said...
In regards to PDA...I'm actually not to keen on people showing PDA whether they be gay, straight, a little bit crooked on the end...it doesn't matter...There is such a thing as "the right time and place"...
It's not always right, even for straight people to show PDA...
And as for people referring to the bible...
I've yet to see anymore than like two people come up with a legitimate statement, or an accurate quote to back their arguments...
Humans are nurtured to have specific beliefs...
I'm willing to bet that "Addict56" doesn't have his own opinion on the matter, and rather he's just following what mommy and daddy or his friends said...
In regards to PDA...I'm actually not to keen on people showing PDA whether they be gay, straight, a little bit crooked on the end...it doesn't matter...There is such a thing as "the right time and place"...
It's not always right, even for straight people to show PDA...
And as for people referring to the bible...
I've yet to see anymore than like two people come up with a legitimate statement, or an accurate quote to back their arguments...
Well said *Gives a stand ovation to Rhea then forgets what im clapping to exactly*
Well, I disagree with Gay-marriage, it's wrong,
but still It is their life, so there's nothing actually to say about...
but still It is their life, so there's nothing actually to say about...
SashiLul
Is Dead inside!
listen, there is nothing any of you can help. It's not like you can kill them all or lock them in prison. Nor can you make them not gay. So everyone just needs to leave it be.
QuickSilverD
I Think... Therefore You Are
Assuming that there is nothing to be done doesn't mean that the thing can't be prevented, I have notice that there seem to be more gay people now than any other timeline in humanity, why? you could argue that before people simply deny it, but can that really justifice the numbers?
My opinion is that now since you are given two choices to follow, people choose one or the other, not by nature but nurture. Nowadays society is telling you that homosexuality is not only "not wrong" but also "right" and there is nothing to be ashame of... Wrong two ideals that contradic each other can't both be right.
If we asume that homosexuality is right, then hererosexuality most be wrong and since we know (or at least I know) that heterosexuality is the right one, then homosexuality most be the wrong one. and before anyone star to argue that maybe "heterosexuality is wrong" think about nature and reproduction, and remember that we don't have sex because is fun, it is fun so that we be tented to do it, thus allowing reproduction, thus allowing the continuity of the especies
I think we all need to open our minds to the possibility that we, as humans (who...as I mentioned, only use 10% of our brains) probably don't know everything that life has to offer; including the science of life.
1.) Common misconception: The Bible is not the word of God.
The Bible was written by men; frequently translated; and taken too literally.
2.) People who hear voices in their heads (e.g. claiming to hear God's voice) actually can't be labeled as schizophrenics.
Labeling "different" people as "sick" or "delayed" based on hypothesis is only a cover-up for not fully understanding the cause.
1.) Common misconception: The Bible is not the word of God.
The Bible was written by men; frequently translated; and taken too literally.
2.) People who hear voices in their heads (e.g. claiming to hear God's voice) actually can't be labeled as schizophrenics.
Labeling "different" people as "sick" or "delayed" based on hypothesis is only a cover-up for not fully understanding the cause.
OmniscientOnus
Blue Mage
Who is to say that one has to be wrong and the other right? What if they were both right? What if, and stay with me here, we were meant to be neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, but instead bisexual? Let's examine a theoretical argument that would explain why bisexual is better than either homosexual and heterosexual.
To start off, in order to make this argument work well, we have to throw religion out the window and assume that there is no God. I'm not saying there isn't one, but this only works if we look at it from a scientific perspective. So, let's begin.
Heterosexual people will, most of the time, reproduce. Reproducing is, overall, a good thing. It keeps the species going, and, of course, we would like to think that humans are indeed a good species to keep around. If the earth was composed of entirely heterosexuals, and the current statistics on average fertility, life expectancy, birth rate, and death rate stayed about the same, the human race would continue to expand exponentially.
Homosexual people do not reproduce. Homosexual couples do not add to the overall population of the world, and therefore, do not extend the overall time that humans populate the earth. If the entire human race was homosexual, the time in which humans populated the earth would be exactly equivalent to the age of the oldest human being.
Bisexual people, however, can reproduce, but don't necessarily have to. A bisexual person, statistically speaking, will only have the ability to reproduce 50% of the time. During same sex relationships, there will be no chance of reproduction, yet during an opposite sex relationship, there will be chance to expand the human race yet another generation into the future.
Bisexual people, therefore, will not increase the population exponentially, but instead at a much slower rate. The slower we expand, means the less we disturb the earth, which means the more time the earth has to heal itself, which means the more time we have parts of the earth that are inhabitable, which inevitably leads to the longer the human race can exist on this planet (considering an outside force doesn't destroy it first).
If what you say is true, that heterosexuals are better because they can reproduce, then you are essentially saying that extending the human races time line is a good, or the "right", thing.
However, heterosexuals expand at a such a rate that we are actually diminishing the time that we humans will have inhabitable land, therefore reducing our own time line. Thus, we can say that a slower expanding rate would be more efficient, and therefore a race of humans who reproduced less, even to the point of having a 1:1 ratio on death rate to birth rate, would be ideal.
Since bisexuals are closer to the ideal 1:1 birth to death rate, they must be, by your own logic, better, or "right".
If all the above is true, than we can substitute another standard instead. We could say that a mix of 50% heterosexual and 50% homosexual human beings would be approximately equivalent to a fully bisexual race, and therefore, just as good.
Also, if your theory is correct; that as a species we are seeing more and more homosexuals, than technically we are simply getting closer to an ideal race. Presuming homosexuality reaches it's peak at a 50/50 ratio with heterosexuality, then human beings are technically just leveling their own playing field.
If homosexuality is caused by nature, then we can say that this fits quite nicely into the theory of evolution. If homosexuality is caused by nurture, as you suspect, then it simply shows the intellect of mankind.
If nurture is, indeed, the cause, then the more humans accept homosexuality, the more homosexuals we will see. Since the odds are that not everyone is going to want to be homosexual, and the odds point to a 50/50 mix as an outcome (since there are two choices, and as we all know from flipping a coin, 50/50 is the inevitable outcome we would eventually get if we were to perform the test in a completely neutral environment) eventually we will even ourselves out to that 50/50 ideal mix, or at least somewhere close to it.
With that being said, I don't particularly agree that a 50/50 mix of homosexuals to heterosexuals, nor a 100% group of bisexuals is truly an ideal situation. However, I wanted to point out that a fairly sound argument, based on your idea that heterosexuals are "right" because they reproduce, can be created quite easily. While there are a few flaws to the above theory, it is essentially based on proven statistical odds, and logically expected odds, that could very possibly occur. In other words, nothing said above is too outlandish to consider, and is too sturdy to easily be broken down by the facts and knowledge we have today. At least, not based on reproduction alone.
Perhaps you would finally like to create an argument on which you could stand that does not involve strictly your own opinions. Take a while and think outside of the box, think logically, or come out and say that you're opinions are based on personal feelings and nothing else. Until you state that you're opinions on homosexuality being "wrong" is based completely on your personal ideas and not facts, you should probably look around for some solid evidence, facts, or even statistics to base your argument on.
EDIT: You could also state that your opinion are based on a religious standpoint, in which case, you would be fully founded, and from a religious aspect, 100% correct on the idea that heterosexuality is the "right" form of sexuality.
Last edited:
I agree - who are WE to say whats right and whats wrong? we are not God we are merely his playthings (well IMO anyway)
Again - i agree - i think that you shouldnt let the bible or whatever dictate your beliefs, the bible was written 2000 years ago and has been translated several times since then, adding things and taking things away each time.
I feel that each and every person should think for themselves and not allow a book written 2000 years ago to dictate what we can and cannot do. Since homosexuality only occurs in about 25 per sent of the worlds population - we will never run out of babies or people - thats a given fact - unless some disease were to spread across the men of the world making them impotent or die, Gay isnt a disease - it cant be "caught" and is never going to be as wide spread as to cause a population crises.
so the question is - your never going to have a gay marriage so why does it bother you so much? how would you feel if your own child turned out gay and wanted to get married but wasnt allowed? i imagine you'd be quite angry/upset and want whats fair for your child - try putting yourself in that position for a moment.