Support NeoGAF

[demon]

Like those calling names.. ignorant, bigot, ect.. rather than providing any kind of reasoning or argument?

This entire thread is an argument for calling someone like you a bigot.

 

[gofreak]

I want to address one single point here: the word urge. Talking about people addressing their urges. We're not talking about urges here. We're talking about sexual attraction. Doesn't everyone agree that sexual attraction is something built-in? Like I said before, if it's not, nature is taking an awfully big gamble..

edit - I'd also like to turn this focus solely off the primal sexual feelings one has and talk about more general "love". Though not familial love, or platonic love, but the love one feels for someone who they are sexually attracted to, even when sex is taken out of the equation. Have you ever been in love akascream? Well I have been. It was far more than something sexual. And I felt it for another man. Homosexuality is about your entire inclinations with regard to coupling, not just sexual ones.

 

[akascream]

This entire thread is an argument for calling someone like you a bigot.

And which of my views would you consider makes me a bigot? Thats right, you have no clue what I believe because I've made this an issue of fact and speculative perspective rather than crying over my own personal feelings of guilt and lashing out.

 

[demon]

I want to address one single point here: the word urge. Talking about people addressing their urges. We're not talking about urges here. We're talking about sexual attraction. Doesn't everyone agree that sexual attraction is something built-in? Like I said before, if it's not, nature is taking an awfully big gamble..

I don't know about "built-in"--innate--but it's certainly not something one has control over or is determined by some conscious decision. Just like heterosexuality.

 

[maharg]

This is a two way street.



Is this some kind of a threat? Whats wrong with debating the issue instead of making everything personal anyway.

I haven't banned anyone since I started helping to admin the GAF server, and I sure as hell don't plan to today. Have you EVER seen me ban someone for an argumentative disagreement in all the time I've been in the same IRC channel as you? EVER? It's not something I do, and it's not something I threaten.

I'm telling you that if your goal is to avoid a ban, you're going about it the wrong way. I want you to avoid that ban, because everyone is happier when no one is getting banned. The fact is, no one has ever been banned, to my knowledge, for effectively supporting their opinion, no matter how unpopular it was. They have been banned for repeatedly using arguments that have no backing in reality, as demonstrated by either direct anecdotal evidence or actual studies. This is why I say that if your goal is to avoid a ban, go the first route or drop the argument. Because as it stands you seem to be going the third route, and it's attracted jinx' attention, and he DOES ban people.

 

[demon]

I've made this an issue of fact and speculative perspective

What a fuckin joke.

Please tell us of these facts, such as how homosexuality is a choice, how homosexuals are a danger to society, and how being sexually attracted to the same sex is akin to having the "urge" to have sex with another species.

 

[Shouta]

If you guys have known akascream for as long as I have, you know he likes to rile people up when his opinions are fairly benign by making running with the train of logic he's being attacked with. =b

His statements are not venemous but you guys took it as venemous. You then escalated it and he followed suit. Both sides are being pig-headed morons and you guys need to calm down and look at the arguments again.

akascream: Stick to the original opinion you expressed and quit baiting them into posting more venemous posts towards you. You had an argument that is not venemous so drop the act.

 

[akascream]

They have been banned for repeatedly using arguments that have no backing in reality, as demonstrated by either direct anecdotal evidence or actual studies. This is why I say that if your goal is to avoid a ban, go the first route or drop the argument. Because as it stands you seem to be going the third route, and it's attracted jinx' attention, and he DOES ban people.

Thats my whole point though.. the pro-homosexual agenda has about as much basis in fact as the anti-homosexual agenda. But nobody questions the latter.. in fact, questioning it is considered out of line.

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

akascream: Stick to the original opinion you expressed and quit baiting them into posting more venemous posts towards you. You had an argument that is not venemous so drop the act.

Heh. But, but.. this is GA!! =P

/me is confused

 

[maharg]

I've known aka a damn long time

 

[brooklyngooner]

His statements are not venemous but you guys took it as venemous. You then escalated it and he followed suit. Both sides are being pig-headed morons and you guys need to calm down and look at the arguments again.

Nonsense. What arguments?

 

[Gorey]

The sad thing here is, this thread did well for a while considering its subject matter. The long post by Iceman a few pages back caused me to seriously re-think my ideas about dialogue with christians over gay marriage, in a positive manner.

But the last few pages, it has just degenerated into trolling and refusal to provide empirical evidence.

Nice try zaptruder, while it lasted.

 

[akascream]

I've known aka a damn long time

Haha. You make it sound so dirty!

 

[Shouta]

Nonsense. What arguments?

How about his argument that, statistically speaking, homosexuality is not normal within the entirety of the human population?

 

[Spiritreaver]

akascream, have you read anything from homosexuals describing their experience with trying to accept their own self? Many, including myself, had one hell of time trying to understand our own selves and accept that we just cannot control these feelings and that's who we are. Have you heard about the struggle to prove to oneself they aren't gay? I had a girlfriend, and crushes on girls, but there was just no true connection at all. My entire adolescence was full of the thoughts that I might be gay, as had this ever growing attraction to men and I even developed very strong crushes for guys in my school. I tormented myself for years trying to come up with reasoning or some hope that it was just a phase, but it never went away. Eventually I realized that treating myself like this is only going to end up horribly, I had to accept who I was.

I had no conscious thought on who I was attracted to. I didn't tell myself to not like girls, nor did anyone else tell me that. I just did not have that connection with them, and started finding myself becoming more and more infatuated with men. If that's not proof alone that there is no conscious decision in who you're attracted to... I don't know what else we can provide for you. But you're certainly in the wrong from what I've read.

I also do not have AIDS, I do not have any urges to sexually molest children or even any attraction to children. Open your mind up a bit, you've got some very wrong views on homosexuality, and you're not letting any new ones in. You seem completely blocked off to other viewpoint and I'm afraid you're just going to get banned here if you keep it up. I usually don't put up with this, but trying to get people to understand is going to help us much more then condemning others.

 

[videogamer]

Thats my whole point though.. the pro-homosexual agenda has about as much basis in fact as the anti-homosexual agenda. But nobody questions the latter.. in fact, questioning it is considered out of line.

uh lots of people question anti-homosexual agenda. You can find it in this very forum, if not this thread.

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

Why should we tolerate the word "faggot"?

 

[Azih]

Thats my whole point though.. the pro-homosexual agenda has about as much basis in fact as the anti-homosexual agenda. But nobody questions the former.. in fact, questioning it is considered out of line.

fixed.... I think.

 

[shoplifter]

How about his argument that, statistically speaking, homosexuality is not normal within the entirety of the human population?

neither is left-handedness

 

[akascream]

I will take Shouta's advice and leave my argument where it started. Homosexuality is not statistically normal behavior.

 

[OmniGamer]

I'm really kind of ignoring most of the posts here. All I'll say is, I'm 100% sure I was either a) born gay, or b) had my sexuality programmed at an exceptionally early age. Like at 1 or 2, before I had any concept of what sexuality was. Either way, it certainly was not a choice. If I had a choice, I would gladly be heterosexual. I've struggled with my sexuality all my life, and continue to to this day. Don't tell me it's a choice. I'm proof it's not, as are 99% of gay people out there.

Explain to me how I *really* liked He-Man as a 3 year old kid when I had absolutely no understanding or concept of what sex was? That might seem funny, but it is the truth, and the first sexual memory I have. I didn't know what I was feeling was sexual at the time, but in hindsight it was. How could that be if it wasn't something determined pre-birth or very shortly after birth? I can trace this right through my childhood. I didn't realise at the time that I was gay, but I definitely was. And what a horrid day it was when I discovered what "gay" was, and how unacceptable it was. Cue 10+ years of exceptional, verging on suicidal struggle. You have no idea what it's like. Stop telling me what I am isn't natural, or was something I chose - it is an insult of the highest order.

If I *chose* to be homosexual, then that suggests that at one point I was heterosexual, right? If that's the case, then I still am heterosexual. But somehow I'm just suppressing all that and generating a different kind of sexuality? How? How the fuck does that work? It doesn't. Nature didn't leave sexuality up to chance or choice. It has to be something preprogrammed. If it wasn't, it'd place the survival of the species in question. Sexuality is an something innate and primal which you have no control over.

Finally, why do I have to prove anything to you in order to receive equal treatment? You don't have to prove anything, why should I? I'm sick of justifiying my sexuality to both myself and to others. I'm sick of it.

Agreed 100%...finding out you are "gay", which comes after discovering your own feelings toward the same sex and after discovering what homosexual/heterosexual is and how it's viewed in society, it's one of the most depressing and damning things ever, especially given that at the point inf your life(for me, as a pre-teen), you're really not fully mentally developed to cope with such a thing. I mean, sexual development(not just the physical changes, but awareness), is a tricky road to navigate as is, now we have the added difficulty of being on a different road entirely in a vehicle who's manual is written in a foreign language. I'm greatful that one of my friends(more "obvious" than me to put it one way), was around...he was the first person I came out to, I was 13 at the time, and he came out to me too. Granted at this time we were in different high schools and didn't see each other as often as when we were in the same school, but just knowing that someone knew, and someone was the same way, was incredibly helpful.

Anyway, once again

Which begs the question, why wouldn't you respect a homosexual person? I'd like to know what is the criteria for receiving your respect, and how a homosexual person, based solely on the fact that he/she is homosexual, conflicts with that in any rational way, and do you ask for someone's sexual orientation upon first meeting them so as to ascertain the validity of their worthiness of your respect.

And for pete's sakes, do you not realize the difference between Sex and Sexuality?

 

[Azih]

God hates left handed fags the most

 

[Shouta]

Correct shoplifter. Statistically, left-handedness is not normal.

 

[Azih]

Correct shoplifter. Statistically, left-handedness is not normal.

Yeah but left-handed behaviour isn't called aberrant, evil anymore. Gay behaviour is.

 

[maharg]

The question then becomes "how is that significant"

 

[Shouta]

akascream did not say that in this thread Azih.

 

[xsarien]

I will take Shouta's advice and leave my argument where it started. Homosexuality is not statistically normal behavior.

That's not an argument, that's an observation.

 

[gofreak]

Even with this thread setting on a slightly different course, I just came across something I had never heard before, which may have some relevance to the argument over the origins of homosexuality. Feel free to ignore, or look up, or consider..

..all people start off as female. Foeti start off as female before a wash of hormonal changes produce physiological alterations that lead to a male in some (roughly half) of all cases. It was news to me, so maybe it'll get other people thinking too.

 

[Shouta]

Oops, misread ya Azih. I thought you said aka considered it was evil and aberrant =P.

 

[videogamer]

akascream did not say that in this thread Azih.

It's not just about akascream. It's also about letting gays have respect. One of the ways of degrading us is to call us "evil" or "aberrant". Akascream thinks that, as of now, we don't deserve equal rights and respect. Refer to his remarks on gay parades and the word "faggot".

 

[xsarien]

akascream did not say that in this thread Azih.

His peppering of his posts with the word "deviant," knowing full well the connotations of the word within the context of this discussion says otherwise.

 

[Shouta]

Gimme a few minutes. going to nab quotes ;p.

 

[Dilbert]

Correct shoplifter. Statistically, left-handedness is not normal.

Yeah, and my IQ is several standard deviations above the norm. Does that mean that we ought to start discriminating against smart people?

(Oh, wait...)

"Different" does not imply "better" or "worse." The CLEAR implication by continuing to point out that something is not "normal" is that we ought to be placing a value judgment.

Even more to the point -- since when does "normal" only have one meaning? "Normal" means -- and more commonly so -- that something is typical, usual, commonplace, ACCEPTED.

 

[gofreak]

Deviant has acquired highly negative connotations. Connotations aside, its definition suggests that it relates to something socially unacceptable. Some definitions even record the negative connotations that the word has acquired, for example:

deviant

adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert, deviate, degenerate]

Obviously, offense would be taken at that.

Akascream knows well what he's doing. He claims his intended meaning is that it's not a common occurence. He could easily just say that. Instead he is crafting his words to cut.

 

[Goreomedy]

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

No.

 

[KilledByBill]

I seem to have missed posting in this thread when it was on topic and generating a real discussion but I'd like to add my two cents at the end here anyway.

For my Senior Seminar at College I took a violence and aggressive behavior class. It was fascinating especially when discussing the biological causes of violent behavior.

Interestingly, just as aggressive behavior can be induced in animals by targeting certain parts of their brain with electrical impulses, so can sexual behavior of the "wrong" gender. Male lab rats' brains can be stimulated in such a way that they'll move into the lordosis position; holding their bodies low to the ground while arching their... rear end up in the air, mimicking the female's standard sexual position. The opposite is true in that female rats can be induced to perform "mounting" behavior which is usually typical of males. Clearly buried somewhere in the brains of these animals is the wiring for sexual behavior of both genders and I suspect that people are the same way.

Obviously it's considered unethical to perform these kinds of experiments on humans but it's not hard to project the implications. Probably deep down in our brains in the more primitive Limbic System we all have the ability to respond sexually as Male and Female. It’s just that in most cases our dominant responses are aligned with our gender but in the cases of homosexuals and bisexuals the dominant response isn’t bound to that person’s gender or is mixed.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

I'm not gay, but I wouldn't, unless you agreed to be called bigot or fucktard without a fit of outrage.

And look up "bigot"-- it does apply, just as "deviant" does to gays.

 

[Azih]

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage

If you blacks want to be considered equal, then let people call you nigger without expecting a fit of outrage.

 

[Zaptruder]

The sad thing here is, this thread did well for a while considering its subject matter. The long post by Iceman a few pages back caused me to seriously re-think my ideas about dialogue with christians over gay marriage, in a positive manner.

But the last few pages, it has just degenerated into trolling and refusal to provide empirical evidence.

Nice try zaptruder, while it lasted.

Read my reply to buddychrist in the original post.

 

[Iceman]

Even with this thread setting on a slightly different course, I just came across something I had never heard before, which may have some relevance to the argument over the origins of homosexuality. Feel free to ignore, or look up, or consider..

..all people start off as female. Foeti start off as female before a wash of hormonal changes produce physiological alterations that lead to a male in some (roughly half) of all cases. It was news to me, so maybe it'll get other people thinking too.

to clarify... all people start off hermaphroditic. A fetus develops both the mullerian (eventually female) and wolfian (eventually male) genitourinary tracts. What determines which tract survives and which one withers away is testosterone (well, a specific modification of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone or dHT). So in a way people will develop into a female by default if they are not constantly under the selective influence of testosterone. But whether that occurs is dependent on genes present (or absent or defective) in the Y chromosome... and a fetus is either going to be (most of the time) XX or XY. So if you take out of consideration any of the possible deviations nature can come up with, in general an XX fetus WILL become a female and an XY fetus WILL become a male.

Again, if something goes wrong with an XY fetus' ability to generate testosterone, or utilize it, etc.. then the fetus will become a female anatomically. What else happens in the development of an XY fetus deficient in testosterone signaling is beyond me right now (I don't know if I ever even learned that).

 

[videogamer]

Why do women try to force themselves in to all male organizations (clubs) where they are not wanted? Does it make sense? No. Does it happen anyway? Oh yeah. I'm not sayin git would happen, but be realistic, if someone thinks they can force the issue, at some point someone WILL force the issue, just to prove they can.

Then I think it should be treated the same as how the heterosexuals are treated now. The government can't force a church to marry a heterosexual couple.

 

[BigGreenMat]

First off I want to say that I am completely fine with gay marriage, civil unions, or whatever else sort of dohicky term people want to come up with. Also I think that Homosexuality is an environmentally influenced or triggered genetic predisposition. People can choose to participate in homosexual acts, but in general it is not a choice to have your general internal state of being be homosexual in nature.

After that I just wanted to put in probably the most sane argument I have heard in defense of marriage as a social secular institution that is between a man and a woman. First, everyone must get it out of their heads that marriage has anything to do with love. Marriage has never been about love. Marriages were often arranged as business transactions and as a tool for unification.

With this out of the way then what is marriage for? Well it was essentially a binding formation of the basic need for child birth and rearing. Marriage's purpose was simply to create a more ideal situation for offspring. Government has a vested interest in its people continuing to procreate in the best most efficient way in order to produce the best offspring. Therefore government has a vested interest in preserving the ideal of marriage. And in order for procreation to occur there has to be a man and a woman involved and the strongest link to that offspring will be formed by its biological parents, so therefore marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage doesn't fit this as the partners have no chance of procreating within the structure of marriage, and even if one partner does procreate it is outside the boundaries of said marriage and hence the interlocking bonds will be weakened and what results is not ideal. This is why gay marriage in a sense doesn't work under the idea of marriage. Therefore there is little reason for government to endorse such a union between 2 individuals with certain benefits if there is not going to be some sort of benefit for the government or country itself.

Ok does that make sense to everyone? I am sure homosexuals would love such benefits and I would too, but they aren't necessarily mandated under what marriage is. This makes gay marriage a grab for 'greater rights' not 'equal rights'. Any homosexual has the same rights as any straight person the difference being a homosexual chooses not to take advantage of the existing setup and is now demanding his own clause in a pre-existing arrangement. I personally respect that. Grab all and everything that you can, but don't claim it is an issue of 'equal rights'. I do agree though that the measures being passed in many states are not an example of fairhandedness in the area of personal rights. It is a direct judgement on acts and states of being that a majority (or so it would seem) find unsatisfactory and wish to stop.

 

[shoplifter]

^^ yet you make no argument against marriage between one or two sterile heteros, never mind that adoption is possible. While we're at it, why should the government endorse marriages between elderly folks who have outlived their previous spouse? They're not having kids either.

Again, you're stuck on the semantics.

 

[videogamer]

First off I want to say that I am completely fine with gay marriage, civil unions, or whatever else sort of dohicky term people want to come up with. Also I think that Homosexuality is an environmentally influenced or triggered genetic predisposition. People can choose to participate in homosexual acts, but in general it is not a choice to have your general internal state of being be homosexual in nature.

After that I just wanted to put in probably the most sane argument I have heard in defense of marriage as a social secular institution that is between a man and a woman. First, everyone must get it out of their heads that marriage has anything to do with love. Marriage has never been about love. Marriages were often arranged as business transactions and as a tool for unification.

It has changed over the past couple of centuries. Actually, if you read some of the links that I've posted up beforehand, love may have been one of the reasons for marriage in ancient history.

With this out of the way then what is marriage for? Well it was essentially a binding formation of the basic need for child birth and rearing. Marriage's purpose was simply to create a more ideal situation for offspring. Government has a vested interest in its people continuing to procreate in the best most efficient way in order to produce the best offspring. Therefore government has a vested interest in preserving the ideal of marriage. And in order for procreation to occur there has to be a man and a woman involved and the strongest link to that offspring will be formed by its biological parents, so therefore marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage doesn't fit this as the partners have no chance of procreating within the structure of marriage, and even if one partner does procreate it is outside the boundaries of said marriage and hence the interlocking bonds will be weakened and what results is not ideal. This is why gay marriage in a sense doesn't work under the idea of marriage. Therefore there is little reason for government to endorse such a union between 2 individuals with certain benefits if there is not going to be some sort of benefit for the government or country itself.

We can adopt. And of course there is the issue of fairness.

Ok does that make sense to everyone? I am sure homosexuals would love such benefits and I would too, but they aren't necessarily mandated under what marriage is. This makes gay marriage a grab for 'greater rights' not 'equal rights'. Any homosexual has the same rights as any straight person the difference being a homosexual chooses not to take advantage of the existing setup and is now demanding his own clause in a pre-existing arrangement. I personally respect that. Grab all and everything that you can, but don't claim it is an issue of 'equal rights'. I do agree though that the measures being passed in many states are not an example of fairhandedness in the area of personal rights. It is a direct judgement on acts and states of being that a majority (or so it would seem) find unsatisfactory and wish to stop.

I still don't follow your argument on why this is a "grab for greater rights".

 

[Pepperman]

What about gay partners who pay into benefits like social security and pension only to find that their partners are not eligible for those benefits because their union is not legally recognized by the government as marriage is? Ensuring the financial security of American citizens is not a vested interest of the government?

 

[videogamer]

Again, if something goes wrong with an XY fetus' ability to generate testosterone, or utilize it, etc.. then the fetus will become a female anatomically. What else happens in the development of an XY fetus deficient in testosterone signaling is beyond me right now (I don't know if I ever even learned that).

IIRC these people lack the sry region in the y chromosome.

 

[levious]

I think it bears repeating that the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws has been struck down by the supreme court. This is of course not the last of this battle but for now it makes the question of whether being gay is a choice or not irrelavent. It's a behavior that we as a society condone in a consensual setting.

Aka,

That xtian guy is not the only one... just the most recent that I mentioned.

 

[Shouta]

Akascream knows well what he's doing. He claims his intended meaning is that it's not a common occurence. He could easily just say that. Instead he is crafting his words to cut.

You're quite right. It's his fault he wasn't clear. I also said that he has a bad habit if baiting people and then going with their train of logic without sticking to his own However, at the same time he wasn't using the word to imply socially unacceptable behavior but merely behavior that deviates from the norm. The other folks associated "deviant" with its meaning that implies social acceptance. So in this case, both parties are wrong. It's more than enough reason to get off each other's back.

Yeah, and my IQ is several standard deviations above the norm. Does that mean that we ought to start discriminating against smart people?

(Oh, wait...)

"Different" does not imply "better" or "worse." The CLEAR implication by continuing to point out that something is not "normal" is that we ought to be placing a value judgment.

Even more to the point -- since when does "normal" only have one meaning? "Normal" means -- and more commonly so -- that something is typical, usual, commonplace, ACCEPTED.

And akascream says they should be discriminated against? I don't see it.

He is NOT implying that it is better or worse but that it is not commonplace. You're implying that his opinion is that homosexuality is unacceptable or aberrant behavior when on the contrary he has not said so or implied it. Sure, you can say that he was implying we make a value judgment by repeating his point but that doesn't mean he's stated his opinion explicitly or implicitly.

Sure, normal has multiple meaning but so does many words. How do we decide what the word means? By reading it in the context of what was said. He said statistically, homosexuality is not normal. Normal means "commonplace" in this instance.

However, I do see where the confusion point is. akascream never stated what he meant by "statistically." He could mean statistics on opinions or, what I interpreted it to be, was statistics of the human population. Only akascream can clear that up and that is his fault.

His peppering of his posts with the word "deviant," knowing full well the connotations of the word within the context of this discussion says otherwise.

Again, the connotations of deviant that you're thinking of doesn't apply because of the context in which he used it. I agree that he's being one hell of an ass (both in his attitude and how he's stating his attitude) but his original intent of the word has no venom.

Akascream thinks that, as of now, we don't deserve equal rights and respect. Refer to his remarks on gay parades and the word "faggot".

He said he doesn't have a problem with gays having rights and in this case, marital rights which he said he supported in the thread earlier. His usage of "faggot" was in a questioning manner. Not as a discriminatory remark towards others (although that one about equal rights might cross the line ;p)

As for the first part of the quote.

Certainly reasonable. I guess I just get annoyed with the parades ect, that I'm expected to respect homosexuals.

He's annoyed at the thought of being expected to respect someone just because they're gay. I frankly agree with this idea. I'm not going to respect just because you're gay. I'll respect you for the person you are and not because of your sexual orientation or race or whatever it may be.

Again, I agree with both sides. You're all reading into his words so that it makes it seem like he's being flamatory when in reality he isn't. That's your bad. His bad is not being clear with what he said and how he said it which happens all the time, even to the best people. I do think he's being a troll but you're egging him on and reading his posts wrong as well.

 

[videogamer]

2) YET, to call it a marriage ABSOLUTELY equates it with a religious marriage. HERE's the big problem: The concept of marriage between and man and a woman and recognized under God is so incredibly fundamental to core Christian beliefs and teaching that allowing homosexual unions to be considered the same as our religious marriages.. ordained and blessed by God.. WEAKENS the definition of marriage. As has been understood for thousands of years by those who hold to judeo-christian beliefs homosexuality (the behavior) has been listed numerous times among behaviors that are not acceptable. Allowing homosexual marriages would FOR US then appear to be quite the paradox.

The bible speaks very clearly about homosexuality being an abomination. It is equated with other depraved behaviors.. like adultery. Sexual misbehavior exists outside of the bounds of marriage, according to our beliefs. Perhaps it can be accepted by the church that sex between homosexual partners is acceptable if it is within the bounds of a God based marriage. Now, homosexuals intending on getting married would still have to be counseled (as do any couples intent on getting married within the church) by a minister of the church. For a church that has kept the same core beliefs for two thousand years (although the history of the church is VERY complex) to accept such a thing will be very difficult. This is not, cannot be an overnight decision. The church itself has to debate over this issue for a while.

What is happening with the current homosexual movement is that it is pushing EVERYONE to accept everything they want RIGHT NOW. They're not leaving any decisions for anyone else to make. They are trying to force all kinds of things all over the map to people who have learned all their lives (and if you hadnt notice, there are a lot of us) to have only a fairly fuzzy understanding of homosexuality. That "pushing" is only provoking defensive attitudes. We're trying to protect our church... one that is set in a world that we believe is falling constantly into depravity and away from God. They're not allowing us to get together and figure out how homosexuality fits within our faith.. they're forcing us to get together and figure out how to slow down this movement.

If you want to continue to drive a wedge between homosexuals and the body of the church and keep the focus away from resolving the apparent logical paradox then the current movement will do it. They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they want to eat it now. But they are fighting against two thousand years. They equate their plight to that of blacks in the 50s-60s... but blacks had been in this country for 300 years... the homosexual population has only been recognized within the last two generations.

Do you understand the fundamental problem yet?

Isn't that the religion's fault, not ours? I don't accept my second class citizenship.

And I have to say this cuz this irritates me to no end: the label "homophobe" has been waved around my face for as long as I remember. People, EVERYWHERE I HAVE LIVED, have tried to intimidate me from having any opinion that dissents from total and complete acceptance of homosexual behavior by throwing that label at me. How frikken unfair is that? To declare that I am afraid of homosexuals.. to insinuate that I don't have the ability to communicate with a homosexual, to stand in the same room with one, etc... they not only unfairly branded me but imprinted a hostility in any potential relationship I might ever have with a homosexual... I've always had to struggle with the notion that this person is going to HATE me if it is learned that I'm a christian, that I'm a conservative... you know how damaging that is to us.. all of us? You've been driving a wedge between the two populations for years with that single word.

Check out my quote of Marilyn vos Savant. Of course, you've admitted in another thread that you want to deprive me of equal rights. When you hold positions like that, expect a wedge.

http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=570647#post570647

 

[videogamer]

He said he doesn't have a problem with gays having rights and in this case, marital rights which he said he supported in the thread earlier. His usage of "faggot" was in a questioning manner. Not as a discriminatory remark towards others (although that one about equal rights might cross the line ;p)

Is he somehow so dense not to realize how offensive that word is? It's like using the "c*nt" word around certain women.

He's annoyed at the thought of being expected to respect someone just because they're gay. I frankly agree with this idea. I'm not going to respect just because you're gay. I'll respect you for the person you are and not because of your sexual orientation or race or whatever it may be.

Uh it's not our fault that he doesn't understand gay parades. It's not about being proud of our "gayness" despite what the slogans say. It's about acceptance of who we are as people, despite our differences. It's like saying that our "gayness" is just another part of our identity as people.

 

[Goreomedy]

Shouta, I suspect(and it seems you do as well), that he WANTS us to read a negative connotation into his posts. That being the case, who is at greater fault here?

I haven't called him a bigot or ignorant. But he's certainly being an asshole, daring the mods to do something, while fastening the straps on his "disassociation from what I'm saying" Kevlar.

I'll use my own power to kick his ass off the board by activating ignore.

 

[Shouta]

Is he somehow so dense not to realize how offensive that word is? It's like using the "c*nt" word around certain women.

Probably.

Uh it's not our fault that he doesn't understand gay parades. It's not about being proud of our "gayness" despite what the slogans say. It's about acceptance of who we are as people, despite our differences. It's like saying that our "gayness" is just another part of our identity as people.

Well there you go, a misunderstanding of the intended meaning. Now do you see what I mean?