|
Post by Ich Liebe Rammstein on Feb 1, 2003 13:18:00 GMT -5
This is just sickening. I didn't read every single thing everyone one here wrote, but I wish everyone could just accept the fact that there *are* homosexuals and there is nothing that is going to change that.
I agree. I think it's stupid how it seems that girls who are lesbian can get away with it because of all the porn sites there are that get's guys turned on, but they (other people) bash the gay men because they think it is "sick".
I don't get turned on my homosexuals or lesbians period. But I can still except them for who they are. Not what they do and who they like.
|
|
|
Post by Stepharoola on Feb 1, 2003 23:26:26 GMT -5
I just watched the Christina Aguilera video for "Beautiful". It showed the part where the two men are kissing.
My dad's reaction "Oh, gross. Yuck! Blehhhhch!" My mom's reaction See above. My bro's reaction "Kewl!"
My reaction? Wow. These two men, they were in love. It made me realize that, why judge them so wrongly?
_____________________________________________________________________
Alot of heterosexual people are not capable of taking care of their children. And they says Gay's are not either.
Let me try to get my point across here.
Two men walk into an adoption agency, and they want to adopt a little boy or girl. They have too fill out papers about they're income and theings. If they are not capable of supporting that child, they are NOT gonna let them adopt the child.
I say, as long as these people (gay, bisexual, lesbian, or heterosexual) can finacially support the child, and can be there around the child often enough, there is nothing in this world wrong with gays or lesbians to adopt a child.
_____________________________________________________________
Should they be allowed to marry?
Not in a church. It is really against God's will. (Sorry, religious argument) But, if they wish to be legally married, as long as it's not in a church or synogoge, I have no problem whatsoever with it. But, as a Christian, I see getting married (or even dating) as gays or lesbians is wrong. But, not all people go by the Bible, which I do understand completely, so, if they are not Christian or someone who follows the Bible, I guess there is not a problem there.
~Steph
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Feb 2, 2003 16:44:11 GMT -5
^^Many liberal synagogues will actually marry a homosexual couple. They don't see it as "wrong". So I think they can get married wherever they want. It's really up to the individual place of worship to decide if they wish to marry homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by Stepharoola on Feb 2, 2003 16:47:16 GMT -5
^Yes. It really is up to the place of worship, but, I think that it is wrong, because of the Bible. (I know you really do not want a religious argument, but, this is just my point of view.)
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Feb 2, 2003 18:39:15 GMT -5
I understand that it's your point of view, and I respect the fact that you don't think it should apply to the general law. However, I was just pointing out that certain religions have a different sense of morality, and thus, it is their decision. However, this is not really a discussion for this board, but rather for the Religion board (which, side note, has not been posted on for DAYS). How about we take it there?
|
|
|
Post by Stepharoola on Feb 2, 2003 23:21:28 GMT -5
^Good idea.
Now, like I said, I agree that the place of Worship are in charge of whom is to be married there.
|
|
|
Post by m on Feb 10, 2003 7:16:49 GMT -5
Did anyone watch the "special" on Wacko Jacko? That dude sleeps with 12 year old boys and dangles his kids out of balconies. And that gross almost sexual way he said, "I give them cookies and warm milk." Eeh hee! Now there's a model parent. (Shudder)
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Feb 10, 2003 13:08:00 GMT -5
^^It's never been proven that Michael had sex with those young boys. I agree that dangling your child out of a balcony is disgusting, and didn't it happen in England? If it did, then that's even worse, because that's where Eric Clapton's child died while falling out a balcony window. Still, I don't see what that story has to do with this thread, since Michael Jackson is straight, as far as I know. If he wasn't, I still wouldn't consider him representative of the gay community.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Feb 10, 2003 15:21:20 GMT -5
^^^Agreed, 80's Child. I wouldn't call Michael Jackson a good representation of the human race, let alone the gay community.
And I'm really not sure if he had sex with those boys. Of course, it seems like the obvious answer, but maybe he's crazy enough where he would actually tuck them in and give them warm milk and cookies. However, his problems stem much deeper than sexual attraction for anyone...
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Feb 10, 2003 17:33:25 GMT -5
^^I agree. The term "nutbag" does not even begin to describe him. But that doesn't represent the entire gay community. I actually didn't see the special, but my mother (who didn't see it but who somehow knows everything) says he admitted to sleeping with young boys. I hadn't known that up until this point. Still his actions are not representative of all members of the gay community as I already said.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jun 30, 2003 1:10:27 GMT -5
Partly in response to the ruling overturning a Texas sodomy law many in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have layed down their support for a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Its good to see that some people in Washington are defending American values. Frist backs constitutional ban on gay marriage WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week. "And I'm thinking of — whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern." Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do. "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment." Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled. As drafted, the proposal says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds. "Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions — with the local norms, the local mores — are being able to have their input in reflected. "And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts." www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-29-frist-gay-marriage_x.htm
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Jul 1, 2003 23:36:51 GMT -5
Its good to see that some people in Washington are defending American values. ^I don't agree that it's defending American values, I see it more as perpetuating American prejudice. Why should two people in love be stopped from getting married? Marriage should be about love, not gender.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Jul 3, 2003 21:07:58 GMT -5
How is an act between two consenting adults between closed doors criminal? It's not hurting either one involved. It's not like a law against sodomy will actually stop people from doing it anyway.
|
|
arikylal
New Member
Difference from the norm...
Posts: 23
|
Post by arikylal on Sept 5, 2003 13:20:42 GMT -5
You know what? It's really none of our business what a homosexual or heterosexual does with there life. They should have every legal right to marry, and be able to show there love to each other. It won't effect me, or anybody else.
Omigosh, the government will have to dish out more in marriage benefits. Big deal. The Alberta, Canada government made a PROFIT last year.
And as for homosexual couples adopting children, GOOD FOR THEM! A child gets to go to a loving home and family, instead of spending 18 years in an orphanage. I would rather "bastardize the family unit" then let some child not feel the love of a family.
And this may sound harsh, but those people who say that gays adopting children is how they recruit, and I'm not saying anybody here said this, please GROW UP! Speaking as a bisexual (which I know isn't the same as gay) child with 2 STRAIGHT parents, I wasn't told by my parents to be straight or gay, it wasn't something I chose, it just happened.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Sept 5, 2003 17:34:36 GMT -5
Personally, I have no trouble whatsoever with the homosexual community.
One of my best friends at school is gay and when he told me (I was actually one of the first he came out to), I wasn't completely surprised. I simply said, "Okay ... so?"
He doesn't go preaching about it or anything, I simply told him that if he ever wants to talk about it politically or something nonemotional, I'd be more than happy to debate with him. I have some of the best debates with this man because he is SMART, INTELLIGENT, and doesn't GIVE A DAMN what people think.
Sure, he doesn't want people to find out because he knows what will happen to him. Hell, if I were in his place, I wouldn't want that kind of stress either.
My uncle actually had a new-hire where he works come in and go around telling everyone he was gay. Want to know my uncle's response? Here it is: "So? Get back to work."
Homophobes are unintelligent people. Simple as that. And yes, any of you people here that are homophobes (though I thought the vast majority of them were all dead and all that remained were red necks, KKK, and Neo Nazis), I am offending you purposely. Got a problem with me calling you unintelligent? Prove me wrong.
|
|