Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

The reason straight folk don't have to march down the street is you already have equal rights.

Most "pride" events (Irish, Black, Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Asian, etc.) are descendents of events meant to demonstrate the humanity of a group. In ages past, these specific classes of people were generally oppressed or segregated for some reason by White-Christian-Male-Dominated society.

As despised as you are about folk forcing their sexual identity down your throat, many many more people are disgusted that some Relgious people think they can force their beliefs down the throat of society every day.

I'm for you having rights. Just tone it down a little so you can get them.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

As someone has already pointed out to you but you've chosen to ignore, straight people are by far worse when it comes to exhibition in public and not every gay person goes to pride.

I don't publically announce my sexuality so how would you like me to tone it down?

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

I'm simply amazed at the stereotyping.

"All them gays do that parade thingie where they take their clothes off!"

When someone brings up Mardi Gras, it's "Well, that's just a group of partiers - that's not all heterosexual folk."

Unbelievable.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

As others have stated, you have provided no sources to back up your claims. You have only offered your opinion, which is fine, but it's still only your opinion.

The problems/difficulties you refer to could happen in any family, they are not exclusive to a same sex famiky.

I'm one who supports "It takes a village". You seem to assume a same sex family won't have that support.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
If we change the word marriage to mean a union less then the "IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE" relationship.

There is no indication that male/female is "ideal". For gay people, it certainly isn't. If male/female is ideal to you, then, by all means, have that kind of marriage.

Then we would have to come up with a new one to describe that IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE relationship and since we already have one that works we're not going to....sorry!!!

The word "marriage" perfectly describes a close union of more than one thing. It could be life and art, poetry and music, vegetables and spices or two people. It perfectly describes all of these "unions".

originally posted by: flammadraco

It's a word, even though It belongs to no religion, let them have it but make it worthless in the process whereby it's not recognised by the state unless you have a "Civil Union Contract".

"If they can't play with it nicely, then no one gets to have it".

Technically all "legal" US marriages are a government civil union. Religion has nothing to do with it.

No one is required to get "legally" married.

There is Covenant Marriage which can be religious marriage only --- without the "legal" government license.

a reply to: Annee

I understand and I'll attempt to put it another way. A marriage in a Relgious building would not be recognised by the state.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I'm for you having rights. Just tone it down a little so you can get them.

What did you have to do to "get your rights"?

a reply to: kaylaluv

No and in my earlier post I said "there are problems in ALL relationships" and "some" homosexual relationships may have way more constructive/positive vibes/frequencies then "some"heterosexual relationships but that does not mean that we should move the bar so to speak. Ultimately ALL positive/constructive/loving frequencies that have been generated here ( whether within a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship ) will contribute to the "wedding" of the over-all male/female energy imo. God can and does use on a regular basis less then IDEAL situations to develop and maximize the available energy. I see homosexuality as a way to develop some positive energy when those individuals may not otherwise be able to contribute positively in a heterosexual relationship.

The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof and He/She uses all things to develop and maximize the available energy. But the energy created during this present life will be threshed out and the chaff will be separated and impure and destructive energy will be blown away...it behooves all of us whether heterosexual or homosexual to examine ourselves so that we do not suffer loss.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
It is irrelevant. The problem comes from forcing sexual lifestyles down peoples throats. We don't march down the street looking for attention for being heterosexual. Do what you want without the 'look at me' banter. You are your worst spokesman.

Lifestyle is what kind of car you prefer, truck, sports car, sedan etc. What food you prefer, hamburger, vegetarian, Italian. What career you chose, office, construction, entertainer. How you live, apartment, house, urban, country. Etc.

As far as attention seekers: I live at the beach. Enough said.

Orientation is who we are sexually attracted to. We all have one.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

The reason straight folk don't have to march down the street is you already have equal rights.

Most "pride" events (Irish, Black, Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Asian, etc.) are descendents of events meant to demonstrate the humanity of a group. In ages past, these specific classes of people were generally oppressed or segregated for some reason by White-Christian-Male-Dominated society.

As despised as you are about folk forcing their sexual identity down your throat, many many more people are disgusted that some Relgious people think they can force their beliefs down the throat of society every day.

I'm for you having rights. Just tone it down a little so you can get them.

Homosexual were forced to live in the underground on the fringe of society. They developed their own culture.

Who forced them out of "polite society"? The holier-than-thou self righteous heteros.

The "gay culture" is fading as gays mainstream into an accepting society.

You want a select few stereotypes to tone it down? Do your part. Accept them.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: kaylaluv

No and in my earlier post I said "there are problems in ALL relationships" and "some" homosexual relationships may have way more constructive/positive vibes/frequencies then "some"heterosexual relationships but that does not mean that we should move the bar so to speak.

Why not? We can move the bar wherever we want, as long as it's a positive move. Allowing consenting adult people who love each other and want to commit to each other to be able to participate in our society, including being married is always a positive move in my book.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Unless logic fails me...if you have a bar that represents the "IDEAL" it cannot be moved in ANY direction and be a positive move.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: kaylaluv

Unless logic fails me...if you have a bar that represents the "IDEAL" it cannot be moved in ANY direction and be a positive move.

Who's IDEAL?

Family units help stabilize a society. The IDEAL is Family. What gender combination that family is, doesn't really matter.

And, as previously stated, same sex families are often more stable because they've worked hard to get it.

a reply to: TheJourney

So, why is the issue of whether choice is a factor or not so prominent in the debate?

I see that this has gone for many pages now, and I'm sure this won't be a revelation - but if it is a choice then it's a sin

You know - in certain circles :-)

And, in those certain circles they are reasonably (or definitely) certain that they get to decide right and wrong for everybody - in and out of their circle

And the wheels of the bus go round and round...

If I decide that I love somebody, or even if I don't actually love them, but I choose to (ahem) lie with that somebody? Ain't nobody's business but my own...

For a certain group of people that tend to want to idolize (to the point of fetishizing) individual freedom in this country - and who also claim to have the right to do whatever they want without government interference - seems kinda funny how much they want to deny certain folks the right to do whatever they want...by using government interference

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The problem with what you're saying is that people who overlook their own character flaws will never fully comprehend the influence parenting has on the character of a child. They try to paint you as a bigot because they don't see how the mother-father dynamic is a natural balance.

Yin and yang, said Confucius at some point. Probably.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TheJourney

Because the fundamental Christians want to justify their view that gays should be punished and even killed for making the choice to sin against God (going against nature and God). They push this into politics and law.

So you see why it's important. The debate is in reaction to that.

The "it's not a choice" crowd do this to get them to see the light and to stop them from trying to control the gay people and passing laws to punish them.

In reality its you that want to feed the Christians to the wolves because you hate that free speech involves someone not agreeing with your version of a healthy lifestyle...

Go live with the head choppers if you think Christians are so evil. Last time I heard there were no head chopping or stoning of gays in America on a daily basis.

What a delusional bunch Homosexuals are..

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: kaylaluv

Unless logic fails me...if you have a bar that represents the "IDEAL" it cannot be moved in ANY direction and be a positive move.

You are not making sense, so yes logic is failing you. You admit that two heterosexuals who marry for all the wrong reasons is not ideal, and yet you think it falls in the "IDEAL" range, and yet two homosexuals who marry for all the right reasons, which IS ideal, still doesn't fall into the "IDEAL" range. Whaaaaat?

a reply to: truckdriver42

Nobody cares what Christians think. Banning gay marriage because Christians find it "yucky" is what we are talking about. Allowing bigot store owners to refuse service to someone because they are gay is what we are talking about. It's the inequality in the laws we are talking about.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The problem with what you're saying is that people who overlook their own character flaws will never fully comprehend the influence parenting has on the character of a child. They try to paint you as a bigot because they don't see how the mother-father dynamic is a natural balance.

Yin and yang, said Confucius at some point. Probably.

There was a time when people were forced into gender specific roles by society. That is not so prevalent today.

Today many, probably most parents both work outside the home. Who's influencing the kids?

Today you've got stay at home dads and mom soccer coaches.

I'm from the 50s. I saw lots of issues in the gender specific "ying-yang". For one thing, "respecting" the man as the power head of the family unit ----- when mom was actually the one running the day-to-day "show".

Progression is "trial and error" ----- but, I sure don't want to go backward.