Homosexuality

[Sticth]

just dont touch me and think thats wrong  

[BansheeinHades]

I think homosexuality is all right. For saying this, I have my personal reasons.

I don't know where I saw this... but it goes like this, "Would you rather see two men firing guns at each other, or two men holding hands?"
Something among those lines.

I know I'd much rather see two men holding hands.  

[tccuddlyblonde]

I'm a lesbian... and have a VERY hott dyke girlfriend... and she drives a really fast motorcycle! heart  

[Idiosyncratic Rain]

What do you think? I think it's normal, just like the skin colors, you can't change it and should be accepted.

Is your opinion effected by your religious beliefs? I have no real religion, I follow most of the Buddhism ways but not totally. In Buddhism, monks are suppose to have no "sexual life". Therefore homosexuality isn't an issue.

Are you gay/bi/transexual? I am Bi-sexual. I had my share of girlfriends and now have a boyfriend.

Have you had any specific issues with people of the opposite sexual orientation? I've had issues with homophobes. Where I live we have what we call the "Gay Village" It's in the middle of down town, it's a big neighborhood. Last summer a man was driving through and saw two women kissing on the corner while waiting for the light to turn green so they could walk across. I on the other corner, saw the man get out of his car, walk up to the ladies and started beating on both of them. When the cops asked him why he had done that, he replied "Homosexuals are disgusting". I never felt so angry.  

[shadow_alchemist92]

i think homosexuality is wrong. VERY few exceptions (like if someone would kill u otherwise) this opinion is affected by my religious beliefs, because other than my religious views on homosexuality, i would say its disgusting, but i would have no reason to say it was really bad  

[punkarama]

I actually watched a really interesting video about how homosexuality is related to extreme amounts of stress in a pregnant mother that causes a hormone imbalance which in turn causes a hormone imbalance in the baby (gays have an increase in estrogen while lesbians have an increase in testosterone).

I am in no way stating this as my opinion, I just felt like it was an interesting theory.

I find nothing wrong with homosexuality and I do believe that it ISN'T a choice (somebody doesnt choose to be gay/bi/lesbian) and that it has to do with biology. I feel there is nothing wrong with gay marriage ... two people should have the right to celebrate the love they feel for one another whether they are the same sex or not.

Even though i'm straight (well maybe a bit bi-curiouse) I felt liberated when gay marriage was legalized in my province (Saskatchewan) and then legalized for the country (Canada) as a hole  

[Neffir08]

Okay. I have no clue what sextuality I am. I'll leave it at that. I think being gay is perfectly fine, and the only social disese is homophobia. I think gay marriage should be legalized, and that is is no one's business to argue with it.
As for my beliefs, I'm a Buddist, and nuff said. And I say this to my fellow class mates every time they try to diss homosextuals; "I don't care who you are, where you grew up, or what religion you practice. You will love someone of the same gender, no matter what. Be it you mother, father, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, some people find it in another person, so they want to spend the rest of their life with them."  

[shadow_alchemist92]

like i sai before, i believe gay marriage is wrong. i do believe that gay marriage should be legalized, though. (seems controdictory, huh?) the reason is, i think homosexuality is wrong, but if God gave you free-will, who am i to say he's wrong?  

[Der Freischuetz]

My views have come down to these simple beliefs: it occurs naturally, yet it is still abnormal. They deserve equal treatment, though with the issue of marriage, I wish it would be left to the Church rather than the People, as it should be a religious issue rather than a civil issue. I'd accept civil unions if the Church wouldn't allow gay marriage. I don't believe that a homosexual couple would make as effective parents as the typical heterosexual parents for the simple reason that there isn't a mother figure and a father figure.  

[EJ_Nova]

Der Freischuetz

My views have come down to these simple beliefs: it occurs naturally, yet it is still abnormal. They deserve equal treatment, though with the issue of marriage, I wish it would be left to the Church rather than the People, as it should be a religious issue rather than a civil issue. I'd accept civil unions if the Church wouldn't allow gay marriage. I don't believe that a homosexual couple would make as effective parents as the typical heterosexual parents for the simple reason that there isn't a mother figure and a father figure.

If you believe that marriage should be a church issue rather than a civil one, do you also believe that the government should endorse and in fact reward marriage? It's a conflict of interest. If it's government endorsed, then it should follow the policy of our government and constitution, which is not to discriminate. If it's an issue to be left to the church, then we must completely restructure our welfare, inheritance of property, adoption, and insurance policies so that marriage is no longer recognized legally. As it stands, my husband and I were forced to marry because of the way college assistance is handled. We wouldn't have done so if not for that because neither of us are religious. We were married without a wedding in a legal ceremony. Are you saying that the church should be involved in this? Also, though the majority of the sects of christianity are immune to change and social evolution, there are many churches out there that willingly oblige to marrying homosexual couples.

Civil unions as they now stand, are just revisiting the whole "seperate but equal" thing. You remember how well that turned out. Seperate will always be unequal because of the social stigma of segregation. The minority gets pushed around. If it were to be used, then all marriages should be called civil unions legally. That would make it equal. Then you can let people call it marriage or union or whatever depending upon how it is recognized in whatever religion they happen to follow, instead of arbitrarily deciding on a religion for the whole country to be forced to follow.

Why do you think only a man can fill the role of "father figure" and only a woman can be a "mother figure?" What do you think about single parents? What about couples who for some reason or another have a slightly different version of gender roles than what is traditional? What about stay at home dads and working moms?

Edit: Deleted something that might have come off as a bit offensive... sweatdrop  

[Der Freischuetz]

The more I hear of all these ideas, the more I like the idea of married couples only getting benefits if they can produce children. Everyone could still get married, but the only couples who could get benefits would be those that can produce children i.e. fertile couples, not infertile or homosexual couples. Government should only reward a married couple if they can produce children. Many people probably don't like that, but it works for me.

I have taken a more neutral stance on the issue of gay marriage as of late. I used to be against it, as marriage is, in fact, supposed to be between a man and a woman. (Just look at a dictionary. At least mine defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.) However, as of late, I've seen it as a very unimportant topic. Though I'd prefer the issue of gay marriage to be left to the Church, since it is a civil issue it can be voted on. From what I've seen, where people have voted (including my state) people are opposed to it. You must respect the majority, even if it's unfair to the minority. The minority should not have a greater say over the majority. That's democracy for you. I don't really know how people will vote on gay marriage in the future, but I don't really care for it right now. There are more important issues we need to be concerned with.

I believe there is a distinct difference between a man and a woman raising a child rather than two people of the same sex. A man can't act like a mother and a woman can't act like a father. From what I've seen, single parents tend not to be able to raise their children as well as if they had a partner with them. Maybe a gay couple would be better at it than a single parent, but I still think that it just doesn't work as well as the standard mother-father configuration. Society has been raised for a long time to believe that the mother-father setup is the best and most socially-acceptable way to raise a child. I think that men are better for working and that women are better at taking care of children. If the father does more of the child raising, it's better than having the child at daycare all of the time. But I still think that the mother is better at raising children. Call me oldfashioned or (gasp) sexist, but I just think that's the way things should be.  

[EJ_Nova]

Der Freischuetz

The more I hear of all these ideas, the more I like the idea of married couples only getting benefits if they can produce children. Everyone could still get married, but the only couples who could get benefits would be those that can produce children i.e. fertile couples, not infertile or homosexual couples. Government should only reward a married couple if they can produce children. Many people probably don't like that, but it works for me.

I have taken a more neutral stance on the issue of gay marriage as of late. I used to be against it, as marriage is, in fact, supposed to be between a man and a woman. (Just look at a dictionary. At least mine defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.) However, as of late, I've seen it as a very unimportant topic. Though I'd prefer the issue of gay marriage to be left to the Church, since it is a civil issue it can be voted on. From what I've seen, where people have voted (including my state) people are opposed to it. You must respect the majority, even if it's unfair to the minority. The minority should not have a greater say over the majority. That's democracy for you. I don't really know how people will vote on gay marriage in the future, but I don't really care for it right now. There are more important issues we need to be concerned with.

I believe there is a distinct difference between a man and a woman raising a child rather than two people of the same sex. A man can't act like a mother and a woman can't act like a father. From what I've seen, single parents tend not to be able to raise their children as well as if they had a partner with them. Maybe a gay couple would be better at it than a single parent, but I still think that it just doesn't work as well as the standard mother-father configuration. Society has been raised for a long time to believe that the mother-father setup is the best and most socially-acceptable way to raise a child. I think that men are better for working and that women are better at taking care of children. If the father does more of the child raising, it's better than having the child at daycare all of the time. But I still think that the mother is better at raising children. Call me oldfashioned or (gasp) sexist, but I just think that's the way things should be.

Wait... did you actually just defend seperate but equal segregation? That's what I was talking about with the minority being oppressed by the majority. You just responded with why the majority should oppress the minority. I'm sure you meant it in a different context, right? You're surely not that old fashioned.

I'd also like to remind you of the major population crisis that is looming in our future... I'd like the government to pass out benefits to those who willingly choose not to breed. You see, it used to be pracical to encourage population growth because it meant economic growth and the ensured propagation of the species. Right now overpopulation is costing more money than it's worth in labor returns and with upwards of six billion people out there I'm sure we could risk slowing down a bit.

Well, you said it yourself. You can't be convinced because you're unwilling to participate in social evolution. That's fine, I'm all about freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what makes the internet great. I must admit the fact that you are part of my generation worries me a bit though.  

[Der Freischuetz]

Squicks

Wait... did you actually just defend seperate but equal segregation? That's what I was talking about with the minority being oppressed by the majority. You just responded with why the majority should oppress the minority. I'm sure you meant it in a different context, right? You're surely not that old fashioned.

I'd also like to remind you of the major population crisis that is looming in our future... I'd like the government to pass out benefits to those who willingly choose not to breed. You see, it used to be pracical to encourage population growth because it meant economic growth and the ensured propagation of the species. Right now overpopulation is costing more money than it's worth in labor returns and with upwards of six billion people out there I'm sure we could risk slowing down a bit.

Well, you said it yourself. You can't be convinced because you're unwilling to participate in social evolution. That's fine, I'm all about freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what makes the internet great. I must admit the fact that you are part of my generation worries me a bit though.

Why should couples that choose not to reproduce get benefits simply because of the "problem" of overpopulation? They don't deserve any benefits for making that choice. It makes more sense to me to have the government tell people how many children they are allowed to produce rather than encouraging them not to. Tell people they are only allowed to have a maximum of two children; any child after the second will be aborted.

Or how about Eugenics? We could only have people with desirable traits be bred, and the undesirable qualities would be weeded out by sterilizing the people with the bad traits. Right now, China and India are highly overpopulated. They could stand to sterilize a few generations of people who are simply dead weight because they contribute nothing to society. The wrong people are having too many children. Prevent them from adding any more stupid, retarded people to society, and you'll not only cut down on the total population, but you'll bolster the people who have desirable traits within the population. Or do you consider that inhumane?

It's democracy. The minority has to put up with what the majority voted on. You can't please everyone, and it's better to please the majority rather than the minority. You can't let the minority run the majority in a democracy. If you don't like it you can just giiiit out.

Worried that I'm a member of your generation? What, am I too Authoritarian for our generation? Or is everyone, by your definition, supposed to become more and more progrssive and libertarian with each coming generation?  

[EJ_Nova]

Der Freischuetz

Why should couples that choose not to reproduce get benefits simply because of the "problem" of overpopulation? They don't deserve any benefits for making that choice. It makes more sense to me to have the government tell people how many children they are allowed to produce rather than encouraging them not to. Tell people they are only allowed to have a maximum of two children; any child after the second will be aborted.

Or how about Eugenics? We could only have people with desirable traits be bred, and the undesirable qualities would be weeded out by sterilizing the people with the bad traits. Right now, China and India are highly overpopulated. They could stand to sterilize a few generations of people who are simply dead weight because they contribute nothing to society. The wrong people are having too many children. Prevent them from adding any more stupid, retarded people to society, and you'll not only cut down on the total population, but you'll bolster the people who have desirable traits within the population. Or do you consider that inhumane?

It's democracy. The minority has to put up with what the majority voted on. You can't please everyone, and it's better to please the majority rather than the minority. You can't let the minority run the majority in a democracy. If you don't like it you can just giiiit out.

Worried that I'm a member of your generation? What, am I too Authoritarian for our generation? Or is everyone, by your definition, supposed to become more and more progrssive and libertarian with each coming generation?

Actually, I am all for passive eugenics. I only didn't mention it because I didn't want to expose my more extreme views. I don't think it should be so controversial though. To those who would call it inhumane I ask which is more humane: slowing down reproduction rates or letting people die of starvation and disease? I am also all for genetic manipulation in the womb. Won't it be nice when you can know that your child has less of a chance for birth defects and congenital diseases?

I'm not so worried anymore. ^^ You're a bit sexist, but you're not ignorant. Some of your views do make you sound like a relic of ages past. Lolz At least the whole "women at home, men in the workplace" thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a different opinion than that which is in sync with one's generation, it just caught me off guard in this case. As long as nobody tries to put that into law, who am I to judge a family for being traditional? By the way, you're still defending segregation... stare

In that case though, don't you think homosexuality is a good thing? They are willing to basically not participate in the whole breeding thing. What would you have against them marrying? There are churches out there that are okay with it and will marry homosexual couples. They are not the majority, but doesn't their existence alone prove that there is a social evolution going on? Doesn't it say something about how willing society is to accept gay families now? You say that one-man-one-woman parenting is the socially accepted norm, but that is changing. Will your opinion change with the social norm?