Welcome Guest, Please Read This.

In the same chapter we were taught that sex was good though (after marriage of course)! Although they don't support gay marriage so that was probably where the problem was.

The teacher made it sound like homosexual acts included purposely fantasizing about someone of the same sex and kissing, which were apparently sins.

I don't think those count. Maybe if it gets to the point of leering and such, but that's not cool for anyone to do to anyone. Never did see a 'thou shalt not have an imagination'.

Honestly, to me, if it's love, it's love. I don't think anyone should not be aloud to get married because someone thinks that it's wrong. One person's beliefs shouldn't rule over another person's life. Also, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're not a human being. They should still have the same rights as the rest of us.
And these people who are supposedly "pro personal liberties" are mostly the ones who are taking away freedoms of the gay and lesbian people. Personal liberties is for EVERYONE.

People should be allowed to marry no matter what their sexuality is. If you're in love and wanting to commit to someone - you should be allowed to do it. If people think it's wrong so what. Let them look the other way.

The key is "purposefully" fantasizing which means realizing you're doing it and then continuing to do so, which is a sin no matter who you're fantasizing about

Honestly I agree with PrincessArtemis up there who said "My eyes are too full of 2x4's to start condemning a whole bunch of people about their sawdust, y'see." If people are going to hell for loving someone of the same sex, well, that's a better excuse then I've got!

I noticed that one of the biggest arguments out there is whether or not the government has the right to legalize gay marriage because marriage is a religious ceremony. However, I would have to disagree with this argument completely and say that marriage is indeed secular. You can have a religious church wedding, but in the eyes of the law it will mean absolutely nothing if there are no legal marriage documents signed. You can also be legally married without going through a true religious ceremony. Also, let's flip this around: if government doesn't have the right to legalize gay marriage, then how do they have the right to make it illegal?
Also, to those of you who have participated in any of the rallies and protests, some of those signs are pretty awesome. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/gaymarr...-Gay-People.htm

I support gay/lesbian marriages cos its their freedom to choose their partners rgdless of gender. I find gay marriages hotter than lesbian marriages. Haha. Cos they are more common?

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/03/gay-new-y...eeks-apart.html

I need help for my English project... does anyone know of a study on homosexuality being genetic? All I'm finding on google are news articles, and I'd rather have the actual study.

In this world everyone can love each other. I agree to gay marriages as a heterosexual or lesbian marriages. Even hatred of gays is a form of racism.

Have you tried doing a search for something like " "scientific study" genetic origin homosexuality" ? You might at least find articles which link to the type of studies you're looking for.

Homosexuality is not a race, so therefore it is not racism.

Perhaps you mean it is a form of prejudice, since racism means in terms of race only, whereas you can hold prejudice against any group.

Indeed! HATRED TOWARDS THE GAY to me is RACISM.

Then please explain to me how "the gay" is a race.

So you believe that there's no such thing as a Caucasian gay, a black gay, an Asian gay, etc., then, outside of mixed-race gay-*insert race* people? And that homosexuals, as a race, have some general defining physical features that can be used to identify them in general?

That's just not how it works.

Gay is not a race. Gay is a sexual orientation. That's like saying men and women are different races. It makes no sense and is untrue.


Hatred towards gays =/= racism. Racism is to do with race, and race alone.

Hatred towards gays is something different. It's just as wrong to hate somebody for their sexual orientation as it is to hate them for their race, but the two are not the same thing.

Well, the media seems to have most people believing that gays are physically different.
So guys apparently have nasally voices and act..."fabulous"... that the right term? And lesbians are all butch and muscley. And they supposedly sexually harrass others more than straights.
I haven't met many lesbians, any offline to know the difference in their case, but being gay myself I don't really see any "physical" difference between gays and nongays, and I'd assume the chicks aren't all that outstanding either.

While it doesn't really have anything to do with race, it would probably be more outwardly effective to classify it as one though, 'cause frankly you call someone "homophobic" or "biggot" and they just blow it off, but go ahead and call them a racist and they go all defensive psychopath on you. Maybe the "racial trait" should just be not being straight. The govt would certainly get off their arses to fix this damn mess quicker if they thought it'd be racism to deny it.

No, I don't think that would work. They'd just be like "Nope, we're not racists! Sexual orientation doesn't determine race, so lol ur stupid!" As it is racists will use anything and everything to justify their behavior and prove they're not racist (even when they are, unless they're the ones who honestly don't care who knows they are racist in which case it wouldn't matter)--it'll just be the same thing here. The people who run our country may be stupid, but they're excellent at finding loopholes, so this would just be another one they'd use.

Additionally, straight and gay aren't the only two orientations.

Asexual comes to mind, and bisexual.

So, how would you handle that? Would that make asexuals and homosexuals the same race, since they're not heterosexual? Or would bisexuals change race depending on who they're sexually active with/attracted to at the moment? That wouldn't make sense, since they don't have the same sexual attractions, therefore that "racially defining feature" groups a bunch of people who have absolutely nothing in common sexually together as the same race. That's like saying there's only two races.

And then how would you classify those who are transgender? Would a female bodied-person who identifies as male and is attracted to females be lesbian because of her body or straight because of his gender-identification?


ETA: Also, how would you handle somebody who is a heterosexual homoromantic? They're sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but they're more than willing to have an emotional but not sexual relationship with somebody of the same sex? Like, use a guy for an example. He's willing to date a girl and have sex with her. He's also willing to go out with another guy, just they wouldn't have sex. What happens to those people, are they classified by their physical sexual attraction, or who they're going out with at the time, or their romantic attraction or what?

This post has been edited by KageSora on Apr 3 2012, 07:38 PM

You may find this useful: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id...genetic&f=false
I don't know if you've seen it already, but it provides some good information. There's also a segment in the documentary, "For The Bible Tells Me So" that explains some of the studies scientists have done.

I'm openly bisexual so my opinion on this is probably clear. On a personal level I don't see the point in marriage and think it's not very important, but I respect those who want to get married, and as such I believe gay, lesbian and trans couples should be allowed to get married, and not have it be called a "civil partnership" (which doesn't have the same "rights" or recognition as marriage does in some countries).

Love is a very personal thing, and I don't think anyone should restrict peoples love for each other. If they want to get married, let it be so.