• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Opinions on Homosexuality

Are you for or against gay rights?

  • For Gay Rights

    Votes: 61 95.3%

  • Against Gay Rights

    Votes: 3 4.7%
  • Total voters
    64
Omgitsme said:
Hate crime laws cover sexuality, sex, race ect...not just homosexuality, women, minorities ect. So a heterosexual white man is covered under hate crime laws.
Click to expand...
And I did not say otherwise. In fact I wasnt even going there. But thanx for sharing some pointless information.
 
TurtleDude said:
a related question-why do so many gay men talk the way they do. I have the oscar red carpet show on and one of the interviewers is some guy named TIm Gunn. I didn't even need to google his name to know after hearing 2 seconds of him talking to know he's a flamer
Click to expand...
Tim Gunn has the coolest gay voice ever...if there is such a thing as a cool gay voice. He is on "Project Runway" (my wife makes me watch :3oops:) His voice is awesome, I love it. Um...in a totally manly way of course...
 
Fletch said:
Tim Gunn has the coolest gay voice ever...if there is such a thing as a cool gay voice. He is on "Project Runway" (my wife makes me watch :3oops:) His voice is awesome, I love it. Um...in a totally manly way of course...
Click to expand...

its bad when I don't even have to see the guy and in two words the Gadar redlines. its hilarious watching him drool over hot actresses. Its almost like he is saying "Damn I'd love to look like that in that armani gown
 
TurtleDude said:
its bad when I don't even have to see the guy and in two words the Gadar redlines. its hilarious watching him drool over hot actresses. Its almost like he is saying "Damn I'd love to look like that in that armani gown
Click to expand...
No, there is no mistaking him for a straight guy thats for sure.
 
TurtleDude said:
a related question-why do so many gay men talk the way they do. I have the oscar red carpet show on and one of the interviewers is some guy named TIm Gunn. I didn't even need to google his name to know after hearing 2 seconds of him talking to know he's a flamer
Click to expand...

A flamer? Really? Sterotype much? Tim Gunn just admited not long ago he has not had sex in almost 30 years. Maybe you should think before you speak out in reguards to someones voice inflections:roll:


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/01/tim-gunn-hasnt-had-sex-in-almost-30-years/
 
TurtleDude said:
its bad when I don't even have to see the guy and in two words the Gadar redlines. its hilarious watching him drool over hot actresses. Its almost like he is saying "Damn I'd love to look like that in that armani gown
Click to expand...

Yes he is gay but he is not a "flamer" whatever the hell that is. He has not had sex in almost 30 years! I doubt he wishes he could look like them in those gowns when he is a fashion expert and looks just fine in what he personally decided to wear-which is usually very high dollar suits. Why would he wish to be in those gowns when he looks like one of the best dressed ever always? Again: sterotype much??
 
Kali said:
Yes he is gay but he is not a "flamer" whatever the hell that is. He has not had sex in almost 30 years! I doubt he wishes he could look like them in those gowns when he is a fashion expert and looks just fine in what he personally decided to wear-which is usually very high dollar suits. Why would he wish to be in those gowns when he looks like one of the best dressed ever always? Again: sterotype much??
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know just how you know that he hasn't had sex in 30 years.....
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm curious to know just how you know that he hasn't had sex in 30 years.....
Click to expand...

Because he came out and told the world about it on the show he is involved with The Revoloution. It is a heartbreaking story or was to me. Are you implying he is lying about it?
 
Kali said:
Because he came out and told the world about it on the show he is involved with The Revoloution. It is a heartbreaking story or was to me. Are you implying he is lying about it?
Click to expand...

Considering I've never watched The Revolution how could I imply that? Hell, I don't even know who the guy is. (might if I saw the face...face's stick with me more than names)

Seriously Kali, you are always so quick to jump on the attack. Patience is a virtue.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Considering I've never watched The Revolution how could I imply that? Hell, I don't even know who the guy is. (might if I saw the face...face's stick with me more than names)

Seriously Kali, you are always so quick to jump on the attack. Patience is a virtue.
Click to expand...

Tim-Gunns-Guide-To-Style.jpg
 
Kal'Stang said:
Considering I've never watched The Revolution how could I imply that? Hell, I don't even know who the guy is. (might if I saw the face...face's stick with me more than names)

Seriously Kali, you are always so quick to jump on the attack. Patience is a virtue.
Click to expand...

I am always quick to attack? That is a lie and you can stop attacking me right now. I did educate you and TD even if he does not wish to admit it. You are being unfair here. :(
 
Kali said:
I am always quick to attack? That is a lie and you can stop attacking me right now. I did educate you and TD even if he does not wish to admit it. You are being unfair here. :(
Click to expand...

If you didn't attack me then perhaps it was just bad wording on your part, which seems to happen in alot of your posts...at least the ones directed towards me. As CC says, presentation is everything. And I haven't attacked you yet. I have given constructive criticism though.

Also...when/where did you "educate" me?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If you didn't attack me then perhaps it was just bad wording on your part, which seems to happen in alot of your posts...at least the ones directed towards me. As CC says, presentation is everything. And I haven't attacked you yet. I have given constructive criticism though.

Also...when/where did you "educate" me?
Click to expand...
Your constructive criticism is pretty much demeaning attacks as the post of yours that I'm quoting.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I support equal marriage and kinship rights for homosexuals, and for age-of-consent laws to be equivalent for heterosexual and homosexual sex. Beyond that, I can't think of any other "gay rights" that gays require or that I would support.

But I'll confess, I have yet to see a "gay pride parade" that didn't make me long for the days of attack dogs and firehoses. There are always hundreds or thousands of respectable men and women marching in decent clothes with their partners-- and a bunch of goddamned perverts running around naked, or wearing S&M gear, or just generally being offensive to moral order. And the decent family queers put up with them because they're "fighting for the same cause".
Click to expand...

every group has their loonies.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Your constructive criticism is pretty much demeaning attacks as the post of yours that I'm quoting.
Click to expand...

Constructive criticism seems to always be considered as an attack by people. Trust me, nothing that I have posted towards Kali was meant to be an attack.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Constructive criticism seems to always be considered as an attack by people. Trust me, nothing that I have posted towards Kali was meant to be an attack.
Click to expand...

I did not attack you in this thread at all. End of story buster.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Constructive criticism seems to always be considered as an attack by people. Trust me, nothing that I have posted towards Kali was meant to be an attack.
Click to expand...

Constructive criticism can be used as an attack as well. If your intent was not such, you should select your words or phraseology to not give that impression. As I read your posts I did not get the opinion that you were being constructive but rather hurtful and demeaning.
 
Whatever, believe me or not, don't care. In either case this thread is not about this, lets get back on topic.
 
i really dont have a problem with gays,though i am against gay marriage,for the reason marriage is seen as a religeous ceremony,so unless the said religion is for it,im against it.

dadt repeal didnt change a single thing in the army except gays are now aloud to wear pink gay pride shirts with rainbows on post.what people dont realize was dadt was a semi legalization of being gay in the military,meaning we arent gonna ask and you arent gonna tell.gays however were rampant throughout the military long before the repeal and none of them hid it,and no one prosecuted them so long as they didnt wear a womens dress or pink rainbow gay pride shirt on post,in which 99% of them were tastefull enough to save that for when they were off post.


my father came out of the closet about 6 years ago,yet he is both athiest and against gay marriage.ive never heard a single gay person talk about gay marriage only straight people saying it infringes upon gay rights.it seems the ssm was created solely to be a wedge issue rather than support for gay rights.gays like their individuality and dont like straight people fighting for their cause,because they prefer to keep their own individuallity and project their own strength by fighting for their causes,not other people fighting for them.


and believe it or not i know alot about gay people,i worked in palm springs cali for years,and over half the town is gay,most of them keep their lifestyles to themselves and prefer not throwing it in peoples faces.it just angers me that people fight over gay marriage even though its the same as civil union,yet their fine pissing off a crapton of people just so it can have the same name as a religious ceremony.its especially stupid when most gay people really arent too wild about it anyways.

once again let me say i worked in probably the second largest gay populated cities in the country and gay marriage was not a priority on their list,more like a blip.as my father said a while ago why should people allow gays to suffer the same pain of marriage as straight people,it seems more a punishment than anything.
 
beerftw said:
i really dont have a problem with gays,though i am against gay marriage,for the reason marriage is seen as a religeous ceremony,so unless the said religion is for it,im against it.

dadt repeal didnt change a single thing in the army except gays are now aloud to wear pink gay pride shirts with rainbows on post.what people dont realize was dadt was a semi legalization of being gay in the military,meaning we arent gonna ask and you arent gonna tell.gays however were rampant throughout the military long before the repeal and none of them hid it,and no one prosecuted them so long as they didnt wear a womens dress or pink rainbow gay pride shirt on post,in which 99% of them were tastefull enough to save that for when they were off post.


my father came out of the closet about 6 years ago,yet he is both athiest and against gay marriage.ive never heard a single gay person talk about gay marriage only straight people saying it infringes upon gay rights.it seems the ssm was created solely to be a wedge issue rather than support for gay rights.gays like their individuality and dont like straight people fighting for their cause,because they prefer to keep their own individuallity and project their own strength by fighting for their causes,not other people fighting for them.


and believe it or not i know alot about gay people,i worked in palm springs cali for years,and over half the town is gay,most of them keep their lifestyles to themselves and prefer not throwing it in peoples faces.it just angers me that people fight over gay marriage even though its the same as civil union,yet their fine pissing off a crapton of people just so it can have the same name as a religious ceremony.its especially stupid when most gay people really arent too wild about it anyways.

once again let me say i worked in probably the second largest gay populated cities in the country and gay marriage was not a priority on their list,more like a blip.as my father said a while ago why should people allow gays to suffer the same pain of marriage as straight people,it seems more a punishment than anything.
Click to expand...

There are gay people who want same sex marriage legalized. They may not represent the entire population, but there are a lot of them, particularly those who wish to adopt or are in the military. Only legal marriage comes with certain benefits, things that are not available with a civil union. Military housing and SS benefits come to mind, along with visitation rights and being able to be claimed as a dependent.

And there are many churches and people who are more than willing to preside over a same sex wedding, (which btw has very little to do with the actual marriage). I am legally married, but there was absolutely nothing religious about my ceremony. We hired a Navy wife from Norfolk who had gotten ordained over the internet to drive out to us and perform the ceremony and sign the paperwork in his aunt's front yard. If we truly wanted to save money, we could have just had one of our friends get ordained over the internet, a fad catching on quickly in the Navy at least, and officiate the wedding and sign the license. No set religion necessary.
 
roguenuke said:
There are gay people who want same sex marriage legalized. They may not represent the entire population, but there are a lot of them, particularly those who wish to adopt or are in the military. Only legal marriage comes with certain benefits, things that are not available with a civil union. Military housing and SS benefits come to mind, along with visitation rights and being able to be claimed as a dependent.

And there are many churches and people who are more than willing to preside over a same sex wedding, (which btw has very little to do with the actual marriage). I am legally married, but there was absolutely nothing religious about my ceremony. We hired a Navy wife from Norfolk who had gotten ordained over the internet to drive out to us and perform the ceremony and sign the paperwork in his aunt's front yard. If we truly wanted to save money, we could have just had one of our friends get ordained over the internet, a fad catching on quickly in the Navy at least, and officiate the wedding and sign the license. No set religion necessary.
Click to expand...

if a churche is willing to preside over a ssm mariage then fine,like i said marriage is seen as a religious ceremony,and if said religion is fine with it so be it,but dont force it on anyone.

and on gays wanting ssm,there are obviously some that are adamant on it,ive just never met them.the military already aknowledges ssm in states that allow,but still refuse housing for them.this is mostly because ss couples cant reproduce through normal means or without adoption,so the military wont allow housing or bah for ssm couples in the military,reguardless of whether ssm is legal or not.

besides that the military is not the place where you want to adopt a kid or have one artificially unless the spouse is civilian,unless you want a kid that spends the majority of its life without seeing its parents.quite often where dual military parents see problems.also the military switches posts alot,so you may be in in a state where ssm is allowed,then pcs to a state where its illegal.so its easy to see why the military wont grant marriage benefits even if its a legal marriage in the state they got married.and to top it off none of this will change untill all 50 states have legalised ssm or given civil unions the same rights.most likely the latter will occur to prevent the religious masses from being offended.

remember just because one state is for it doesnt mean the next state over will tolerate it.ssm is something the country isnt ready for.the ending of dadt was ready to a certain extent,because most the military already worked with gays on a daily basis,and gays faced the same charges for indecency rape sexual assault and harrasment as between man and woman.but the general population in whole isnt ready to accept it,straight people know this and gay people know this.this is largely why most gays stay concentrated in certain cities,america will come around to accepting gays,but we arent there yet.all forcing it down peoples throats does is cause us to revert back to the homophobe mentality of the 60's,instead they should be eased in which they haee done nicely from the late 70's through the 90's and now they are being shoved down peoples throats.we actually progress faster when people dont have opinions on something different forced on them but rather give them time to cope with it in their own way.
 
beerftw said:
if a churche is willing to preside over a ssm mariage then fine,like i said marriage is seen as a religious ceremony,and if said religion is fine with it so be it,but dont force it on anyone.

and on gays wanting ssm,there are obviously some that are adamant on it,ive just never met them.the military already aknowledges ssm in states that allow,but still refuse housing for them.this is mostly because ss couples cant reproduce through normal means or without adoption,so the military wont allow housing or bah for ssm couples in the military,reguardless of whether ssm is legal or not.

besides that the military is not the place where you want to adopt a kid or have one artificially unless the spouse is civilian,unless you want a kid that spends the majority of its life without seeing its parents.quite often where dual military parents see problems.also the military switches posts alot,so you may be in in a state where ssm is allowed,then pcs to a state where its illegal.so its easy to see why the military wont grant marriage benefits even if its a legal marriage in the state they got married.and to top it off none of this will change untill all 50 states have legalised ssm or given civil unions the same rights.most likely the latter will occur to prevent the religious masses from being offended.

remember just because one state is for it doesnt mean the next state over will tolerate it.ssm is something the country isnt ready for.the ending of dadt was ready to a certain extent,because most the military already worked with gays on a daily basis,and gays faced the same charges for indecency rape sexual assault and harrasment as between man and woman.but the general population in whole isnt ready to accept it,straight people know this and gay people know this.this is largely why most gays stay concentrated in certain cities,america will come around to accepting gays,but we arent there yet.all forcing it down peoples throats does is cause us to revert back to the homophobe mentality of the 60's,instead they should be eased in which they haee done nicely from the late 70's through the 90's and now they are being shoved down peoples throats.we actually progress faster when people dont have opinions on something different forced on them but rather give them time to cope with it in their own way.
Click to expand...

Legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the religious ceremony. The thing people can't seem to grasp is that the only reason that the religious person who presides over your religious wedding is authorized by the government to sign the marriage license is because it would cost the government more money to make all those people come back and sign it later and many people are going through the religious ceremony or at least a ceremony anyway.

The military cannot legally recognize (yet) any same sex couples until DOMA is repealed, since DOMA says that legally the US government cannot recognize same sex marriage. The military is part of the US government.

There is nothing being "shoved down throats" when it comes to same sex marriage. We are talking about a legal contract, marriage, that legally affects only those who enter into it and those who willingly agree to accept legal marriages in some form or another when it comes to their business.

And once a company agrees to give benefits or discounts or whatever to those legally married, they have no right to complain about who the state allows to enter into that contract. So a person who is against legal marriage for interracial couples or interfaith couples cannot simply choose to recognize only those legal marriages that they agree with.

Plus, marriage didn't even start as a religious institution. It became religious because religion basically controlled the people during the last 1500 to 1000 years and they used marriage as part of that control. Even at the start of Christianity gaining power, no priest was required to be there for a wedding. It was between the couple and their families.

And the country really wasn't ready for interracial marriage when it was made legal everywhere by the SCOTUS either, yet we made it through.
 
As a black man, it's a bit offensive how people equate gay marriage to interracial marriage. Obviously, they are quite different. As for my general opinion on homosexuality, it's a sin, and people will be judged after death on the White Throne Judgement. It's not a major sin like murder, but it's a sin seculars/"secular Christians" try to sweep under the rug. Should they be wrong, they doom many from entrance into Heaven. Imo the world serves as a testing ground to test our faith and dedication to the Scripture over the temptations of the world.
 
Wake said:
As a black man, it's a bit offensive how people equate gay marriage to interracial marriage. Obviously, they are quite different. As for my general opinion on homosexuality, it's a sin, and people will be judged after death on the White Throne Judgement. It's not a major sin like murder, but it's a sin seculars/"secular Christians" try to sweep under the rug. Should they be wrong, they doom many from entrance into Heaven. Imo the world serves as a testing ground to test our faith and dedication to the Scripture over the temptations of the world.
Click to expand...

It's offensive to me how people do not consider same sex marriage an issue of civil rights. It is offensive to me how people refuse to separate legal marriage from personal/religious marriage.

No one is trying to keep anyone from reaching any spiritual place or afterlife ideal. You simply have different beliefs on how to get there. Personally, my belief is that it is the content of your character that will put you in the place of your afterlife, not who you are married to or who you are attracted to. In fact, I believe that being judgmental and telling people that you are right and they are wrong because of what YOU believe is much more likely to negatively affect your chances of reaching heaven or a positive afterlife than being attracted and even acting on those attractions to members of the same sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom