who here supports gay rights

My apologies for disappearing from the argument but I had to get some sleep, working in Capital Markets is tiring business.

Back on topic though, I have still yet to see any proof for your statement that there is greater emotional attachment stemming from heterosexual sex than from homosexual sex, until you can provide some evidence as to the validity of your claim beyond just your own word, it can't be taken seriously. And beyond even that I would still argue you are putting the cart before the horse. You are saying that "true sex" leads to greater emotional intimacy while I would argue that its greater emotional intimacy that leads to more passionate/intimate sex.

In regards to (6.) It is good to see that you support that homosexual people are not inferior to heterosexual people. If all you are arguing is that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different than I wholeheartedly agree with you, unless by difference you are attempting to infer inferiority to put one relationship type in a position of superiority to the other. In which case I feel your case is fairly weak as you still have not provided some evidence as to the superiority of PIV sex as opposed to other sexual acitivites. Other than the fact that PIV sex can lead to reproduction, I have not seen any evidence that differentiates it on other levels, such as emotional intimacy or mutual pleasure, that would lead me to conclude that PIV sex is the only way for two individuals to express "true love".

@totalbalance: That's the main difference in experiences right there in your first few sentences.

Homosexuals can't have Sex.. it's impossible. Therefore, since they are unable to have sex it goes without question that the experience and Connection/Bond forged through this level of intamacy is greater in Heterosexual relationships than Homosexual relationships.

“You are saying that "true sex" leads to greater emotional intimacy while I would argue that its greater emotional intimacy that leads to more passionate/intimate sex.”

It's both. The “greater emotional intimacy” happens before during and after along with more Passion intimate sex. The Emotional intimacy has to do with trust and true love.

Both parterns build this up in order to have intimate passionate sex. This is where the Brain does it's job and then in short the Stronger Connection/Bond through Trust, Love, (Emotion, Intamacy) is created.

After comes the emotional attachment (Brains job) BECAUSE of that Connection/Bond both shared and made during that time of Emotional and Physical intamacy.

Yea no one is better or inferior Hetero or Homo they both have their human faults.. hell im not better than you just because I think differently than you.

So you are saying that in essence the only act that qualifies as sex is PIV? And that only PIV is capable of creating a strong emotional bond between individuals?

@raffels: What is this LGBT agenda you speak of? O___o

THEY'RE APART OF THE ILLUMINATI!

I'm a Catholic, which means I'm a Christian, and before you say "Oh, boy. Here we go. One of those ignorant religious nutcases on the internet again. *prepares to attack said theist*" hear me out.

I don't care what gay/bisexual people do with themselves. I don't care if they're married. I don't go out and support it, but I don't go out and attack it. I just don't care.

"He's not a Catholic. That's impossible"

No, I am. I've said it multiple times.

"You aren't a real Catholic then."

I believe what I believe. You can go f*ck yourself if you try to stop what I believe.

"Doesn't change the fact that you're one of those crazy people that believes in the imaginary being up in the clouds that watches everything without any evidence of his existence whatsoever."

If you're thinking this, let me know. It makes you just as much of an ignorant fool as you think I am.

"Pfft. Classic Christian move."

Come at me.

Damn, guess I'm not gay enough to have been invited to the meetings...>_>

Wait , there meetings ?

Apparently *feels hurt, tears up gay card* THIS THING IS WORTHLESS!!! XD

@bumpyboo:

1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...)
2. Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...)
3. Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...)
4. Make gays look good(...)
5. Make the victimizers look bad(...)
6. Get funds from corporate America(...)

1 - As do heterosexuals, even a cursory glance at current media will tell you that. Reinforcement of the supposed heterosexual norm is everywhere in our culture, from music videos to magazines to comics to music, but it only seems to be a problem when it is gay lusts/desires that are being proclaimed :/

2 - In a lot of cases gay people really are, but then as you have already pointed out, people can be victimised for all kinds of reasons. I would find it ignorant to portray all members of a certain group as being either of those things. Not all gay people are victims, but then not all gay people start trouble either. People are people and you can't judge an entire sexuality based on the actions of a few that's ridiculous.

3 - If there weren't people in the world who believe that all gays have an agenda, or are sinners, or immoral, or disgusting in some way...then they wouldn't need protectors. And gay protectors, what are they really? Straight people who have the empathy to understand another person's right to live their life, even if it is not the same way they wish to live theirs? I find that commendable.

4 - As I mentioned, not all gays are good, not all gays are bad. "Gays" is not a set type of people with a set belief system and some shared sense of morality. Homosexuality is one of many factors that can make the whole sum of a person.

5 - People who victimise others ARE bad. Period.

6 - At this point I am starting to think we should amicably agree to disagree since it seems we are coming at this from two very different angles.

I agree with point 5 in a big way because I haven't mentioned this but I have had openly gay friends who I owuld stick up for but this has gone way too far like the The chick'Fil'A controversy:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about

A statement like this had to have off duty cops at every Chick-Fil-A in California for atleast a month…..Why is that ok to do?

Well not being aware of that particular story, I would have to read up so I can't really comment on that right now, or at least would rather not do so without the facts to hand :)

The bolded part though I think I can comment on, and really I do struggle to understand that argument. I was raised atheist - or rather, raised with no specific faith and encouraged to make up my own mind, which led to me deciding that atheism was closest to what I really believe - and more importantly, I was raised by two people who are very much in love with each other. So to me marriage is about love, about meeting someone you are truly compatible with and are ready, willing and able to make a life together with. More power to anyone who believes otherwise, that isn't my call.

But then the whole time people are just voicing opinions and not out and out harassing anyone, I see no problem what anyone's beliefs are. There are people out there who disagree with homosexuality - maybe it grosses them out, or they've had bad experiences or whatever - who can talk about that rationally and with an open mind. And conversely, there are gay people out there who are very confrontational and narrow minded with regards to how they handle their own sexuality. So I just take people as I find them :)

@bumpyboo: My sister-in-law is lesbian and she's still religious as she should be if that's the life she wants.

My main gripe is forced acceptence or tolerance to gay acceptence in all institutions with the punishment being you lose your career and reputation for having a personal belief on what their God wants. It's a free speece issue.

If a public figure says that they believe that homosexuals will not go to their heaven that person will get the full wrath of the media and every LGBT supporter and everyone knows this.

@raffels: I can kind of see where you are coming from there, at least to some extent. In a lot of cases, people who are overly aggressive in defending their lifestyle can end up hurting their own cause, and by denying people the right to disagree with your beliefs and the way you live your life, it is fair to argue that such behaviour makes you equally as narrow minded and bigoted as those you decry. Like I would defend someone's right to voice their opinion on being gay, and if that opinion is that gay people are going to hell, then that is their right. Otherwise "free speech" is more like people are free to say whatever they want, as long as it is what everyone else thinks too, and that is very dangerous ground indeed.

BUT I do draw the line somewhere, and for me the problem is when personal opinion and belief translates into hostility and discrimination against others. If someone is religious, fine. If that person is the manager of a store and only hires people who are also of the same religion? Not so fine. If someone disagrees with same sex relationships then so be it, I only have a problem once that person uses their beliefs to justify being horrible to other people and restricting their freedom/denying them opportunities in life that would otherwise be open to them. And people with all sorts of beliefs are guilty of that, straight or gay, religious or not. Bigotry comes in all forms.

@bumpyboo: True great points

Some of the posters here just make me cringe.

What you are saying is that you believe people should tolerate intolerance. That people should be allowed to voice their hateful opinions and be free of reproach. That freedom of speech is only allowed to go in one direction. LGBT are not a minority but they absolutely are a class of people that are discriminated against and subject to extensive bigotry.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a bigoted a$$hole. A man loses his career for hate speech because the company doesn't want to be associated with that hate and it's absolutely the company's prerogative to terminate someone that will tarnish their image.

Yes, like a million times yes, this is what I was trying to put across. People can think what they want but it doesn't give them the right to treat other people like crap :)

@erik: No no no I defend a person's right to express their personel views as long as their not hurting anyone then you should be lashed at. You can defend yourself but if someone is against gay marriage, or believes gays won't go to heaven now it's time to get loud and angry, fight back with protest, backlash,boycott, and violence because that makes them a hateful bigot right? It's also not an issue to attack churches with vandalism, family members have to take crosses from roads because athiests protest….. Right no LGBT and athiest are winning their battles against who they think their enemis are….. What major busincess discriminates against openly gays in the workplace??? Does that happen a lot?…. You would have to be an idiot and would get a big lawsuit

You have a lot of ideas just kind of running together in one giant mess. Let me try to clear up your own thinking for you.

• One is free to have wrong opinions. But everyone else is also free to tell one what an idiot he or she is.
• Since when is emotion supposed to be regulated? If someone is being hateful, it's going to get a hateful response. Stop acting like the victim for hate speech.
• Violence is seldom the answer but you have to admit that there is no small amount of hypocrisy in attacking gays and then crying about how that violence begets more violence.
• Vandalism against churches has nothing to do with supporting gays.
• Atheism also has nothing to do with supporting gays. Though since you want to open that losing argument, no one religion should be represented on public property over another. This is America, not Christland. It is not a Christian nation but a nation built on the principle of freedom and liberty. If you think having a cross on public property is necessary, give the Atheists, Satanists, Buddhists, Judaism, Islam, Muslim, and other religions equal representation.
• Atheism is actually on the rise and Christianity is going the way of the dinosaurs. Gay rights are actually being pushed in nearly every state. So you are wrong about the two groups failing to win their battles. Logic and reason are taking the place of superstition and bigotry.
• Openly? Very few business do. Subtle discrimination is not less of a priority than open discrimination though and it's something that absolutely needs to be addressed. That's just burying your head in the dirt if you think otherwise. It also is a completely separate issue than the original point you were trying to make. You complained about how a person can be terminated for hate speech as if it was a bad thing. It's not. Hate speech tarnishes the image of the corporation that it came from. It is smart business practice to distance a company from someone performing hate speech. That is the freedom of the company. Once again, it is stupid to think that just because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, that you also have the right to restrict the rights of others. That constitutional right that you are thinking of specifically prohibits such action anyway. So you either don't understand that amendment, or you are just cherry-picking its application. Either way, that is pretty embarrassing.

You could always pray that your god sucks up all the gays and atheists and puts them on an island somewhere, far away from godly, gay-hating Christains like yourself.

@erik:

I'll just respond to a few points:

Why is it hateful for someone to believe they don't believe in Gay marriage or that it is sinful act? If that is what they believe what are you trying to force?

Vandalism against churces is an issue that will not get the same backlash from the pc police that gay discrimination gets.

Your Athiests not vampires stop being affended by crosses.

I meant to say they are right now LGBT are winning their battles so I agree they are winning mainly because of major media backing but I don't see religion going away.

I never complained about someone getting terminated for hate speech because I don't believe that based on thier religious believes that a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle will not go to heaven is actually hate speech.

Any ways for an old man you sure show lack of maturity by calling me out as some gay-hating Christian that prays for gays to go away but it's always ok to bash someone as a religous cook hatemongeror.

All I see in this thread is a lot of hatefulness and bias.

First in foremost this thread was made in an attempt to troll, so anyone arguing her took the bait.

Two, I find it highly stupid to argue over ones personal beliefs, as your not going to change either side.

I personally don't support gay rights, but that's me personally. Im not going to attack a gay person or a pro-gay person. But the line stops as soon as you start bashing me.

I advise the mods to lock this thread as it's already past the stage of being a flame war.

• Are you listening to yourself? Ignorant people can believe whatever stupid thing they want. Badgering others about how they are disgusting or going to hell is when people have a right to tell said hateful person that they are wrong. You are making a strawman, which means you either don't understand what I am saying or you are intentionally trying to change my argument to something that it is not.
• Once again, vandalism of churches has nothing to do with supporting gay rights. Vandalism of churches gets no more attention than any building vandalism because that is all it is, vandalism of a building. Hardly an issue of the same scope.
• LOL I have no idea what you mean by my atheists. I am not offended by the cross. I think Christians are being hypocrites in refusing to take it down or allow equal representation of other religions (or in the case of atheism, lack of religion).
• Religion won't be going away in our lifetime. Too many ignorant people brainwashing children into being future generations of ignorant people. But religion as a whole is thankfully losing ground to logic and reason in this regard.
• I think you are confused. This is what you said:

• This is your statement. So yes, you did say you have a problem with someone being terminated for hate speech. Discrimination against someone (in this case, telling someone that they are less of a person or hell-bound) is a part of hate-speech. Discrimination is prejudicial treatment of someone different than you. Gay-hating falls under discrimination and hate-speech. I seriously can't believe that this is a difficult concept for you to understand.
• I am intolerant of intolerance. If you don't like that, then great. A taste of your own medicine is oftentimes hard to swallow. The best part is that you are voicing gay-hating and Christian standpoints but you don't like that being pointed out.
• What is a "cook hatemonger"?

Ok you quote me and still say I said being terminated for hate speech. Again, I said a person terminated for their personal belief on what thier God wants isn't hate speech. Using words like the "f-word" on gays is hate speech for example. You want to tell someone that what they believe their lord condemns is hate speech? Actions are more important because I believe heterosexual Christians work every day with openly gay people and they treat eachother with respect.

I think you're trying to hook me into fighting with you online here. You keep saying I'm intolerant but you have been the one attacking me and I'm not stooping to your level.

You just called me and most of my family ignorant and brainwashed but I should watch what I'm saying?? Because it's offensive. Well I'm offended! Now do you care?

Also Debate 101 check for spelling errors. I make spelling errors when I'm on my phone it happens.

• I quoted you to show that you don't know your own posts. Personal belief doesn't get people fired. Trying to impose those beliefs in a workplace (or in public as a representative of your place of employment) is what is the qualifier for hate-speech and discrimination.
• Your place of employment is not your church. A company has every right to terminate those that they do not find representing their company in a positive light. Someone going on television and saying gays are gross and going to hell is absolutely grounds for their termination. You are entitled to freedom of speech. You are not entitled to be exempt from the consequences. You fail to understand this very simple concept.
• Some Christians do treat gays with respect. These Christians are not the same ones you are saying get fired from their place of employment though. So bringing it up is irrelevant.
• I am attacking your argument. You are choosing to take it personally. A fact that pleases me to some extent.
• Christians that practice indoctrination of their children are very much brainwashed. If this is an uncomfortable subject, then don't bring it up. You chose to open up that topic, not me. Now you are playing victim?
• Christians that say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that gays are gross are in fact, ignorant. You chose to adopt that label, I didn't impose it on you. If you are offended, change your thinking so you no longer fit the criteria.
• Phones have auto-correct. How can you expect to sound educated on the subject when it looks like a 3rd grader pounded out your argument?

This

@erik:

I agree if a Christian tried to impose his beliefs in my work place they would get punished by me but also If I heard someone calling Christians ignorant and their children brainwashed I would council you too.

I only talked about someone speaking in the public.

Let me make this clear, I haven't made any of my personal beliefs on homosexuality known to you. I have expressed the right of openly religious people to say what their personel beliefs are and I ahve expressed I support gay rights. Yet you keep saying I'm spreading hate and you're attacking me. I will fight for the rights of citizens having the right to express their opinion.

If it pleases you I'm taking something personally that's living like a troll but if thats you go for it.

I'm not discuss why some Christians (Not all) believe a homosexual lifestyle is sin because you won't hear me anyway.

"He said he is not religious. That is not the same thing as saying he isn't Christian and he's likely lying to try and add credibility to his logic anyway."

If I'm NON RELIGIOUS how can I be a Christian when being NON RELIGIOUS means HAVING NO RELIGION. Like so many brainwashed unfortunates your mind can only comprehend this debate in a predetermined schism between RELIGIOUS thought and ATHEIST thought with your good and bad guys already decided; you're a programmed machine with input output responses and who is incapable of rational or critical thought.

"The basis for his argument is that the "you can't reproduce with that kind of sex"

And if you were even a REMOTELY rational person you would see the validity of the argument, but you've already been thoroughly indoctrinated into the western worlds new ideology of moral relativism and the uncertain nature of everything. I do not subscribe to such viewpoints on reality or life.

Look at the REALITY of NATURAL LIFE around you, and observe sexual intercourse logically and scientifically, actually engage your rational mind for a bit. Clearly we can see that Nature, having designed all bodies and substances in our world, had a plan and a purpose in her creations as she did with SEX. Is it somehow a freak accident that MALES AND FEMALES ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY, in a physical manner to engage in sexual intercourse, and are programmed to find each other sexually attractive, with resultant sex between the two resulting in REPRODUCTION? Something tells me this is no accident and is the NATURAL ORDER of sexual behaviour for humans. How could it not be?

Where is the validity for homosexual sex? Where has nature designed and accommodated for her units to engage in such activity? Please tell me?

Normal, natural sexual orientation IS HETEROSEXUALITY. Normal, natural sexual behaviour is HETEROSEXUAL SEX. These realities cannot be argued.

Natural things are natural because they CONFORM TO NATURE'S PURPOSES, not because they simply exist in nature, which is the ridiculous and faulty logic used to give credibility to homosexuality. It has no credibility.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT NATURAL OR NORMAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM IN ANY WAY, TO NATURE'S INTENDED AND VERY CLEAR PARAMETERS OF SEXUALITY AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS THEREFORE UNNATURAL. HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT NATURE INTENDED OR CREATED.

The problem is that in my case, you would be wrong.

I only talked about someone speaking in the public.

And I addressed that.

Let me make this clear, I haven't made any of my personal beliefs on homosexuality known to you.

LMAO!

I have expressed the right of openly religious people to say what their personel beliefs are and I ahve expressed I support gay rights.

That's not true at all. You expressed anger that someone can be fired for gay-bashing.

Yet you keep saying I'm spreading hate and you're attacking me.

Once again, I am attacking your argument. You are choosing to be hurt by having your argument attacked.

I will fight for the rights of citizens having the right to express their opinion.

They can express it. But a person would be stupid to think that someone can express their opinion without consequence.

• Actually there are many non-religious Christians. You hear it all the time. "Well I'm Christian but I'm not really religious..." is a fairly common opening statement when asked what religion someone is. The rest of your rant is a lie, in addition to being extremely amusing. I am the one that is pointing out this gray area, so how could I be this brainwashed machine that only sees two factions? That's a pretty stupid statement.
• More like, "If you were as narrow-minded as I am, you would see the validity of the argument". Once again, reproduction is hardly the focus for sex and it hasn't been... since just about ever. Reproduction is what sex between man and woman can result in but I challenge you to find anyone (other than perhaps yourself) that only uses sex to reproduce. We both know you are lying about that claim.
• Your argument is once again flawed. You say that man and woman are designed in a physical manner to engage in sexual intercourse. That would suggest that you subscribe to the belief that homosexual males and females are not having sex. An opinion shared by... very few ignorant people. You also say that man and woman are programmed to be attracted to one another. Once again a fallacious statement. Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender. That's kind of a basic criteria for being homosexual lol. Your third ignorant point is assuming that all sex between a male and a female results in reproduction. That is a possible conclusion to sex, sometimes. Once again, you can ask any number of people why they decide to engage in sex and you will find that reproduction is oftentimes not even on the list.
• What do you mean where is the validity? Homosexuals have sex with one another because they are attracted to one another (like heterosexuals) and sex feels good (like heterosexuals). The reasons why heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex are almost always the same. So the question why one should be considered valid when they are both done for primarily the same reasons is laughable.
• Actually if you look at how sex is performed (both homosexual and heterosexual), you will find that our bodies accommodate the act just fine.
• Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. You can observe it in nature with countless species. It seems like actual reality and the reality you have built up for yourself are not the same thing.
• Natural things are natural because they are a characteristic of that being. In the case of homosexuals, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality is to you.
• LOL you presume to know "nature's purposes"? That's an interesting position to take. Please tell me what is nature's purpose, oh wise child.
• Homosexuality is natural, for reasons outlined above. It doesn't become less natural because you are uncomfortable or a bigot.

@netshyster: It's as wrong to murder as to be homosexual???? Wait am I reading this right? Did I miss this somehow?

Allow me to show you the door. Expect a PM shortly.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT NATURAL OR NORMAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM IN ANY WAY, TO NATURE'S INTENDED AND VERY CLEAR PARAMETERS OF SEXUALITY AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS THEREFORE UNNATURAL. HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT NATURE INTENDED OR CREATED.

Oh no, you read correctly. We are the basest of criminals.

Speak for yourself, murderer! Oooh this is fun, we can play good gay/bad gay ^_^

@bumpyboo:

You're a murderer too! And you can never love anyone but a boy do to your biology. You must bow to nature Boo. Sorry. Someone on the internet has laid down the new order.

@wildvine: Hehe! Hell no, I'm one of those apparently greedy, confused and indecisive bisexual types >_> It's the only form of multitasking I am any good at, and I'm not giving it up for anyone!! XD

I support human rights.

This thread has really spiraled out of control.

Beata

@bumpyboo:

Bah, snobby bisexuals. Pick a side already!

>: D

@wildvine: >:P

I support all Human rights to whatever group, doesn't matter gay or straight black or white

@bumpyboo: @wildvine: I love that you're here.

@bumpyboo:

@erik: Ah is nice to be appreciated, much thanks ^__^

@wildvine:

@bumpyboo:

@wildvine: Don't you hate on Baby Man's sexuality!

@bumpyboo:

Neutral i'm not against or supports just doing my own thing commenting randomly