Is it wrong to be gay?

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

It's annoying how straight people in this forum don't even try to see things from the gays' perspective.

You don't have the right to treat other people badly just because your taste is different.

And this whole "I don't like to see gay men kissing" thing is very annoying. They're not kissing you. They're not doing ANYTHING to you.

Not everybody is tolerant to this, as me. As I stated before, it doesn't have anything to do with me. But you have to know that prejudice will be always existing. Humans are not nice to the "different", to the unusual, so don't be angry with the straight people of this forum, your and their points of view are differents.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

And this whole "I don't like to see gay men kissing" thing is very annoying. They're not kissing you. They're not doing ANYTHING to you.

Actually, public displays of affection of all kinds are bad (i.e., frowned upon in society). Not just two guys kissing, but a guy and a girl as well. Keep that **** in private where that sort of stuff belongs. No one wants to see it.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

Not everybody is tolerant to this, as me. As I stated before, it doesn't have anything to do with me. But you have to know that prejudice will be always existing. Humans are not nice to the "different", to the unusual, so don't be angry with the straight people of this forum, your and their points of view are differents.

So I'm supposed to be tolerant to the fact that they're not tolerant?

[Magewout]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

So I'm supposed to be tolerant to the fact that they're not tolerant?

Yes, that's what the entire concept of tolerance is about.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Magewout

Yes, that's what the entire concept of tolerance is about.

Not really.
I don't have to be tolerant with prejudicial people, since they can actually change and improve. I want this to change, so I can't accept their attitude.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Actually, public displays of affection of all kinds are bad (i.e., frowned upon in society). Not just two guys kissing, but a guy and a girl as well. Keep that **** in private where that sort of stuff belongs. No one wants to see it.

Actually, you don't want to see it. Not everybody has a problem with displays of affection.
It's ironic how several people don't care about seeing people fighting...

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

So I'm supposed to be tolerant to the fact that they're not tolerant?

I didn't say that. You choose who you'll be tolerant to.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Actually, you don't want to see it. Not everybody has a problem with displays of affection.

Societal norms say otherwise. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "get a room"? This is a joking semi-polite way of saying "hey, quit it with the PDA, and keep it in private where that stuff belongs."

It's ironic how several people don't care about seeing people fighting...

Physical fighting is also something that shouldn't be done in public.

Actually, it shouldn't be done at all.

Don't try to turn this into a "omg sex is bad, but why is violence good then?" It's not like that. Violence is bad and shouldn't happen ever, and sexuality/intimacy should be kept in the bedroom.

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Actually, you don't want to see it. Not everybody has a problem with displays of affection.
It's ironic how several people don't care about seeing people fighting...

Sorry, that was a ****ty argument. There's some differences between the reaction of viewing a couple kissing or men fighting: in one, you'll find it disgusting (speaking about, essentially, strongly religious people) and wrong, based on the society, or even their religion, rules; at other hand, when you see people fighting, you have no reaction, you just paralize, you don't know what to do, just watch them. Don't relate both reactions, they're psychologically different.

[mhss1992]

It wasn't even an argument, it was just a silly comment I made because I was angry with all the dumb intolerance here.

And no, it wasn't "****ty". I can make references to cultures that approve certain kinds of violence based on religious issues, while homossexuality or some displays of affection are completely unacceptable.

[korny]

I think it's funny that anyone feels they have the means to determine what is right and what is wrong by their own moral code or whatever when dealing with something like homosexuality. Were the topic "is murder wrong" then that would be different. We're talking about an attraction between opposite sexes. Either hate it and/or disagree with and shut up, DGAF about it and shut up, or think nothing is wrong with it and shut up. There shouldn't be anything more to say.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by korny

I think it's funny that anyone feels they have the means to determine what is right and what is wrong by their own moral code or whatever when dealing with something like homosexuality. Were the topic "is murder wrong" then that would be different. We're talking about an attraction between opposite sexes. Either hate it and/or disagree with and shut up, DGAF about it and shut up, or think nothing is wrong with it and shut up. There shouldn't be anything more to say.

Just curious here, where do you draw the line? I mean, the whole premise of the argument that homosexuals should have all the same rights as a straight couple is that they are in love and that should be the basis of a marriage. So, then, if a man were to fall in love with an animal, should they not be allowed to get married and carry out their lives together? Or, maybe on a slightly less drastic scale, should a child at age 13 and an adult of, say, 50 be allowed to hook up if they are in love? Or how about this one that exists as an issue today in certain areas. If 3 or 4 people fall in love, why should they all not be allowed to get married?

Where I get stuck on this is that if we are to accept the one situation of homosexuality, how can we deny the others their right to carry out lives together as well? They can present all the same arguments homosexual advocates bring forth today and they would in fact, unless you do not believe in the validity of your own points, be equally valid in defending their case. How can you defend homosexuality being nothing more than an equal alternative, but not defend other alternatives without stepping in with some level of hypocrisy. Unless of course all of you that support the homosexual lifestyle support these others as well. In which case I stand corrected.

[korny]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Just curious here, where do you draw the line? I mean, the whole premise of the argument that homosexuals should have all the same rights as a straight couple is that they are in love and that should be the basis of a marriage. So, then, if a man were to fall in love with an animal, should they not be allowed to get married and carry out their lives together? Or, maybe on a slightly less drastic scale, should a child at age 13 and an adult of, say, 50 be allowed to hook up if they are in love? Or how about this one that exists as an issue today in certain areas. If 3 or 4 people fall in love, why should they all not be allowed to get married?

Where I get stuck on this is that if we are to accept the one situation of homosexuality, how can we deny the others their right to carry out lives together as well? They can present all the same arguments homosexual advocates bring forth today and they would in fact, unless you do not believe in the validity of your own points, be equally valid in defending their case. How can you defend homosexuality being nothing more than an equal alternative, but not defend other alternatives without stepping in with some level of hypocrisy. Unless of course all of you that support the homosexual lifestyle support these others as well. In which case I stand corrected.

You would stand corrected.

If I knew a 13 year old girl personally who I felt was completely aware of the decisions she was making, then why would her dating someone 37 years older be wrong? I mean, a 13 year old girl fully understanding something like that would be a rare individual indeed but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Now, I don't think that it should be made legal in order to prevent those who would take advantage of such a delicate situation, but I wouldn't be opposed to the aforementioned situation.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Where I get stuck on this is that if we are to accept the one situation of homosexuality, how can we deny the others their right to carry out lives together as well? They can present all the same arguments homosexual advocates bring forth today and they would in fact, unless you do not believe in the validity of your own points, be equally valid in defending their case. How can you defend homosexuality being nothing more than an equal alternative, but not defend other alternatives without stepping in with some level of hypocrisy. Unless of course all of you that support the homosexual lifestyle support these others as well. In which case I stand corrected.

Not at all.
In homossexual and heterosexual couples, usually, both partners are consensual about the relationship, and have enough maturity to decide if they want to be together or not. Most 13 year old kids clearly don't have enough maturity or experience to decide and, obviously, neither do animals.

3 or more people being in love is, however, a more complicated issue.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by korny

You would stand corrected.

If I knew a 13 year old girl personally who I felt was completely aware of the decisions she was making, then why would her dating someone 37 years older be wrong? I mean, a 13 year old girl fully understanding something like that would be a rare individual indeed but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Now, I don't think that it should be made legal in order to prevent those who would take advantage of such a delicate situation, but I wouldn't be opposed to the aforementioned situation.

Ok, but what about the other situations? Even if we were to disregard the bestiality one because I understand they cannot give consent, although it would be an interesting one to debate, what about multiple persons being married? You didn't touch that part yet. I would like to hear your opinion.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Not at all.
In homossexual and heterosexual couples, usually, both partners are consensual about the relationship, and have enough maturity to decide if they want to be together or not. Most 13 year old kids clearly don't have enough maturity or experience to decide and, obviously, neither do animals.

3 or more people being in love is, however, a more complicated issue.

But who is to decide they do not have the maturity to make such a decision? Who gets to decide that any more than someone should decide if it is right for homosexuals to marry? Both are subject to the same "who is to judge" and "where do we draw the line" situation.

And this more delicate issue. It is really not much different. I mean, do you support their rights as well? Because it is not any different in its arguments, so do you support it?

According to Korny, I am standing corrected. This would mean that he believes all homosexual rights advocates support polygamy. Anyone care to argue his/my statement(s)?

Originally Posted by robertson3r

yeah as said comparing homosexuality to bestiality is kinda stupid

animals cant give consent, humans can

You totally missed the point in that. While that is a good point, if you wish to play the consent card implying humans are different and make conscious decisions, then be ready to combat the fact that homosexuals are making a completely conscious decision and using homosexual animals as a solid proof or backing is equally as dumb.

Also, I do not care to get into a huge argument about that last point I made. It was directed for robert and robert only. I would like to see if he has more to his opinions or if he just wishes to spew out short responses that he cannot back.

[Izzy]

I don't believe a 13 year old is mature enough to be trusted with their own decisions. If anyone thinks back to when they were 13 they are undoubtedly going to feel like they are much more intelligent and mature now than they were then. Well, as long as you are older then 13.

[korny]

Why can't a group of say, 7 people be in love and all get married as a whole? Like, why the hell not? I am totally for that idea. Present to me the counter argument as to what would be drastically wrong with that.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't believe a 13 year old is mature enough to be trusted with their own decisions. If anyone thinks back to when they were 13 they are undoubtedly going to feel like they are much more intelligent and mature now than they were then. Well, as long as you are older then 13.

I believe that when I was 13, I could have made a conscious decision then. While I am more mature now, the same could be said from the perspective of a 50 year old. They could say those that are 30 do not deserve to make a decision on marriage or relationships because they are less mature than a 50 year old. Who is to say that they are not mature enough to make that decision?

Divorce rates in marriages that occur under the age of 20 are 27% more likely in men and 9% more likely in women to stay married than that of marriages in couples 20-24.*

Also, what about the polygamy. I don't see many people touching on that fact. What is your opinion and where do you believe we draw the line?

Originally Posted by korny

Why can't a group of say, 7 people be in love and all get married as a whole? Like, why the hell not? I am totally for that idea. Present to me the counter argument as to what would be drastically wrong with that.

This is what I am saying. I mean really, no one has the right to draw any lines on these arguments. But to my points in saying all this, I am pretty sure we all agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere or chaos will reign more than it already does. I think we need to leave the line drawn where it is because in this crazy idea of everything must be politically correct there is only negative to come. If gay people want to hook up, go for it. But if it really is love and all, keep it to yourself. You can publicly say it, but the legal marriage should stay with the currently drawn line, because once you allow one exception, you really cannot combat the others without an awfully big hole of hypocrisy.



*[SOURCE]

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by korny

Why can't a group of say, 7 people be in love and all get married as a whole? Like, why the hell not? I am totally for that idea. Present to me the counter argument as to what would be drastically wrong with that.

I agree with that if they were all actually equally in love with one another. It seems unlikely, but maybe.

[korny]

Why do we draw the line to anything that is consensual? That is the real question.