gays

[hellbred]

After reading many of the posts since my last post, I agree with some of what everyone said.

OnOneRyder is correct, some Christians do in fact feel the use of a condom is wrong because it's obviously used for sexual activities that are not meant for reproduction, much like birth control pills and spermicides.. however TomStrife is also correct that married couples using a condom really isn't a big deal. It's no longer fornicating once you're married.

Sasquatch is also correct about masturbating not really being mentioned in the Bible, therefore one can only suspect that masturbation itself is not a sin since it doesn't involve another person.. but lust of the flesh is a sin, and since one doesn't mearly masturbate to nothing... it can be considered a sin.

Not sure what all this had to do with gays... other than the fact homosexuality and condoms are both "unnatural". I suppose technically condoms are unnatural.. we're not born with condoms in the pocket.. however they are tolerated and still used for various forms of protection. Homosexuality is much the same... unnatural, but still practised.

Whoever brought up this analogy first was, for the lack of better words, far off from the point

[Marceil]

The thread author was asking if people are willing to accept gays and lesbians as ligitimate couples.
Two people who are commited to each other and share a household and everything in life with one another.
Shouldn't they have the right to be able to provide for each other through financial means, health insurance, life insurance, co-own property, adopt each others children?

We are all human and by denying other people their basic needs we are saying that anyone who doesn't fit our description of a couple are less than human.

But if you're willing to accept homosexuals as couples/ will you also accept their showing and proving their commitments to each other -- such as holding hands, kissing, hugging -- doing things couples do?

That was the real question that apparently no one could answer without bringing up all these other arguments.

[TomStrife]

Actually you are incorrect.

Many answered and towards the end of the thread it drifted off topic because OnOneRyder made an assumption about my religion that wasn`t true.
I commented on it thus resulting in a side conversation that had just condluded when Hellbred made his post prior to yours.

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Marceil

The thread author was asking if people are willing to accept gays and lesbians as ligitimate couples.
Two people who are commited to each other and share a household and everything in life with one another.
Shouldn't they have the right to be able to provide for each other through financial means, health insurance, life insurance, co-own property, adopt each others children?

We are all human and by denying other people their basic needs we are saying that anyone who doesn't fit our description of a couple are less than human.

But if you're willing to accept homosexuals as couples/ will you also accept their showing and proving their commitments to each other -- such as holding hands, kissing, hugging -- doing things couples do?

That was the real question that apparently no one could answer without bringing up all these other arguments.

I think it's been answered several times. Obviously people show their opinions through various personal beliefs, but a lot of hard facts which are impossible to deny (or simply the person prefers to deny) have been shown as well.

Most share the live and let live opinion, but at the same time do not support the idea. Maybe a good way is to say... I personally don't kill bugs when I see them walking on the ground... it's just a bug, let it do it's thing... but I wouldn't let it come live in my house

Edit:
Although they sometimes do anyways without me knowing! =( it's a closet bug.

[Marceil]

@TomStrife
I guess they just like to make light of your religious beliefs knowing you'll keep drifting the topic

I did read the whole thread why I don't know.
I guess I was looking for a different sort of coversation about the subject -- instead of the same old stuff.
Some say it doesn't matter it's not their life so it's not hurting them.
And then the other half bristle up like a bunch of porcupine saying they will never accept it.

Since this topic has been askewed off it's rocker so many times already ...
why don't you riddle me this Tom ... if the world is supposedly going to end in 2012 what does it matter?

[Lover Boy]

Actually, the idea of a family consisting of only a man and a woman (plus kids) is rather new. History shows that the base formula was one man and many women, but those women were not necessarily his.

Then came (and we do not know that it did not exist before, there was just no evidence of it, atleast none that I have seen as a for-the-most-part-uninformed person) bisexual and gay relationships, the earliest known (that I know of atleast) dates back to Rome and Greece (Whichever came first. I always thought that one was just copying the other.) and was not a limited thing.

The atomic family was really an American/British concept, really. It started before America with one man taking one wife (and this was more of a business deal than anything else) so that the idea was a family bond was formed in the marriage, and the man had other mistresses.

When you look back and see how far homosexuality goes into human nature combined with the fact that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract with a hint of religion, it's rather foolish to keep people from entering in a facet of a religion that preaches nothing but forgiveness and non-judgement.

But. I think that gay people should not get married. Before you bash me, let me say that I don't think that straight people should get married either.

The only upsides I see to marriage are financial. People should not need a legal document to prove that they love each other.

[Marceil]

Just want to say I never mentioned that they should get married... I sort of feel the same way about marriage.
Unfortunately that little piece of paper means more to the government than it does to me -- especially to the IRS.

Does anyone agree that there is a problem with the way we view families and couples?

There's this practice going on where you constantly have to prove who you are ... it's at the grocery store, the dentist office, the gas station -- everywhere.
They want two forms of identification and and proof of address.

It's crazy ... people are trying to do the same thing to relationships. They rate you according to who your parents are and where you were born.
The list of unwritten rules to interrogating people goes on forever ... I just want to know if it's ever going to stop?
Who is going to be the first one to say "No I'm not doing that it's totally ridiculous?"

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Marceil

@TomStrife
I guess they just like to make light of your religious beliefs knowing you'll keep drifting the topic

I did read the whole thread why I don't know.
I guess I was looking for a different sort of coversation about the subject -- instead of the same old stuff.
Some say it doesn't matter it's not their life so it's not hurting them.
And then the other half bristle up like a bunch of porcupine saying they will never accept it.

Since this topic has been askewed off it's rocker so many times already ...
why don't you riddle me this Tom ... if the world is supposedly going to end in 2012 what does it matter?

I could be wrong, but I firmly believe human beings will forever lack the technology or intelligence to predict the end of time/the Earth. It's just not something we have the capacity to conjure a prophecy for.

That being said, homosexuality would mean the same even if the world were to end tomorrow, the immoral nature of it doesn't change because of a timeline.

[Marceil]

Morals are passed on and taught to younger generations the same as being taught how to read and write.
Who's morals are we following? Do they apply to life today or are they something that is outdated?

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Marceil

Morals are passed on and taught to younger generations the same as being taught how to read and write.
Who's morals are we following? Do they apply to life today or are they something that is outdated?

Well, morals are mearly the accepted standards of right and wrong that are usually applied to personal behavior. In most households these days, as well as television and media, and main stream thinking... homosexuality is thought as taboo. Not so much anymore, but still isn't something that is welcomed within every household.

Since morals are considered standards, and most people are not homosexual it can be implied that homosexuality is morally wrong.

You're correct though in saying these are not everybody's morals. Some heterosexuals don't even have this as a moral, but it's hard to argue that a relationship between two men or women is morally right, since everyone has their own morals.

[Blacksmith]

Originally Posted by Marceil

Morals are passed on and taught to younger generations the same as being taught how to read and write.
Who's morals are we following? Do they apply to life today or are they something that is outdated?

Both scientific and religious morals. Your problem here is we aren't saying homosexuals shouldn't be happy, in fact the whole POINT of this thread was homosexuals rights. We have already debated it, brought facts that weren't even religious, and basically given our 2 cents with much back up. So what are you argueing about? A lot of us accept them as humans, but it doesn't mean we'll live with them. Stop beating a dead horse, this thread will only bring repeat after repeat of what we already talked about. If you want to bitch about it some more go make your own thread, but your words aren't relevant here.

[OnOneRyder]

If you want to bitch about it some more go make your own thread, but your words aren't relevant here.

Why, he's posting his views on the topic therefore his points are quite relevant. But I'll agree with you that this thread is dead. It needs to be taken out back and shot.

[hellbred]

I think all the possible views of this topic have been expressed as well. Are we agreeing to disagree and discontinue discussion?

[Marceil]

I suppose so ... since all the things that have been discussed already tend to say how that person would vote for legal rights of homosexuals anyway.
Not that they'll ever have any in my lifetime.

heh, btw i'm a 33 yr old mother of two boys -- married for 12 yrs.
I know i'm a putzy looking newbie type person .. i only come back to TFF when I'm stuck on something....
and perhaps my opinion doesn't hold as much merit as say someone who visits here everyday.

It's just depressing that everywhere I go it's the same ending to a very familiar conversation ~_~

[Blacksmith]

Then ignore it and move on. I ask for a mod to please close this, if they c