FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Gay movement is growing and it is Futile to fight or argue





earthchild
The anti-gay mentality is quickly becoming outdated... but I guess someone has to represent it.

None the less it is futile.

More and more people learn to accept gay unions, and then gay marriage and gay adoption rights, every single day. Yes every single day people meet and get to know gay people or have a family member or friend announce that they are gay... and guess what? They realize it really isn't bad afterall... And so like ripples on a lake the movement grows and grows.

[And for those who are getting their panties in a bunch over this reality - gayness is not a disease. You don't catch it. Either you are gay or you are not. The sooner humanity as a whole accepts this the better. Then people who would otherwise suppress and bury their natural, god given urges (because god makes everything and everyone remember) for fear of death, beating, torture, or some other atrocity, are then able to be themselves. Bless their hearts.]

It is a lot like the previous movements to stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Just to name a few: women during the suffrage movement and at many different times all around the world, people of african descent during the civil rights movement and with the overthrow of apartheid, the current struggle of the 'untouchables' in India, and the list goes on and on.

All of these people eventually gained equal representation or continue to gain in strength, so I am very happy to report that so will 'gay' people.

Amen.
Soulfire
Yes, I agree that each passing day seems to bring more acceptance and tolerance. This seems to be a good thing.

Gays are people too, and like any other person they need rights, but I do not in any way support homosexuality (nor do I condemn it, though I should).
earthchild
Soulfire wrote:
Yes, I agree that each passing day seems to bring more acceptance and tolerance. This seems to be a good thing.

Gays are people too, and like any other person they need rights, but I do not in any way support homosexuality (nor do I condemn it, though I should).


well you know what they say about shoulds...

they'll get you into all sorts of trouble! Wink

(In my experience, one's heart is the best guide, and it sounds like you are listening to yours pretty well)
Soulfire
It's sort of gray for me. I'm torn between my religion and what I believe in personally. I know it's a sin to be gay, but I still believe that they deserve rights. That makes me sound hypocritical.
earthchild
Soulfire wrote:
It's sort of gray for me. I'm torn between my religion and what I believe in personally. I know it's a sin to be gay, but I still believe that they deserve rights. That makes me sound hypocritical.


When you look for God not only within your religion but outside of it as well... I think you might find some peace regarding this issue and others.
horseatingweeds
Rather than quoting I think that I will address several main issues regarding this topic. First, however, let me say that I am afraid that I am one of these fellows whom are anti-gay. The trouble is that I am not anti-gay but anti-gay-agenda and this is then referred to as anti-gay, intolerant, etc.

Growing up one of my best friends felt he was gay; I have been in acquaintance with gays since and currently know several gay couples including those with children. The problem I have with the gay agenda is that it is certainly not pro-gay.

1. Gay marriage: Under the guise of “gay rights” there are those attempting to change the meaning of marriage in the US to encompass not only man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman.

First, this is not a gay rights issue. There are no laws preventing gays from marring.
Second, if these advocates were really concerned about gay rights and less about making a statement and propagating their agenda, they would be advocating the equalization of rights afforded to marriage and civil unions.
Third, I feel that these advocates’ attempts to do something such as changing the definition of a very particular word to be discrediting to those that they claim to protect.
Finally, the changing of a definition of a word is unprecedented, with good reason. Also this word is sacred enough, and not just to religion but a great deal also to tradition and social strength, to enough people that to change it would mean infringing upon those peoples’ rights.

2. Gay adoption: This is a complicated issue outside of our current ability to truly understand that is also NOT a gay rights issue. I am not aware of any stipulations with regard to sexual orientation in the adoption process. However, to approach such an issue as a gay rights issue certainly reveals the priorities of the approacher and does a disservice to those with who the priority should be put, the child.

3. Homosexuality is not a disease: In affect homosexuality can certainly be classified as a disorder, as politically incorrect as it is. Sexuality is a natural urge to propagate. Disorders in the brain or emotional abnormalities that would compel a person to seek fulfillment by other means, rather than the natural ones is unproductive and destructive to that person in the fact that the urges provide nothing more than that of fulfillment.

4. Gay oppression: To compare the gay rights movement to that of woman’s rights or racial equality is irreprehensible. Woman and minorities such as blacks are still shaking off the burden of the oppression they once faced. There were actual laws and rules that prevented them from an equal chance at life. Today, there are still black trapped in the intercity because there parents and their parents’ parents were unable to compete, and woman are still paid a quarter less than men. A black man does not finally come out and admit that he is black. He was black and so was his father who was not aloud into school and his grandfather who was a tenant farmer.

I welcome any discussion on these topics but I do not welcome foolish attacks on my tolerant character or ability to understand homosexuality.
earthchild
horseatingweeds wrote:

2. Gay adoption: This is a complicated issue outside of our current ability to truly understand that is also NOT a gay rights issue. I am not aware of any stipulations with regard to sexual orientation in the adoption process. However, to approach such an issue as a gay rights issue certainly reveals the priorities of the approacher and does a disservice to those with who the priority should be put, the child.
underline mine

Regarding this I'm going to assume you are addressing myself as the 'approacher'.

In response to your comment I will only say that one of my majors is in Child Development, my husband and I wrote a vow to serve all the children of the world into our marriage vows, and I mentor a foster child. Since I am still studying I can't yet go out and help the orphans of the world but give me time.

If you are not convinced as to my concern for children (especially those who would be up for adoption)... then there is nothing else I can say to assure you otherwise.

In response to the rest... well it's up to you if you want to fight a futile battle... may you suffer only a short time Wink
prongs_386
homosexuality would only be classed as a disorder under the fact that there is something about them different to others, but let's say to have red hair you need a different piece of DNA to people with brown. Hair colour is something different but because it so common for it to be different it has been accepted as normal/ Whereas homosexuals have something slightly different to heterosexuals so let's call it a disorder!
That is not right.

Not that i know much about christianity etc. but didn't eve supposedly release evil into the world. The insinuation that women are evil?
In some cases women are still treated worse than men but for the most they are equal. So eventually i homosexuals should be seen to be completely equal.
horseatingweeds
earthchild wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

2. Gay adoption: This is a complicated issue outside of our current ability to truly understand that is also NOT a gay rights issue. I am not aware of any stipulations with regard to sexual orientation in the adoption process. However, to approach such an issue as a gay rights issue certainly reveals the priorities of the approacher and does a disservice to those with who the priority should be put, the child.
underline mine

Regarding this I'm going to assume you are addressing myself as the 'approacher'.

In response to your comment I will only say that one of my majors is in Child Development, my husband and I wrote a vow to serve all the children of the world into our marriage vows, and I mentor a foster child. Since I am still studying I can't yet go out and help the orphans of the world but give me time.

If you are not convinced as to my concern for children (especially those who would be up for adoption)... then there is nothing else I can say to assure you otherwise.

In response to the rest... well it's up to you if you want to fight a futile battle... may you suffer only a short time Wink


I have no idea how you regard the well being of children. My point was that one who approaches the issue of adoption with regard to gay rights does not have the child's interest as the priority but the "gay rights".

Additionally, my point was that the struggle for gay rights is actually a struggle for the gay agenda, which is in affect inconsequential and or destructive to gay rights as gays are people.

If you where genuinely concerned about wining a battle for gays I feel you would see my point. Possibly you are more interested in the gay agenda. I don’t know. Either way it is not for me to judge, but I do enjoy the discussion.


prongs_386 wrote:
homosexuality would only be classed as a disorder under the fact that there is something about them different to others, but let's say to have red hair you need a different piece of DNA to people with brown. Hair colour is something different but because it so common for it to be different it has been accepted as normal/ Whereas homosexuals have something slightly different to heterosexuals so let's call it a disorder!


No silly, not different to others. Read the post for crying out loud!

horeseatingweeds wrote:
Disorders in the brain or emotional abnormalities that would compel a person to seek fulfillment by other means, rather than the natural ones is unproductive and destructive to that person in the fact that the urges provide nothing more than that of fulfillment.
tidruG
Quote:
gay marriage

I was reading an article on the best way to make a hamburger (or was it sandwich), and the author said that we should put the ham/lettuce/whatever (I think it was sandwich after all) on 2 different slices of bread, then take the slices in each hand, and "marry the twain quickly". I'll leave it to you to decide which one of those halves is the man and which is the other. Sting is famous for saying that his "religion" is music. Is that not an insult to the word "religion"... is it not a bigger insult to say that one's religion is Atheism?
If we can have a law that gives two "married" people the same legal rights, irrespective of their sexes, then I'm for it... even if we have to change the meaning of the word "marriage" slightly.

Quote:
Gay adoption

I agree with horseatingweeds' point of view on this one. As long as society sees gay marriage as strange or something worth stigmatizing, the person who will suffer most from a gay adoption will be the child.

Quote:
Homosexuality is not a disease

If homosexuality is a disease, then outright heterosexuality is one too. I read an article very recently (unfortunately I am terribly sorry I don't remember which site it was) which stated that a large study carried out found out that 80-90% of the people who participated were bisexual, at least to a certain extent. It is very rare to come across someone who is purely homosexual or purely heterosexual.
And sexuality is more than the urge to propagate. When we are physically drawn to someone, and want to have sexual relations with them, it's generally because we sub-consciously find some qualities about them very much to our liking and would like our offpsring to have these qualities in-born. So a person can be attracted to men or women depending on what qualities we perceive in them.
James007
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-19273.html ?
Please consider continuing there.
-close-
Related topics
The exploition of children by the ACLU
Pentagon's plan to turn enemies gay
F. Nietzsche
What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
Non Violent war
Are Americans stupid?
should we care about antartic ice melting?
Referring to "The Truth"
Stimulus Package & the Anti-Stimulus Crowd
Things only a Republican could believe
Should 9/11 Trials be heard in Civilian or Military Courts?
Should atheists reject the label
What do athiests believe?
Objection to the term 'sect'
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.