What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[Tekania]

I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come

Perhaps in your infinitely shrinking wisdom, you can explain to me how there will be less children.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

And if the 'objective' definition offered by the church is that lightning is gods rage? Shall society adhere to such nonsense in those cases?
The difference here is that a church does not follow a logical course in their formation of definitions, society is forced to do so...As if society was to elect a light-bulb, how long would it be before we realized a mistake may have been made(prepare for cynical snarky response).
And yes, it was a terrible analogy...

A terrible analogy you countered with with a worse one. The church decree on lightning has no effect on the people or on society. Marriage has a huge effect.

Yes, how long would it be for us to realise? I am hoping it is sooner rather than later.

Stop talking about religion. I'm not using the church to justify anything.

Well I may as well counter ignorance with facetious analogies...It is only fitting in NSG. Really...Nothing to to with society? Like every time a 'storms a coming' the whole town goes to pray in a chapel to keep 'god' happy? How about donating money to the church to keep them happy because they keep god happy? The church forming definitions for society creates slaves of society.

Hey, if you are going to use the ideals of the church you might as well give them some credit; I mean after all, you should 'recognize'. Stop trying to pass them as yours when they are really the churches.

[Ifreann]

Sorry but i think its wrong. GOd has made everyone and it started with adam and eve. he made a woman and a man to be together and thats how he wants it. we need to obey god and his commandments, because he knows best and loves us and we need to have respect for what he wants. look in the bible and you will see that he even says its for a man and a woman to marry and have offsprings. if he wanted gays and all that then he would have made it possible for them to have babies with each other but they cant it needs to be a boy and a girl thats the only natural psssible way.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but most countries don't base their laws on what GOd[sic] wants.

[-St George]

Homesexual's don't get rights. Their weak-willed mentalities allowed them to catch the gay.

You cannot 'catch the guy'. The 'gay disease' is no more rule than the 'cooties disease', but for some reason, while 'cooties' has been left behind in childhood, bigots like you try to project the 'gay' as fact. It is not.

I'm not going to be coy, I do believe it is sinful. However, I know there is no personality difference, and the homosexuals I have met have all been very nice. I believe things like this should be determined by the people of a given area. Though I'm personally against Homosexual marriage, I am 100% in favor of letting it go to referendum so the people can decide, rather than musty old men in Washington.

How is it sinful?

Meh, I think that the government has no place in the bedroom personally.

I disagree with the now-majority opinion that homosexuality is just A-OK, but I don't let my personal views affect my political views when it comes to petty issues like sexual orientation.

Why is my fondness for having phallic shaped objects inserting into my arse wrong?

And it's sure as hell shorter than that borg collective of an acronym LGBTQIAF. I added the 'F' for furries, because the thing is eventually going to eat up the whole alphabet anyway, so I might as well speed up the process.

Let's add "O" for otherkin as well. And P for "polyamorous"...

Hmm... maybe we can shoe-horn in "S" for swingers and maybe another "O" (perhaps O' ) for open-relationship?

C for Canadians.

Isn't paedophilia also something with which one is born?

Sure. But they don't have to have sex with them.

To build on this, paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents and, as such, is not illegal in any country (with child molestation or sexual assault or other similar legal terms being the crimes associated with the act of acting on paedophilic urges).

I'm opposed to them apart from transsexual ones because it's true that homosexuals could adopt but there wouldn't be as strong a bond between parent and child. Plus allowing gay marraige would therefore be saying to people that given the choice best is as good as second best. I'm opposed to discrimination against LGBT people though because that is also impractical and there are enough divisions that people get hassle over as it is.

Prove it.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

So its a good idea now, however in the past its a terrible idea? We learn from the past, we do not live in it.

EDIT: Aside from that you are looking through a limited perspective, regarding marriage, as not all cultures in the past shared the same beliefs for marriage. In-fact even within Christianity there has been a 'less than rock like' foundation for marriage...More of a jumbling group of stolen beliefs and social structures.

Yeah that was worded wrong. I mean that if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't logical, useful and beneficial to society to grant them the rights now.

Ah, don't toss it all away...Some of those ideals are not bad yet? Yea, I fail to see any beneficial gains in limiting society by using 'hand-me-down' ideals as opposed to letting us form our own, modern ones which relate entirely to society at its current; and is therefore beneficial in absolute(and offers us 'wiggle' room to change what we later feel may not be beneficial).

Oh, right...Your terrible light-bulb analogy...Society cant be left to choose for itself, we need to look to the past societies to do that for us?

[Ichinayagara]

They should have the same rights as everyone else. Not worse or better. We are all equal.

[Unhealthy2]

Computers aren't something that have underlied and shaped our society like marriage has. They are completely different.

Then stop using irrelevant arguments like historical roots and original purpose. If you don't like those arguments when they're used to argue for other things, then don't use them. It's simple. Stop using special pleading.

[Punk Reloaded]

I thought this would be an intelligent discussion but appears to be just another conversation devolving between those that try to pidgeon hole people who do not support gay marriage and those decrying the deviancy of homosexuality.

It'd be nice to once see an actual conversation about the subject without the typical "don't bring God in here" or "being gay is a choice". We've all heard that before and it doesn't actually lend much to the conversation. Perhaps that's why we'll still be arguing about this issue in real life for years to come.

[Xynga]

There is no valid reason the law should make any distinctions based on sexuality, race, ethnicity, culture, gender or - for the most part - sex.

[Khawarezm]

They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent

[Ifreann]

They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent

But where will we get that much marijuana?

[Daircoill]

They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent

i'm sorry, haven't we met?
"I'm the 21st century, nice to meet you."

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I thought this would be an intelligent discussion but appears to be just another conversation devolving between those that try to pidgeon hole people who do not support gay marriage and those decrying the deviancy of homosexuality.

It'd be nice to once see an actual conversation about the subject without the typical "don't bring God in here" or "being gay is a choice". We've all heard that before and it doesn't actually lend much to the conversation. Perhaps that's why we'll still be arguing about this issue in real life for years to come.

Well the base of the issue involves opinions, which though formed through different facets, do include religion and ignorance as to homosexuality. It would be lovely to have a discussion about it that did not involve religious idealistic bias or ignorance of the issue...But then...without those aspects there would be no discussion at all. In other words: if this discussion was left to logic alone there would be no debate.

[Tekania]

They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent

I agwee, Bingus Dickus, wetweive my bong!

And obviously you're an expert in this, in that you're half-way there yourself.

[Banold]

Homosexuals are human individuals too. They deserve the same rights afforded to heterosexuals.

[Arkhanta]

all i can say is: take a good look at the Roman Empire. They had gay rights, and all we can do is marvel at their ruins...

[Daircoill]

all i can say is: take a good look at the Roman Empire. They had gay rights, and all we can do is marvel at their ruins...

is that sarcasm or are you just completely ignorant of the fact that they controlled just about ALL of the known world and were one of the most technologically advanced civilisations of all time.

[Tekania]

all i can say is: take a good look at the Roman Empire. They had gay rights, and all we can do is marvel at their ruins...

Yes, we'll have to make sure not to make the same mistake in handing civil power over to the Church as they did, ushering in centuries of darkness and oppression.

[Guapopolis]

queers

[SpectacularSpectacular]

queers

*cries* Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood, he called us queers! *sniffle, cry, sniffle*

[Tekania]

queers

Most of us are for SSM, thus, it's you who are queer.

[Hyorius]

Tell me what you think about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. And also explain why you hold that view.

They practice wicked abomination. Do they not fear their Lord? Verily Allah shows His Mercy towards all His creatures. Yet they transgress all bounds in their perverse enormities that they reject his Compassion and incur His wrath. Do they not see what happened to the People of Lot, who commited the same monstrous sins and looked at men with lust? Allah says in the Quran 11:82:

"When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer upon layer."

These evildoers should be punished severely in this world, but they should be forgiven if the repent in earnest before their Creator and Sustainer.

And grievous is the penalty they will incur in the hereafter for their detestable doings, they will burn in a blazing Fire.

[Great Agram]

They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent

i'm sorry, haven't we met?
"I'm the 21st century, nice to meet you."

you are not tolerant.

this is a paradox of all pro-gay assotiations. they are not tolerant to other who do not like gays but in another hand they are seeking to be tolerated.

[Undivulged Principles]

I believe homosexuals are entitled to equal rights as anyone else. However, homosexuals don't need to use the term marriage to describe their union, since it isn't. Marriage is a legal term (both in origin and over the last 5000 years - Laws of Eshunna) to describe the union between a Man and a Woman, so there is no need for homosexuals to hijack it for their own purposes. A civil union is just fine and homosexuals can call their significant other their "partner" as long as the legal rights are the same as marriage (which they should be).

I find it ironic that homosexuals get very angry when someone refers to something they consider lame or senseless as "gay" but refuse to acknowledge homosexuals can create the same animosity when they refer to their relationship as a marriage. It isn't. The origin of marriage stems from the ability of a man and a women in a formally acknowledged relationship to procreate and to distinguish children born of such a union and those adopted through a second or later marriage or other legally accepted processes.

As much as it may seem unfair to those adopted as opposed to those born of a married couple, there are specific, legally binding and still important reasons why this is the case. If the couple wish the adopted children to have the same inheritance and other rights as those born in wedlock, that is what Wills are for. No need to supplant the legal process for the whims of homosexuals who wish to co-opt a word for nothing more than they want their cake and eat it too. I do find it humorous that homosexuals are so adamant about this while being so "open minded" towards other things. Lock 2 men or 2 women in a room for 10 months and come out with a newborn baby and then I'll be willing to change my view. Otherwise the arguments are futile. I think in most cases all married couples wish for is to keep the word their own, the rights they are willing to offer freely to homosexuals but homosexuals (in most cases) won't accept anything but the whole enchilada. I guess we shouldn't distinguish between male and female any more since they are the same....riiiight.

[Daircoill]

i'm sorry, haven't we met?
"I'm the 21st century, nice to meet you."

you are not tolerant.

this is a paradox of all pro-gay assotiations. they are not tolerant to other who do not like gays but in another hand they are seeking to be tolerated.

I am tolerant of your right to dislike homosexuals. i am intolerant of anybody who calls for the death of another human being.