Equal Rights for the LGBT Community?

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

I shall tell what i think about this.


Personally marriage was made between a man and a woman.
So i believe it should stay like this.
If the law admits gay marriage so be it.

Being Gay is a her of a choice as i know a lot of Gay peaple that had famelies and were hetro untill they devorced....

Even though i dont like the fact gay peaple can marry they SHOULDENT be discriminated.

Gay peaple are peaple they are persons.

Now i oppose the fact that Gay peaple addopt children.
WHy?

knowing that for the rest of its life it will be disciminated for having 2 fathers/mothers?
What will a child do when he goes to school?
he will be lauged at just for having gay parents.

Another factor is that in education children need both a father as a mother figuere....
If i had 2 dads i whould be an insensible idiot.
if i had 2 mums i whould be an over-sensible crybaby.

Just saying...whould parents really adopt children knowing that all this happens?

[Darth Crater]

I've avoided touching this subject so far, but apparently no longer. Short answer for my beliefs: Marriage, as defined by the church, can do whatever it wants. Marriage, as defined by the government, has not reason not to accept homosexual couples.

Being Gay is a her of a choice as i know a lot of Gay peaple that had famelies and were hetro untill they devorced....

The brain is complicated. I suspect homosexuality can't be purely genetic or it wouldn't be so prevalent, but it's not necessarily a er of choice in the way that, say, you choose what to wear in the morning.

Now i oppose the fact that Gay peaple addopt children.
WHy?

knowing that for the rest of its life it will be disciminated for having 2 fathers/mothers?
What will a child do when he goes to school?
he will be lauged at just for having gay parents.

Another factor is that in education children need both a father as a mother figuere....
If i had 2 dads i whould be an insensible idiot.
if i had 2 mums i whould be an over-sensible crybaby.

Plenty of children grow up into rational adults with only one parent, or even no parents. You seem to be assuming that males and females are somehow both fundamentally necessary to a child's development; care to cite sources?

I will admit that they're making their children potential bullying targets given the current culture, but that's straying into an entirely different subject...

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

I've avoided touching this subject so far, but apparently no longer. Short answer for my beliefs: Marriage, as defined by the church, can do whatever it wants. Marriage, as defined by the government, has not reason not to accept homosexual couples.

The brain is complicated. I suspect homosexuality can't be purely genetic or it wouldn't be so prevalent, but it's not necessarily a er of choice in the way that, say, you choose what to wear in the morning.

Plenty of children grow up into rational adults with only one parent, or even no parents. You seem to be assuming that males and females are somehow both fundamentally necessary to a child's development; care to cite sources?

I will admit that they're making their children potential bullying targets given the current culture, but that's straying into an entirely different subject...

1- your probably talking about the US where i live homosexual marriage is in fact allowed(most countries of europe)

2- Maby so maby not

3- I dont say like its a her of life and death.
But i do say that the development of a child changes having 2 parantel figueres...a mother and a father...

I know there are cases where there is only 1 parent or none.
I know peaple who belong to this case.
and i noticed that there are diffrent aspects.

For instance I know a lot of guys from my age who were rased only by their mother.
Instead of being like most peaple of this age they are very sensible.

The same thing happens if they were raised by their fathers...just the opposite.

4- well im not talling culture crator im talking regular bulying....
Ive been bullied all my life and not is the joke manner...but...
anyhow giving peaple another reason to bully you is actually really bad...and im not talking about regular bullying.

I was alwayes bullied by like 5-10 peaple
Yet there is a diffrence if its 30.

Where i live Gay peaple are seen very badly(wich isnt good in my eyes.)
If somone where i live where to have 2 mothers/2fathers than this whould cause that the child whould be extremely bullied.

Where i live Gay peaple can already adopt children.

But i can assure you being bullied changes the course of your life entirely.

[(SWGO)Kren]

First it is clear you don't understand the distinction I was making. I was pointing out (and you state it also, again without understanding) that you needn't be involved in ANY religious faith to discriminate against homosexuals. The prejudice does not spring from religion but from misunderstanding and fear. I think you would agree that there are more heterosexuals out there than there are practicing religious devotees. That by definition constitutes a larger discriminatory group.

I agree you don't need to be in a faith to discriminate however by the very nature of a religion you are accepting that way of thinking. A lot of prejudice (intolerance) does come from religion sorry to burst you're bubble on that one. A particular religion through teachings subsequently practices those and it's followers accept those teachings. The heterosexual group will be member of a certain religion (or have been in the past) so both go hand-in-hand.

Additionally, I challenge your assertion that "There have been many faiths throughout history that have accepted equal rights of gays..." I don't believe there have been many large, influential religions that did not shun the abnormal. Most religions concern themselves with defining what is right to do and what is not. So many religions take a negative stand on homosexuality. I have stated why I believe this is so. Ignorance and fear. "Evolution of the species" does NOT fix this issue. Only understanding does.

I was never indicating the size of the religion (large or small that was you) however the larger religions Christianity, Islam etc do think it is abnormal hence the issue. In early history there was little issue with homosexuality etc as it was more readily accepted. In the province of Fujian in China during the Ming dynasty males and females alike essentially entered into marriage contracts. It happened in the Roman Empire also and this was a rather large Empire and ancient Greece.

Our biological evolution has been ongoing for sometime now. If by our very nature we as a species have such tendencies through our genetic markers this surely defines who we are, our uniqueness as a species. If it forms part of us and has done for thousands of year why cannot it be accepted? There is no homosexuality FIX, it is part of who we are as human beings. If however you want to start altering genetic sequencing i.e. the 'X' Chromosones to make people normal (and what is that!) rather than abnormal (homosexual) as you put it then good luck with that one. Yeah let's make everyone the same see where that goes. Bring on the clones or the master race!

In the US there must also be some religious opposition to accepting homosexuality relating to marriage/equal rights. Would the population not form part of such a religion? I thought Christians in the USA were the main religious tradition accounting for over 78% of the U.S. religious landscape. As the majority form the basis of such religions they decide on what is accepted via the democratic process/system. Now going back in history; America was founded by colonists due to the fear of religious persecution in England? Now fast forward to the present day and what has changed, think along the lines of being hypocritical.

Matt C. brings the argument back to a focus we have left in favor of Religion. He refers back to the question of "right to marry" and the benefits and privileges garnered to those who are married. Perhaps he did not read the initial posts which clearly debunk the idea that marriage is a "right" to which all people are entitled. If it is as I (and U.S. government policy) describe as a government regulated legal partnership, it becomes a question of majority rule as to the guidelines to which someone may enter this legal status. The majority eventually came around to accepting interracial marriage as acceptable behavior. They did not wake up and decide they were denying someone's rights. Educate the majority on the "acceptable" nature of homosexual love and marriage will follow.

You have a "Right" to Love someone, wholeheartedly and unreservedly. You do NOT have a "Right" to marry them.

At the moment a same sex couple have the legal right to marry and it be recognised whereas homosexual couples cannot as their sexual orientation is perceived an impediment. This demonstrates they are not fully accepted as a fundamental group in today’s society. This further stigmatises them and invites public discrimination as a result and does not allow the same benefits of same sex couples.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the following countries as far as I am aware; Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden and Mexico City.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Kren, I appreciate you efforts trying to explain your position. I think I understand what you are trying to say, though the communication is quite muddy. I am saying that not sanctioning the marriage of a homosexual couple is based on more than religious grounds. In fact I am saying, the prohibition need not have any religious basis at all. I have stated that it is a contractual concept developed and sanctioned for the purpose of procreation and the legal difficulties of mutual ownership and parental rights/responsibilities. A couple (or a group of people in polygamists case) can Love one another and not need marriage. A "legally sanctioned marriage" is only necessary in the situation mentioned above.

Further, religious persecution as it would pertain in this topic, would be the shunning, scorning or out right violence done to an admitted homosexual as spelled out in various holy texts. The religious persecution early settlers of the current United States were trying to escape was state mandated religion or practicing a certain faith not generally approved of by other in the "old country." Most of the faiths that denounce homosexuality also teach forgiveness, tolerance and a policy of live and let live. It is possible (and VERY fashionable) to ignore sections of scripture which detail punishments for behavior no longer deemed unholy. The video below shows it is possible to be religious and a faithful believer without taking every word as a commandment. (there are only 10 after all and they are spelled out all together in a different section)



Finally, please don't tell me you are a genetecist and have made the breakthrough discovery of the gene that denotes sexual preference. So far as I am aware, no such discovery has yet been made. We simply DO NOT KNOW what makes one person straight and another gay. Lifestyle, upbringing, genetics or mental defect, they are all possibilities. My point has been and continues to be, that until we find out, those persons with the abnormality will be persecuted.

[Corpse]

I
If i had 2 dads i whould be an insensible idiot.
if i had 2 mums i whould be an over-sensible crybaby.

Both of those outcomes can be due to inept regular parents (father and mother). Traditional parenting couples can do a good or a bad job of bringing up their children. There is nothing to suggest that both genders possess faculties exclusive to themselves which are necessary for raising a child. So the same can be said about same sex parental couples: They can do a good job or they can do a bad job.

[Yanoda]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana.

All about this debate whether to let gays/lesbians marry or not is getting tiresome.

The U.S. had anti-miscegenation laws until 1967. The reasons against interracial marriage at the time were practically the same with todays reasons against homosexual marriage. One difference was for example: that a white man cannot marry a black woman or vise-versa. They were of opposite sex but in different racial backgrounds, and were considered bad for the children (bullying, social problems etc...) bad for society and all the other reasons that were given against homosexual marriage that I'm too lazy to mention. A little over 40 years later we don't question interracial marriage or consider it a problem for either the couple or the children.

I'm pretty sure that if homosexual marriage was legalized it would not be a problem in the near future either. The only problem is societies' acceptance to such changes. Just let them marry and don't worry about it so much.

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)Kren]

I was indicating that as a large percentage of the population are Christian they learn the values from somewhere; either handed down, learnt at Church etc. Members of some faiths will not doubt not be happy with homosexuality and taking the teachings quite literally whilst others will not however points of view are transferable they will not doubt discuss/speak with their non religious friends to spread the word that same sex partnerships are wrong or equal rights are wrong. And we all know how something spreads with 'word of mouth' including what additional information is tagged on to give it more of an edge.

Forgiveness is preached however that has not stopped violence in the name of a particular faith. Yes I have seen the 'live and let live' however this happens a lot when one way of thinking overrules another; "that's ok now our point of view has been proven as correct so now I forgive you for believing the way that you do". Unholy...lol; you have faiths committing crimes against others and minors so using this word might not have been the best choice.

Nice video. Here are some others for you to take a look at:

http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010 ... sexuality/

http://www.goddiscussion.com/32994/lds- ... f-gravity/

1st Video - 5 mins and 8 minutes in to get you through the video without you dropping to sleep.
2nd Video - Pretty much shows how this Church thinks.

Brotherly love and all that...really!

In addition to the above take a look at the following:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Genetics has gone a long way to highlighting when certain traits relating to homosexuality has come from. I am not geneticist btw however that should really cause you no issue at all if I was; as clearly forgiveness and acceptance would be given irrespective of who I am. Live and let live dread, it would be an idea to let people get on with their lives, the rest will fall into place.

[Matt-Chicago]

From popular science, but published all over the place: (ignore the funny name FucM gene )
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... emale-mice

The sex habits of mice have long been an intriguing subject for scientists. Now, mouse sex just got a lot more interesting for the rest of us.

A group of Korean geneticists has altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice gravitated toward mice of the same sex. Those mice who retained the gene, called FucM, were attracted to male mice. (FucM is short for fucose mutarotase.)

The geneticists' study, published last week in the journal BMC Genetics explains that female mice without FucM avoided male mice, declined to sniff male urine, and made passes at other females.

Lead author Chankyu Park, of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea, says this shows the absence of FucM tricks female mouse brains into functioning like male brains. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental program in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference," he told the London Telegraph.

Park said he now wants to research whether this finding has any relevance for humans.

The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum. Some still remember a 1995 study where scientists from the National Institutes of Health performed a similar procedure on male fruit flies, yielding what one journalist called "all-male conga lines." (For the record, the male flies became bisexual, not strictly gay.)

Even in South Korea, though, Park admits he may have trouble recruiting human volunteers for the next leg of his research.

[KOko]

So the gays got genetic desease/disorder ?
I knew there is something wrong with the gays...