100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What is wrong with being Gay? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
its not acceptable to use the body for physical and sexual satisfaction which it was not BUILT for I guess our Creator should have omitted the clitoris then if he didn't want sex to be satistactory.   The clitoris must stay  who said it shouldnt satisfy? I just stated that shouldnt be the only concern in the choice to be sexually active or in the decision of whom to be sexually active with In fact, I added that it is satisfying as a way to ENCOURAGE procreation. Just as food is tasty to ENCOURAGE eating. But the purpose of food is nutrition and the purpose of sex is procreation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the best way to go about it is let them be married (but there would have to be another word for it, it cannot be called marriage)and couldn't be done in a church..the taxes and everything that goes with it could be the same. Right now I think those are the biggest issues with this becoming legal around the country. Well, in Canada we do call it marriage and yes it is performed in a church if one desires it. As for taxes and everything that goes with it; gay marriages just go through the same legislations as for hetro marriages. Its not rocket science. I knew there were a few reasons I like Canada but now there is one more. Obviously they are smarter there or at least more socially advanced then we are in the US. You are right, it isn't rocket science and it shouldn't have even been a government fight of any kind. The government should have granted anyone the right to marriage as long as they are of age and mental consent. Thanks Dragoness. I am sure the States will get on board eventuall with reconizing gay marriages. We just recently had a gay pride parade in our city and our Mayor marched with them in support. How cool was that? Its nice to see these changes finally and I for one am happy to see them as its been a long time coming. And what makes it worse is we claim to be "the land of the free"...lol I guess they mean only free to do what "they" believe you should do. They being old school prejudice white guys who take their own religion and beliefs to a level of tyranny. You are right it is improving but oh so slowly to those of us who have outgrown the old prejudice ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bin  When humans stop considering differences wrong, we will be able to end all this discriminatory dialogue and reactions. It is okay not to be the same as others. And being gay hurts no one. So naturally being gay is okay and should be allowed all rights that all other humans have. likewise, incest 'hurts' noone either if it is consentual I guess we should be prepared to have uncle dads and aunty moms eventually, or perhaps we will totally get rid of the unfair family labels and gender recognition altogether... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure... i have seen dogs and monkeys hump on each other, but thats not really a gay thing, just a need for sex, and whatever is closest to them... when a puppy humps your leg, do you not tell it no? well, the same thing with gays, they need to be told no... If that were the case, that homosexuals only slept with each other because that's what's closest to them, then they would sleep with members of the opposite sex as well, if they were the "closest thing" to them. I can't even believe you just said that. And you really need to do some research before you start posting things like this. There have been numerous studies involving homosexuality in the animal kingdom. And it doesn't only occur because they only want to hump the closest thing to them. so your a homo expert? why don't you explain why they hump then? do any animals (same sex) try to live and breed with each other? NO they do not... show me one species that does, mrs know it all... Actually, one of the articles posted here did say same sex animals have paired up for life. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. it would be interesting to know the medical criteria for 'better at raising',,,lol their is not enough known about this to base any conclusion... i have been around ducks and geese, turkeys, all sorts of animals all my life, and have never seen anything like this... gays to to special lengths to legitimize their behavior...so it is "normal" because someone thought they saw a gay duck? hahahahahahahahah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bin When humans stop considering differences wrong, we will be able to end all this discriminatory dialogue and reactions. It is okay not to be the same as others. And being gay hurts no one. So naturally being gay is okay and should be allowed all rights that all other humans have. likewise, incest 'hurts' noone either if it is consentual I guess we should be prepared to have uncle dads and aunty moms eventually, or perhaps we will totally get rid of the unfair family labels and gender recognition altogether... The "royal" family engages in incest all the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not acceptable to use the body for physical and sexual satisfaction which it was not BUILT for I guess our Creator should have omitted the clitoris then if he didn't want sex to be satistactory. The clitoris must stay who said it shouldnt satisfy? I just stated that shouldnt be the only concern in the choice to be sexually active or in the decision of whom to be sexually active with In fact, I added that it is satisfying as a way to ENCOURAGE procreation. Just as food is tasty to ENCOURAGE eating. But the purpose of food is nutrition and the purpose of sex is procreation. You forgot to state "for me" at the end of that. Because I know sex for many others is definitely not for procreation. Can I get an amen from those out there who know sex is not just for procreation???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair. I would not be for forcing churches to marry gay people if they choose not to. However, I would not say that gay people should not be allowed to marry in churches if they choose to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not acceptable to use the body for physical and sexual satisfaction which it was not BUILT for I guess our Creator should have omitted the clitoris then if he didn't want sex to be satistactory. The clitoris must stay who said it shouldnt satisfy? I just stated that shouldnt be the only concern in the choice to be sexually active or in the decision of whom to be sexually active with In fact, I added that it is satisfying as a way to ENCOURAGE procreation. Just as food is tasty to ENCOURAGE eating. But the purpose of food is nutrition and the purpose of sex is procreation. You forgot to state "for me" at the end of that. Because I know sex for many others is definitely not for procreation. Can I get an amen from those out there who know sex is not just for procreation???? I have sex because it feels good. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the best way to go about it is let them be married (but there would have to be another word for it, it cannot be called marriage)and couldn't be done in a church..the taxes and everything that goes with it could be the same. Right now I think those are the biggest issues with this becoming legal around the country. thats my only issue, personally. When marriages end, part of the consideration is whether 'consummation' occurred. I dont feel homosexxual 'consummation' should be given legal support or encouragement in any way. If people wish to join lives , regardless of their anatomy or their relation, lets create a civil contract that allows them to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair. I would not be for forcing churches to marry gay people if they choose not to. However, I would not say that gay people should not be allowed to marry in churches if they choose to do so. that makes no sense... if the churches say no, what are you gunna do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bin When humans stop considering differences wrong, we will be able to end all this discriminatory dialogue and reactions. It is okay not to be the same as others. And being gay hurts no one. So naturally being gay is okay and should be allowed all rights that all other humans have. likewise, incest 'hurts' noone either if it is consentual I guess we should be prepared to have uncle dads and aunty moms eventually, or perhaps we will totally get rid of the unfair family labels and gender recognition altogether... How did we all know that was coming?...lol Incest does hurt. But I guess Christians don't know that since they believe in it. Their bible starts with it. And incestuous beginning to man and they claim moral superiority
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not acceptable to use the body for physical and sexual satisfaction which it was not BUILT for I guess our Creator should have omitted the clitoris then if he didn't want sex to be satistactory. The clitoris must stay who said it shouldnt satisfy? I just stated that shouldnt be the only concern in the choice to be sexually active or in the decision of whom to be sexually active with In fact, I added that it is satisfying as a way to ENCOURAGE procreation. Just as food is tasty to ENCOURAGE eating. But the purpose of food is nutrition and the purpose of sex is procreation. I would agree with you in a perfect world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the best way to go about it is let them be married (but there would have to be another word for it, it cannot be called marriage)and couldn't be done in a church..the taxes and everything that goes with it could be the same. Right now I think those are the biggest issues with this becoming legal around the country. thats my only issue, personally. When marriages end, part of the consideration is whether 'consummation' occurred. I dont feel homosexxual 'consummation' should be given legal support or encouragement in any way. If people wish to join lives , regardless of their anatomy or their relation, lets create a civil contract that allows them to do so. they do, it's called a civil union... every state has it, with the same benefits as being called marriage... but that is not good enough, they want to force their ways on everyone else... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure... i have seen dogs and monkeys hump on each other, but thats not really a gay thing, just a need for sex, and whatever is closest to them... when a puppy humps your leg, do you not tell it no? well, the same thing with gays, they need to be told no... If that were the case, that homosexuals only slept with each other because that's what's closest to them, then they would sleep with members of the opposite sex as well, if they were the "closest thing" to them. I can't even believe you just said that. And you really need to do some research before you start posting things like this. There have been numerous studies involving homosexuality in the animal kingdom. And it doesn't only occur because they only want to hump the closest thing to them. so your a homo expert? why don't you explain why they hump then? do any animals (same sex) try to live and breed with each other? NO they do not... show me one species that does, mrs know it all... Actually, one of the articles posted here did say same sex animals have paired up for life. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. it would be interesting to know the medical criteria for 'better at raising',,,lol their is not enough known about this to base any conclusion... i have been around ducks and geese, turkeys, all sorts of animals all my life, and have never seen anything like this... gays to to special lengths to legitimize their behavior...so it is "normal" because someone thought they saw a gay duck? hahahahahahahahah You asked for someone to show animals who have done what you say they don't do. I did that with this article. It's obvious that nothing anyone shows you is not going to change your mind, no matter what it says. So why not just say you're never going to believe any research whatsoever that shoes homosexual behavior in nature? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not acceptable to use the body for physical and sexual satisfaction which it was not BUILT for I guess our Creator should have omitted the clitoris then if he didn't want sex to be satistactory. The clitoris must stay who said it shouldnt satisfy? I just stated that shouldnt be the only concern in the choice to be sexually active or in the decision of whom to be sexually active with In fact, I added that it is satisfying as a way to ENCOURAGE procreation. Just as food is tasty to ENCOURAGE eating. But the purpose of food is nutrition and the purpose of sex is procreation. You forgot to state "for me" at the end of that. Because I know sex for many others is definitely not for procreation. Can I get an amen from those out there who know sex is not just for procreation???? good grief!! people also dont eat JUST for nutrition, but nutrition is why food was placed on the earth I dont eat JUST because of nutrition, but I recognize the purpose for it was to supply nutrition I dont have sex to procreate, but I recognize (and respect) the UNIQUE purpose of sex which is procreation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair. I would not be for forcing churches to marry gay people if they choose not to. However, I would not say that gay people should not be allowed to marry in churches if they choose to do so. Oh, absolutely. I totally agree that same sex couples should have the rights to be married in a church. Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like I felt otherwise. Just that it would be up to the individual churches to decide whether to hold these ceremonies or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair. I would not be for forcing churches to marry gay people if they choose not to. However, I would not say that gay people should not be allowed to marry in churches if they choose to do so. that makes no sense... if the churches say no, what are you gunna do? Not all churches say no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the best way to go about it is let them be married (but there would have to be another word for it, it cannot be called marriage)and couldn't be done in a church..the taxes and everything that goes with it could be the same. Right now I think those are the biggest issues with this becoming legal around the country. thats my only issue, personally. When marriages end, part of the consideration is whether 'consummation' occurred. I dont feel homosexxual 'consummation' should be given legal support or encouragement in any way. If people wish to join lives , regardless of their anatomy or their relation, lets create a civil contract that allows them to do so. they do, it's called a civil union... every state has it, with the same benefits as being called marriage... but that is not good enough, they want to force their ways on everyone else... I seriously doubt every single church is going to say no to gay marriage. I know gay people who go to church. So obviously some churches are ok with homosexuality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that it's the churches right to decide who gets married there or not. I'm 100% for gay marriage, but also understand that a particular church has a right to deny them the chance to be married there. You can't take away the rights of the individual churches either. That's not fair. I would not be for forcing churches to marry gay people if they choose not to. However, I would not say that gay people should not be allowed to marry in churches if they choose to do so. that makes no sense... if the churches say no, what are you gunna do? create their own churches, many have, many churches have gay pastors , believe it or not |
|
|
|
|
