Best Posts in Thread: Gay Rights

Donald Trump has a weird approach towards gay rights. He isn't going to try to undo same-sex marriage (he's actually okay with it being legal, but they doesn't mean he's 'supportive' of it). He was also an early advocate of repealing DADT (which is actually surprising considering he wants to block trans people from joining the military)

This is true. Yet, what about with lesbians? Don't they have significantly less STD's than the average straight woman?

It's also true that not only are STD more likely among MSM, but they're also significantly more likely among black MSM. Despite blacks being only about 12% of the population, there are more gay/bi black men getting HIV than gay/bi white men contracting it. Diseases tend to spread within communities. HIV became widespread among promiscuous gay men (Believed to be from gay bathhouses in the 1980's). As such, it spread much more among homosexual males than heterosexual males.

Yes, you can point out that gay men are more likely to contract an STD and be right. The real question here is, so what?

It is true that MSM behavior is more high risk, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be controlled and done safely. (Seriously, use protection, there's bacteria and fragile lining in there)

THCA (the substance that becomes THC after decarboxylated) natural occurs in cannabis as a self-defense mechanism. It just so happens that it's psychoactive and beneficial in humans. (It's actual poison to several animals)

 

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

Then why has homosexuality existed in some form or another since at least ancient Greece?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 14, 2017 ---

Please provide real evidence.

Evidence to back this statement up please.

 

+1
I disagree with Nazis completely (it sucks that someone has to make it clear that they disagree with Nazis before making a statement), but we can't ban their speech because what's next? What would the litmus test be on hate speech? Hate speech is free speech whether you like it or not.

Banning speech is a spiral down into totalitarianism. Ironically, Nazis, I believe, did the same thing in Germany. They punished those who disagreed with them. How did they do this? They convinced the German population that they are right and anyone not supporting the movement was a criminal. If we do the same to Nazis, we would only be doing the same, just in a different way. Nazis were very reactionary. Wouldn't it be just as bad if radicals were to do that?

 

Boy scouts and girl scouts are not divided by gender, just saying. It's whether or not you have that Y chromosome. Males have completely different builds than women. We are better at different things. There is a reason people have split them up, and it's not because of sexism. I proudly support all of the movements like feminism, transgender and gay rights movements. They should be able to do what they want on a legal level: marry who they want, act however they want, etc. Unfortunately, they can't be something they aren't.

Personally, I want to go into a career that lets people be who they want in the future.

 

Relationship didn't work out.

I'm still very gay though

 

The gays are stealing our jobs

 

The posts on this thread are getting longer and longer. Dang.

 

His arguments have been strong, its just that new people continuously bring up old easily refuted points, which aren't hard to look smart refuting because its been done so many times already.

 

I'm an atheist and I consider myself to be very open minded (I have my stances because I consider them to be the most logical, but if anyone can convince me otherwise with evidence and/or a stance that I can find more logical, I'll change my mind); however, I would not say that atheists are inherently more open minded than Christians. There are plenty of atheists that aren't willing to have productive conversations with Christians because they just regard Christians as 'idiots' for believing in a God.

Now, concerning which one is more open minded, well, I don't think that any of us here are justified to make an official claim on that. Personally, I have met a lot of closed minded theists and I don't think I've met any particularly closed minded atheists, but I know hundreds of theists, whereas I only know a handful of atheists, so I can't make a claim off of those unequal numbers. On top of this, the majority of the people that live in my area are religious, so most of the atheists that I've met were likely raised religious and converted to atheism later on, whereas most of the theists likely stuck with the beliefs that they were raised with. People that choose a belief (or a lack of one) tend to me more open minded and open to discuss it, because they've usually put a lot of thought into it (not that people that stick with the belief that they're raised with don't put thought into it, because a lot of them do, but there are some that don't, whereas there's rarely anyone that converts that doesn't). If the area that I lived in was mainly filled with atheists and there was only a few theists (practically all of whom were converts), it would be likely that the theists would be viewed as being more open minded.

TLR: In order to make an accurate claim on whether or not theists or atheists are more open minded, we'd have to conduct a study by taking people from all around the world, converts and people who were raised with their beliefs alike. When you base a claim like this off of your personal experiences, you risk experiencing regional factors, meeting an unequal amount of theists and atheists, and meeting an unequal amount of people that were raised with their belief and people that converted to their belief.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 3, 2016 ---

This forum is mostly filled with young children who aren't old enough to have deep conversations about this stuff; a lot of them just believe what their parents have taught them, without question. The reason that you experience this more with Christians is because the majority of the people on here are from the United States, where the majority of people are Christians. Because of this, the majority of the children here are Christians. The majority of the atheists here, however, are older teenagers and adults that have converted to atheism, which is why they debate more. There are older and intelligent Christians and other theists here too though, so you can't assume that since the children tend to not have deep conversations with you at an adult level, that the older Christians/theists are going to be like this as well.

 

So anyone that has sex while infertile is just as immoral as gays, right? Why did your god allow humans to be born infertile, while still 'creating' them with sexual desires? Sounds a bit douchey, no?

"I am God! I will create all of you with sexual desires so that you can procreate!

Oh, apart from... 1% of you that I want to be born asexual. Screw you guys.

But the rest of you shall be free to procreate! Oh and... another 5% of you I will create with homosexual desires. Not just humans, but all species all across the animal kingdom. It humours me.

But the other 94% are free to procreate! But... watch out for those nasty sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Yeah, I created them too. So, just be careful.

So, procreate! (with caution). One more thing though. I'm going to create some of you with the desire to have heterosexual sex, but you'll never be able to procreate! How funny is that? Infertility is going to be a 'thing' when I'm the ruler of the universe.

Ah, and just for laughs? When you silly little humans get too old to make babies, I'm still going to leave all of the desires to have sex, in each and every one of you! You're not allowed to act on those desires though. It offends me if you don't have sex for procreation. Just bottle it up and you'll be fine.

Mmk have funnnn!"

He sounds sadistic and illogical.

I hate to put this picture into your mind, but your parents are probably incredibly immoral too, by your standards. Women don't just turn into asexual hermits once they hit menopause. The sex scene is only continuing to grow for men and women over the age of 50.

Anal? Oral? Immoral too right?

Are you allowed to have fun while you're trying to make a baby? Or is this not allowed either?

TLR -- The moral compass that you have regarding sex would cause you to see almost everyone on the planet as immoral. In some form or another.

 

Lol, this is still debated on?

If we based our laws around what people believe to be sinful, and banned every believed sin for no other reason than that it is considered to be a sin by someone, we would live in a horrible society.

There are so many things that we do everyday that some people consider to be sins.

Actually, many people contest it, and for good reason.

Considering that I'm not religious, what is and isn't a sin isn't that relevant to me; however, I had a Christian upbringing, and before my beliefs changed, I had a number of reasons for why I didn't think homosexuality was a sin. For instance, if we view this from a religious perspective, why would God make people homosexual if it was a sin? Science strongly suggests that sexuality is not a choice. So, unlike other sins, this means that homosexuality would be a sin that is impossible to stop. Why would God make people in a way that they are naturally committing a sin that they are completely unable to stop or prevent?

 

Hi Elsa. I've already replied in length on another thread (Is God real?), and I'm seeing similar arguments crop up again and again. Could you take a look at my other reply too? I'd appreciate it, thank you.

Yes, I care whether someone is a Christian. More specifically, which parts of Christianity they adhere to.

I want to oppose any harmful actions and harmful ideas. To change the world for the better, and make it a better place. This is why I hate most religions. Christianity in particular is incredibly harmful, and is (and has been) responsible for many atrocities the world over.

Just to name a few? Promoting anti-scientific claims, homophobia, xenophobia, intolerance toward non-believers, teaching people not to question (faith, arguably the worst of the lot), the burning of 'witches' in Africa (parents burning their children at the stake, adhering to the Bible), the promotion and regulation of slavery, the idea that some people deserve infinite punishment for a finite crime, sex-negative views....

...I could go on, really. Beliefs influence actions, and actions have real-world consequences. That's why I dislike Christianity. Because it promotes ideas that I consider to be immoral (that impede on the well-being of sentient life).

In this story, Christianity makes yet another unwelcome appearance, promoting the discrimination of homosexuals. If Kim was opposing inter-racial marriage, or womens-rights, would you be apologising/defending her actions, in the way that you are here?

That's not the problem here. It's that, she uses the Bible as justification for her actions. Then, she ignores the Bible's messages when it suits her. This makes her a hypocrite. If she obeyed the Bible to the letter, she would be punished for being divorced multiple times (among other things). The hypocrisy on display here is a logical fallacy also known as 'Special Pleading'.

Would she want to live by someone else's religious values? Would she want to be forced to follow Shariah law? No? Then why force others to follow the Christian doctrine?

This is another difference between you and I. I would step in if they acted on harmful beliefs. If they started harming others because of what they believe, I'd have the balls to stand up for what is 'right'. Which is exactly what's happening here in this thread.

She didn't give it up, she was forced to 'give it up' by law. Quick question for you, Elsa. Would you defend the actions of ISIS in the same way?

They publicly behead and crucify children that do not follow some of the rules/guidelines set out in Islam. Would you say...

"Yes, well they are hardcore Muslims. But that doesn't mean they are stupid. It's just their base for right or wrong."

False. Some of us have no 'faith'. I in fact, despise it. It is the antithesis to evidence, which I am a huge proponent of. And I never had any 'faith' in a god to begin with, I've never been a Christian or a Theist.

If you were arguing against someone else, that believed based on 'faith'? You may have a point. I don't, regarding any of my beliefs.

This is probably the most troubling thing I've heard you say on the forums.

You seem to think that Christians are being unfairly discriminated... because they're homophobic (and act on it) and deny equal-rights to minority groups?

Question. Do you feel the same way towards Muslims? If they behead someone in the street because their Islamic doctrine tells them so, are you discriminating against them for practicing their beliefs?

I'm really worried by what you've said here. You think that religious beliefs come before human-rights. That it's unfair to stop people action on religious beliefs, even if it harms others. But... only for Christianity, right? This is also incredibly hypocritical.

Oh man, here we go. The persecution complex is strong with this one. The overwhelming majority of America is Christian. There are countless laws and policies that cater (unfairly) to Christians and Christianity. You can't even get elected without professing some sort of belief in the Christian god.

Do you think Muslims can complain in the same way?

"Oh, first you want to lock us up for not letting us practice the Q'uran, the next thing you'll want is to kill us!"

This, is craziness. You do not get to infringe on the human-rights of others. If Nazi-ism became an religion, would Hitler be justified in saying that it's unfair for you to lock him up for not being allowed to practice his religious beliefs?

Yes, after 2000 years of getting away with crimes against humanity, we're finally taking affirmative actions against this harmful religious doctrine. We're putting the well-being of humans before an old book. And it's about damn time.

And the Muslims will receive 72 virgins and eternal paradise if they die a martyr. Do you want to go on record and say that Muslims should stand up for their religious beliefs too, no matter what the law is?

Our current understanding as a species leads us to believe she is acting immoral. It's not just an arbitrary set of rules. We can use science, reason, logic and evidence to prove that she's 'wrong'. That being gay isn't a choice. That is isn't unnatural. That 'gay sex' won't affect or harm anyone else.

And again I will ask you, do you condone the actions of violent or oppressive Muslims to enforce their religious beliefs to discriminate against others?

"Under Allah, we are doing something right. Illegal in the West, righteous in Allah's eyes."

Fighting for the execution of gays and non-believers, advocating and spreading pseudo-scientific quackery, and oppressing whatever group their holy books tell them to.

You are not much more justified than an extremist Muslim. But instead of defending the slaughter of gay people, you're defending that they shouldn't have equal rights. That the Christian doctrine comes before any human-rights issues. All based on a holy book.

Yes, and one more thing we can get right.

I wonder if you would have said the same thing about 'Equal rights for women'. If you would have told feminists or MLK that their cause is JUST ONE THING. It's one issue, sure. But a big one. Just as this one is.

No-one said that she was. She's standing in direct opposition to basic human-rights.

At one point, everyone treats someone else has lesser than themselves because of a trait or quality that they don't have.

Sure, we realise that as fallible humans, we make mistakes. That's the difference between you and. I seek to correct them wherever possible. You just brush them aside because 'everyone makes mistakes at some point or another'.

Illegal AND immoral.

She thinks that other people should be forced to live by her religious beliefs, but she is excluded from some of these rules. I'd say that's pretty stupid. She thinks that her religion should have special rights that other religions don't. She wouldn't want to live under Sharia Law, yet she wants others to live under Christian law. I think that's pretty stupid too.

 

It's NOT a debate at this point, it's the exchanging of opinions, derailing into religion as a credible source for the basis of an argument.

Give me Occam's Razor.

The only true argument against homosexuality is that it has been considered a cultural/social taboo. This is because back in the early days, people needed to reproduce much more than needed now in order to maintain the population of a town or country. Today, there are over 7 billion people on Earth, some even consider that too large. This is why countries with a low population are extremely against homosexuality. (Russia still has a lower population than it did before WWII) The US doesn't have this problem. (China is an anomaly, as their culture has persevered through the ages, thus allowing for old norms to stick)

Homosexual behavior has been recorded in nature, so that theory is bust.

I believe that, with an objective view on homosexuality and "gay rights", there is no reason that, atleast in the US, it shouldn't be allowed.

What

 

Alright, so you get to pick and choose what you follow in the Bible? I don't remember that being a part of Christianity, but I could be wrong.

To put it into perspective, imagine if there was a law that prevented you from eating pig meat, and that people were against your very existence because you wanted to eat pig meat. Imagine that countless people told you that you should die or that your lifestyle is gross because you eat pig meat. Imagine that all this happened because people believed in a book that has been translated so many times that the original words are very likely lost, so logically everything in it should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

It isn't anyone's right to get married by a priest. It is everyone's right to get married, but if a priest refuses to preform homosexual marriages, that is fine. The couple can still be oficially married without a priest, and most gays aren't religious anyways.

 

Even though I don't believe in any god, I also don't have a problem with other people who do. I don't care if someone is Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Taoist, or anything else. The one thing I hate is when people use religion as an excuse to commit horrible crimes.

The same goes for gay people; I don't care if they are gay or whatnot, as long as they don't use it as an excuse for hate-based actions. I haven't really seen much of this, just a few comments here and there, and so I think I would be ignoring this all, if it weren't for the great fun of arguing.

 

I just got back from a trip and this thread blew up, so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said when I reply to you guys I didn't read the entire thread before starting this post.

It doesn't in the slightest. My parents would never cover my eyes if we were to see that, and I know plenty of others that way. Then again, I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legalized for over a decade, so it may not seem the same way for me as it is for you.

It seems strange to me in general that people don't support it. Using logic, two people of the same sex being allowed to get married doesn't affect your life in any way, shape or form, so why should it be prevented? As of now it's a legal thing anyways; people mostly wanted the same rights as straight couples, which is far from too much to ask.

Also, why again is having a mother and a father necessary?

Wowww... I'm sorry, but really? From my eyes, this is you saying that if someone isn't against same-sex relationships, they are not in their right minds. If I were to have children and cover their eyes for any reason involving people kissing, I wouldn't do it just for same-sex couples. Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone who is fine with same-sex couples is not insane.

How do you know? How do you know? This is just like saying that every family with straight parents would cover the eyes of a kid that saw same-sex PDAs. You really don't know who they are, how their family works, or anything about them. This is assuming a lot.

You have no idea. One of my parents was neglected and abused as a child and they are one of the most amazing people I know. Whoever told you that same-sex couples are inherently worse parents is just... wrong. Just like if anyone told you that women are inherently better than men at parenting; it's just completely wrong.

But it actually doesn't.

How can you possibly assume that?

Think about it. What if they 'best' way for you to get a child was if you married someone of the same sex? Would you do it? Would you willingly put yourself into a relationship where you knew that you would never truly love the person you were with?

How is it just wrong. Tell me, why is it so wrong to love someone, no matter their gender?

How do you think someone who is homosexual feels if someone of the opposite sex flirts with them? Furthermore, how would you feel if someone of the opposite sex all of a sudden came up and started touching you? It's common sense; you don't let them, it's an unwanted action.

I don't care either way. Also, life with same-sex parents has never been proven to be inherently worse than 'normal parents', as you call it. If you give me hard proof on this, I will believe it.

Where again was this said in the bible? Wasn't the only place it was said in the Bible was in Leviticus, or in other words, in the Old Testament, which is not wholly followed by a large amount of Christians?

These are two examples of places in the New Testament where that was challenged. As much as I am not Christian, this is a good example of how you do not know the Bible well enough to make claims like this.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html

I agree as well There is a difference, and to make it clear, 'same-sex marriage' should have been used instead of just 'marriage'.

I personally feel weird using the word 'gay' or 'gays' though, because of the negative connotation surrounding it as it was used as a weapon many a time. This is personal, it bothers me to use it (and if you look closely at my posts I use the word 'gay' as little as I possibly can ) but I'm not gonna ask you guys to use it differently.

Agree 100%. People are dumb and don't think about other people when they talk

I get praised as 'super nice' and 'friendly' when all I do is try to think about what another person could be going through at this point in time, or why they have that idea or opinion xD

People doing this need to stop. I have no problem with someone believing something different as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat. It does however rub me the wrong way when people in a religion treat others as 'misguided' or 'lost' and that they need to be 'shown the way' if they have a different religion.

Peh, and I'm not accusing you of doing that. You are the kind of person where your religion doesn't affect every single conversation and you don't try to convince people that it is the only right thing.

Anyways, this was long and probably made little sense.

 

Just because he is against gays doesn't mean he's a bigot. He's only a bigot if he expresses 0 tolerance towards them. As long as he doesn't go around ranting/hating on homosexuals, he's not a bigot. He expressed his opinion politely, so the least you can do is return the favor.

 

Fun fact; after the age of about 60-70, a woman can no longer have children. So the couple cannot reproduce. Yet we allow infertile women to marry, even though the couple cannot reproduce. That's not "correct", yet it happens. So the couple not being able to reproduce is not an arguement again gay marriage.

 

Lol, Leviticus was written ~600 to ~300 years before Jesus was even born. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from the New Testament give account to Jesus' words and actions.