I was going to say "that depends on where you are", but as far as the internet goes, you could quite possibly be right for the most part.
If carefully worded, a thread could be made out of this. Carefully worded, though, because otherwise it will be nothing more than a left-vs-right shouting match. I'll think about it.
First of all geish thats just a retared post with no reasoning or anything and is very insenseitive to the Gay community, I have no idea of how many Gay people are on this site but still. Secondly what do you mean by too far Kingofthehill?
I really do not approve of "guy love". Asherlee did state that it says "no man" not no woman...im not sure if thats just sayin like man as in the world or wat. I really dont approve of homosexuals...guy wise...they go to hell...the Bible states
If your only objection to homosexuality is what god says in the bible, then that only works with Christians. That's the problem with trying to legalize scripture - it's just fallacious.
No it's not, but I'm not getting into that right now. We can't legalize scripture because of the Constitution, that's all. Even though I personally believe that homosexuality isn't a sin... after all, the only place it's listed as a sin is... well, basically doesn't apply anymore (Ceremonial law). Aside from that, we're kind of forcing them into sinful relationships by not allowing marriage. Though sex in today's society is FAR too acceptable...
The worst is when someone says, "well, if you grant them the right to marry, then people will want to marry goats, then steel pipes, then themselves!! Where does it end?"
Gag, that is the most irritating argument I can imagine. What a load of hooey.
You know, considering that it's just now becoming "normal" and "okay" to have interracial couples, it's not that surprising that those in the g.ay community are finding inclusion so hard. Until fairly recently, everyone fit into already established groups, but with the rise of g.ay rights and popular culture, the homosexual community has actually isolated itself from established society. I think the move was necessary in order to move towards equality under the law despite sexual preference, but I wonder if it will take another 150 years for this class of society to be fully "integrated."
the way i see it is you cant help to be gay its just they way that you feel why is this even an issue men being attracted to woman is fine but they cant be attracted to the same sex is ridiculous. and y is it unacceptable for men to b gay but wen it comes to women being gay its a sex symbol to men
Adam and Steve. HAHAHA that a good 1. I really think its gross for anyone to go with their same sex...but if a homosexual is unnable to control his feelins then the only way id accept him is if he was a christian. I dont no how it feels to be homosexual
Maybe you might find out when you get older, turkishmaniaca.
souljah, let's just say that "women are different to men" :P in a non-sexist way. It's a very complicated discussion I'm going to avoid for the time being but essentially people just figure that that men in general are...very heteronormative! And girls tend to be...a little bisexual!
Moegreche: once again bingo. It's somewhat of a catch-22 but when it comes to an institutionalised inequity, the first step to changing it is awareness. That this fuels a categorical divide in the face of resistance seems to be a necessary evil. I'd say most of the debate is of the nature of how much effort one should be devoting to awareness as opposed to non-awareness i.e. integration, seeing as the indication of integration is that it's not such a big deal.
There has been progress, at least as far as homosexuality is concerned. I'll use me as an example: when I was in school (ages ago), it was considered abnormal to hold anything other than a healthy homophobia. This is still somewhat true today but less so- back then when we called somebody/something 'g@y', the insult was definitely of a discriminatory "being called homosexual is an insult", not a generic "lame".
When I first became aware of the significance of such issues as g@y rights, the modern 'g@y pride' movement (now more properly 'GLBT equality' had been gaining momentum at an exponential rate for at least three or so decades, if not more. Having been introduced to its history, I can say that in the latter stages, i.e. at the time I learnt about it, things were gradually coming around to the point where quiet integration was a more favored approach to the boisterous in-your-face approaches that have been so often criticised in this thread (case in point).
This issue has come a long way, all things considered, especially considering the state of other movements and subcultures, whose journeys along this path of enduring persecution and debating when to switch tacks is so nascent. 150 years? Gee, I don't know what it would mean to be "fully integrated", really, but in a legal sense, we could quite possibly be a bit more optimistic about g@y rights.
Mega, when you say "Though sex in today's society is FAR too acceptable", you should realise that you're in danger of falling into the trap that you so insightfully pointed out right before.
Which trap? This has nothing to do with religion, this has to do with the fact that sex should be the ultimate act of love between two people, and today's society has turned it into nothing more than "something to do". I guess it's just the way I was raised, but something about that kind of sickens me. You can find it everywhere you look. I'm not naive - it's not like this realization is new to me. But this is all the fault of the sexual revolution, tbh.
