omg i accidentally hit the button... my bad. and thats Chuck, not Chcu.
ok so anyway, theyr at the homosexual party and when they go to leave, they get "reached to" by a group of people. The head guy calls one of them a ******. He turns around, hes like, what did you says? he says it again, and punches him square in the face. But that almost reminds me of whats going on with ash and her landlord, where hes trying to act comepletely pure, when hes just as evil as the rest of us.
homosexuality is not a disease, but a persons state of mind which they are gorn in. I think it is not a bad or immoral thing (though it does make me feel uncomfortable). I am not gay and don't necesarilly support them, but i do think they have every right as any other does.
Homosexuality is a battle with several fronts. You have your social front, your religious front, and your moral front. But instead of going on some long rant detailing each aspect, which they have all already been covered through the anals of this thread, I will just say, if it doesn't effect you, you don't get an opinion. I believe that the Senate (the closet homosexuals), should not get to make the laws, it should be among a group of homosexuals and their representatives. You can not tell me how to live my life because you have nothing to do with it, why should I get to tell anyone else how to live their life? You can legislate yourself into the ground, people are not going to stop being homosexual. If people really are born gay, then from here on there will be gays. The quicker we give them the rights the quicker we can move on as a society.
When slaves were oppressed they revolted and got rights, now they have been appeased and are completely equal. When the women wanted rights, they fought for it and now they are equals. We should give the gays their rights so they can become equals and we, as a people, can become better.
if it doesn't effect you, you don't get an opinion
Fair enough. But-
I believe that the Senate (the closet homosexuals), should not get to make the laws, it should be among a group of homosexuals and their representatives
Hm. This doesn't actually follow on from the previous statement. Why? Because it implicitly encourages a conceptual segregation that I don't believe should exist.
The main thrust of the gay rights movement, ironically, is via raising awareness of their differentness, to pave the way for a seamless integration into society as a whole. The ironic part is that one has to do the former before the latter can be achieved, so as to replace the formerly institutional persecution with a general tolerance/acceptance.
Hm. This doesn't actually follow on from the previous statement. Why? Because it implicitly encourages a conceptual segregation that I don't believe should exist.
No it does not. There is no segregation implied in that statement. My point was that it should be decided among those that it truly effects. The gay people, as a group should decide what they think would be best for them so that they can be happy. Everyone should be able to be happy and have the best life they can, that's why they should be able to decide, not to black out everyone else.
covered through the anals of this thread
Yeah, I forgot an "n" and that typo was very funny. The anals, hehe.
as a group should decide what they think would be best for them so that they can be happy
Ideally, yes. Unfortunately in a representative democracy, this is not so simple. Complicating the matter is the fact that there are divisive opinions within one special interest group about what would be in the best interest for all of that group. Ultimately it becomes implausible to construct policy on a case-by-case basis, and instead we see more sweeping attempts at legislation, for better or for worse. The most hotly contested 'gay issue' now adays is gay marriage. But is that necessary? Would civil unions be sufficient? Or should we instead reevaluate the whole institution of marriage rather than have separate considerations for straight and gay unions. These are some of the varying positions that gay people are not united on.
Craze, just because your Bible says that, (which I can argue how it doesn't exactly say that) does not mean that it applies to everyone. I am not Christian. So, YAY! I am home free.
Try using something besides a religious objection.
so what about the bible?Who says God is real?if two people love each other,they should be together.You give me one good reason why men shouldnt be together,no,not what the bible says,not what your parents say,not what God says,but what YOU say.
