Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
Why hate people for who they have sex with or the color of their skin or their religion when there are much much better reasons to hate them. Just because my religion disagrees with something doesn't mean i have to go around and verbally and physically oppose it. I normally just keep it to myself. If i want something to change i normally just pull a lever on a voting machine (actually we have touch screen voting computer thingamajigs). I've never had the urge to spit in someone's face or even gently tell them that their choice in sexual partners is against god and they should stop.
I'm of the George Carlin school of thought "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself"
Are Americans natural? if the answer is yes then homosexuals are natural because it is a scientific fact that all americans are homosexual
Oddly enough i agree i always thought Roger Taylor from queen in the blonde wig and school girl uniform in the I Want to Break Free video was hot. If you disagree just watch the video.
Are Americans natural? if the answer is yes then homosexuals are natural because it is a scientific fact that all americans are homosexual
Prove it. You are now just flaming in a desperate attempt to save a minimal amount of legitimacy for your argument, but you are just digging yourself a bigger hole. I suggest stopping.
The US recently announced that it would use diplomacy to boost gay rights globally. Whilst I dislike a nation infringing on another's sovereignty, I do admire the spirit and call for equality.
The US recently announced that it would use diplomacy to boost gay rights globally
Or, the USA could make a smart decision for once and lead by example and first focus on improving rights for homosexuals in America. A bit hypocritical to demand, "You should allow homosexuals more rights!" when it's not even allowed in over half of the states for homosexuals to marry.
A bit hypocritical to demand, "You should allow homosexuals more rights!" when it's not even allowed in over half of the states for homosexuals to marry.
The problem is that each State can decide for itself whether it wants to accept it or not. The problem is that the Rep states won't want that to happen, so how can America even achieve that nationwide when it's so polarized by its own government that there's no way a consensus can be made?
The problem is that the Rep states won't want that to happen, so how can America even achieve that nationwide when it's so polarized by its own government that there's no way a consensus can be made?
If it were just republican dominated states the were against homosexuality, around half of the states would allow homosexuals to marry. This is not the case at all. Only a handful allow marriage, a bit more allow something akin to it, but the majority flat out ban it.
I'm just saying that we're not on a strong foothold to go preaching to other countries about their rights for homosexuals when the majority of America doesn't allow gay marriage. While it's true that there's not as much discrimination towards homosexuals in America anymore, they are still denied rights that should be granted but are not due to the religious majority. This is changing, but again, we're not in the best position to demand of others.
I'm just saying that we're not on a strong foothold to go preaching to other countries about their rights for homosexuals when the majority of America doesn't allow gay marriage. While it's true that there's not as much discrimination towards homosexuals in America anymore, they are still denied rights that should be granted but are not due to the religious majority. This is changing, but again, we're not in the best position to demand of others.
Well, no state in America puts people to death for being gay. Even that is a step if it can be exported as an idea turned law.
It doesn't have to be natural for it to be moral or not.
Indeed. I mean - hypothetically, would you kill other animals for your own survival if you had the choice of being able to live off of something else? The reason we kill, which isn't a morally just thing (not necessarily unjust), is for survival.
The problem I'm seeing is that it's only being called immoral just because someone said so and not because of how it may violate another person.
People think there's something wrong with homosexuality for different reasons. "It's not natural is common" -- heck, it's the reason I was against it until I, well, figured out it actually was.
People's actual reasons tend to be sub-par at best, I don't know about a lot of you, but around here logical mindsets aren't abundant and it's strange to see someone think about something mechanically here. They just have niches against things and for some reason don't care about resolving them. :/
That is the worst reason ever to not allow homosexuality. If that is your only reason, than I say no dice, and try again later.
Yeah, that, and we shouldn't digress anyway, to the bottomless pit of religious debates.
A bit hypocritical to demand, "You should allow homosexuals more rights!" when it's not even allowed in over half of the states for homosexuals to marry.
Indeed, and I don't think their diplomatic standing is going to be that good considering the whole SOPA deal. :P
Well, no state in America puts people to death for being gay. Even that is a step if it can be exported as an idea turned law.
As long as they don't push it beyond what their country doesn't do themselves, which in itself is arrogant ("Hey, you should be at our standard of morality.", then I'm alright with furthering gay's rights.
Necro'd for nichodemus -- this conversation has some life in it, I would think.
As long as they don't push it beyond what their country doesn't do themselves, which in itself is arrogant ("Hey, you should be at our standard of morality.", then I'm alright with furthering gay's rights.
They shouldn't push it to far until their own country accepts it wholly, BUT and there's a very big but, there are countries such as Uganda if I'm not wrong, which put people to death simply for being gay. It is a tad bit outrageous if you finish off someone simply for them not to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Why? I mean, I'm sure I'll get the usual "because they beieve it's a sin," but why?
Moral reasons. That about sums it up. And perhaps the often mixed up notions that gay men somehow are more potent and more likelier carriers of the HIV virus.
