Explain to me why we need this ...

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by mantidor

So far from what Ive read HIV expanded more among gay people since gay people are very promiscuous. You know how the girls are usually the ones who put the brakes about sex (although this seems to be changing a lot lately)... well with gay men is just a bunch of guys, and believe me just because people are gay it doesnt mean they are not still guys... so basically, there are no brakes.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! Statement made without factual analysis! Gross generality off the starboard bow! Stereotypes abound! Recommend abandoning thread!

SCC

[mantidor]

My main concern was that the real stereotype of aids being a "gay" disease should really dissapear, not only for the stigma it carries, but, more importantly, because some straight people think they just cant have it, or that its more safe normal sex than gay sex. In fact aids is spread in the world more through heterosexual sex than homosexual sex.

As I said I concluded what I said from what Ive read and seen, Im not saying that every gay is promiscous (obviously, I should know that from experience! ) but as a group homosexual men are more promiscous than heterosexual people (more like "were more promiscous" imo) , trust me Im not making this up

(damn TronDD you were right >_<! one has to specify when talking in general terms )

[genmac]

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

True that wasn't the intention of the seperation of church and state, but do you understand how religious interferance in government poses a problem? When churches take on the roles of interest groups in government the larger predominant religions have the better position for pushing their agenda versus the smaller religions.

What you have to understand is that a church, like any other group on the planet, is composed of a section of voters, and has as much right to be involved in politics as the RIAA or Greenpeace or any other lobbying group, and the same as any lobbying group, a bigger religion will be more heard than a smaller one.

I don't think the issue here is a big religion trying to dictate a smaller one, the issue is that most (and yes, there are some who do not) Christian sects oppose gay "rights" (which is a huge misnomer) of any kind.

Gay people are just people. They happen to be people who have sex with other people of the same gender. This does not entitle them to any sort of special treatment. Just because two gay people decide to have sex on a constant basis and live together does not a marriage make.

[Bun-kun]

Originally Posted by genmac

What you have to understand is that a church, like any other group on the planet, is composed of a section of voters, and has as much right to be involved in politics as the RIAA or Greenpeace or any other lobbying group, and the same as any lobbying group, a bigger religion will be more heard than a smaller one.

I don't think the issue here is a big religion trying to dictate a smaller one, the issue is that most (and yes, there are some who do not) Christian sects oppose gay "rights" (which is a huge misnomer) of any kind.

Gay people are just people. They happen to be people who have sex with other people of the same gender. This does not entitle them to any sort of special treatment. Just because two gay people decide to have sex on a constant basis and live together does not a marriage make.

What makes a marriage then?

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by genmac

What you have to understand is that a church, like any other group on the planet, is composed of a section of voters, and has as much right to be involved in politics as the RIAA or Greenpeace or any other lobbying group, and the same as any lobbying group, a bigger religion will be more heard than a smaller one. I don't think the issue here is a big religion trying to dictate a smaller one, the issue is that most (and yes, there are some who do not) Christian sects oppose gay "rights" (which is a huge misnomer) of any kind.

Ah, but you see that's the problem with that kind of thinking right there. This country is NOT founded on the principle of majority rule, quite the opposite. The intention of the framers was to prevent a majority rule. Should a group get more political favors because they're bigger or because they're right? Regardless (and more on topic), if they're argueing this for religious reasons than they're barking up the wrong tree. Government has nothing to do with religion and it should stay that way, including legislation banning (or imposing) gay marriage on churches/religions. No churches should get to impose their views on marriage on other churches, regardless of size.

Way I see it soon as the churches see enough people leaving their church over the issue they'll make concessions. Because nothing changes the word of God like popular belief. (Year 1: Evolution is a pack of lies. Year 2: Okay, it happened, but through God...)

Originally Posted by genmac

(which is a huge misnomer)

Gay "rights" is a misnomer or using the word "Christian" to describe those who oppose civil rights for gays? What's wrong with wanting to be treated like everybody else?

Originally Posted by genmac

Gay people are just people. They happen to be people who have sex with other people of the same gender. This does not entitle them to any sort of special treatment. Just because two gay people decide to have sex on a constant basis and live together does not a marriage make.

Not special treatment, equal treatment. Constant sex? What is it about marriage, that we never bothered to question people about before, that is so essential to the foundation of marriage that gay people lack?

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by mantidor

As I said I concluded what I said from what Ive read and seen, Im not saying that every gay is promiscous (obviously, I should know that from experience! ) but as a group homosexual men are more promiscous than heterosexual people (more like "were more promiscous" imo) , trust me Im not making this up

I really can't agree with you on this point but the fact you're from somewhere a little different to me means things might well work another way. I may only have two homosexual friends but in my experience they haven't been any more promiscuous than any of my straight friends, nor have they said the culture is any more or less so either. By the same logic, if guys are so keen, then lesbians should be far less so but I've never found that to be the case either. At least not here.

Yes, it's extremely unfortunate that, even today, many people assume HIV is something that only homosexuals will suffer from, despite all the education and evidence to the contrary.

SCC

[hooliganj]

Originally Posted by genmac

What you have to understand is that a church, like any other group on the planet, is composed of a section of voters, and has as much right to be involved in politics as the RIAA or Greenpeace or any other lobbying group, and the same as any lobbying group, a bigger religion will be more heard than a smaller one.

The difference is that a politician is supposed to disassociate themselves from other organized interests when they reach office, in order to better serve the interests of their constituency, however no politician has ever been forced to stop going to church or donating to the collection plate. This means that a religion is not exactly the same as any other political action group.

To be totally fair, though, the DNP and RNP act in much the same way, which makes me wonder yet again how we can have a legitimate representative government when almost everyone involved belongs to one of two massively powerful political entities. But that's a topic for another day.

Originally Posted by genmac

Just because two gay people decide to have sex on a constant basis and live together does not a marriage make.

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be "on a consistant basis," which would be relevant to the argument, although it raises the question, what do straight people do that makes a marriage, if not live together and sleep together? The only other part of it is raising kids, and some gay couples do that, while not every straight couple bothers.

[mantidor]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

I really can't agree with you on this point but the fact you're from somewhere a little different to me means things might well work another way. I may only have two homosexual friends but in my experience they haven't been any more promiscuous than any of my straight friends, nor have they said the culture is any more or less so either. By the same logic, if guys are so keen, then lesbians should be far less so but I've never found that to be the case either. At least not here.

Maybe I was seeing all through my catholics eyes wich blow out of proportion promiscuity (Im not catholic, but i was raised catholic, its not like I can throw all my ethical and moral background through the window so easily!) yeah, as I said maybe Im seeing promiscuity where is not, but my reference is how aids spread like wildfire in the 70s and 80s iirc among gay people, specially since so little was known about the disease, and people didnt know that sex was a way to get infected... lets just say gay people were more keen to casual and anonymous sex than straight people ^_^, but as you say things have change a lot in the present.

of course I really want to hear as all of you what genmac considers as marriage that makes it impossible for gays to acomplish but yet any other heterosexual couple can...

[hooliganj]

Originally Posted by mantidor

Maybe I was seeing all through my catholics eyes wich blow out of proportion promiscuity (Im not catholic, but i was raised catholic, its not like I can throw all my ethical and moral background through the window so easily!) yeah, as I said maybe Im seeing promiscuity where is not, but my reference is how aids spread like wildfire in the 70s and 80s iirc among gay people, specially since so little was known about the disease, and people didnt know that sex was a way to get infected... lets just say gay people were more keen to casual and anonymous sex than straight people ^_^, but as you say things have change a lot in the present.

I'm pretty sure the problem wasn't casual and anonymous sex so much as unprotected sex. After all, if your partner couldn't get pregnant, what was the point of a condom?

[Briareos]

Originally Posted by mantidor

... lets just say gay people were more keen to casual and anonymous sex than straight people ^_^, but as you say things have change a lot in the present.

Have you considered that the casual and anonymous sex was largely the result of people being forced underground because of societal prejudice? Can you imagine having to keep your love(s) and sexual attraction/actions completely secret or else face societal disapproval ranging from name-calling to death at the hands of thugs?

If people can so freely persecute another group of people simply because of who they are, is it fair of them to say, "Look how poorly our victims cope with the harsh situation we've put them in"?

[subcool]

oke i read like 2 posts of this thread (too lazy to read all of em)
and imo, Gay marriage should be legal everywhere, marriage imo is a bond between 2 PEOPLE and not between a man and a woman =P

The church should STFU (in every case though, not just this one) about banning gay marriages.
Gay people are human too and deserve the EXACT same rights as every other human being. You can't go "oh you're gay so you're not allowed to marry who you love" thats just dumb

[Roots]

Originally Posted by subcool

The church should STFU

LOL! When skimming this page I saw this stick out and it was hilarious for some reason. I agree though, those holy bastards should STFU. If they don't want to let gay's get married in their church, well then that's fine. But when they don't want gay's to get married anywhere, under any circumstances, that's discrimination. :fingers:

[mantidor]

Originally Posted by Briareos

Have you considered that the casual and anonymous sex was largely the result of people being forced underground because of societal prejudice? Can you imagine having to keep your love(s) and sexual attraction/actions completely secret or else face societal disapproval ranging from name-calling to death at the hands of thugs?

If people can so freely persecute another group of people simply because of who they are, is it fair of them to say, "Look how poorly our victims cope with the harsh situation we've put them in"?

omg you got it wrong, trust me, I know how it is...trust me, I sure know! but Im not going to pretend that aids spread so terribly because of something else, however I agree with you completly! yes, Im gay, it seems I need to clarify that from the beginning

[Briareos]

Originally Posted by mantidor

omg you got it wrong, trust me, I know how it is...trust me, I sure know! but Im not going to pretend that aids spread so terribly because of something else, however I agree with you completly! yes, Im gay, it seems I need to clarify that from the beginning

I wasn't trying to point a finger, and I shouldn't have made my reply so aimed at you. My comments were general food for thought and should have been worded as such. Sorry if you thought I mistook you for a gay basher.

I've just heard a lot of anti-gay chatter claiming that the gay "community" can be described as a whole, which is silly. Homosexuals are as individual and diverse in their lives and behaviors as any other human.

It's simply logical that people's lives aren't going to be what they could be if they are repressed. Repressed people can become desperate and hopeless. Few wise choices are made out of desperation and hopelessness.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by Briareos

Have you considered that the casual and anonymous sex was largely the result of people being forced underground because of societal prejudice? Can you imagine having to keep your love(s) and sexual attraction/actions completely secret or else face societal disapproval ranging from name-calling to death at the hands of thugs?

If people can so freely persecute another group of people simply because of who they are, is it fair of them to say, "Look how poorly our victims cope with the harsh situation we've put them in"?

I really don't think that argument works. First of all, many of our family members experienced racial predjudice when they first immigrated to american (if you come from america of course.), and, at least in my family, that didn't cause them to "badly cope with their situation" as you put it. Besides, YOUR reaction, and what YOU do, are two of the few things you can control in the world.

This isn't aimed at you, Briareos, but it seems like many of the straight people, mostly liberal by politically association, often spout and yell things at people, concerning homosexuality, (and other issues to), but often end up alienating the groups they want to "defend". It just seems people often have convictions based on what their side of politics accepts, or because it's the opposite of what the conservative right thinks. Point, it often seems like gays are used as political cannon fodder, by both sides.

[Briareos]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

I really don't think that argument works. First of all, many of our family members experienced racial predjudice when they first immigrated to american (if you come from america of course.), and, at least in my family, that didn't cause them to "badly cope with their situation" as you put it. Besides, YOUR reaction, and what YOU do, are two of the few things you can control in the world...

My point is that there is not simply one reason that AIDS spread among homosexuals. I'm not trying to assign blame, or give a scapegoat. I didn't use absolute terms. There isn't just one reason. I didn't say that all homosexuals felt hopeless. If someone does feel hopeless and desperate they may do things like making choices that persoanlly endanger themselves, have reckless sex, join violent gangs, deal drugs, or prostitute themselves. This isn't the only reason people do these things, but it can certainly contribute to the decision.

There's a big difference between a person who resides within a good and functional family and a teen who has been left to fend for himself on the streets.

People always have a choice, it's just that depending the circumstances, some choices may be more apparent than others. Everything in life is not fully dependant on our own choices either. There are people out there who got AIDS from a blood transfusion. A stereotype (which may seem useful for the basis of a political stance) has so little relevence in the real world.

I hear people saying, "Those homosexuals, all they want is to have other people pay their medical bills because they've gotten AIDS from the homosexual lifestyle." Other like-minded people pick up that sound-bite, accept it as truth, and sit validated. Some people who are against gay marriage will do their best to segregate, dehumanize, and define gays by humanity's worst common denominators, while some who are for it will do their best to humanize this group that has been pre-segregated for the discussion.

The fact that we are all human doesn't seem matter much to a great many people.

[Ending]

Some more discussion.

Or to make it easy, here is one, good POV to the matter (although half commenting a channel aimed solely for gays).

Just look at the ridiculousness of that sentence. Is one gay channel the saviour of all French civilisation and foundation of great edifice of freedom yet to come to future generations? Come on, please. Do show some moderation. Am I not free and do I not respect people or am I not respected by people if I don't watch gay channels? Please. Let's be serious.

That's how I see the totality of the gay movement, as a matter of gross simplification, of course, but a true one, in its robust way.

As I see it, the channel will promote most of all sexual freedom in it's promiscuous form (shag whomever you want whenever you want wherever you want however you want, in teams if that's your preference) and earn bucks questionning traditional authorities and ethics to placate the masses yearning for the thrill of something new and unrestrained by the babbling of old bigots. Yeah.

Now, as to rights and allowances. No child adoption. No equal parental rights for gay couples. "Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not "deprived" of the right to marry: they can marry a person of opposite sex and have children with that person as much as anyone else of legal age and sane mind in the society. Don't want that? Well, there are heterosexuals who live in concubinates, as well, why make homosexuals privileged and call that marriage which visibly is not?

Discrimination? Heck, that someone is gay it doesn't mean he will run around molesting men, or she will hit on every woman she sights. And if someone is gay, it doesn't mean he or she will be a bad teacher because of that and focused on making your children gay. In any case just the regular conduct regulations will be enough, if only they're applied justly, which means no compensational freedom of conduct for gay people. For instance, if we aren't appreciative of hetero couples making out in public transport, we shouldn't make an exception for gay couples just because they're gay.

To sum up, equal right: yes; special rights: no.

This essentially means no pro-gay propaganda where it doesn't belong. For instance, if I were the headmaster of, let's say, a Catholic school, I would still hire a gay teacher and I would ask the protesters to mind their own business. But any sort of unprovoked pro-gay rhetoric in the class would get the person fired.

[Anita-chan]

i have a bi-sexual friend hes cool, i dont mind gays ^^

[Sanjuronord]

Just look at the ridiculousness of that sentence. Is one gay channel the saviour of all French civilisation and foundation of great edifice of freedom yet to come to future generations? Come on, please. Do show some moderation. Am I not free and do I not respect people or am I not respected by people if I don't watch gay channels? Please. Let's be serious.

The key part of that quote is "all of our fellow citizens", obviously the gay community doesn't feel that they are. It's easy to bash their cause as being a small one if you're not a part of it. They wouldn't be a minority if there weren't so few of them after all. Will PinkTv solve their problems? Probably not.

As I see it, the channel will promote most of all sexual freedom in it's promiscuous form (shag whomever you want whenever you want wherever you want however you want, in teams if that's your preference) and earn bucks questionning traditional authorities and ethics to placate the masses yearning for the thrill of something new and unrestrained by the babbling of old bigots. Yeah.

Welcome to popular television. Sex sells. Nothing you haven't seen on the "Real World" before. If men get Spike Tv and women get Lifetime and Oxygen (gag), why shouldn't gays have their own channel? Heck they only asked for one! Perhaps they knew the lesbian channel would beat the stuffing out of the gay men channel...

Now, as to rights and allowances. No child adoption. No equal parental rights for gay couples.

WHY?!? Give one good reason. A single person can adopt a child, so obviously adoption doesn't require both parents. So why does that person's sexuality matter? If being gay doesn't make you a bad teacher (his own quote) why does it make you a bad parent? (UBER Teacher)

"Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not "deprived" of the right to marry: they can marry a person of opposite sex and have children with that person as much as anyone else of legal age and sane mind in the society. Don't want that? Well, there are heterosexuals who live in concubinates, as well, why make homosexuals privileged and call that marriage which visibly is not?.

One group's opinion should be seen as fact? (Nice arguement btw: Start with the assumption that you're right and then in conclusion we see you're right...yes nice logic) No heterosexual person would want to marry someone from the same sex so neither do homosexuals want a straight marriage. And if you think about it, I don't think you want it like that either. More divorce, more adultery, and more dysfunctional families. To quote the beer guys: Brilliant! Amazing how some heterosexuals are so against gay marriage, yet I haven't really found the homosexual against straight marriage yet...

For instance, if we aren't appreciative of hetero couples making out in public transport, we shouldn't make an exception for gay couples just because they're gay.

Interesting point and to be honest I'd like to see more bashing of heterosexual couples making out in public, particularly the nasty ones.

To sum up, equal right: yes; special rights: no.

No child adoption. No equal parental rights for gay couples.

Do I even need to say anything on this...I mean he even used the word "equal" when denying them rights...

[hooliganj]

Sanjuronord, you're arguing with someone on another board... -_-;;