You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Gunslinger
- Rep: 88
Re: The Miss California controversy
When people get on the whole "it's a choice" argument, that's what they sound like.
"What they sound like.' Ok, so by offering an opposing view to "God made them that way" I sound like a racist?? WTF?
But the human body was 'designed' for human sexuality and it's gratification.
Not at birth. That kind of blows the "born that way" idea, doesn't it?
No, it's totally fun being an addict.
Wow, this surprises me. It is NOT fun being an addict, it is a disease.
I'm not sitting back and asking you to accept it. I have no problem with freedom of religion or speech, until it interferes with the law. That's when I step in, and say wait a second.
What about when law interferes with religion? By giving gays the right to marry (under GOD) you have a huge problem. Just because someone chooses the gay lifestyle in no way gives them the right to force a religion to "bend the rules" to accomedate their personal choice.
Re: The Miss California controversy
I think it is a sad day in this country that someone can have an opinion that doesn't support gay marriage and take this kind of heat. It's not like she was bashing, she simply answered a question...honestly.
Well to play devil's advocate what if she was asked about interracial marriage and she simply stated she didn't believe white people should marry blacks? Would you be okay with the outrage that followed? If yes, how is that any different? BTW I am saying this as someone who wasn't offended by her comments.
As for the sexual orientation issue, I don't think it is as black and white as people believe it is. I don't think people can say ALL gays are born that way or that they ALL choose to be that way. I think there are different factors that go into it.
I do think that there are some, probably even most, that are born gay. I have two male friends that I have known practically my whole entire life. We grew up with each other and I can tell you it was clear they were "different" when they were small children. Many people had them pegged as gay before they even came to terms with it. I have no doubt in my mind that they did not choose to be this way. They were always different from day one.
Though I do think there are some people that do choose to be with the same sex and are not necessarily born with the orientation. For example I remember a women's basketball player that came out. She had previously been married to a man. She mentioned that she was not born gay and she was not closeted or denying her orientation when she got married, but that she had later chosen to be with a woman. I think this does happen and I think it probably happens with females more often than it does with males.
I also think there are other factors like sexual abuse during childhood which can play a role in sexual orientation. I've also heard of women that were victims of rape and couldn't be with a male afterwards.
So to me there is no clear cut answer, though I think most are probably born that way. I mean I look at myself as a straight woman. I never consciously made a choice to be attracted to men. It was just natural to me. I think the same goes for most gay people. It's just natural to them the same way it is natural for us heterosexual folks.
Re: The Miss California controversy
Well to play devil's advocate what if she was asked about interracial marriage and she simply stated she didn't believe white people should marry blacks? Would you be okay with the outrage that followed?
In slingers defense that is quite a difference. He's not saying a gay couple or gays aren't equal to whites or straights. He's just questioning the definition of marraige is "man and woman". Always has been. It may even be written somewhere. I realize it's probably old, but alot of things are old & written that could be changed but won't or shouldn't.
Now, where I find it complicated is when a Church chooses to recognize a gay marraige. Because of seperation of church & state, who is the gov't to not recognize one churches marraige, yet acknowledge anothers.
I have no problem if the church refuses to marry.
Personally, I'd rather not see it, but legally I suppose it should. IMHO I always figured it had something to do with benefits, either tax breaks or health benefits would be affected. I dunno.
Re: The Miss California controversy
I'm bisexual and I didn't realize that my sexual orientation was a choice that I personally made...
How interesting!
Re: The Miss California controversy
You choose to fuck men and women, unless you're being raped constantly.
Well, duh...
I was just implying (in a sarcastic way) that it wasn't a choice of my own to be attracted to both men and women.
Re: The Miss California controversy
Yeah, Handsome, maybe you could provide some insight into what makes a 'bisexual' person to be honest. I've actually always believed that bisexuality plays right into the argument of "choice". You can choose to be heterosexual, and you choose not to be. That's pretty much what they are getting at.
Wow, this surprises me. It is NOT fun being an addict, it is a disease.
What i'm getting at is being an addict, and living it. When your buried in the shit, you don't know no better. It's cool, until you become dependent.
Re: The Miss California controversy
I'm bisexual
I told you that "Yoshi" avatar sent out mixed messages...
Re: The Miss California controversy
I told you that "Yoshi" avatar sent out mixed messages...
Oh, shut up.
- Gunslinger
- Rep: 88
Re: The Miss California controversy
I think it is a sad day in this country that someone can have an opinion that doesn't support gay marriage and take this kind of heat. It's not like she was bashing, she simply answered a question...honestly.
Well to play devil's advocate what if she was asked about interracial marriage and she simply stated she didn't believe white people should marry blacks? Would you be okay with the outrage that followed? If yes, how is that any different? BTW I am saying this as someone who wasn't offended by her comments.
If she stated that she "didn't believe white people should marry blacks" she would still be entitled to her opinion, however this would certainly cast her in a different light. The color of your skin has NOTHING to do with a natural act, therefore she would be basing her opinion on nothing more than race.
The fact is she was talking about being against legalizing gay marriage, not crusading to persecute the gay community.
If a person can't defend their religious beliefs when ASKED, what is the point of freedom of religion and free speach?
Also if the state legalizes gay marriage under the very religion that condemns homosexuality then don't we have a HUGE problem in the seperation of church and state?
As for the sexual orientation issue, I don't think it is as black and white as people believe it is. I don't think people can say ALL gays are born that way or that they ALL choose to be that way. I think there are different factors that go into it.
Absolutely, things are very rarely black and white. The more I have grown the more I have seen life is most often "grey". In the end sexuality is STILL a choice however. There are many children who grow up under parents who smoke for instance. Many of these children are "genetically predisposed" to smoke. Still yet many choose not to. It's a CHOICE.
I do think that there are some, probably even most, that are born gay.
Noone is born sexual, period.
Really this isn't the argument I am trying to get in however. I'm simply saying I do NOT support gay MARRIAGE. Simple as that. Outside of this I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with those who choose this lifestyle. It's not my choice. Just don't try to "validate" the choice by having the state force the church to bend their beliefs in order to do so. Simple as that.
I don't support bashing nor discrimination. I simply think a person's choice is nothing more than that...a choice. This does not give that group of people the right to make it "acceptable" to a religion that denounces the act, by having a law enforce it. I mean no harm nor disrespect to any person of gay orientation...I am just very fearful toward the idea of giving the state this much power. That is my reasoning. It's not to hurt anyone in the gay community it's to protect the seperation that still exists between church and state.
