Gay rights and the church

[Nebula]

There is a shocking story in the news this weekend about an 11 yr old California girl being killed in an after school brawl. Are this child's rights to not be killed in a bullying after school fight any less important than a gay person's?

Nope. The problem is you knew the girl's rights had been trampled. It was an automatic decision for you. No need to have "11-year-old girl rights" because you believed in them, inherently.

Standing up for the rights of gay people was not automatic. Quite the reverse, actually. For too many people, it was automatic to abuse them. That's why they, and others, had to fight to get the same thing the 11-year-old girl gets.

By the way, being gay is not a wholly sexual act. Is being heterosexual a wholly sexual act?

[5VP]

Okay then...

If being gay is not wholly based on a sexual act why would we need to have this discourse? How can homosexuality be definitively determined as different from heterosexuality without the sexual act component?

Some people choose to be visible and make their sexuality obvious but most are thankfully discreet (hetero or *bleep*).

How can we all know when a person is gay? Do gay babies and children perform homosexual acts at an early age that are observed by parents or roaming Homosexual Determinancy Patrols and dutifully reported to the Human/Gay Rights Ministry for registration?

Perhaps a rainbow can be tattooed on a gay person at birth?

There's a whole list of marginalized humans that could claim their lifestyle rights are being trampled.

Lets' see...

What comes up for starters?

How about these observable subsets of humans who have similar issues of being bullied, bashed, subjugated, abused and even murdered:

For starters...
Elderly people's rights.
Drug user's rights.
Alcoholic rights.
Obnoxious drunk guy in a rowdy bar rights.
Obese people in spandex rights.
Abused children's rights.
Injured worker's rights.
Lonely farm boy rights
Public masturbators rights
Prostitute's rights
Etc...

Each of these subsets alone represent a greater portion of the population than the gay rights agendists; yet, do we see them on parades crossdressing and publicly waving their dangly parts at the rest of us in celebration of having their own set of sexually based "rights"?

Some on this list are still being arrested and thrown in prison for "exercising" their specific needs.

As for the heterophobes here; I'm not against homosexuals perse. I know many and they come here regularly (occasionally en masse) to my place of business. There has even been "coming out of the closet" socials held here.



Most homosexuals I've met are fun, happy (gay?) and for every other consideration, typical and average human beings. Most times it's impossible to determine who in the crowd is who. Some have flirted with me and there have been some rather uncomfortable and unrecquited groping incidents.

Jeez boyz...

Thanks Stanley but No thanks!!

Some however are very bitter and militant, mean and agressive (male and female).

This is all to say that there is no difference in my mind between hetero socialites and homosexual socialites but it may be time for the sake of societal cohesion and basic common decency to hang some of this gay agenda shtuff back up in the closet.


We're all humans with supposedly equal rights.

Are we not???

[Nebula]

If being gay is not wholly based on a sexual act why would we need to have this discourse? How can homosexuality be definitively determined as different from heterosexuality without the sexual act component?

I didn't say it could be determined as different without the sexual act component. What I said was that being homosexual or heterosexual is not wholly attributable to sexual acts.

I suspect, given what you write, that you are heterosexual. Answer me this: Are you only heterosexual because you have sex with women?

What about all the times when you aren't having sex with women? Are you heterosexual then too or are you something else?

What do you call someone who hasn't had sex? Can't that person be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual? Or do you think that person has to have sex first in order to put the label on them?

[5VP]

I devoutly prefer women (always have and likely will but it just might only be that they have an extra orifice) but, in answer to your questions; since I've also had anal sex with some women (including lesbians) I suppose I could be comfortable being labelled as a Latent Heterosexual with Developed Bisexual Tendencies/Preferences and Undeveloped Homosexual Tendencies Due to Anal Intercourse with Lesbians or, to use the labelling technique of the sexually oriented, LHDBT/PUHTDAIw/L for short.

Does this work for you as a label?

My point is basically proven by your post. This whole issue is all, only and always has been related to specific acts of sex between same-sex humans and this (sex) alone is not, in my mind towards equality and fairness, the proper determinant for basic human rights since humans have, since time immemorial, engaged in sex.

Being homosexual is not a new or recent development in human history and even Jesus told us in his "Parable of the Seeds" that not all seeds produce wheat (ie. nourishment, reproduction and preservation of the species). But this doesn't preclude gays from doing so.

At some point in their life, homosexuals make the lifestyle CHOICE whether by actual choice or a sexually interfering homosexual. You made the decision. Why then, do the rest of us have to pay for it in the form of segregating laws, extra taxpayer costs (pension and benefits) and lost of population growth or even potential extinction in the possible event of global catastrophic doom just so a few gay people can feel like their collective hedonistic guilt has been sanctified and cleansed by liberal knee jerk reactionary politics?

How does this benefit the rest of us? Where will it stop? Will it stop?

Why are homosexuals so insulted by heterosexuals natural proclivities to reproduce in a common ground social atmosphere of security, safety and comfort of their own design and choosing? There is no law stopping homosexuals from doing the same.

I've heard gays bragging about how they were able to seduce and "turn" a heterosexual either bi or gay. Is this part of the agenda?

Why the need to be sexually distinguished from the rest?

Gays might even find that churches will accept their presence as a worshipper of God and Christ long as they quit agitating the status quo and simply keep it in your pants like the rest of us do...

[ifwisheswerehorses]

My point is prove by your post. this whole issue is all and onlyand always has been related to acts of sex and this alone should not, and is not, the proper determinant for basic human rights since humans have, since time immemorial, engaged in sex.

Why are homosexuals so insulted by heterosexuals proclivities to reproduce in an social atmosphere of security, safety and comfort? There is no law stopping homosexuals from doing the same.

Why the need to be sexually distinguished from the rest?

Prior to the 1970s, homosexuality was a criminal offence in Canada. Those accused of homosexual activities were charged as sex offenders and, if convicted, could be sentenced to long prison terms.

read more at:http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/same-sex-marriage-canada

[Nebula]

My point is prove by your post. this whole issue is all and onlyand always has been related to acts of sex and this alone should not, and is not, the proper determinant for basic human rights since humans have, since time immemorial, engaged in sex.

You've completely missed my point. From where I sit, it is you who have put the 'sex' qualifier in there. Oh well.

[5VP]

My point is prove by your post. this whole issue is all and onlyand always has been related to acts of sex and this alone should not, and is not, the proper determinant for basic human rights since humans have, since time immemorial, engaged in sex.

You've completely missed my point. From where I sit, it is you who have put the 'sex' qualifier in there. Oh well.

Yes. Yes I did, and it's others here who seem intent on erroneously taking sex out of sexuality.

Unless you're now talking about another renaming of *bleep*sexuals (Eunuchs ??) here which I don't believe we are...

[Nebula]

My point is prove by your post. this whole issue is all and onlyand always has been related to acts of sex and this alone should not, and is not, the proper determinant for basic human rights since humans have, since time immemorial, engaged in sex.

You've completely missed my point. From where I sit, it is you who have put the 'sex' qualifier in there. Oh well.

Yes. Yes I did, and it's others here who seem intent on erroneously taking sex out of sexuality.

I'm not trying to take it out, just point out it's not the only part.

Being homosexual is like being black or being an 11 year old girl at a certain point in time. There's bugger all you can do about any of them.

[5VP]

People are born black. People are born male or female. These are scientifically provable genetic factors.

People are NOT, and I have asked how repeatedly throughout this discourse HOW, born definitively *bleep*sexual.

It's either a choice at some point or perhaps a situation that was forced upon them by sexual interference (buggery). Either way it is NOT something that is scientifically distinguishable or determinable by birth.

It is what it is; but what it is, is all about sex. The right to get one's rocks off (*bleep* or hetero or??) is not any different than any other basic human rights that we are all born into...

[MarcusHL]

I've tried to absorb this thread.. but essentially the facts in my mind are this:

If we give special privileges to married couples by law, then no moral or religious standard can apply; this should include any two people who are legally able to consent.

Making any special arrangements (ie, "marriage" for heterosexual couples, "civil unions" for same-sex couples) is not only absurd and pointless, but is itself a religious or moral standard, violating our first principle.

There are two options;
1.) We have the exact same procedures and laws for gay, lesbian or heterosexual couples, or

2.) We utterly abolish all laws that give married couples special financial and legal status.

[steven lloyd]

People are born black. People are born male or female. These are scientifically provable genetic factors.

People are NOT, and I have asked how repeatedly throughout this discourse HOW, born definitively *bleep*sexual.

It's either a choice at some point or perhaps a situation that was forced upon them by sexual interference (buggery). Either way it is NOT something that is scientifically distinguishable or determinable by birth.

It is what it is; but what it is, is all about sex. The right to get one's rocks off (*bleep* or hetero or??) is not any different than any other basic human rights that we are all born into...

Ah, such a great illustration of the link between ignorance and prejudice. Thank you.

[MarcusHL]

People are born black. People are born male or female. These are scientifically provable genetic factors.

People are NOT, and I have asked how repeatedly throughout this discourse HOW, born definitively *bleep*sexual.

It's either a choice at some point or perhaps a situation that was forced upon them by sexual interference (buggery). Either way it is NOT something that is scientifically distinguishable or determinable by birth.

You have very strange ideas about homosexuals (or LGBT, etc). There are a variety of factors, but it seems that yes, some people are just born gay. There's a spectrum of causation behind it, just like any other human habit. Even in other animals, though, there will be a predictable % of individuals that simply go after same-sex unions.

But we're talking about people human beings, whose motives you could never know with certainty, much less quantify as you've attempted to do. We don't know exactly why, but we know that it is not a matter of choice.

[Glacier]

I remember from previous discussions that homosexuality is 60% genetic and 40% environmental. I'm pretty sure that gentics is something you're born with.

[steven lloyd]

I remember from previous discussions that homosexuality is 60% genetic and 40% environmental. I'm pretty sure that gentics is something you're born with.

... and environment is something you're born into.

[Nebula]

People are born black. People are born male or female. These are scientifically provable genetic factors.

People are NOT, and I have asked how repeatedly throughout this discourse HOW, born definitively *bleep*sexual.

I do not agree and nor do experts.

Being gay is not a choice. Do you honestly think people would choose to be humiliated, bashed and bullied?