PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     There's nothing RIGHT...
       About GAY RIGHTS.

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is this Topic termed 'GAY RIGHTS?'

One idea for an ideal term is 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES.'

For the 'GAY RIGHTS' terminology, the issue starts- for a lot of people- with some impression that this is all about someone entitled to having or not having a RIGHT. In general, a lot people may be pro-RIGHTS. A lot of people wish for the RIGHT to live their life as they wish and, therefore, wish the same for others. Further, anything and/or anyone against 'RIGHTS' may likely result in people- especially those that exhibit a poor intellect- having the impression that being against any RIGHT is a violation- in general- of human RIGHTS. For example, the name of the pro-homosexualtiy organization- The Human RIGHTS Campaign. This name- in and of itself -is a poor title for the organization's mission. However, it makes sense for one with a disorder in denial.

Any other ideas for terminology for this Topic?


-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 9:48 PM on July 14, 2004 | IP
btimsah1

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HumanBeing, I noticed you started about 3 threads all against anything gay.

I know you don't like homosexuality, and probably find it evil.  

Then the question begs to be answered, why make post's about homosexuality?

There's little to debate.  You have a bias against homosexuality, and that leads you to be against their "rights or marriage".  

I'm for gay marriage, because allowing gay marriage will further strengthen the American family by including everyone.


-------
"You're Bias Decides You're Opinion About Everything".
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 01:13 AM on July 29, 2004 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from HumanBeing at 9:48 PM on July 14, 2004 :
Why is this Topic termed 'GAY RIGHTS?'

One idea for an ideal term is 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES.'

For the 'GAY RIGHTS' terminology, the issue starts- for a lot of people- with some impression that this is all about someone entitled to having or not having a RIGHT. In general, a lot people may be pro-RIGHTS. A lot of people wish for the RIGHT to live their life as they wish and, therefore, wish the same for others. Further, anything and/or anyone against 'RIGHTS' may likely result in people- especially those that exhibit a poor intellect- having the impression that being against any RIGHT is a violation- in general- of human RIGHTS. For example, the name of the pro-homosexualtiy organization- The Human RIGHTS Campaign. This name- in and of itself -is a poor title for the organization's mission. However, it makes sense for one with a disorder in denial.

Any other ideas for terminology for this Topic?



When a groupd of people in this country and other countries as well,  is denied employment, credit, housing, and equal protection under the law for thir consensual relationships  it is a matter of civil rights.    The 14th ammendment states that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.  Gays are not afforded that protection in this country.     That is why they call it gay rights.





-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 12:27 AM on September 29, 2004 | IP
Re-DefeatBush04

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from HumanBeing at 9:48 PM on July 14, 2004 :
Why is this Topic termed 'GAY RIGHTS?'

One idea for an ideal term is 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES.'

For the 'GAY RIGHTS' terminology, the issue starts- for a lot of people- with some impression that this is all about someone entitled to having or not having a RIGHT. In general, a lot people may be pro-RIGHTS. A lot of people wish for the RIGHT to live their life as they wish and, therefore, wish the same for others. Further, anything and/or anyone against 'RIGHTS' may likely result in people- especially those that exhibit a poor intellect- having the impression that being against any RIGHT is a violation- in general- of human RIGHTS. For example, the name of the pro-homosexualtiy organization- The Human RIGHTS Campaign. This name- in and of itself -is a poor title for the organization's mission. However, it makes sense for one with a disorder in denial.

Any other ideas for terminology for this Topic?


You know, homophobia is a REAL disorder. Let's stick to solving that issue, instead of creating them elsewhere.



-------
*How many more will die for your mistake Bush, how many more?*<br><br>"Love is not blind. It sees all, yet loves it just the same."
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 3:45 PM on December 21, 2004 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The word homophobia really means 'fear of the same,' which makes no sense because:

1:  It isn't a fear of homosexuals, it's a disliking for their actions.

2:  Homosexuals are not the same as those who they call 'homophobics.'  Those who dislike homosexuals are heterosexual, and thus, different from them.

The word is just propoganda set up by the gay community because it makes people look bad if they believe that homosexuality is immoral.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 03:57 AM on January 9, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The word homophobia really means 'fear of the same,' which makes no sense because:

1:  It isn't a fear of homosexuals, it's a disliking for their actions.


True to a degree. The original term means that. However some ARE truly homophobic because the "fear" of them is simply an ignorance of the truth behind what homosexuality is and a misconception about it being natural. So they "fear" the promotion of it because they find it bothers them. You don't have to be running screaming from something to have a degree of fear involved. They can fear for "the family", or "society", etc.

2:  Homosexuals are not the same as those who they call 'homophobics.'  Those who dislike homosexuals are heterosexual, and thus, different from them.


What? That first sentence doesn't even make sense...

Homosexuals can dislike homosexuals too. It's not limited.

The word is just propoganda set up by the gay community because it makes people look bad if they believe that homosexuality is immoral.


A very negative slant that is not quite accurate. Since the term was the closest thing to identify that SPECIFIC form of bigotry, it came into vogue and became a bit more expansive in its definition.

A more correct term is simply bigotry.

big·ot·ry   Audio pronunciation of "bigotry" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (bg-tr)
n.

   The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

big·ot   Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (bgt)
n.

   One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:18 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Imagine yourself waking up one morning to find yourself oppressed. People stare at you on the street, people make fun of you, and people call you names.

People attack your parties, your rallies, and any activities you have because they don't like you, for some reason.

Imagine yourself geting up, putting on your shoes, and going to work, only to be fired because people found out something about you that really are none of their bussiness. Notwithstanding the fact that what they fired you over was trivial and discriminatory.

Now imagine yourself trying to get a new job, but having to live inside of an armored shell, hiding who you are, when you really shouldn't.

Imagine one day, you meet someone nice and you love him (He is a gender neutral pronoun, so don't freak). Now, take time, for a second, to understand those feelings.

SO, you meet this person, you love him, but then you figure out that, unlike the majority of the population, you cannot get married. Unlike normal people, no one cares, because you are different.

Now replace the word GAY, with BLACK, POOR, Peasant, CATHOLIC, , JEW or some other noun or adjectival noun that you would interpret as this paragraphs main focus. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again as long as you  don't heed the warnings of the past.

This is not bout gay rights. No one wants anything extra. They want equality with others. THey want you to realise they are harming no one, and they are concentual adults with the right to self-determation. They deserve, as citizens, and in fact, as humans according to the UNDoHR, the same rights and privlidges as you have.

If you do it to the Gays, you might as well do it to the blacks, the jews, and the catholics. It's the same--there's no difference in your argument if you simply substitute the noun.


-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:31 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sol,

I invite you to look at a little website called Dictionary.com, they list the meaning of Homophobia as:

1. Fear of or comtempt for lesbians and gay men.
2.Behavior based on such a feeling.
3.Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

This is the actual DEFINITION of trhe word. Since this is in the dictionary is it meant to be unchanged?


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 12:20 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just so you know i disagree with someone being gay but believe they have the choice to be that way but i do believe that gays should not be allowed to married.  

The difference between those is race relicgion or belief but with homesexuality its not natural its doing something that was never intened to be done.  Not only does it go against relgious belief it goes against evolution beliefs as well.  The whole just of evolution is adapting to best fit you enviorments to best survive and homesexuality in no way is adapting to survive.  No matter what way you look at it it just comes down to being wrong.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:47 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 12:47 AM on July 16, 2005 :
Just so you know i disagree with someone being gay but believe they have the choice to be that way but i do believe that gays should not be allowed to married.  

The difference between those is race relicgion or belief but with homesexuality its not natural its doing something that was never intened to be done.  Not only does it go against relgious belief it goes against evolution beliefs as well.  The whole just of evolution is adapting to best fit you enviorments to best survive and homesexuality in no way is adapting to survive.  No matter what way you look at it it just comes down to being wrong.



How do you know it was never intended?
How do you know it isn't natural?
How do you know for some people it is completely natural if that is how their brains are wired?

It seems you have made alot of assumptions about being gay with no facts to back up your claims.  You don't know if it is natural or not, you are assuming based on your beliefs, not fact!   Stick to what the facts are and you don't know them.


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 11:40 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can homesexuals reproduce? No

Is it natural for a male to stick he package up a another mans crap hole? no

Nature does not allow something like that to be natural it has no postive effect for the good of the population.  

Based on common sense and by what evolution states and most religions its not natural.   Im not assuming im looking at home humans are made surely you can see men and women where made to be togther and not man and man or women and women.  

Then what is natural about homesexuality?


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:57 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
Charliegone

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. They might have a different sexual preference, but that doesn't make them second class citizens. I also believe they shouldn't get special treatment. Since I view them equally as everyone else.

As for the natural thing, yes you are right skinds38 it is not natural, but this has to do with rights not science.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:48 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skins,

By your definition then sterile men and Infertile women should have no rights either just because they can't reproduce?

There are also hereosexual couples that practice anal sex. Should their rights be stripped away as well?

Maybe nature made gay people gay so they specifically wouldn't reproduce. If that were the case then it would be as natural as heterosexuality. I am by no means saying that this is scientific fact but it plausible as your futile "religion says it's wrong" argument. If heaven is as full of intolerance and hate as religious people like yourself have made life, then I will happily take the down escalator just to be rid of your type for eternity.

Rob


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 2:51 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
AtheistPotatoes

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 12:47 AM on July 16, 2005 :
Just so you know i disagree with someone being gay but believe they have the choice to be that way but i do believe that gays should not be allowed to married.  

The difference between those is race relicgion or belief but with homesexuality its not natural its doing something that was never intened to be done.  Not only does it go against relgious belief it goes against evolution beliefs as well.  The whole just of evolution is adapting to best fit you enviorments to best survive and homesexuality in no way is adapting to survive.  No matter what way you look at it it just comes down to being wrong.



You don't have a 'choice' whether you're gay or not. You're born that way. It's a proven fact. So, tell me. If you're born gay, how is that not natural?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:11 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
Charliegone

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also evidence that you are not born that way so the evidence is "debatable."

As for the natural part, well the male has penis the woman has a vagina. Nature has deemed that the man and women can procreate, two people of the same sex cannot. It is the same thing with other animals. SO no it is not natural, it can never be, that is unless the male will "evolve" with a vagina and a female with a penis.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 12:32 AM on July 19, 2005 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 12:57 PM on July 16, 2005 :
Can homesexuals reproduce? No

Is it natural for a male to stick he package up a another mans crap hole? no

Nature does not allow something like that to be natural it has no postive effect for the good of the population.  

Based on common sense and by what evolution states and most religions its not natural.   Im not assuming im looking at home humans are made surely you can see men and women where made to be togther and not man and man or women and women.  

Then what is natural about homesexuality?


1)Aw shucks, someone better tell my son he doesn't exist because mommy is a lesbian and therefore is unable to reproduce! I dare you!

Have you ever tried to tell a teenager anything? Trust me, you can't.

So, what you're actually arguing is that two men or two women cannot reproduce in and of themselves without outside aid...right?

So what? Not all heterosexuals are able to reproduce either. What's your point?

2) Heterosexuals pratice anal sex too. Actually more and more teenage girls are "opting" for anal over vaginal because they have this truly distorted view that if it's not vaginal intercourse it doesn't count as sex.
This has been fostered by the whole "Abstinance Only" campaign. Brilliant! Let's put more kids in danger because idiots think that if they don't tell kids about the dangers of unprotected sexual contact (and I mean ALL FORMS) then they won't get STD's.

Guess what? The numbers are in, and that is the exact opposite of what it has actually accomplished. Nice...NOT.



3) So I guess the idea of "survival of this fittests" is kinda beyond you, huh?
Hmmm...so, it's probably never once crossed your mind that maybe nature infact does create individuals who will not reproduce because there's too many surviving.

Actaully homosexuality is quite "natural." They are born, they live, they breath, they have been studied to exist in many, many other species.

We've got all these bogus "save the ....whatever" campaigns, all in order to scare us into thinking that there is some kind of danger of one species or another suddenly becoming extinct. The truth is, it's all BS.

If 2% - 10% of any population of any species has individuals which are homsexual or will not reproduce, this does NOT endanger the species. Actually it allows for natural selection to run it's NATURAL course.

So, just get over yourself.



-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 02:13 AM on July 19, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rob

Maybe some males and females cant reproduce but can other males and females reproduce? Yes but there are no gay couples that can thats the differnce.

UR rights arent stripped away all gays cant do is get marreid.  They never had that right to begin with so it cant really be taken aways can it?.

So im hateful and intolernat just cause i think homesexualitys wrong and you shouldnt be able to get married.  I really dont care if you wanna be gay go be gay.




-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:01 PM on July 19, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Im afraid its not a proven fact you would just like to think it is.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:02 PM on July 19, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Justinecredible

NO i dont think i have seeings how i am one.  

Zero homesexuals can though.  And the hetro sexuals that cant where either born that way or it was done medically.  My point is that its not natural.

Did i say anal sex in any form was right? No

You have no proof for that nature created gays to balnce things out.

What are these other species that have homosexuals in them?

Yes homesexuals themselves are quite natural but the practice is not in any way natural.

I never said it would endager the human race.

You cant have a natural course when its not natural.  

If homesexuality is so natural then what cause does it have?



-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:11 PM on July 19, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skins,

For a moment, just a brief moment leave religion out of the equation. You say my rights are not stripped away, this is true. They were never mine to begin with.

I am partnered with a guy for over 3 years now. If something terrible were to happen and he ended up in the hospital, LEGALLY they can refuse to admit me to see him since I am not family.

If something happens to me and I die or he dies, despite the fact of a living will or that i left him everything in my will, Assuming there was a will. Our families would be legally entitled to my property not the person i spent years collecting these things with. The law states since he is not my spouse and not my "family" I have no rights to see him in the hospital or he has no rights to any possesions that were "legally" mine (ie. my car, my bank account. ETC.) That is all I care about with regards to MARRIAGE.

Keep the friggin word if thats whats important to you, but give me the right to take care of the person I love and will love for the rest of my life.

Please be more open minded and try not to let religion rule you, let it guide you if need be. but to be ruled like that is not life or freedom and certainly not allowing you to exercise the freewill and thought your god endowed you with. Unless of course you choose to let others tell you what is right and wrong instead of making up your mind yourself.

rob


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 9:00 PM on July 19, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since when did something need to be "natural" in order to be acceptable?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:45 AM on July 20, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes thats true but its doubtful that a hospital would not allow you to see ur partner and if they didnt you could file one heck of a law suit.

Actually if you have a written will by law thats what stands it doesnt matter what your family wants.  At least thats what they taught us i a law class i took.  It should hold up in court as well if they do try and challenge it.

Religion does not rule me in anyway.  I have been set free from sin and worry.  God did you enable us with free will and this is how i choose to live my life just as you choose your path you  take.  I do not let others tell me what is right and wrong but i let God tell me what is right and wrong.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:20 PM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Favardin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To fuel the 'natural or not'-discussion a bit:

Funny fact: There are gay animals.

And to sum up my opinion: All human should have they same rights, regardless of their religion, beliefs or sexual orientation. And that sounds a bit like the human rights, hm?
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:25 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Charliegone

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Since when did something need to be "natural" in order to be acceptable?"

I believe the "natural" we are talking about is scientific wise.  In other words the way our bodies are made.  I am not saying homosexuals should not be accepted, on the contrary, I believe people should realize they are just as worthy as an right or privilege we(the straight people) have, including marriage.

Yes there are gay animals, but it all depends on the circumstances.  Is that animal partnered with another animal of the same sex? What would happen if a female were introduced? Is the animal a self-producing animal? Like some insects?

Rob,
I agree with you totally on the situation you just described. You should have all the rights and privileges.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 04:30 AM on July 23, 2005 | IP
Favardin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Circumstances (example on sheeps, found on the very same page I linked above):
"Approximately eight percent of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."

Well, I think people don't realize that being homosexual IS natural (as well as other people being hetero- or asexual) as you don't have a choice about what sexually appeals to you (and what does not).

And the argument that the fitting of male and female sexual organs just proves that male and female can reproduce (a well known fact ^^). But it does not say anything about who you should love, like, dislike and or hate.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 10:00 AM on July 23, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I fully believe that homosexuality is natural, but i just can't see how the argument that it isn't could be used as justification in saying it's wrong.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:28 AM on July 25, 2005 | IP
Dotzzz

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 09:45 AM on July 20, 2005 :
Since when did something need to be "natural" in order to be acceptable?


tats y more n more weird pple n ideas r coming up when dere r pple like u hu tink its ok 2 be unnatural. sooner or later i tink killing on the street would be legal 2..

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 01:12 AM on August 27, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u classify what is natural and what is unnatural then?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 06:18 AM on August 29, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.