QueenZone discussion #885999

<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote: If you ask me, I'm not against it at all. I have nothing against gay/lesbian people. I respect and let them live their lifes. :)

kingarthur wrote: well if gays can get married why can't my goat and I hitch up?

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bottom line, the government shouldn't have the right to sanction marriage at all, because marriage is a religious state and a religious event, and the seperation of church and state clause would mean that government recognizing marriage is a violation of that clause. But since the government has chosen to recognize marriage and place all of the benefits on it that it has, then it should make marriage legal for everyone who are consenting adults, whatever their race, color, creed, sexual preferences, whatever.

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: I am for it. If it's such a problem to call it "marriage" call it something else.

kingarthur wrote: well if gays can get married why can't my goat and I hitch up?

YourValentine wrote: In Germany we have had gay marriages since 2004 and it helped gays to be accepted in society.

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: it really depends. my religion forbids it... i'm catholic. but putting the religion thing aside, i'd be okay with it. :)

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The church simply slaps the "institution" label on anything they think shouldn't change, and millions of people still buy into it.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The church is an institution that uses morals and values that were important 1000+ years ago, not today.

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: it really depends. my religion forbids it... i'm catholic. but putting the religion thing aside, i'd be okay with it. :)

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: This is a bit of a contradiction. The Church's morals and values still have a significant impact on a vast portion of the world's population, as do several other Christian religions that have parallel views.

However, I look forward to the day when the Church catches up to the rest of the world. Surprisingly, I do see an improvement that is gaining momentum.

YourValentine wrote: Music Man, I don't see how the Catholic Church is changing. They still refuse to share communion with Protestants which brings many Catholic/protestant couples in the awkward position that the Protestant parent is excluded from communion when the child goes to First Communion (just one example of the heartless and intolerant attitude of the Catholic Church).

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The Catholic Church is improving, albeit ever so slightly.

YourValentine wrote: KillerQueen - communion and baptism are the only Protestant sacraments while the Catholics have 5 more. There is no basic difference in the Protestant and Catholic sacrament of communion. The reason why Catholics do not allow Protestants to share the Communion is - they believe that the Catholic faith is the only "right" one. While Protestants allow Catolic people to the communion thinking that it's ok to share the communion as brothers and sisters following the same religion, the Vatican stubbornly refuses to respect other Christian churches and denies the Catholics the pleasure to celebrate communion together with Protestants as a family. The communion is the main issue in all dicussions about ecumenism. It alienates more people from their church than any other issue.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: These are all excellent questions and issues that have been raised, but I have an interesting take for the person who said that there are "Cafeteria Catholics" out there. While I'm not denying they exist, indeed there are "Cafeteria Christians" of all denominations out there. However, this new pope has seen fit to make one of the basic tenents of his papacy the fighting of the rise of secularism in Europe and the West in general, and has many times decried the "Cafeteria Catholics" who are out there. My take is this....there is no worse "Cafeteria Catholic" out there than the Roman Catholic Church itself, and indeed even devout followers of any other Christian religious persuasion are "Cafeteria" by the defintion of picking and choosing. There are tons and tons of contradictions in the Bible. For every passage that says that you should or should not do something because an invisible man in the sky told you to, I have the ultimate answer. It's from the Bible, but it is the one quote that people misuse and or forget about the most. "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged". Just one example of the Catholic church's hipocracy here....we won't allow gays to be priests or to get married, because they are judged to be unworthy both by us and by god. What about the passage I just cited? If everyone would just remember that one passage, religion wouldn't be quite as screwed up as it is today. So if the pope wants to fight secularism, he's going to have an uphill battle. The bottom line is secularism is, in general but not always, more tolerant than religion, and most Western societies place great importance on toleration. I'd personally rather see an areligous but tolerant society emerge in the world than an intolerant but religious one.

KensingtonLove(Darunkhanawala) wrote: Toleration?

<font color=?B2F><b>Crezchi wrote: Against it. Sorry but i think that it is just disgusting. But that's my opinion, so let's not have people getting on me about my opinion ok? lol

YourValentine wrote: These are very interesting ideas, Music Man. However, opinions or ethics are not cemented in an individual or in a society. You will notice that children are often very intolerant and only play with their "clique" but when they get older life teaches them to be more respectful towards the opinion of other people. While young people are often very radical in their opinions they get less exclusive when school, university, job forces them to get along with people who have totally different opinions. It's a matter of learning, growing and teaching yourself. Of course, individuals develop in a different way, some people are completely unable to ever change their minds about any issue. Also, we are all exposed to manipulation by the published opinion, media, and people we listen to.

The marriage (or registered partnership as we call it) of gay people in my country is the result of a value change in the society. 30 years ago gays lived in the hiding, they could not become teachers, soldiers or make a career in any respectable profession. They were often victims of hate crimes (they still are!). Over the decades the public opinion changed and now the mayors of Berlin and Hamburg, the leader of the liberal party and many "celebrities" are open gays - because they do not need to fear to be publicly criticised for that. But still, gays do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples, for example they cannot adopt a child as a couple.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I agree with gay marriage under the only condition that gay people have to stop dancing in speedos and rubbing their crotches on each other's face in public parades.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: I agree with gay marriage under the only condition that gay people have to stop dancing in speedos and rubbing their crotches on each other's face in public parades.

:P ... And what about two lesbians?

Zebonka12 wrote: Tolerance is the word of a coward. Nobody ever uses the word 'respect' - nah, it's all "I tolerate this" as if it's some kind of chore to just *GET ALONG WITH OTHER PEOPLE*.

Zebonka12 wrote: Nobody ever uses the word 'respect'

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: I agree with gay marriage under the only condition that gay people have to stop dancing in speedos and rubbing their crotches on each other's face in public parades.

:P ... And what about two lesbians?

KensingtonLove(Darunkhanawala) wrote: If two people love each other and are genuine, then they should be allowed to marry. Love is the most significant thing. LOVE. ;)

Mr.Jingles wrote: I agree with gay marriage under the only condition that gay people have to stop dancing in speedos and rubbing their crotches on each other's face in public parades.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: The children of a Klu Klux Klan member, when born, as just as tolerant (or intolerant) as the child of a peace loving hippie....it's only the teachings that child receives that changes those things.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: The children of a Klu Klux Klan member, when born, as just as tolerant (or intolerant) as the child of a peace loving hippie....it's only the teachings that child receives that changes those things.

Many will disagree to some point, especially those educated in science. The whole nurture vs. nature argument.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: True, and that argument will never be solved. But we do know that those children we have found who have been completely isolated from society and from humans in general (the last one was found in Russia in the late 19th century) didn't have any prejudices or hates towards any humans, once they got over the fear aspect. That lends credence to the nurture argument.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: True, and that argument will never be solved. But we do know that those children we have found who have been completely isolated from society and from humans in general (the last one was found in Russia in the late 19th century) didn't have any prejudices or hates towards any humans, once they got over the fear aspect. That lends credence to the nurture argument.

Interesting! Personally, I'm pro-nurture, because being pro-nature can lead people to believe that surroundings have a limited influence on children. I just can't buy the idea that people can be inherently good/evil/understanding/bigoted, etc. I believe they're born neutral, and that surroundings are the majority of what determines what kind of views a person will hold. For me, "nature" stops at skin colour and sexuality.

jasen101 wrote: If gay marriage should not be tolerated on the grounds of stability and faith...that would cancel out 99% of all celebrity weddings.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

jasen101 wrote: If gay marriage should not be tolerated on the grounds of stability and faith...that would cancel out 99% of all celebrity weddings.

And a large number of regular weddings. Isn't the heterosexual divorce rate now at 60% or so?

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.

<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>OscrMeyr wrote: I made a survey at school, asking people what their opinions on that subject were. It's a VERY controversial subject, so much so that I had to add a new option besides "for", "against", and "neutral". I had to add "not comfortable speaking about it". :/ In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!" So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ). AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)

<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon.... Call it Gayrige or something and it would work

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.

Interesting thoughts. And I always take your words seriously, as you're one of the wisest people I've ever known. So then I have a question, assuming your theory would be true: Do you think that if we teach young children to be tolerant of homosexuals and that there's nothing wrong with being gay, are we planting potential seeds of encouragement for them to "become" homosexual? As for my take on your theory... I don't really buy it, because a homosexual still has the biological ability to procreate. Lesbians can have children, and gay males can still do their thing. Their lifestyle just doesn't happen to include reproducing in most cases.

<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote:

<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>OscrMeyr wrote: I made a survey at school, asking people what their opinions on that subject were. It's a VERY controversial subject, so much so that I had to add a new option besides "for", "against", and "neutral". I had to add "not comfortable speaking about it". :/ In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!" So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ). AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)

I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon.... Call it Gayrige or something and it would work

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....

You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think

½Microwave wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....

You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think

... or how you spell.