That's the problem. You are comparing consenting adults to people who harm and abuse others.

The real problem is people who can't seem to live their lives knowing that somebody, somewhere, who has no impact on you, is living a different life. And why is it that you seem to only obsess over the "sex" aspect of it? Nobody seems to have a problem with two gay men buying a dog together, collecting art, sharing an appreciation for classical music and southern cooking.....no, it's all about where they put their penis. Why are you guys so obsessed with the sex? It's actually really creepy. I think of all these bitter, lonely (Loneseom Rhoades lololol), angry men, sitting at home in the dark, just thinking about all the gay men out there who are having sex and it just kills them! Just sweaty, glistening, men rolling around in bed together.....GOD! STOP THINKING ABOUT THEM! Are you sure you aren't gay?

I know quite a few "manly" men. Gents who served our country, don't care for violence, but don't shy away from a fight when it's warranted. I can tell you that none of these men cares one bit about what gays and lesbians do in the bedroom. They are secure in their own heterosexuality, they are secure in their own relationships, and they don't feel the need to try and oppress others for something that has ZERO impact on their lives.

You seriously need a hobby or something else to fill your time.

I'm willing to bet that if gays have the right to marry, you WILL NOT be forced to attend their ceremony (or their honeymoon). You can continue to live your life exactly as you have lived it.

Don't be scared.

The brain is part of our equipment, not just the stuff "down there", and nature has made some human brains that desire others of the same sex. It is you who are arguing against nature.

My best advice is that if you are gay in the ME or Africa, is that you move. To think you are going to bring the same type of change there that has happened in the West is ignorant at best.

Not being mean ,being real.

I am a live and let live kind of guy, but living outwardly gay in the ME is like being a water buffalo at a river crossing full of crocs, you never know when, and they might not get all, but they will come from beneath the surface and and snatch you up with no warning.

The same is true for Christians in the ME, and parts of Africa I use this same analogy when they attack Christians without provocation.

In shariah law, homosexuality is punishable by death. Yet the gays and liberals keep fighting for muslim tolerance, go figure!

fedup: stupid post. "Liberals and gays" argue for muslims to be treated fairly and equally like other americans. You know, american values and all that. Which isn't the same as fighting for strict sharia law. duh.

As always, posts about large groups like "liberals and gays" are almost universally wrong and merely reflect the biases of the haters..like fedupwithfed. lol.

maybe you need to spend more time "figuring" and less time posting nonsense. :)

In human law, someone should not be punished by death simply because their race or sexual orientation doesn't meet the beliefs in of the ruling party in power.

lonesome: ah, the irony of YOU posting about OTHERS and their "empty rhetoric". Your post is empty...of anything useful. Just the normal hateful, biased nonsense you "know". lol.

RkmeBrit - by definition your actions take you out of the Hetero 'classification' and into one of two alternatives. I really don't care - but I think you should be accurate when you make a post. Or are you just a troll by any definition?

Lonesome - your premise is stupid. It isn't natural to wear cloths, fly in an airplane, drive a car, take medicine, watch TV, etc, etc, etc ... either. These are all behaviors invented over the centuries by humans. By the way, homosexual behavior is common in the animal world, too. It is a lot more "natural" than you think. If you don't like homosexual behavior, then you are free not to engage in it. It isn't any of your business what others decide to do when it doesn't involve you. I don't like homosexual behavior, either, so I don't engage in it. My gay friends and I don't share sexual behaviors, but they are still interesting, valuable people who enrich our lives. And I see no reason why they should deny their sexuality, or a relationship with someone they love because of people like you.

While you do have a point about it being more natural to be attracted to the opposite sex, the human brain is much more complicated than the sexual organs it controls. You should also look up the homosexual activity of primates for reference. Not everything in nature can be discussed in black and white.

Unless for some reason you are afraid of homosexuals taking over the world I would suggest you allow them to enjoy their lives. Their actions do not harm you.

Humans will continue to breed for many more generations. In fact, they could probably use less breeding right now.

Fedup,

Anti-sodomy laws have only been illegal in this country for less than ten years and gay people still don't have all the equal rights of marriage that straight people have, so we really aren't the standard bearer on this issue. However, you can tolerate other's religious beliefs (as many of us have the fundamentalists in this country) and still not totally agree with them or want their religion to make the laws. That's what is currently at stake in this country is the religious right wanting to make our nation's laws based on their beliefs. And, as with Christianity, just because the fundamentalists believe things a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean the mainstream of their religion believes the same.

Fed up- There is no punishment specified for homosexual behavior in Shariah. That is left up to the discretion the judge. Death is not specified, or forbidden. In Saudi Arabia, the most conservative Islamic nation in the world, the penalty is either flogging, or one year in prison, not death. Only Iran and the Taliban sentence homosexuals to death, a practice, by the way, that is also encouraged by Christian conservatives in Africa. Uganda passed a law specifying the death penalty for homosexuality, with the support and encouragement of Christian missionaries from the US. Most Muslims reject the radical form of Islam practiced by Iran and the Taliban, just as most Christians reject the extremism of their own fundamentalists like those promoting hate in Africa and elsewhere.

hahah no matt, i'm just very open with my sexuality. its called being secure with oneself. although, i am completely convinced that when people have problems with gays that they have problems with their own sexuality. i also find it hard to believe that you'd think two beautiful woman making out is "troll" like. in fact, im sure youve watched plenty of girl-on-girl porn and VERY MUCH enjoyed it.

Most Islamic stance toward homosexuality comes not from the Qur'an but from the Hadith (Muhammad's life and words) as meticulously recorded/compiled by reliable Muslim sources after his death:

The four most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Abu Dawud (d. 875), and Tirmidhi (d. 892), who was a student of Bukhari. The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. But in the matter of homosexuality, the Quran is unclear, so the hadith guides Islam more clearly.

It is believed that when Muhammad uttered a curse against someone, it is so significant and powerful that it may carry eternal damnation—or at least it puts its recipient outside of the Muslim community, which hangs hell over his head (see Sura 9:30). Muhammad cursed effeminate men and masculine women in this hadith edited by Bukhari and narrated by Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men and those women who assume the similitude (manners) of men. He also said said: "Turn them out of your houses." He turned such and such a person out, and Umar [a principal companion of Muhammad] also turned out such and such person. (Bukhari vol. 8, no. 6834; see vol. 7 nos. 5885 and 5886)

Thus, effeminate men and masculine women are cursed and driven out of the early Muslim community. These men may not be homosexuals, but may have lost their sex drive or desire for women. Either way, rejection, not salvation, is the rule in early Islam, under the guidance of Muhammad.

The same rejection happened when Muhammad heard an effeminate man talking about capturing a man's daughter, who was fat, for an arranged marriage, when the Muslim army was trying or about to try to conquer the city of Ta'if in AD 630. The prophet replied: "These (effeminate men) should never enter upon you (O women!)," in your houses. That is, Muhammad's wives should not associate with effeminate men (Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4324; see vol. 7, nos. 5235 and 5887).

The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: "Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death" (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

Thus, these two passages in Sunan Abu Dawud go further than merely rejecting and banishing homosexuals or sexual sinners, as we saw in Bukhari's collection. Rather, Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad and the early Muslim community commanded their execution.

The hadith editor Timidhi repeats Ibn Abbas' narration: "Ikrima reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that God's messenger [Muhammad] said: 'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.'" (Recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 2, p. 763, Prescribed Punishments).

In the same hadith collection, the Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that brings together other hadith collections, are found the punishments of being burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on the guilty homosexuals:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)

In the introduction to this article, a news report says that the Taliban toppled a wall on two homosexuals. Now we know where they got this cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, the Taliban appears extreme to us (and they are), but they are merely following early Islam. Hence, since this extremism comes from original Islam itself, so why would traditional Muslims who know their own religion well want to reform today? Reform to what? Ignore the core of their religion? The cognitive dissonance or mental shock would be too strong.

Finally, Muhammad Aashiq Illahi Muhajir Madani, a modern-day Mufti (jurist), wrote Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Quran, 2nd ed. trans. and ed. Mufti A. H. Elias, (Karachi: Pakistan, Zam Zam, 2003). In his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, he is open to the interpretation that the two verses speak of homosexuality, so he provides two hadith that he considers reliable, which deal with punishing homosexuals (vol. 2, pp. 365-69).

This early ruling repeats the one that homosexuals must be burned:

With regard to the method in which these people [homosexuals] are to executed, Abu Bakr after consulting with Ali and other Sahaaba [companions of Muhammad], ruled that they be burnt.

Mufti Madani's next citation says that convicted homosexuals should undergo this terrible punishment (cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68):

. . . Ibn Abbas ruled that they be thrown headlong from the highest summit.

Memri TV has a clip and a transcript of a modern scholar asserting that homosexuals should be thrown off a cliff. And now we know where he got his opinion—from early Islam and Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin.

To conclude this section, these hadith demonstrate that sexual non-conformists (effeminate men and masculine women) and homosexuals are not only unwelcome in the Islamic community (that is a religion's prerogative), but they must also be criminally punished. The hadith punishments range from rejection and banishment to execution by terrible methods, such as being stoning, burned alive, or thrown off a high point. It should be reiterated here that if later Islamic judges follow the punishment meted out in Sura 24:2 for zina generally, then they may flog the convicted homosexuals with a hundred lashes. In fact, they will impose some or all of these penalties, depending on the circumstances, as we now see in the next section. (from answering Islam).

Lebanon was once a Christian majority nation.

Part of liberal attitudes or tolerance came with being a Christian majority nation.

"Beirut has for decades been a haven for gay men and lesbians, luring people from throughout the region, including deeply conservative countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain."

Just like many non-Muslim nations, when the Muslims formed more than 40, there were civil wars between Christians and Muslims. Here Syria played a dirty role in supporting Muslims.

Many Christians ran away too giving clear victory for Muslims for bringing their laws and oppressive actions.

As a Muslim majority nation, tolerance slowly went down the dirty Islamic drain!

In the dirty Islamic drain, some Muslims are "special" and they can have battalions of girls and wives, gays as body guards or kids for killing (imported ones preferred) in camel races.

Hope people remember the incident of a Saudi prince ripping and killing his gay partner working as body guard in Britain.

Really Michael? Read # 19

Islamic Sharia Law in Brief

This is a very good article written by a FORMER muslim.

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=625:islamic-sharia-law-in-brief&catid=79:mirza&Itemid=58

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

I posted the following regarding Sharia Law and Homosexuality in Post 10.2, I should've posted it here:

Sharia means the body of Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith; fiqh means the science of interpreting and applying this law, done by qualified Islamic judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad's death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq. They base their legal opinions and rulings on the Quran and the hadith. We examine the opinions of some of these schools.

Maududi records that Shafi himself says that "both the criminals involved in sodomy should be killed, whether married or unmarried" (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68).

However, later developments in the Shafi school go in different directions on the issue of punishing homosexuals as criminals. The brief law book from the Medieval Age, A Sunni Shafi Law Code (trans. Anwar Ahmed Qadri, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984), says that "the commission of sodomy and bestiality is an act which is equivalent to zina" (adultery, fornication or rape) . . . (p. 118). A footnote says that "legal punishment (stoning as done to adulterers) should be applied, but "the accepted view is for tazir [the judge's discretion] punishment" (p. 118). So the punishment ranges from stoning to a judge's discretion, possibly down to flogging.

Another Shafi law book, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994) also compiled in the Medieval Age, says that the punishment of stoning the homosexual must be imposed, provided that he or she has reached puberty, is sane, and committed the act voluntarily, "no matter whether the person is a Muslim, a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic State, or someone who has left Islam" (p. 610, o12.1). An additional requirement is whether the person can remain chaste (is in a legal marriage). Thus, this law book binds the judge to impose death by stoning, unlike the Sunni Shafi Law Code, which allows discretionary punishment.

Maududi also records an assortment of opinions that rule as follows: "the punishment [for sodomy] is the same as for [zina], that is, one hundred stripes and exile for the unmarried, and stoning to death for the married" (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68). Some scholars reinterpret banishment as imprisonment.

As for Abu Hanifa, Maududi says that the founder "is of the opinion that the culprit should be punished in accordance with the circumstances of the crime with an exemplary punishment" (vol. 2, p, 52, note 68). An exemplary punishment means that it must be done in public, so people will learn and fear. But it is clear that the judge may exercise discretion.

Malik decrees straightforwardly: "Malik . . . asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, 'He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan'" (legally married). Regardless of his marital status, then, someone who commits sodomy must be stoned—no mercy or extenuating circumstances. (Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law, rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001), p. 346, 41.1.11).

To sum up this section, the schools of fiqh are divided. A less severe punishment than stoning, such as flogging, is meted out according to the judge's discretion. But sometimes the punishment is execution by stoning. It seems, then, that some of these schools have softened the clear example of the prophet and his companions in the hadith. They ordered death by stoning, being thrown off a high point, or toppling a dilapidated building on the criminals. This demonstrates that the Quran's confusion or absence of a clear decree has slipped into the later legal rulings. The opposite of the case is true for fornication and adultery, or zina, which elicits the minimal penalty of flogging and the maximum of stoning for adultery, according to the hadith. The judges are much more definitive about zina because the Quran is too. However, this is not true with sodomy.

... The last three subsections can be boiled down to this simple conclusion: Islam treats homosexuals as criminals and seeks to change them from the outside with threats, flogging, and death. This is seen clearly in Sayyid Qutb's two sections in his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, which are titled "First Step Towards Eradicating Immorality" and "A Perfectly Moral Society" (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 3, pp. 68-71). This goal, though seemingly noble, is actually harmful. No society can achieve perfect morality, and even the attempt to achieve it places severity and harshness and excessive power in the hands of the religious elite and self-righteous. So this policy and goal is completely misguided. It fails to understand human nature



Homosexuality is punishable by death

Fedup, work on your reading comprehension. That's what he said. He said that homosexuality is punishable by death, but doesn't require it - and then cited the punishment practices of the most conservative Islamic nations... as well as a Christian one.

You also should address Vermont's response, or are you just going to ignore the gaping hole in your logic as if it's not there?

So a government guy that hate homosexuality spend his whole day checking and looking at other men's anus? Sounds like homophobe hell to me.

@ Coral

My best advice is that if you are gay in the ME or Africa, is that you move. To think you are going to bring the same type of change there that has happened in the West is ignorant at best.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling that "sodomy laws" in the states were unconstitutional in 2003 - (not even 10 years old yet)....many states (18 to be exact) changed the wording to "crime against nature" laws.

So before you disparage the ME & Africa? - let's take a look at the United States - specifically:

18 states have not yet revised their policies - also referred to as "crime against nature" laws - to reflect the change and remove the unconstitutional laws. Equality Matters has an incredible, in-depth report on the dangers of keeping these laws on the books.

The punishment for violating the "crime against nature" law is different for each state. Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah all legislate a maximum prison sentence of one year or less, Texas sticks with a $500 fine, and George, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, and Virginia all call for more than 1 year. Massachusetts and Georgia "win" the most ridiculous punishment award with maximum prison sentences of 20 years. Some states call sodomy a felony, others keep it as a misdemeanor, but despite the differences, these 18 states all have one thing in common: They all have the potential to criminalize consensual sex between adults and continue to villainize gay sex.

Link: http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/18_states_still_have_sodomy_laws_on_the_books.php

The Equality matters does an excellent job of what these states have done to get around the Supreme Court...to the detriment to US citizens:

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:

...

LGBT people in Michigan continue to be charged with crimes for public speech, in which they let another person know they are interested in private, unpaid sex with another adult. Bag-A-Fag (undercover decoy cop) operations, where police officers pretend to be gay men cruising for unpaid, consensual sex continue in Michigan. LGBT people are still at risk of spending 15 years in state prison for acts that are perfectly legal in most other states.

Link: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012

You certainly don't have to leave the US to find discriminatory laws... laws based on Christian Bible passages which we are SUPPOSED to have separation from Church & State (yet we don't)..... there is no law of separation between Church & Country in the ME.... So the US really can't call out the ME as despicable when the US has the same despicable attitudes against the GLBT community!

Sorry if this is too long a post.

It is unfortunate that some people have sexual desires for others of the same sex. Medically speaking, this is an unhealthy situation for men.

@black kettle;

You certainly don't have to leave the US to find discriminatory laws... laws based on Christian Bible passages which we are SUPPOSED to have separation from Church & State (yet we don't).....

We are integrating the gay society into society.They gay society in America are becoming and have been a great resource for America. Great strides have been made in the military, hate crime laws, non discrimination acts, this is called rule of law sir, to compare us to the ME is ignorant at best.

we are SUPPOSED to have separation from Church & State (yet we don't

If you say so sir,there are many states with outdated silly laws in America that do not get enforced. We evolve sir, with rule of law, the ME is just discovering Democracy wich hopefully will evolve into rule of law. This will not happen unless a more secular establishment is established. Until then they will keep probing their people anally.lol

Oh and we do not anally probe our people like aliens sir, so apples and oranges I would say..lol

We are integrating the gay society into society.

Well the "we" isn't doing a great of "integration." Gay youth have higher suicide rates than non-gay youth - due to be being bullied!

People are BORN gay - no "integration" should be needed - they are humans. They shouldn't have to fight for the right to be married, or adopt, or have "joint" tax returns, etc. or all the other things that heterosexual couples have as an advantage in the US!

I didn't look up the "silly state laws," - if you read what I wrote (granted it was long) - people ARE going to JAIL in some states AND the gay community is SPECIFICALLY TARGETED BY THE POLICE IN SOME STATES.

All this talk of “rule of law” is funny to me, it’s been my observation that in the ME and elsewhere that they do have the rule of law, only those laws are ones we in the west do not like.

Likewise it has been my observation that we in the west go on about the equality of the rule of law, yet we don’t exactly follow it, after all to paraphrase Chris Rock “if OJ had been OJ the bus driver, he’d have gone to prison in a heartbeat”

@Losmuertos

we in the west go on about the equality of the rule of law, yet we don’t exactly follow it,

You hit the nail on the head there, you are so right! Like Tupac said about the justice system: "that blind bi$ch ain't never done sh$t for me!

I will never accept homosexuality. Go ahead and call me whatever you want. I think it is sick and wrong.

Gays don't give two @!$%#s about the acceptance of bigots like you; it's all about equal treatment under the law.

Get over yourself; bigots like you are sick and wrong.

Now there you go name calling. Did I call you a name ? Go to hell.

P.S. Flap A goes into slot B, not whatever you can fit it into.

ROFLMAO! Like all "good" bigots, you ASSume I'm gay because I support equality.

I'm a straight, married woman. And there are millions of heterosexuals like me who also support equality.

YOU, however, show all the signs of being unable to open your closet door.

Kind of like the United States, its okay for heterosexual jews to be married, but not homosexual jews. Maybe eventually, we too will get the entire package.

Marriage is a secular rite for heterosexuals

@Pained.

Marriage is a secular right.

There I fixed it for you. Sorry but heterosexuals shouldn't get extra rights just because they are heterosexual.

But it's ok for homosexuals to get extra rights because their brain isn't right? As I see, we ALL have the same rights. There's no denying that. They just want special ones extended to them.

Nexxus--what, in your damaged brain, counts as an "extra right" that homosexuals are asking for?

No, Nexxus, gays don't want extra or special rights, they want EQUAL rights.

But since you seem to be able to spew such rhetoric, Nexxus, please, put in writing what special rights you think gays & lesbians want. I'm truly curious what rights you think are "special".

well, nexxus, we're waitng....

A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman right now without restriction and any state. They want their sexual preference to be recognized as normal. It is their lifestyle that is in question, not their person. That is what is unique here.

A homosexual black man can marry a homosexual black woman right now without restriction and any state. They want their sexual interracial preference to be recognized as normal. It is their lifestyle that is in question, not their person. That is what is unique here.

Yeah, that logic didn't work for preserving anti-miscegenation laws, and it won't work here, either. Keeping looking for a special right to complain about.

justross

Wrong. Your analogy does not hold. A black man and a white woman do not have the issues that homosexuals do. They do not have a biological issue against their marriage. They do not have a medical issue against their marriage. They only have a racial issue against their marriage. That is why keeping them from marrying was wrong and is now fixed. To discriminate against them does actually discriminate against their person, not their lifestyle. Your analogy is flawed.

Workin hard

Well you sure are workin hard to stretch reality to meet your needs. Are you ignorant of the fact that racists that opposed interracial marriage did so on the theory blacks, and other races, were biologically inferior and therefore mixed race children would be saddled with those biological deficits?

Anyone can fabricate a biological issue, just as you doing against homosexuals. While you lack the courage to name the "medical" or "biological" issue you believe argues against gay marriage, I'll start with the assumption that you are referring to the fact that they cannot conceive children. That would be an argument but for:

1) many married straight couples can't conceive children due to biological/medical issues either, and yet their marriages are valid.

2) many married straight couples rely on fertility assistance and sperm banks to conceive, just as lesbians can, and yet only the straight couples have their marriages recognized.

3) many straight and gay couples adopt to overcome biological impediments to having children, yet only the gay couples are not recognized.

4) many straight and gay couples choose never to have children, and yet only the straight couples can be childless and legally married. and lastly

5) many, many, many straight couples have children without marriage (in fact, nearly half of all pregnant women under 30 were not married in 2011), so marriage really is not that important to discussion of biological ability to have children.

Oh, and then let's move to your specious distinction between "lifestyle" and "person." It's so incoherent, it's hard to know where to start. A person is their lifestyle, and vice versa. Sure, some aspects of a person are immutable, physical characteristics like race and sex, but that doesn't negate the more fungible aspects of personhood. In the interracial marriage example, a black man was free to live a lifestyle expected of a black man, staying in expected neighborhoods, working the expected jobs, showing the expected deference to white folk, and marrying the expected black woman. But choosing a different lifestyle for the immutable characteristic of black was not allowed--couldn't buy homes in certain neighborhoods, get certain jobs, marry certain persons. It was allowed for blacks to change their black lifestyle.

You would relegate men, and specifically gay men, to same tyranny of expectations. Marry the expected category of person for a man, or face legal consequences.

Further, even if we accept that their is some kind of linguistic difference between the two, there is no legal difference. A christian lifestyle, a muslim lifestyle, a jewish lifestyle, and an atheist lifestyle are all protected by law. There is no reason that a "gay lifestyle" shouldn't recieve the same protection.

You'll have to work harder than that.

So how about when New York City puts a price ceiling on subway fairs...is this "discrimination" against people who prefer buses?

I prefer the bus, but government is discriminating against my lifestyle choice. This is ignorant, hateful, FASCIST and the whole 9 man...

When will bus-goers ever get the equal treatment we deserve under the constitution?!?!?!? They're denying us our HUMAN RIGHTS!!!

Please, us bus-goers are HUMAN BEINGS TOO JUST LIKE YOU SUBWAY RIDERS! LETS END THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!!!

justross

Straight couples sometime can't conceive, gays never can conceive.

Straight couples sometime need fertility help, gays always need fertility help.

Straight couples sometime need to adopt, gays always need to adopt.

Why? Because their sexual proclivity is disordered. It was never meant to be. It is not supported medically nor biologically.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the government is involved in marriage at all. They can't regulate sex, love, fertility, etc. Why are they involved at all? I say leave it up to the religions.

Straight couples sometime can't conceive, gays never can conceive.

WRONG. Gays CAN and DO reproduce.

Because their sexual proclivity is disordered. It was never meant to be. It is not supported medically nor biologically.

WRONG. Since homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans), and the medical community has found that biological, genetic, and environmental factors work together to form our sexual orientation (whichever one may be: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual), you need to re-check your "facts" (hint: the encyclopedia of your ass is NOT a valid source of information).

I'm not sure why the government is involved in marriage at all. They can't regulate sex, love, fertility, etc. Why are they involved at all? I say leave it up to the religions.

Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years. Marriage is and has always been a contract to protect the parties involved in the marriage, which creates legal kinship where there previously was none. In this secular nation, legal marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract.

workin hard--

"sometimes" versus "always" is not a valid basis for restricting rights. If the ability to have children without fertility assistance or adoption is a reason for extending or denying marriage rights, then it should apply to everyone with those issues, not simply homosexuals.

As to why the government is involved in marriage, you are clearly ignorant of the 1000+ different rights, responsibilities, duties, and privileges of marriage in federal law and the average of 400+ in most states. These references in law do not regulate sex, love, or fertility, but instead define how property may be held in common, who may speak for a person who is deceased or incapacitated, who has rights of inheritance, etc. Remove a government recognition of marriage, and the all those pass to blood relatives, and not necessarily to blood relative of your choosing. You fall in to an abyss of competing claims of birth order, subjective evaluations of who was closer and better knew your wishes, etc.

Marriage recognition by the government is the recognition of our right define our family on our terms, to pick a person in who to vest all those responsibilities and rights, in exchange for accepting them from your spouse.

justross

I do appreciate your point of view, although it is not always apparent.

As for you list in #2.11, all of those listed arguments hold if a woman wanted to marry a dog (I'm not going to the bestiality area, just pointing out that those arguments hold that a gay woman could marry anybody or anything and still conceive).

The 1000+ different rights you refer to can be changed if they are flawed. There were many rights to slave owners that needed to be changed. I still don't see why we have rights that are tied to marriage.

I've asked but never received a satisfactory answer to one question. If the gay marriage discussion is based on human rights, discrimination, etc. then is there an argument against 3 men being married?

Why is it that religious domination of people is a platform for persecution and hate when it presents itself as the opposite? In China recently where religion is tolerated but not allowed to make political decisions, supported a same sex marriage without the religious indignation making public references to damnation in this life as well as the afterlife. The wedding was celebrated privately and publicly. Personal freedom was celebrated regardless of religious persecution from places where religion is allowed to dominate politics.

The hypocracy of religion is evident when we look at history at all the brutal bloodshed that religion has brought onto society and when we see how many great people who, in fact, made positive change in the world were also in fact homosexual, but needed to remain silent for the sake of self preservation.

The west claims it is all about personal freedoms when it seems the east has benefited from keeping the bigoted apostles from entering their doors.

Lazarus

Erin

BTW, if you are in NJ, I hope that you and your family are OK in the wake of Sandy.

Gays can and do reproduce? When you introduce the one man and one woman component into their relationship, yes they can reproduce. I stand corrected.

As far as the 1500 species have been documented, I'm not looking that up but I would assume that "documented" would mean that it has been observed at some point in time. I would guess that in almost all of those cases it was a disordered event, something that was not the norm for that species, perhaps it happened under extraordinary circumstances. I'm sure there are cases of some species that have two of the same gender that reproduce but that would be as expected. That does not prove that homosexual activity is an ordered act in the human race. I for one do not take nature as the gold standard for conduct in the human race. They tend to kill each other, eat each other, and steal from each other on a regular basis on any given day. The human race was made for things bigger than that.

Funny you should mention where I might be getting my encyclopedia from, the human anus was never intended to have a penis inserted into it. It is also very unhealthy. It is a disordered use of the anus and any doctor that tells you different needs to find another profession.

I would disagree that this is a secular nation but that is for another day. Marriage is strictly a civil contract? Wow! That's not how I look at mine but I guess we all have our points of view. I'll have to remember to sapena my wife tonight if I want her to join me for dinner . . .

I would guess that in almost all of those cases it was a disordered event, something that was not the norm for that species, perhaps it happened under extraordinary circumstances.

And you would guess WRONG.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

But please enlighten us: what does procreation have to do with anything?

That does not prove that homosexual activity is an ordered act in the human race. I for one do not take nature as the gold standard for conduct in the human race. They tend to kill each other, eat each other, and steal from each other on a regular basis on any given day.

As usual, you miss the point (like so many "good" bigots). The reason that the issue of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is raised is to demonstrate that homosexuality is as naturally-occurring as heterosexuality; it refutes ignorant statements such as yours that "...their sexual proclivity is disordered. It was never meant to be. It is not supported medically nor biologically." And since humans ARE animals, we are subject to the same naturally-occurring phenomena as the other animals.

the human anus was never intended to have a penis inserted into it. I

Really? Then why do so many heterosexuals enjoy anal sex? It seems that heterosexuals are engaging in anal sex more than homosexuals do.

I would disagree that this is a secular nation but that is for another day.

And you would, again, be WRONG.

Marriage is strictly a civil contract?

Apparently you also have selective reading skills: I said that LEGAL marriage in this secular nation is now and has always been strictly a civil contract. What your cult or any other chooses to do regarding marriage is its own business, not the government's.

BTW, the word is "subpoena," not "sapena".

Erin

You never did say if you are in NJ. If so, I truly do wish that all is well for you and your family. The pictures on the internet look pretty bad.

God bless you and good night.

What?

Yeh, in Muslim nations outside you follow Islamic Sharia laws and inside one can have gays or have army of very young girls/women!

If you are a Islamic religious guardian, prince, tribal head as in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places, there are no laws.

When they run short of virgins as so many battles are going all over, serious discussions are going on among Islamic clerics, scholars and others in Saudi Arabia to declare boys, gays (as a special consideration) as virgins!

Saudi ruler is going to rubber stamp their decision!

Here Islam is very elastic/liberal on "virgin" business!

Yeah, believe it or not, we're quite universal. Sorry to disappoint you.

Fundamentalist Christian missionaries in Uganda, from the US, encouraged the Ugandan government to pass laws prescribing the death penalty for homosexuality, which the government did. These same missionaries regularly preach sermons to poorly educated Ugandan natives encouraging hate and violence against homosexuals, calling them the spawn of the Devil, and implying that murdering them is acceptable. If we judge all Muslims by the radical fundamentalist ones, then we naturally should judge all Christians by the fundamentalists preaching hate in Africa and elsewhere.

For many Muslims bigotry is Allah's and hence their business!

Allah got jihad to counter likes of you!

Just watch Syria, Bahrain, Mali, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places: Sunnis don't tolerate Shiites, Sufis and minority Muslim tribes. So they have declared jihad against them.

Lebanon is busy a bit these days with Hezbollah lost on Syria! Syria is on the boil. So Muslims in Lebanon have to jump up and down too!

Islam does not have all big words/phrases like: live and let live, tolerance, be an asset to a society and so on!

Purification of Islamic religion is an unending Allah's process!

Lastly, I don't care much whether one is a gay/lesbian and so on as long as one does not bother me!

Tom in NH-294381: What that Bible verse you alluded to mean simply is that I should be ready and happy to accept the same standards that I used to judge others to be applied to me. I JUDGE but in judging I am asking God to also judgemen with the same satandards that I used in judging other. I cannot speak out against homosexual behaviour while practicing another evil..maybe telling lies or putting a spin on the truth and expect not to be punished.

Every minute of the day, we make judgement calls...every decision we make or not make is judging.

Having said that, homosexuals, acording to the Bible, are in the same category as liars, thieves, murderers and other anti-social/anti-nature behaviours. They gays truly need help, love and understanding from us but not approval to continue in doing what is wrong...what even the lowest of animals will not do. Why treat the gay differently.............why not legalise everything............truth is that teh world is actually on that track......America and Liberals europe have already legalised killing the weak and innocent (abortion) and called it pro-choice. One wonders what choice the unborn child has! To paraphrase a Bible verse, in the last days right will be wrong and wrong will be right and men will magnified evil to high heavens

Too bad for christo-bigots like you, Genchez, that the US is and has always been a secular nation; God and the bible do not make our laws.

@Tom "hunkered down" in NH;

Here, here! Such a simple philosphy that would vault the ME a hundred years ahead immediately.

Coral----- Id settle for that simple philosophy take hold in our own country!

that's the reason you can smell desperation in the anti-gay groups..they know their core is dying off. Its actually amazing how fast gays are being accepted. Look at, for example, attitudes about women, blacks, and minorities, and how long that took to change. A mere twenty years ago, for example, even the dems felt compelled to back DOMA.

Twenty more years and this whole gay thing will be a memory, kept alive by some scattered homophobic clusters of haters.

Willie, I think that we can assume that in twenty years you will be a member of one of those scattered homophobic clusters to whom vermontguy refers.

vermontguy- it is not surprising at all how quickly society in general has accepted gays. When they start coming out and you realize that your brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or other admired and beloved fiends and relatives are gay, it become much harder to demonize them.

willie: its obvious to anyone but the stupid.

micheal: right. Unlike, say, blacks where many families can be "all white", every family has one gay person, and its harder to hate someone in the family..

Don't worry,most people will not teach it to kids

@Michael...

Sorry but your 'beloved fiends and relatives'.... ...'harder to demonize them' statement gave me a chuckle. I know you meant friends but it was sort of funny.

Religion is not the enemy. Evil is. Hatred is. Gluttony is. Ignorance is. All religions have some very noble principles, but we humans, irrational and illogical as we are (come on admit it) succeed in bringing out the ugly and smear those ideals with the very real shortcomings that makes us human.

I cannot bring myself to finding fellow males as "Sexy" and I find that reflection in the mirror every morning as butt-ugly. But I accept other prefernces and my own homeliness. I do appreciate all forms of beauty and find this makes the planet a better place (and reinforces my belief in God as well)

My answer to Dr. David Hume's "the problem of Evil" would be "the problem is, we are Evil (at times)"

Me thinks the Zheng doth protest too much.

For anyone interested in what Islamic Sharia law actually says about homosexuality and how Muslim scholars try implementing it in real life, there is this helpful explication:

Sharia means the body of Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith; fiqh means the science of interpreting and applying this law, done by qualified Islamic judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad's death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq. They base their legal opinions and rulings on the Quran and the hadith. We examine the opinions of some of these schools.

Maududi records that Shafi himself says that "both the criminals involved in sodomy should be killed, whether married or unmarried" (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68).

However, later developments in the Shafi school go in different directions on the issue of punishing homosexuals as criminals. The brief law book from the Medieval Age, A Sunni Shafi Law Code (trans. Anwar Ahmed Qadri, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984), says that "the commission of sodomy and bestiality is an act which is equivalent to zina" (adultery, fornication or rape) . . . (p. 118). A footnote says that "legal punishment (stoning as done to adulterers) should be applied, but "the accepted view is for tazir [the judge's discretion] punishment" (p. 118). So the punishment ranges from stoning to a judge's discretion, possibly down to flogging.

Another Shafi law book, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994) also compiled in the Medieval Age, says that the punishment of stoning the homosexual must be imposed, provided that he or she has reached puberty, is sane, and committed the act voluntarily, "no matter whether the person is a Muslim, a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic State, or someone who has left Islam" (p. 610, o12.1). An additional requirement is whether the person can remain chaste (is in a legal marriage). Thus, this law book binds the judge to impose death by stoning, unlike the Sunni Shafi Law Code, which allows discretionary punishment.

Maududi also records an assortment of opinions that rule as follows: "the punishment [for sodomy] is the same as for [zina], that is, one hundred stripes and exile for the unmarried, and stoning to death for the married" (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68). Some scholars reinterpret banishment as imprisonment.

As for Abu Hanifa, Maududi says that the founder "is of the opinion that the culprit should be punished in accordance with the circumstances of the crime with an exemplary punishment" (vol. 2, p, 52, note 68). An exemplary punishment means that it must be done in public, so people will learn and fear. But it is clear that the judge may exercise discretion.

Malik decrees straightforwardly: "Malik . . . asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, 'He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan'" (legally married). Regardless of his marital status, then, someone who commits sodomy must be stoned—no mercy or extenuating circumstances. (Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law, rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001), p. 346, 41.1.11).

To sum up this section, the schools of fiqh are divided. A less severe punishment than stoning, such as flogging, is meted out according to the judge's discretion. But sometimes the punishment is execution by stoning. It seems, then, that some of these schools have softened the clear example of the prophet and his companions in the hadith. They ordered death by stoning, being thrown off a high point, or toppling a dilapidated building on the criminals. This demonstrates that the Quran's confusion or absence of a clear decree has slipped into the later legal rulings. The opposite of the case is true for fornication and adultery, or zina, which elicits the minimal penalty of flogging and the maximum of stoning for adultery, according to the hadith. The judges are much more definitive about zina because the Quran is too. However, this is not true with sodomy.

...The last three subsections can be boiled down to this simple conclusion: Islam treats homosexuals as criminals and seeks to change them from the outside with threats, flogging, and death. This is seen clearly in Sayyid Qutb's two sections in his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, which are titled "First Step Towards Eradicating Immorality" and "A Perfectly Moral Society" (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 3, pp. 68-71). This goal, though seemingly noble, is actually harmful. No society can achieve perfect morality, and even the attempt to achieve it places severity and harshness and excessive power in the hands of the religious elite and self-righteous. So this policy and goal is completely misguided. It fails to understand human nature

My brother, who has spent time in the middle east, confirms this practice. he said as long as no one CALLS it homosexuality, then it's ok.

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse have published a longitudinal studyof "religiously-mediated sexual orientation change" in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. It's found in Volume 37, pages 404-427 for any doubters in the crowd.

Despite the constant bloviation from homosexual activists, who insist that change is impossible and attempted change is harmful, these researchers found in fact the opposite is true.

Now the American Psychological Association in the past has stuck its fingers in its ears and mindlessly intoned, "[H]omosexuality ... is not changeable" and that "potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior." The APA is dead wrong.

Ray, I hope your children marry someone who "chose" to be straight, and pass the gay gene to your grandchildren.

the fact that "some" people can change (even if that is real, some of the "gay" people i've know who have "changed" turned out really to be bisexual, which isn't then a "change") doesn't prove its a "choice" in general.

I know of not a single person who choose (in a conscious, intellectual way) what gender to be sexually attracted to.

Homosexual activists have searched long and fruitlessly for the "gay gene," the genetic marker that would prove homosexuals are "born that way," and simply can't help themselves.

The truth is that while sexual inclination may be complex, sexual behavior — that is, acting on sexual impulses — is always a matter of moral choice. One man's "inclination" may be to same-sex interaction, while another man's impulse may be to have sex with anyone in a skirt. In a hugely significant development, the American Psychological Association is now admitting that there is no "gay" gene, after touting its existence in published materials since 1998.

Since 1998, the APA has said that "considerable recent evidence" suggests a biological role in shaping an individual's sexuality.

But the inclination itself, no matter how strong it is, can never serve as an excuse to act out on dangerous, unhealthy and immoral impulses. Part of living in a civilized culture is learning to master sexual impulses and reserve sexual energy for the marriage relationship.

while another man's impulse may be to have sex with anyone in a skirt

..so, let's make a law against that.

is always a matter of moral choice

according to YOUR religion. We have religious freedom in this country, which means I can't be forced to adhere to YOUR religion.

My totem pole says it's fine.

well, if by "sexual BEHAVIOR" is always a choice..well..duh. Of course one can "choose" to be celibate..but..so what does that have to do with anything?

lol, nothing.

But you keep pushing your "sex is ONLY for heterosexual marriage" stuff. We'll keep laughing at you. :) After all, this is the United States of America, not the "United states of christian theocracy ruled by strict fundamentalists". try to pay attention. :)

The OBVIOUS point is that sexual ORIENTATION (ie ATTRACTION) is not a choice. :)

The only thing that makes a person a homosexual/lesbian is the act itself. No carnal acts, there is no label.

bob: wrong.

1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

there is NO requirement to have sexual activity to be a homosexual..or heterosexual for that matter.

There are MANY people who CHOOSE to not act aberrantly.

Wrong? No sex, not homosexual, only friendly, happy, and gay person.Who wrote that definition? It doesn't matter though, read again sexual desire, (underline) act upon desire implied. The word sexual has you confused I believe. First part of word defines labels in this discussion.

bob: wrong again. lol.

no, that definition says desire, not actions. Nothing implied there. sorry. wrong. :)

sexual ORIENTATION is related to thoughts and desires, not actions. duh.

Right, the first part of the word defines which gender you are ATTRACTED to. lol. duh again on you. :)

pained: and there are many who CHOOSE to post intelligently and not hatefully. Sadly, you aren't in that category. :)

as far as your silly post, yes, there ARE "many people" who CHOOSE to have heterosexual sex..but not because they CHOSE to be heterosexuals, because they ARE heterosexuals. lol.

Hatefully?Glad you're not in a position of power in the govt,are you?You've never met someone,say a male,with all the characteristics? High voice,affectations,mannerisms,etc? By definition hetero,but really gay

pained: when you have something that makes sense, let me know. lol.

Vermontguy: Now you are changing direction once again. Simplicity is not hard to comprehend. It is what you do with those urges. Second part of definition, you choose to omit. We were not discussing orientation. We were talking about carnal acts as defineing a person as homosexual. The attraction alone or the urge does not make one homosexual. IT is the act.

Sex is the act in this connotation not gender. Slow aren't we?

choice or not, it's none of your business, and it's certainly none of the government's business.

You can't force your religion on everyone else, like they do in Lebanon.

bob why is this so hard for you to understand? the definition is very clear. No "action" is required to be homosexual, just DESIRE. duh.

and yes, we WERE discussing ORIENTATION. lol. duh again.

again, just for the simpletons out there, a homosexual is someone with DESIRE for the same gender. Heterosexuals have a DESIRE for the opposite sex. No sex act is required. Celibate people are heterosexual or homosexual based on their DESIRES.

For example, a homosexual man could have sex with a lesbian woman for the purpose of creating a baby. Does that make those two heterosexuals? lol, not in the least.

this isn't rocket science. lol.

Yes it does when they copulate. The engagement in intercourse is why we use terms like heterosexual, and others. Ergo the term implies a preference of sexual partners. Not thinking about it. DUH in your own words. You would argue the color of the sky to prove your point. It is light blue. I believe I have made your examples mute more than once.

lol, so people magically go from homosexual to heterosexual back to homosexual if they have a lifetime of homosexual partners and have sex once for the purpose of procreation and then go back to having sex with people they DESIRE? lord, that's stupid. Beyond stupid in fact.

The problem here is that you are confused. :)

sorry, the definition still stands. DESIRE defines your sexuality, not ACTs.

The only thing you've made "mute" is your credibility here. I've posted an actual definition that proves i'm right, you've just mindlessly repeated your own worthless blathering. lol.

and DUH just for good measure. :)

Sorry bob. Vermont guy is right. You are wrong.

To Ray"""

#11.1

N.A.R.T.H.....rhymes with barf

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL

1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
— ho·mo·sex·u·al·lyadverb

Not much plainer than that. Notice the word direct? Do I need to get the meaning of that word for you to?

bob - what about heterosexual couples who have anal sex? They fall under the "crimes against nature" laws as well - but no one really bothers about them...guy & girl anal porn is the most porn sold - there must be a reason for that... so who should be arrested the girl or the guy, in your view?

Direct: Has many different denotations. The one you would use is the one meaning natural. I can pick and choose the definitions in context of my position just as well as you may be able to. Semantics's! Magic is the wrong word, the person would be classified as bisexual, unless of course you in your infinite wisdom can enlighten us stupid people.

Blackkettle: What does that have to do with definitions? Do you have some type of repressed religious guilt?

I choose this one: DIRECT

11
a: being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : (unregenerate) See green word, look up obstinate.

bob: lol.

since the definition #1 (the preferred one) doesn't require ACTS, only DESIRE, i'm still right and you're still an idiot. :)

And no, "bisexual" means sexual DESIRE for both genders. You can have a sex ACT with an opposite gender (such as for the purpose of procreation) without DESIRE for that person.

again, this isn't rocket science..except to you. :)

clue for the clueless: "to direct sexual desire" isn't the same as actually having sex. lol. "desire" is not "act". Do you need me to look up those words for you too? :)

I'm not sure you are capable of being enlightened. But i'm willing to try, its just the kind of guy I am. :)

Preferred by whom? Your words are misleading again. Having sex with a man then a woman is bisexualism. I found this one under Love:2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) Lust:: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness

li·bi·do

noun \lə-ˈbē-(ˌ)dō also ˈli-bə-ˌdō\
pluralli·bi·dos

Definition of LIBIDO

1
: instinctual psychic energy that in psychoanalytic theory is derived from primitive biological urges (as for sexual pleasure or self-preservation) and that is expressed in conscious activity

2
: sexual drive
Still you persist to deviate from core meaning. I cannot convince you of the truth when you say things like the accepted truth is yours.

bob: "preferred" means the #1 definition where more are given for a word. Dictionaries always list the preferred one first, and then follow with less preferred ones. Its how dictionaries have been since, well, forever. lol.

and no, having sex with a woman for the purpose of having a child doesn't change your sexual orientation. lol. It doesn't make a gay man a bisexual.

god you're slow.

as to your posting of "libido" and "love" those don't change the fact that the PREFERRED definition for homosexual only requires DESIRE, not an ACT.

I'm right, you're still wrong. :)

Your obstinate. Yes it does. He practiced bisexuality, participated in, engaged, did the deed. Had it been a donkey it would be called something else. You are also wrong about your insistence of preferred. The first is noun the second is adverb , or result of one.

bob-2476682:

"The attraction alone or the urge does not make one homosexual. IT is the act."

Likewise bob, having stupid, bigoted, and ignorant thoughts does not make you stupid, bigoted, or ignorant. It's the act.

And thank you so much for proving my point with all of your stupid, bigoted, and ignorant posts.

Desire: I want to do it. Pre-Homosexual. Act: I did it. Post-Homosexual. Get It?

Tom: I unlike yourself I have articulated my opinion in a unbiased approach to why someone has a label. I did not insult nor degrade anyone to make my point, which I believe supports my statement with facts. Some people will never regconize a title or label is only applied if you actually do it. A Doctor is not a Doctor until he Doctors. In other words the practice of doing it makes you what you are.

bob - I was referring to the definition of sodomy as it pertains to the LAW - meaning, the act - whether between two males or male and female or any combination you can think of - under the LAW it's sodomy, however, the only ones arrested are gay - they don't arrest heterosexual couples who enjoy it...

I don't even understand your "religious" question - I don't have one!

Quid pro quo on that one. I was talking about one thing, you another. I discussing label, you one act of homosexuality. Many big words have proliferated about, yet in the simplest term the meaning of the moniker is the participation in debauchery. I did not understand why you would ask such a question in the first place. I must have believed you wanted to project something into the conversation.

Plagiarizing again, I see, Ray. You just can't help yourself, can you? Reported.

Vermontguy: I've had this same "argument" with bob; like so many "good" bigots, he constantly confuses behavior with orientation. He can't grasp the fact that one's sexual orientation is not always the same as one's sexual behavior. It's just one of many things he's apparently unable to grasp.

Erinbooby: It is right there in black and white from the annals of academia. I hope you don't mind I pulled it out of the annals.

Which "annals" would those be, Bob? Or are you confusing "annals" with "anus" again?

Your funny is low brow for sure. Of course I knew this and my choice of words reflect how you will resort to insults rather than debating facts published in accepted medium. The dictionary.

Oh, so because they didn't fix all their medieval judicial code in one grand sweep, we can't be enthused for the fixes they have made?

Ray,

If Muslims start extermination, let's hope they start with exterminating those who brought gay men & women into this world.

Too bad your comedy career isn't working for you

too bad your posting isn't working for you.

really?It seemed to elicit a response Vgay,I mean guy

vgay? lol, the schools must be out, the 12 year olds are posting their "humor". :)

and yes, your posting is "working" in that its getting responses and making you look immature and hateful. Most people don't want to look that way, but hey, if that's your goal, then it IS working. :)

Too bad your comedy career isn't working for you

Must be my delivery, because the material (the bible) is hilarious.

sam: its like the old joke about the convention of comedians. The first person stands up, says "12", people laugh like crazy. Next person says "23", more laughter. This person stands up, says "6"...dead silence.

A confused reporter asks someone what is going on..."Well, we all know the same jokes, so we just refer to them by numbers, it saves a lot of time". "OK, so why did they laugh at the first two but not the last?". "His delivery was terrible". (bada bing).

sam, I think it is covered in the ten commandments (pa-ram-pum ... pshhh):

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ... manservant, ... nor his ox, nor his ass, ...

You do realize that it has been reported that King James........who asked for this new-write of the bible was................hold on....................HOMOSEXUAL....

assuming this silly post was pointed towards me, why would I care? it hardly requires more than one person to make fun of you and your hateful nonsense. :)

Sorry kid.Hateful nonsense?And you are why there is at least one other party to choose from.I'll once again vote for obama,the guy,not the party

I think "vgay" (from your 18.3 post) is a good example of hateful nonsense. Immature, hateful nonsense in fact. lol. sorry kid. :)

(but i'm sure your 12 year old friends think you are hilarious!)

pederasty blended w homosexuality.Can't imagine why us less enlightened find this whole thing revolting

ha thanks for posting I saw this documentary on TV!! Homosexuality is comon practice in all cultures - whether it's out in the open and accepted or hidden in these twisted scenarious. Talk about "do as I say not as I do"!! LOL!!

pederasty blended w homosexuality

Is this worse than pederasty "blended" with heterosexuality?

I have an idea. Let's make immoral women sew a scarlet A on their dresses, as soon as we let them out of the stocks.

Yes,those of us who disagree believe women are second class.How clever.I personally have long recognized the general superiority of women.As far as the priesthood goes its' easy to understand.Mostly homosexual boys and men troubled or immersed in blunted sexuality end up pursuing their only outlet,those of their own sex

blah blah blah

apparently some immorality is worse than other immorality and needs to be forced on others for no particular reason.

It's ok to be immoral with the opposite sex, but not with the same sex. I guess we've progressed a little since the 17th century.

So much for "liberty".

Why aren't ALL their children gay?

sam,

You might as well ask: Why don't all children have the same hair color? Why aren't all children the same height? Why aren't all children of the same intelligence?

"Personally I do not condone Homosexuality".

Funny how people need to preface their opinions with that statement. Nobody cares what you condone. That's the point. Do I condone you f-ing your girlfriend/wife in the ass?? Again, it doesn't matter what I condone, it's none of my business.

We have a society,a culture,a civilization,with a history.Don't care what you think either.

We have a society,a culture,a civilization,with a history

We had a history of slavery too, and proponents of that institution also found justification in "morals" , and "scripture".

Someday, maybe muslims won't oppress women the way we used to, and we won't oppress homosexuals.

EXACTLY.They AREN'T being oppressed,not here anyway

gays don't have all the rights as others do, sounds "oppressed" to me:

Definition of OPPRESSION

1

a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

the denial of equal rights is oppression. Thomas Paine would know that.

but imposters wouldn't know it..as Pained1 proves. Unfortunately, it takes more than a cute picture to make you the real thing.

Rights you NEVER had.Because a homosexual union is NOT the same as a heterosexual one.A heterosexual union produces children by nature [or in mimicry] homosexuality cannot.That's why it isn't or has never been considered a family or valid

Careful Amunaka...don't be posting too much of that scientific stuff...the biblitards' heads will start to explode. LOL!

You get an "A" in computers,that's it.

OH science is perfect and always right. Horsehockey! We were still doing lobotomies in homes in the seventies. Sometimes the doctor would just use a screwdriver and hammer. Plastic made some people a lot of money. I won't even get into that one. How about thousands if not millions of scientific failures and debunked theories? I am a strong proponent of science, but unlike some I will not arrange data to support my opinion. That is what you have an opinion. The support network using selected works can be accomplished scientifically for what ever position one chooses. If you are a data person you know this.

All that phony science baloney would have you believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. We know that's not true, for the Bible tells us so.

Biology, Geology, Astronomy ALL FALSE liberal lies! The dinosaurs existed at the same time as Adam and Eve, but were just left of the ARK!

Jesus brought Noah the Bald Eagle and North American Timber Wolves on his way back from Utah.

Some who have their eyes open find they can believe in the divine,and see the truth of science as well-the first time I've said anything about religion,I think

But others say the Bible is the literal word of God and that any science that refutes that is the work of Satan. How can I know which is true, and which version do we need to base our "morality" laws on?

Who gets to decide.....you?

Can I use electricity? Can I take my children to the doctor. Can I work on Sunday?

All "immoral" in the eyes of someone.

Gee, maybe we should keep religion separate?

Are we still really debating whether most behavior has a biological basis? It's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that this is what generates human actions.

but unlike some I will not arrange data to support my opinion. That is what you have an opinion.

So you think mere opinion overrides actual scientific evidence and facts?

Gee, maybe we should keep religion separate?

At the very least, keep it separate from the government and laws, which is what it's supposed to be!

unlike some I will not arrange data to support my opinion.

Yet that is ALL you have done.

I did not alter or correlate any magazine articles to make any of my statements. Only used common sense and the dictionary. I have not in any of my post's mentioned religious reasons for not practicing un-natural sex.

Hey, they're "Taking their country back!"

Yeah, Broke Back!!!! LMAO!!!

RFFN!!!

If the implication is that people in Ohio and Indiana are less educated than you are, your post suggests otherwise.