|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:17 am
Lumanny the Space Jew redwolfshadow In Medias Res IV redwolfshadow Artto What the hell is the difference between your girlfriend leaving you for another man, and your girlfriend leaving you for another woman? (besides the latter being slightly more awesome / concerning biggrin ) Its worse being a girl and having your girlfriend leave you for a man. No. It's not. To me it was. I'd have a little more respet left for her if she left me for someone worth it. I guess it just depends on your experiences. I would be much more hurt if she left me for another man than if she left me for a woman. If she left me for a woman, then that's just who she was born to be. If she left me for another man, then I guess I just wasn't enough for her, it's because of me and not because of who she is. Ya know? No- I AM A GIRL. I WAS DATING A GIRL. We were both bi, but i treated her like a goddess. And she left me for some guy she just met.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:34 am
redwolfshadow To me it was. I'd have a little more respet left for her if she left me for someone worth it. I guess it just depends on your experiences. So you're saying girls are inherently better then guys? Can't a guy be worth it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:35 pm
redwolfshadow Artto XxBroken_And_ShatteredxX Quote: What business is it of yours? How the hell can a bisexual hurt you if they sleep with you then sleep with a woman? It would hurt me because they didn't tell me. What the hell is the difference between your girlfriend leaving you for another man, and your girlfriend leaving you for another woman? (besides the latter being slightly more awesome / concerning biggrin ) Its worse being a girl and having your girlfriend leave you for a man. No. I was dating a guy in high school, he had told me he was straight in the beginning, but then he ended up dumping me for another guy. That hurt and it was a big slap in the face, mainly because I was lied to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:17 pm
Shadows-shine No. I was dating a guy in high school, he had told me he was straight in the beginning, but then he ended up dumping me for another guy. That hurt and it was a big slap in the face, mainly because I was lied to How do you know that he lied?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:29 pm
Julri Lumanny the Space Jew redwolfshadow In Medias Res IV redwolfshadow Artto What the hell is the difference between your girlfriend leaving you for another man, and your girlfriend leaving you for another woman? (besides the latter being slightly more awesome / concerning biggrin ) Its worse being a girl and having your girlfriend leave you for a man. No. It's not. To me it was. I'd have a little more respet left for her if she left me for someone worth it. I guess it just depends on your experiences. I would be much more hurt if she left me for another man than if she left me for a woman. If she left me for a woman, then that's just who she was born to be. If she left me for another man, then I guess I just wasn't enough for her, it's because of me and not because of who she is. Ya know? Yeah, I think it all just depends. If I was dating a girl and she left me for a man because she realized she was straight I would just sort of figure "Oh, it's not my fault then, so I shouldn't be upset." But if she left me because she just liked the other person better, I think I'd be upset regardless of if she left me for a man or a woman. I suppose that makes sense, though I personally still think that I would be more upset if she left me for another man than if she had left me for a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:33 pm
redwolfshadow No- I AM A llllll. I WAS DATING A llllllll. We were both lllllll, but i treated [them] like a goddess. And [they] left me for some lllllllll [they] just met. Yeah, that hurts even without the specific genders and sexualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:13 pm
Lumanny the Space Jew redwolfshadow No- I AM A llllll. I WAS DATING A llllllll. We were both lllllll, but i treated [them] like a goddess. And [they] left me for some lllllllll [they] just met. Yeah, that hurts even without the specific genders and sexualities. *smiles and nods*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:58 pm
Artto redwolfshadow To me it was. I'd have a little more respet left for her if she left me for someone worth it. I guess it just depends on your experiences. So you're saying girls are inherently better then guys? Can't a guy be worth it? Yes, some guys can be great. This guy wasn't. Picture a mexican pimp disguised as an emo. -nothing against emos, or mexicans, or pimps.. (okay, i dont like pimps in general) again some can be great, and others... not so great. Just depends on the person- Point is she went after a total jerk, regardless of gender, race, or subculture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:08 am
On the subject of homosexuality and where it stands in the Bible, it's definitely not okay. But, neither is a proud a look or a wandering eye. I don't think it's anywhere in the 10 commandments, so it definitely shouldn't be treated like murder.
It's a crime of passion and who isn't guilty of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:44 pm
I can't say it is a sin because I'm not religious but if I HAD to look at it from a religious view, I would not think that something that can exist and that doesn't hurt anyone to be a sin.
If you can love someone, then I am ok with it.
I can't find anyone to tell me why they dislike Homosexuality and convince me why their views are justified besides bringing my own sexuality into views or question or without quote mining books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:02 am
This site ( http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com/homosexuality.htm ) has some good reasons why homosexuality is not okay, and they aren't all religious. I believe 3-7 don't have any relation to religion, and some of the others aren't entirely Christian based either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:58 am
I looked over the the reasons.
They were....eh....
I will explain.
1. This rule could not make sense to me mostly because it is religious and more of an opinion biased thing.
2. Not only is this a "What-if" problem, but it also fails to state why sex is the only possible way of keep humanity alive. I am just saying, there is no law saying you have to become pregnant by sex only.
3. Not only do I find the statistics vague and unrepresented, but it fails to state WHY a mother and father is needed.
Most children in America have divorced parents, including me, and live very perfect and healthy lives even though they must face the problem of having to be under the care of a parent more than the other.
It also fails to state why the absent of one of the gender parents effect the child. It might not be the absence, but why the absence was caused and the loved one being gone.
Not to mention Peer Pressure is a terrible thing these days. I bet you could go to any city and find a kid who is made fun of by somebody because his parents are both male/female.
4. This part is also biased to religious beliefs and personal opinion, which does not need to draw my opinion mostly because I wont try to counter non-facts here.
5. This one doesn't make sense because it fails to state WHY homosexuals have a shorter life-span. I'm starting to think these little bits and parts in this website are going to be made up.
6. Please, gay domestic violence?
I KNOW this one was made up. I haven't seen an angry gay man yet.
If anything, my father is more angry than my gay aunt. We had to replace the windows because of his drunken mad self. He is a heterosexual.
I fail to see why gays would even have more of a problem with domestic violence more than heterosexuals anyway.
Why does it feel like most of these are grouping gays together, biasing most gays?
7. What? This doesn't even make sense...
Who was the person that told this guy gays only make up 3% of our population? I mean, what population are you trying to show? America or Earth? Either one would be completely wrong.
Don't get me started on the part where the guy took 1/3 and called them child molesters which is obviously not only wrong morally but just plain ignorant and incorrect.
8. I checked this part. Last time I checked America,we aren't considered a Theocracy and should never be a nation based on religion. Argo, I find this part, which is also of religious taste, null and void.
9. Just do what religious believers do when they have a belief and something is out of place in it: create a branch of it.
Gays can't have a branch of their own religion along with their own marriage? Atheists have their own type of marriage so gays should, too.
Unless your suggesting you don't want gays in your religion. But then we would have a national hate problem, wouldn't we?
10. The same thing was said when blacks wanted to marry whites back long ago in America. Oh look....I want to see a marriage with a woman and horse. However, those marriages exist today. A Japanese man married a video game character, a female.
However, you can't blame that on homosexuality.
Another biased opinion.
11. Again, they said the same thing with blacks and whites being together back in the 1800s-1900s. I can't see how a small title like marriage will cause Terrorism to happen in your home.
You did state that something 'wrong' is going on but what gives you the right to make the decision on what is 'right'?
Again, back in the 1800s-1900s, most people thought blacks and whites marrying was 'wrong' and unjust. What do we think about it today?
12. I never heard of a**l sex causing cancer. Call me when someone dies from having it up the butt. Till then, this argument also is small and easily pushed by.
Besides, we all know the genitalia is being misused by intended purposes. That is why people are having a fit about gays in the first place. Still doesn't tell me how it is 'wrong'.
13. I'm getting tired of the religious arguments here. Bring up something new. Besides, I don't see why a branch of Christianity can't be made to allow gays. It is possible.
14. This not only doesn't make sense and is based on false statistics, but I find the idea of 'Not being born gay' a poor excuse of an argument to begin with. No matter what side of the hedge you take on this argument, it still doesn't get to the point where why homosexuality is 'wrong'.
15. Again, your not given the right to decide what is moral and immoral. What if I said you had no right to write entries online about religious topics because you weren't gay?
Special Note by the Author:
Contradiction and Quote Mining.
Need I say more?
=====================================================
Bottom Line is, I can't see how that was suppose to convince me or show me how homosexuality is wrong in an anti-religious way. Not to mention 2/3 of the arguments were religious or at least religious based or related.
Those who have read my quote, open the other site in another tab and read his argument. Then, read my argument aligned with the one he stated. This way, you can understand better what I am addressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:35 am
Oooh, I want to play too! Quote: 1. Homosexuality injures the fabric of society, especially children. A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that “if anyone causes one of these little one’s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea.” Matthew 18:6 Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down Same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Medical professionals bloody have not affirmed that they are unhealthy and I would like some solid freakin' evidence that they have because that is one hell of a claim to go uncited. It would be nice if these medical professionals were alive and still practising, and not totally discredited. No indication yet why these relationships should be considered immoral beyond simply claiming that they are. Gender and sexual confusion occurs anyway. It has occured for centuries. Oscar Wilde was totally gay, and we LOVE him. He was a legend. The more "wrong" we consider homosexuality, the more angst and confusion will result. Proper education about gender issues will help people better understand who they are and what they are. Quote: 2. Homosexuality is anti procreation. Logically speaking, if everyone's sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone's sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race. Oh yeah, because everyone is homosexual, right? Oh wait, no, no, they're not. Only 5% of the population is exclusively homosexual. So it turns out that humanity isn't going to die out. Also. I am mostly heterosexual. I am also childfree. I have absolutely no intent to breed. Homosexual couples can, and have, had children, via adoption and in vitro, and even through choosing to have sex with someone of the opposite sex purely with this aim in mind. Being homosexual doesn't mean you don't want children any more than being hetero means you have to have them. Logically speaking, this argument fails. Quote: 3. Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family. Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child's life. (It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child’s life. Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality. But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality? If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way? Having two mothers or two fathers in no way means that there's no one of the other sex in that child's life. There are aunts, and uncles, cousins, grandparents. The most important thing is that the child is raised by two loving parents. Most children from homosexual parents are, if nothing else than because the parents have to jump through so many hoops to have them in the first place. There is NO evidence that a child brought up by homosexual parents is more likely to be homosexual - not that it would be a bad thing if there were, and homosexuality is not a damaging lifestyle. Stop projecting. I am beginning to suspect this person of being so far back in the closet he can see Narnia. The citation provided claims: Quote: Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children. My experience is in child development and psychology rather than sociology when it comes to this subject, and the stats I saw were claiming 5% as the number of LGBTs. Note "non-heterosexual" rather than "homosexual" in this study. They might consider themselves primarily heterosexual but not exclusively so; pansexual, asexual, bisexual or somewhere along the sexuality spectrum that isn't exclusively hetero. I have a hard time believing that only 2% of the population identifies as non-hetero if these studies are at all recent. I actually was going to keep going but this is taking ages and I want to play sims, and frankly some of the crap this man is spewing makes me feel rather ill. All this "I don't mean to be mean" stuff followed by "IT IS IMMORAL BECAUSE I SAY SO" is like people who say "I'm not a racist, but...." Oh, oh, except for this: Quote: Homosexuals are not born homosexual as studies of identical twins confirm this fact. Studies have shown that identical twins could each have different sexual orientations, thus showing that homosexuality has little if anything to do with genetics. On the average, when one identical twin is homosexual, the other twin is homosexual 38% of the time. This does not give much credence to the popular notion that homosexuality is genetic. lolwut? "There is a statistically massive number of twins who are gay if their twin is gay, but it's totally not genetic." Does this person not understand genetics or something? If it had NOTHING to do with genetics, the stats would be the same as in the average population. Duh. There is a clear and emphatic genetic link. Twin studies, for those unaware, are often carried out with twins who were adopted and raised apart, so that environmental influence can be minimised. Likewise, when considering twins raised together, identical twins are compared to fraternal twins, as they share twice as many genes as fraternal twins. Given that the stats are not 100%, it's obviously not exclusively genetic, but denying the genetic influence is ludicrous to the point of being hilarious. L2science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:39 am
Once again, San-Chan, you took the words right outta my mouth. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:35 pm
One thing I would like to add to the arguments people have already posted, the author of this propaganda makes a few obvious, objective faults in his logic from the get go...15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy.
He does this a lot, proving that homosexuality is bad because homosexuality is bad.
And my other huge problem with his logic- not even his points, but his logic, is that he tries to imply that correlation is the same as causation with points 4-7.15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society 4. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of infidelity. wikipedia Example 3 As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning. The aforementioned example fails to recognize the importance of time in relationship to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during the summer months at a much greater rate, and it is during the summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water based activities, not ice cream.
And I found that on the wikipedia page about "correlation does not imply causation" linked here
So even if there was a correlation between homosexuality and infidelity, he has not proved that homosexuality causes infidelity or that they have anything to do with each other at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
