Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

Neildo said:
...but rather it's those mentally disturbed people that feel they should dictate what others should do, that are the ones HARMING THEMSELVES.

But isn't that exactly what gays are trying to do? Of course it is! You're trying to dictate to us straights how marriage is to be defined .....when we've already done it to our satisfaction.

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Ain't no discrimination at all ...none!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Ain't no discrimination at all ...none!
Yes, it is. You are discriminating against males that want to marry males.
Get a fucking clue, you Nazi prick, this is the modern world. They're here, they're queer, who give a shit.
Stupid nazi conservative bullfuck drivel like yours is part of the reason humanity is going down the shit-pipe! :mad:
 
Hapsburg said:
They're here, they're queer, who give a shit.

I give a shit ....and so does the greater majority of citizens of the USA. Need any more?

Oh, and thanks so much for your kind words about me ....I appreciate it.

Baron Max
 
You seem to be forgetting the fact that the majority of US citizens are prudes and morons, who largely don't know shit. You included.
USA is not the world, you know, there are other people out there who are smarter, and have a better understanding of humanity that the greater population of the US.
 
Most state laws allow landlords to evict a tenant based upon sexual preference.
I think allowing it might be justifiable, but evicting a tenant based upon sexual preference would be hard to justify. In some cases, such as when the tenant is using the property to directly commt serious crimes, such as operating a crack house, then eviction might be necessary, but homosexuals aren't using the property to commit crimes or even sins.


Here's something for you to ponder, however. I carry out all of the duties of a husband in my household, including monetary support, discipline, guidance to both my husband and our children while he stays at home and is the homemaker and care giver to my children.
OK, why aren't you a husband? Could the state call you a husband?

Why is it that you believe that two homosexuals cannot carry out the same duties of a marriage that two heterosexuals can?
The word duty somehow implies action. All I meant was, two men in a loving relationship don't meet my definition of marriage, just as three men in a loving relationship doesn't yours, at least I think it doesn't. It doesn't matter how much love or activity these three men do, they can never be married.
 
okinrus said:
Well, take any state institution and you'll those unable to participate. For instance, in the Army, there are people who are either too young or too old. They aren't allowed in. But, nevertheless, no one says the Army discriminates by rejecting these people. Now with marriage, there are those not allowed in. Like in the Army, some are too young. And like the Army, no one says this is discrimination, because the greater populace believes those that are too young cannot participate in marriage. Why is it discrimination to believe that two men cannot partipate in marriage?

You're comparing apples to oranges here, Okinrus. The young and particularly old are kept out of the army because we don't trust 12 year olds with guns, or being responsible to make sure that materials show up where they need to be so that other people don't die - when it comes to life or death we generally want adults with some reasonable level of maturity to be handling these things. Alternately we also don't want a fat guy with a bad back and poor short-term memory. The easiest way to do this is to make reasonable age restrictions.

In marriage on the other hand is a contract between two people and not a social service. As such there is no valid reason to bar homosexuals from entering into it.

Please stop taking Barron Max's lead and throwing out comopletely nonsensical analogies which only fit if you jam them together really hard and then hope that no one takes a close look.
 
okinrus said:
Your argument is flawed here. If we were only considering legal defintiions, then marriage is between a man and a woman.

On a federal level it has only been this way since 1996 and 30 someod states which have amended their constitutions within the last four years. "One man and one woman" is a very recent piece of rhetoric.

Also legally speaking, nothing is ever set in stone, and all you've done here is point out the meat of the issue which the gay-rights movement is attempting to address at the moment. We want these laws repealed.
 
okinrus said:
The word duty somehow implies action. All I meant was, two men in a loving relationship don't meet my definition of marriage, just as three men in a loving relationship doesn't yours, at least I think it doesn't. It doesn't matter how much love or activity these three men do, they can never be married.

And is this merely a personal philosophical or theological opinion, an actionable opinion for public policy, or do you even draw a line between the two?
 
ReighnStorm said:
Animals are born a certain way just like human animals. We all have feelings even as children when things aren't right. (won't give examples on that). you do not speak for all people....what you're doing is assuming those things. You can't say with definitive proof that a child would not recognize and dislike the difference!
So you're telling me that a 5 month old child who has homosexual parents would recognise and dislike their parents because they are homosexual? You'd say the same thing for a 1 or 2 year old as well? A child is born as a blank slate. Bigotry and prejudism is a learnt behaviour. Like a small child won't dislike a child from another race unless it is taught to do so.

People commit suicide for a number of reasons. And you agreed with 3 or more of my points! You can't tell me with definitive proof why all people gay commit suicide.
Yes people commit suicide for a number of reasons. And I agreed that homosexuals committed suicide because of the reasons you posted. What you have failed to understand yet again, is that the reasons you've posted shows that they are committing suicide because of abuse and mistreatment from people who hold you kind of views. Lets look at the figures you have posted several times on here:

http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/wiked/index.php/GLBTC
o Lesbian and gay youth commit 30% of the completed suicides annually with suicide being the leading cause of death.
o 28% of gay/lesbians high school students in a national study were seen to have dropped out of school because of harassment resulting from their sexual orientation.
o 45% of gay and 20% of lesbian reports having experienced verbal harassment and or physical violence as a result of their sexual orientation during high school (Youth Pride Inc.1997)
Dropout 28% of gay/lesbian high school students in a national study were seen to have dropped out of school because of harassment resulting from their sexual orientation.

Violence: 45% of gay and 20% of lesbians report having experienced verbal harassment and/or physical violence as a result of their sexual orientation during high school
Homelessness: 26% of gay and lesbian youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts with their families over their sexual identities.
Student Attitudes: 97% of students in public high schools report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers.

Now note the reasons in bold. The figures state that 30% of all youth suicide are committed by homosexual teenagers. That 70% of youth suicide are committed by heterosexuals is also ignored by you. Now look at the figures underneath underneath the suicide rate and see the amount of abuse, both physical and verbal, that homosexual youths have to deal with. Now put two and two together. Why do you think 30% of the youth who commit suicide are homosexual? Could their treatment by people with your views and opinions have something to do with it? After all, if a child goes to school and is continuously abused and beaten up because they are homosexual, you don't think that could be seen to be one of the primary factors in that child committing suicide? And then the child goes home and is abused at home as well because they are homosexual. The child is discriminated against by all of society by people with views such as yours. You don't think that would contribute to the child committing suicide?

When a child is taught by its parents and its society that homosexuality is "bad, wrong, disgusting, depressing, degrading and nasty" (your own words from throughout this thread), you don't think that child is going to portray what it has been taught when it comes across another child who is homosexual? Now imagine the child who grows up in a home where such thoughts are often taught and in a society that thinks that way, you don't think that will adversely affect the homosexual child?

Both clinical and epidemiological literature point to elevated rates of suicidal behaviours in Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youth (GLBY). Recent North American and New Zealand studies of large populations (especially the US Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from several States) indicate that gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents (and males in particular) can have rates of serious suicide attempts which are least four times those in apparently heterosexual youth. There are various reasons why this figure is likely to be an underestimate. Reasons for these elevated rates of suicidal behaviour include a climate of homophobic persecution in schools, and sometimes in family and community - values and actions which stigmatise homosexuality and which the youth who has not yet ‘come out’ has to endure in silence.
Link
Now do you see why your figures point to youth suicide amongst homosexuals is caused by people with views such as yours? You have exclaimed several times that you find them disgusting and other awful terms which I don't wish to repeat again. People saying such things and treating them that way is a major factor why they do commit suicide. You may wish to deny it, but research has proven otherwise.

You can't assure me of anything. You don't make any decisions! The civil rights for AA's can't die out because of people like you. If equal rights do matter to you then why are you so against my EQUAL right to voice what I feel about gays marrying and adopting. You're practicing the very same thing you claim to hate! WOW!
Your beliefs are your own. I went into my studies in the bid of working for equal rights and human rights, which I believe go hand in hand in many ways and having been doing for quite a while now. You live in a free society where your views can be freely expressed. But when those views are then used by the State as a further means to ensure the repression and discrimination of people within your society while you sit there and cheer along, then people like me will speak out against people like you. It is people with views such as yours that gives the State the power to discriminate. When the State puts basic rights up for a popular vote, you aren't bothered by that? You don't find it disturbing? You even posted a quote stating that one's rights should never be put up for the popular vote. The fact that it is tells me that people with views such as yours are winning the fight against giving everyone equal rights.

I brought the statistics to your face to show you what is happening to gays. What are you trying to do about it?....Nothing at all except talk about how you can't sleep at night because you hate me for having an opinion. Again WOW! All the name calling is all you have isn't it. You can't have a discussion without it? Feel better now? The only person bringing up my blackness is you...which I've told you time and again I'm not just black...I carry the blood of slavers and the slaves, I'm on both sides of the fence. there is no superioty in my gene pool...there mixed which I keep having to say to you. I guess you're just on a rant! You don't like blacks, religion, personal freedom (opinions), truth, honesty and you have no respect for the conversation. I said let the cause die out (once again) meaning let them marry and go through their turmoil. Everyone has turmoil whatever the reasons may be!
How do you know what I do about it? You do not know what I do for a living Reighn, so I'd suggest you say nothing in that regard. I do much more than sit there and "talk". As for the name calling, do you want me to rehash your behaviour in that regard? In all honesty, I do not care what colour you are. I was merely amazed that someone who professes to believe in equal rights for one group of people can be so hateful and would gladly repress the rights of another group of people. As for my not liking blacks? Where exactly have I said that? For your information Reighn, I am a descendant of African slaves and I happen to be very proud of my ancestry, be it the African side and the French and Dutch side. Prouder than you can ever imagine. I am not proud of the fact that some relatives of my ancestors were in fact slave owners, actually the thought sickens me. As for my opinions about religion? What of them? I personally think organised religion is one of the most hypocritical aspects that plague our society. However I don't go around demanding that churches be closed and religions be banned in the way that you appear to go around and say what you say about homosexuals. Personal freedom? Refer to above.

Bells, you're not qualified to assure me on anything, you don't know what every child is thinking or feels. And again about vultures and learned behavior..answer me this. Who taught the vultures their behavior. Everyone is born with prejudice and discrimination. You use these words too loosely! Those behaviors may manifest into something more when their adults.
You think a child is born to discriminate and show prejudice against others? You actually think that a child comes out of the womb with that already imprinted into its brain? Good grief Reighn! A child is born with only the instincts of survival (as in to suckle, etc). A child is not born to discriminate or show prejudiced thoughts. Such behaviours are taught and learned.
The logic is that why haven't we addressed the issues of the crimes first or at least at the same time the laws are changed or being changed. You mean it doesn't infuriate you to know that people are still being treated with this injustice! The government has not made or adjusted tougher laws against hate crime. That's what I'm saying! We should be fighting for that more than fighting for marriage and further adoption. If gays are being murdered and committing suicided (like other hate crime victims), don't you think that needs to be addressed. I would say yes. Your logic in what I say is, "no one should be allowed to marry and no one should be allowed any rights whatsoever." That's not what I said or would ever say. I'm saying that we have greater issues upon us now! Hate crimes against any race should be above all else dealt with! period. Learn from past mistakes! Period. Laws to protect blacks and others hated because of the color of their skin should have been outlined when blacks did finally get the right to be human! Period!
Yes it needs to be addressed. But it does not mean that we should infringe on their rights in the meantime. Of course it infuriates me to think that others are treated that way. Why do you think I've been coming down so hard on you for saying the things you have been saying? What you are saying is that we should put the equal rights of homosexuals on the backburner while we tackle the crimes and abuses they face by people in society who have the same opinion as you do against them. By doing so, it gives people with views such as your own, more power to abuse them and to further diminish their already paltry rights. You may think that homosexual marriages as a trivial issue. But to homosexuals it is a very important issue and they are right in thinking so. The reason being is that it is a central issue to their equal rights. Hate crimes do need to be addressed. But that does not mean that we should not deal with the equal rights of all people at the same time. Both are vitally important Reighn.

That discrimination occurs in society goes without saying. But in fighting discrimination, we must also ensure that people's rights are not infringed upon or diminished. Because if we do not fight for equal rights, we empower those who are doing the actual discrminating. The denial of a homosexual's right to marry empowers others who think that they are disgusting, depressing, nasty, etc, and it allows those people to further discriminate against them. The State sanctions your behaviour and your treatment against homosexuals. I find that to be personally reprehensible. You are correct. You are quite free to voice your opinions about homosexuals. But remember that in doing so, you further empower the State to restrict and further diminish their rights and you also empower others to commit violent acts against them. Just as the racists empowered the State to diminish and to encroach upon the rights of African Americans and Native Americans, you are doing the same thing in regards to homosexuals.

Equal rights is one of the "greater issues" Reighn. It always has been and it always will be.
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
....in fighting discrimination, we must also ensure that people's rights are not infringed upon or diminished.

Would that also include men being permitted in the women's restrooms and lockers? Is that not a form of discrimination against men? How should we fight that discrimination?? Or why shouldn't we fight it?

Bells said:
Equal rights is one of the "greater issues" Reighn. It always has been and it always will be.

Straight men can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

That is not discriminating against anyone! It's equal rights for both. In regard to marriage, gays are treated exactly the same as straight, normal males ....no discrimination! Perfectly equal rights under the law.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Straight men can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

That is not discriminating against anyone! It's equal rights for both. In regard to marriage, gays are treated exactly the same as straight, normal males ....no discrimination! Perfectly equal rights under the law.

Baron Max
Ah Baron. I see that you've taken the time from sitting on your front porch and shooting the coloured folk as they walk past your front gate, to come here to post the same old line over and over again.

It would not be discriminating if that line read "straight men can marry males, gay males can marry males". There! No discrimination and it would amount to equal rights for all under the law.

I understand you have issues with equal rights, seeing that you consider yourself superior because of your gender and your race. But to other normal individuals in society, the equal rights of everyone is vitally important.
 
You're comparing apples to oranges here, Okinrus. The young and particularly old are kept out of the army because we don't trust 12 year olds with guns, or being responsible to make sure that materials show up where they need to be so that other people don't die
I knew when comparing marriage with military service there were differences, butboth institutions have requirements. We expect a soldier to be athletic, to be fairly young, and to not be fat and have a poor back. On the other hand, some expect marriage to be between a man and a wife, others expect it to be between two people.

On a federal level it has only been this way since 1996 and 30 someod states which have amended their constitutions within the last four years. "One man and one woman" is a very recent piece of rhetoric.
The laws on books about marriage were between a man and woman unless previously stated. To me, unless qualified, marriage is between a man a wife.

And is this merely a personal philosophical or theological opinion, an actionable opinion for public policy, or do you even draw a line between the two?
Well, both. First, my theological definition might be stricter; there are people, of couirse, who are married in the eyes of the law but who are not married, never married. They usually get divorced after two years or so. But this type of theological definition is not enforcible. Second, as a personal definition that doesn't infringe on any one else's rights or religion, it's suitable for public policy. But so is definitions that marriage be between two people, or three people for that matter. People when faced with all fair definitions choose the one that is either most beneficial to them or to society.
 
One of my many problems with this is that I believe in order for me to accept Gay marriage and Adoption, means that I accept homosexuals as being normal. No different than me (heterosexuals) but (in my opinion) there's a huge difference that's unacceptable by me, which in turn, makes me disagree with the gay marriage thing. Here's some extreme examples why.

http://www.queermarriage.com/index.php?content=Timeline
http://www.edifyingspectacle.org/weblog/archives/ambiguously_gendered/unrealized_sexuality_gay_.php
oprah winfrey show
5-6 and 5-7-2003 My Husband Became A Woman! DAY ONE: Jenny always knew that she wanted to be a woman, even though she was born male. To her students and wife she was known as James before the operation. Once she became a woman, everyone accepted her and she insists that she has always been attracted to women, just born in the wrong body. Jenny is also the parent of two kids with Grace and although they remained married after the sex change, they are no longer intimate. DAY TWO: Like Jenny, Tom always felt he should have been a woman. He also married and had children, but the secret was let out when his wife, Angelita, found his female clothes in the garage. Tom, now Tami, takes hormones and is scheduled to have a sex change in 2004. Angelita said she wants to stay with Tami.
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000030.html
http://www.filmakers.com/GAY.html
Adventures in the Gender Trade: A Case for Diversity
Kate Bornstein, writer and performer, was born a man. This documentary presents her frank account of her personal journey from unhappy boy child into liberated transsexual lesbian. (more)

Homosexual, or gay, refers to people whose sexual and romantic feelings are mostly for the same gender: Men who are attracted to men, and women who are attracted to women.
Lesbian refers to women who are homosexual.
Bisexual or "bi" refers to people whose sexual and romantic feelings are for both genders.
Transgender is an umbrella term that encompasses a diversity of gender expression including drag queens and kings, bi-genders, crossdressers, transgenderists, and transsexuals.
Transvestites are people who like to dress like members of the opposite sex.
Transsexuals are people who feel that their anatomical sex does not match the gender with which they identify.
Bigender refers to people who define themselves as having the behavioral, cultural or psychological characteristics associated with both the male and female genders.
Transgenderist describes someone who is gender variant or transgresses gender norms as part of their lifestyle or identity.
From the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, please see the rest of this article and related information at: http://www.health.org/features/lgbt/whoisgay.htm
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
So you're telling me that a 5 month old child who has homosexual parents would recognise and dislike their parents because they are homosexual? You'd say the same thing for a 1 or 2 year old as well? A child is born as a blank slate. Bigotry and prejudism is a learnt behaviour. Like a small child won't dislike a child from another race unless it is taught to do so.
Definitive proof?


Yes people commit suicide for a number of reasons. And I agreed that homosexuals committed suicide because of the reasons you posted. What you have failed to understand yet again, is that the reasons you've posted shows that they are committing suicide because of abuse and mistreatment from people who hold you kind of views. Lets look at the figures you have posted several times on here:
I said this already and told you and neildo exactly what you're telling me



When a child is taught by its parents and its society that homosexuality is "bad, wrong, disgusting, depressing, degrading and nasty" (your own words from throughout this thread), you don't think that child is going to portray what it has been taught when it comes across another child who is homosexual? Now imagine the child who grows up in a home where such thoughts are often taught and in a society that thinks that way, you don't think that will adversely affect the homosexual child?
So if a homosexual tought his child about homosexuality, you're saying the child will become homosexual?


It is people with views such as yours that gives the State the power to discriminate. When the State puts basic rights up for a popular vote, you aren't bothered by that? You don't find it disturbing? You even posted a quote stating that one's rights should never be put up for the popular vote. The fact that it is tells me that people with views such as yours are winning the fight against giving everyone equal rights.
It was a post. not an agreement by me about the post. Just posted it for conversation


You think a child is born to discriminate and show prejudice against others? You actually think that a child comes out of the womb with that already imprinted into its brain? Good grief Reighn! A child is born with only the instincts of survival (as in to suckle, etc). A child is not born to discriminate or show prejudiced thoughts. Such behaviours are taught and learned.
Again, definitive proof?
 
Avatar said:
So what's wrong with people enjoying their lives? :confused:
Apparently, fundies and racists, such as Baronmax, don't like people that are different than them.
Whod'a thunk it?
 
Avatar said:
So what's wrong with people enjoying their lives?

As long as they don't "harm" others in doing so, I think they should be able to enjoy what they like.

But legal marriage ain't an "enjoyment", it's a legal contract between a man and a woman.

And same-sex marriage is certainly not one that does NOT cause "harm". Some people feel that they ARE "harmed" by same-sex marriage ...some feel "harmed" by even being in close proximity to homos.

As someone mentioned above ....I enjoy sitting on my front porch shooting all the minorities that walk by ....but they won't let me enjoy that no more! They said the noise from the .44 magnum was just too much in the neighborhood!! ....LOL!

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Ain't no discrimination in that law at all.

Baron Max
 
Bells said:
But to other normal individuals in society, the equal rights of everyone is vitally important.

Normal? Would that include males who like to suck dicks and fuck other males in the asshole? That kind of "normal", you mean?

Baron Max
 
Would that also include men being permitted in the women's restrooms and lockers? Is that not a form of discrimination against men? How should we fight that discrimination?? Or why shouldn't we fight it?

It's not restricted by official law, it's just a common curtesy law. I've been in the women's restroom many times when the men's was filled. Heck, I've been in there with other women too. And I've been in the girl's locker room at school too since I was an aide for the class, although I only went in when the girls weren't present. However, when I helped coach the girl's varsity softball team, I was able to go in there even when the girls were in there changing. Mwuahahaha! Some of my goals in life were completed with those acts. :p

I knew when comparing marriage with military service there were differences, butboth institutions have requirements. We expect a soldier to be athletic, to be fairly young, and to not be fat and have a poor back. On the other hand, some expect marriage to be between a man and a wife, others expect it to be between two people.

Yes, but in the case of the Army, certain people fail to meet the requirements to perform a certain duty. What exactly is the duty required in marriage that only a man and woman can do? Marriage isn't about sex otherwise all the married couples who choose not to have children or those who cannot have children due to reproductive issues would be banned from marriage as well rather than just homosexuals.

To me, unless qualified, marriage is between a man a wife.

What qualifications are those?

First, my theological definition might be stricter...

Church and State are supposed to be seperate under law.

5-6 and 5-7-2003 My Husband Became A Woman! DAY ONE: Jenny always knew that she wanted to be a woman, even though she was born male. To her students and wife she was known as James before the operation. Once she became a woman, everyone accepted her and she insists that she has always been attracted to women, just born in the wrong body. Jenny is also the parent of two kids with Grace and although they remained married after the sex change, they are no longer intimate. DAY TWO: Like Jenny, Tom always felt he should have been a woman. He also married and had children, but the secret was let out when his wife, Angelita, found his female clothes in the garage. Tom, now Tami, takes hormones and is scheduled to have a sex change in 2004. Angelita said she wants to stay with Tami.

And how's this any different from any other example of someone trying to be something they're not? Acting like people they're not? Trying to fit into a social group they're not? Some surburban white wigger actin black? Tiger Woods? (<-- joke) Or let's talk about cosmetics since a sex change is cosmetic, just a major one. People getting their teeth fixed when that's not how they actually are? Women wearing wonderbras to make their breasts bigger than they are? Girls wearing extensions to have longer hair than they do? Men wearing toupees to pretend to have real hair? Women wearing high heels to be taller than they are? People dying their hair? Guys taking penis enlarging pills? You name it, they're all fakes.

You don't think people can't be born a male or women yet feel they're the opposite sex? What do you think about hermaphrodites? Those born with both sex organs? Go ahead and call them unnatural, but they're no different than mentally retarded or physically handicapped people. Do you hold the same feeling towards handicapped people and mentally retarded people? Are you a Eugenist?

So you're telling me that a 5 month old child who has homosexual parents would recognise and dislike their parents because they are homosexual? You'd say the same thing for a 1 or 2 year old as well? A child is born as a blank slate. Bigotry and prejudism is a learnt behaviour. Like a small child won't dislike a child from another race unless it is taught to do so.

You think a child is born to discriminate and show prejudice against others? You actually think that a child comes out of the womb with that already imprinted into its brain? Good grief Reighn! A child is born with only the instincts of survival (as in to suckle, etc). A child is not born to discriminate or show prejudiced thoughts. Such behaviours are taught and learned.

Definitive proof?

You need proof for that statement? Oh please. I guess babies really AREN'T innocent when born. Go abortionists!

So if a homosexual tought his child about homosexuality, you're saying the child will become homosexual?

No, now if that homosexual tought his child that homosexuality is the way and only way to live and all others are bad, then yeah, the child would most likely turn into a homosexual unless peer pressure changes them or drives the kid to suicide. It's no different when a black says the white man is evil or a white man says to hate all ni.. you know what I mean.

- N
 
ReighnStorm

One of my many problems with this is that I believe in order for me to accept Gay marriage and Adoption, means that I accept homosexuals as being normal. No different than me (heterosexuals) but (in my opinion) there's a huge difference that's unacceptable by me, which in turn, makes me disagree with the gay marriage thing. Here's some extreme examples why.
So because they make you go "ewww", you will fight to not give them equal rights? You are quite happy to sit there with the knowledge that not everyone has equal rights as you do and you'll even agree with it because they are homosexual. But hey, as long as your rights aren't infringed upon, that's all that matters to you right? Those people are happy with their lives and so are their partners it seems (from the quotes you've posted), so what's your problem?

ReighnStorm said:
Definitive proof?

----------------------------------------------------

Again, definitive proof?
You need proof that a child is not born with the knowledge to automatically discriminate against others because of their race, sexuality, etc, even if it is not taught to do so? :eek:

I'd suggest you have a quick look through these links:

Helping our kids live violence free

University of Manitoba: Equity Services - Homophobia

Oh look, here's another one:

Racism and prejudice may be natural for societies, but a learned behaviour for individuals. Racism and prejudice are an intrinsic part of the structure of society, not necessarily of the minds of people. We should take care not to confuse 'natural' with unchangeable.
Link

ReighnStorm said:
So if a homosexual tought his child about homosexuality, you're saying the child will become homosexual?
You tell me. Society has been teaching children about heterosexuality and about how it is the only way, yet many are still born homosexual and remain so till the day they die.

That is a very silly question Reighn and you know it... or maybe you really don't.. the thought of which disturbs me actually. I understand you have an absolute fear and dislike for homosexuality and homosexuals in general. You have stated several times that you find them to be disgusting, etc. But that is not the reason to start sounding like a fool.

It was a post. not an agreement by me about the post. Just posted it for conversation
Really? You didn't post it for conversation. You posted it because you thought it would somehow validate your argument. When you realised that it did not, you flipped sides, yet again.

So now you think that one's rights should come up for a popular vote? I wonder how you would feel if the racists in society started pushing for the abolition of marriage between non-white Americans and it was put to a popular vote? Would you feel outraged? Or would you simply sit there and agree that such rights should be up for a vote? Are you telling me that you agree that a equal rights should be up for a popular vote? You think that is right? Or are you saying it is only right for homosexuals because you don't like them? Reighn, you are a prime example of why the fight to push for human rights and equal rights is vital in today's society.

Avatar
So what's wrong with people enjoying their lives?
Well apparently it is wrong because people like Reighn and Baron think it's "ewwww".
 
Back
Top