I thought you homos were born like that? Don't you think it is ironic that the two females in the lawsuit were both married to men and both have children by them? What about Anne Heche and the thousands of ex-homos who live happy hetero lives now? What about the studies that prove there is no "gay gene"? You people are in denial and you need to stop trying to make the world tell you that you are normal.
sintetsu, abortion and LGBT civil rights are very different subjects, as there are a number of gay people who are pro-life as well as pro-choice. Also, I feel that being gay is natural as I would know living in my body, and as long as you're not able to transport yourself into my body to find out for yourself, you will never really know, so it helps to listen to someone like me and have more of an open mind. Lastly, it is wise to stay away from stereotypes, as each human being is different.
did you not read the part where i siad MOST gays are not prolife? its kinda the first thing i wrote. humans have more similarities than differences. i was just pointing out how MOST people who demand rights for themselves, are generally selfish. such as gays who are pro-choice. equal rights for all humans, except the innocent unborn ones hey? and i admit, i have no knowledge as to how one could think its natural to perform sex acts on the same gender.... i honestly dont know and never will.
sintetsu, I hope you can listen to others who are gay tell you that being gay is something they feel naturally can can not change. I fought being gay for a year, then came out, and have been out for 15 years. On a side note, I really can't see how the human state of selfishness is a correlation to a human being's demand to be treated equally under the law, and also, if your intention is to engage in an open communication with me, I would suggest for you to not comment in an accusatory manner.
equal= the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. that is equal. would you be against polygamy and incest? many gays are, which is contradictory and narrow minded. i think marriage should be between a man and woman. gays seem to be in their own mental prison. kinda like hardcore religious ppl. yes i compared the two.
Philmusicmike006, I welcome thoughtful conversation, but I do not appreciate pejorative and disrespectful comments, and I ban those users who show blatant and perverse disrespect.
regardless of minority status. Homosexual are a vulnerable minority. Therefore homosexuals being denied the right to marry is unconstitutional discrimination.
You are incorrect. The arguments against incest and polygamy do not apply to homosexuals. These restriction are made to protect probable offspring as well as the simple fact that communal marriage tax benefits would be unreasonable as the communal marriage would bring in much higher income.
Obviously homosexuals don't reproduce. They can, but they choose to pair up with someone with whom that's impossible. However, a ban on homosexual "marriage" would certainly protect children from being introduced into an environment that is dysfunctional, in that it's impossible for 2 homosexual parents to provide the role models of both sexes that children need.
Homosexuals obviously desire marriage more for the tax benefits and society's seal of approval than anything else.
To make it simpler for you to understand, a very small fraction of heterosexual parents have to use fertility clinics or outside sources, whereas 100% of homosexual couples have to use someone totally unrelated to one or both of them to produce new life. Why reward 100% of unions that have no biological means between them of bringing forth new life.
And 100% of homosexual families are dysfunctional in that they give the child NO perspective on BOTH sexes in the parenting role.
Here's were your wrong, and will lose. Equality under the law and equality of rights plays a huge role. If you are going to strip marriage from homosexuals on those grounds, you also have to take it from couples who are infertile, elderly, and single parents will have their children taken away. :-)
One standard for all. You don't create second class citizenship.
No. What you do is lift the tax benefits from those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children. You don't add people who can't biologically couple to bring forth new life into the mix. Let them continue living together as they always have. You've now got married heteros with children getting tax benefits and married heteros w/no kids and homosexuals who won't have kids not getting those benefits. That's equal and fair. No need to let homosexuals "marry".
If your lifting the tax benefits for those who don't have kids, why not allow homosexuals to marry. It would be the same thing. :-) your running in circles now.
What's the benefit for homosexuals to marry then, if there are no tax benefits? Societal acceptance?
They gripe about married couples having those benefits and the only way, supposedly, for homosexuals to get those benefits is through marriage. If those benefits are removed, what's the need to marry? All I see from your harping on it is the need to have society say homosexual "marriages" are normal. You don't get that from a marriage license. You get it from convincing people it's the case.
I said no tax benefits. There is much more connected to legal marriage than tax benefits. The fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with equal treatment.
Also you are wrong, the only way to receive the same legal status as marriage is...dun dun duh marriage. There are legal contracts that are similar, but they do not hold as much legal validity, and cost thousands of dollars to get.
Fine. Sounds like your fight should be for laws that make legal contracts available that provide the freebies homosexuals are looking for, and at lower cost, rather than trying to totally redefine the meaning of marriage as it's lasted for milennia.
Until you prove all homosexuals are born that way, it's simply a choice. Equal treatment thus is already available through marriage to someone of the opposite sex. I know, you think that's stupid, but it's reality.
Until you prove that homosexuality isn't a choice, it's natural.
Dude,seriously, you have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that it's a choice. But we have the majority of homosexuals saying it isn't a choice and the APA saying it isn't a choice.
We can obviously trust the APA's opinion, since they also have designated shyness as a mental disorder.
They obviously got it wrong and cleared homosexuality while giving shyness the label homosexuality should have.
Until YOU can disprove homosexuals have left the lifestyle and are now living happily as heterosexuals, it's a choice, going from the abnormal to the normal.
Homosexuality used to be a mental disorder, and was removed because nobody could prove it was.
And so now I have to prove that every homosexual in the world cannot change. I should go talk to everyone JUST so you can believe something you quite obviously don't believe.
You have all the odds against you. All the proof you need, and you still deny it.
You have scores of people who've made the switch, some of them with videos here on youtube. You can choose to ignore their stories because you KNOW it's impossible to change, or accept them for what they are, happy, fulfilled heterosexuals, no longer living a homosexual lifestyle.
As for the disorder, someday the APA will get it "straight" and switch the disorder from shyness and back to homosexuality.
"Denying their own sexuality". That's rich. Homosexuals can't fathom the fact someone would want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. They figure it's impossible because "they were born that way".
Bisexuals are a good example of people making a choice of their sexual preference. Homosexuals simply choose to stay where they are. Perhaps that isn't as abnormal in their eyes as bisexuality. Still abnormal, though.
carnaco2, it's been determined that sexual orientation of the parents does not have a significant effect on how children are raised. I think there are ways to provide a role model to children of the opposite sex of same-sex parents during their childhood. What really matters is if children are being loved and nurtured, and whether we are gay or straight, we all have the capability of providing loving homes to children.
We obviously disagree, since 100% of homosexual parents have to go outside the family to find proper opposite sex role models. It's something akin to single parents trying to raise children on their own, having to call on uncle Fred or aunt Mary to give a positive opposite sex role model.
Why put the child in such an environment when an opposite sex couple provides both models without having to rely on outsiders, something ALL homosexual parents have to do, but few heterosexual parents do.
Heterosexuals are always willing to accept homosexuals who wish to return to the heterosexual preference all are born with. We're VERY accepting. Homosexuals simply have to make the choice. It'd make it a whole lot easier to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Let the people have their say through a vote and New York will slip back into the ranks of people rightly recognizing homosexual "marriage" as the latest fad devised by homosexuals to quickly fall by the wayside.
Did a vote decide that the slaves would be freed? Did a vote decide that women would have the power to vote? Did a vote decide the end of Jim Crow laws? Did a vote end the 3/5 policies? No. The supreme courts are doing their job. Judicial review and deciding upon the constitutionality of laws and legislation.
As for the newest fads devised by homosexuals...so the judges are all gay, as well as the legislators, house of reps, and senates. Yeah thats certainly the case. ;)
If the Supreme Court can make law out of thin air as it did with Roe, it can prounounce drag queens a protected species.
The people have the right to vote on any issue, and there are always appeals to the courts. Doesn't mean the courts will necessarily overturn what some like to call a "civil rights" issue.
1st, get a court to confirm your choice isn't that in the 1st place. It was obvious one's skin color wasn't a choice. Not so cut and dried with sexual choice.
Uh...no people don't have the right to vote on any issue. Sorry that has never been how the american legal system works. Or did you forget all about those elected officials and checks and balances in power? You know that carefully orchestrated system to prevent one group from having to much power or misusing it? And that whole idea of judicial review to prevent unconstitutional activity. You know there are ways of appealing it right? So no the supreme courts dont have to much power.
Many would disagree about the Supreme Court not having too much power. They certainly threw their weight around when the liberals were in the majority.
Come to California. Our referendum system allows us to vote on any measure that's put on the ballot. Witness Prop 8.
True, it's before the state court, but state justices have to run for re-election and Calif. dumped its Chief Justice under Jerry Brown years ago.
Many people also think/wish we lived in a mob rule democracy. See some people like to forget the lessons of time, and just exactly why the founding fathers did not envision a mob rule nation. The mod is big and dumb and has every intention of disallowing freedom to the minority.
I agree, but if a vote of the people passes judicial review, it's the law of the land. That includes amendments to one's state constitution. By no means is that mob rule.
You're just irked because people find homosexual marriage something that goes against the grain of society. Some people feel similar about abortion but have to live with the laws as they now stand.
I don't quite get what you mean in your first sentence. Clarify please. Its sounds like your saying the vote of the people surpasses judicial review. And to that I say, if that was true, civil rights would be sorely different. Until the early sixties blacks did not have equal civil rights, and that was because DUN DUN DUH judicial review. The constitution speaks nothing of interracial marriage, or of race at all, it speaks in terms of all people, all given equal rights. No heterosexualonlyclause
A vote of the people stands, unless it's appealed to the court system. Whatever the court rules becomes the law of the land. If the vote isn't appealed, the vote stands as the law of the land.
California's constitution allows for such a vote to amend the constitution. Even if the state high court rules against prop 8, it won't be the last of it.
Other states have similar mechanisms for amending their constitutions; some, no doubt through a vote of the people.
I'd certainly like to see the decisions of the courts and legislatures in the handful of states opening the door to homosexual unions reversed.
carnaco2, I think what the CA Supreme Court needs to determine is the definition of inalienable. It's been proven that marriage is a fundamental and inalienable right, and homosexuality is a suspect class deserving of equal rights, therefore one could argue that this right can not be changed or altered and any attempt, even from public vote to amend the constitution, would be considered unconstitutional. This is the basis for Jerry Browne's position to not defend prop 8 in court.
I'm sure you would like that, however, don't hope for much.
And there is no doubt that California is a long way from being at an end in this battle...but you might notice the trend. Each time the votes are narrower and narrower...your side is losing momentum and votes.
carnaco2, to throw something out there - you know what it is like to feel how you feel inside yourself, but as long as you don't have the ability to transport yourself into another person's body, you will never know what it is like to innately understand how another person feels inside his/her body, and therefore it takes having an open mind to listen to what a gay person says to you about what it feels like to be gay. I don't know how it feels to be straight, but I could understand it.
SeanChapin--Since I view homosexuality as a choice, not something one it born with, I would more than likely treat it like other things that are choices and that society has traditionally viewed abnormal behavior. It would be for the purpose of helping that person to reverse their choice, not to continue living such a lifestyle.
carnaco2, why do you think homosexuality is unnatural? Maybe two gay people can't naturally procreate, but does that alone make their sexual orientation unnatural? If homosexuality is unnatural, then why is homosexuality commonly found in many other animal species on our planet? How do you konw that being gay is unnatural when you are unable to travel inside a gay person's mind and body and feel how that person naturally feels?
You can say it's unnatural because you probably feel one is born that way. Try & get inside the head of others who feel it's a choice and you'd hear many of them say that since male & female were created the way they are, engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex, no matter how mild or intense the relation, goes against nature's design to bring forth new generations. Simply because one has feelings for someone of the same sex but can't reproduce, doesn't make the feelings normal.
carnaco2, if a heterosexual couple was unable to reproduce because of their own reproductive defects, are their feelings for each other considered normal?
Biologically, they complement one another and their emotions reflect the natural compatibility that results in humans being created to complement one another biologically and emotionally.
Two people of the same sex have no way to complement one another because nature hasn't equipped them for that, biologically or emotionally, resulting in an unnatural pairing.
carnaco2, how are a man and a woman's emotions naturally compatible with each other compared to two women or two men? If I were to tell you that I have experienced a strong emotional bond with another man in a prior relationship that lasted over a number of years, and that it felt natural and compatible to both of us, what would your response be?
If nature has equipped them with sexual organs that are compatible, it follows that it would also equip them w/emotional make-ups that would attract them to 1 another so that their sexual organs can be used properly to successfully fulfill each other sexually.
Nature's obvious design of the biology & emotions is to lead to reproduction of the species. Using what nature has created w/someone who can't contriibute to the furtherance of the species would be unnatural, no matter the emotions felt
carnaco2, do you think you might be confusing the concepts of what is natural vs. what is ideal in describing homosexuality with respect to the continuation of the human species, and/or the concept of what is natural between homosexuality by itself vs. homosexuality specifically in relation to procreation? Also, do you think nature's design is to only procreate furthering population growth, or could nature also be adding a growth balance check with homosexuality in controlling overpopulation?
One could just as easily assume that genetic or hormonal defects that shorten one's life is nature's way of slowing population growth.
Even if that were the case, and even if homosexuality was proven to be a genetic or hormonal problem, such things would be a departure from the norm on the part of nature and candidates for a remedy to prevent such future occurrences from happening, since humans have fairly widespread access to contraceptive devices.
I would say i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). bye
brandon; such a dumb ignorant comment. america has a govt OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE. even so, how about if our reps allow PROP 8? good job ignoring everything else i said, i know you wouldnt understand. i bet you didnt see my playlist to see what i think and y
"Ignorant" and "dumb" can only describe your playlist. I'm sorry. But when you have a video that states "homosexuals are as dumb as sheep!" I'm not going to give you the benefit of an open ear.
just cause a playlist doesnt accept nasty immoral acts as natural or moral or marriage doesnt mean its ignorant or dumb. that statement was backed up in the vid and the 1 after it. wtf is open ear supposed to mean
its not common since i never heard it and it dont make me any less smart cause i never heard 1 thing. good job attacking the person instead of the argument (Ad homonym for u since u r obviously uneducated)
brandom, youve done nothing to change my vote but show ur side is annoying and dumb. i still say i dont have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand so unless u see my homosexuality playlist/comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). i wont read/reply 2u now so bye
sean; i hope you will 1 day learn what the strawman fallacy is and not use it in your argument and/or read the initial comment people make so you dont read what ever out of context reply i made to some moron and judge me wrongfully. this time ill repeat ;i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to...
...cant force people to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). or dont. turn on the news; here in CA the judges UPHELD prop 8! its in the consitution!!!!
I believe fear and ignorance cause people to believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Regardless of what people believe, we all should have equal full civil human rights, dignity and respect and should never take away the rights of our fellow citizens, otherwise doing so to me is a saddened act of hatred and/or fear. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and as the right to marriage is inalienable in California, I think the CA Supreme Court go the decision wrong today.
since you said BELIEVE thats fine its your choice but impulse aside homo-sex is NOT natural i provided the proof in the playlist and you DO HAVE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS THATS IN THE CA CONSTITUTION WTF im done arguing with u i asked u not to make strawman arguments by distorted the argument to sound better no rights were taken away we DO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY and homos HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED ur do dumb and confused u just say anything to sound right even if its not true or not apart of the issue
You say gay sex isn't natural? Prove it. And don't give me that "Because the bible told me so" bullshit. Tell me exactly why it isn't natural...with proof..not opinion...give me the FACTS.
lol so you assume im christian and thats it? so you think u can shift the burdon of proof on me? YOU PROVE it is natural or dont i dont care. and i dont know which comment you took out of context but its not my fault. the impulse maybe natural, but not all impulses are ok! and my playlist answered with the evidence/logic anyhow believe what u want
...thats a whole other topic that would require alot to explain! especially with u, a seemingly arrogant dumb person. if u wana get into those topics see MY 1st few vids. btw i could ask why would God give us the abilitiy to know anal sex is nasty/not good/not marriage and not be forced to accept your OPINION for it and pass prop 8!?! meheh
I left you a comment on your page. You should look at it, Playitalready. God didn't give us anything. If "god" didn't approve of it, he/she/it wouldn't have created homosexuality...simple as that. Like I said...IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS. IT'S SAD and in your case, DISGUSTING.
so u believe spouting of what you THINK will help anything or make it true? sorry. yes, ignorance is not bliss, its so sad and pathetic u wont follow that.
By the way, your playlist doesn't have any merit. First, here's a list of animals that have "homo-sex" : lions, monkeys, sheep, giraffes, elephants, dolphins, bison, penguins, swans, seagulls, mallards, cats, dogs, hyenas, many species of insects, and apes. Secondly, would "god" really make a hole that can perfectly fit a penis, make the male a very sexual being, and throw a bunch of curiosity upon it as well?? Throwing the emotional and chemical attraction into it creates no limitation.
there are like 8.4 million species so i dont know what you think your proving. even if you found millions of homo animals, that only proves the impulse to be gay is natural. animals do a lot of bad things they dont know is bad. good job ignoring that huh. perfectly fit? no, theres a lotta things u can put your penis in. its ur fault if u put it in the wrong places. how does free will and impulses justify anything anyhow? your jumping into a "why" and "God" topic...
If you think posts against homosexuality are disrespectful, you obviously fail to see how millions of people see homosexuality as an offense to the very nature of human beings as sexual individuals. Your failure to see that automatically results in your taking offense that anyone could make statements that you would term "disrespectful" of homosexuals.
What you refer to as my failure is really my rejection to the view that homosexuality being an overall offense to human nature. Why is it so important for you to attack homosexuals from existing peacefully rather than letting everyone live and focusing on you living your live the way you think should be morally lived? Your views doesn't make it right to take away my civil rights, as that is the pinnacle example of disrespect towards others.
SeanChapin1--Were you expecting to only get posts in support of this video when you placed it on Youtube?
That's like holding the march featured in the video and expecting only those in support of overturning Prop 8 to make their views heard. Granted, for such a march, those favoring upholding the current moral environment and keeping Prop 8 intact would be in the minority, but their views are worthy of being heard, whether people agree with them or not. People can choose not to read posts.
That is true, but some of your comments are frankly making gay people angry, and I can understand their anger. I am frankly angry at hearing the linking of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and I think of myself a a good human being worthy of respect, as we all are as long as we treat people in general that way. I advocate for the right for us to live our lives and let others live their lives. If you're gay, you are; if you're straight, you are, and let it be.
You see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. For those that do, and there are millions of us, there's no moral difference between engaging in bestiality and homosexual sex.
And people like us are your friends, your family, your co-workers. Normal people, just like you. Except our sexual preference is what nature designed us for.
carnaco2, I believe that we are not going to agree on this issue. That said, I believe that I should be respected for my sexual orientation, whether you believe it is moral or immoral, as there is substantial evidence that gay people can function in society as well as straight people. If you feel that you can not respect me for my sexual orientation, then I will ask you to refrain from continuing to post comments that I find to be verging on disrespect.
"what nature designed us for" What's that you say? Your calling homosexuality a choice? By default if sexuality is a choice, all sexuality is a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
i may have been born straight, you know what, fuck the LABELS. i found my attraction to guy in my late teens. i got along with girls in a friendly way. i got along with guys well, that's where i found and felt, im gay. fuck prop 8 and let our people have the right to marry!!!
You have the full support from the land just north of you(sharing 3145miles of shared border). The land of legal gay marriage coast to coast, government-paid abortions, government-paid health care for all and stem cell research
homosexuality is horrible shamefull sin, it is not life cuz no children, no future, not happiness in sin, not love, but lust and sin, God is love, He hates sin, homosexuality not kindness, not beauty,it is unnatural when two men are kissing yeh, no compassion only lust and sin against God's creation, there should be no justice for morally wrong. repent, God is coming soon. see google image Galina Andreyev, sacramento bee, she is pointing to heaven that God said 1 man+1woman Amen!
galinka45, I don't understand how homosexuality is a sin. Sure, you can't naturally reproduce, but the human race is verging on overpopulation and resource limitations, so maybe we need something to slow down population growth. I actually believe in a God that loves all regardless of sexual orientation, and people both gay and straight can experience both love and lust. To me, I think judgment lies in whether you harm or help others in the world, and that goes beyond being gay or straight.
Carnaco2, where did you go? Obviously, you hide because you have no skills to enter a real debate that requires real substance. It seems that most religious fanatics like yourself are devoid of these skills and should avoid these debates because it requires real intelligence to enter.
People have real lives they live apart from this website & you think they're hidinng. Interesting!
You know, science once thought the earth was hollow. The day will most likely come when the APA drops their fear of political correctness & comes around to seeing homosexuality as something one chooses. But they're no doubt too afraid of the thought police and their obsessions with "orientation" to even think straight. No need to worry about me. Your mind seems to be obsessed with "orientation".
And you Carnaco2, have no mind if you based everything on unfounded certainty. Your air of superiority towards those who are different reveals that not only you are a sociopath, but that you lack real substance to understand humanity, and that you have an intolerance towards those who you are incapable of understanding. Your arguments are not only unfounded, they reveal how undeveloped your mind truly is. The mind is a terrible thing to waste, go get a decent education before you kill somebody.
loveispeace1--Feel free to pass on responding to any of my posts. Your ability for mental gymnastics that make aberrant sexual behavior "normal" indicate a moral compass that drifts with the social winds.
I certainly have enough maturity to know that men and women have complementary reproductive organs and any attempts to use them on the body model that's uncomplementary is aberrant and misguided.
Go ahead with your intolerance shouts, if you wish.
Carnaco2, you are an Axis II. You will never add anything positive to the world and because of your intolerance/ignorance, you will cause harm to others. You are incapable of loving others because you hate yourself. The problem is not with homosexuals, the problem is with you. Why don't you take responsibility and examine the hate that dwells within, instead of projecting that misery to others? But you will never understand this because you are an Axis II. You are SAD.
loveispeace1--I'm sure Freud would be interested in having you on his couch to determine your need to psychoanalyze others by a simple reading of their posts.
Your willingness to accept as "normal" or "natural" that which clearly isn't only indicates that you're unwilling to recognize people with opposing views as sane and rational.
Impute hate to as many people as you wish. It only satisfies your own need to feel you understand their alleged ignorance. Choose normal love. That brings peace.
Carnaco2, WHAT IS NORMAL? I find it interesting that you introduce such a word without any kind of real data to substantiate it with. If you know anything about science, the word normal does not exist.
Laymen obviously see normality in a different light than scientists. Most would recognize normal sex that for which the bodies were designed by nature. To be blunt, round pegs can't naturally be put into square openings. Any attempt to force a merging of the two results in damage to both.
That is why laymen argue with opinions and Scientist argue with facts. There is nothing wrong with being a laymen, but a laymen should not try to reason like a Scientist. You need to complete your studies before your thoughts can have matter in them. I would be consider a bully to carry on with you in this manner. But you should not argue with emotions and opinions if you want others to listen to what you have to say. "Higher plane" of debates only occur amongst other trained minds, FYI.
I'll remember, then, that those who reply to me often have "trained minds". Does that mean they also train themselves to ignore the moral implications of their findings?
"Trained minds" may come to the conclusion that embryonic stem cells, and not adult stem cells, are the only way science can advance, totally ignoring any moral or ethical implications involved.
Carnaco2, Yes, as a trained mind, I will leave this discussion because it would be consider unethical. And unlike you, my time is valuable because I have lives to help save. You are an Axis II and anything you say makes no difference and the morality you speak of is FAKE. Your intolerance will cause you to loose touch with humanity as well as harm them. While your hate carries on, I will go on to inspire thousands of others to love. I am sorry you are so hateful. You should seek therapy.
I only wish I could advise those you inspire to "love" to engage in love that isn't abnormal. Unnatural desires bring nothing but moral decay for those who are falsely affirmed in the belief that it is love.
You paint yourself as a regular Albert Schweitzer, so I'll leave you to save the world from people like me.
carnaco2, I don't think I ever said that I find it odd that non-LGBT are interested in this issue. What I don't get though is how people think homosexuality is bad. I'm pretty sure that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in CA last year are marriages born out of love and compassion, which I find similar to straight marriages, and I would think that this enhances society rather than harms it. Is there something I'm missing here?
You're obviously overlooking thousands of years of recognition by societies that homosexual acts are inherently abnormal and not in the best interests of society to advance or encourage.
Studies are not conclusive that one is born homosexual, so many see people choosing to have intercourse with someone of the same sex as unnatural.
As with polygamy, society has every right to ban such acts, even between consenting adults.
carnaco2, I don't know why many societies over the last few thousands of years rejected homosexuality (maybe it's because you can't naturally reproduce), but I don't think it proves that one society is right and another one is wrong. We may disagree, but I believe that sexual orientation is determined by biological factors, and to me, being gay is a natural, indifferent state like being straight, and both orientations are found in many different species on this planet.
I can't really see how homosexual acts are inherently abnormal (I think they're as normal as heterosexual acts). I actually think society should encourage everyone to accept themselves whether they're gay or straight, as both kinds of people have so much talent and love to offer in this world that goes far beyond their sexuality. The way it is now, a third of gay youth contemplate suicide, and some unfortunately take their lives before they can give back to the world, which is a shame.
To be blunt, nature designs humans with complementary sex organs. When humans then try to fit a square peg into a round opening, which is what homosexuals are doing, you're doing something against the nature for which those organs were designed. What makes THAT normal or natural?
Reproductive organs were designed for the purposes of reproduction and the sexual pleasure it provides for opposite-sex couples. Society has rightly seen the misuse of those organs as abnormal and not natural.
Oh, now you're moving between sociological naturalness to biological and genetic naturalness.
Aw. That's not a very smart thing to do in front of a sociology major. :)
I can now point back to my 1,500 species of animals that do homosexual acts. These animals are acting upon what? Unnatural feelings? But animals are incapable of doing anything unnatural.
Humans can do a few unnatural things, but when it comes to sexual orientation, we find they still are very much in tune with nature
If you feel that putting one's reproductive organs into an opening for which it wasn't designed is "normal" or "natural", it gives some idea of what acts you're willing to let humans engage in.
Animals and humans aren't designed to couple. Do we call it normal when they attempt to couple. One side is consenting while the other has no reasoning capabilities, so humans should feel free in using them to gain pleasure.
Best to stick with the way nature designed and treat the aberrant behavior.
Oh then, so oral sex is unnatural too? Then we should ban it! Oh yeah, then we should start monitoring people's sex lives huh? You know, put cameras in their houses and if they are doing anything other than missionary we should throw them in prison for a few years.
OH! And we should ban kissing, because that is unnatural and mouths were made for eating, not displaying affection!
You're obviously uneasy with bestiality but think nothing's wrong with the homosexual sex act, thus the sarcasm. That's fine, since your view has been in the minority for centuries and the fact that we haven't seen homosexual "marriage" last for any amount of time testifies to the validity of normal heterosexual marriages and the priority that society has rightly placed upon it, while relegating homosexual acts to the abnormal category.
Animals can't say if they want to engage in bestiality, nor do they have a standing our our society. Homosexuals can express their own opinions and are human beings.
Big difference bud.
And just because something may have been abnormal at one time doesn't mean it can't become normal.
And homosexuality has become quite normal.
Your brain works in mysteriously single-minded and uncreative ways.
Doesn't take much research to see that nature designed male and female so that a square peg could fit into a square opening, rather than trying to force a square peg into a round opening, as homosexuals insist on doing.
Homoseuals derive some sort of pleasure out of that so to them it must be "natural".
Nature left men short-changed if they ever wanted to become parents together. No way to breastfeed their child, obviously adopted, since they aren't designed to reproduce between each other.
Do you think the idiocy and hate spewing from every orifice you have is natural? Its natural for humans to hate, good thing there is nothing natural or normal about the human psyche. It there was we wouldn't have complex compounds, antibiotics, mechanical innovation, mega structures. We have evolved beyond simple instinctive behaviors. You should join the rest of us.
You think homosexual sex is "natural"? Certainly we've moved beyond a point where "sexual" love between 2 people of the same sex is thought of as normal and acceptable. There's a great deal of difference between the love of a sister for a sister and that of 2 homosexuals for each other. One is quite natural, that of the sisters, and one has been seen for centuries as abnormal, that of the homosexuals. Nothing hateful there, simple facts.
carnaco2, you'll probably find that there are many people who will disagree with your view of homosexuality, and after reading many of your comments on this video, I have reservations that you will see eye to eye with someone like me, but the more important matter is that both gay and straight people deserve dignity, respect and full equal civil human rights in America regardless of these differences, and denying someone rights based on sexual orientation is wrong and unfair.
One could argue that people in a heterosexual marriage with one spouse and those in a heterosexual marriage with multiple spouses deserve dignity, respect and full equal civil rights.
Society does draw lines at certain behaviour it disapproves of. Both polygamy and homosexual "marriage" easily fall into that category. No withholding of equal rights in either case.
carnaco2, to put it bluntly, homosexuality and polygamy are two different types of relationships where homosexuality means attraction to the same sex while polygamy means having more than one partner at the same time. With all due respect to polygamy regardless of whether it is right or wrong, we are talking about homosexuality here, not polygamy, or bestiality or pedophilia for that matter, and homosexuality is indifferent to a person's ability to be good or bad towards others.
You could use the same argument in favor of polygamy. Society STILL has the right to set certain limits on relationships between consenting adults, like it or not.
Homosexuality has not been the norm for millenia, and a majority of states have rightly reflected that in their constitutions by defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Homosexuals are free to life together. They just don't get the privileges accorded societally-approved heterosexual couples. That's life.
carnaco2, it's the societies denouncing homosexuality over the millenia that are wrong, not homosexuality. The states are wrong to denounce homosexuality in their constitutions, fundamentally so as we all have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We live in a Federal Constitutional Republic, and as citizens we follow our Constitutions first and foremost, ergo denying rights to homosexuals is discrimination and unconstitutional. You don't fully understand life.
carnaco2, you are fundamentally wrong in your belief that homosexuality is bad. You are ignorant, bigoted, prejudicial, hateful and verging on arrogance in thinking that homosexuality is bad, and people like you should be rightly feared and countered for the sake of granting and protecting freedom and equality for all.
carnaco2, if I could impart some advice, you stubbornness seems to verge on the extreme, and if you were a rigid tree among a forest of flexible trees on the edge of an approaching hurricane, you would probably break apart while the others brave the mighty winds. You would be better served to bend a little and take the many opportunities towards enlightenment that you are being given here.
carnaco2, I have to admit that I sense an underlying bigotry and touch of vehemence in your posts, and I wonder how much you listen to and digest the responses you get here with respect to your views, some of them being pretty well thought out and substantial in basis. If you believe that your persistence in proving homosexuality to be wrong will make a difference towards changing us, you are wrong, and we are going to continue to be true to ourselves whether you agree with it or not.
Homosexuals seem to feel any opposition to them is bigotry or hatred. The fact that many people view homosexuality as a choice & not inborn doesn't necessarily make them a bigot or hateful of homosexuals. Homosexuals also choose to ignore the fact that some have left homosexuality, labeling them confused, bisexual, never homosexual. Anything to disprove the fact someone was actually attracted to a person of the same sex and changed.
Former homosexuals exist and have to be dealt with.
Label people who think homosexuality is immoral as wrong or bad if you will. If people perceive it as a choice, they can rightly deny it the status of "marriage".
Even if caused by genetic problems in the womb, other genetically-based abnormalities have scientists looking for cures, not telling people that's just the way they were born, live with it and enjoy it.
Obviously, human life wouldn't continue long if all were "born homosexual".
If you feel I'm wrong, you move among people every day who feel homosexuality is an immoral choice. We're your co-workers, your neighbors, your friends. We're even your family members.
Because you think an attraction to a person of the same sex is normal, doesn't make it so, and society is under no obligation to extend that recognition to you. Take it as hate. It's called common sense.
carnaco2, when you say it is "common sense", that frankly makes you an ignorant bigot, and it is people like you that the LGBT community face as direct obstacles in advocating for equality, dignity and respect. LGBT people will continue to advocate no matter how long it takes until we all have our full equal civil human rights, and we will be unrelenting in our pursuit to counter the ignorance and enlighten others towards tolerance and respect for LGBT people.
Thankfully, "people like me" are around to push back what has for generations been considered immoral behavior.
It used to be the homosexual community. They've opened the door to new membefs so that it's now the "LGBT" community. Who do they pull in next? Incestuous consenting adults? Polygamists? Pedophiles? Skinheads?
When people start calling aberrant behavior "normal", the door is open to anything they choose to define that way.
Since everyone is born heterosexual, the only ones making the choice for heterosexuality are those coming out of their choice of homosexuality and returning to heterosexuality.
Right so you just walked away from any argument you ever had. Altruism just doesn't work. As you have nothing backing you, you still lose this argument anyway. The zealots out there make me laugh.
carnaco2, homosexuals do not naturally procreate. Homosexuals have proven to raise neglected children in loving and nurturing households. The world is verging on human overpopulation, and our natural resources are becoming more limited as time progresses, so one could argue that homosexuality may help curtail human population growth so we can better sustain as a species.
My statement was "FORMER homosexuals exist" and have to be dealt with. You're reading things that aren't there. & alleged overpopulation is no reason to recognize immoral relationships. Children are far better off with 2 heterosexual parents than being the experiment of 2 "loving" homosexual parents. 2 men trying to explain, from personal experience, menopause to their daughter? 2 men trying to breast feed their child. Granted, some heteros can't breastfeed. But 100% of male homosexuals can't.
If women didn't breatfeed their infants for years, we probably wouldn't be around. That's simply a trite excuse for male homosexuals to use to justify their desire to raise children in an abnormal setting, with NO female role model within the family after which their daughter can model herself.
I'll take a loving heterosexual couple that can provide everything the child needs over a homosexual couple any day. But of course, that's politically incorrect to some people.
I'm sure there are plenty of loving heterosexual couples willing to adopt in our nation right? Is that why our foster care system is full?
We NEED to allow Gay People to adopt and we NEED to give them the support to do so. Children need parents. Period. And you rant about one mommy and daddy bet I bet you haven't adopted jack shit.
THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHILDREN RAISED BY HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
One doesn't change one's point of view to agree with another's immoral lifestyle. Homosexuals simply can't provide the two role models children need. They're only deluding themselves if they think they can.
Yes, because males and females compliment each other sooooo perfectly, that's why our divorce rate in this country is so terribly low, huh?
Oh wait!!!
And several of the most successful nations in modern and ancient history had large amounts of people practice homosexuality. So I really don't see where your argument stems from.
Several would be more like a few. The act of practicing homosexuality doesn't make it any more moral than the act of bestiality or pedophilia.
The male and female bodies complement each other. Just as nature didn't create humans to have sex with animals, men weren't designed to have sex with other men, nor women with other women. But, since they "love each other", that's all that matters and makes it perfectly ok. Fat chance!!
Yes, because humans ONLY do what is natural anyways. You know. With our cars and our houses and our antibiotics and nuclear energy and artificial flavoring and cotton polyester blends and becoming vegetarians and tending to our sickly children rather than eating them.
Oh wait, none of those are natural.
(On a side note, over 1,500 species of animals have been observed having some sort of homosexual tenancies. Some even having anal sex.)
It's obviously easy for you to divorce homosexual acts from any moral considerations, thus the ridiculous examples of natural items.
There are also species of animals that eat their spouse or their young. We don't call that "natural" when human beings do it. No reason to call homosexual acts in humans "natural" either. It's natural for animals, immoral for humans.
Ok, well if "natural" is not something we derive from nature, then how about the fact Homosexuality has been recorded since the beginning of human history.
There have always been homosexuals, then homosexuality MUST be natural.
And how the hell is it immoral? Let me guess, some lame ass book written 2,000 years ago by some old, white, heterosexual, male jews told you huh?
People choose to engage in homosexual sex acts all the time. It's obviously innatural for the human body, except to them it seems.
And people choose to leave the lifestyle, too.
Murderers, pedophiles, polygamists and those engaging in incest or bestiality have been around for centuries, too. That's hardly an endorsement for their acts being "natural". Same for homosexuality. Society deemed all of those acts, homosexuality included, as immoral. The Bible wasn't used to outlaw polygamy.
No, you have failed, homosexuality is part of human nature. It has existed for all time. It has been there, therefore it is part of our widespread nature.
You have provided no proof for anything, and have used weak and ignorant arguments to try and prove a failing, old, and bigoted idea.
Homosexuality is present not only in 1,500 species of animals, but also throughout human history. ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. It is as natural as someone liking cheese.
I guess if people love homosexuality, they'll be thrilled with bestiality. It's obvious the moral compass of some has been disengaged so that aberrant acts can then be termed "normal", especially since they've been with us this long.
Simply file homosexuality with bestiality, polygamy, incest, pedophilia with the list of immoral acts seeking to gain public approval.
hèh_ÄÑY_gÙys_wâÑt_tO_chåt_wÌth_mÉ
SupaiKeshiaea10 10 months ago
I thought you homos were born like that? Don't you think it is ironic that the two females in the lawsuit were both married to men and both have children by them? What about Anne Heche and the thousands of ex-homos who live happy hetero lives now? What about the studies that prove there is no "gay gene"? You people are in denial and you need to stop trying to make the world tell you that you are normal.
gypjet 2 years ago
@gypjet, I do not tolerate pejorative and dehumanizing words such as "homos".
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
most gays are not pro-life. and yet want equal rights for their unnatural behavior. funny how people are so self centered and contradictory. oh well.
sintetsu 2 years ago
sintetsu, abortion and LGBT civil rights are very different subjects, as there are a number of gay people who are pro-life as well as pro-choice. Also, I feel that being gay is natural as I would know living in my body, and as long as you're not able to transport yourself into my body to find out for yourself, you will never really know, so it helps to listen to someone like me and have more of an open mind. Lastly, it is wise to stay away from stereotypes, as each human being is different.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
did you not read the part where i siad MOST gays are not prolife? its kinda the first thing i wrote. humans have more similarities than differences. i was just pointing out how MOST people who demand rights for themselves, are generally selfish. such as gays who are pro-choice. equal rights for all humans, except the innocent unborn ones hey? and i admit, i have no knowledge as to how one could think its natural to perform sex acts on the same gender.... i honestly dont know and never will.
sintetsu 2 years ago
sintetsu, I hope you can listen to others who are gay tell you that being gay is something they feel naturally can can not change. I fought being gay for a year, then came out, and have been out for 15 years. On a side note, I really can't see how the human state of selfishness is a correlation to a human being's demand to be treated equally under the law, and also, if your intention is to engage in an open communication with me, I would suggest for you to not comment in an accusatory manner.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
equal= the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. that is equal. would you be against polygamy and incest? many gays are, which is contradictory and narrow minded. i think marriage should be between a man and woman. gays seem to be in their own mental prison. kinda like hardcore religious ppl. yes i compared the two.
sintetsu 2 years ago
Comment removed
iMartinski 2 years ago
NO.....You CAN'T.
JimboVids 2 years ago
JimboVids, do you hate gay people?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Why not?
setustraight 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCKINGAYFAGGOTS
Philmusicmike006 2 years ago
Philmusicmike006, I welcome thoughtful conversation, but I do not appreciate pejorative and disrespectful comments, and I ban those users who show blatant and perverse disrespect.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
...continued
regardless of minority status. Homosexual are a vulnerable minority. Therefore homosexuals being denied the right to marry is unconstitutional discrimination.
sabboth42 2 years ago
I'll simply repeat the statement that government can, and has, put restrictions on marriage, including who can participate in it.
Polygamous marriages, marriage between relatives, marriage to objects or animals, etc.
These groups all thought they had the "right" to the pursuit of happiness, yet laws are in place to say no to that.
Restricting homosexuals from "marriage" is NO different from these others, since polygamy obviously involves consent.
carnaco2 2 years ago
You are incorrect. The arguments against incest and polygamy do not apply to homosexuals. These restriction are made to protect probable offspring as well as the simple fact that communal marriage tax benefits would be unreasonable as the communal marriage would bring in much higher income.
sabboth42 2 years ago
Obviously homosexuals don't reproduce. They can, but they choose to pair up with someone with whom that's impossible. However, a ban on homosexual "marriage" would certainly protect children from being introduced into an environment that is dysfunctional, in that it's impossible for 2 homosexual parents to provide the role models of both sexes that children need.
Homosexuals obviously desire marriage more for the tax benefits and society's seal of approval than anything else.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Um...hate to break it to you but homosexual have kids all the time. There are wonderful fertility clinics out there as well as adoption.
Where's your proof?
It what your saying was true single parent homes would be turning out children that are fatally flawed. You are incorrect.
sabboth42 2 years ago
To make it simpler for you to understand, a very small fraction of heterosexual parents have to use fertility clinics or outside sources, whereas 100% of homosexual couples have to use someone totally unrelated to one or both of them to produce new life. Why reward 100% of unions that have no biological means between them of bringing forth new life.
And 100% of homosexual families are dysfunctional in that they give the child NO perspective on BOTH sexes in the parenting role.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Here's were your wrong, and will lose. Equality under the law and equality of rights plays a huge role. If you are going to strip marriage from homosexuals on those grounds, you also have to take it from couples who are infertile, elderly, and single parents will have their children taken away. :-)
One standard for all. You don't create second class citizenship.
sabboth42 2 years ago
No. What you do is lift the tax benefits from those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children. You don't add people who can't biologically couple to bring forth new life into the mix. Let them continue living together as they always have. You've now got married heteros with children getting tax benefits and married heteros w/no kids and homosexuals who won't have kids not getting those benefits. That's equal and fair. No need to let homosexuals "marry".
carnaco2 2 years ago
If your lifting the tax benefits for those who don't have kids, why not allow homosexuals to marry. It would be the same thing. :-) your running in circles now.
sabboth42 2 years ago
What's the benefit for homosexuals to marry then, if there are no tax benefits? Societal acceptance?
They gripe about married couples having those benefits and the only way, supposedly, for homosexuals to get those benefits is through marriage. If those benefits are removed, what's the need to marry? All I see from your harping on it is the need to have society say homosexual "marriages" are normal. You don't get that from a marriage license. You get it from convincing people it's the case.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I said no tax benefits. There is much more connected to legal marriage than tax benefits. The fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with equal treatment.
Also you are wrong, the only way to receive the same legal status as marriage is...dun dun duh marriage. There are legal contracts that are similar, but they do not hold as much legal validity, and cost thousands of dollars to get.
sabboth42 2 years ago
Fine. Sounds like your fight should be for laws that make legal contracts available that provide the freebies homosexuals are looking for, and at lower cost, rather than trying to totally redefine the meaning of marriage as it's lasted for milennia.
Until you prove all homosexuals are born that way, it's simply a choice. Equal treatment thus is already available through marriage to someone of the opposite sex. I know, you think that's stupid, but it's reality.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Until you prove that homosexuality isn't a choice, it's natural.
Dude,seriously, you have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that it's a choice. But we have the majority of homosexuals saying it isn't a choice and the APA saying it isn't a choice.
You versus them bud.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
We can obviously trust the APA's opinion, since they also have designated shyness as a mental disorder.
They obviously got it wrong and cleared homosexuality while giving shyness the label homosexuality should have.
Until YOU can disprove homosexuals have left the lifestyle and are now living happily as heterosexuals, it's a choice, going from the abnormal to the normal.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Homosexuality used to be a mental disorder, and was removed because nobody could prove it was.
And so now I have to prove that every homosexual in the world cannot change. I should go talk to everyone JUST so you can believe something you quite obviously don't believe.
You have all the odds against you. All the proof you need, and you still deny it.
That's the very definition of bigotry.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
You have scores of people who've made the switch, some of them with videos here on youtube. You can choose to ignore their stories because you KNOW it's impossible to change, or accept them for what they are, happy, fulfilled heterosexuals, no longer living a homosexual lifestyle.
As for the disorder, someday the APA will get it "straight" and switch the disorder from shyness and back to homosexuality.
carnaco2 2 years ago
3-4% of the people who go through the conversion therapies actually spend the rest of their lives as heterosexual.
Ever heard of being in the closet?
it's this thing were a person pretends or tries to be straight while simultaneously denying their own sexuality.
The person often dates, marries, and/or has sex with someone of the opposite gender.
It is pure denial.
There are also bisexuals in this world, who can easily deny part of their own sexuality.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
And why can't shyness be a mental disorder? What stops shyness from being a disorder but allows depression to be one?
Last i checked, you didn't have a degree in psychology.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
"Denying their own sexuality". That's rich. Homosexuals can't fathom the fact someone would want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. They figure it's impossible because "they were born that way".
Bisexuals are a good example of people making a choice of their sexual preference. Homosexuals simply choose to stay where they are. Perhaps that isn't as abnormal in their eyes as bisexuality. Still abnormal, though.
carnaco2 2 years ago
yes because homosexuals have NO IDEA what 's like to be homosexual.
Not one bit, you on the other hand are an expert! You know more about homosexuality than they do, isn't that right?
You're pretty arrogant buddy
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
carnaco2, it's been determined that sexual orientation of the parents does not have a significant effect on how children are raised. I think there are ways to provide a role model to children of the opposite sex of same-sex parents during their childhood. What really matters is if children are being loved and nurtured, and whether we are gay or straight, we all have the capability of providing loving homes to children.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
We obviously disagree, since 100% of homosexual parents have to go outside the family to find proper opposite sex role models. It's something akin to single parents trying to raise children on their own, having to call on uncle Fred or aunt Mary to give a positive opposite sex role model.
Why put the child in such an environment when an opposite sex couple provides both models without having to rely on outsiders, something ALL homosexual parents have to do, but few heterosexual parents do.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Nice theory, but a shame studies have disproved it.
Oh well, I guess you should admit you were wrong and come join us in making everyone's life a little better, right? :]
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Best not to use children in a couple's social experiment. I'll continue the effort to bring everyone over to the straight and narrow path.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Too late, Gays have had children for forty years. The world hasn't blown up yet and there have been no social consequences.
You can still join the accepting side buddy. :]
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
"You can still join the accepting side buddy. :] "
And here I didn't think you thought homosexuality was a choice. Thanks, but I'll stay on the heterosexual side of the list.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Dude, there are plenty of heteros who are for same-sex marriage buddy.
I never said "come join the Gays"
I said
"Come join the accepting side"
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Heterosexuals are always willing to accept homosexuals who wish to return to the heterosexual preference all are born with. We're VERY accepting. Homosexuals simply have to make the choice. It'd make it a whole lot easier to marry someone of the opposite sex.
carnaco2 2 years ago
You keep preaching choice, but you have no sources.
You have the majority of Gays saying it's not.
You have the Majority of psychologists saying it's not.
You have the majority of studies saying it's not.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF.
YOU ARE NOT GAY.
YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY ON THE MATTER.
Get it?
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Yes. I know it's a choice. You know it's something one is born with.
carnaco2 2 years ago
New York just joined the list of states putting gay marriage through. Your ranks are slimming as yet more states are doing the same.
sabboth42 2 years ago
Let the people have their say through a vote and New York will slip back into the ranks of people rightly recognizing homosexual "marriage" as the latest fad devised by homosexuals to quickly fall by the wayside.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Did a vote decide that the slaves would be freed? Did a vote decide that women would have the power to vote? Did a vote decide the end of Jim Crow laws? Did a vote end the 3/5 policies? No. The supreme courts are doing their job. Judicial review and deciding upon the constitutionality of laws and legislation.
As for the newest fads devised by homosexuals...so the judges are all gay, as well as the legislators, house of reps, and senates. Yeah thats certainly the case. ;)
sabboth42 2 years ago
If the Supreme Court can make law out of thin air as it did with Roe, it can prounounce drag queens a protected species.
The people have the right to vote on any issue, and there are always appeals to the courts. Doesn't mean the courts will necessarily overturn what some like to call a "civil rights" issue.
1st, get a court to confirm your choice isn't that in the 1st place. It was obvious one's skin color wasn't a choice. Not so cut and dried with sexual choice.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Uh...no people don't have the right to vote on any issue. Sorry that has never been how the american legal system works. Or did you forget all about those elected officials and checks and balances in power? You know that carefully orchestrated system to prevent one group from having to much power or misusing it? And that whole idea of judicial review to prevent unconstitutional activity. You know there are ways of appealing it right? So no the supreme courts dont have to much power.
sabboth42 2 years ago
Many would disagree about the Supreme Court not having too much power. They certainly threw their weight around when the liberals were in the majority.
Come to California. Our referendum system allows us to vote on any measure that's put on the ballot. Witness Prop 8.
True, it's before the state court, but state justices have to run for re-election and Calif. dumped its Chief Justice under Jerry Brown years ago.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Many people also think/wish we lived in a mob rule democracy. See some people like to forget the lessons of time, and just exactly why the founding fathers did not envision a mob rule nation. The mod is big and dumb and has every intention of disallowing freedom to the minority.
sabboth42 2 years ago
I agree, but if a vote of the people passes judicial review, it's the law of the land. That includes amendments to one's state constitution. By no means is that mob rule.
You're just irked because people find homosexual marriage something that goes against the grain of society. Some people feel similar about abortion but have to live with the laws as they now stand.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I don't quite get what you mean in your first sentence. Clarify please. Its sounds like your saying the vote of the people surpasses judicial review. And to that I say, if that was true, civil rights would be sorely different. Until the early sixties blacks did not have equal civil rights, and that was because DUN DUN DUH judicial review. The constitution speaks nothing of interracial marriage, or of race at all, it speaks in terms of all people, all given equal rights. No heterosexualonlyclause
sabboth42 2 years ago
A vote of the people stands, unless it's appealed to the court system. Whatever the court rules becomes the law of the land. If the vote isn't appealed, the vote stands as the law of the land.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Really? So like what is being done in California with prop 8. Good we agree. Oh and not to mention Iowa, and New York.
sabboth42 2 years ago
California's constitution allows for such a vote to amend the constitution. Even if the state high court rules against prop 8, it won't be the last of it.
Other states have similar mechanisms for amending their constitutions; some, no doubt through a vote of the people.
I'd certainly like to see the decisions of the courts and legislatures in the handful of states opening the door to homosexual unions reversed.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, I think what the CA Supreme Court needs to determine is the definition of inalienable. It's been proven that marriage is a fundamental and inalienable right, and homosexuality is a suspect class deserving of equal rights, therefore one could argue that this right can not be changed or altered and any attempt, even from public vote to amend the constitution, would be considered unconstitutional. This is the basis for Jerry Browne's position to not defend prop 8 in court.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I'm sure you would like that, however, don't hope for much.
And there is no doubt that California is a long way from being at an end in this battle...but you might notice the trend. Each time the votes are narrower and narrower...your side is losing momentum and votes.
sabboth42 2 years ago
The sad thing is you go off blind faith with no evidence or facts and I go off of facts and the word of those who are Gay.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
carnaco2, to throw something out there - you know what it is like to feel how you feel inside yourself, but as long as you don't have the ability to transport yourself into another person's body, you will never know what it is like to innately understand how another person feels inside his/her body, and therefore it takes having an open mind to listen to what a gay person says to you about what it feels like to be gay. I don't know how it feels to be straight, but I could understand it.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
SeanChapin--Since I view homosexuality as a choice, not something one it born with, I would more than likely treat it like other things that are choices and that society has traditionally viewed abnormal behavior. It would be for the purpose of helping that person to reverse their choice, not to continue living such a lifestyle.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, why is it bad to be gay?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
It goes against nature's design of male and female as being biologically and sexuually complementary to one another.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, why do you think homosexuality is unnatural? Maybe two gay people can't naturally procreate, but does that alone make their sexual orientation unnatural? If homosexuality is unnatural, then why is homosexuality commonly found in many other animal species on our planet? How do you konw that being gay is unnatural when you are unable to travel inside a gay person's mind and body and feel how that person naturally feels?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
You can say it's unnatural because you probably feel one is born that way. Try & get inside the head of others who feel it's a choice and you'd hear many of them say that since male & female were created the way they are, engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex, no matter how mild or intense the relation, goes against nature's design to bring forth new generations. Simply because one has feelings for someone of the same sex but can't reproduce, doesn't make the feelings normal.
carnaco2 2 years ago
First sentence in last post should be "You can say it's 'natural' because you probably feel one is born that way".
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, if a heterosexual couple was unable to reproduce because of their own reproductive defects, are their feelings for each other considered normal?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Biologically, they complement one another and their emotions reflect the natural compatibility that results in humans being created to complement one another biologically and emotionally.
Two people of the same sex have no way to complement one another because nature hasn't equipped them for that, biologically or emotionally, resulting in an unnatural pairing.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, how are a man and a woman's emotions naturally compatible with each other compared to two women or two men? If I were to tell you that I have experienced a strong emotional bond with another man in a prior relationship that lasted over a number of years, and that it felt natural and compatible to both of us, what would your response be?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
If nature has equipped them with sexual organs that are compatible, it follows that it would also equip them w/emotional make-ups that would attract them to 1 another so that their sexual organs can be used properly to successfully fulfill each other sexually.
Nature's obvious design of the biology & emotions is to lead to reproduction of the species. Using what nature has created w/someone who can't contriibute to the furtherance of the species would be unnatural, no matter the emotions felt
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, do you think you might be confusing the concepts of what is natural vs. what is ideal in describing homosexuality with respect to the continuation of the human species, and/or the concept of what is natural between homosexuality by itself vs. homosexuality specifically in relation to procreation? Also, do you think nature's design is to only procreate furthering population growth, or could nature also be adding a growth balance check with homosexuality in controlling overpopulation?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
One could just as easily assume that genetic or hormonal defects that shorten one's life is nature's way of slowing population growth.
Even if that were the case, and even if homosexuality was proven to be a genetic or hormonal problem, such things would be a departure from the norm on the part of nature and candidates for a remedy to prevent such future occurrences from happening, since humans have fairly widespread access to contraceptive devices.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I would say i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). bye
Playitalready 2 years ago
We're a Republic, not a Democracy. Our representatives make the rules.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
brandon; such a dumb ignorant comment. america has a govt OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE. even so, how about if our reps allow PROP 8? good job ignoring everything else i said, i know you wouldnt understand. i bet you didnt see my playlist to see what i think and y
Playitalready 2 years ago
"Ignorant" and "dumb" can only describe your playlist. I'm sorry. But when you have a video that states "homosexuals are as dumb as sheep!" I'm not going to give you the benefit of an open ear.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
just cause a playlist doesnt accept nasty immoral acts as natural or moral or marriage doesnt mean its ignorant or dumb. that statement was backed up in the vid and the 1 after it. wtf is open ear supposed to mean
Playitalready 2 years ago
Open ear means listening.
Congratulations to you, Mr. Ican'tunderstandcommonphrases.
Please, go back to grade school.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
its not common since i never heard it and it dont make me any less smart cause i never heard 1 thing. good job attacking the person instead of the argument (Ad homonym for u since u r obviously uneducated)
Playitalready 2 years ago
brandom, youve done nothing to change my vote but show ur side is annoying and dumb. i still say i dont have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand so unless u see my homosexuality playlist/comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). i wont read/reply 2u now so bye
Playitalready 2 years ago
Playitalready, I hope that you can one day overcome your hatred and/or fear of gay people that I find apparent in your comment.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
sean; i hope you will 1 day learn what the strawman fallacy is and not use it in your argument and/or read the initial comment people make so you dont read what ever out of context reply i made to some moron and judge me wrongfully. this time ill repeat ;i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to...
Playitalready 2 years ago
...cant force people to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). or dont. turn on the news; here in CA the judges UPHELD prop 8! its in the consitution!!!!
Playitalready 2 years ago
I believe fear and ignorance cause people to believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Regardless of what people believe, we all should have equal full civil human rights, dignity and respect and should never take away the rights of our fellow citizens, otherwise doing so to me is a saddened act of hatred and/or fear. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and as the right to marriage is inalienable in California, I think the CA Supreme Court go the decision wrong today.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
since you said BELIEVE thats fine its your choice but impulse aside homo-sex is NOT natural i provided the proof in the playlist and you DO HAVE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS THATS IN THE CA CONSTITUTION WTF im done arguing with u i asked u not to make strawman arguments by distorted the argument to sound better no rights were taken away we DO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY and homos HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED ur do dumb and confused u just say anything to sound right even if its not true or not apart of the issue
Playitalready 2 years ago
You say gay sex isn't natural? Prove it. And don't give me that "Because the bible told me so" bullshit. Tell me exactly why it isn't natural...with proof..not opinion...give me the FACTS.
meheh 2 years ago
lol so you assume im christian and thats it? so you think u can shift the burdon of proof on me? YOU PROVE it is natural or dont i dont care. and i dont know which comment you took out of context but its not my fault. the impulse maybe natural, but not all impulses are ok! and my playlist answered with the evidence/logic anyhow believe what u want
Playitalready 2 years ago
...thats a whole other topic that would require alot to explain! especially with u, a seemingly arrogant dumb person. if u wana get into those topics see MY 1st few vids. btw i could ask why would God give us the abilitiy to know anal sex is nasty/not good/not marriage and not be forced to accept your OPINION for it and pass prop 8!?! meheh
Playitalready 2 years ago
I left you a comment on your page. You should look at it, Playitalready. God didn't give us anything. If "god" didn't approve of it, he/she/it wouldn't have created homosexuality...simple as that. Like I said...IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS. IT'S SAD and in your case, DISGUSTING.
meheh 2 years ago
so u believe spouting of what you THINK will help anything or make it true? sorry. yes, ignorance is not bliss, its so sad and pathetic u wont follow that.
Playitalready 2 years ago
By the way, your playlist doesn't have any merit. First, here's a list of animals that have "homo-sex" : lions, monkeys, sheep, giraffes, elephants, dolphins, bison, penguins, swans, seagulls, mallards, cats, dogs, hyenas, many species of insects, and apes. Secondly, would "god" really make a hole that can perfectly fit a penis, make the male a very sexual being, and throw a bunch of curiosity upon it as well?? Throwing the emotional and chemical attraction into it creates no limitation.
meheh 2 years ago
there are like 8.4 million species so i dont know what you think your proving. even if you found millions of homo animals, that only proves the impulse to be gay is natural. animals do a lot of bad things they dont know is bad. good job ignoring that huh. perfectly fit? no, theres a lotta things u can put your penis in. its ur fault if u put it in the wrong places. how does free will and impulses justify anything anyhow? your jumping into a "why" and "God" topic...
Playitalready 2 years ago
If you think posts against homosexuality are disrespectful, you obviously fail to see how millions of people see homosexuality as an offense to the very nature of human beings as sexual individuals. Your failure to see that automatically results in your taking offense that anyone could make statements that you would term "disrespectful" of homosexuals.
carnaco2 2 years ago
What you refer to as my failure is really my rejection to the view that homosexuality being an overall offense to human nature. Why is it so important for you to attack homosexuals from existing peacefully rather than letting everyone live and focusing on you living your live the way you think should be morally lived? Your views doesn't make it right to take away my civil rights, as that is the pinnacle example of disrespect towards others.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
SeanChapin1--Were you expecting to only get posts in support of this video when you placed it on Youtube?
That's like holding the march featured in the video and expecting only those in support of overturning Prop 8 to make their views heard. Granted, for such a march, those favoring upholding the current moral environment and keeping Prop 8 intact would be in the minority, but their views are worthy of being heard, whether people agree with them or not. People can choose not to read posts.
carnaco2 2 years ago
That is true, but some of your comments are frankly making gay people angry, and I can understand their anger. I am frankly angry at hearing the linking of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and I think of myself a a good human being worthy of respect, as we all are as long as we treat people in general that way. I advocate for the right for us to live our lives and let others live their lives. If you're gay, you are; if you're straight, you are, and let it be.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
"carnaco2, seriously?"
You see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. For those that do, and there are millions of us, there's no moral difference between engaging in bestiality and homosexual sex.
And people like us are your friends, your family, your co-workers. Normal people, just like you. Except our sexual preference is what nature designed us for.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, I believe that we are not going to agree on this issue. That said, I believe that I should be respected for my sexual orientation, whether you believe it is moral or immoral, as there is substantial evidence that gay people can function in society as well as straight people. If you feel that you can not respect me for my sexual orientation, then I will ask you to refrain from continuing to post comments that I find to be verging on disrespect.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
"what nature designed us for" What's that you say? Your calling homosexuality a choice? By default if sexuality is a choice, all sexuality is a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
sabboth42 2 years ago
i may have been born straight, you know what, fuck the LABELS. i found my attraction to guy in my late teens. i got along with girls in a friendly way. i got along with guys well, that's where i found and felt, im gay. fuck prop 8 and let our people have the right to marry!!!
webmike720 2 years ago
You have the full support from the land just north of you(sharing 3145miles of shared border). The land of legal gay marriage coast to coast, government-paid abortions, government-paid health care for all and stem cell research
FlyboyYVRAC 2 years ago
homosexuality is horrible shamefull sin, it is not life cuz no children, no future, not happiness in sin, not love, but lust and sin, God is love, He hates sin, homosexuality not kindness, not beauty,it is unnatural when two men are kissing yeh, no compassion only lust and sin against God's creation, there should be no justice for morally wrong. repent, God is coming soon. see google image Galina Andreyev, sacramento bee, she is pointing to heaven that God said 1 man+1woman Amen!
galinka45 2 years ago
galinka45, I don't understand how homosexuality is a sin. Sure, you can't naturally reproduce, but the human race is verging on overpopulation and resource limitations, so maybe we need something to slow down population growth. I actually believe in a God that loves all regardless of sexual orientation, and people both gay and straight can experience both love and lust. To me, I think judgment lies in whether you harm or help others in the world, and that goes beyond being gay or straight.
RugbyBooty 2 years ago
Carnaco2, where did you go? Obviously, you hide because you have no skills to enter a real debate that requires real substance. It seems that most religious fanatics like yourself are devoid of these skills and should avoid these debates because it requires real intelligence to enter.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
People have real lives they live apart from this website & you think they're hidinng. Interesting!
You know, science once thought the earth was hollow. The day will most likely come when the APA drops their fear of political correctness & comes around to seeing homosexuality as something one chooses. But they're no doubt too afraid of the thought police and their obsessions with "orientation" to even think straight. No need to worry about me. Your mind seems to be obsessed with "orientation".
carnaco2 2 years ago
And you Carnaco2, have no mind if you based everything on unfounded certainty. Your air of superiority towards those who are different reveals that not only you are a sociopath, but that you lack real substance to understand humanity, and that you have an intolerance towards those who you are incapable of understanding. Your arguments are not only unfounded, they reveal how undeveloped your mind truly is. The mind is a terrible thing to waste, go get a decent education before you kill somebody.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
loveispeace1--Feel free to pass on responding to any of my posts. Your ability for mental gymnastics that make aberrant sexual behavior "normal" indicate a moral compass that drifts with the social winds.
I certainly have enough maturity to know that men and women have complementary reproductive organs and any attempts to use them on the body model that's uncomplementary is aberrant and misguided.
Go ahead with your intolerance shouts, if you wish.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Carnaco2, you are an Axis II. You will never add anything positive to the world and because of your intolerance/ignorance, you will cause harm to others. You are incapable of loving others because you hate yourself. The problem is not with homosexuals, the problem is with you. Why don't you take responsibility and examine the hate that dwells within, instead of projecting that misery to others? But you will never understand this because you are an Axis II. You are SAD.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
loveispeace1--I'm sure Freud would be interested in having you on his couch to determine your need to psychoanalyze others by a simple reading of their posts.
Your willingness to accept as "normal" or "natural" that which clearly isn't only indicates that you're unwilling to recognize people with opposing views as sane and rational.
Impute hate to as many people as you wish. It only satisfies your own need to feel you understand their alleged ignorance. Choose normal love. That brings peace.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Carnaco2, WHAT IS NORMAL? I find it interesting that you introduce such a word without any kind of real data to substantiate it with. If you know anything about science, the word normal does not exist.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
Laymen obviously see normality in a different light than scientists. Most would recognize normal sex that for which the bodies were designed by nature. To be blunt, round pegs can't naturally be put into square openings. Any attempt to force a merging of the two results in damage to both.
carnaco2 2 years ago
That is why laymen argue with opinions and Scientist argue with facts. There is nothing wrong with being a laymen, but a laymen should not try to reason like a Scientist. You need to complete your studies before your thoughts can have matter in them. I would be consider a bully to carry on with you in this manner. But you should not argue with emotions and opinions if you want others to listen to what you have to say. "Higher plane" of debates only occur amongst other trained minds, FYI.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
I'll remember, then, that those who reply to me often have "trained minds". Does that mean they also train themselves to ignore the moral implications of their findings?
"Trained minds" may come to the conclusion that embryonic stem cells, and not adult stem cells, are the only way science can advance, totally ignoring any moral or ethical implications involved.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Carnaco2, Yes, as a trained mind, I will leave this discussion because it would be consider unethical. And unlike you, my time is valuable because I have lives to help save. You are an Axis II and anything you say makes no difference and the morality you speak of is FAKE. Your intolerance will cause you to loose touch with humanity as well as harm them. While your hate carries on, I will go on to inspire thousands of others to love. I am sorry you are so hateful. You should seek therapy.
loveispeace1 2 years ago
I only wish I could advise those you inspire to "love" to engage in love that isn't abnormal. Unnatural desires bring nothing but moral decay for those who are falsely affirmed in the belief that it is love.
You paint yourself as a regular Albert Schweitzer, so I'll leave you to save the world from people like me.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Unnatural desires that 1,500 different species in the animal kingdom engage in?
GTFO dumbshit.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Some animal species practice cannibalism, yet we don't call it "natural" when it happens with human beings.
Same with homosexuality.
carnaco2 2 years ago
You jumped to the terrible comparison mighty fast.
Cannibalism=Harming another human being.
Homosexuality=loving another human being.
Why not compare Republicans and Democrats or Pie and a Car Tire?
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
YOU assume that since something is natural in nature, if it's also found in humans it MUST be natural for them. Far from it.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, you seem to be passionate about this subject. Are you gay or have gay tendencies?
RugbyBooty 2 years ago
I'm certainly quite happy but far from homosexual.
Why would you find it odd that anyone other than homosexuals, bi's or whatever, would be interested in this issue?
Many pro-life people will never have abortions but they are vitally concerned about that issue.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, I don't think I ever said that I find it odd that non-LGBT are interested in this issue. What I don't get though is how people think homosexuality is bad. I'm pretty sure that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in CA last year are marriages born out of love and compassion, which I find similar to straight marriages, and I would think that this enhances society rather than harms it. Is there something I'm missing here?
RugbyBooty 2 years ago
You're obviously overlooking thousands of years of recognition by societies that homosexual acts are inherently abnormal and not in the best interests of society to advance or encourage.
Studies are not conclusive that one is born homosexual, so many see people choosing to have intercourse with someone of the same sex as unnatural.
As with polygamy, society has every right to ban such acts, even between consenting adults.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, I don't know why many societies over the last few thousands of years rejected homosexuality (maybe it's because you can't naturally reproduce), but I don't think it proves that one society is right and another one is wrong. We may disagree, but I believe that sexual orientation is determined by biological factors, and to me, being gay is a natural, indifferent state like being straight, and both orientations are found in many different species on this planet.
RugbyBooty 2 years ago
I can't really see how homosexual acts are inherently abnormal (I think they're as normal as heterosexual acts). I actually think society should encourage everyone to accept themselves whether they're gay or straight, as both kinds of people have so much talent and love to offer in this world that goes far beyond their sexuality. The way it is now, a third of gay youth contemplate suicide, and some unfortunately take their lives before they can give back to the world, which is a shame.
RugbyBooty 2 years ago
To be blunt, nature designs humans with complementary sex organs. When humans then try to fit a square peg into a round opening, which is what homosexuals are doing, you're doing something against the nature for which those organs were designed. What makes THAT normal or natural?
Reproductive organs were designed for the purposes of reproduction and the sexual pleasure it provides for opposite-sex couples. Society has rightly seen the misuse of those organs as abnormal and not natural.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Oh, now you're moving between sociological naturalness to biological and genetic naturalness.
Aw. That's not a very smart thing to do in front of a sociology major. :)
I can now point back to my 1,500 species of animals that do homosexual acts. These animals are acting upon what? Unnatural feelings? But animals are incapable of doing anything unnatural.
Humans can do a few unnatural things, but when it comes to sexual orientation, we find they still are very much in tune with nature
BrandonHarami 2 years ago 2
If you feel that putting one's reproductive organs into an opening for which it wasn't designed is "normal" or "natural", it gives some idea of what acts you're willing to let humans engage in.
Animals and humans aren't designed to couple. Do we call it normal when they attempt to couple. One side is consenting while the other has no reasoning capabilities, so humans should feel free in using them to gain pleasure.
Best to stick with the way nature designed and treat the aberrant behavior.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Oh then, so oral sex is unnatural too? Then we should ban it! Oh yeah, then we should start monitoring people's sex lives huh? You know, put cameras in their houses and if they are doing anything other than missionary we should throw them in prison for a few years.
OH! And we should ban kissing, because that is unnatural and mouths were made for eating, not displaying affection!
Yes! LET'S BAN EVERYTHING UNNATURAL!!!!
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
You're obviously uneasy with bestiality but think nothing's wrong with the homosexual sex act, thus the sarcasm. That's fine, since your view has been in the minority for centuries and the fact that we haven't seen homosexual "marriage" last for any amount of time testifies to the validity of normal heterosexual marriages and the priority that society has rightly placed upon it, while relegating homosexual acts to the abnormal category.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Animals can't say if they want to engage in bestiality, nor do they have a standing our our society. Homosexuals can express their own opinions and are human beings.
Big difference bud.
And just because something may have been abnormal at one time doesn't mean it can't become normal.
And homosexuality has become quite normal.
Your brain works in mysteriously single-minded and uncreative ways.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
"And homosexuality has become quite normal."
That's like saying toxic waste has become quite normal. Homosexuality can in no way be termed "normal".
And, as you say, animals may have no choice. Humans DO have a choice whether or not to engage in abnormal homosexual behavior.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the grand lord of deciding normal behavior.
Please give me evidence of your claims.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Doesn't take much research to see that nature designed male and female so that a square peg could fit into a square opening, rather than trying to force a square peg into a round opening, as homosexuals insist on doing.
Homoseuals derive some sort of pleasure out of that so to them it must be "natural".
Nature left men short-changed if they ever wanted to become parents together. No way to breastfeed their child, obviously adopted, since they aren't designed to reproduce between each other.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Do you think the idiocy and hate spewing from every orifice you have is natural? Its natural for humans to hate, good thing there is nothing natural or normal about the human psyche. It there was we wouldn't have complex compounds, antibiotics, mechanical innovation, mega structures. We have evolved beyond simple instinctive behaviors. You should join the rest of us.
sabboth42 2 years ago
You think homosexual sex is "natural"? Certainly we've moved beyond a point where "sexual" love between 2 people of the same sex is thought of as normal and acceptable. There's a great deal of difference between the love of a sister for a sister and that of 2 homosexuals for each other. One is quite natural, that of the sisters, and one has been seen for centuries as abnormal, that of the homosexuals. Nothing hateful there, simple facts.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, you'll probably find that there are many people who will disagree with your view of homosexuality, and after reading many of your comments on this video, I have reservations that you will see eye to eye with someone like me, but the more important matter is that both gay and straight people deserve dignity, respect and full equal civil human rights in America regardless of these differences, and denying someone rights based on sexual orientation is wrong and unfair.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
One could argue that people in a heterosexual marriage with one spouse and those in a heterosexual marriage with multiple spouses deserve dignity, respect and full equal civil rights.
Society does draw lines at certain behaviour it disapproves of. Both polygamy and homosexual "marriage" easily fall into that category. No withholding of equal rights in either case.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, to put it bluntly, homosexuality and polygamy are two different types of relationships where homosexuality means attraction to the same sex while polygamy means having more than one partner at the same time. With all due respect to polygamy regardless of whether it is right or wrong, we are talking about homosexuality here, not polygamy, or bestiality or pedophilia for that matter, and homosexuality is indifferent to a person's ability to be good or bad towards others.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
You could use the same argument in favor of polygamy. Society STILL has the right to set certain limits on relationships between consenting adults, like it or not.
Homosexuality has not been the norm for millenia, and a majority of states have rightly reflected that in their constitutions by defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Homosexuals are free to life together. They just don't get the privileges accorded societally-approved heterosexual couples. That's life.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, it's the societies denouncing homosexuality over the millenia that are wrong, not homosexuality. The states are wrong to denounce homosexuality in their constitutions, fundamentally so as we all have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We live in a Federal Constitutional Republic, and as citizens we follow our Constitutions first and foremost, ergo denying rights to homosexuals is discrimination and unconstitutional. You don't fully understand life.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
carnaco2, you are fundamentally wrong in your belief that homosexuality is bad. You are ignorant, bigoted, prejudicial, hateful and verging on arrogance in thinking that homosexuality is bad, and people like you should be rightly feared and countered for the sake of granting and protecting freedom and equality for all.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
carnaco2, if I could impart some advice, you stubbornness seems to verge on the extreme, and if you were a rigid tree among a forest of flexible trees on the edge of an approaching hurricane, you would probably break apart while the others brave the mighty winds. You would be better served to bend a little and take the many opportunities towards enlightenment that you are being given here.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
carnaco2, I have to admit that I sense an underlying bigotry and touch of vehemence in your posts, and I wonder how much you listen to and digest the responses you get here with respect to your views, some of them being pretty well thought out and substantial in basis. If you believe that your persistence in proving homosexuality to be wrong will make a difference towards changing us, you are wrong, and we are going to continue to be true to ourselves whether you agree with it or not.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Homosexuals seem to feel any opposition to them is bigotry or hatred. The fact that many people view homosexuality as a choice & not inborn doesn't necessarily make them a bigot or hateful of homosexuals. Homosexuals also choose to ignore the fact that some have left homosexuality, labeling them confused, bisexual, never homosexual. Anything to disprove the fact someone was actually attracted to a person of the same sex and changed.
Former homosexuals exist and have to be dealt with.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Label people who think homosexuality is immoral as wrong or bad if you will. If people perceive it as a choice, they can rightly deny it the status of "marriage".
Even if caused by genetic problems in the womb, other genetically-based abnormalities have scientists looking for cures, not telling people that's just the way they were born, live with it and enjoy it.
Obviously, human life wouldn't continue long if all were "born homosexual".
carnaco2 2 years ago
If you feel I'm wrong, you move among people every day who feel homosexuality is an immoral choice. We're your co-workers, your neighbors, your friends. We're even your family members.
Because you think an attraction to a person of the same sex is normal, doesn't make it so, and society is under no obligation to extend that recognition to you. Take it as hate. It's called common sense.
carnaco2 2 years ago
carnaco2, when you say it is "common sense", that frankly makes you an ignorant bigot, and it is people like you that the LGBT community face as direct obstacles in advocating for equality, dignity and respect. LGBT people will continue to advocate no matter how long it takes until we all have our full equal civil human rights, and we will be unrelenting in our pursuit to counter the ignorance and enlighten others towards tolerance and respect for LGBT people.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Thankfully, "people like me" are around to push back what has for generations been considered immoral behavior.
It used to be the homosexual community. They've opened the door to new membefs so that it's now the "LGBT" community. Who do they pull in next? Incestuous consenting adults? Polygamists? Pedophiles? Skinheads?
When people start calling aberrant behavior "normal", the door is open to anything they choose to define that way.
Count me in in support of Prop 8's being upheld.
carnaco2 2 years ago
So turn that around and everything you just said applies to homosexuals. Your views hold no greater meaning.
I have a question for you. If sexuality is a choice. When did you choose to be heterosexual?
sabboth42 2 years ago
Since everyone is born heterosexual, the only ones making the choice for heterosexuality are those coming out of their choice of homosexuality and returning to heterosexuality.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Right so you just walked away from any argument you ever had. Altruism just doesn't work. As you have nothing backing you, you still lose this argument anyway. The zealots out there make me laugh.
sabboth42 2 years ago
carnaco2, homosexuals do not naturally procreate. Homosexuals have proven to raise neglected children in loving and nurturing households. The world is verging on human overpopulation, and our natural resources are becoming more limited as time progresses, so one could argue that homosexuality may help curtail human population growth so we can better sustain as a species.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
My statement was "FORMER homosexuals exist" and have to be dealt with. You're reading things that aren't there. & alleged overpopulation is no reason to recognize immoral relationships. Children are far better off with 2 heterosexual parents than being the experiment of 2 "loving" homosexual parents. 2 men trying to explain, from personal experience, menopause to their daughter? 2 men trying to breast feed their child. Granted, some heteros can't breastfeed. But 100% of male homosexuals can't.
carnaco2 2 years ago
We know breastfeeding isn't necessary.
And how can you deny children who are in need of adoption two loving parents.
I mean, two Gay Men is much better than no parents at all.
The APA has found no major development differences between children raised by same-sex parents and heterosexual parents.
And I was raised by a Gay couple and I'm just fine.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
If women didn't breatfeed their infants for years, we probably wouldn't be around. That's simply a trite excuse for male homosexuals to use to justify their desire to raise children in an abnormal setting, with NO female role model within the family after which their daughter can model herself.
I'll take a loving heterosexual couple that can provide everything the child needs over a homosexual couple any day. But of course, that's politically incorrect to some people.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I'm sure there are plenty of loving heterosexual couples willing to adopt in our nation right? Is that why our foster care system is full?
We NEED to allow Gay People to adopt and we NEED to give them the support to do so. Children need parents. Period. And you rant about one mommy and daddy bet I bet you haven't adopted jack shit.
THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHILDREN RAISED BY HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
How can you still be arguing?
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
One doesn't change one's point of view to agree with another's immoral lifestyle. Homosexuals simply can't provide the two role models children need. They're only deluding themselves if they think they can.
carnaco2 2 years ago
I think I'm going to trust the world's largest and most respected Psychological Association more than I trust you.
You obviously live in some distorted version of reality where science and research doesn't mean anything.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
No. Just a world where moral actions mean more than what "specialists" choose to be politically correct about.
I'll go with centuries of human history that has correctly denounced homosexuality as an aberration.
Go ahead an align yourself with those who also think polygamy is peachy keen.
Homosexual acts are intrinsincally immoral and go against the way nature designed male and female to complement one another.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Yes, because males and females compliment each other sooooo perfectly, that's why our divorce rate in this country is so terribly low, huh?
Oh wait!!!
And several of the most successful nations in modern and ancient history had large amounts of people practice homosexuality. So I really don't see where your argument stems from.
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
Several would be more like a few. The act of practicing homosexuality doesn't make it any more moral than the act of bestiality or pedophilia.
The male and female bodies complement each other. Just as nature didn't create humans to have sex with animals, men weren't designed to have sex with other men, nor women with other women. But, since they "love each other", that's all that matters and makes it perfectly ok. Fat chance!!
carnaco2 2 years ago
Yes, because humans ONLY do what is natural anyways. You know. With our cars and our houses and our antibiotics and nuclear energy and artificial flavoring and cotton polyester blends and becoming vegetarians and tending to our sickly children rather than eating them.
Oh wait, none of those are natural.
(On a side note, over 1,500 species of animals have been observed having some sort of homosexual tenancies. Some even having anal sex.)
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
It's obviously easy for you to divorce homosexual acts from any moral considerations, thus the ridiculous examples of natural items.
There are also species of animals that eat their spouse or their young. We don't call that "natural" when human beings do it. No reason to call homosexual acts in humans "natural" either. It's natural for animals, immoral for humans.
carnaco2 2 years ago
Ok, well if "natural" is not something we derive from nature, then how about the fact Homosexuality has been recorded since the beginning of human history.
There have always been homosexuals, then homosexuality MUST be natural.
And how the hell is it immoral? Let me guess, some lame ass book written 2,000 years ago by some old, white, heterosexual, male jews told you huh?
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
People choose to engage in homosexual sex acts all the time. It's obviously innatural for the human body, except to them it seems.
And people choose to leave the lifestyle, too.
Murderers, pedophiles, polygamists and those engaging in incest or bestiality have been around for centuries, too. That's hardly an endorsement for their acts being "natural". Same for homosexuality. Society deemed all of those acts, homosexuality included, as immoral. The Bible wasn't used to outlaw polygamy.
carnaco2 2 years ago
No, you have failed, homosexuality is part of human nature. It has existed for all time. It has been there, therefore it is part of our widespread nature.
You have provided no proof for anything, and have used weak and ignorant arguments to try and prove a failing, old, and bigoted idea.
Homosexuality is present not only in 1,500 species of animals, but also throughout human history. ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. It is as natural as someone liking cheese.
Not everyone likes cheese. But some people do
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
I guess if people love homosexuality, they'll be thrilled with bestiality. It's obvious the moral compass of some has been disengaged so that aberrant acts can then be termed "normal", especially since they've been with us this long.
Simply file homosexuality with bestiality, polygamy, incest, pedophilia with the list of immoral acts seeking to gain public approval.
Sad, not to mention sick.
carnaco2 2 years ago
"I guess if people love homosexuality, they'll be thrilled with bestiality."
carnaco2, seriously?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago