(intercom buzz) "... Bad news about ancient Greece needed in aisle H, and fast." I don't know why the sequence is important, and maybe you're being sarcastic, but if not, read up on the predilections of Aristotle, Plato et multi alia. As for bigtexxx's animal of choice, I think he has a fervent and deeply sexual connection to a large red herring.
Well, homosexual behavior has been observed in various primates, so some of Adam's ancestors were probably gay.
We both know where this is heading. Safe to say, you will not convince me that Adam PBUH evolved from primates or that you have any sort of proof that (even in your theory) primates pre-Adam PBUH engaged in homosexual behavior. I'll also make it very simple to end any possible discussion that is irrelevant to my post. I do not believe that humans are homosexual/heterosexual by genetics as you do. Yes I know there's a lot of research. No I don't care to see anymore or discuss it with you. Sorry if I'm coming off rude here, I just want to avoid the obvious next 30 resulting posts in a dead-end conversation. If it makes you feel better, you can call me a homphobe or bigot or whatever. I don't support infringement on anyone's rights and that's what's important. Fact of the matter is, I have a set of beliefs known as MY personal religion. You are not going to change those beliefs. As a result of those beliefs, I think homosexuals deserve equal rights in the United States of America (since it's the topic here). I also think marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with government and should have everything to do with individual choices. Tying benefits to sexual orientation is poor practice for a secular country, plain and simple.
Thanks, seriously, as this simplifies everything for a bunch of us. But it raises a serious question: why are you in this thread? "I don't care to see anymore or discuss it with you" seems to even ask why you put your fingers to the keys. But I agree -- if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, there's not much sense in a discourse here, unless the other person also believes exactly the same thing.
What's worse, saying "Don't ask don't tell" affects straights just as much as gays, or comparing human beings wanting to marry other human beings to bestiality?
That's all well and good, but I don't think someone who believes in fascist theocracy should be commenting on the proper role of a secular state.
I am/was interested in discussing rights of homosexuals in the United States (which I am for). First of all, there's no point at all discussing my personal beliefs regarding the history of homosexuals when I am in agreement with LScolaDominates. He/she is interested in opening a seperate topic regarding my beliefs about the history of homosexuality. It's irrelevant to this thread and is of no interest to me right now. Second of all, I have engaged in that debate enough on here to know exactly where it will end up. Everyone here knows where it will end up. So if we know the endpoint, why go through the process? Unless the point is to label me, then just do it now. No need to kick the heck of out of this dead horse. Is there something wrong with me discussing a public issue without wanting to re-open the age old PERSONAL topic of "what do u think of homosexuals"? I don't think this thread is about that. It's about granting equal rights to all humans in (in this case) the United States. I am for granting those rights. I'm willing to discuss that. Since my religion prohibits homosexuality yet I am for equal rights, I think that's more than sufficient to show that my personal beliefs regarding homosexuality are irrelevant and unrelated to this topic - there is no correlation whatsoever. So why bring it up? I hope that clarifies my post.
B-Bob, LScolaDominates posted before I replied. It seems my last point was pointless as the intention became obvious:
Catching up ... No. I am asking that the government not refer to marriage in any official way at all. The legal relationship that the government now calls a marriage should be called something else for everybody.
I don’t think the voters who are voting these propositions now see it that way. There is much confusion and talking past one another with this issue, and much of it stems from the fact that the word marriage has two very different meanings for different groups of people. This situation was created by the government’s incorrect use of the word. That incorrect usage is the government’s responsibility, and it should correct the problem by no longer using that word.
