Gay Rights

[MagicNakor]

The earliest reference I know about to homosexuality is from Ancient Egypt.

But in Ancient Greece, it was the "boy-lovers" that were most sought after - that is from the ages of 12-14. It was more between a man and a youth than two men. Young men were the Greek ideal, combining both beauty and intellect.

Then there's the long litany of European noblemen that secretly preferred other men.

At any rate, homosexuality's likely been around just about as long as heterosexuality has.

[Billy_Dean]

Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it. They don't get married tho'!

[lynx]

Originally posted by dingoBaby+20 September 2003 - 02:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dingoBaby @ 20 September 2003 - 02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@19 September 2003 - 11:24
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called &#39;Gay Rights&#39;.
Many of the &#39;rights&#39; that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.

As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal &#39;tidying up&#39;. The sexual activities of the gays who &#39;cruised&#39; in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?

We don&#39;t see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.

In a later post you mentioned something about "the facts". Where are the facts in this rant? All I see is part of some story about the shrubs and alot of generalizations.

How is demanding the right to have a legally recognized marriage the same as demanding special circumstances? Take religion and religious views out of the equation, because it doesn&#39;t apply to everyone, and what do you have left? Discrimination, plain and simple. [/b][/quote]
You didn&#39;t have the guts to quote my later post then? Or could it be that it didn&#39;t suit your agenda?

[Billy_Dean]

@ Dingo baby. Why is it not OK to have views on gays, but OK to have a username that trivialises the tragic death of a young child killed by a dingo?

[james_bond_rulez]

here we go again

[netweiser]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 11:55
amen

why do u keep saying amen?

also i dont see a problem with gay ppl gettin marrid. its their life&#33;

[james_bond_rulez]

nah I was just refering to my last post as my point of view. my previous posts have been controversal so I modified them to say amen

[clocker]

I think that the issue needs to be considered in two parts.

The first would be does a religion wish to recognize a gay union as being comparable to the traditional male/female union.

The second would be does the state wish to recognize a gay union as legal and accord the couple the same benefits as the standard married couple.

I don&#39;t care about the first, that would seem to be a decision best left to the religion in question.

The second issue is where I think most of the problem lies as there is much more at stake ( not to trivialize the importance of religion ). Do insurance companies, pension plans, Social Security, etc. need to extend the same benefits to same sex partners as they do opposite sex couples?
I would say yes.
It&#39;s hardly as though the traditional form of marriage is such a rousing success these days that alternative forms shouldn&#39;t be considered. Divorce rates are high, and family stability should be the ultimate goal here. If extending the social benefits to ANY couple willing to give it a go will increase the number of two parent households, then I&#39;m all for it.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 08:19
Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it. They don&#39;t get married tho&#39;&#33;

There is a catch here, a trade off, if you will.

In ape society, ALL of the females belong to the alpha. The ultimate propagation of the fittest, strongest.

The only way the other males get nookie is to do it secretly. Hence the strongest and most clever pass on their genes. Unfortunately for the ladies these clandestine lovers must perform their act quickly lest the alpha male break their spines, hence the survival of the "premature ejaculator".

So unless you are the biggest and strongest, or you&#39;re "efficient" in your business, you might be quite lonely.


As for homosexuality in nature, animals exhibit this behavior as well, it is not a human invention.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-hbd120601.php

[Biggles]

I have to say I can&#39;t really see this as an issue to get bent out of shape about.

Although the idea of being intimate with another man doesn&#39;t wet my sponge I can&#39;t say I really care one way or another what two other men or women get up to in their own bedroom. Cue the "I have always been a closet lesbian" jokes from the guys.

I am a little surprised that people seem to be unaware that homosexual behaviour is as old as human sexual behaviour (i.e. very old indeed). The term lesbian comes from Saphos of Lesbos a female poet from the Ancient Greek civilisation who lived on the island of Lesbos (which is still there and still called Lesbos).

In a free society an individual should be allowed to pass on their pension, property etc., to whomsoever they like. I do not think it is the business of Church or State to say otherwise. Consequently, I am for equality of legal rights for all regardless of race, colour, creed, or orientation. Positive discrimination is, however, silly and counter-productive and in the EU not permitted I believe. I have always held the view that the extremely earnest politically motivated types set their own causes back more than they assist them. Thatchell (can&#39;t remember his first name) being a case in point - would anyone really want to spend more than 1 minute listening to him rant no matter how right he might be.

I have never understood the "undermining marriage argument". In fact it is one of the silliest last ditch standpoints I can recall. Exactly how many people are going to say "That&#39;s it - call off our wedding, homosexuals have equal rights. The ball is burst, the game is over". I would suggest a grand total of none. Those heterosexuals who wish to marry will do so regardless of what others are doing.

The religious aspect is seperate and not relevant to legal rights. Churches of all religions are free to marry whoever they like (or not as the case may be). Some churches will not marry divorcees. This is their privilege - however, no religious body should be in position to enforce legally their view on those who do not subscribe to their particular flavour of belief.