The difference between the pro gay marriage crowd and the anti gay marriage crowd is that the former isn't forcing anything on anyone, while the latter force their beliefs on the rest of us.

People who don't believe in gay marriage aren't going to do it, are they? But it isn't enough that the anti gay crowd get to control their own choices, they have this overpowering need to control everybody else's.

This is the worrying part - that the world is so teeming with people who want to have control over everybody else. And usually they profess some religion or other. But even sharing religion isn't enough for them - they always want to control just which religion their fellow religionists should have and it has to be the same as theirs.

These people are control freaks. Nobody should listen to control freaks.

McReal “Homosexuality is not a choice: it is hard-wired; it is God-given. To deny that is immoral.”

I do not think tolerating or denying homosexuality is the issue

Dictionary.com

Abnormal = “not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard”
Synonyms - “anomalous, aberrant, irregular, deviant, unnatural, queer, odd.”

And “homosexuality” is “abnormal”

I tolerate the “abnormal” but that does not mean I feel the "abnormal" are entitled, because of their own desires, to have extended to them the same rights and expectations as the “normal”


Celivia “Even if people are attracted to the same sex, this doesn't have to take away their natural, and normal, desire to create a family and care for children, right?”

Having a “desire” to do something does not endow upon us a “right” or entitlement to it

I might have a salacious desire concerning a particular lady but

That does not give me a right to “jump“ her

We have to consider her rights

and so too we have to reflect on the effects on a child, being raised in “abnormal” circumstances.

But like I said, it is pure self-indulgence for people to expect that

simply because they desire anything, they have an automatic right to acquire it.

Proxy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:13:59 PM

There are a few stories about individuals like that suppressing their homosexuality in the name of religion (usually Christianity) and publicising it, but that does not stop them being homosexual. There are plenty of examples in contemporary society - take the NSW politician David Campbell's recent outing as an example of how they have tried to fit in.

>>""I tolerate the “abnormal” but that does not mean I feel the "abnormal" are entitled, because of their own desires, to have extended to them the same rights and expectations as the “normal”<<
Posted by Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:22:07 AM

How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?

extending your views to rights is interesting ....

McReal "How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?"

what happens between private individuals is between private individuals.... (depending on if they have washed before I am expected to kiss them or shake their hand)

but thnat has nothing to to with abnormality...

sex is a many splendid thing and

it is also a private thing -

expecting a right to bring a child into the world is not when you do not have the necessary combination of equipment is not.

being responsible for the care and development of a child is not is not either

so whats you view of "How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?"

why not add BDSM, whips, leather and chains to the list whilst you are at it....

Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 3:02:43 PM
""what happens between private individuals is between private individuals ....""

As long as no-one gets hurt physically or emotionally.

""(depending on if they have washed before I am expected to kiss them or shake their hand)
but that has nothing to to with abnormality... ""

Huh? washing regardless of whether they are dirty? Or is that to do with 'cleanliness is next to godliness' ??

""expecting a right to bring a child into the world ... when you do not have the necessary combination of equipment is not.""

The combination of equipment that I think you are alluding to (penis *and* vagina across the two parents) should not be relevant to bring a child into the world or raising it - unless one wants to use those things adversely ....

""being responsible for the care and development of a child is not either""

If 50yo Mohammed can marry 6yo Aisha
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
why shouldn't men be allowed to marry men
and women marry women
and fathers marry their daughters
or their sons
and mothers marry their sons
or their daughters
and brothers marry their sisters
or their brothers
and sisters marry their sisters
and people marry their pets
and multiple people marry each other?
I wonder how long it will be before a man marries his dog
and then demands the right to adopt a child?
As long as the man and the dog love each other,
what possible objection could anybody have?
Studies carried out by men and their dogs
show that children who are raised by men and their dogs
are statistically better off than those raised by a mother and a father.
Which bigots would deny the right of a man and his dog to have their own child?
And what possible objection could there be to a parent marrying their same sex child?
There is no possibility of genetic deformities issuing from such couplings.
Surely only bigotry can explain the objections to all these diverse forms of marriage.
People are so narrow-minded.
They should be more tolerant of true diversity.