• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Gay Marriage? Not in this Bakery!

I think the gay communities think they should have extra rights just becaus they are gay

What extra rights have they ever indicated they would like?

Well, even my gay friend doesn't want to be associated with the mainstream."

Well, even my three gay friends (yes, that's right, I have three times the not-a-bigot credibility) want equal treatment before the law.
Yeah, they don't want extra rights. They want equal rights. Big difference.

Is there a quota of gay friends we need to meet to prove we're not bigots? Because I have lots!

Is this a contest? I have multiple straight, gay, and transgendered friends. Do I win some kind of prize? At least a lolly?
 
They're all quite sure what gender they are/want to be and who they find attractive ;) just a myriad of people I've met along the way.
 
Is this a contest? I have multiple straight, gay, and transgendered friends. Do I win some kind of prize? At least a lolly?

I have 3 gay friends in a rural part of a red state. I think my gay friends should be weighted more in the scoring.
 
Contrary to the depraved rantings of some on here, it is NOT a settled issue, scientifically, morally and existentially, that homosexuality is as natural as people being born black, latino, a pacific islander, female or whatever else.
Yes, it is proven scientifically that homosexuality is natural and not harmful. For homosexuality to be immoral, it would have to be harmful. As for existentially, who cares?

So, yes, it's settled.

Morality is not limited to harmful vs. non harmful.

The "problem" (for lack of a better word) with morality is that it's subjective based on the person involved. What one finds moral or acceptable another may find immoral or repugnant. This is because people don't agree on what the source of morality should be. Without being united on who/what determines what is good and what is bad, everyone's viewpoint will be out of sync.

This is totally different than the clear cut, black and white nature of harmful vs. not harmful.
I've contemplated morality extensively, and in doing so, I have noticed that most systems of morality do, in fact, boil down to harmful vs. not harmful. Complexity arises because it is difficult to determine what constitutes harm and making value judgements on the degree of harm caused by an action. While many moral systems seem to go beyond harmful and not harmful, they really don't. For example, in Christianity, many things that are "wrong" don't seem to be harmful in an objective sense, but the core of Christian Morality is "It is a sin, and sins harm the soul."

Also, some things considered immoral don't have an obvious connection to harm, but are connected at a deeper level. To many people I know, the "don't eat pork" rule in Judaism and Islam seems nonsensical, but there is a practical reason for it. Pork spoils pretty quickly if not refrigerated or cured. 2000 years ago, in the middle of the fucking desert, long before people know bacteria were a thing, eating pork could easily result in illness or death. It's not a "don't do it because God says so" kind of thing; it's a "don't do it because it might kill you" thing.

I was going to come up with a rational and well-reasoned response for you, but it would be pointless.


Shut the fuck up.

^Pssst!

This isn't TNZ.
He's probably fine. Had he said something like "You're a fucking idiot" it would be flaming, but "shut the fuck up" isn't really an insult; it's more a suggestion.

On that note, Squiggy, go make me a fucking sandwich.

See? Not an insult, just a rudely worded suggestion in the form of a command.
 
I've seen Rocky Horror Picture Show quite a lot in the theatre, does that count toward my quota of transgender friends?
 
It's illegal in Iowa to discriminate in housing, employment or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation, but that state doesn't recognize gay marriage. According to Wiki, the only states that grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C.
I may be missing something here.

Indeed. :vulcan:

Iowa absolutely recognizes same-sex marriages. I know gay couples that are married in Iowa.
:shrug: Oops. My bad. Brain fart. Gotta lay off the cooking sherry.

Aw, I don't have any transgendered friends. :(

I have quite a few bisexual and transgendered friends, but no simply gay or lesbian ones, its odd.
My parents had gay friends before having gay friends was cool.

So there! :p
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure I read somewhere of archaeologists finding pork bones in areas that were populated by non-Jewish types, but near Jewish settlements (as in both settlements were around at the same time). To me that points to there being a possible biological origin, but then holding to that belief even after being shown a different way that renders that belief unnecessary.
 
The amount of vitrol from "Fine Upstanding Christians" against anything different just saddens me..

Christ tells in the Bible to "Turn the Other Cheek" I didn't read any exceptions in there against the Poor, the Homeless, Muslims, Jews, Gays, Secular Humanists, Atheists , Socialists, and all the other groups one might not like.. The New Testament often tells of tolerance..not bigotry .. I really wonder if this "Christian" has actually read the New Testament.
 
They're just twisting the words to suit their needs. Just like the the muslim terroists do with the Quran.
 
They're just twisting the words to suit their needs. Just like the the muslim terroists do with the Quran.

Exactly. Hateful people will grab hold of any excuse--and the more respected the thing they pervert to do so, the better, in such people's opinions.

I know that as a Christian, it really saddens and angers me when people pull stuff like that. There's no excuse.
 
For the record, to all those who would suspect I was merely a troll - my initial statements about not responding to any posts last night - and I'm still laughing at the implications that I am somehow REQUIRED to discuss my viewpoints, since I didn't start the thread - had to do with the central fact that I WAS ON A LIBRARY COMPUTER at the time, and knew my time would be running out soon. Moreover, my home internet connection is currently down, and I may choose to KEEP it down. Also, these kind of threads are known to get very intense, and I knew I would not have much time to engage in the requisite back and forth regarding this issue last night, as I was required to work. It was merely a PRAGMATIC issue, not anything having to do with wanting to make driveby statements.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top