Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Same Gender Realtionships= No good at all.

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Same Gender Realtionships= No good at all.

savetheplanet replied...
Apr. 30, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Actually Imagine, you're wrong too.  That would be the definition of sod.omy, an offending word if there ever was one.  G.ay means that you are attracted to members of the same gender, having se.x with them has nothing to do with the definition.

 

LandOfDarkness:

 

They don't have a choice of gender, in which case having both kinds of organs would be useful.  How that applies to who they have an attraction to I have no idea.  Hom.ose.xuality is just one of the many expressions of love.  It is not any better nor worse than any other kinds.  Hom.ose.xual couples can live committed lives with one other, quite happy, which is more than many heter.ose.xual couples can say.  It doesn't not inhibit their ability to contribute to society, in fact it probably helps.  It teaches others tolerance over time, increases the diversity of mindsets and outlooks.  Infertility is irrelevant, if it weren't then old people shouldn't be able to love because they're infertile.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 1, 2012 at 9:01 am

Oh, so Roy can speak now? Wow.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 1, 2012 at 9:03 am

And Coffee, I wasn't being random at all about being communists. I was talking about how you guys are saying speaking your religion to people shouldn't be allowed in America or whatever. That has comm-u-nism written all over it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 1, 2012 at 9:24 am

And yeah, this too: would everybody please stop hating on me? It's not like I'm speaking out against you (unless, by chance, you're g.ay). I'm entitled to my opinion, and so are you guys. This is my thread. I'm allowed to argue that it's wrong.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 1, 2012 at 9:35 am

Just a question I have: so you all are saying being g.ay is not at all a choice, so is being straight not a choice either?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Oozeworld replied...
May 1, 2012 at 10:05 am

...no?  I think you might have latent se.xuality mixed up with active se.xuality.  Having se.x with people is a choice.  Being attracted to people is not.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Hello, sorry for the interuption, but i'd like to point out something:

G.ay is none of these things. G.ay means happy. The correct term is hom.ose.xual, meaning "Same" and of course, "se.xual" This could of course, mean love as well.

Sorry, i'm sort of frustrated when people confuse terms like that... I'm not trying to be rude, it just bugs me if i don't point it out...

I don't really have an opinion on the subject at all, i just want to clear up things of this nature...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
An-eloquent-leaf replied...
May 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm

(No, they're using the term "g.ay" right, since it's now considered to have two meanings: a male ho.mose.xual or happy.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
May 2, 2012 at 6:12 am

Somnus Zombie:

 

WELL, what you're observing is actually the evolution of language.  Words attain different meanings all the time, did you know that the word "want" acutally means "lack", it wasn't until Shakespeare changed the meaning that it became a verb.  

 

So just because g.ay used to mean happy, doesn't mean that it doesn't mean h.omosexual now, because the general consensus is that its definition has changed :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Estelle18 replied...
May 2, 2012 at 9:59 am

archy- on your state level not "church level" I have to say that for me what goes on for the state, its going to be on the church level for me if I vote on it because that is what I beleive. Im not going to switch over to the world and give my opinion on that level because in EVERYTHING  i decide will be on the church level. just saying :) 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
May 2, 2012 at 10:37 am

Estelle:

 

Yes but the Bible also says not to impose your beliefs on people who don't want it forced on them. 

 

Since g.ay marriage isn't harming anyone, you have no right on either a state level or a "church level" to make it illegal.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm

savetheplanet- See, my problem with that definition is that it automatically silences the opposing arugment. Of course the attraction and the act are entirely separate. I am opposed to one but recognize the other is unavoidable. But if I can't call the act sod.omy (because that's offensive) and I can't call it being ga.y, what am I supposed to call it and how can I debate something without a name? (By the way, I consider those who have the attaction but do not act on it nonse.xual, which is why I used the word ga.y the way I did.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm

Yeah, Estelle! It's cool to know I'm not the only one giving myself up to the world. But as Breece6 said, you best not shove something down someone's throat. (I'm not necessarily saying you are, but just so you know).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
contemplator replied...
May 3, 2012 at 10:56 am

A good story that kinda parrells with this is Adam, Eve and the fruit. God placed the fruit tree right in the middle of their garden, and told them not to eat it. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat it, He gave them two things: 1. A choice, 2. A standard.The new couple were tempted to by a serpent to eat the fruit. Adam and Eve reasoned that nothing harmful would happen if they did eat it. So they disobeyed God and gave into their temtation. Sin was born and death entered the world.

There we go! Approximatly 6,000 years later, human kind are still struggling with the simplest rule. Obey God! He made it clear in the Bible that ho.mose.xuality is wrong. We are sinning if we lay with another person of our own gender. Like Adam and Eve, however, we argue to ourselves that nothing bad would happen. That we aren't harming anybody. I, at the moment, don't have a good repy to these statements... except for this. We need to just trust God, that he knows whats right and what wrong.

The last phrase is kind of a joke. But it true!!!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
LandOfDarkness replied...
May 3, 2012 at 6:41 pm

Things to think about: 1. Straight love was always the primary thing. H.omosexuality was once frowned upon, and still should be. This world thinks it's okay, but you're talking about the same world that allows babies to have their brains sucked out every day. 2. Think of this: if everyone in the world were to turn h.omo, over time, there wouldn't be any people left in this world. 3. If we keep letting this happen, soon you'll be able to marry siblings, people who are much older than you, and polygamy will surface... 4. Men are supposed to protect women, and women are supposed to provide men with a family. A woman wouldn't be able to protect another woman as well as a man would. A man also can't (naturally) provide another man with a family. 5. Shouldn't it tell you something that only one man and one woman can repr.oduce together? 6. A child needs both a man and a woman. He/she needs a father to work for and protect him/her. And he/she also needs a mother to nurture, care for, and treat him/her gently. 7. What about everyone else who doesn't support g.ay marriage? Do we just not matter? That's being quite selfish if you ask me. 8. God (even though some of you choose not to believe in Him, but He's real all right) created ADAM AND EVE. Last time I checked, Adam was a man and Eve was a woman. He did not create Adam and Steve nor Ada and Eve. 9. G.ays don't deserve to gain ANY extra respect, honor, power, or rights than a regular person. That is full of discrimination. I mean, that's almost like racism in a way. Oh, did I miss something? Is doing stupid things the cool thing to do now? And being g.ay is NOT AT ALL being brave, it's just being rebellious. Joining the military is what I call being brave. 10. You know, I really don't know why you think h.omosexuality is not a choice. Unless you're born with both male and female r.eproductive organs/characteristics and you're confused about which gender to be attracted to, I don't see why it's not a choice. I was once attracted to the same gender but now I'm 100 percent straight. I actually know several other people who have done that as well. 11. Marriage is the unity of one man and one woman. You can't just slap the label of marriage onto something, just like you can't randomly find a scrap of metal and slap the label of a computer onto it. 12. I'm allowed to speak out against something that's wrong. There's this thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. DON'T YOU DARE tell me I have no right to speak out against it. It IS my business if I'm forced to see and hear about that bull sh...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Sparrowhawk replied...
May 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Men are supposed to protect women, and women are supposed to provide men with a family. A woman wouldn't be able to protect another woman as well as a man would. A man also can't (naturally) provide another man with a family.

Okay, that is really bothering me. Men are not supposed to just protect women. There are plenty of women out there who are very capable of protecting themselves. I definately do not agree with those who think women are the "weaker gender" or whatever, which is what you seem to be implying. Women are not just here to provide men with a family! If they are, then all women are nothing but s.ex and baby-making machines. What about sterile women? What about women past me.no.pause? There are plenty of happy relationships out there where the couple are not able to have children--both straight and g.ay ones. Life is not just about having children. That is one of the things that I believe that differentiates humans from other animals: we are able to look beyond our desires to have s.ex and reproduce ourselves. We are able to look beyond just what are bodies tell us are good. The idea that women are just here to provide men with families is s.exist, old-fashioned, and just plain stupid.

Men are not just here to protect women too. Men are just as able to need protection as women, or to protect others. By your own reasoning, wouldn't a man and man relationship be even more protective? Because two of the so called "protectors" would be caring for each other and protecting eachother. I think that stereotyping women as only providers of families and men as protectors of women is stupid and s.exist. Maybe a man wants to stay home and take care of the kids! Or a woman wants to "protect" her husband? Is that against the rules or something? I'm sorry, but stereotypes like that don't work for me. Just like the idea that ho.mo.se.xuality is wrong because it is written in a book that was written by, for and about people from 2000 years ago. Isn't the whole idea of the modern age, progress, and letting go of old traditions that don't apply anymore. In the Bible, it says you are alowed to own slaves. But we don't follow that anymore, because it doesn't apply to our day and age, and is not considered acceptable anymore. So why can't ho.mos.exuality be like that? Another of the things in the Bible that doesn not apply? Maybe if god was to give another revalation or whatever, he would say hom.ose.xuality is not wrong . . . who knows? Every word of the bible cannot be taken like it is straight from your god's mouth. After all, it was written by people. It may have come from some heavenly being, but it would have been changed at least a bit, no matter how hard the phrophet or whatever tried to write it truely. I believe that your holy book must be taken with a grain of salt.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Sparrowhawk replied...
May 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm

Men are supposed to protect women, and women are supposed to provide men with a family. A woman wouldn't be able to protect another woman as well as a man would. A man also can't (naturally) provide another man with a family.

 

Okay, that is really bothering me. Men are not supposed to just protect women. There are plenty of women out there who are very capable of protecting themselves. I definately do not agree with those who think women are the "weaker gen.der" or whatever, which is what you seem to be implying. Women are not just here to provide men with a family! If they are, then all women are nothing but s.e,x and baby-making machines. What about st.erile women? What about women past m.e.n.o.pa.use? There are plenty of happy relationships out there where the couple are not able to have children--both straight and g.a.y ones. Life is not just about having children. That is one of the things that I believe that differentiates humans from other animals: we are able to look beyond our desires to have s.e.x and repr.oduce ourselves. We are able to look beyond just what are bodies tell us are good. The idea that women are just here to provide men with families is s.e.xi.st, old-fashioned, and just plain stupid.

 

Men are not just here to protect women too. Men are just as able to need protection as women, or to protect others. By your own reasoning, wouldn't a man and man relationship be even more protective? Because two of the so called "protectors" would be caring for each other and protecting eachother. I think that stereotyping women as only providers of families and men as protectors of women is stupid and s.e.x.ist. Maybe a man wants to stay home and take care of the kids! Or a woman wants to "protect" her husband? Is that against the rules or something? I'm sorry, but stereotypes like that don't work for me. Just like the idea that h.o.m.o.s.e.x.u.a.l.i.t.y is wrong because it is written in a book that was written by, for and about people from 2000 years ago. Isn't the whole idea of the modern age, progress, and letting go of old traditions that don't apply anymore. In the Bible, it says you are alowed to own slaves. But we don't follow that anymore, because it doesn't apply to our day and age, and is not considered acceptable anymore. So why can't h.o.m.o.s.e.x.u.a.l.i.t.y be like that? Another of the things in the Bible that doesn not apply? Maybe if god was to give another revalation or whatever, he would say h.o.m.o.s.e.x.u.a.l.i.t.y is not wrong . . . who knows? Every word of the bible cannot be taken like it is straight from your god's mouth. After all, it was written by people. It may have come from some heavenly being, but it would have been changed at least a bit, no matter how hard the phrophet or whatever tried to write it truely. I believe that your holy book must be taken with a grain of salt.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
May 3, 2012 at 9:44 pm

to Coffee:

 

Well, why not? Our hormones tell us to do a lot of things that we must suppress for the sake of morality. That's simply the truth. Thus, all physical emotions are not good. We have to observe something from a moral standpoint before deciding whether or not we support it. This is why: "But h.omosexuals love each other" is not an argument for h.omosexuality at all. Pure love is good, but pure virtues seldom exist in the world. We have to observe each instance to make sure that our emotions are not corrupt.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
M4nnE replied...
May 3, 2012 at 9:49 pm

I have a question. In your own words, define homosexuality.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
M4nnE replied...
May 3, 2012 at 9:52 pm

and Homosexual is not censored. Wow

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback