If you support Gay and Lesbian Rights, Read this!

[Gandalf]

I fully support this, but as an experiment, it would be interesting to post this on the christian forum and sit back for the reaction:
Sometimes shocking, sometimes enlightening, always entertaining.

Douglas

[The AlphaOmega]

Maybe you're right, but all Christians who do not support human rights, regardless of sexual preference, give the rest of us a bad name!

[Gwathren]

Salvete!

I am neutral.
BUT I don't think that gays and lesbies should get rights to help them and my reason is very simple. No matter what way universe was created, it WAS created, and man and woman were created. They were created with a reason. God(or whatever way you call the higher power) created man and woman. He could have created man and man/woman and woman, but didn't. So when you step against this simple man-woman connection, you step against the order of universe. There are always exceptions etc, people have to be allowed to be free and all that is right, but if this "giving rights" continues as it does at the moment, I think that the universal powers will get messed up and that will not mean anything good.

May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren

[Nagual]

quote:as an experiment, it would be interesting to post this on the christian forum and sit back for the reaction

Add an Islamic forum to that experiment...

And personaly, I don't care about people's sexual orientation; so they can do whatever they want...  BUT, if you involve having and raising kids...  That's another story.

[Anonymous]

I think it's okay for gays to get married. It might be a good idea to add a figure of the opposite sex to the child's life though, if the couple is raising children. I think it is important that the child has at least one person from each sex that they can talk to intimately (get your mind outta the gutter, that's not what I meant [|)]). I think someone should do a study, if they haven't already, of how a child turns out if they only have members from one sex that they are close with. There are many heterosexual married couples whose children favor one parent over the other, or one leaves and the child ends up being raised by a single parent. I think the main thing to worry about is that the child must have at least one parental figure or role model that they are close with.

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by EnderWiggin

I think it's okay for gays to get married. It might be a good idea to add a figure of the opposite sex to the child's life though, if the couple is raising children. I think it is important that the child has at least one person from each sex that they can talk to intimately (get your mind outta the gutter, that's not what I meant [|)]). I think someone should do a study, if they haven't already, of how a child turns out if they only have members from one sex that they are close with. There are many heterosexual married couples whose children favor one parent over the other, or one leaves and the child ends up being raised by a single parent. I think the main thing to worry about is that the child must have at least one parental figure or role model that they are close with.

Exactly. Balance is needed, I am quite sure that when a man and a woman bring up a kid togeather, he/she will be normal, but two daddy's or two mummy's have a great potential two have a bad effect, specially in the early stages. That's rough psychology..

[Mustardseed]

I am actually surprised that this post has not been deleted. Maybe this is a good example of "reverse bigotry", if there is any such thing. Woe to the Christian or Muslim that would post fx. a request for support for reinstatement prayer in public school, anti abortion or what have you, or any other "unpopular" cause. They would be reprimanded , would they not?

This post is in my opinion off subject and not part of the tenents of the AP......yet becourse of the humanistic or new age orientation (read : pro gay/lesbian rights) of most people posting, as well as possibly the moderators.......it is still here.

Now THIS I find interesting, and worthy of a debate!

Yours

Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Hardly, Mustardseed!
Its just a point of view, which people are free to disagree with, and do!

Anyhow, I'm sure that many christians would admit that they dont agree with the sentiment behind this declaration; others don't mind, but the ensuing vitriolic debate is exactly what makes it interesting and indeed entertaining for those of us outside of the christian community (or the islamic one for that matter).

Douglas

[Nagual]

quote:This post is in my opinion off subject

Welcome to Astral Chat!
Astral Chat is for members to chat about things generally, and to get to know each other. Almost any subject is permissible, provided always that usual forum and Internet protocols, ethics and netiquette are strictly observed. enjoy!

[Mustardseed]

Thankyou for your welcome Nag . Just in case you have not noticed it I have been here for a while[]. In case you were being sarcastic disregard this thankyou.

Hi Douglas That VITRIOLIC word threw me off a bit, (maybe I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia )[], man you are good with fancy words. I have no problem with the subject as such. I believe that gay lesbian rights are a debatable subject, but more of a political nature. My point is that there has been a change in the way we APers accept posts that has very little to do with Astral projection. This in itself is  not bad, but I also have a idea that popular opinion or opinion of the moderators decide which political, or humanistic interest groups are acceptable, and certainly who is not.

Maybe I should set up a few threads, to illustrate my point. How about a thread soliciting votes for the republicans or democrats. A vote for the albanian minority in kosovo or maybe a link to al Jazera and the militant muslims. All these are causes that a % of people in the world seek support for, however I do not find soliciting votes signatures and support within the foundation of the AP.

Do you.?

I would like to have a debate about the subject as well as the ones above. That might be a positive and helpful idea but soliciting signatures for a political or humanistic cause seems to be misplaced.

Now I am pretty sure you will both stick to your guns and come up with all sorts of clever and maybe sarcastic points or whatever, but if you would take my advice you should both admit that I have a point.[]

Yours Mustardseed

[Nagual]

quote: Thankyou for your welcome Nag . Just in case you have not noticed it I have been here for a while. In case you were being sarcastic disregard this thankyou.

I was not sarcastic; I was just reminding you that the "Astral Chat" forum can be used (from its description) to chat about almost anything...  There are plenty of other forums dedicated to AP on AstralPulse.

[Gwathren]

Yeah. Everyone must have the possibility to state his/hers opinion. It's the right of every human being. Of course your opinion is wrong, but...
[]OK
Everyone's opinion is right, and if you are allowed to talk about masturbation, you are also allowed to speak about gays and lesbies.
So, what about poilitics? Anyone wants to discuss poilitics?
Anyone?
OK that would get boring, I'm afraid. Because the actual point of astral pulse is the astral, right?

[Nay]

I usually keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics and such, I like my head were it is and do not need it ripped off..[]

I did find a few links concerning raising of children by gay parents here's a couple of them

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/parent.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm

I say go ahead get married, then pay for a divorce like the rest of us if it doesn't work out..[]

I am a bit confused by you, Mustardseed...are you against or for it?  I don't understand when people judge others because of their sexual prefrences...really I just don't get it. []

Nay

[Mustardseed]

Who said anything about judging anyone.  Not me. All I said was that  I find it inapropriate to use the AP to solicit signatures (as well as votes, or anything else) for ANY cause. In my understanding this is not a forum for lobbying for political or humanistic causes.

Regards Mustardseed

[Nagual]

If you don't go get the people where they are (to sign a petition or whatever); there's not much chance that they will come to you...

It's the same problem as with advertising.  As much as I hate advertisment, I understand that the only way to make people aware of your product is to reach them wherever they are...  Otherwise, how would they know about it?

[Anonymous]

Hi Gwathren, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually for gay and lesbian marriage. I was simply pointing out that it might be worth trying to add an important figure of the other sex to the child's life. Remember, there are many kids out there with only one parent, so who is to say that the child will turn out screwed up? Had my mother not remarried, I would not have a father in my life. I am not too close at all with my stepfather as it is, but I think I turned out alright, as do most people around me.

Did you know that many homosexuals actually have a part of their brain that is the opposite sex? That's right, brains can be male or female. Not all homosexuals have this biological anomaly, but many do.

Anyway, I see no harm in the marriage of homosexual couples.

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by EnderWiggin

Hi Gwathren, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I am actually for gay and lesbian marriage. I was simply pointing out that it might be worth trying to add an important figure of the other sex to the child's life. Remember, there are many kids out there with only one parent, so who is to say that the child will turn out screwed up? Had my mother not remarried, I would not have a father in my life. I am not too close at all with my stepfather as it is, but I think I turned out alright, as do most people around me.

Did you know that many homosexuals actually have a part of their brain that is the opposite sex? That's right, brains can be male or female. Not all homosexuals have this biological anomaly, but many do.

Anyway, I see no harm in the marriage of homosexual couples.

Homosexuality has existed for a long time. We all know the stuff about anicent greece and the sick games of some of the roman caesars, but then they were all also married to women. If men keep marrying men and women marry women, where will we finally end up?

[Gwathren]

I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days".

[Mustardseed]

So let me get this right. Does that mean you have no problem with people advertising on the AP, for say physic readings, selling crystals healing etc. Or is your allowence merely for humanistic causes.

In my opinion you are grasping for straws instead of just admitting that soliciting signatures for various causes, in these forums are  is at best "iffy", at worst........opportunistic or worse.

Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days

Oh, get real!

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and always will continue to be a feature of human life.

Has it ever threatened the survival of the human race? No.

This is because the gay/bisexual percentage in any given population is always tiny. Every wondered why they are called a 'minority' group?

The vast majority of the population is and always has been heterosexual and the heterosexual biological drive to reproduce is so strong as to be unstoppable.
In fact, the problems in the world today and in the years to come are due to *overpopulation*, not because of a lack of it.

Gays can never 'threaten' the continuation of humanity like some extremists argue, since it will always be the case that the vast majority of the population will be heterosexual.

For those stupid enough to say otherwise, I say look at the whole of human history up until this point, (and the animal kingdom, where 'gayness' occurs from time to time).
Has humanity at any point in history ever been threatened by 'gayness'?
Of course not, despite the fact there have always been gay people.

What about classical Greece? They accepted and practiced homosexual relationships *alongside* heterosexual ones; Classial Greece was aguably one of the greatest civilisations in the world and has gone on to become the foundation of modern western civilisation.

Secondly, the main problem seems to be with the monotheistic religions, who have decided for us that 'god' is angered by those who engage in sexual conduct which is 'other than biologically intended'.

However, if we accept the premise that this god character exists, the above notion is nothing more than an assumption. As I said, history has proved that gays are only ever a minority of any population they can NEVER directly threaten its survival; the biological balance is tipped WAY in favour of the vast majority of people being straight.

Since this god knows that gays can never make any slightest difference to population variance, it could well be the case that he doesn't mind one way or the other, as the whole system works to max efficiency anyway; in fact at present it is actually a bit too efficient. Also, since with many gay people, their chromosomes dictate their sexual preference, why should god punish them for a fault in the biological system he created?

I think in reality, people are free to be whatever sexual orientation they want; and since the basic biological forces and attractions will always reign supreme, the vast majority of the population will always be straight, they have no choice, their chromosomes dictate it, just as gays' do. As for the tinier minority still, who swing both ways, they can do what they like.

This basic setup has operated throughout history and will continue to do so. The only difference is that the gay minority now makes its voice heard; this is in line with the general policy of recognition for all minorities and should be welcomed as part of a healthy modern society.

Unfortunately, some people's minds have not caught up yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. However, they themselves are also becoming a minority grouping and as such, have the freedom to voice their concerns.

Regards,
Douglas

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by Gandalf

I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days

Oh, get real!

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and always will continue to be a feature of human life.

Has it ever threatened the survival of the human race? No.

This is because the gay/bisexual percentage in any given population is always tiny. Every wondered why they are called a 'minority' group?

The vast majority of the population is and always has been heterosexual and the heterosexual biological drive to reproduce is so strong as to be unstoppable.
In fact, the problems in the world today and in the years to come are due to *overpopulation*, not because of a lack of it.

Gays can never 'threaten' the continuation of humanity like some extremists argue, since it will always be the case that the vast majority of the population will be heterosexual.

For those stupid enough to say otherwise, I say look at the whole of human history up until this point, (and the animal kingdom, where 'gayness' occurs from time to time).
Has humanity at any point in history ever been threatened by 'gayness'?
Of course not, despite the fact there have always been gay people.

What about classical Greece? They accepted and practiced homosexual relationships *alongside* heterosexual ones; Classial Greece was aguably one of the greatest civilisations in the world and has gone on to become the foundation of modern western civilisation.

Secondly, the main problem seems to be with the monotheistic religions, who have decided for us that 'god' is angered by those who engage in sexual conduct which is 'other than biologically intended'.

However, if we accept the premise that this god character exists, the above notion is nothing more than an assumption. As I said, history has proved that gays are only ever a minority of any population they can NEVER directly threaten its survival; the biological balance is tipped WAY in favour of the vast majority of people being straight.

Since this god knows that gays can never make any slightest difference to population variance, it could well be the case that he doesn't mind one way or the other, as the whole system works to max efficiency anyway; in fact at present it is actually a bit too efficient. Also, since with many gay people, their chromosomes dictate their sexual preference, why should god punish them for a fault in the biological system he created?

I think in reality, people are free to be whatever sexual orientation they want; and since the basic biological forces and attractions will always reign supreme, the vast majority of the population will always be straight, they have no choice, their chromosomes dictate it, just as gays' do. As for the tinier minority still, who swing both ways, they can do what they like.

This basic setup has operated throughout history and will continue to do so. The only difference is that the gay minority now makes its voice heard; this is in line with the general policy of recognition for all minorities and should be welcomed as part of a healthy modern society.

Unfortunately, some people's minds have not caught up yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. However, they themselves are also becoming a minority grouping and as such, have the freedom to voice their concerns.

Regards,
Douglas

Salvete Douglas,

I am talking about gay and lesbain marriages and I hope you are doing the same very thing when arguing  with me. I have nothing against gays and lesbies (they existed in ancient greece). BUT in ancient Greece they were not married. Men were married with women and gave birth to children. Men were gays ALSO, by the side of being married to women. They f**ked both. (Sorry for the expression, but I wanted to keep it short, again). Today gays and lesbies want to get married with those of their sex. That's what I don't like. Marriage is a holy union made by a man and a woman that form an entirety. This must not be broken.

May shadows reach the light,
Gwathren

Keep it even shorter by using my asterisk friends..[] Thanks..Nay

[Nagual]

quote:So let me get this right. Does that mean you have no problem with people advertising on the AP, for say physic readings, selling crystals healing etc. Or is your allowence merely for humanistic causes.

In my opinion you are grasping for straws instead of just admitting that soliciting signatures for various causes, in these forums are is at best "iffy", at worst........opportunistic or worse.

From my point of view, there is a difference between activism and commercial advertising...  My comparison was only about the "reaching the people" aspect.  If for you it's the same, there's nothing I can do about it...

[Haematite]

I just signed[]
I'm considered to be christian in my own way and I support gay rights - as God has made one person in that way there must have some reason for that[] And I don't approve any kind of discrimination - still inspite of our colour, sex, sexual preferences and mony state, we're equal in our essence[]
I hope that petition will have success, good for you, GhostRider[]

[Gandalf]

Gwathren_

I know you were originally talking about marriages, but then your comments angled towards general hysterical comments about homosexuals 'ending life on earth', and these ridiculous comments needed countering.

That's what I don't like. Marriage is a holy union made by a man and a woman that form an entirety. This must not be broken.


This is the argument which i find unconvincing, for the reasons given in my post about assumptions that 'god gets angry when people engage in sexual conduct other than biologically intended'.
This is often used to attack gay marriages as there is a view that only heterosexual marriages are sanctioned by god, for the above reason.
In fact, this is just an assumption.

Of course christians like yourself are perfectly free to express your beliefs on this matter, as are jews or muslims, and if you feel that marriages are holy ceremonies sanctioned by god and only applying to straight couples then it is fine for you to apply this to members of your own religious community.
However, for the rest of us who do not follow these doctrines, we shouldnt be dictated to by people using religious arguments. I don't give any credance to your justification above that marriages are 'holy unions'. In my view they are social unions, which some people reinforce through religion.

Douglas

[Gwathren]

quote:Originally posted by Gandalf
Of course christians like yourself are perfectly free to express your beliefs on this matter, as are jews or muslims, and if you feel that marriages are holy ceremonies sanctioned by god and only applying to straight couples then it is fine for you to apply this to members of your own religious community.

Gandalf (by the way you are my favourite character in "the lord of the rings"),

I am not a christian[]
I simply think that marriage is more than a social thing. You don't have to get married to have a relationship. But I leave you be, I'm afraid our beliefs here are too different.

Peace to you,

Gwathren

Edit: By the way I read your profile, that you know about antique, do you agree that the position of gays and lesbies in the antique is not comparable to their situation at this time?