Desya

Homosexuality 'not in your DNA,' LDS leader says

Gays still have the ability to procreate... The world would go one, people would still be born. (Sunday Nov 22 | post #2625)

Autism

Scientific Link To Autism Identified

I wonder what this will mean for the autistic community (the real one, not the crazy vaccine moms)? Will this push for a "cure"? (Friday Nov 20 | post #4)

City council votes 7-1 to extend domestic partner health benefits

What about religion? That's a choice isn't it? If homosexuals don't deserve rights because they choose, why do religious people? And don't use that "founding fathers" mess, give a real, logical reason. (Sunday Nov 15 | post #1730)

City council votes 7-1 to extend domestic partner health benefits

It's not something that can be "proved" with the personal accounts of people with ulterior motives. People in Christian reform programs can not be trusted to give a true answer to the question "are you now a homosexual", because they don't want to be. We can say for these people, they appear changed, at least in behaviour and in personal accounts, but have no way of knowing if it is real. Those who hate their orientation have a motivation to change it, and because that motivation thy may trick themselves into believing something that is not so. When you are dealing with something like an orientation, that at this time can hardly be proved to exist (outside of our minds), let allow proved to be changeable, it just doesn't hold water to say "look these people SAY they're changed, that means they are!" (Thursday Nov 12 | post #1680)

Homosexuality against natural law

So then I guess we should nullify all marriages that do not produce children? Old, infertile, child-less, we need to make a law that says your must have kids withing three years or OOPS! no marriage. There are no "miracles " that give children to heterosexual couples through a normal process. And they may not be able to have kids together, but what does that matter? One can have a child and the other adopts it, there are plenty of straight marriages that have blended families like this, should they have their right removed? And who said it's the way of the world that heterosexual people are better? Men and women can still have children without being sexuality attracted to each other. The world could easily live on without heteros. (Thursday Nov 12 | post #1483)

Never had a thought about being with a man"? Earlier you said you thought it was gross, this means you HAVE thought of it, and found it was not for you. And in that same way others think of it and find that it is. It's fine if people are gay just not your children? So your children aren't people? They don't have a right to themselves? You own them? Are allowed to control them? Would you love them the same if they were gay? And you do realize there are thousands of gay people that were raised as "straight " as possible right? They weren't "lead astray", they just are the way they are. There was no jumping fences, no experimenting. Being educated about something does not make one become something. We are educated about paedophiles and don't become one, we are educated about rapists and don't become one, murderers, adulterers, robbers, etc. (Thursday Nov 12 | post #1007)

And the same way you look at a man and don't feel attraction, a man could look at another man and feel that attraction, he would not feel it for a female. You just admitted to a feeling, now why can't you understand that for some it is the opposite feeling? It is gross to you and you choose not to engage in it, but the gross feeling comes first. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #984)

You did not create marriage, Christians did not create marriage, religious people did not create marriage, human society as a whole has created it and it has changed thousands of times over our history. No one has rights to it, no one has the one true way of marriage and no one can say what it is and isn't. You may not think of it as "real" but when laws are created to give such unions benefits and protections, it becomes real in the civil square, and really that's what's important here. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #980)

No, no I didn't mean YOU think that way. It was more a question to the atmosphere. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #979)

So because we aren't listed as a "protected " group, it's ok to deny us the same consideration as everyone else? Crazy, this society we live in... (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #926)

Thinking Of The Children

Children need, NEED, NEED, sex education as soon as they can comprehend! Basic education about bodies, differences between the two, what parts are for, etc should begin at age 5 or 6. Facts about puberty, attraction, changes in the body and emotions, and basic sex ed(how babies are made, etc.) should be WELL before puberty so that kids can be prepared for what will come (not at age 14 when things have already begun). Full sex education (how sex can be pleasurable, is a choice all people can make, safe sex practices, std's, difference ways one can have sex, abuse related things, etc. ) should be at the end of middle school/beginning of high school (around age 13-15). The lack of education we have today is a large part of why kids are having unsafe sex so much, we need to tackle this long before they hear it from their friends. Sheltering them from all mentions of sex just leaves them unprepared when the situation presents itself. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #43)

Thinking Of The Children

So then I guess we should get rid of all of those fairytales and story books. Because they are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Hearing about little susies two mommies is not about sex anymore than cinderella is. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #42)

I find it disgusting, in fact. There are far too many people in this society that, while practicing their own sin, seek to judge that of others. A wonderful example is present in this very thread. (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #922)

I wasn't direting it towards you as if you were against LGBT rights. BUT. I'm not talking about the specifics about wheter gay marriage is the same as interracial marriage, but whether or not it is ethical and logical to have rights up for popular vote. If we had put interracial marriage up for a vote in the 30's, 40's, 50's, what do you think the outcome would be? And where do you think we would be in society today? Is it fair to allow people, majority or not to decide the lives of others, especially a group that is not large enough to defend itself? (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #921)