iu_runner

1st most fun part is knowing we win in a few years.

2nd most fun part?

For me, the 2nd most fun part is seeing all of the Christians who claim gay marriage isn't valid because the gays can't reproduce. Are those same Christians protesting the marriages of sterile couples as well? Damn, they're mean! ;)

Keep your religion, I'll keep mine. Let's not force them on each other and live happily ever after.

So what are your thoughts about the 2nd most fun part of being on the gay side of the gay marriage movement? (Other than knowing you'll be on the winning side soon.)

I love wasabi with my sushi, but have no idea what it's made out of. Do you know what wasabi is made out of? What makes it so hot?

I don't want to point fingers in this, and I hope that no one does so in their answers. I seriously wish that everyone could just realise that we are all unique and loved in our own way. I wish we could respect each other's beliefs and be tolerant of those different from us.

Tolerance doesn't mean sacrificing your beliefs - it's just letting those different from you believe what they believe without trying to force your beliefs on them. Why is it so hard for some people to accept others for who they are and to just be tolerant, loving, and kind?

I went and looked through a "Christian" poster in here's history of questions. She has asked very pointed questions about gays condeming their lifestyle with Biblical quotes in the gay section of Y!A. Why is it so hard for some people to just let others be? So what if someone believes they are wrong, or sinners. It's not their duty to correct them. I thought it was the "Holy Spirit" who was supposed to convict others - not us...

I posted a question that was proposed a clear compromise for those Christians who oppose gay marriage with the argument of people wanting to marry their snake, inanimate objects, or polygamy coming next.

If you ask a question in this forum about gay marriage, you'll get 5-10 responses from some Christians declaring that polygamy, marrying pets and inanimate objects, and pedophilia will be certain to follow if gay marriage is legalised. However, when you post a clear compromise and alternative that would keep that from happening, none of those individuals seem to have an opinion or an answer for you.

Why do you think that is? And do you find it as hilarious as I do?

Why is it so hard for some opponents of gay marriage to grasp that by defining Marriage as the union of two people (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman) will not lead to people marrying snakes and dogwood trees?

It seems the Christians who oppose gay marriage always throw the argument out of "then we'll have to allow people to marry their lawn chair, their snakes, or an apple tree."

It could very easily be written into law that marriage is the union of *two* people. No matter what sex they are, it's only two people.

So, I guess the debate could arise of whether you consider your houseplant to be "people", but I don't think that would get very far. Maybe just to make those individuals more secure, we should define it as the union of two *human beings*.

Would that make you feel better? I think that would even solve the polygamy rebuttal!

I'm a gay man and 23 years old. I went to one of the most liberal universities in the country. The population of gay people at IU is extraordinarily disproportionate to the rest of the country and Bloomington remains one of the highest per-capita gay populations in the world.

I've known gay people all my life, I have lots of gay friends. I have lots of straight friends. Growing up with so many gay people around, you'd think I would have seen one try to "turn" a straight person gay. I never did.

It's bollucks! I mean, why would we try to "recruit" people to our lifestyle? I've got straight friends, and I wouldn't want them any other way. Sure, I've had crushes on straight guys before. I've never told them, I've never tried to "recruit" them, and I think it's absurd for anyone to say that.

Remember, Christians - we don't think it's a choice. Wouldn't it be quite the dichotomy for us to try to "convert"? I welcome specific instances that you have seen this happen! List away!

I saw this in a response from someone. Her answer to a question was very good and well thought out; however, there was one point in the answer that I felt warranted a question of it's own.

I believe it is NOT senseless to blame American's for the war. If you are an American, and you are against the war, and you are not actively speaking out (calling your representative, writing letters to congress, joining with groups to protest), then you are complicit in the war and you are to blame for the war.

We live in a democratic society. If you don't VOICE your opinion, whether for or against any action in the government; then, I believe you are supporting that action through silence.

Any person who keeps their beliefs to themselves, and does not act on them, is complicit in the actions of their government. If you agree with it, fine - you're complicit in something you agree with. If you don't agree with it and you're silent, then you might as well agree with it -because you support it!

Being a gay boy, I have to say the most fun part of being on the gay side of the gay marriage movement, is knowing that in a few years - I win.

I'm willing to settle for civil unions (as I would guess most other gay men would be ammenable to), but it seems those most adamant about opposing gay marriage, won't settle for civil unions.

So, we'll continue to push until we have gay marriage or civil unions one. And the most fun about the whole thing, is knowing that in 10 years, I will be on the winning side.

What do you think is the most fun part for you of being on the gay side of the gay marriage movement?

We'll throw aside the argument that nearly every species on the planet has a small homosexual population, and we'll try another argument.

On a strictly "natural" basis, why bother with marriage at all? If heterosexuals are strictly on this planet to reproduce and make more babies, why marry at all? Isn't marriage sort of counter productive for advancing the species and gene pool?

Why procreate with the same woman multiple times? To make a better gene pool, why not just go have children with multiple women? You can get the job done of birthing 3 children in the time it takes to birth one. Just go around and have sex with 3 women in the same day, get them pregnant, and 9 months later, you've got your genes shared with 3 different women and you've got 3 different gene pools to help advance the human race!

So, how can you truly use the "unnatrual" argument against gay marriage and not sound like a bleeding dolt?

Hermie is a hermaphrodite. Born with both male and female sexual organs. Hermie's parents choose at delivery to have her female organs removed. Hermie is raised as a boy and raised in a good home. During no point in Hermie's life does he learn he was born a hermaphrodite.

At the age of 17, Hermie starts to realise "he" is attracted to males and questions his sexuality. Since he is attracted to males, he assumes that he is gay and begins to live his life as a gay man.

Had his parents chosen to remove the male organs from Hermie, and raise Hermie as a girl, no one would condemn Hermie or say that "her" sexual preference was a sin against God. However, since Hermie was raised as a boy, people in "his" neighborhood and in the church have told him he is an abomination unto God.

So, is Hermie really committing a sin, since he was born with both sexual organs and his parents made the "choice" that he would be raised a male?

Do you think the pressures Christianity places on homosexual children to be "straight" has damaged the institution of marriage more than homosexual adults seeking rights for equality?

I sometimes wonder if the institution of marriage has been more damaged by the Christians who place pressures on homosexual children to be "straight" and to marry a woman and father children. It seems to me, that it is more damaging when an individual (under pressure of religious zealots) marries a woman, fathers three children, and then at the age of 40 realises they can no longer live a lie and they leave the family behind than it would be for children to grow up to be who they should in the first place.

Don't you think it would be better for everyone (kids, wives, husbands) if people were allowed to grow into who they are without religious pressures? That way they don't leave a family behind and cause others to suffer needlessly because they were living a lie?

I mean, I hate to call people out by names, but there is an old lady who asks questions, that aren't really questions at all in here and uses some freaky typing styles. It gets a bit annoying and is somewhat distracting with trying to sort through the crap that's on here already to find the substantial content.

Like capitalizing every other word is going to make me pay closer attention? Is there a way to "help" these kinds of people to stop it? If not, how do you learn to skip over those questions and answers?

There was a recent post about a young woman who graduated in Nevada and had the microphone turned off during her graduation speech because she was thanking God for her success. Many Christians stood in condemnation of the school for turning off her microphone and said she had every right to express her "belief." Someone even said, if people don't want to listen, they didn't have to.

Therefore, I pose an alternative question for those who answered that question: What if it was a gay guy speaking about how his boyfriend had helped him in graduating?

Many people give thanks to their significant others during graduation. Would you same Christians that said this young girl should be allowed to speak her beliefs, be content listening to a young guy thank his boyfriend for his support? And continue on attributing his success to overcoming obstacles of being gay and having been opressed by Christianity? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this point of view.

I love both Dixie Chicks and Green Day. However, I find it puzzling that some people I know refuse to listen to the Dixie Chicks after their comments in UK, but those same individuals absolutely *love* Green Day.

Do people understand why they hate the Dixie Chicks or is it just following blindly with some in their party?

If you want to get down to the core values of the Dixie Chicks and compare them with Green Day, Green Day wins in an anti-Bush battle hands down. I support both of their messages. I wish there were more in the media who would speak out against the wrongs of government (both democrats and republicans).

So why do you think some people hate the Dixie Chicks but still love Green Day?

A person (I won't single her out, but she USES CAPS A LOT), posted a question regarding a "Sexually Deviant" young man in her church who had been "cured" of what I assume was homosexuality.

Before I could post my answer, it said the question had been deleted by the poster (or Yahoo! Answers). Therefore, I'd like to pose the question without being mean:

"Can you cure homosexuality?"

My answer? Absolutely no. There's nothing to cure. How can someone who is gay go to a "camp" and come back straight? It just doesn't work like that. They more likely come back damaged.

What do you think? Can you cure it?

Serious question. I've seen a lot of posts just there to spew hate, spit out nasty slander, and throw stones at individuals or groups.

How can we improve the level of dialog in this forum and help to eliminate the childish and foolish comments/questions that are posted?

(I'm not talking about people who disagree with questions. I'm talking about the idiotic responses and posts that seem to be posted on a regular basis.)

I ask the question in all sincerity. I want to hear serious answers, not bashing. I pose the question myself, but also will answer it my own way. Feel free to answer with your own opinion. (Try not to spew hate, just express yourself without resorting to name-calling)

Some Christians think that in order for gay people to get equal rights under the law, it is infringing upon their religious beliefs. I don't think this is the case. I think that a person's faith and the law of the land don't have to go hand in hand.

I don't believe in the same God as Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. I'm willing to suffer hearing their comments so they have the freedom to express their beliefs though, because I believe so strongly in our freedoms in America. I don't want to silence them. I want them to speak. I want them to have free speech rights. I just think Christians can have their beliefs without making them national laws. Minorities need laws to protect them agains the majority.

By christian right, I mean the fundamental, radical, extremists Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and most of the fundamental southern baptists I've met.

After hearing all of the brainwashed, repeated word-for-word, cloned answers from the christian right, I propose we rename the christian right the christian rote.

It seems like some Christians just let their spiritual leaders do the thinking for them, without bothering to question anything. Shouldn't people question their pastors? Especially since the congregation is following the pastor's message to do the will of God. Seems like something you wouldn't want to take with a grain of salt. When they repeat it, it's like a trained monkey responding to stimuli. So, anyone else for christian rote?

If you don't know what "rote" means, be a rebel clone and go look it up. Dictionary.com!

http://www.dictionary.com/

The Constitution clearly states there should be a separation of church and state. Based on what some people say, they believe marriage is a *sacred* institution that is defined in the *Bible* as the union of a man and a woman. To me, that sounds like a lot of church mixing with state.

I think the State should issue certificates for "Civil Unions" to individuals who wish to live together. Regardless of the sex of either partner. The "civil union" is for any two people choosing to commit themselves to each other and be recognised by the State as one.

THEN, if a couple wants to get "married", they go to a church and get married. However, they are still recognised by the state as a civil union. So marriages would be handled by the Church, not the State. If the Church thinks it's wrong to marry two men or two women, then they don't have to do it. No debate. That's their perogative.

I know it will never happen. It's just a hypothetical suggestion, but one that would be ideal, i think.

I'm just wondering (seriously) if anyone out there listens to Pat Robertson and looks to him as a spiritual and moral leader.

For me, it is very hard to see how any person could listen to his rantings and ravings calling for the assassination of individuals, stating that "God is a Republican" (I thought God was not able to be understood by the human mind), and to say that the homosexuals and corruption in New Orleans brought on Katrina.

Do people take this at face value, or consider it the rantings of a lunatic? I definitely fall within the latter category. (Try not to make fun of him too much, I don't want to make him a martyr for his cause)