why do christians hate gays?

come on spit it out. whats your problem?

will the allowance of gay marriage lead to future morality lapses such as legalized pedophilia and beastiality?

will your kids turn gay if they see too many of them walking around like they are normal?

will kids adopted by gays become gay?

out of context bible quotes?

if you really believe any of these things, [size=59]except one[/size], then that is a respectable, albeit uninformed belief and i will respectfully educate you sans hatred. i promise.

please christians, this topic is spewed about all over the forums and this specifc question remains relatively untouched.

Bestiality… thats cool dude. Morality lapse? Why should it matter if I like to hump my dog in my own bedroom? Doesn’t hurt the dog. Doesn’t hurt nobody. Besides when we are still allowed to slit the throats of animals and grow em on farms for eatin, don’t give me bullshit about the animals not being consenting.

Besides there are entire industries based on jacking off pigs. They have a woman go do it, jack off the pigs that is, just to collect their semen each day.

Same goes for incest. Pedophilia hurts the kid so that’s a no-go.

well presumably our society would want to help the beast lover overcome his problem and we wouldnt want to promote such anti-human-society behavior…
hmm i sound kind of like a christian talking about gays. but all gays are human, not all participants in beast love are human. thats the only, seemingly insignificant difference. wow…

Time to ‘die like the scum of the earth you are’, Futureman?

well if it was found that the beast lover truly loved his dog, and he truly wanted to live with it forever, i would not withhold tax breaks from him. absolutely not. just because he is crazy and weird does not mean he deserves less rights.

i would just try and rehabilitate him more than i would gays, since gays have proven to be unrehabilitatable and beast lovers not.

Withhold is a trick term. Would you allow him to marry his dog, and thereby gain a tax break that he would otherwise not be eligible for?

What if the beastialist doesn’t want to be rehabilitated?

yes. if he chooses to not marry a woman and instead uses his marriage privelege on a dog, then yeah why wouldnt i. just because I dont love dogs the same way? what do i have to do with him?

would i try and keep my kids from hanging out with him every day? yes. and of course that is not the same as not giving him equal rights. because not everybody in the country is going to be hanging out with my kids thats for damn sure.

well id try to convince him that he should, but if he refuses, as new young gays generally dont, then fine. hes not having sex with my dog. i really dont care.

and if he tried to convince me that my dog wanted to have sex with him? well im sure my dog wants to have sex with lots of things. dogs dont get that right. gay human beings do/should.

it’s up to you. If you don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with having sex with dogs, and that’s it just a icky factor, then I guess you wouldn’t!
Now, I have to ask you an honest question: Are you truly comfortable with your decision to allow people to marry dogs, or is that just something you feel like you have to say in order to be consistant with other things you’ve said?
Let me put it to you another way: If people married dogs in your community, and there were sit-coms about having sex with dogs, and movies about it, and Hollywood people constantly talking about how cool it is, and people doing sexually suggestive things with their dogs on the sidewalks of your town, and in general sex with dogs was talked about, promoted and celebrated just as human/human sex is, would you feel uncomfortable in your society, and perhaps wish it was not that way?
Even if you manage to answer ‘No’, could you at least understand how someone else could answer yes, and not be an evil person who deserves to die?

[/i]

i certainly would not enjoy a community full of dog lovers.

i am under the impression that gayness, as well as beastness, is a disease that cannot be completely controlled. gay people can uncomfortably stuff themselves in the closet when we ban gay marriage and talk about hating them, but its not what they want, and their coming out is a good thing.

i would not think that allowing dog marriage would cause too many people to come out of the closet with their beastiality since the number of them and the rate of babies born with that defect remains constant.

if it did, then perhaps i will re-evaluate my position. as it stands, i believe that banning dog marriage accomplishes only one thing: it stops those people who are set in their ways from receiving the same benefits as those who are set in their similar, but arbitrarily different ways.

also i am not advocating societal acceptance of gayness or beastness. i am advocating their equal treatment. the referendums recently passed did not prevent people from displaying their gayness publicly. all it did was keep them from getting a tax break for doing someting that they are going to do anyway.

sure you could say that straight people are allowed tv shows displaying straightness, but thats because the viewing audience is straight and the producers are trying to get paid, not provide a public forum for opinions. they are not a government service that was created to serve all.

 You could say the same thing about gayness, but look at the recent explostion of popularity!  The bad scenario I described about beastiality being glorified is the very way homosexuality is being treated right now: sit-coms, movies, celebrities, all talk about how great it is, and other people (yourself included, until just recently) talk about how stupid and evil anybody who disagrees must be.  

Of course, and with that, you see my point even if you don't agree with it.  The pro-gay movement is essentially a culture-war: An attempt to make society more comfortable for some people, at the expense of making it less comfortable for others.   

I certainly think they should be treated equal to each other- just not to heterosexuality.  But I see what you mean.  I have serious doubts, though, that you can treat two behaviors equally without in effect accepting them. 
Now, I don't think homosexuals or beatialists should be treated differently than anyone else [i]except with respect to their disorders[/i].  That is to say, we can't beat them up and lynch them because we feel like it, they can work, eat and live where they want, and etc.  But if people don't want to see someone french-kissing their French poodle in the park, they should be able to pass a law against it, and they shouldn't [i]also[/i] have to ban equivalent human-human behavior in the name of equality.

Ironically, PBS has more decent programming on the whole than commercial TV.

How about: “Man shall not lie down with woman as he does with man.” (Which appears to mean that gay sex is out and lesbianism is okay.)

And St Paul: “Homosexuals” (and a long list of evil-doers) “will not enter the kingdom of God”

Sorry I didn’t look up the references, but I wanted to insure they were “out of context” for you. Was this the “one” you were looking for that was un-educatable?

Regards,
un chevalier mal fet

Bull. Demonstrably false.

“…that among these [rights] are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Either you believe in these rights for everybody, including those you would keep your children away from at the cost of your very life, or you don’t believe in them at all. If you cannot prove harm is done to people other than the consenting participants, any attempt to limit the rights is unjust and tyrannical.

The “movement” to expand basic rights to all people is not specifically intended to “make it less comfortable for others.” This may be the effect it has; that’s just tough. Life isn’t always fair; suck it up and deal. The violation of a preference not to have to see certain things in everyday life does not come close to counting as “harm.”

So you say, but then you admit to it a few lines later.

Amen! Stop the hate- Legalize Incest!
Point being, your generic, “pro-good-stuff” grandstanding can be used to support anything, including but not limited to, the actual issue we’re talking about.

What I said was, at the expense of making it less comfortable than others, which does not imply intent. It simply implies disregard, which you admit to.

My version of 'suck it up and deal’ing with my society’s culture being turned into something I find repulsive is to vote. Apparently, I’m not alone in this.

Tax breaks? Holy Hell! I never said anything about a man being married to a dog. Whats next, man being married to his hamster? Or his Hermit crab? (I don’t want to imagine how he could jerk off to 'em)

What kind of Tax breaks will there be anyhow Dogs don’t have any income

End the Oppression! Equal Pay for all Mammals!

It’s a view of the future, Poesis: Seeing-eye dog takes his income home to his human lover…all supported by law. Now that’s non-species-ism!

it’s total bullshit.
how does two men or two women screwing one another IN PRIVATE effect you?

how does their being married or not effect you?

the whole issue is ridiculous especially when you start bringing pedophilia and beastiality into the picture.

Children can’t enter a legal contract

and neither can animals!!

I find it interesting that future man is clearly predjudiced against homosexuals, but is still ok with them getting married.

This issue honestly about gay marriage “offending the masses” is completely ridiculous. I mean, it’s not like their screwing in front of you, it’s not like their marriage IN ANY WAY effects you personally. You still get all the same heterosexual rights. HELL, if they want to claim that god is ok with their marriage THAT shouldn’t even effect you, if your church starts claiming that, find a church that’s bigoted.

real name,

So do you follow the rest of Leviticus?

do you eat shellfish?

Why is it so bad that bestiality be glorified? Who does it harm?

A culture war? Fundamentalist Christians disgust me more than man having butt-sex with dog, but am I going to vote to ban Christianity? No. I tolerate Evangelists on the street trying to preach in my face. Its not a culture war, its a war to be more true to the principles that founded this nation, of giving every one a fair shake and equal rights regardless of their creed or religion.

Thats hilarious. You think they should ban gays kissing now just because you don’t like it? What if you don’t like them niggers kissing in the park, you gonna ban that too? Thats like saying “I don’t think a nigger should be treated different than anyone else- except with respect to his inferior subhuman nature”. The idea that gayness is a ‘disorder’ is just as soundly backed as the idea that black people are an inferior race.

gayness is a disease. caused by something, maybe genetics, maybe environment, most likely both.

the humane thing to do with a person who has a disease is to cure them. obviously since we dont know what causes gay, we cant do that.

if a person with aids wants to live with another person with aids, fantastic. perhaps their children will have aids. if so, they should be forbidden from having children. if science discovers a way for them to have children that dont have aids, i would allow it.

we dont know about gay kids. the safe thing to do for the sake of the kids would be to ban gay adoption until this is worked out. im sure gays stuck in mississippi would give up their right to adopt as a gay couple in order to get married with tax breaks.

other than the kids, those people containing the aids within themselves are just great. and once gayness is identified as a disease, steps will be taken to identify and prevent the things that cause it. i believe the fact that gays would embrace this cure means that they would participate in enacting it, if in fact the surgeon general reccomends will and grace be taken off the air, and no gay family should adopt.

the fact that aids is identified as a disease means that you cant go on tv and talk about how its ok to get aids and to not worry about avoiding it. you say exactly why having aids is bad, how exactly you get it, and how exactly to avoid it.

someday, gayness will be recognized like this. it might be a matter of decades of genetic nanotechnology advancement. it might just be one of the many new gay sociologists who want to cure their disease. it will probably require both.

obviously we dont know, and i think that means we shouldnt be withholding rights until we do. what if it people with polio were thought of as lazy, and nobody ever cut them any slack. wouldnt they feel bad after they found out?

maybe its not a disease at all and god is tempting and punishing us in strange and awful ways or those crazy kids these days are just stupid and will ruin our society.