Young Writers Society

Well, Qi, because I only read the first part of your last post, let me apologize for sounding too "professional." Heaven forbid, after all, this is only a debate.

talk to your age bracket dude. if your going to debate with someone, you wont get anywhere if your not understood, of if people arent willing to listen.

Yes, especially the latter of the two. However, for my own benefit, and for those who will read my arguments in the future, please, what is "professional mumbo jumbo"? I was very confused by that line, because I did not use words that were polysyllable; I do, however, strive for erudition, because it is essential to being taken seriously and given some thought, at least in the real world. Personally, I don't see how my so-called "intelligence" is overwhelming for readers here. If you don't understand a word, www.dictionary.com or www.m-w.com are great places to look them up ('twas a brilliant statement). I think you perhaps overstated the situation.

dude, your 15, the real world isn't even a dot on the horizen for you. you cant even drive. a childhood is an important think, your still a child, whether or not youd like to believe it, you should enjoy it, instead of trying to be an adult that your not, and wont be for a good long time.

Cool it down guys, we don't want any flaming going on. This is a debate about sexuality, not about the preference of a person's vocabulary.

If someone wants to write professionally, fair enough to them. It's their choice. Leave it at that.

Yes, agreed. Let's not get off-topic.

Here's what I don't get... women who fear the "homosexual threat". Ladies, you have alot more to fear from heterosexual males. Who's more likely to rape and murder you? Survey says: straight guys.

On that same topic... we need to stop debating gay MARRIAGE. Marriage is a religous, not a governmental institution (though people are trying to combine the two). I fully support equal rights for same-sex couples, however I find it the right of the religous organization to choose whether or not to perform same-sex marriages. The government can not force them to do so either, that is a breach of 1st Amendment rights. (I don't think it's the governments job to be defining marriage either. But we'll leave that be.)

In:

Without morals, or guiding principles, in our lives, what are we but a slovenly plethora of rapists and murderers?

Yes, we do need limits-- for rapists, and murders and other CRIMINALS. However, homosexuals have done nothing illegal, unless of course they are in Texas. So why are we punishing productive members of society for a crime they haven't actually commited?
Furthermore, I am shocked by your faulty logic in the following sentence:

Gays may or may not be born gay, and until we know, it is best to assume not, as there is no evidence of such a link, but they can change--a fundamental difference.

Firstly, it is better to assume neither, because there isn't evidence supporting either claim. Three very good friends of mine dated women, yet knew that it didn't feel right. So you can not sight homosexual men having a relationship with a heterosexual woman as "evidence" because of that wonderful little defense mechanism known as Denial. (More than just a river in Egypt folks.)
But to the real point-- Gays are different because they can change. By your arguement, In, one person denouncing their faith and becoming an atheist means that no one really believes. Nor would addiction actually exist, because if Jo Shmo can quit drinking you should be able to walk away too. You can't argue in generalities on subjects like this one, as human nature is just too versatile. Or to be metaphorical--if someone sees the world in black and white, how can you possibly expect them to paint in color?
Your logic here is shaky and immature. I'm disappointed.[pre][/pre]

Ah, some healthy criticism.

Yes, we do need limits-- for rapists, and murders and other CRIMINALS. However, homosexuals have done nothing illegal, unless of course they are in Texas. So why are we punishing productive members of society for a crime they haven't actually commited?

Was I saying we should "punish" them? No, I was explaing the err in relativism's mechanisms, which is a frequent defense of gay rights supporters. Relativism is a preposterous dogma created to slam morality into a closet. You seem to have missed the point, but in any case, we are not "punishing" gays. We're not sending them to detention centers and letting them sleep 2 hours and then get up to go work. It's not "punishment."

Firstly, it is better to assume neither, because there isn't evidence supporting either claim. Three very good friends of mine dated women, yet knew that it didn't feel right. So you can not sight homosexual men having a relationship with a heterosexual woman as "evidence" because of that wonderful little defense mechanism known as Denial. (More than just a river in Egypt folks.)

I'm going to have to disagree. There's no evidence supporting evolution, so should we stop teaching it? There are only indicators of such a phenomena, and there are no indicators of a gay gene. So is it wrong to presume that there is not one? You can not see air, but you believe that it is there, because scientists tell you it does.

But to the real point-- Gays are different because they can change. By your arguement, In, one person denouncing their faith and becoming an atheist means that no one really believes. Nor would addiction actually exist, because if Jo Shmo can quit drinking you should be able to walk away too. You can't argue in generalities on subjects like this one, as human nature is just too versatile. Or to be metaphorical--if someone sees the world in black and white, how can you possibly expect them to paint in color?
Your logic here is shaky and immature. I'm disappointed.

What? My point was that gays can choose. Is that immature or shaky? Gays can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex; blacks cannot choose to be white. I'm not saying they can become straight, I'm saying they have the equality of choice. You have the choice to commit murder or not commit murder, the results are different. That was my point.

I think it dangerous to start thinking of homosexuality in terms of choice. Yes, a gay man can choose to marry a woman. But he'd rather choose happiness, I'm sure. He'd rather choose to marry the man he loves, rather than the woman who wants the marital benefits of marrying a friend. The only comparison that I think holds is comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage. It is illegal to establish laws restricting a white woman's ability to marry a black man or vise versa. Your sexuality is no more a choice than your race--in my opinion.

I don't understand how same-sex marriage undermines our culture or the institution of marriage itself. I have trouble picking that out of the various arguments I've heard. If you could explain that to me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

And Incan, it's not that you're hard to understand, you're just unecessarily verbose.

Sorry for going back a page and half for this response...

Bobo wrote:I don't think Hunter is uncomfortable with it as much as having no respect for religion. He apparently thinks that at least my religion has no standing whatsoever in any argument or discussion. And if gays don't believe my religion, so what?

You know what Bobo? I'm just gonna stop joshin with you altogether, no matter what the subject; after all the years you've known me, you STILL cannot get it thorugh your bazillion IQ brain that, when in regards to you or any of my friends, I tend to make sarcastic comments and random statements. Having said that, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!? No respect for religion!? Do I go around telling every Christian I see that I'm right and you guys are Fing nuts!? Have I ever, once, said that you or any other person of religious nature was wrong in their beliefs?. I ask you this. Have I ever said anyone was wrong for having an opinion!?

So, J.D. Bobo, I will ask this only once, then I am forever more leaving the debate forum; was I citing my disrespect for religion in my previous statement, or was I just joking with someone I thought was an old friend.

I have to agree with Gala, In. If keep pulling out the ten dollar words, you'll soon be bankrupt. I think everyone on the sight respects how intelligent you are, and you have nothing to prove. Legal terms are all well and good in a law or politics class, they're a little formal for this forum.

But back to the actual subject. I realized I never actually addressed sexuality, which is what this was about. I love sex, I really do. However, I greatly admire people who want to wait for marriage. It isn't for me, because of the way I was raised, but I really respect the idea of devoting yourself fully to one person.

Branching off of this, I have a new question: Do you believe in love at first sight?

If you're talking about seeing a person walking down the street and you're like "WILL YOU MARRY ME!?" then no.

If you're talking about walking down the street, bumping into them, and thinkning "Wow, she's really beautiful and cool looking. I wouldn't mind asking her out..." then yes.

Love at first sight? Absolutely. 100%. You can see someone, lock eyes, and know that you were souls parted at the birth of the universe. 'Course I'm a hopeless dreamer too.

I also believe it doesn't work that way for everyone. You can fall in love too, of course. And falling, though a bit more tedious, is a thousand times better than closing your eyes and magically appearing on-target. Falling's half the fun!

Says the girl who has a pseudo-relationship.

Soulmate, will you marry me in Vermont??!!!!

Pseudo-relationship? So?

I can still believe in love at first sight, despite having a 'pseudo' boyfriend, right??

*BLEH*
*smooch*

You know I love you, My Lady of the Lake.