Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647		 Page 12 of 23
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
But how are you so certain that the authors of the OT weren't just putting in their opinion of homosexuality, and passing it off as divine law? Do you also think eating shellfish is an abomination?
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
In my own thinking, if God discourages it, that's enough reason for me to believe it is immoral.


So, then, you're God's little automaton? ;)
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:50 am ]
Post subject: 
So are you, but you just don't realize it. :mrgreen:
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
So, then, I'm pre-programmed to rebel against my Creator? What an odd twist this brings to Calvinism! :mrgreen:
Author:  Upsilon [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
Given the current overcrowding crisis on Earth, it would actually be better if more people had homosexual marriages!

Actually, I would use this to argue that people should practice Abstinence and marital fidelity, rather than homosexuality.


Nevertheless, I was simply countering the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't result in children.
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
Given the current overcrowding crisis on Earth, it would actually be better if more people had homosexual marriages!

Actually, I would use this to argue that people should practice Abstinence and marital fidelity, rather than homosexuality.


First: Upsilon, I don't know if your comment was tongue-in-cheek or what, but I have a couple of issues. We have to realize that allowing same-sex marriages will not hurt or help the overcrowding issue. If gays aren't allowed to get married, are they going to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children? No. They will continue to do what they are doing now and have been doing for a long while: in lieu of marriage, they will simply stay in long-term relationships with their partners if they so choose. They will not decide that because they can't marry their same-sex partner, "Whoops, I'd better go straight so I can at least marry someone. And while I'm at it, better have some kids too." Also, if same-sex marriages are legal, no straight person (or gay person, for that matter) is going to marry someone of their own sex just to help maintain a sustainable population. "What? We're gonna hit 8 billion by 2025? Better marry another guy/girl then, so I won't have children!" Anyway, Upsilon, as I type this, I realize that you may have been joking, so please don't take offense.

As for Didymus' reply to that: Didymus, I've been reading this thread for a while without contributing much, mostly because same-sex marriages are already legal in my province and I haven't much to say. I do hold a lot of respect for you and for your profession, although I must say that our views differ.
I agree that abstinence would possibly help the population issue, depending on how many people would practice it. Marital fidelity, however - I don't really see how that would help, unless you mean a sexless marital relationship. Because (as far as I know) Christianity frowns upon the use of birth control, even if a male and female partner are loyal to one another sexually, chances are they'll still end up with a couple of kids. A man or a woman having sex with someone who is not his/her spouse doesn't really up the ante too much. I believe that it is human nature to have sex for reasons other than procreation, and even if one frowns upon pre- or extra-marital sex, I don't believe it's right to deny humans that which is human nature.

On that note, is love not human nature as well? We, as humans, are one of the few species on Earth that "mate for life", as they say. Should humans be denied the right to love whom they choose, regardless of whether the "whom" they choose is male or female?
I think it's sad that people are being denied the right to do that which is their nature. Homosexual relationships (or marriages) don't directly affect anyone aside from those in the relationships. I know it sounds a little cold, but - and this is directed to no one in particular - if you don't like it, don't look! Don't make friends with them! Just ignore it. They aren't trying to hurt you, so stop trying to hurt them.
Author:  Evin290 [ Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
So, then, I'm pre-programmed to rebel against my Creator? What an odd twist this brings to Calvinism! :mrgreen:


This is the one thing that I'm just crazy over! If God controls you (meh...) then how are there any choices in life? If I choose to type the word hopstandigglemongleroifenhuuuqywestiohgjeh (and yes, I typed each letter individually, and I chose carefully) How can I go against God's will? Did God specifically force me to type hopstandigglemongleroifenhuuuqywestiohgjeh and then make me think that it was a choice? Belief in God, in my opinion is a wonderful and a terrible thing. But believing that God controls every action made by every person on the entire earth?! If so, then what's the point of living? What is anything but a simulation?

ANYWHOOTS...

Back to the topic...
Same-sex marriages...
The belief agaisnt this can only be given any merit if one can choose to be gay. But do they? Do people just one day think 'Hm... it'd be fun to be homosexual' and then just start being gay? That notion to me is radiculous. While I can see why people would believe that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "immoral" the truth to it is is that it can not be controlled. If someone wants to be married to someone of the same sex, why would you stop them? It doesn't affect your life. I think that it's a complete violation of the separation of church and state.

Yet, what does my opinion matter. People who disagree with me aren't going to take in the mere notion that gay people are still people and should have the same rights as everyone else. Should they be treated differently by the law based on who they love?
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I will concede to Upsilon on the whole reproductive argument. But I do believe very strongly in marital fidelity and in premarital abstinence.

Quote:
I think it's sad that people are being denied the right to do that which is their nature.

But what if that nature is of a psychopathic killer? A cleptomaniac? A child rapist? A person's nature is not always good, so letting people act out their nature is not the best way to approach things.

Of course, some here have argued that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone. But I will go back to my previous discourse that Scripture portrays homosexuality as immoral and spiritually unhealthy at best (it is usually said in much more graphic terms than the ones I've chosen here). I'm not likely to change my view on this.
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
But what if that nature is of a psychopathic killer? A cleptomaniac? A child rapist? A person's nature is not always good...

You do have a point, there. I'll then add my view (like that of many others) that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone directly. I suppose one could be so opposed to the idea of homosexuality that they may be "hurt" emotionally or psychologically, but that's not the fault of any one person.
Didymus wrote:
I'm not likely to change my view on this.

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to change anyone's view on anything. Civilized debate isn't really about that, is it? I just thought I'd share my opinions about the issue at hand and about the opinions of others. It just so happens that I feel strongly about this issue as well, albeit on the opposite side of some.
Sorry if I've offended anyone.
Author:  OT [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
To sum it up, it's gay. Pun intended.
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
OT wrote:
To sum it up, it's gay. Pun intended.


Yes, very... intelligent post there... totally changed my point of view.
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Yes, very... intelligent post there... totally changed my point of view.

Understatement Central U.S.A, kef. His post changed my life! I don't know where I'd be if I hadn't read that. Though, if he specified what is apparently "gay", or actually made a point, I'm sure more people would think like me, and not just think he was spamming.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
And which definition of gay are we supposed to go with?
    1. cheerful, jubilant.
    2. homosexual.
    3. extremely lame.
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
If we were to describe OT, I'd go with #3.
Author:  Upsilon [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
His sig makes it even more ironic. ;)

ModestlyHotGirl wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
Given the current overcrowding crisis on Earth, it would actually be better if more people had homosexual marriages!

Actually, I would use this to argue that people should practice Abstinence and marital fidelity, rather than homosexuality.


First: Upsilon [...] so please don't take offense.


I think you misinterpreted my comment somewhat. I wasn't saying that there was a choice to be made for an individual between gay or straight marriages. I was just saying that since a gay marriage will necessarily not result in more kids, more gay marriages would be better for the world's population density than straight marriages (which could result in kids).

In fact, what I was really just saying was that it's not logical to say that homosexual relationships are wrong because they don't cause children.
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorry, Upsilon, there must have been some misinterpretation there. I get what you're saying, and you have a good point.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Reason ran an article on St. Valentine's Day called My Privatized Valentine - A martyr for state-free marriage. It basically echoes what I've been saying all this time.

Quote:
If the church thinks divorce and homosexuality are problematic, it should initiate the real dialogue to address these problems in-house rather than relying on state-sponsored coercion to affirm doctrinal beliefs.
Author:  Evin290 [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
But what if that nature is of a psychopathic killer? A cleptomaniac? A child rapist? A person's nature is not always good, so letting people act out their nature is not the best way to approach things.


Well, there's a difference between being a criminal and harming other people and having your own sexual orientation in a private matter that affects no one's life but your own. I also don't think that it's necessarily "immoral" because people who are homosexual don't choose to be homosexual. It's not as if one day they wake up and say "hm... It'd be fun to be gay. Why don't I try it?" Just because God didn't intend for homosexuality to occur, you don't see him smoting every gay on earth. Someone who's homosexual can lead a perfectly moral lifestyle. What if a person always donates to charity and helps old ladies cross the street and turns in twenty dollar bills that he finds on the ground to the police. He's completely polite and moral in every way but he's gay. Would he go to hell just because of his sexual preference? I like to believe in a merciful and understanding God, not a ruthless and uncaring God.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
people who are homosexual don't choose to be homosexual.

No, but they do choose to act on their sexual impulses, and that in itself is what makes it a moral question. I am a heterosexual, and I have a choice: I could run around and try to have sex with every girl I meet, or I could live a devout and chaste life. Considering my particular vocation, you might be able to guess which one I've chosen.

Quote:
Someone who's homosexual can lead a perfectly moral lifestyle. What if a person always donates to charity and helps old ladies cross the street and turns in twenty dollar bills that he finds on the ground to the police. He's completely polite and moral in every way but he's gay.

Being moral is not the same thing as being nice. That's like saying, "He's the nicest person in the world to everyone all the time, but he likes to steal watches." Just because a person is seemingly perfect in every other aspect of his/her life, it doesn't make their flaws any less immoral.

Quote:
I like to believe in a merciful and understanding God, not a ruthless and uncaring God.

So do I. There is a story in the Bible about a man who traveled around torturing and killing Christians, and yet God forgave him. However, this does not mean that torturing and killing Christians is suddenly "right." It is still wrong. Incidentally, just so you know, that man who was forgiven of torture and murder by God became St. Paul the Apostle.

My point here is that mercy does not mean that the original wrong is simply ignored or overlooked. It is still wrong. That does not change. Mercy means that that those wrongs are FORGIVEN, meaning that he wants to remedy those wrongs and not simply brush them under the carpet. To use an analogy, a parent could take a dirty child and simply deny the dirt, or they could take that child and give it a bath. God does not simply call dirty clean; instead, he intends to bathe us (the sacrament of Holy Baptism suddenly comes to mind). As C. S. Lewis once put it, "God loves us the way we are, but he loves us enough not to leave us that way." And if you don't believe that, I could certainly share some stories of my recent experiences of him.

So I would agree with you. You are right to want a merciful God, and indeed his mercy endures forever. But be careful not to confuse mercy with complacency.
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
No, but they do choose to act on their sexual impulses, and that in itself is what makes it a moral question. I am a heterosexual, and I have a choice: I could run around and try to have sex with every girl I meet, or I could live a devout and chaste life. Considering my particular vocation, you might be able to guess which one I've chosen.


You speak as if every homosexual is some sex-crazed pervert. What if a homosexual only has a few, long lasting relationships in their life? Sex isn't a bad thing, it is if you make it your life, but that's true about anything. You're no more "moral" for choosing not to have sex than someone who does it in a responsible yet frequent manner...

Quote:
Being moral is not the same thing as being nice. That's like saying, "He's the nicest person in the world to everyone all the time, but he likes to steal watches." Just because a person is seemingly perfect in every other aspect of his/her life, it doesn't make their flaws any less immoral.


But sexual orientation is not the same as kleptomania. Sexual orientation is just a preference one has. There are no victims in a mutual sexual relationship. Think about sex as eating, it's as natural thing that you can do. Doing either too much though is a problem though.

Homosexuality is only seen as wrong because our society has been brainwashed for centuries to think it's wrong. Sex is a thing many religions, in this case Christianity, has frowned upon because of some arrogant notion that forcefully suppressing the most natural things makes one more "pure". Such self-righteous actions, combined with violent oppression including but not limited to public executions, is why people like you still think there is something wrong with homosexuality, and sex all together.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:24 am ]
Post subject: 
No, sex itself is not a bad thing. God created us to be sexual creatures. But he also created us to exist within heterosexual monogamistic unions: "the two shall become one." So, while your argument might refute a vow of celibacy, it most certainly does not touch on the very essence of chastity.

Quote:
But sexual orientation is not the same as kleptomania.

I contend that there is at least this similarity: they are both human dysfunctions. I will take the "victimless crime" part under consideration, but for the time I remain unconvinced that homosexuality is anything but a human dysfunction.

Quote:
Homosexuality is only seen as wrong because our society has been brainwashed for centuries to think it's wrong.

One could just as easily argue that the only reason people see is as right is because they've been brainwashed into thinking that way by our modern hedonistic "instant gratification" culture. Plus, if you know of any historic executions of alleged homosexuals, be sure to document them, okay?
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I contend that there is at least this similarity: they are both human dysfunctions. I will take the "victimless crime" part under consideration, but for the time I remain unconvinced that homosexuality is anything but a human dysfunction.


Well, that's your progrative. You're wrong, but I suppose I won't be changing your mind any time soon on that.

Quote:
One could just as easily argue that the only reason people see is as right is because they've been brainwashed into thinking that way by our modern hedonistic "instant gratification" culture.


White supremacists argue that same thing over the acceptance of blacks...

Quote:
Plus, if you know of any historic executions of alleged homosexuals, be sure to document them, okay?


One thing they used to do was place the condemned over a pike so it goes up the anal cavity, and gravity would skewer the poor victim. That documentation enough for you? Oh wait, that's right, you don't believe anything that's not in the bible. Don't believe me? Whatever. Google for it if you want.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
One could just as easily argue that the only reason people see is as right is because they've been brainwashed into thinking that way by our modern hedonistic "instant gratification" culture.


What does homosexuality have to do with hedonism or "instant gratification"? Being homosexual or engaging in homosexuality is no more hedonistic than being heterosexual or engaging in heterosexual acts.

And Dr. Zaius, you seem to alternate between making well-reasoned arguments and throwing lame insults and jibes. The latter needs to stop.
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I skimmed these posts a bit, but these caught my eye:
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
people who are homosexual don't choose to be homosexual.

No, but they do choose to act on their sexual impulses, and that in itself is what makes it a moral question. I am a heterosexual, and I have a choice: I could run around and try to have sex with every girl I meet, or I could live a devout and chaste life. Considering my particular vocation, you might be able to guess which one I've chosen.


I'm a bit puzzled. Yes, it's a good point that the dilemma, as it were, exists not in the sexual orientation, but in how one chooses to act upon it. I think any reasonable person can agree on that (though I know some unreasonable persons, heh). Morals are about choices, and it's undeniable that in choosing to act, you make a choice. That's what choosing means. One might not choose to be gay, one might not choose to fall in love with another man (or for a lesbian, another woman), but they do choose to act upon those feelings.

This said, this particular argument seems to assume there's something inherently wrong or irresponsible with homosexual activity compared to equivalent heterosexual activities. I believe this point of view is colored by your preconceptions (as any point of view is, of course, but in trying to present objective arguments we should try to reduce these as much as possible). In other words, you already believe such acts are wrong, so you sort of take it for granted that it is and seem to think that subconsciously we'll figure out why.

Running out and having sex with every girl I meet has good arguments going for it that it's "wrong". It's irresponsible, heartless, selfish, and even dangerous, of course. But you can't make the same arguments about a homosexual relationship. I know the main purpose of your point was to demonstrate how choosing to act was a choice, but this comparison still feels misleading since it seems almost entirely unrelated.

Didymus wrote:
Quote:
Someone who's homosexual can lead a perfectly moral lifestyle. What if a person always donates to charity and helps old ladies cross the street and turns in twenty dollar bills that he finds on the ground to the police. He's completely polite and moral in every way but he's gay.

Being moral is not the same thing as being nice. That's like saying, "He's the nicest person in the world to everyone all the time, but he likes to steal watches." Just because a person is seemingly perfect in every other aspect of his/her life, it doesn't make their flaws any less immoral.


You're still assuming that it's an inherent flaw, and sometimes it almost seems that you expect us to agree, like deep down we know it is. We can agree that stealing watches is immoral, so that somebody who steals watches cannot be said to live a moral lifestyle. We cannot agree that homosexual acts are immoral, so we cannot conclude that a gay person lives an immoral lifestyle.

Didymus wrote:
Quote:
But sexual orientation is not the same as kleptomania.

I contend that there is at least this similarity: they are both human dysfunctions. I will take the "victimless crime" part under consideration, but for the time I remain unconvinced that homosexuality is anything but a human dysfunction.


Am I the only one who feels this is a little insulting? (I'd also like to note that it's not limited to humans, by the way. Homosexual behavior is sometimes observed in animals. So it's an animal "dysfunction", too.)

I mean, people used to think that being left-handed was a dysfunction. Let's go back to that thing about being born that way versus actually doing things. Well, you can't help it if you're born left-handed. But -- gasp! -- a left-handed person usually chooses to use the left hand instead of the right! How sinister! (That's a pun: "sinister" comes from Latin for "left".)

The obvious counterargument is that choosing to use the left hand as opposed to the right is not a moral choice. So I'll readily concede that my analogy is imperfect, but it does allow me to make this nice, summarizing point: maybe gays are just sexually left-handed.

- Kef
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
... maybe gays are just sexually left-handed.


I really like that. Left-handedness was once frowned upon (for whatever reason), but isn't anymore. Wouldn't it be nice if that happened with homosexuality?
Author:  Evin290 [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
So do I. There is a story in the Bible about a man who traveled around torturing and killing Christians, and yet God forgave him. However, this does not mean that torturing and killing Christians is suddenly "right." It is still wrong. Incidentally, just so you know, that man who was forgiven of torture and murder by God became St. Paul the Apostle.

My point was that you can't compare homosexuality to murder and torture. That's all I was trying to say :)

Oh, and the dictionary definition of moral is:
Quote:
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

So what I meant was that homosexuality isn't "badness" and if someone is generally good in every way, they shouldn't be judged based solely upon their sexual orientation

Didymus wrote:
Plus, if you know of any historic executions of alleged homosexuals, be sure to document them, okay?

Um... The Holocaust? It wasn't just Jews that were killed. Also prostitutes, gypsies, disable people, gays and anyone who didn't join Hitler and the Nazis.

furrykef wrote:
... maybe gays are just sexually left-handed.

Wow... That's exactly how I feel except put into an easily understood analogy.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Um... The Holocaust? It wasn't just Jews that were killed. Also prostitutes, gypsies, disable people, gays and anyone who didn't join Hitler and the Nazis.

So basically the Nazis killed just about anybody they didn't like (INCLUDING LUTHERANS). But I think we can all agree that they were wrong for doing so.

And as concerns your definition of moral: according to my definition, homosexuality is badness, in so far as it does not fit God's intended purpose for human sexuality. It is instead a distortion of that purpose. Just because it doesn't hurt anyone does not make it good.

Furrykef put his finger on something I think is very important. I do believe that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality, while others do not. This whole argument stems around this point. That is what I believe, and I have what I consider good reason for that belief. On the other hand, you guys assume that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, and do not understand my reasoning. We are looking at this issue from two entirely different cultural perspectives. For my part, I cannot simply dismiss or ignore what I understand to be God's revealed will on this subject. Now, what you do with it is entirely up to you.
Author:  Evin290 [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
On the other hand, you guys assume that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, and do not understand my reasoning.


I completely understand your reasoning. Your belief is that because homosexuality wasn't intended in God's original plan for the earth that it is not correct.

My belief is that people shouldn't be condemned as immoral for something they don't control. Not all homosexuals live adulterous lives filled with sex. Maybe some gay people choose not to have sex at all until legally bound.

Also, while many of God's messages in Scripture are completely true, what if some are not? How can it be proven (considering that the Torah and the Bible and the Qaran, etc. were written by men interpreting their beliefs of God, not by God himself) that God himself truly believes that homosexuality is immoral even though he didn't intend for it to exist? The person who invented Coca Cola INTENDED it to be a headache medicine, but was he upset when it became a popular soft drink? (Although this analogy is hardly parallel to God's design, I think you get the picture.)
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Furrykef put his finger on something I think is very important. I do believe that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality, while others do not. This whole argument stems around this point. That is what I believe, and I have what I consider good reason for that belief. On the other hand, you guys assume that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, and do not understand my reasoning.


I won't dispute your reasoning. I disagree with it, but I pretty much understand it.

But lemme needle ya here anyway. You're of course correct in that we tend to have the opposite assumption, that it isn't inherently wrong, and this assumption affects our arguments just as surely as your assumption affects yours. However, I'm in the camp that an action one can take, a choice one makes, etc. is "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore I tend to assume something is not wrong until I find reason it is. Of course, I feel that other people should reason the same way.

Of course you could argue that you do reason that way, but the choice in question is "proven guilty". So, going further with the mock trial idea (man, I'm on a roll with analogies today), we would assign the burden of proof to the argument that carries more weight, remembering that at first, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution (in this case, your interpretation of God's Law).

I still think the burden of proof is on you, because we never fully resolved whether or not God had actually said what he appears to have said. Of course, I don't expect such a resolution anytime soon, because we could go round and round with that one. This means I could reasonably continue to assume that it's not inherently wrong, so either side making any progress in this argument is pretty much impossible.

But suppose that we concede I'm a heathen and no biblical argument is going to sway me. Would, say, choosing to engage in homosexual acts with another person I am in love with, and committed to, be an immoral choice within that context?

- Kef
Author:  Evin290 [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
But suppose that we concede I'm a heathen and no biblical argument is going to sway me. Would, say, choosing to engage in homosexual acts with another person I am in love with, and committed to, be an immoral choice within that context?

No. Certainly not. That's the point I was trying to make.

Didymus, if you've ever loved anyone (and I mean REALLY loved them with all of your heart and soul) then nothing anyone could say would keep you from her, correct? What if everyone in the world said that you couldn't be with her? Would you still love her? What if the Bible said that you couldn't be with her? Would you still love her? If the answer is no then that's not real love. And if someone is truly in love with someone else of the same sex, they wouldn't care what other people say because of that love. Do you know what I mean here? It's not merely a matter of morality, it's something bigger: love.
Page 12 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/