Wedding Photographers: Would you shoot a gay or lesbian wedding?

[hobbit6003]

There is a distinctin to be made between "Natural" and "Normality".

Is being Gay normal ? Very likely not, they account for a smaller percentage of the population, hence it isn't the "normal" behaviour of the majority of the people. But is it "Natural" ? What defines natural ? as in does it happen in nature ? does it occurs naturally ?

Homosexuality occurs in nature, they are very well documented.

Rape occurs frequently and 'naturally' in the animal kingdom, and well documented. So, tell me, can you say that we should treat rapist normally?

If gays and lesbians are to be pitied, then so do the rapist and the pedophiles: many of them has an urge they can't control, eitherdue to a physiological or a psychological patholgy, or anomaly if you want to call it that way.

If Mother Nature or God, which ever you believe in, wants to create us as gays and lesbians, we would have been created a hemophrodite.

And I'm not apologetic for saying that I'm homophobic.

 

[kkgoxplore]

Now that same sex weddings are on the rise, just want to hear from the wedding photographers out there. And please, this is NOT a thread for bashing or for people who are homophobic, so don't go OT.

I would and see no reason why not. I m not a pro and even if I m, i will do it for art sake.

 

[insanne]

Rape occurs frequently and 'naturally' in the animal kingdom, and well documented. So, tell me, can you say that we should treat rapist normally?

If gays and lesbians are to be pitied, then so do the rapist and the pedophiles: many of them has an urge they can't control, eitherdue to a physiological or a psychological patholgy, or anomaly if you want to call it that way.

If Mother Nature or God, which ever you believe in, wants to create us as gays and lesbians, we would have been created a hemophrodite.

And I'm not apologetic for saying that I'm homophobic.

I am shocked that such things can still come out of the mouths of people nowadays, especially so when many claimed to be educated and civilised. Your claims are baseless and insulting.

Gays and lesbians engage in consensual intimacies while rapists and pedophiles forces themselves on their victims. It is a very fundamental difference. Are you saying that hetersexual people do not have urges, you do not have urges? Are you implying that rapes are commited only by homosexuals? I wold really like to see some evidences to support your claims. Hetersexual relationships also occurs in nature, so does that equate to be like rapists and pedophiles?

I am also not apologetic for calling you a bigot, and I am just being nice.

 

[hobbit6003]

I am shocked that such things can still come out of the mouths of people nowadays, especially so when many claimed to be educated and civilised. Your claims are baseless and insulting.

Gays and lesbians engage in consensual intimacies while rapists and pedophiles forces themselves on their victims. It is a very fundamental difference. Are you saying that hetersexual people do not have urges, you do not have urges? Are you implying that rapes are commited only by homosexuals? I wold really like to see some evidences to support your claims. Hetersexual relationships also occurs in nature, so does that equate to be like rapists and pedophiles?

I am also not apologetic for calling you a bigot, and I am just being nice.

It's ok for you to call me a bigot, i know I am.
who gave these homos consent to have sex? Certainly not me or the majority of the society. Here, I value morals and social values more than individual rights, not that individual right is not important, but it should not be placed above self.

And when I refer to rapists and pedophiles, I didn't refer to the homosexuals alone. I'm referring to them as a whole and say that these behaviours are not acceptable, whereas in animal this type of copulation is natural. If you want to know what normal animal rape is, just go breed fighting fish.

What is natural in animals cannot be equated to us humans!

 

[insanne]

It's ok for you to call me a bigot, i know I am.
who gave these homos consent to have sex? Certainly not me or the majority of the society. Here, I value morals and social values more than individual rights, not that individual right is not important, but it should not be placed above self.

And when I refer to rapists and pedophiles, I didn't refer to the homosexuals alone. I'm referring to them as a whole and say that these behaviours are not acceptable, whereas in animal this type of copulation is natural. If you want to know what normal animal rape is, just go breed fighting fish.

What is natural in animals cannot be equated to us humans!

So who gave heterosexual couples to have sex? Certainly not me nor you. You are ignoring and shifting the discussion by just focusing on one aspect of the whole and dismissing the rest which is not favourable to you.

You said that rape and homosexuality exists in nature, heterosexual sex also exist in nature, so heterosexual sex will equate to rape as well, using your form of argument. I will appreciate if you do not shift focus and twist the points on this as well.

I do not see you answering my questions since you have made such serious allegations in the previous message. Where are your figures that points to gays and lesbians saying that they make up most of the attacks?

And by the way, humans are animals too.

 

[hobbit6003]

Hey, since when in my posts did i say that homosexuals make up most of the attacks?

You are the one twistng my words to what you deem to your favours.

Humans are superior, have ome pride in your species ok?

 

[hobbit6003]

What I'm saying that, some of the mating rituals in animals, can be intepreted as rape in human context.

I gave you an example of the mating ritual of a fighting fish: the female is always an unwilling partner from the beginning, despite the keen display put up by the male. The male then gets impatient and starts chasing the female. He then gets into a frenzy and starts to rip the fins apart and injuring the female. After a few hours, the female is thoroughly exhausted and just floats around, and the male goes in for the kill, embracing her and mate with her. Once the mating is done, he chase her away and can kill her.

What I' saying is, like homosexuals, rape exist in nature, in the animal kingdom. But does that mean that as human beings, must we allow this to happen, giving the excuse that since it is deem natural in the animals, therefore it is natural for us to do it?

Do you get my point or not?

 

[insanne]

I get your point but I think your comparision is incorrect because you cannot compare rape with consensual sex. You are blurring and distorting the line between them. They are 2 fundamentally different acts, one is between consenting people and the other is an act against the will of another, ie victims are involved. So can you tell me whether if it's a fair comparision? Your example of a fighting fish does not represent the whole picture clearly because the human beings display much more complex emotions and yearnings compared to just the reproductive instincts of fighting fishes. Human sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is not just about making babies but is also acts of love and feelings.

We both agree that homosexuality exist in nature, ie thus is a genetic condition. Therefore it is not a trend, social conditions nor peer pressure as perpetuated by certain media, social and religious groups. I do not force you or anybody else to accept or agree with homosexuality and I respect that difference. What I do not agree with is that you are using rape and pedophiles as a comparision to homosexuality, which are 2 very different deeds.

 

[hobbit6003]

Well, i may be taking the comparison to the extreme slightly, but there are similarities and differences between us and the animals.

Rape as we know it, is using force and have sex with another, without consent. Rape, in the animal kingdom, is the same thing actually, as fas as we take that into our civilsed context.

However, that's where the similarity ends. That's because, as in the case of the fighting fish, such form of violent sex, is part of their mating ritual. They do not know of any other way of pro-creation.

I agree with what you said, that sex is just sex and pro-creation to the animals, but humans are capable of other emotion that sex is probably part of the expression of the emotion. And on this basis, I was just trying to use it to point out that what occurs in nature and deemed natural, should not be transcribed entirely to the human race.

Homosexuality, anyway you look at it, is not right and logical. It is anti procreation, and in many religions, this is not a condone practice. In animals, homosexualitity may occur becuase as animals, they are not capable of such logical thinking. Whilst we are capable of developing emotions in adition to having urges, we are also capable of discerning right from wrong.

Like you said, I'm not denying the fact that homosexuality doesn't happen in us humans, in our society. What I'm saying is, that while I preach tolerance to their practice, but I do not accept that as being normal.

So tell me, what can homosexuality achieve, other than satisfying one's lust and emotional needs?

There are many homophobics in the society like me, and where sexual orientation is concerned, there is only one way it goes for us: the penis salutes to the women, and the vaginal fluids flow for the men. There's no two way about it for us.

And for me, I'll not shoot a wedding for the gays. By doing so, I'll be condoning their practice and legitimising them, and bringing down my own values and beliefs.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Like you said, I'm not denying the fact that homosexuality doesn't happen in us humans, in our society. What I'm saying is, that while I preach tolerance to their practice, but I do not accept that as being normal.

There are many homophobics in the society like me, and where sexual orientation is concerned, there is only one way it goes for us: the penis salutes to the women, and the vaginal fluids flow for the men. There's no two way about it for us.

i love this, should start a anti lubricunt campaign... :bsmilie:

and ya... i agree with u... tolerance to abnormality, but dun shove it in front of me to accept.

 

[bovine]

Well, i may be taking the comparison to the extreme slightly, but there are similarities and differences between us and the animals.

Rape as we know it, is using force and have sex with another, without consent. Rape, in the animal kingdom, is the same thing actually, as fas as we take that into our civilsed context.

However, that's where the similarity ends. That's because, as in the case of the fighting fish, such form of violent sex, is part of their mating ritual. They do not know of any other way of pro-creation.

I agree with what you said, that sex is just sex and pro-creation to the animals, but humans are capable of other emotion that sex is probably part of the expression of the emotion. And on this basis, I was just trying to use it to point out that what occurs in nature and deemed natural, should not be transcribed entirely to the human race.

Homosexuality, anyway you look at it, is not right and logical. It is anti procreation, and in many religions, this is not a condone practice. In animals, homosexualitity may occur becuase as animals, they are not capable of such logical thinking. Whilst we are capable of developing emotions in adition to having urges, we are also capable of discerning right from wrong.

Like you said, I'm not denying the fact that homosexuality doesn't happen in us humans, in our society. What I'm saying is, that while I preach tolerance to their practice, but I do not accept that as being normal.

So tell me, what can homosexuality achieve, other than satisfying one's lust and emotional needs?

There are many homophobics in the society like me, and where sexual orientation is concerned, there is only one way it goes for us: the penis salutes to the women, and the vaginal fluids flow for the men. There's no two way about it for us.

And for me, I'll not shoot a wedding for the gays. By doing so, I'll be condoning their practice and legitimising them, and bringing down my own values and beliefs.

I'm not trying to be offensive by asking you this but out of curiosity.......what if your children turn out to be gays one day? Would you tell them that you'll love them no matter what but they have to think carefully about their sexuality path and bear the consequences (if there is any) Or would you disown them? What if they tell you "Daddy, it would mean alot to me if you would be my wedding photographer as in my eyes, daddy is the best!"

IMHO, i think the gays want section 377A to be lifted cos they just want their equal rights. They are not going to start having sex in public with or w/o the ban. Whether we like it anot, there will still be rapists,paedophiles, murderers in this world.

Photography is an art, you have the right to choose your pursuits of art and what you want to see through your view finder. You may also choose not to be a gay wedding photographer for to each his own and besides there are plenty of other photographers around. However, IMHO again, you should try to look at the good things in everyone regardless of their sexual preferences. No one is perfect you know.

 

[hobbit6003]

I'm not trying to be offensive by asking you this but out of curiosity.......what if your children turn out to be gays one day? Would you tell them that you'll love them no matter what but they have to think carefully about their sexuality path and bear the consequences (if there is any) Or would you disown them? What if they tell you "Daddy, it would mean alot to me if you would be my wedding photographer as in my eyes, daddy is the best!"

IMHO, i think the gays want section 377A to be lifted cos they just want their equal rights. They are not going to start having sex in public with or w/o the ban. Whether we like it anot, there will still be rapists,paedophiles, murderers in this world.

Photography is an art, you have the right to choose your pursuits of art and what you want to see through your view finder. You may also choose not to be a gay wedding photographer for to each his own and besides there are plenty of other photographers around. However, IMHO again, you should try to look at the good things in everyone regardless of their sexual preferences. No one is perfect you know.

To be honest, I'll disown them.

I know what the gays are after: it is to legitimise their existence.

My point I make is also not about section 377A per se, but the implication and the consequence of it.

The lifting of section 377A will tell us that it is ok to be gay, many will come out of the closet and declare to the world that they are gay. Some celebrities will also come out and say that they too, are gay.

So soon, being gay is normal, being gay is hip and being gay is natural.

No, this is not alright to me, and alot of people here.

 

[LazerLordz]

To be honest, I'll disown them.

I know what the gays are after: it is to legitimise their existence.

My point I make is also not about section 377A per se, but the implication and the consequence of it.

The lifting of section 377A will tell us that it is ok to be gay, many will come out of the closet and declare to the world that they are gay. Some celebrities will also come out and say that they too, are gay.

So soon, being gay is normal, being gay is hip and being gay is natural.

No, this is not alright to me, and alot of people here.

You'll disown your children for being gay.

That is being unnatural in itself. Parental bonds transcend sexual orientation, you twit.

 

[hobbit6003]

Hey, don't get personal on this. I've never gotten personal on this and call people names ok?

If you've known me in the first place, you'll know what I do as a hobby besides photography: fish breeding. And you'll know that I cull deformities and any undesirable traits.

In all civility, culling is not possible in human, and thus the next best thing to do is to disown. Unlike gay sex, disowning is perfectly legal.

And please, if you want to debate, do it the right way, calling people names, unfortunately, doesn't put you in very good light....

 

[mattlock]

Hey, don't get personal on this. I've never gotten personal on this and call people names ok?

If you've known me in the first place, you'll know what I do as a hobby besides photography: fish breeding. And you'll know that I cull deformities and any undesirable traits.

In all civility, culling is not possible in human, and thus the next best thing to do is to disown. Unlike gay sex, disowning is perfectly legal.

And please, if you want to debate, do it the right way, calling people names, unfortunately, doesn't put you in very good light....

oh you mean like how the nazis culled those stinking non-aryans huh...
I guess if your child has down syndrome you'll disown him too

it's funny how everyone is making such a big deal of homosexuality being so unnatural when it has spanned back ages. Look into old texts of various countries, i'm sure you'll see each country has a rich history of people taking a liking to young boys. kings and courts.

Did you know that there used to be hainanese young boys who were in singapore specially for men's urges...think about that. Some of your ancestors making sweet love to little boys.

I think sooner or later we're going to have to get used to the fact that we have to learn to live with other sorts of people in our own society and ACCEPT them.

 

[hobbit6003]

Homosexuality is a BIG DEAL for me, and for many people here in this society.

So let's not push things too far, ok?

 

[hobbit6003]

oh you mean like how the nazis culled those stinking non-aryans huh...
I guess if your child has down syndrome you'll disown him too

Down syndrome, is a genetic defect, and yes, if it is a fish or an animal, I would definitely cull.

However, as a child, it is through no fault of his, and it is in fact, the fault of the chromosomes of the parents.

Down syndrome cannot be equated to homosexuality.

In my belief, homosexuality is a choice. You have a choice. Down syndrome is a genetic defect, which you have no control about. Animals can be culled, but it is definitely wrong to cull human. I've already stated clearly in my earlier post, human shall not be equated to an animal. Thus, what the Nazi did is wrong.

We obviously cannot cull homosexuals, it is wrong too. But we can definitely marginalise them, and that is why section 377A is important to keep.

 

[mattlock]

Down syndrome, is a genetic defect, and yes, if it is a fish or an animal, I would definitely cull.

However, as a child, it is through no fault of his, and it is in fact, the fault of the chromosomes of the parents.

Down syndrome cannot be equated to homosexuality.

In my belief, homosexuality is a choice. You have a choice. Down syndrome is a genetic defect, which you have no control about. Animals can be culled, but it is definitely wrong to cull human. I've already stated clearly in my earlier post, human shall not be equated to an animal. Thus, what the Nazi did is wrong.

We obviously cannot cull homosexuals, it is wrong too. But we can definitely marginalise them, and that is why section 377A is important to keep.

out of curiosity, hobbit, do you have any homosexual friends or have you had many experiences with homosexuals?
I would like to get a better insight into why you feel so strongly about this issue.

I was under the assumption that as long as it doesn't affect other people it's not a big deal...

 

[GilbertGoh]

........

In my belief, homosexuality is a choice. You have a choice. Down syndrome is a genetic defect, which you have no control about. Animals can be culled, but it is definitely wrong to cull human. I've already stated clearly in my earlier post, human shall not be equated to an animal. Thus, what the Nazi did is wrong.

..........QUOTE]

homosexuality may not be a choice for many cases. Yes some are driven to homosexuality. some are born with homosexuality. Guys can C**K Stand in front of girls because it is a natural thing to many, but some guys can not no matter how hot a girl is standing in front of him.

it is sad to see you close doors on these matters. gay or les have their only lives and should be free to love whoever they want. same go to a 18 yr old gal marrying a 80 yr man or the other way round.

Who are you to judge what is "normal" or not.

i wish you well and never see the "darker" side of the world.

To me and i hope many out there.
Learn to look listen feel before have an idea what things "should" be and not to what others say is "normal"

i have gay, les, straight ..... friends.
to me we are all friends.
i do not enforce my ideas on others and i do not think ppl should do it to others.

 

[hobbit6003]

out of curiosity, hobbit, do you have any homosexual friends or have you had many experiences with homosexuals?
I would like to get a better insight into why you feel so strongly about this issue.

I was under the assumption that as long as it doesn't affect other people it's not a big deal...

Yeah, aplenty, especially if you have been in the arts and music scene...a few of my friends then were homosexuals, and they know where I stand on this. And some of them do openly display their affection, which is what disgusted me.

Any of my friends now are homosexuals? Not that I know of, at least.


I'm not denying that there are no homosexuals in any society, what I'm saying is that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, morally, religiously and naturally.

This is my belief and I stand by it. When people ask me who am I to judge that it is wrong? Then may I ask, who is to say that this is normal practice?

The most fundamental question is, can homosexuality help preserve the continuation of man kind, or for that matter, any other species, sans hemophrodites?

Like you, I'm of the opinion, which I still am, that if they just keep to themselves and don't bother people like me, that's ok.

However, if, and with decriminalising the act of gay sex, and further liberalisation, they'll come to the surface. I cannoth fathom the day when I see them smooching or holding hands in the public, and if this doesn't affect people like us, then what will?

I also don't understand why people would equate such liberalisation as an act of progression in a society.

If we can justify homosexuality, saying that it may not be a choice, can we then also jusitfy theft and burglary in instances whereby people steal because they are hungry and have no money? So, can we make a provision in the penal code to say that thiefs and burglars with an income tax return of less than $500, and the only sole breadwinner of the household of not less than 6, be pardoned and free from prosecution?

Every people obviously can justify for their actions, be it good or bad. Good and bad, right or wrong, are subjective. However, the majority of the society makes the collective and objective decisions to classify them as such.

I acknowledge their existence, but that doesn't mean that I've to accept or condone their practice.